protected trees cut down on Green Lane

Maple Steryup said:
It reminds of the Scientific Institution Building debacle but on a less extreme scale. They must know there's a chance that ultimately they won't get planning permission, so why hack the trees down now?
Click to expand...
As a guess, and obviously not accusing anybody in this case of anything untoward. In general terms I suppose it might make it easier to get planning permission on a site if some of the special features are already gone when you put the application in?

A bit like - and again I'm not talking about green lane - when some buildings mysteriously 'catch fire' which magically opens up the site to development.
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
As a guess, and obviously not accusing anybody in this case of anything untoward. In general terms I suppose it might make it easier to get planning permission on a site if some of the special features are already gone when you put the application in?

A bit like - and again I'm not talking about green lane - when some buildings mysteriously 'catch fire' which magically opens up the site to development.
Click to expand...
And they will get planning permission anyway.

It doesn't matter how much Andy Preston flounces around saying its the wrong place for a supermarket, even if an application is refused by the council Lidl will appeal to the govt who will over turn the decision.
 
On a similar note.

The trees are "protected" but it appears to the majority Tory Council, its more important to expand tarmac for cars to park, than protect trees and enhance the environment.

Here`s a report about a small number of protesters who have climbed into the site, next to Newark Library - to protest the Councils decision to fell the trees.

The council have responded it would cost a million pounds to incorporate the trees into the car park (!!?) [Ballox].
Local coppers and the community are keeping the protesters fed and watered.

www.nottinghampost.com

Public hand hot water bottles to tree protestors inside barricade

Nottinghamshire Police officers at the site handed the items over the fence
www.nottinghampost.com www.nottinghampost.com

Newark public and local police supply hot water bottles to tree protestors behind barricade​

Nottinghamshire Police officers at the site handed the items over the fence
1636786099567.png
Members of the community provided hot water bottles and food to four protestors inside a barricade last night during their attempt to stop four trees in Newark from being felled.

Nottinghamshire Police officers at the site handed the items over the fence, and were later praised for their actions.

Fencing was put up around the site on London Road on Thursday ahead of plans to cut down the trees and turn the land into a car park extension next to Newark Library.

Despite the cold weather, protestors Wendy Patterson, Darrell Pointing, Pam Ball and Ali Carter remained with the trees in the fenced off area throughout the night, worried that if they left they would not be able to return.

At around 9:30pm last night, there were still nearly 20 other protestors and members of the community at the site.

They were supporting those behind the barriers by filling up hot water bottles and organising food and drinks, and then watching the police pass the items through the fence.

0_water-bottle2JPGjpgNottingham.jpg

(Image: Greeley Photography)

0_waterbottle3JPGjpgA-prote.jpg

(Image: Greeley Photography)
One protestor, Jenni Vaughan, of Balderton, said: “The police have been amazing, they have explained everything at every stage, they have been totally amazing.

“It’s brought some lovely people together and we’ve found the community spirit.

"This has woken people up and got people talking."

Newark and Sherwood District Council is in a legally binding agreement with a developer who owns the land to build the car park extension – and claims that reversing its decision to chop the trees would cost the taxpayer £1m.

The council confirmed its plan to fell the trees in a statement last week – but said it was a “tough decision” to make.

Adam Cormack, of The Woodland Trust, has said the reason this felling is set to happen is because although the trees are protected, the protection is second place to planning permission to build a car park.

“Car parks beat trees, and we need a planning system that gives trees better protection," he said.

“There are situations like this happening around the country and big trees like these are on the front line.

“The council are in a difficult position but it’s not an impossible situation, so it would be nice to see them try and find a solution to the situation with the local community.

“I’ve been to this site quite a lot over the last few weeks and must have seen hundreds of people go past; nobody thinks it’s a good idea but it’s still happening.”

Rowan Cozens, of Newark, said: “We do not need more parking spaces; we feel the Newark Sherwood District Council has squandered our hard earned money.

“Council tax is higher here then living in the middle of London, so we want to know what’s going on.”
 
I suspect and hope that the objections raised by local residents will bring their planning application crashing to the ground.

I think they would have been struggling even without the tree debacle. Someone's really badly failed to read that situation. Almost a Tory style misjudgement.
 
BiggEggo said:
I suspect and hope that the objections raised by local residents will bring their planning application crashing to the ground.

I think they would have been struggling even without the tree debacle. Someone's really badly failed to read that situation. Almost a Tory style misjudgement.
Click to expand...
Rarely have an impact on planning. There are rules that they have to abide by, and if they abide by them and council turns them down then council has to defend at appeal and pay legal costs to developer. Itll just be overturned if it wasnt turned down for a valid reason, which is why so many just get granted as its too costly to fight so many lost causes.
 
Yes but the question would also be would Lidl actually feel they want to proceed in this case. It might be exceptionally bad PR for them to go ahead and take this further. It is not like a developer building homes they are sensitive to the public. And they will be eyeing other sites around Teesside.
 
Doubt they will care people will forget about it in no time at all, doubt more than a handful will not use a local supermarket because a few trees got cut down
 
rob_fmttm said:
Yes but the question would also be would Lidl actually feel they want to proceed in this case. It might be exceptionally bad PR for them to go ahead and take this further. It is not like a developer building homes they are sensitive to the public. And they will be eyeing other sites around Teesside.
Click to expand...
Do you think they will just write of the 100,000's of pounds they have paid for the land just because of a bit of bad publicity?
 
They tried but build a supermarket on the grounds of the old Jack Hatfield Club just along the road. That fell down badly and the prospective trader pulled out. They also tried to get planning permission to develop the whole site for housing and that was on a road to nowhere until they massively scaled back their plans. They ended up developing only a quarter of the site in the end, had to build a new club and retain the footy pitch, and it was all down to pressure from residents. They can be a feisty bunch round those parts...and good luck to them.
 
Not forgetting that Middlesbrough's only Grade 1 listed building Acklam Hall in Hall Drive is now virtually part of a new housing estate having had its grounds decimated and sold off.
I consider myself fortunate in having attended Acklam Hall Grammer School before the "lowest common denominator " cult took hold of the reins.
 
Lottowyn said:
Not forgetting that Middlesbrough's only Grade 1 listed building Acklam Hall in Hall Drive is now virtually part of a new housing estate having had its grounds decimated and sold off.
I consider myself fortunate in having attended Acklam Hall Grammer School before the "lowest common denominator " cult took hold of the reins.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree. Acklam Hall has been preserved as has the Avenue of Trees and the view of the front and the pond. The incredible interiors can be accessed by the public for the very first time (grade one listed for interiors rather than exterior). The new houses are built to not obscure the views. They have funded the hall's future as far as I can see. As I say general public can enjoy it for the first time now in its history.
What would the alternatives have been? National Trust and English Heritage did not want to know.

But the starting point of this thread was about the wanton destruction of trees around the CCAD site. Terrible.
 
BiggEggo said:
They tried but build a supermarket on the grounds of the old Jack Hatfield Club just along the road. That fell down badly and the prospective trader pulled out. They also tried to get planning permission to develop the whole site for housing and that was on a road to nowhere until they massively scaled back their plans. They ended up developing only a quarter of the site in the end, had to build a new club and retain the footy pitch, and it was all down to pressure from residents. They can be a feisty bunch round those parts...and good luck to them.
Click to expand...

That's probably different though because its taking away a sports facility. This is a closed down arts college, with a new campus already built in central Middlesbrough. It's either going to be houses or a shop.

Did they try build a supermarket at Jack Hatfield Club? I know it was sold for housing in 2002 and they ended up building flats there and compromising around building a new site for them & can find the news articles linking to that, but struggling to find any plans for a supermarket there?
 
ThatFragranceGuy said:
That's probably different though because its taking away a sports facility. This is a closed down arts college, with a new campus already built in central Middlesbrough. It's either going to be houses or a shop.

Did they try build a supermarket at Jack Hatfield Club? I know it was sold for housing in 2002 and they ended up building flats there and compromising around building a new site for them & can find the news articles linking to that, but struggling to find any plans for a supermarket there?
Click to expand...
Perhaps TFGuy someone is mixing the proposed development of Jack Hatfield Club with that of the Middlesbrough Rugby and Cricket Club where a supermarket was once in the offing.
 
ThatFragranceGuy said:
That's probably different though because its taking away a sports facility. This is a closed down arts college, with a new campus already built in central Middlesbrough. It's either going to be houses or a shop.

Did they try build a supermarket at Jack Hatfield Club? I know it was sold for housing in 2002 and they ended up building flats there and compromising around building a new site for them & can find the news articles linking to that, but struggling to find any plans for a supermarket there?
Click to expand...
First prospective buyer was a supermarket chain. They backed away from the land purchase from the so called 'trustees' of the Co-op club when it became clear that the sale was contentious and planning permission looked unlikely due to complications around developing a playing field site. House builders stepped in months later.
 
DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
Good point! I wonder if protected trees do have any identification points on them?
Click to expand...
Protected trees can be identified from maps held by the local authority. If you are interested you can ask for a copy of one of these maps, if necessary invoking freedom of information.
I used to be in a volunteer organisation called the Tree Warden Network. I quit after a while, the constant bad news got me down ( diseases a plenty, and property developers always seeming to win).
 
Anton_Berg said:
Protected trees can be identified from maps held by the local authority. If you are interested you can ask for a copy of one of these maps, if necessary invoking freedom of information.
I used to be in a volunteer organisation called the Tree Warden Network. I quit after a while, the constant bad news got me down ( diseases a plenty, and property developers always seeming to win).
Click to expand...
I was thinking more on the tree itself - af badge/sign/label/marking of some sort so that it was obvious to anyone about to chop it down and that would possibly make them want to double check everything was in place to allow it to be axed
 
DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
I was thinking more on the tree itself - af badge/sign/label/marking of some sort so that it was obvious to anyone about to chop it down and that would possibly make them want to double check everything was in place to allow it to be axed
Click to expand...
I don't think they do that. Many protected trees are on private property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top