Here's some impressive tokenistic nonsense! These trees are never going to make it, but most shocking is that an architect obviously designed it, a landscape architect must have overseen it, and a planning authority consented it! The cumulative incompetence is staggering.

Brilliant, thanks for this enlightenment!

In the unlikely event those trees survive, the building will not. The (inappropriate) silver birch opposite our house is at least 40ft high with a trunk diameter of 18”.

Reminds us of the Bishopsgate redwoods planted under the tower block's street-level canopy. Actual redwoods >

Those galvanised 'tree guards' must have cost a lot more than the trees themselves. Who is the client?

Box ticking 😵‍💫

Absolutely shocking. Those poor trees don’t stand a chance, they need to be in the open and away from the building in order to get as much water possible. Unfortunately, this is becoming typical in development design nowadays.

I would doubt a landscape architect was even asked! So many, though thankfully not all, think they can do without. I hate to think whats below ground!

Here is another extraordinary act of tree incompetence. This is in Birmingham, newly planted they were dead within weeks of the building opening. They have replaced and not surprisingly they have died again! Still dead!

Wouldn't the tree eventually incorporate the frame into itself? We have an old fence that runs the property and all trees near it have consumed the fence and have now become the fence posts themselves. That obviously won't happen when it widens where the roof is unfortunately

It could grow around the frame, but one of them is already looking sick, so I doubt if they'll survive that long! And then there is the restrictions in the hole in the roof, so it all looks quite grim!