Forum Topic

What a lot of posts to answer, apologies but i've been out so would have replied earlier.About 140 of the 170 trees in YG are due to be removed. Although a minority want to fight to save every tree I think most people are realistic that the development needs to go ahead, Andy is right that the housing there desperately needed replacing (we can skip over the finer points of how much private vs social housing is going to be there i guess)The vast majority of the trees to be removed are relatively young but this one particular tree (which seems to have been planted around the time the estate was laid out in the late 60's) is physically located in an area that will still be a green space at the end of the development work. The reason the developers have given for its removal is that they need to run a bunch of electrical cables (big thick things rather than little ones) across the site and that tree is in the way. They say they cannot divert the cables because there's a Thames Water pipe nearby and TW won't grant an easement to allow the cables to run nearer their pipes.BUT Thames Water have said (in writing) they have no issue with granting the easement and that the developer hasnt contacted them about doing it.So WBC say 'everything has been done to save that tree' and it's simply not the case.I was there this morning when the tree was (mostly) cut down, there were children crying everywhere and a lot (i mean a lot) of people shouting 'save the tree' from the block nearest the tree. In the three weeks that this has been going on we have had resident after resident stop by and say they support the tree protectors. Hopefully that addresses most points.

Matt Palmer ● 1844d