As the sound of chainsaws can be heard from Rattray Loan removing branches and lowering the height of trees within Greenbank Woods East, I find myself being rather disheartened about what we have been trying to achieve.
It also makes me question the planning process when the owners of the land and trees don’t hear about the work starting, and only hear about the planning if we search and keep an eye on the planning portal.
With that, I have contacted the planning department and our local councillor to understand why we haven’t been approached and also how the work will be evaluated once it has been done.
With trees felled behind No. 4 within Greenbank Woods East, planning applications are now active for No. 1, 2 and 3. The latest is as follows.
Tree Works:
26/05/2026: 26/0386/TPO: Rattray Loan
Edinburgh Council Planning Application
Trees to the south of Rattray Loan in Greenbank Woods.
G1 – 10 x Pine on property boundary. – Reduce but up to 3m and remove lateral branching extending north over garden.
G2 – Sycamore and pine 4 x trees – Reduce lateral branching by up to 3m to provide Clarence from the house, reduce canopy by up to 3m.
13/07/2026: Decision:
Refused:
G1 – Remove all side branching extending north over the property owners land to a height of 10 m.
Reduce all 10 boundary trees by up to 3 m or to the closest appropriate pruning point.
G2 – Reduce lateral branching by up to 3 m to provide clearance around the property.
Reduce all 10 boundary trees by up to 3 m or to the closest appropriate pruning point.
Both G1 and G2 make a positive contribution to the street scene and set the appearance of the local area which help to soften the buildings. The trees appear to be in an outwardly sound and healthy condition with no significant defects or decay shown within the application.
As part of the application process; applicants must provide reasons for the proposed work.
They should demonstrate that the proposal is a proportionate solution to their concerns and meets the requirements of sound arboriculture.
The work specified does not meet these criteria. British Standard 3998: 2010 Tree Work-Recommendations states that any work that exposes the wood tissues is a form of damage that can be detrimental to the tree in the long term. Thus, there must be a valid arboricultural reason to justify any damage to a protected tree and works that are absolutely necessary should be specified to be minimal as possible and in accordance with best
practice. In this instance no evidence has been submitted to justify the overall crown reduction in height of this group of trees or as to what concern would be mitigated for
by reducing them.
Granted:
G1 – Crown lift to 4.0m from existing ground level, retaining all primary branches.
Laterally tip reduce canopy over garden by no more than 2.0m to suitable anatomical growth points.
G2 – Laterally tip reduce canopy over garden by no more than 2.0m suitable anatomical growth points.
With the oversailing branches there can be a concern that these branches could break or fall but the likelihood of branch failure can be lessened by pruning back branches so that the load placed on them by weight or wind pressure is reduced.
Wind-induced stresses can be reduced very effectively by shortening the ‘lever-arm’ of the structure but the removal of too much, especially for pines can remove growth points and allow the ingress of decay pathogens, generally only a modest amount of branch length is enough to reduce the likelihood of failure without causing too much harm to the trees.
So in this instance a reduced specification has been granted especially where little evidence exists that these branches pose an unacceptable level of risk. The lifting to 10m was considered excessive with no tangible benefits to the occupier, 4m is more than enough to allow unimpeded access to below the canopy of these trees.