Some quango has decided that a tree in Mayfair, London has a value of £750,000, and that such values should be taken into account when deciding whether to chop them down to prevent e.g. subsidence.
So far so good. Trees are in themselves A Good Thing and make an area more attractive, enhancing property values, but conversely, they can reduce property values because of the risk of subsidence etc. Ultimately, property owners will make this trade-off when deciding whether to keep or fell a marginal tree.
However, according to today's prize buffoon, Andy Tipping, "People are still not understanding that subsidence is a problem with buildings, not trees [er..?]. In many cases it's other reasons such as drains [very true], poorly installed double-glazing [wot?] or climate change [dude, wtf?]."
A grim document
12 hours ago
2 comments:
I wasgoing to comment that what he may mean is that the tree was there first. But actually in many of these neighboroughs, that's not the case. It's the tree's fault for having grown from a sapling.
yeah.. i was confused about the double glazing too. I think he means people see cracks in their walls and blame trees rather than the chav-twat "builder" who doesnt know htf to install a window and wrecks your house. Then the idiot insurance tell you to cut down every tree in your neigbourhood.
Post a Comment