Sponsored by
Too costly to replant Bridge Street trees
Councillor Charles Swift suggests trees from Bridge Street could be moved to council land at Nabs Lane as they were 40 years ago.
TREES which will be removed from Bridge Street in Peterborough city centre, will have to be recycled as they are “too expensive” to relocate.
Peterborough’s longest-serving councillor, Charles Swift, had wanted the 13 trees which are set to be taken out of the shopping street by the city council moved to another location in the city, as happened when the street was pedestrianised in the 1970s.
The council wants to remove a third of the street’s trees to open up the area to more sunlight as part of its Public Realm scheme.
The planned revamp of Bridge Street is the second phase of the project, following on from refurbishment of Cathedral Square .
But the council has nipped Cllr Swift’s idea in the bud, stating that it would be too expensive to relocate the trees and they will be recycled.
A council spokeswoman said: “Due to the size of the trees it would be very costly and not that easy to relocate them.
“We don’t have an actual figure of how much it would cost, we just know from experience it would be expensive to relocate them.”
Cllr Swift hoped the trees could be moved to a council-owned area of open space, as happened in the 1970s when Bridge Street trees were moved to a site off Nab’s Lane, near the Bluebell Estate in Dogsthorpe.
The council has courted controversy by deciding to remove the trees despite 58 per cent of respondents to a consultation expressing a preference for them to stay.
However, the council decided to follow the advice from a tree condition report by The Urban Forestry Organisation in 2008, which said the trees were too close together and that some had to be removed to prevent harm to others.
The report stated: “There is a need for selective tree removal to ensure longevity of the tree stock and perpetuate an ongoing beneficial contribution to the street scene.”
However, tree surveyor Chris Rose also found that of the 53 trees in Bridge Street and Long Causeway, only one was in a poor enough condition to warrant removal.
Of these trees – all but one of which are London planes – 51 were found to have a potential lifespan of more than 40 years.
The remaining two, meanwhile, had lifespans of between 20 and 40 years.
However, the proximity of the trees in Bridge Street means some need to be removed sooner.
What do you think?
Contact our news team by email eteditor@peterboroughtoday.co.uk, telephone 01733 588719, on Twitter - @peterboroughet or use our Have Your Say form
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Peterborough
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 18 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 16 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 13 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
Richard Olive
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 08:50 PMReader22. Do you really think the elections will make any difference? The ruling party on the City Council has such a huge majority that the the loss of a few seats (perhaps even all of them!) would still leave them in power. Perhaps the increased Council Tax could reduce voter support BUT NOT THIS YEAR. The tax is set to increase by more than the inflation rate this year BUT NEXT YEAR it is very likely to increase massively when the Council budget will also be massively higher.
Ken Tucky
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 07:38 PMThe country is broke. People are losing their jobs in droves as public and private sectors are cutback. And so they're now going to waste a load more money destroying the only thing that's nice to look at on Bridge Street. This potty plan must be stopped.
Ken Tucky
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 07:37 PMThe country is broke. People are losing their jobs in droves as public and private sctors as cutback. And so they're now going to waste a load more money destroying the only thing that's nice to look at on Bridge Street. This potty plan must be stopped.
Reader22
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 05:15 PMSo we chop down trees to make way for more rubbishy fairground rides, why not at least be honest about it? Peoples views are ignored - I wonder how much was wasted on the so called 'consultation'. Perhaps the ET could start another campaign and save the trees. Thank goodness we have the elections in May when we can do a bit of felling of our own!
Kermit
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 04:32 PMPeople, the facts as reported are: ..... The plan is to remove 13 out of the 53 trees. One of those13, one is in poor condition and needs removing anyway.....The removal is being done on advice from The Urban Forestry Organisation that the trees are too close together and some have to be removed to prevent harm to others...... The report stated: “There is a need for selective tree removal to ensure longevity of the tree stock and perpetuate an ongoing beneficial contribution to the street scene.”..... What is your problem?.....
Richard Olive
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 03:11 PMIn France there is a whole industry which specialises in moving mature trees. Often planners in France will insist that new developments are planted with mature trees. But there is no similar industry in this country so we haven't got the expertise. Regular watering of any trees moved would also be a problem. Our reservoirs are already very low. The situation is likely to get worse in future years due to climate change and the massive increases in housing numbers proposed for the east of England ( the driest area of the country). Incidentally who decided this area was the best for more houses?
bumfluff
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 03:04 PMLess places for the pick pockets and bank robbers to hide
J J Carter
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 02:51 PMNot only would it cost ££, transplanted mature trees need massive watering for years which we obviously can't do with the hosepipe ban coming in.
ladyska
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 01:31 PMGreat a stark bridge street with no trees is just what the people of Peterborough want! who dreams this stuff up and then sadly makes it real?
bumfluff
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 11:28 AMcouncils should only consider planting fruit trees in public spaces
aressee
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 11:04 AMMaybe if they'd planted trees which wouldn't have grown so much or been much slower in their development in the first place the trees wouldn't have to be removed. But this is Peterborough City Council, that's obviously much to difficult to think of without employing a consultant to do their thinking for them!
aressee
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 10:58 AMMaybe they wouldn't have to do anything with the trees if they'd only listen to their electorate who voted against removal in the first place!
Kermit
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 10:12 AMAs to relocation, Nene Park Trust always seem to have plenty of money - why not get them to move the trees to Ferry Meadows where they are currently planting saplings?
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.