Tree removals near buildings: EIR release

Information requested

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:

1. 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).

2. How many of/which of these trees were removed due to claims or requests from insurance companies?

3. 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)?

4. 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)?

5. 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.

Response

Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), Transport Scotland is not required to provide information which it does not have. We do not have some of the information you require as we do not hold records of tree removals on local authority Roads. Local roads are the responsibility of the relevant local authority as they are also the local roads authority. 

Transport Scotland, through our Trunk Road Operating Companies is responsible for the strategic trunk road network including motorways. As such, our response will only cover the trunk road network, however you may wish to contact the individual Local Authorities for information for the roads they manage.

Details of the local authorities within Scotland can be found by using the following link - Councils | COSLA . 

This exception is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information about trees on local authority roads, clearly we cannot provide information which we do not hold.

For ease of reference I have numbered your request above.

Points 1, 2 and 4 – please see the following table which provides details of trees removed by our Operating Companies due to property or infrastructure damage

Date	Trunk Road	Location	Details	Claim details
Jul-20	A83	West Loch Tarbert	1 tree removed as windthrow damage to fence	1 claim - £1,500.00 paid
Oct-23	A9	Tain	9 trees removed as windthrow damage to fence and unstable trees	1 claim – not settled

Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), Transport Scotland is not required to provide information which it does not have. We do not have some of the information you require as the species of the trees removed were not recorded. 

This exception is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While we recognise that there may be some public interest in information about the species or trees removed clearly we cannot provide information which we do not hold.

Point 3 - An exception under regulation 10(5)(e) (Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIRs applies to the information you have requested. This exception applies because disclosure of this particular information would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially the confidentiality of commercial information provided by our Operating Companies. As the felling of standing trees is in the Operating Companies contractual schedule of rates, disclosing this information would be likely to give competitors an advantage in future tendering exercises, and could substantially prejudice their ability to submit competitive tenders and so could significantly harm their commercial business.

This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. We recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open and transparent government, and to help account for the expenditure of public money. However, there is a greater public interest in protecting the commercial interests of companies which enter into Transport Scotland contracts, to ensure that we are always able to obtain the best value for public money.

Point 5 - A landowner, near to the A90 trunk road believed a beech tree to be in danger of falling into his land. A qualified arboriculturist inspected the tree and determined there is no issue. No action was required. Request received 23/06/2022.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.