Friends Update December 2004

Dear Friend of the Walks,

You may have enjoyed the recent 6-page "newsletter" sent out by the Council. Multiply 3 sheets and an envelope by the number of friends and wonder how much paper and money has been used. The Council's own newsletter shows why the current plan is wrong. Here are my comments on their questions:

1. Exactly how many trees are proposed to be removed, how many are proposed to be replanted and where about in the park will this be happening?

The figure of 226 is different to the 221 I counted on drawing LA/140 in the planning application. In the break down, it's claimed that 0 are to be removed from St John's Walk, when at least one has to be removed to make room for the new kiosk. Where did these numbers come from?

No-one doubts that more trees will be planted. There are obvious gaps in the Walks from felled trees not being replaced in recent years. They could plant more trees tomorrow if they wanted.

2. Are the trees healthy?

Why are the council plucking numbers out of the air again? When you make a claim about the environment, you are supposed to explain the basis for that claim. Tree age does not matter as much as the condition and level of care. I have no idea where the figures 57% and 61% have been obtained from and "deterioration" means it needs attention rather than felling.

Martin Bell counted the following tree conditions in Appendix A2 of the Council's lottery bid:

Category	Meaning	Broad Walk	Extension Walk	St John's Walk	Tennyson Road
A	Very Healthy	3%	3%	0%	0%
A/B	Healthy	9%	3%	2%	3%
B	OK	28%	38%	52%	32%
B/C	OK/ failing	31%	42%	29%	46%
C	Failing	23%	11%	12%	16%
C/D	Dangerous	4%	3%	1%	3%
D	Dead	0%	0%	0%	0%
Other	Felled or not surveyed	1%	0%	4%	0%

The soil claims are overstated. Some possible contributing factors were identified but "there does not appear to be a single soil-based factor" (see our soil survey section for more).

Finally, the Walks have not been neat formal avenues for a very long time. They are evolving tree-lined promenades.

3. Why is it that some apparently healthy trees are marked for felling?

When considering the trees, the current plan (since January 2004) has valued uniformity above all else and ignored the heritage of the Walks. Continuing the century-old replace-as-needed practice is not seriously considered in the bid. The council's estimate of 45% mature trees in 20 years after replacement as needed is similar to today's figure of 46%. Why do they want to turn the Walks into something it's not?

Again, the soil survey evidence is exaggerated.

4. What are the implications for wildlife and the environment?

The project has focused on the original state to the exclusion of all else, even heritage and amenity. There never has been any grand "whole park" plan for the Walks - it evolved to meet the town's needs. Early project reports stated "large block felling would destroy the amenity value of the park" (Appendix B of stage one bid).

The current plan would destroy this haven for wildlife and then wait for it to rebuild slowly. Environmental damage is hard to quantify. Already heavy equipment is being dragged around the wet Red Mount Field and damaging the ground. See our wildlife sections for what we could be harming.

5. What size and type of trees will be used for the Broad Walk/Extension replacement?

30cm girth is only a bit over 9cm across. An entire avenue of trees that size is a poor replacement for the current trees which are mostly well over a half-metre across and it will increase visibility of the car parks and other unnatural features. Also note that the Beech trees on Red Mount Walk are cleverly excluded from this question: Beech has never been used along the Walks before and will be at risk from Sudden Oak Death if that spreads into England.

6. Why must we do it all now - can we not phase the felling and replacement work?

A colourised map of Broad Walk and Extension Walk suggests strong clustering of the most damaged trees. This map was generated from the Council's arboricultural report. If the worst trees really were spread along the whole length of both Walks, the Council would be producing graphics like this. They aren't - it undermines their argument. Click the map for more explanation.

If we ignore the exaggerated soil survey conclusion, we can still ask: why not replace the worst sections of Broad Walk now and see how it develops?

What about the really frequently asked questions? Can the HLF partially approve the bid? Does the plan break all sorts of planning policies? Will the council change the plan into one that friends of the Walks can support completely?