When 17 Plane Trees Were Felled: Residents Storm Palma City Hall

When 17 Plane Trees Were Felled: Residents Storm Palma City Hall

Main question: How much say do residents have when municipal trees are removed for safety reasons?

In the afternoon, as the winter sun lay low over the old town, the air at Plaça Llorenç Villalonga still smelled of petrol and fresh wood. After the sounds of workers and the cracking of heavy branches, neighbors gathered with small pieces of trunk and twigs in front of City Hall — not by chance, but because they would not accept a decision that has changed their square, as reported in a report on the planned felling of 17 ombúes in Plaza Llorenç Villalonga.

The scene in the council chamber was loud and raw. People struck the wooden benches with branches, shouted “shame” and demanded answers. Two councilwomen publicly distanced themselves from the municipal leadership and sided with the residents. The mayor was forced to call for order. The confrontation was more than an auditory disturbance: it revealed a deeper problem in how public green spaces are handled.

Briefly on the legal situation: an administrative court gave the city the green light after an injunction was lifted, as described in coverage of the neighborhood's opposition to the planned tree felling. The ruling referred to the duty to avert dangers to people. That is not a carte blanche, but a legal framework that permits action on safety grounds — and yet it leaves questions unanswered.

Critical analysis: from the neighborhood’s perspective the sequence appears to be a top-down decision. Technicians had raised concerns, and the city acted on its own assessments. The issue is not only legal: who decides how much risk is acceptable, and which alternatives were really considered — crown pruning, temporary closures, independent arborist reports?

What rarely appears in the public debate are concrete figures on fracture risks, detailed expert reports, before-and-after photos, and a transparent cost-benefit accounting. A binding timetable for replacement plantings and maintenance is missing, as are statements on how the visual and climatic impacts on the square were assessed.

A commonplace scene in Palma: in the afternoons seniors sit on the square, trade recipes, children chase pigeons. Tree shade is part of everyday life here, a reality contrasted with other felling episodes chronicled in a chronicle of previous tree felling controversies in Palma. For many residents it is not just a dispute about trees, but the loss of a familiar place — the sound of street music, sitting on a bench, the temperature in summer.

Concrete solutions can be identified: first, binding independent tree assessments before final felling decisions. Second, transparent information duties: access to reports, public meetings with experts and clear deadlines. Third, an immediate plan for replanting and temporary shading so the square does not remain bare for months.

Furthermore, the city could offer a mediation procedure when decisions significantly affect citizens. A small commission of residents, city technicians and external tree experts would not prevent every measure, but it would increase acceptance and reduce the feeling of being "steamrolled."

For the administration: law and safety must not be obscured by technical shortcuts. If safety is the argument, the documentation must be thorough, public and comprehensible. Otherwise the accusation remains that the aesthetic and social value of urban green was insufficiently weighed.

The protests in the council chamber made one thing clear: it is not just about 17 trees, but about trust in municipal decisions. Anyone walking past the square during the day does not only see the stumps, but hears the voices of those who feel unheard.

Conclusion: Palma needs clearer rules for handling street trees — legally sound, technically reviewed and democratically involved. Otherwise further confrontations threaten, in which the core question is lost: how do we want to shape our public spaces together?