Holyrood full of dead wood - no we don't mean MSPs

Published on Sunday 7 August 2005 00:29

THE dead wood of the Scottish Parliament is to be cut out, but not from the chamber.

About a third of the newly planted trees around the 441m Holyrood building are dead or dying, according to experts.

The grim state of the trees, which cost 300 each, has been blamed on them being planted around the Scottish Parliament at too advanced an age for them to take root in the soils around Holyrood.

The dismal spectacle of the bare branches has only added to the controversy over the state of Holyrood's 19m landscaping. Last month it came under fire for allowing the grass around the building to grow to lengths of more than a metre.

About 25 oaks and prunis (a variety of the cherry tree) of about 70 trees planted as part of the Holyrood landscaping project are either dead or dying. The weak branches are bare and the leaves which remain on the trees are brown and shrivelled up.

They were planted in phases from autumn 2003 until early 2004 as part of the breakneck preparations to get the new Scottish Parliament building ready in time for its royal opening last October.

As part of the effort to make the new building look good, many of the trees which were planted at anything from six to nine feet tall were much taller than typical saplings of about two feet.

Experts believe that the height and maturity of the trees meant it was always less likely that they would grow and mature, and Holyrood planners are now paying for that decision.

Writer and horticultural expert Antoinette Galbraith said: "You can see that most of the young oaks around us are either dead or they are borderline cases. They have the appearance that they should have in November or late October. Their branches are bare and the leaves are gone or are brown and dried up. Some of the prunis trees might pull through with a lot of care, but they look very fragile indeed."

Fred Last, a former professor of forestry at Edinburgh University, said: "They are a sorry sight. It's very disappointing indeed. Many of them look as if they are unlikely to survive. What they should have done was study what grows well in the surrounding area, which are native species such as rowan and birch, and planted much smaller young trees, about two-feet tall, which would have taken, and they should have cleared the grass, which is competing with the trees for moisture.

"When the trees have too little moisture, they begin shedding some leaves. But the problem is that these trees are shedding the lot. When they lose the leaves photosynthesis can no longer occur and growth is affected.

"What they should now do, given the situation we have, where most of the trees are very unlikely to make it, is to plant lots of small saplings about November and they will grow. That means if any of the larger ones do survive then you will have a nice mix of trees."

James Scott, the Scottish chairman of the Forestry and Timber Association, said:

"In large and high-profile projects such as this there is a tendency to go for big impact and that means having as many trees which are as tall as possible, the problem is that they need a lot of care to make sure that they survive and even then it might not work. It's a high risk strategy."

A leading critic of the Holyrood Project claimed that the problem with the trees was symbolic of the difficulties which have plagued the over-budget and late-running building.

Margo Macdonald, the independent MSP for the Lothians, said: "This has been a matter of 'never mind the quality, feel the width.' In a way it doesn't surprise me that they seem to have jumped the gun on these trees. It was all about making an impression and being sure that the gardens and building looked good in time for the opening. I remember the rush and almost a year later there is still work going on."

A Scottish Parliament spokesman said: "Some of the trees have lost their leaves and may need to be replaced. If that is that case then trees would be replaced in November.

"

The Parliament has been beset with long delays, massive cost overruns and official bungling since building work began in 1999. It finally opened in October last year, three years late and more than 10 times over the original budget.

Despite its controversial appearance, the Parliament has won a string of international architecture awards. In April it received Spain's greatest architectural prize, the Manuel de la Dehesa award. A month earlier the Parliament picked up the Edinburgh Architectural Association's centenary medal and in May it won the title of Scotland's best publicly funded building by the Scottish Design Awards.

HOW SEEDS OF DOUBT WERE SOWN

LIKE everything else to do with the Scottish Parliament, the 19m of landscaping has raised eyebrows because of both its cost and its design. The grass is intended to cover the large underground car park which doubles as a shelter in case of attack and which juts out of the south end of the building.

The trees, plants and water feature are intended to resemble a mirror image of the debating chamber, and were also designed to have a "natural feel" and to blend in to with the "wild sweep of grass" around Holyrood Park.

A large number of wild flowers have been planted, including sticky catchfly, dropwort and meadow crane's-bill and the trees include prunis, oak, rowan and lime. Gorse bushes will be planted in the autumn.

The landscaping also features five Scots pine trees planted by children from the east end of Glasgow. Ironically, they are making better progress than the larger trees planted by the professionals, mainly because they were planted while very young.

Holyrood chiefs say critics should be patient about the unkempt appearance of the grass, which has been likened to a schoolboy before his back-to-school haircut. It was planned that the grass would have a natural look and be cut in the autumn after the wild flowers there have had the opportunity to seed.