Trees, development and destruction

And so today brought another interesting conflict between my personal and professional lives, again related to that D-word... Development.

In my personal life, a diet of Roger Deakin books and dissatisfaction with the political rage for economic growth above all else has led me to be quite opposed to much of the so-called "development" that goes on. I don't mind people building on old factory sites and that kind of disused land (although I do have an issue with the type of housing put on it... monotonous, uninspired, rubber-stamp cheap housing that encourages a non-community of commuters who don't know their neighbours. But that's a different rant.)

However, I feel strongly that greenbelt land should be preserved. Let's not let our cities expand outwards whilst the inner cites die... housing estates are built that encourage car use and discourage locality and individuality. And to achieve this, precious farmland, woodland and other habitats and destroyed - permanently - whilst plenty of vacant land lies derelict. Small villages with strong senses of community and local individuality become subsumed into ever-expanding suburbs. Green space disappears, and with it that peace of mind that it brings to those using it, as well as the wildlife dependent on it.

Professionally, the bread-and-butter of the firm I work for - like that of many arboricultural firms - are development surveys. Looking at the trees on sites to be developed, deciding which should be retained and which could be lost. Basically, aiding (if not being responsible for) the development that I feel quite squeamish about.

Today found me in old agricultural land, surveying a number of hedgerows and field boundary trees. And there were some crackers - big old ash and oaks, with the dieback typical of agricultural trees and stag-headed quality, some well on their way to veteran status. There were trees with massive cavities, big enough to stand inside. Fungi were growing on an astonishing number of them, and the number of cavities and cracks that would provide invaluable habitat for many beasties was high. And the hedgerows provided interconnectivity, wildlife corridors and shelter for numerous animals.

Whilst I can give some trees status to indicate that retention is 'desirable', and in some cases 'highly desirable', I am still ultimately aiding a process that will ruin this. A developer isn't going to build around the hedgerows and these trees. Land is money, and leaving land aside for trees that, to some eyes, appear half-dead, rotten and dangerous, seems silly. And a hedgerow - they're just scrappy trees, right? No-one will miss them. Don't worry about losing those old trees, we'll plant some nice looking trees and plants on the land.

And even if some of those trees are left, many will subsequently have to go, as the introduction of a target will mean tree surgery or removal will be necessary - and so they will lose their character, if not their life. Not that it will matter much, as the habitat which they are part of will disappear, and so will the animals that rely on them. Whereas, without a target, they can be left to do exactly what they want, become hollow, drop limbs, and act as nature intended them to do - growing, living and declining on their own terms.

The knowledge that I am part of this process that, personally, I am vehemently opposed to, makes me feel quite uncomfortable. And I can't imagine I'm alone - most people in this business are in it for the love of trees and the countryside. Do any other consultants feel uncomfortable about this?