Vegetation Management Policy

[Mike Todd]

I have just received 14 stoppage notices this morning, all but 1 related to wind blown trees obstructing the canal and/or towpath. Is this a record?

 

But it does prompt me to raise the issue of CaRT policy regarding vegetation management, in the same way as it has a policy regarding removal of certain customer facilities ie by creating a performance standard. It is my impression, and I have not seen any hard statistics on this, that falling trees have become a rapidly increasing cost centre for CaRT not to mention loss of service for boaters.

 

Comparing photos of some locations with those from, say, 30 years ago - may be even less - there are some with a very marked difference. When the canals were used as a means of transport, the land under the canal companies' control was generally kept clear and sightlines well maintained. Since the conversion to a leisure facility and the rise of green advocacy, most canals have been allowed to develop extensive vegetation close to the water's edge. Increasingly, that vegetation has grown in stature on ground that cannot bear it. Species have been encourages that have a natural habit of losing substantial branches both in dry weather and in winter or windy conditions. 

 

The effect on may urban corridors has been striking often it is possible to cruise without being aware of the development just a few metres away. Visually this is arguably 'a good thing' but it has been allowed - encouraged - without it seems a full assessment of the cost implications. This made all the more complex as at present, ever tighter budget controls work against cost benefit decision making in favour of cost reduction.

 

I do know that at a staff level, there has been some work on this - I talked to someone doing it whom I met on the towpath. Has it reached Board level yet so that a strategic view can be made public and be subject to the normal levels of scrutiny?

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

I have just received 14 stoppage notices this morning, all but 1 related to wind blown trees obstructing the canal and/or towpath. Is this a record?

 

But it does prompt me to raise the issue of CaRT policy regarding vegetation management, in the same way as it has a policy regarding removal of certain customer facilities ie by creating a performance standard. It is my impression, and I have not seen any hard statistics on this, that falling trees have become a rapidly increasing cost centre for CaRT not to mention loss of service for boaters.

 

Comparing photos of some locations with those from, say, 30 years ago - may be even less - there are some with a very marked difference. When the canals were used as a means of transport, the land under the canal companies' control was generally kept clear and sightlines well maintained. Since the conversion to a leisure facility and the rise of green advocacy, most canals have been allowed to develop extensive vegetation close to the water's edge. Increasingly, that vegetation has grown in stature on ground that cannot bear it. Species have been encourages that have a natural habit of losing substantial branches both in dry weather and in winter or windy conditions. 

 

The effect on may urban corridors has been striking often it is possible to cruise without being aware of the development just a few metres away. Visually this is arguably 'a good thing' but it has been allowed - encouraged - without it seems a full assessment of the cost implications. This made all the more complex as at present, ever tighter budget controls work against cost benefit decision making in favour of cost reduction.

 

I do know that at a staff level, there has been some work on this - I talked to someone doing it whom I met on the towpath. Has it reached Board level yet so that a strategic view can be made public and be subject to the normal levels of scrutiny?

 

I wonder how many mature trees indeed end of life  or already dead trees are now located alongside the inland waterways.  It must be millions.  C&RT will only react to fallen trees and branches. C&RT  can't possibly fund a widespread tree management programme. But maybe some other charity or volunteer groups could do something.  I think increasingly volunteer groups have a part to play.

 

[David Mack]

We are currently experiencing stormy weather, after a particularly dry summer which has stressed many trees. It is hardly surprising that is reflected in increased tree falls.

Neither CRT nor BW before them (and I suspect many canal owners in the pre-nationalisation years) have had a policy of keeping canalside land free of trees, where there was no operational need. The cost would have been prohibitive, even when there was more money for maintenance.

The national rail network has been through the same process - in the days of steam linesides were kept clear - partly as a matter of policy to prevent lineside fires, but also because the occasional fires did the job anyway. 50+ years on, the tree growth has encroached up to the live lines, and rail services are disrupted by 'leaves on the line'. In recent years Network Rail has started clear felling some of the worst affected areas, but has received significant pushback in some quarters. 

In addition, many of the offside trees whose branches overhang the waterway are actually owned by the adjacent landowner. In law CRT can only cut those back after asking the landowner to do so and giving them reasonable time to comply. With a huge number of offside landowners to be tracked, most of whom have no inclination to incur the costs of trimming their trees over the canal, it's not really surprising that CRT haven't spent the resources necessary to do so.

That only leaves a reactive response when trees fall as CRT's only practical approach.

[Alan de Enfield]

C&RTs policies on trees (other policies on grass, hedges, weeds etc)

 

Trees

Fallen or windblown tree blocking the towpath or channel

If you come across a tree that's blocking the navigation or towpath please contact us online or call 0303 040 4040.

Tree causing damage to property

We carry out a routine independent health and safety survey to identify any dead, dying or dangerous trees. Any work highlighted is programmed and prioritised accordingly. If a tree is structurally sound we won't carry out any unnecessary work.

We take any reports of property damage seriously, so please provide us with an independent report and any photographic evidence, and we'll investigate. Let us know online or on 0303 040 4040.

Tree is diseased, damaged or feels unsafe

We carry out a routine independent health and safety survey to identify any dead, dying or dangerous trees. Any work highlighted is programmed and prioritised accordingly. If a tree is structurally sound we won't carry out any unnecessary work.

If you feel a tree needs urgent attention, please contact us online or call 0303 040 4040. We'll take a look and take action if necessary.

Please note, we can not work on any tree that does not belong to us, unless branches are overhanging our land and causing an obstruction. You need to contact the landowner directly in this case.

Tree branches overhanging property

There's nothing in law stopping trees from spreading over a boundary. We carry out a routine independent health and safety survey to identify any dead, dying or dangerous trees. Any work highlighted is programmed and prioritised accordingly. If a tree is structurally sound we won't carry out any unnecessary work.

 

Tree branches overhanging towpath

If branches are blocking the towpath please contact us online or call 0303 040 4040 and we'll investigate.

Tree is too tall or too big

We carry out a routine independent health and safety survey to identify any dead, dying or dangerous trees. Any work highlighted is programmed and prioritised accordingly. If a tree is structurally sound we won't carry out any unnecessary work.

Tree blocking light or view to property

Householders have no absolute right to light from across a neighbour's land. Likewise, there is no right to a view. Right to light or a view blocked by the growth of trees cannot legally be regarded as a ‘nuisance'. If a tree is structurally sound we won't work on it unnecessarily.

Tree affecting TV signal

There is no legal right to television reception. Existing trees on neighbouring land that interfere with television reception, especially with satellite transmissions, are unlikely to be regarded as a ‘nuisance'. If a tree is structurally sound then we don't undertake works to it unnecessarily.

Leaf fall blocking drains and gutters

We are not able to remove leaf litter from property bordering our land. It's the land owner's responsibility to maintain their land.

Arisings (branches, logs or cut wood) left on site

It's standard practice to leave clippings, cuttings and material from tree works on land owned by us as this reduces transport and associated costs. In fact, clippings are important to wildlife. We leave them in piles to rot down providing valuable nesting, shelter and hibernation habitat for small mammals, insects, fungi and birds. We'll remove clippings where there is a higher level of risk from anti-social behaviour or instability on steeper embankments or cuttings.

Trees facilitating anti-social behaviour

If you suspect tree growth on our land is harbouring anti-social behaviour, please contact us online or call us on 0303 040 4040 and we will investigate.

Unauthorised tree work by third party

If you suspect tree works are being carried out on our land by an unauthorised third party, please contact us online or call us on 0303 040 4040 and we will investigate.

Other

If you have a query about trees, please contact us online or call us on 0303 040 4040. We need as much detail as possible and photos to help us with any investigations.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

55 minutes ago, Momac said:

C&RT  can't possibly fund a widespread tree management programme.

I wonder if they could raise outside funding though ?

Just as they have done with towpaths 🤷‍♀️

With some sort of campaign for conservation and/or habitat management ?

 

 

 

 

[Bristolfashion]

I've worked on nature reserves carrying out tree / woodland management and it's rewarding and popular - especially if you can tie it in with providing materials for woodland crafts / charcoal burning / bean poles / firewood / hedging materials etc.

 

However, it can be dangerous, requires some skilled supervision and would be more difficult due to the water nearby & constant public access. It wouldn't be impossible, but a well organised & trained volunteer group would be needed.

[Twopints]

The planned volunteer working party to clear vegetation on the  Aylesbury arm was due to begin a couple of weeks ago, but is currently on hold following an "incident" elsewhere involving a pole-saw, which resulted in a volunteer being hospitalised.

[NB Thistle]

15 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I wonder if they could raise outside funding though ?

Just as they have done with towpaths 🤷‍♀️

With some sort of campaign for conservation and/or habitat management ?

 

 

 

 

Any mention of touching trees to the general public will bring howls of outrage from many quarters. Lots of people very strongly - albeit mistakenly - believe that no tree should ever be touched even if it is dying, dangerous or completely unsuitable for the location it is in.

[ditchcrawler]

25 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I wonder if they could raise outside funding though ?

Just as they have done with towpaths 🤷‍♀️

With some sort of campaign for conservation and/or habitat management ?

 

 

 

 

But surly all those trees on the off side are owned by someone else on someone else's land 

[JoeC]

23 minutes ago, Twopints said:

The planned volunteer working party to clear vegetation on the  Aylesbury arm was due to begin a couple of weeks ago, but is currently on hold following an "incident" elsewhere involving a pole-saw, which resulted in a volunteer being hospitalised.

From what I understand, that person was doing vegetation work and fell backwards and banged his head on the top of steel piling. However, as you say, all vegetation work is on hold.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

17 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

But surly all those trees on the off side are owned by someone else on someone else's land 

mmm…true, very true,

 

mind it still leaves CRT with their side to sort,

 

areas that come to mind for me on my travels has to be the deep cuttings and the narrows on the Shroppie,

with trees falling and blocking the cut,

I’d have thought CRT would be responsible for both sides on most of them?

 

 

 

[tree monkey]

15 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

mmm…true, very true,

 

mind it still leaves CRT with their side to sort,

 

areas that come to mind for me on my travels has to be the deep cuttings and the narrows on the Shroppie,

with trees falling and blocking the cut,

I’d have thought CRT would be responsible for both sides on most of them?

 

 

 

 

As I understand it the cuttings are managed by CRT, I argue that the problems there are more an engineering issue the trees falling are just a symptom of a bigger issue

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

12 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

 

As I understand it the cuttings are managed by CRT, I argue that the problems there are more an engineering issue the trees falling are just a symptom of a bigger issue

was it ever a good idea to let trees grow upon those embankments?

 

I’m going to guess until recently (a few decades ago) the banks would have been kept clear ??

 

[tree monkey]

10 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

was it ever a good idea to let trees grow upon those embankments?

 

I’m going to guess until recently (a few decades ago) the banks would have been kept clear ??

 

 

No idea about the history of veg management on the site but those embankments are, shall we say, not exactly secure/stable

 

In all honesty every year im surprised the whole lot hasn't slipped into the cut

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

 

No idea about the history of veg management on the site but those embankments are, shall we say, not exactly secure/stable

 

In all honesty every year im surprised the whole lot hasn't slipped into the cut

yes, I wonder each year if that’s gonna happen

 

 

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

was it ever a good idea to let trees grow upon those embankments?

 

I’m going to guess until recently (a few decades ago) the banks would have been kept clear ??

 

This is Easenhall cutting on the North Oxford (where there was a major slip last year) some time in the 1910s i.e. about 110 years ago. By no means as tree covered as today, but equally not kept clear of tree growth.

Edited November 15, 2025 by David Mack

[tree monkey]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

This is Easenhall embankment on the North Oxford (where there was a major slip last year) some time in the 1910s i.e. about 110 years ago. By no means as tree covered as today, but equally not kept clear of tree growth.

Interesting photo.

The embankment looks managed in some way either grazed or mowed but what's even more interesting is the trees appear to be pollarded 

[Peanut]

32 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Interesting photo.

The embankment looks managed in some way either grazed or mowed but what's even more interesting is the trees appear to be pollarded 

That might suggest a way forward, for future the management of the trees, which would meet the concerns of both conservationists and the navigation.

[tree monkey]

1 minute ago, Peanut said:

That might suggest a way forward, for future the management of the trees, which would meet the concerns of both conservationists and the navigation.

 

Massive cost would be the major issue i suspect 

[ditchcrawler]

Some big earth works going on there at the moment 

 

[Francis Herne]

5 hours ago, JoeC said:

However, as you say, all vegetation work is on hold.

BCNS have been told that felling trees using power tools is suspended, but we can continue smaller work with loppers and hand saws.

 

The subject of felling large trees with a hand saw remains unclear but we've refrained from doing it recently...

[Stroudwater1]

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

This is Easenhall cutting on the North Oxford (where there was a major slip last year) some time in the 1910s i.e. about 110 years ago. By no means as tree covered as today, but equally not kept clear of tree growth.

A close look at the embankment now shows very large number of burrows and holes . I suspect it’s badger or rabbits which can’t be helpful for embankment stability. Perhaps they don’t go deep enough but I fear they do. 
 

Any action against animals is likely to be greeted with more uproar than tree pruning though. 

[Momac]

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

This is Easenhall cutting on the North Oxford (where there was a major slip last year) some time in the 1910s i.e. about 110 years ago. By no means as tree covered as today, but equally not kept clear of tree growth.

Looks like plenty of evidence of slope instability.   

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2025 by Momac

[phantom_iv]

The obvious solution here is for CRT to affix notices to trees they want to be cut down that say something to the effect of “free firewood if you cut it down yourself” then walk away for a couple of weeks, by which time it will have miraculously disappeared. Any health and safety violations will be of course completely unobserved and thus assumed not to have happened.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

8 minutes ago, phantom_iv said:

The obvious solution here is for CRT to affix notices to trees they want to be cut down that say something to the effect of “free firewood if you cut it down yourself” then walk away for a couple of weeks, by which time it will have miraculously disappeared. Any health and safety violations will be of course completely unobserved and thus assumed not to have happened.

and if no one hears the tree fall 👍👍