Response to the Twitter comments 'A need for clarity'
Recently on Twitter remarks were made regarding ‘A need for
Clarity’ on the loss to disease of 14 Elm trees in Hove.
In response to the inaccurate comments concerning the loss of the trees I believe a more informed view is required.
The Twitter writer states that there is a need for clarity regarding the Brighton and Hove Councils handling of an incident where no one was prosecuted for allowing Elm Bark Beetles being allowed to breed in logs left on a private school site resulting in 14 Elm trees becoming infected and having to be felled.
Yes, it is disappointing that those responsible for the facilities management of the school were not aware of the implications of leaving elm timber on site and allowing this to become infested by Elm bark beetles. However, if blame is to be apportioned the Arboricultural contractor engaged must bear most of the blame as disease control methods should be part of an everyday strategy for those working on Elms in the city. The reference to the disease “going back to the 60’s” is presumably a reference to the introduction of the virulent form of disease introduced from North America on imports of Rock Elm (Ulmus thomasii) late in that decade and which claimed its first casualty in Brighton in 1971.
In reality Brighton and Hove Councils as separate bodies had been dealing with losses due to Elm Disease since the country wide epidemic of 1926 and were as now, well versed in dealing with endemic infections.
In the period from 1971 much legislation was put in place but since then the scheduled areas have lost some important tools notably the Dutch Elm Disease (Restriction on Movement of Elms) (Amendment) Order 1988 . This was rescinded by the European parliament due to the fact that most areas of Britain had lost their Elm populations and it was not thought necessary to keep this simply for Brighton and Hove, East Sussex control area and Eastbourne.
The Dutch Elm Disease Local Authorities Order still exists as a useful tool and allows local authority officers to enter private property to inspect suspect trees. The order also allows a lengthy legal process to be put into effect to make private owners pay for necessary control measures for example felling.
Despite the comments made recently on Twitter regarding the Hove losses, no laws had been broken and that is of course why the local authority have not taken the school’s officers to task legally. On this subject since the 1970s Brighton and Hove have employed a strategy that sees public money funding the removal of infected trees in private gardens. This has remained one of the most important components of disease control locally as it has encouraged residents to report their diseased elms to the council rather than keeping quieting fearing high cost tree works, especially for those unable to afford such levels of costs.
This has allowed the local authority to consistently act to remove all areas of infection speedily from both council land and privately owned gardens, avoiding further trees becoming infected through juvenile beetle emergence or root transmitted disease .during lengthy legal processes.
One thing I do agree with is that it would be a positive act by the school’s senior management team and the contractor responsible to fund the replacement of Elms with at least a similar number to those lost.
It is sad to read such an overall damming and ill-informed criticism against a council that with its professional Arboriculturists, supportive councillors, professional Arboricultural contractors and indeed the residents of Brighton and Hove who have collectively protected a precious resource and have become world renown for expertise on disease management and hold the National Collection of Ulmus, for the people of Britain.
Finally the photograph accompanying the article shows a tree suffering from a form of severe heart rot and does not represent the symptoms or appearance of Elm Disease.
Please note opinions expressed here are purely my own
In response to the inaccurate comments concerning the loss of the trees I believe a more informed view is required.
The Twitter writer states that there is a need for clarity regarding the Brighton and Hove Councils handling of an incident where no one was prosecuted for allowing Elm Bark Beetles being allowed to breed in logs left on a private school site resulting in 14 Elm trees becoming infected and having to be felled.
Yes, it is disappointing that those responsible for the facilities management of the school were not aware of the implications of leaving elm timber on site and allowing this to become infested by Elm bark beetles. However, if blame is to be apportioned the Arboricultural contractor engaged must bear most of the blame as disease control methods should be part of an everyday strategy for those working on Elms in the city. The reference to the disease “going back to the 60’s” is presumably a reference to the introduction of the virulent form of disease introduced from North America on imports of Rock Elm (Ulmus thomasii) late in that decade and which claimed its first casualty in Brighton in 1971.
In reality Brighton and Hove Councils as separate bodies had been dealing with losses due to Elm Disease since the country wide epidemic of 1926 and were as now, well versed in dealing with endemic infections.
In the period from 1971 much legislation was put in place but since then the scheduled areas have lost some important tools notably the Dutch Elm Disease (Restriction on Movement of Elms) (Amendment) Order 1988 . This was rescinded by the European parliament due to the fact that most areas of Britain had lost their Elm populations and it was not thought necessary to keep this simply for Brighton and Hove, East Sussex control area and Eastbourne.
The Dutch Elm Disease Local Authorities Order still exists as a useful tool and allows local authority officers to enter private property to inspect suspect trees. The order also allows a lengthy legal process to be put into effect to make private owners pay for necessary control measures for example felling.
Despite the comments made recently on Twitter regarding the Hove losses, no laws had been broken and that is of course why the local authority have not taken the school’s officers to task legally. On this subject since the 1970s Brighton and Hove have employed a strategy that sees public money funding the removal of infected trees in private gardens. This has remained one of the most important components of disease control locally as it has encouraged residents to report their diseased elms to the council rather than keeping quieting fearing high cost tree works, especially for those unable to afford such levels of costs.
This has allowed the local authority to consistently act to remove all areas of infection speedily from both council land and privately owned gardens, avoiding further trees becoming infected through juvenile beetle emergence or root transmitted disease .during lengthy legal processes.
One thing I do agree with is that it would be a positive act by the school’s senior management team and the contractor responsible to fund the replacement of Elms with at least a similar number to those lost.
It is sad to read such an overall damming and ill-informed criticism against a council that with its professional Arboriculturists, supportive councillors, professional Arboricultural contractors and indeed the residents of Brighton and Hove who have collectively protected a precious resource and have become world renown for expertise on disease management and hold the National Collection of Ulmus, for the people of Britain.
Finally the photograph accompanying the article shows a tree suffering from a form of severe heart rot and does not represent the symptoms or appearance of Elm Disease.
Please note opinions expressed here are purely my own