Sir, We are very glad to know (Tenby Observer, June 8 issue) that the National Park will plant two trees by the Five Arches to replace those cut down. In our view, the trees complemented the grey stone and, most importantly, helped to conceal or diminish the many ugly features e.g. roofs (including an asbestos one), chimneys, TV aerials and posts, visible above the wall and which now draw the eye. The whole row of chestnuts provides much-needed shade. Mature, native trees should be protected and cherished more than ever now with ever-higher summer temperatures. We very much hope that the current fad of planting palm trees locally will soon give way to planting more native trees, with all their benefits to insects, birds and people. After all, those summer visitors who in future won't be holidaying in the Mediterranean because of unbearably high temperatures, won't want a Mediterranean look-alike resort, which is what so many British seaside places now resemble. Even Birmingham's Bull Ring now has a 'beach' with tons of imported sand and potted palm trees! Shouldn't Tenby be proud to 'be itself', i.e. with the kinds of tree suitable to this part of the world? And there is nothing so ugly as a dead or dying palm tree (as currently opposite W.H. Smith). The Tenby Times has just reprinted accounts of Tenby Town Council's decision in 1911 to cut down a huge elm near the Five Arches. This was followed by many letters to the editor expressing horror at the loss. We think Tenbyites today are just as concerned about the loss of their trees.
K. J. and R. H. Regelous, Kilgetty.