We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Lawrence Weetman please sign in and let everyone know.

Tree removals and removal requests for insurance or building damage reasons

Lawrence Weetman made this Freedom of Information request to Mole Valley District Council as part of a batch sent to 385 authorities Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

We're waiting for Lawrence Weetman to read a recent response and update the status.

Lawrence Weetman

Dear Mole Valley District Council,

Trees that are near buildings are often threatened by requests for removal. These requests normally come from homeowners or property owners or their insurance companies after trees are alleged to be causing damage. In many cases these trees pre-date the buildings that are being affected.

I would like to understand more about how this issue affects your local authority and the trees you are responsible for (i.e, you are responsible for maintaining, or are on your land, owned by you, etc).

In particular, I would like to know, over the past 10 years:

- The locations of trees removed by your authority due to property or infrastructure damage, ideally accompanied by their species and the date of removal where possible (locations via GIS data, What3Words, OS coordinates, or addresses as you find easiest)
- How many of/which of these trees were removed due to claims or requests from insurance companies
- How much the council paid to remove each tree (if this can be attributed per removal, or how much the council spent on tree removal each financial year if not)
- How much the council paid out in insurance claims for tree damage to properties (individual claim values preferred, but an aggregate value may be acceptable if the council considers the individual values to be exempt from disclosure)
- The number of trees where removal has been requested, but was either refused, an alternative solution found, or the situation is still ongoing; any breakdown that can be provided (similar to above, e.g, species and location) would be appreciated

Please follow the following principles when considering this request:
- Data at an individual tree level is preferred, but where you consider this can't be disclosed due to commercial or legal agreements (e.g, insurance claims, contractor works) then aggregate data either annually or (worst case) over the whole period may be acceptable
- Some data is better than no data; for example, if data is only available for the last 5 years then that is better than refusing the request

Given this is a request about trees, this request falls under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) rather than FOI. This carries stricter time limits for responses and fewer exemptions to disclosure. Please treat this as an EIR request.

Yours faithfully,

Lawrence Weetman

Freedom Of Information, Mole Valley District Council

 

 

Dear Mr Weetman

 

Thank you for your information request submitted under the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004. 

 

Please be advised that your request is being dealt with and you will
receive a response within 20 working days, which will be 8^th August
2024. 

 

Regards 

 

Kate Butcher 

Customer Care Officer 

Freedom of Information and Deputy Data Protection Officer 

Mole Valley District Council 

01306 885001 

[1]www.molevalley.gov.uk 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Freedom Of Information, Mole Valley District Council

Dear Mr Weetman

 

Thank you for your information request which I have considered under the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) as it is information
relating to activities affecting or likely to affect the Environment.

 

Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR makes provision for public authorities to
refuse requests for information where the burden of dealing with them
would lead to an unjustified level of disruption.

 

Please be advised that we do not record the information requested in a
dataset or other retrievable format. Therefore, to provide you with the
information would require a manual search of every tree work order for the
specified period, to see how many trees were ordered to be removed. These
would then need to be cross referenced against separate records to
ascertain if the trees in the work orders were linked to the circumstances
given in your request.

 

It is considered that the amount of work involved to answer your request
will place a disproportionate burden on officers and would involve a
diversion of resources from the provision of public services.

 

Public Interest Test

 

Public Interest In Maintaining This Exception

The public interest in maintaining this exception lies in protecting
public authorities from exposure to disproportionate burden or to an
unjustified level of disruption in handling information requests. Dealing
with manifestly unreasonable requests can place a strain on resources and
get in the way of public authorities delivering mainstream services or
answering other requests.

 

Public Interest In Disclosure

There will always be some public interest in disclosure to promote
transparency and accountability of public authorities, greater public
awareness and understanding of environmental matters, a free exchange of
views, and more effective public participation in environmental decision
making, all of which ultimately contribute to a better environment.

 

The weight of this interest depends on the profile and importance of the
issue and the extent to which the content of the information will actually
inform public debate. You may wish to refine your request by narrowing its
scope or by being more specific about what information you particularly
wish to obtain, including any dates or period of time relevant to the
information required.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the
right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be
submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your
original letter and should be addressed to: Louise Bircher, Mole Valley
District Council, Pippbrook, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information
Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9
5AF Or by calling 0303 123 1113 (local rate) Monday to Friday 9am – 5pm.

 

Kind regards

 

Kate Butcher

Customer Care Officer

Freedom of Information and Deputy Data Protection Officer

Mole Valley District Council

01306 885001

[1]www.molevalley.gov.uk

 

 

 

show quoted sections

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Lawrence Weetman please sign in and let everyone know.