The best looking towns have the best kept trees. We have some here, but they have been kept to the edges. Down by the burn has some nice ones and the path leading up here I suppose. Obviously the park and the viaduct road. And over west up the path where the pylons go as well as the farm road. We have some.
However the oaks and raspberry bushes were all ripped up for new houses. The cycle path completely decimated of all life, both old and new. Old brambles, new birds, new shoots, old oaks, old roots. And besides that, the main street shows none, not a one except that one that sits outside the church. St Theresa’s has some belters but none grow on the main street at all. Presumably they were all cut down decades or centuries ago because, I suspect there would have been some, if not many, lining the streets. I could check the library.
This is a shame how the nature of trees, the beauty they bring to a developed area is usually the first thing to go. Why is that? Why is it not a rule that they have to be included? Or law, for land planners and property developers, to go around it. It makes me mad to think of this. Meanwhile people go mental planting the wrong trees in the wrong place and the wrong climate when they were already there in the first place.