Tree Saga - Council Vandalism?
I have to apologise. In my first comment I accepted John Smith's claim that the County Council was behind the demand that the tree be cut down. I accept - as he has - that so far they have not been demanding anything. I also said that I thought someone falling was "an extreme and unlikely eventuality." I was wrong. Here is Suzy Turner-Wilcockson who wrote comments defending the tree and is doing a lot of work helping with the People's Plan. If she or other disabled or physically frail people, or perfectly fit people for that matter, were to slip and fall on this paving the consequences could easily be VERY serious, ranging from crippling to life-threatening.
I have now spoken at length to the District Council spokes person who John Smith quotes. Her name is Pam Williams and her position is that of Regeneration Officer and she has been involved in the project which has lead us to focus on the tree since she started her job in 2003. She was extremely helpful in filling me in on all the details. Not a "faceless bureaucrat."
Basically what emerges is a complicated and still unresolved story of a project that has not worked out as intended. Four well-meaning bodies, Town, District and County Council together with English Heritage set out to improve the visual appeal and "enhance " an area that everyone agreed was a bit of a mess. Their plan was to put in place paving, flower beds and a tree. That is the tree outside Julian Shave. The tree at risk shown here with Suzi, had been planted years earlier. The plan was to surround it with a wall and plant flowers as shown.
English Heritage - anxious to preserve the look of the town, made it known that they would cover a substantial amount of the cost, up to £33,500, provided the paving was of "natural stone". Accountants got to work and estimates were provided. With the stone paving the whole project would cost £57,000, the balance being paid by the Town and District Councils. That balance then works out at £23,500. If the Town and District were not prepared to go for the natural stone and instead chose to tarmac the area, English Heritage would pull out and they would have to find the full cost estimated to be £35,000. Not surprisingly they agreed to go for natural stone and after some difficulty settled on smooth York stone which was approved by the County Council as suitable for use on the public highway. A public consultation was arranged in the library and tests with water were carried out on the stone elsewhere and most seemed happy and the project went ahead and was completed in 2006. It was also agreed that once all the safety monitoring was carried out and signed off, the area would revert to the control of the County Council as the highway authority.
The adoption was delayed and over the next few years complaints followed from people who had slipped and fallen. These were logged but details of the exact location were not provided. What emerged was that it appeared the stone was too smooth to be safe and it attracted algae. This means very little dampness makes it really slippery and a hazard. There was a long delay and in 2010 the final safety audit - as is always required when such schemes are carried out - was at last done. At previous audit it appears it had been recognised that the stone paving constitutes a real hazard, a hazard that needs to be addressed before the County will be prepared to take over the site. Digging up the stone paving and replacing it with tarmac would be Very Very Expensive. Not a realistic option at this time of cuts. What else could be done? Perhaps the stone slabs could be scored to give them a grip. Problem. This would degrade them to the point where the County would not accept them as being of sufficient quality. What else could be done? Here attention turned on the tree. It would be easy and inexpensive to cut it down. It had been noticed that it is a deciduous tree with seasonal berries and leaves which fall on the paving stones in the autumn. Perhaps some of the complaints were about that and not just the stone. What is more the shade provided by the tree would - it was asserted - inhibit airflow and prolong the time it took for the stone to dry after rain. For these reasons it was decided by the District Council officers that the tree should be chopped down. Pam then reported to John Smith that "The surface provides a cost effective and attractive enhancement; the removal of the tree is part of a package of measures to minimise the likelihood of slips and possible injury to pedestrians."
Well, who could believe that? Someone sitting in Taunton I presume. The sad fact is as anyone can see the surface chosen by both Town Council & Area East Committee of the District Council does not provide a cost effective and attractive enhancement but a thoroughly dangerous hazard to anyone walking on it if it is damp, wet or frozen. What is more to replace it would be VERY EXPENSIVE (send in your estimates).
There is however more unfinished business. There is still the unresolved issue of when the County Council will take over responsibility for maintaining the site, will they be keen to take on something which may well prove expensive to put right and make safe?
The Town Council has passed a unanimous motion that the tree should not be cut down and everyone I have spoken to - which includes town and district councillors - agree that the problem is not the tree, but the slippery paving stones. This includes Pam who sees the tree contributing to but not being the root cause of the problem. Still she argues removing the tree might make the area safer for pedestrians. She is also prepared to say that if the tree is cut down, then she would back its replacement with an appropriate smaller, slimmer tree - like that outside Julian Shave.
If like me you find it strange that no town, district or county councillor will express an opinion on the matter publicly in the Window or any other public platform. (And yes they have been asked) the reason I have been given is that to speak out on a planning matter prior to the relevant council meeting where it will be discussed, is to express an interest and this debars you from participating in or voting in the meeting. I find this rather frustrating, but there it is it seems.
Does this mean our bold councillors will find they are busy elsewhere when the "we are just doing what we are paid for mate" workmen arrive with their saws and tackle to cut down the tree? Will they instead be demanding the tree should not be cut down because doing so will destroy a real "visual enhancement" to the area and not make any significant difference to something which is a real problem - a problem which sooner or later will have to be properly dealt with. We shall see.
John Baxter
Comments
Posts: 1
Reply #1 on : Tue February 22, 2011, 21:29:44
Posts: 1
Reply #2 on : Wed February 23, 2011, 18:15:41
Posts: 1
Reply #3 on : Thu March 03, 2011, 09:57:22
Login to comment!