Plymouth City Council has announced that in order to install new traffic safety measures on Kings Road, they want to fell 4 mature trees. But the excuses given are mixed and misleading.
The council are currently running a consultation on the proposed traffic calming measures for Stonehouse, which they are legally obliged to do, but they have stated that the scheme is a condition of the planning permission granted for the Foulston Park facility.
Since planning permission was already agreed by Plymouth City Council, questions have been raised as to whether or not the consultation is just another tick box exercise, and if the decision has already been made.
The consultation, which is running until January 23, states that:
“A series of speed humps is also being proposed along this (Kings) road, which has seen several traffic accidents over the last five years, including two fatal and three serious collisions”.
In a committee meeting last year, Cllr Tom Briars-Delve (Lab, Stoke) said that he thought that keeping the 4 trees would “be very hard to justify based on the recent fatalities”.
But it has recently come to light that the council have admitted that the trees were not implicated in the 2 fatal accidents, and in fact, the trees they want to fell are not even close to where the accidents occurred.
One of the accidents involved a driver later convicted of driving under the influence of a controlled drug and sentenced to 6 years in prison.
Questions are now being raised as to why the council and the Stoke ward councillor would use these tragic deaths, neither of which involved the trees, to justify further tree loss in Plymouth.
The council have also stated that another of the trees has been involved in a collision, but one local resident commented that this was due to cars speeding around the corner, highlighting how the trees are actually protecting pedestrians from dangerous drivers.
Local tree campaigners, STRAW Plymouth, have raised concerns over the lack of information being shared by the council, saying:
“It’s disappointing and doesn’t feel like they have learned anything since the Armada Way Independent Learning Review”.
“We understand that sometimes trees must be felled but in this case, PCC have failed to justify why the felling is unavoidable”.
They said they have received some details from the council, but further questions have been left unanswered.
This information, which has “inexplicably” not been shared with the public, explains that the reason the council want rid of 3 of the 4 trees is not due to fatal accidents or accessibility on the pavement, but rather to improve lighting for the new crossings.
STRAW has called the plan to fell the London plane tree at the south end of Kings Road “an appallingly lazy approach to urban design”.
Ali White from STRAW explained that, given the limited information shared with us, it’s impossible to see why, if lighting is the problem, additional lighting cannot simply be installed when the crossings are installed.
Or existing lighting, reduced in height so it’s effective underneath the canopy of the trees, as is suggested in government guidelines. She said:
“This plan shows no sign of balancing the benefits provided by this mature, amenity tree with the convenience of felling it”.
STRAW have also asked whether the locations of the 2 crossings could be changed to avoid the tree felling altogether.
Ali White told Plymouth Plus that:
“The council have failed to share any details with the public regarding alternative options which have been considered and we do not believe the way the consultation is being run adheres to their legal obligations. We are taking legal advice on this. It’s very disappointing”.
Anyone who would like to read the comments from the council which have not been shared via their consultation page can read them here.
Sign up for free below to get notified of all the latest breaking news from Plymouth Plus.
