Camden’s pollarded trees

• IN answer to your reader’s letter (There is no need for this brutal pollarding, January 21), I must, for once, defend Camden Council.

For five years I battled with Camden about two trees on the pavement within five metres of my house which had caused severe subsidence.

Both trees were immense, very tall, and with a huge amount of foliage. One tree was so heavy it was bending inwards towards the house.

After the house was repaired the building insurers inserted a clause in the policy stating that the trees must not go over eight metres in height. If they did and there was more damage to the house the owner would have to pay a hefty excess fee.

What is more I was asked to show evidence to the insurers that I contacted Camden every two years in order for the trees to be maintained at the required height. This I’ve done by corresponding with the council.

There is clear evidence in my case that pollarding has stopped any further subsidence. I have been beset with trees here having had one fall from across the road onto my car, totally wrecking it, in the huge storm we had years ago.

DIANA BRADFORD
Parliament Hill, NW3