The Answers

What is planned for the Walks?

• Play equipment £49,000
• Bridge over Rivulet £54,000
• Benches and bins replaced with replicas £58,000
• Signs and displays £112,000
• Gannock gate, bandstand, and fountain £114,000
• Bridge repairs £131,000
• Park building £161,000
• Fences and gates £271,000
• Tree replacement £280,000
• Red Mount Chapel £292,000
• Planting and removal of tennis/basketball courts £296,000
• Lights and CCTV £326,000
• Waterways and drainage £549,000
• Footpaths and car park £825,000

More detail on the plans page. (Based on Council publications in 2004 - odd groupings not our fault.)

In this sketch map, red indicates walks which will be worked on in the first part of the project and yellow indicates those which will be started later. (Source: drawing LA/100A) On the affected walks, just over half of the trees will be removed in total. New smaller trees will be planted, size currently estimated at 3-4 inch across.

The revised plans retain every third tree for at least 20 years. Unfortunately, the trees being removed are mostly selected for cosmetic rather than health reasons. WAG are not happy about that aspect of the plan and want to avoid the same plan being carried out on St John's Walk.

We're still not sure how much the HLF approved. When asked, the HLF case officer wrote that they "would not normally expect to reduce the scope of the work". This suggests it's unusual, but possible. In Crystal Palace Park, the lottery fund "limited their grant ... to the bits that were not regarded locally as a disaster" according to Stewart Harding, GreenSpace director and expert monitor for the Walks bid (Source: media release on 19 May).

Who is paying for this?

This is part-funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund's Public Parks Initiative. They will pay over 80% of capital costs. The Walks Action Group asked them not to fund the original tree replacement plan.

The national board of HLF approved the bid on 22 March. (Source: HLF board Schedule of Decisions) The details aren't known yet. Watch this web site for latest news.

The Council pays the remaining cost and will pay the running costs. In an August press release, the Borough Council said it would use taxpayer's money to fell trees if it wanted. So, WAG must keep going until there is a long-term tree management plan in place.

Is the Walks Action Group against the entire project?

No. WAG aims to prevent the clearance of trees from the Walks. As far as I know, all members want to see the Red Mount Chapel restored and most support many parts of the project. Some have reservations about bits like the "youth" provision. This web site seeks to explain the problems with the bid as well as the benefits, because we need your help to fix the problems. See our themed pages on nature, safety and facilities.

The Walks Action Group is part of a long tradition of town residents campaigning for preservation of the Walks. Read about the 1890 campaign on the history page.

When would this happen?

Detailed planning starts immediately after approval. Broad Walk, Extension Walk, Red Mount Walk and Seven Sisters Walk would all be worked on within two years. (Source: bid appendix A22, not online.) The first management plan covers years. St John's Walk would be worked on in 15-20 years time.

The work would probably be finished in three decades. If we get it wrong, the damage could last generations.

How can I help?

Let others know what you think, by writing to your councillors and the lottery fund, by filling out our surveys, or by displaying our notices where people will read them. Find more information on our help page.

Are the Walks avenues?

It depends who you ask. The Walks trees are not regularly spaced, not of identical age and some of the Walks don't even have pairs of the same species. They are definitely tree-lined ornamental walks, but not formal avenues like at stately homes. More about this on the heritage page.

Have the Walks been replaced before?

Not like this. Only Red Mount Walk was replaced, after 1970s Dutch Elm disease. You can see how few trees survive today and the plan would kill those.

Generally, since the 1860s storms, the Walks trees seem to have been replaced individually when they die. We have no idea what "major phases of replanting" the council is referring to in their publicity. They're not in the bid's historical survey or the Civic Society booklet "The History of The Walks". Read more about the history.

Is the plan historically accurate or forward-thinking?

Neither yet. It is not historically accurate because it places a view from the 18th century alongside a view from the 19th century, with late-Victorian-style furniture and modern visitor facilities mixed in. In any case, the setting of the Walks has changed since the first planting, with cars using roads at the edges, new housing and the football ground, among other things.

The 2004 plan was not forward-thinking because there was no attempt to prevent new Walks trees maturing in waves, almost guaranteeing that future generations would face similar management problems to today. For example, Broad Walk would be a single-species walk with trees all planted at the same time. Instead, we must try to start a management strategy which keeps the Walks as green as possible for both today and tomorrow.

The 2004 bid simply tried to "forget" the history of each Walk without remembering or learning from it. The 2005 revision is better, but the history makes us nervous.

Are the trees healthy?

Most of them are. Recently, trees in the Walks have been felled promptly if they become dangerous. Most of the trees which would be felled could live for many years if maintained, excepting storm damage and so on. Even in the oldest and least healthy walk, the majority are safe for now if maintained, according to the tree survey.

Are the trees nearing the end of their lives?

Some might be. However, the historical surveys in the bid suggest that the trees being felled were planted at various times between the 1750s and 1970s. It is incredible to claim they are all dying at the same time.

It is rather simple to claim the trees are deteriorating. They are alive and all living things will die eventually.

Does the topsoil need replacing?

Difficult to say from what we know so far. The soil surveys say "there does not appear to be a single soil-based factor" and during the last few years, it hasn't caused an obvious problem. The surveyors do recommend replacing soil, but they were asked to recommend for replanting and not for their opinion whether replanting was likely to succeed.

The soil in the Walks is very limey. If you decide that you want to replant with nursery trees, grown in ideal soil, then you probably have to replace some soil. They may still have problems from transplanting or when they meet the limey subsoil. If you grow trees from young, locally in the same limey soil, you might not need to replace the soil, especially if it is treated properly.

What wildlife is threatened by the Walks clearances?

Possibly bats. Definitely squirrels, many birds, muntjac deer and other small animals. The wildlife surveys are still being completed. For a longer list, see the science page.

What trees are there now and what would be planted?

Currently, there are Lime, Horse Chestnut, Plane and Indian Bean Trees along the Walks.

After the plan, there would be a different mix of Lime, Horse Chestnut, Plane, Beech and Hornbeam. It is likely that many of these would be new imports to the park.

Would there be more trees planted than felled?

Yes, at first, compared to now. It is not known how many of the replacements will die from transplanting, the limey subsoil or competition from the box hedges. Also, trees which have died in the last few years have not been replaced. Both of these artificially inflate the difference.

Finally, new trees will be smaller trees, with less benefit to the environment, wildlife or other plants. There is no study into the effect of increased rain run-off rate from smaller trees and improved drainage. See: Environment

Does the plan contribute to climate change?

Yes. While growing trees takes carbon out of the atmosphere, felling trees releases carbon intro the atmosphere. Disturbing soil also releases trapped carbon and a lot of soil disturbance is planned, with trenches of topsoil being replaced and hooks being pulled through remaining soil.

The Council has made large steps forwards with their Climate Change Task Group, so it is surprising that this plan could be harmful to the environment. Read more in the environment section.

When will the council consult the public?

The council says they already have. See the democracy page. We have been trying to arrange a new public meeting, now there has been more publicity of the project, but haven't been successful yet. Watch the latest news page for updates.

Is there public support for the current plan?

Not completely. For example, on the tree felling, the council collected only 13 comments on their display and some were against the tree felling. The Walks Action Group have carried out further surveys and will report shortly - check for latest news. Many comments have been against tree felling.