Jump to content

Stop the felling of the St Marks Elms


Amadeus
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, finlo said:

Would the Stabit lorry's even take that route?

 

22 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Weren;t they made at Port Soderick?

 

22 hours ago, finlo said:

Foxdale I thought?

The stone for the concrete mix came from Stony Mountain Quarry. The stabits were made at Port Soderick. I can’t remember the haul route. But it’d be logical to get them to the casting site that way.

Im sure the upgrading of the A26  and resurface well after 1980/81.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

It seems very strange that the felling of only two trees was agreed by the planning committee? Obviously the highways people have the power to override decisions made by that body? 

Not sure where you get two trees from. Trees come in various categories, A, B, C and U.

Officer report states:

2.3 There are two Cat A trees within the rows of trees on each side of the road, neither of which is being removed as part of the proposal. In total on the north western side of the road the proposal will involve the removal of 14 trees (7 Cat B and 7 Cat C) and on the south eastern side of the road, the removal of 11 trees ( 9 Cat C and 2 Cat U). The previous scheme would have resulted in the removal of 52 trees.

The two good trees are being retained. The ones with more limited life are being removed and many more planted. In 10-20 years, or a big storm, most Cat B&C will be dead or fall. Or have to be felled due to disease/deterioration. It’ll be like Ballaglass all over again. Trees, like field or hedge elm have limited life. They need felling and to be replaced from time to time.

Here are standard planning criteria for trees. It’s long established.

 

AFCB74AD-8C9E-4466-87C1-869285801E3C.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching the people on the demo on Moulton TV I almost changed my mind and regretted signing the petition. 
 

“What about the visitors? They expect to come over here and ride under the corridor of trees.”

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Not sure where you get two trees from. Trees come in various categories, A, B, C and U.

Officer report states:

2.3 There are two Cat A trees within the rows of trees on each side of the road, neither of which is being removed as part of the proposal. In total on the north western side of the road the proposal will involve the removal of 14 trees (7 Cat B and 7 Cat C) and on the south eastern side of the road, the removal of 11 trees ( 9 Cat C and 2 Cat U). The previous scheme would have resulted in the removal of 52 trees.

The two good trees are being retained. The ones with more limited life are being removed and many more planted. In 10-20 years, or a big storm, most will fall. Or have to be felled. It’ll be like Ballaglass all over again. Trees have limited life. They need felling and to be replaced from time to time.

Here are standard planning criteria for trees. It’s long established.

 

AFCB74AD-8C9E-4466-87C1-869285801E3C.jpeg

I don't dispute that John, and I agree with what you say here, but someone who attended the planning meeting told me that the committee only agreed that two trees should be felled. This was to allow a gate to be sited. It would appear that the planning committee's decision has been overridden, and yet it is they who are coming in for some of the flack? 

It's that principle which is worrying to me more than anything, the highways people were claiming that there had been accidents in the past five years, this was changed to near misses when they couldn't evidence any facts, but still couldn't quote actual near misses.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Declan said:

Watching the people on the demo on Moulton TV I almost changed my mind and regretted signing the petition. 
 

“What about the visitors? They expect to come over here and ride under the corridor of trees.”

 

Yes, it's difficult to move down there sometimes, Davison's Ice Cream vans, bouncy castles, elm tree memorabilia etc etc.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I don't dispute that John, and I agree with what you say here, but someone who attended the planning meeting told me that the committee only agreed that two trees should be felled. This was to allow a gate to be sited. It would appear that the planning committee's decision has been overridden, and yet it is they who are coming in for some of the flack? 

It's that principle which is worrying to me more than anything, the highways people were claiming that there had been accidents in the past five years, this was changed to near misses when they couldn't evidence any facts, but still couldn't quote actual near misses.   

That’s just not true. The planning decision is for 25. Whoever told you it’s two must be mixing up the two Cat A trees that are being retained.

No one has overridden the Planning Committee. Even Minister Boot hasn’t got that power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Max Power said:

.... the highways people were claiming that there had been accidents in the past five years, this was changed to near misses when they couldn't evidence any facts, but still couldn't quote actual near misses.   

When was the last time that the DOI allowed any facts or evidence to get in the way of their intentions though? (other than what they dream up to support).

If it's not "dangerous trees" it's "voids".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

That’s just not true. The planning decision is for 25. Whoever told you it’s two must be mixing up the two Cat A trees that are being retained.

No one has overridden the Planning Committee. Even Minister Boot hasn’t got that power.

The person I spoke to was quite reliable and insistent, I'll make further inquiries :) 

A friend of mine had planning permission granted for a small development, this was then subject to an appeal. The appeal was disallowed by the planning committee but a ministerial review overturned their decision, it does happen!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Max Power said:

The person I spoke to was quite reliable and insistent, I'll make further inquiries :) 

A friend of mine had planning permission granted for a small development, this was then subject to an appeal. The appeal was disallowed by the planning committee but a ministerial review overturned their decision, it does happen!   

Yes. But in this case the time for appeal has expired. Boot only gets a say after an appeal or referred planning application ( both conducted  by an inspector, not the Planning Committee ). He has no right to interfere in this case. It’s final. 
 

The planning consent is dated the date of the Committee meeting. No one has changed it since. And certainly not Highways.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Max Power said:

the highways people were claiming that there had been accidents in the past five years, this was changed to near misses when they couldn't evidence any facts, but still couldn't quote actual near misses.   

I’ve read the application. Highways have made no submissions or claims about actual or near miss incidents. Those claims were made by the applicant in the application way back in the original submission in October 20. 

The owners daughter claimed an actual hit, and others claimed several near misses. I’m assuming the owner is Doug Barrowman?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 I’m assuming the owner is Doug Barrowman?

no. Someone Day, named in that short clip Barlow posted earlier in the thread. Worth a listen.

Edited by TheTeapot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

What's that all about? Douglas Corpy being twats again?

Yeah. 
 

The Corpy, promoting cafe culture elsewhere, have ordered that the benches be removed. 
 

Devon Watson will be drafting his speech as we speak. 

 

Edited by Declan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...