consultation report london plane trees, broad …...trees in broad street, pershore, commenced on...

Find out more online:www.worcestershire.gov.uk/pershoretrees

Worcestershire County Council

Consultation Report

London Plane Trees, Broad Street, PershoreDecember 2015

Contents:

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 2 3. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 3 4. Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 4 5. Results ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Appendices

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Worcestershire County Council is proposing to remove the existing London Plane Trees in Broad Street and replace them with a more appropriate species. Despite pollarding, the roots of these young trees are already causing damage to footways and the situation is forecast to get worse. This presents issues in terms of pedestrian safety (uneven footways) and the cost of ongoing maintenance.

1.2 Whilst there is no legal duty to consult on the proposal, Worcestershire County Council decided to undertake a consultation with the general public for a number of reasons. Specifically:

Raising the awareness and understanding of the Council's position;

To involve the community in any option selection process and subsequent decision making;

To help have an understanding of public opinion;

To improve engagement with stakeholders, businesses and residents; and

To support any relevant applications if appropriate.

1.3 The public consultation exercise for the proposed removal and/or replacement of the London Plane Trees in Broad Street, Pershore, commenced on 2nd November, 2015 and ran until 5pm on 30th November, 2015. Over a four week period it sought to consult on the proposals to remove and replace the trees with a more appropriate species and obtain feedback.

1.4 The main aim of the exercise was to present the proposal, inform on options and collect views via a series of questions. The questions were focused on the following key areas:

To ensure that the respondents fully understood why Worcestershire County Council were proposing to remove the existing trees;

To present four viable options that were consistent with the proposal;

To collect overall views including any potential for viable deliverable alternative ideas that could support retaining the existing London Plane Trees.

1.5 Respondents were invited to participate in order to:

Establish that the respondent felt fully informed regarding the option choice they were about to make;

Identify a preferred removal and/or replacement option;

Determine if there were any new, viable propositions for keeping the trees that had not previously been considered and that could now be investigated.

1.6 The purpose of this report is to feedback the results to all participants as well as interested parties.

Section 2 summarises the outcomes of the consultation exercise in brief;

Section 3 carries the recommendations of this report;

Section 4 covers the methodology;

Section 5 details the results of the exercise;

2

2. Summary

2.1 237 survey responses from online and paper forms were received in response to this public consultation exercise. The spread of responses, as you would expect, centred on Pershore Town and local villages, although there were some responses from further afield.

2.2 57% of respondents who gave their postcode lived in Pershore, with similar response levels from men and women. 44% of respondents were over the age of 65.

2.3 83% agreed that they understood the rationale behind the proposals. The majority of those who stated that they did not understand, questioned whether more could be done to keep the existing trees with better maintenance.

2.4 Malus trilobata was the preferred option of replacement species, selected by 94 people (50%).

2.5 159 respondents wrote free text comments. The top five themes included:

Retain existing trees;

Replant low maintenance 'appropriate' trees;

Replant with the Malus options;

Prune trees regularly (new or existing);

The proposal is a good idea.

2.6 Five written responses were received from members of the public. Three responses were supportive of the proposal and two would prefer to see the existing trees retained. The key themes were reflective of the free text comments.

2.7 There was one external report received and this has been responded to in Section 5. The key conclusions from the report were:

Unless much bigger tree pits are provided, replacement trees may also disrupt pavers;

The current very ugly and un-sympathetic pollarding could be improved to fit the trees to the restricted space available;

Removal of cages and grills, surfacing tree pits with loose material, root pruning, and improved pruning methods, could be tried for a few years before the drastic measure of tree removal with all the costs involved.

2.7.1 Unfortunately, there were no suitable viable alternative ideas suggested within this report that could be practically delivered.

2.7.2 There was one media release issued regarding the consultation. In total 16 articles were generated across the print media and their online services with an Equivalent Advertising Value (EAV) of approximately £2,781.32.

3

3. Recommendations

3.1 The Consultation Report for the proposal to remove and/or replace the London Plane trees in Broad Street, Pershore recommends that:

All the information contained in this report is shared with the participants;

That the report is used to inform the Project Team so that they may take a timely decision in relation to the proposal;

Any comments received relating to the proposal are duly considered by the project team and appropriately acknowledged;

That all participants are informed of any decisions taken and updated accordingly throughout the process via the website: www.worcestershire.gov.uk/pershoretrees

3.2 The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of the consultation exercise in a concise and transparent way and NOT to recommend a decision or course of action pertaining to the removal and/or replacement of the trees. The project team should use this report in order to fully consider the outcomes, drawing their own conclusions and agreeing any subsequent decision recommendation.

4

4. Methodology

4.1 Engagement Material

4.1.1 A mix of consultation material was produced, in collaboration with the project team, to support the implementation of the public consultation exercise. The branding of the material reflected the well-established marketing 'highways' identity of the WCC BEC Directorate.

4.1.2 The leaflet questionnaire and pull ups: Copies of the materials are provided in the appendices as follows:

Appendix A – A copy of the leaflet questionnaire;

Appendix B – A copy of the Exhibition Pull Up.

4.1.3 The website: www.worcestershire.gov.uk/pershoretrees was designed to reflect the hard copy material and included a PDF of the leaflet and an on-line survey.

4.2 Methods

4.2.1 Various methods were adopted to ensure that the engagement process was as inclusive as possible whilst retaining significance to the stakeholder. This mix of methods ranged from individual meetings, exhibitions, letters, emails, questionnaire leaflets and website.

4.2.2 A number of meetings have taken place with principal stakeholders; these include:

Wychavon District Council;

Pershore Town Council;

Local WCC Member;

Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways;

Highways Maintenance Contractor;

WCC Strategy Officer.

4.2.3 Where individual meetings were not held with stakeholders, letters or emails were sent containing all the information required to enable the respondent to make an informed response. The Key Stakeholders are outlined in Appendix C: List of Stakeholders.

4.2.4 The Worcestershire County Council website was a key feedback method; incorporating the survey electronically and a PDF copy of the leaflet so that it could be downloaded: www.worcestershire.gov.uk/pershoretrees

4.2.5 Questionnaire leaflets were distributed to key locations in Pershore such as the library and the Town Hall.

4.2.6 A staffed exhibition with a full display took place at Asda in the town centre on 12th November. Two staff attended between the hours of 4pm and 7pm.

4.2.7 There were unstaffed exhibitions at Pershore Library and Town Hall running from 5th November until the end of the exercise. The unstaffed exhibits consisted of three pull-ups to give the details of the proposal and the response leaflets.

5

4.2.8 One media release was issued to all relevant media on 3rd November, 2015. The exercise was also announced on Twitter.

4.3 Target Audiences

4.3.1 The geographical area targeted was specific to the residents, businesses and stakeholders of Pershore and its hinterland.

6

5. Results

5.1 237 responses were received to the public consultation exercise. Respondents were provided with a full colour document explaining the reasons behind the proposal to remove the existing London Plane trees in Broad Street and giving details of the options for replacement with a more appropriate species.

5.2 Personal details

5.2.1 Respondents were asked for their connection to the local area; more than one option could be selected and percentages in the table 5.1 below sum to more than 100%. The majority of respondents were Pershore residents, some also business owners.

TABLE 5.1: CONNECTION TO THE LOCAL AREA

Status (Your connection to the area) 57% Pershore resident 28% Local village resident 14% Shopper 4% Local business 4% Both resident and business 9% Work in the area 2% Visitor 5% Other (please state)

7

Base: 235 responses

5.2.2 219 respondents provided a full postcode and the locations of these are shown on the map below. As expected the majority of these are in the town of Pershore, with particular concentrations in the centre near to Broad Street.

5.2.3 A similar number of responses were received from men and women (see Table 5.2) and the majority of respondents were older adults (see Table 5.3). People aged between 55 and 74 were particularly likely to have responded, making up 58% of the sample (compared to around a third of the adult population of Pershore).

TABLE 5.2: GENDER PROFILE

Base: 234 responses

Gender

52% Male

48% Female

8

TABLE 5.3: AGE PROFILE

Age

4% 16 - 24 3% 25 - 34 24% 35 - 54 25% 55 - 64 33% 65 - 74

11% 75+

Base: 234 responses

5.3 Question 1: Understanding

5.3.1 Respondents were asked if they understood the reasoning behind the proposals, 83% agreed. This is shown in Table 5.4. The majority of those who stated that they did not understand questioned whether more could be done to keep the existing trees with better maintenance.

TABLE 5.4: QUESTION 1 RESPONSE

Base: 235 responses

5.4 Question 2: Option Selection

5.4.1 Respondents were asked for their preferred option of replacement species, the most popular choice was Malus trilobata; selected by 94 people.

TABLE 5.5: QUESTION 2 RESPONSE

Base: 189 responses

5.4.2 Malus trilobata was a popular option across the age groups with Acer campestre 'Streetwise' the second choice for those aged 35 and over. Tilia cordata 'Rancho' was selected by a relatively high number amongst the small number of respondents aged under 35. Map 5.1 below shows the choice of replacement species by home postcode, indicating the widespread support for Malus trilobata.

Given the on-going maintenance costs and the risk to pedestrians, existing foot ways, nearby buildings and utility infrastructure (e.g. drains); do you understand why we are proposing to remove/replace the trees? Yes 83% No 17%

Please select your preferred option regarding the replacement of the trees

8% A. Removal and no replacement

26% B. Acer campestre ‘Streetwise’

50% C. Malus trilobata

16% D. Tilia cordata ‘Rancho’

9

MAP 5.1: OPTIONS BY POSTCODE

5.5 Question 3: Comments

5.5.1 Respondents were given the opportunity to make further free text comments, 159 respondents did so resulting in 187 comments.

5.5.2 The analysis of the free text comments is subjective and open to interpretation by the individual undertaking the analysis. This analysis was conducted externally to the project team and it was not possible to evaluate some comments. For transparency all free text comments are shown in Appendix D.

5.5.3 The 'free text' comments can be have been broadly categorised in Table 5.6 below. Worcestershire County Council has provided a general response to each comment type.

TABLE 5.6: EVALUATION OF FREE TEXT COMMENTS

Further comments and suggestions

Comment Type No. of Comments

WCC Response

Retain existing trees 30 The Planes have already grown large surface roots that are displacing the pavement. This cannot be reversed by pollarding or other crown pruning. Removal of these larger roots would render the trees open to colonisation by decay fungi and make them potentially unstable.

10

Replant low maintenance 'appropriate' trees

25 Noted.

WCC feels that any of the species options proposed can be appropriately maintained and will support the preferred option selected as a result of the public consultation.

Replant with the Malus option

21 Noted.

The outcomes from the consultation have identified the Malus as the preferred option.

Prune trees regularly 19 The pruning of the trees will not prevent them continuing to outgrow and damage the location. The trees are of a size that even with annual pruning, incremental stem and root growth will continue to disrupt the footpath & highway.

Regular pruning would have minimal impact on the root growth of the existing trees

New trees: Noted – The replacement trees will not require anyway near the level of maintenance of the current London Plane trees.

Good idea 15 Noted.

Repair pavements or use more suitable paving

12 The materials for the current footways were decided upon locally with key stakeholders including the District and Town Councils. It would be WCC's aspirations to retain and repair these footways accordingly and it is not within the proposals to change the footway materials. With a more appropriate tree species and planting methods, block footways are unlikely to require frequent maintenance as damage will be significantly reduced. Consequently the footways will be more cost effective to maintain and safer to walk on.

Where is the option to keep existing trees?

11 Keeping the existing trees was not part of the option proposals as WCC felt that the London Plane is inappropriate for Broad Street and costly to maintain.

As with many Highway Authorities Worcestershire County Highways is no longer planting tree species where there is not sufficient space for them to grow. This includes London Plane and several other species. More suitable species are to be used. This saves the

11

costs of maintaining the trees and the associated difficulties that can be caused to highway infrastructure and private residents.

It would have been more misleading to have proposed an option that Worcestershire County Council was not able to deliver due to the reasons cited above.

Plant new trees with root guards if they need them

9 Noted – it is assumed that the comment pertains to 'root barriers' to restrict root growth.

Replace with London Planes 'properly managed'

9 London Plane trees were selected by a third party when the trees were last replaced in approx. 2000-2002. Even if barriers had been fitted at this time, the root system of the London Plane would not have been contained and a similar situation would have arisen. This is why alternative species are being recommended on this occasion.

Go for lowest cost option 7 Noted.

Why put people at risk 7 Noted. There will be less risk of people injuring themselves if a more appropriate species is planted. A reduced root system will have a reduced impact on the footway and create less damage.

Already decided 6 A decision will not be taken until the consultation period has finished and the outcomes have been considered.

Why not consult the Horticulture College

5 A letter was issued to the college inviting them to participate. See stakeholder list in the appendices.

Change car park arrangements

3 Whilst a valid suggestion, reconfiguring the car park does not form part of the proposals at this time.

Concerned those wanting to keep the existing trees will dominate the survey with their views

Don't forget the 'silent' majority who would be in favour of replacing the trees with a sensible option

2 Noted. It is normal and expected that those who are most 'opposed' to the proposals participate to a greater degree than those who are less interested. It is important to bear this in mind when evaluated the results and coming to a decision

12

Re-issue survey with details of costs

2 The details of full total costs were included in the consultation material. Breakdowns could have been provided on request; however, this would not have provided the respondee with any further information in order to compare the total costs of the options presented.

The LP have stood for 100 years without problem: Why change now?

2 See Comment Type 1.

Presume costs quoted also include for dealing with root system of existing Plane trees

1 Yes, this is correct.

Use property developer funds towards trees

1 For WCC highway contributions, developer funding is limited and is prioritised towards supporting the delivery of any essential highways and passenger transport infrastructure necessary to mitigate the impact of the development. However the district council will often request and hold open space contributions – albeit unlikely for the expensive ongoing maintenance of the London Planes and associated root damage to the footway. Refer to Wychavon.

Although there were comments to keep the existing trees, unfortunately there were no pragmatic proposals as to how the existing trees could be retained whilst addressing the issues faced of continuing damage to the footways and regular pollarding.

Total comments received 187

5.6 Written Correspondence

5.6.1 Five written pieces of correspondence were received from stakeholders and members of the public and these are shown in full in Appendix E. For a summary see Table 5.7 below.

5.6.2 The number of responses from stakeholders was very low.

TABLE 5.7: EVALUATION OF WRITTEN RESPONSES

Respondee Summary of Comment WCC Project Team Response

Transport Provision of an attractive public realm is critical to the socio-economic success of

Agreed

13

Strategy tourist-historic towns such as Pershore.

The London Plane tree specimens in Broad Street have outgrown their tree pits, which is evident by the noticeable damage that the roots have caused to the public highway.

The loss of these trees would reduce the sense of a quality public space; therefore, replacement with more appropriate specimens represents a sensible and positive solution to this issue.

I am happy to lend my support to the proposal to replace the street trees in Pershore's Broad Street.

Agreed

Agreed

Noted

Local retired horticulture lecturer

London Plane trees were not ideal in the 1890s due to roots and large leaves causing accidents.

Annual pollarding of London Planes is expensive.

No sense in repeating the mis-planting of boulevard trees

Suggest Plane Trees are removed (replanted somewhere suitable?)

Replace by slow growing trees with seasonal blossom and autumn foliage.

Suggestions made

All proposed options are a suitable replacement for the situation

Agreed

Agreed

Agreed

Noted, although replanting may not be possible.

Agreed

Noted

Thank you for the extensive list of suggestions. Whilst too late to change the options for Broad Street, the proposed tree species will be seriously considered as potential options for other locations in Worcestershire

Noted

14

Local Participant

Pleased that we are able to have a chance to have our say concerning the Broad Street trees.

As a trained horticulturist I was highly surprised when these plane trees were first planted. They are entirely the wrong species for the road and I had to question as to who had organised their planting?

It is an absolute necessity to remove these trees before more pavement damage and accidents happen.

I believe that the choice of the Malus would be the best as besides being a smaller, more compact tree it has the advantage of the deep Autumn colours.

Noted

Although WCC organised the planting of the trees in approx. 2000-2002, the species was selected by a key local stakeholder.

Noted

Noted

Local Participant

I would like to oppose the removal of the trees currently in Broad Street, Pershore. They can surely be pruned appropriately each year and the grating at the base of the trees renewed with some sort of protection to prevent people tripping over.

The Planes have already grown large surface roots that are displacing the pavement. This cannot be reversed by pollarding or other crown pruning. Removal of these larger roots would render the trees open to colonisation by decay and make them potentially unstable

Local Participant

Whilst I can fully appreciate the problems caused by the roots at the moment - surely there MUST be something that can be done. I think the metal framework has only exacerbated the root problem and are more of a hazard. REGULAR pollarding is needed on any tree

Option B ) Any tree with 'winged seeds' is problematic,

Option C) Crab apples - you are asking for problems - it only takes one person to slip on squashed fruit....... the fruit will fall into gutters, onto pavements. Again, who is going to go round and sweep these up every day....

Option D) It would appear that the Tilia will grow very tall,

I don't think any of the tree species are suitable

WCC has considered the situation and is not able to identify a cost effective way to maintain the existing trees going forward. One of the aims of the consultation was to invite any suggestions from other sources, perhaps a viable idea would come forward that had not previously been considered. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.

Rarely fruiting variety, only in very hot summers.

15

5.7 Exhibitions and Events

5.7.1 The staffed and unstaffed exhibitions were delivered effectively with the majority of feedback being very positive towards the proposal. Whilst attendance at the unstaffed exhibitions cannot be quantified, around 100 people showed interest in Asda on 17th November.

5.7.2 One box of leaflets was distributed at the staffed event.

5.8 Tree Consultant Report

5.8.1 A report was commissioned by a local resident and have been duly considered as part of the consultation process. The conclusions from the report are shown and responded to in Table 5.8 below.

TABLE 5.8: TREE CONSULTANT REPORT

Conclusion Point WCC Project Team Response

General Whilst the report was interesting and helpful unfortunately there are no realistic solutions proposed that would enable the existing trees to be retained. We would, however, like to thank the local resident for sending it to the local stakeholder for inclusion.

Unless much bigger tree pits are provided, replacement trees may also disrupt pavers

The replacement trees are much smaller than the current London Plane. The root systems will be contained within a bespoke planting pit that includes root barriers.

The current very ugly and un-sympathetic pollarding could be improved to fit the trees to the restricted space available.

Pruning of the existing trees will not solve the issues such as damage to the footway.

Removal of cages and grills, surfacing tree pits with loose material, root pruning, and improved pruning methods, could be tried for a few years before the drastic measure of tree removal with all the costs involved.

Loose materials are not suited to a busy public footway. It would create mess, trip hazards and possible vandalism issues, especially if cobbles were used, as suggested in the report.

Root pruning would be detrimental to the structural and physiological health of the trees. It would also require the block paving surface to be removed each time it occurred. This would be expensive and disruptive and is simply not practical.

16

5.9 Media

5.9.1 On November 3rd, 2015, a media release was issued regarding the consultation.

5.9.2 In total 16 articles were generated across the print media and their online services with an Equivalent Advertising Value (EAV) of approximately £2,781.32.

5.9.3 In addition:

A Twitter Social Media Message was sent. The tweet had a reach of 12,094 (Reach = the total number of WCC followers plus their followers i.e. total potential who may have seen our Tweet);

The WCC website homepage received 381 hits with 282 unique views (different people).


Appendix A

: Pershore Trees Leaflet and Questionnaire

Appendix A: Pershore Trees Leaflet and Questionnaire

2

Proposal to Replace the London Plane Trees. Broad Street – Pershore

What are we proposing?Worcestershire County Council is proposing to remove the existing London Plane trees in Broad Street and replace them with a more appropriate species. This will include addressing any damage to the footways caused by the trees and reinstating the block paving.

Why Are We Doing This?

The London Plane trees are starting to cause issues to existing highway infrastructure. Specifically, the roots are starting to raise the blockwork of the footways and the grating surrounding the base of the trees. Where the footways have been repaired, the tarmac patching looks very unsightly.

To date, a number of injuries to pedestrians have been reported.

Despite pollarding, the foliage continues to block light into nearby windows and the expanding root system is left totally unmanaged. The roots are tough and aggressive and could cause further damage to footways as well as impacting upon nearby privately owned properties and infrastructure belonging to statutory utility undertakers (e.g. water/electricity/gas).

The trees have already outgrown their ironwork protection frames and replacing these with larger frames or building ‘raised beds’ is not a solution. Indeed, raised beds could create a further tripping hazard and would inevitably also suffer damage from root invasion.

Why Can’t We Manage The Existing Trees Further?

Worcestershire County Council has been aware of problems with the trees and footway surfaces in Broad Street for some time. During this time interim work has been carried out in order that options could be explored for the future maintenance of the area.

As part of these considerations the existing trees have been assessed by an arbouriculturist who has recommended that the long term management of the area would be best served by their replacement with a more appropriate species.

The London Plane, which was historically chosen primarily for its resistance to air pollution, has a potential for significant growth. It is this growth that threatens the existing, restricted environment that could lead to increased deterioration in footways, utilities infrastructure and nearby structures.

3

CostsExisting Trees

The cost of maintaining the existing London Plane trees over the next 15 years amounts to £29,900. This cost does NOT include any compensation claims against the Council for personal injury or property damage. These additional costs could be significant.

Ultimately, the trees will still need to be removed as they will, at some point in the future, outgrow their location.

Option Costs

The cost of each proposed option over the next 15 years amounts to:

• Option A (removal and no replacement): £4,860

• Option B (replacement with Acer Campestre): £18,710

• Option C (replacement with Malus Trilobata): £17,460

• Option D (replacement with Tilia Cordata): £19,960

All options will include the reinstatement of block paving.


Option B – Acer Campestre ‘Streetwise’

Option A – Remove the existing trees and do not replant

Options to Replace the Existing London Plane Trees

To remove the existing trees, not replacing them with an alternative species. This would mean that there would no longer be any trees in Broad Street.

A number of recommendations have been put forward by tree specialists. These have been shortlisted to the following options.

4

This field maple tree has been bred with a neat, narrow, upright egg shaped canopy. Ideal for planting where space is limited.

Trees are expected to reach a height of about 10 metres.

The spring leaves are green, deepening as the summer goes on and the autumn colour is an orangey-yellow. There are winged seeds.

5

This low maintenance species grows to approximately 7m. It has a narrow compact form with small flowers and leaves that turn from orange to red to deep purple in the Autumn. Flowers but only produces small fruit (crab apple) after very hot summers.

Option C – Malus Trilobata

6


Option D – Tilia Cordata ‘Rancho’

Data ProtectionAny personal information will be held and used in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Worcestershire County Council will not disclose such information to any unauthorised person or body but, where appropriate, will use such information when carrying out its various functions and services.

What Happens next?Thank you for taking the time to respond to this consultation. All consultation responses will be assessed and the findings included in a report to assist the decision making process. The outcomes from this exercise will be considered at the start of December 2015 with a decision expected later that same month. We are not able to acknowledge individual comments, however these will be evaluated and reported upon anonymously on our website after the closing date together with any decisions taken.

This grows to approximately 15 metres tall. It branches diagonally upright and is not overhanging. The leaves are small and dark green, turning yellow in Autumn.

7

Response Form1. Given the on-going maintenance costs and the risk to pedestrians, existing foot ways, nearby buildings and utility infrastructure (e.g. drains), do you understand why we are proposing to remove/replace the trees?

Yes

No (If no, please explain)

2. Please select your preferred option regarding the replacement of the trees (Please tick one).

A. Removal and no replacement

B. Acer Campestre ‘Streetwise’

C. Malus trilobata

D. Tilia Cordata ‘Rancho’

3. Do you have any further comments? (please write any other comments or suggestions below):

Personal DetailsPlease tick your details:

Status (tick the one box that mostly describes your status)

Pershore resident

Local village resident

Shopper

Local business

Both resident and business

Work in the area

Visitor

Other (please state)

Gender

Male Female

Age range

16-24 25-34 35-54

55-64 65 -74 75+

Home post code:

Please send in your responses by 5pm, Monday 30th November, 2015 to:Transport Programme and Commissioning Team Worcestershire County Council Pavilion E2 Spetchley Road Worcester WR5 2NP

If you have access to the internet, please respond on-line: www.worcestershire.gov.uk/pershoretrees

Thank you for getting involved.


Appendix B: Pershore Trees Exhibition Pull U

ps

Appendix B: Pershore Trees Exhibition Pull Ups


Proposal to Replace the London Plane Trees.Broad Street – Pershore

What are we proposing?Worcestershire County Council is proposing to remove the existing London Plane trees in Broad Street and replace them with a more appropriate species. This will include addressing any damage to the footways caused by the trees and reinstating the block paving.

Why Are We Doing This?The London Plane trees are starting to cause issues to existing highway infrastructure. Specifically, the roots are starting to raise the blockwork of the footways and the grating surrounding the base of the trees. Where the footways have been repaired, the tarmac patching looks very unsightly.

To date, a number of injuries to pedestrians have been reported.

Despite pollarding, the foliage continues to block light into nearby windows and the expanding root system is left totally unmanaged. The roots are tough and aggressive and could cause further damage to footways as well as impacting upon nearby privately owned properties and infrastructure belonging to statutory utility undertakers (e.g. water/electricity/gas).

The trees have already outgrown their ironwork protection frames and replacing these with larger frames or building ‘raised beds’ is not a solution. Indeed, raised beds could create a further tripping hazard and would inevitably also suffer damage from root invasion.

Why Can’t We Manage The Existing Trees Further?Worcestershire County Council has been aware of problems with the trees and footway surfaces in Broad Street for some time. During this time interim work has been carried out in order that options could be explored for the future maintenance of the area.

As part of these considerations the existing trees have been assessed by an arbouriculturist who has recommended that the long term management of the area would be best served by their replacement with a more appropriate species.

The London Plane, which was historically chosen primarily for its resistance to air pollution, has a potential for significant growth. It is this growth that threatens the existing, restricted environment that could lead to increased deterioration in footways, utilities infrastructure and nearby structures.



CostsExisting TreesThe cost of maintaining the existing London Plane trees over the next 15 years amounts to £29,900. This cost does NOT include any compensation claims against the Council for personal injury or property damage. These additional costs could be significant.

Ultimately, the trees will still need to be removed as they will, at some point in the future, outgrow their location.

Option CostsThe cost of each proposed option over the next 15 years amounts to:

• Option A (removal and no replacement): £4,860

• Option B (replacement with Acer Campestre): £18,710

• Option C (replacement with Malus Trilobata): £17,460

• Option D (replacement with Tilia Cordata): £19,960

All options will include the reinstatement of block paving.



Options to Replace the Existing London Plane Trees

A number of recommendations have been put forward by tree specialists. These have been shortlisted to the following options.

This grows to approximately 15 metres tall. It branches diagonally upright and is

not overhanging. The leaves are small and dark green, turning yellow in Autumn.

Option D – Tilia Cordata ‘Rancho’

Option A – Remove the existing trees and do not replantTo remove the existing trees, not replacing them with an alternative species. This would mean that there would no longer be any trees in Broad Street.

This low maintenance species grows to approximately 7m. It has a narrow compact form with small flowers and leaves that turn from orange to red to deep purple in the Autumn. Flowers but only produces small fruit (crab apple) after very hot summers.

Option C – Malus Trilobata

This field maple tree has been bred with a neat, narrow, upright egg shaped canopy. Ideal for planting where space is limited.

Trees are expected to reach a height of about 10 metres.

The spring leaves are green, deepening as the summer goes on and the autumn colour is an orangey-yellow. There are winged seeds.

Option B – Acer Campestre ‘Streetwise’





Appendix C: Key Stakeholders

Appendix C: Key Stakeholders

Key Stakeholders

Abbey Park First

Abbey Park Middle

Birlingham Parish Council

Bus Operators

Cherry Orchard First School Pershore

Cropthorne Parish Council

Defford & Besford Parish Council

Drakes Broughton & Wadborough with Pirton Parish Council

Elmley Castle, Bricklehampton & Netherton Parish Council

Fladbury Parish Council

Great Comberton Parish Council

Hill & Moor Parish Council

Holy Redeemer R. C. Primary School

Little Comberton Parish Council

Local Residents

Local Businesses

Pershore Civic Society

Pershore Group of Colleges

Pershore High School

Pershore Older Peoples Forum

Pershore Leisure Centre

Pershore Tourist Information Centre

Pereshore Volunteer Centre

Pershore Town Council

Pinvin Parish Council

Ringway

Stoulton Parish Council

WCC Strategy

WCC maintenance

Wick Parish Council

Wychavon District Council,

Pershore Chamber of Trade

Wyre Piddle Parish Council


Appendix D

: Free Text Comm

ents

Appendix D: Free Text Comments

Good idea. Why put people at risk

Suggest trees are planted with root guards and are pruned regularly in a proactive fashion not reactive

In the ongoing interest of highway safety I feel that the car parking should be amended to Provide angled parking bays in lieu of the existing dangerous parallel bays in such a way To enable easier and safer entry and exit from the bay’s into live traffic in the vicinity of parked Or waiting buses. Then replant with Malus trilobata with some interplanted among the parking bays.

Please see Q1 response

Plane tree’s have been standing in Broad Street for well over 120 years what gives you the right to change this now. For over 100 years they have stood there with no problem until now. Just shows the incompetence of the council at the time of the planting. And why has there not been a request to our local nationally recognized horticultural collage, the head of which has stated that no one has at anytime consulted the collage.

Where is the option to leave well alone!!!

This survey should be re-called and re-issued with details of costs involved together with an option to keep the current trees.

I would very much appreciate an option in Q2 that says “Leave the current trees well alone and maintain them as they should have been maintained in the past” We would not be having this consultation now if all maintenance procedures have been put in place when they were planted. In my opinion, this is a totally biased consultation with heavily weighted questions and the people responsible should be ashamed of themselves trying to pull the wool over their constituents eyes!!!

I’m a little concerned that the “angry brigade” who want no change and are blinkered in wanting to keep the existing trees will dominate this survey. I suspect there will be a silent majority in favour of your sensible approach to this problem but through apathy will not complete the survey. I hope this will be factored into your findings and final analysis. I would equally favour any of the options B, C or D - but have settled on one option.

Presumably the costs quoted in the Proposal document also includes for dealing with the root system of the existing Plane trees

In view of the current problem, please ensure that this is the correct decision this time based on professional understanding of trees in this situation. I find it unbelievable that this was not the situation in the first attempt.

It would be helpfull if some of the characteristics of the preferred options could be listed but I do think that suitable low maintence trees should be planted.

Correct size species for Broad street, public safety is important. Plus Council needs to save money.

If felling is truly necessary, then the trees should be replaced by PROPERLY MANAGED London Planes.

Broad Street has always had trees, and it is by far the pretties street in Pershore. However - I understand that the Plain trees were not the right choice for Broad Street. The Malus Trilobata looks lovely, with blossom in the summer and a lovely colour in the autumn. I do hope they are replaced though, as we were told the trees removed from the park by the abbey would be replaced, but they never were.

i feel that Broad street would not look as nice without trees,but also with bees under threat a tree that produces blossom would be ecologically sound too. I n my opinion there is no such option as “removing trees without replacing them “,in fact i feel more trees are whats needed in todays world . The blossom trail could incorporate broad street if the trees were of that type .

Option A is the worst option. The street’s character shoul ve maintained.

It would be very wrong to have no trees in Broad Street

No trees in Broad Street would be totally unthinkable. The same number of trees should be replaced, not just a token few. Broad Street is the only street in the centre of Pershore with any trees at all.

The plane trees should not be removed as they are part and parcel of the fabric of Pershore, perhaps if they were managed better regarding pruning etc. the above mentioned trees are completely alien and would be completely out of place.

do not waste tax money just prune the trees.the square with trees please.

I would have further comments but..like everything else you’ll just totally ignore them

I’m an Arboricultural lecturer at Pershore College, we have already carried out a public consultation regarding these trees and the public overwhelmingly want either: 1. No work carried out (trees retained) 2. Replacement with the same species, i.e. London plane. Pershore is an historic town and has a history of plane trees planted in this location. If planted correctly with suitable root barriers then I see no future problem. John Hancock

Maintained pollards and simple cheap footway replacement, removing the grilles which are inbuilt trip, weed and detritus traps will resolve the issues here. Removing the we must have block paving everywhere, glass flat footways and maintenance free tree attitudes of those involved to come to a reasonable compromise is the solution. I manage 78000 urban street trees, and use many methods to overcome these issues.

Would be very sad to see Broad St without any trees - could not replacements be planted in large containers (as in main cities ie Oxford St inLondon) - so root growth would not cause any issues ??

Rather a poorly considered range of replacements or are these just cheaply available?

Living in Broad St, it’s essential to keep replace the London Plane trees; which of the three alternative species is almost irrevelent but why suggest option “D” which will grow to 15 metres? At 15 metres will this just become a height problem in years to come?

I have no idea what the trees you are suggesting are - a photo and English name would have helped. Whatever the tree, if not planted with the correct paraphernalia and maintained regularly, you will get the same problem. The current trees are not that old, if you haven’t been able to maintain them, I can’t see how you will be able to maintain better a new set. And this does not mean I wouldn’t want trees, I do feel it would be negative to have no trees on Broadsteet, knowing we are supposed to be looking at saving the planet, avoiding floods, reducing atmospheric carbone etc etc. And to be totally honest, I don’t have much sympathy with the people complaining the trees are stopping daylight coming into the house, the trees were probably there before them (or the trees that were there before).

Give the community a fair opportunity to retain the character of this town. Clearly, I don’t want the trees removed

I think a tree with a dropping fruit , however small would add to the problems, but the others look lovely.

The acer, I think, will drop seeds and sucker everywhere; the malus will drop its fruit all over the pavement and perhaps cause an even worse hazard (also, it’s not native). The tilia seems to me the best option, as it is a native and would fit in with the limes by the Parish Centre. It would also be very good for bees when it was flowering. But is it not possible to save the planes, and manage them properly? They are so much better now they’ve been pollarded, and they fit in really well with Broad Street. I appreciate that the pavements are an issue, but surely that could be kept from getting worse if the trees were kept under control. Couldn’t we at least give them another couple of years, keep them regularly pruned, and see how the pavements cope. Then replace them only if management has been proven not to work.

Where is the option to retain the current London Plane trees and have them properly maintained whilst reinstating the pavement correctly?

My choice would seem to have the least dense crown for the residents and have different appeal in the different seasons

The trees are a lovely feature so should not be lost. The paths need to as level as possible. Replacing with a smaller more manageable tree seems a very sensible option

Chosen because of height and look of the tree

I think questions should be asked of whoever made the original decision to plant these tree. Did no one research the growth patterns etc.This is not a consultation as it has been decided to remove the trees.

Q2 is wrong, as it does not list “assess how the trees can be kept while providing a safe environment”. If you don’t give residents this option, it’s not really a consultation

I feel that the money would be better spent on educating younder people than on retaining inappropriatly planted trees. It’s a shame that the wrong trees were planted in the first place and it seems that trimming alone will not contain the roots. But that is the situation. Although sad, it’s better to replace now than have the problem for years to come.

London Plane are excellent street trees if planted correctly within hard surfacing. It seems a shame that a like for like replacement is not given as an option, whilst utilising good design of planting pits and root barriers. The replacement trees are rather small species even at maturity but London Planes have broad crowns and provide good canopy cover which is increasingly important in the face of climate change - both to provide shade and slow the runoff of heavy rainfall.

I am happier that I now understand that there is infrastructure damage and they were not being disposed of because some clumsy person fell over.!!!!

the wood from the plane trees needs to be used by local crafts people to add to the heritage of Pershore-what about benches for starters

Unfortunately, the Plane trees have out grown their location. It is somewhat of a moot point to complain about how they were planted/maintained in the past. Interestingly, the London Plane is a hydrid of Oriental & American Plane and naturally occurs in Spain & Southern France. It is first thought to have been planted in the UK in 1680. Certainly not a native tree and in the grand scheme of UK tree history, it has been here only a short time. It was favoured in the past due to its ability to tolerate pollution in towns. Root barriers have been mentioned as a possible solution. Notwithstanding this, they don’t prevent surface damage in the long term, due to the propensity of roots to grow either over them, or under them and then grow upwards. This is especially true with such a vigourous species like London Plane. I consider that the Malus trilobata will be an ideal replacement. It should require little maintenance and can be allowed to grow to its full potential. It will also provide excellent visual amenity, due to its flowers, small maple like leaves and excellent autumn colour.

The paved area should be repaired properly and replacement trees properly managed from now on. Broad Street would not be same without avenues of trees

This makes sense - the trees look a mess currently, which is a shame as this is an attractive part of Pershore Town Centre.

Very much opposed to option A; any of the other options look acceptable

Comparing the eventual size/height/spread of the tree options I believe this is the most appropriate for Broad Street. The summer and autumn colours are most appealing and the Acer has the advantage over the other options - crab apples can be hazardous on the pavements and the Tilia is too dense and ultimately too tall.

I would like to see native trees replanted

The proposal does not state how long the existing trees have been in Broad Street and presumably properly managed. This seems like a deliberate omission to avoid any detraction from the Councils message. However, if a solution can be achieved that improves safety and reduces costs without leaving Broad Street without its current tree lined appearance then that is a sensible way forward.

C. Malus trilobite might well suffer wind burn in that location which is a problem with crab apples and in particular that one, the wind will be funnelled between the buildings. D. Tilia Cordata ‘Rancho’ tend to attract aphids which leave a sticky mess which would transfer to the paving

Plant trees also in High Street

Whichever species is chosen, root restriction and a proper maintenance plan are essential to prevent the recent issues recurring. A “phased” replacement over two or three years might be better than all in one year.

Essential to replace these trees - too many unprotected trees are removed and not replaced by residents to the detriment of the environment. Why is this a town of tree-haters? Option C would be pleasant, but I fear complaints from people about falling blossoms followed by falling fruit, hence choice of D. Option B trees are wrong shape and proportions.

I will be sad to see the trees go, as they are such an important feature of Broad Street but if they have to be replaced it would be good to have something that blossoms in the spring and looks as vibrant in the autumn as the pictures show. As the trees have got to be ‘dug up’ because they are causing damage but are still healthy, I hope an attempt will be made to save as many as possible and replant somewhere else where they can grow freely and don’t need pollarding anymore. I am APPALLED at the wreckless vandalism which has been allowed to take place where developers have destroyed ancient hedgerows and cut down oaks and other trees to the clear the landscape near M5 Jct6. Developers make enough money from a project that size to be made to spend more on the early stages and work around the natural landscape more sensitively. I have stopped driving in that direction because it depresses me so much to see the devastation!

The Broad Street trees were replaced not so many years ago. Why such a short-sighted decision back then? This has lead to a complete waste of public funds. Agreed, the present planes are not suitable for their location. There MUST be trees in Broad Street. The Malus is the most suitable option in it’s growth form, and beyond this is the cheapest of the replacement options.

I object to the removal of the Planes. Smaller trees will block more light as their branching structure is located at the level of windows, and Plane trees are successfully managed in many cities by use of special sand-based surroundings. Large trees such as Planes give stature to urban spaces and are associated with better quality town districts. Please do not debase Pershore by using twee little trees.

It is a widely held view that no tree such as the London Plane and many others should never be planted with 30 feet of a house, I would imagine that the roots of these tree’s are undermining the properties in Broad St.

pavements are now dangerous

I cannot image Pershore Broad Street with out any trees. They have always been there throughout my life. I haven’t known anyone hurt themselves because of the trees, there may have been an incident perhaps but really after all these years it would be awful if that stopped the planting of trees. Might aswell not set foot outside the house for fear of danger.

The trees in Broad Street have now become too big and the variety ( London Plane ) in this location is unsuitable. I feel that they would be better replaced by an architectural hornbeam ( carpinus betulus ) , but a tilia would do . It has the added incentive of being good for the bees

Keep the London Plane!

Where is the option to keep the trees that we paid £25,000 for 12 years ago. I can not believe that the existing trees cannot be preserved in some way . Maybe use the £18,000 you are proposing to waste on new trees. I VOTE TO KEEP THE EXISTING LONDON PLANE TREES.

I would like to see the trees remain - they are part of our heritage having been there a very long time. All the issues raised re pavements & blocked light are only going to happen again when you plant new trees. The root system you suggest is large but has any building been damaged as a result? Surely if you fell the trees the root system will eventually dry out causing a great deal if damage to the new paving you are proposing. Get a grip - trees are always going to cost & WCC are clearly going to remove the trees which is not what a great deal of people want!! Listen to your electorate!

The roots of the plane trees have made the paving tiles uneven, dangerous & the patching up is unsightly. Given that Wychavon is supposed to be seeking extra savings, complete removal & non replacement of the trees is the most viable option -& will avoid future expense. 3 or 4 steel stanchions with hanging baskets could be a consideration, if any alternative flora is needed or better still - make more of the existing planted tubs for colour & design. - but remember wet leaves & foliage on the paths is also a potential hazard.

paths are unsightly with patching, & any tree will always cause some hazard with roots/ wet & slippery leaves etc. With Wychavon wanting to make more cuts - the cheaper option of removal & non replacement id most sensible - rather than spend on further trees to detriment of a more useful service for the community. Make more of the existing planted tubs.

I feel it is very important that Broad Street remains a tree-lined street. As there have been trees there since the 1890s, the current residents bought their homes knowing trees were present and so can’t really complain about them. However, I can appreciate that increased growth may make upstairs rooms darker, so smaller trees may be more suitable. Trees provide homes for a wide variety of wildlife as well as being the green lungs of our planet. We should be planting more of these in public spaces, and new housing estates for that matter, to improve the appearance and air quality of our environment.

Please see response to Q1. I cannot answer Q2 because I would prefer to answer ‘no removal’

This questionnaire is badly flawed. It seems to be trying to split the vote of those in favour of replacing the trees. The primary option should be whether to replace or not. A supplementary should then be provided regarding what type of replacement tree, including ‘other’.

Please replace with extra heavy standards to reduce the visual impact of the change-In other words, the more mature the replacement trees the better they will look from the start. Also ensure there is a regular maintenance programme to ensure the trees don’t get too big and suffer the same fate as the London planes.

As one of the residents of Broad Street most affected by these trees, with a complete loss of daylight in two rooms even at the height of a sunny summer day, I feel very strongly that something has to be done and the plane trees removed. I do, however, strongly refute the claim by the County Council that the trees have been regularly pollarded and cared for. Trees of this nature should have been pollarded hard EVERY year and this has been stretched to three years, despite our constant complaints and pleas for something to be done. It is completely the fault of the County Council that the situation has been allowed to get this bad. The reason for my choice of Malus Trilobata is that it is the smallest tree suggested but if in the future any tree starts to encroach on our property with branches flat against the Windows and even coming inside when the windows are opened, I will not hesitate to cut the offending branches back myself. No private homeowner would be expected to put up with a neighbour planting a tree so close to their windows. I may add that we have owned this property since 1993 and when we purchased it there was no tree in this position - this ‘new’ planting 12 years ago took place when we were living out of the country and the trees were repositioned. The danger of tripping is being played down by a lot of the objectors to this proposal but I have personally been involved in looking after an old lady with broken spectacles and a very bloodied face and, living here, have witnessed several other similar incidents of people tripping.

I fully agree with the reasons given and the WCC proposals

why are the repaired pavements in Evesham High Street not properly restored ?

The trees should be replaced as this is part of what makes Pershore such a pretty Georgian town encouraging people to visit regularly.

Having been brought up in Pershore and spending my whole life here, the trees are part of Pershores’ history and I feel that we need the trees replaced to keep its heritage.

Leave the trees ALONE , they are part of our town. How long would new trees survive with vandalism rife and precious little policing - be lucky if they last a MONTH !

All the trees you have chosen grow to similar size and root structure, removing trees, killing roots and then adding new trees will increase risk of subsidence to buildings

Get someone who really knows how to manage the existing trees and don’t waste money removing them.

C-don’t want crab apples littering the floor. D-too high

I do not think the trees should be removed the benefits of the trees re cleaning atmosphere and their history far outweigh the so called hazards. Signs stating uneven surfaces pedestrians to be aware should be sited. Trees are needed to clean the atmosphere so if the trees are removed (which would appall myself and my husband) more MUST be planted.

Leave the trees as they are. None of the above options are acceptable

None of the above options are acceptable. Just repair or improve the root protection

Will root barriers be installed to prevent the lifting of the pavement again?

These trees enhance the area, and I think the railings need to be replaced with a bigger circumference of railings to help stop the supposed trip hazard! If people do not like these trees they should move to Birmingham ,concrete city!!!

I prefer the idea of Malus trilobata but wonder if fallen crab apples could be slippery? Tilia grow to 12 + metres, so sounds too tall. The important things are 1) advice on root characteristics and any necessary problem prevention strategies 2) an adequate maintenance regime!

I appreciate replacement is more costly but I do feel appropriate trees compliment very much the appearance of Broad St.

I do not wish for any of the above under Q2. The trees should remain under proper management and the footpath should be appropriately relaid, not with block paving.

I hope that the council are 100% behind enhancing the attractiveness of Broad Street - a significant feature of Pershore and one that always impresses visitors - by replacing the London Plane trees with one of the above options and not using this as an excuse to remove the trees altogether.

I do not think the trees should be taken down. They look so good at present since they were pollarded. The pavements should be repaired if they are in a dangerous state but PLEASE do not remove the Plane trees

Malus trilobata appears to offer the best alternative. Narrow in form and provides interest for much of the year - white flowers in spring,yellow fruits during summer and leaves turning to orange then red then purple in autumn. Select a variety having limited mature height.

Why do you use the latin names when very few people understand which trees you mean. I had to google them, but surely this survey would be more people friendly if you gave a few details (height etc ) and maybe a picture to allow everyone to make a good consideration. Last time this was done i remember a friend who is a tree surgeon saying they were the wrong trees and would need attention in 10 yrs or so, so i hope you are listening to good advice this time :-) But thank you for asking. I have looked at all 3 and they all look good, i selected the acer as it looks the closest to the plane.

To remove these trees would be a philistine act. Please don’t!

None of the above - all will cause their own problems: I know that Acer campestre (Field Maple) grows very tall and produces millions of small leaves, Malus trilbata (Lebanese Crab Apple) besides being alien to UK it grows to 15m and will produce fruit which will be a health and safety issue and Tilia cordata (Lime) will give off a sticky sap which is notorious on cars and other surfaces. The best option is to leave the London Planes and sort out the pavement.

can you use money from new builds?

If the trees planted along the pavement are causing a problem with uneven paving and blocking light in adjacent buildings, how about planting the trees down the middle of the street between the rows of parked cars. Any resulting problems with uneven surfaces and blocking of light should not cause a problem as I doubt that car drivers would notice.

Quite frankly I strongly disagree with the above proposals I cannot understand why Worcester County Council have been so neglectful in evaluating all the consequences in the planting of the trees at GREAT EXPENSE in 2002 It is clear to me that no advice was given in choosing the correct tree species as the Platinus x acerfolia ultimate height is 90 ft. There is a college of horticulture on the outskirts of the town whose staff would have been more than willing to offer sound advice Being a qualified professional gardener I was shocked at the cost of the planting operation £1,400/tree TODAY the price quoted from a reliable specialist horticultural company producing a mature tree of that nature is between £150 and £400 so I don’t think Worcs CCC got a good deal back in2002 I am aware that the pavements are not even and there were steps to make necessary repairs bringing them up to an acceptable standard but this was not the case. Owing to minimal tree pruning the residents quite rightly have their grievances with light being blocked out of their upstairs windows so why wasn’t that problem addressed when it first occured Many districts in London have London Plane lined streets and there appears to be few problems there even in spite of those trees being a lot older. Personally I think there should be a public meeting to discuss this issue rather than at council level so Pershore people can have their say I support wholeheartedly Mr David Annis’s and Shirley Agg’s views on keeping the trees

For size and shape I consider option C to be best. However,having had a crab apple tree over hanging my patio the dropped fruits, on years when they have them, are a menace.

It is important that, whatever trees are planted, they should be properly maintained and any future problems anticipated, especially as regards the roots. The existng iron cages cold be removed immediately.

Dangerous,have seen adults with pushchairs have to go off the path.Pity the residents who lose light from midsummer onwards.Get rid.

A. No vandalism, air pollution. C Leafy, problems leaves and crab apples. D Best alternative to B. It is assumed that all 3 species have deep root systems rather than shallow horizontal ones and are capable of being pollarded. All these species have been bred for this kind of location. Have they not bred a new London Plane with similar characteristics.

A. No vandalism, air pollution. C Leafy, problems leaves and crab apples. D Best alternative to B. It is assumed that all 3 species have deep root systems rather than shallow horizontal ones and are capable of being pollarded. All these species have been bred for this kind of location. Have they not bred a new London Plane with similar characteristics.

As I live on the corner of Broad St & High St there is a tree outside my flat on High St. that needs attention as it hits our windows in wind.

E. Keep the trees and do proper maintenance. Patching ghe footpath with tarmac is not a “repair”. Keep the trees and spend £2,000 p.a. for maintenance - less than 10p for each resident!

None

realistically you should replace like for like and put something in so the roots go down and out so that it wont affect the paving slabs plus you have a college up the road which means you could contact them for the pollarding so that they get work experience and you dont have to pay much out

I appreciate that there is a view to keep the trees - however, it looks like this isn’t practical. The streets are not as they were 100 years ago so why should the same species be used. As Darwin said - survival of the fittest (or the most appropriate for the environment).

The pavements could be repaired properly instead of being continually patched. Investigate installing larger metal surrounds. This questionnaire is biased because it did not allow the trees to remain.

why are we not given the opportunity to oppose the removal of these trees? I also would prefer replacement with hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) which are regularly used in these situations due to the root systems not affecting paving areas....Tilia drip sap, Malus will drop fruit in the autumn and the Acer will look too heavy when mature, for the streetscape in that location

Please keep trees. Pershore is losing too much of its attractions - green belts due to intensive building , now trees. KEEP THEM !

I cannot answer 2 because I do not think they should be cut down.

I lived in Broad Street for many years and found that having a tree in front of your home made it very difficult as no light would get in during its leafing time. If I still lived there the trees that are now inset would not give me any daylight during the summer period even my three story house has now no views from the 3 and 2nd storey windows. Nothing is worse than having dark rooms. I am sure there are trees out there which if correctly looked after would provide a far better service to both house owners, the community and the greening of our Town aswell as help the environment. There are some conical trees in the evergreen variety that could be considered. In italy they have thin talls conical trees why cannot these similar trees come to Pershore.

The Broad Street has had trees for many years and some species at least should be planted as part of the visual scene in Pershore, particularly as part of the main entrance of the town.

At least replace with trees and not remove altogether

I have not ticked any of the boxes under Q2 above because I’m not sure it addresses the real issue. I’m no tree expert, but surely the issue is one of proper ongoing maintenance, whatever species of tree. I would definitely like trees to remain in Broad Street - either the original London Planes or a replacement species, but isn’t there a danger that we’ll be in a similar position 20-30 years down the line if the trees aren’t maintained properly. Also, the literature I’ve seen does’t mention the impact on wildlife - birds, bugs etc. Has this been looked into at all?

Why is there not an option to keep the existing trees

In my view you have already made up your mind to remove as is clear in Q1 and Q2

Perhaps some of the money from new home developers that disappears into the system and doesn’t get used could be used towards this project.

The Town Council has no preference for the type of tree other than for them to be low maintenance and non fruiting.

When replacing mature street trees it is important to choose species that are appropriate to the scale of the street. Broad St, as its name implies, is a wide street that requires trees of sufficient stature to enhance the space. Acer campestre Streetwise and Malus trilobata are small trees that are totally the wrong scale. Tilia cordata Rancho is bigger but still not of the required scale when mature and also, like all Tilias it may be susceptible to aphids and the nuisance of sticky exudate that goes with them. Have you considered a much larger but fastigiate tree where the canopy will be above pedestrians and will not be wide spreading enough to compete with vehicular traffic. Quercus robur ‘fastigiata Koster’ would be appropriate. It is available from nurseries with a clear stem height of over 2m. which would not conflict with pedestrian traffic.

I definitely want trees to be in Broad Street but it is a rather pointless question to make a judgement about a particular type of tree although leaving it to the ‘experts’ who have caused the present state of things is a fearful prospect.

I understand that the trees have not been properly looked after by the council which has resulted in the current state of the trees, pavement, etc.

No other trees have the distinctive bark of the London Plane. Also I cannot be the only local who loves the sight of the great green and multicoloured leaves scattered below in Autumn. The little leaves of the other options would just be a disappointment.

i understand that in this current case why you have chosen to remove the London plane trees from broad street in pershore however the fact that these trees were poorly managed and removal could have been avoided by either more regulated and competent pollarding or even at the point of planting, root guard could have been put into place and thus preventing the movement of the paving stones as cause of the roots. i am aware that this is of little consequence now but in the complete removal and change of the trees in broad street not only does it up heave the long standing tradition of London planes along the street but also if the decision to have no replacement is to be undertaken not only will the whole town be disadvantaged in a reduction of amenity value but this may also affect tourism and the town economy but as well as this, as i’m sure you’re aware, the presence of trees not only increases property value by almost 20% but also in the case of London planes also reduces pollution through the town by absorbing it into its own bark which in both cases i personally believe to be akey aspect to everyone involved.

Before the trees are even planted the ground work needs to be completed this would included, the soil being re-aerated or new fresh soil put down. Then in order to stop the pavement from being lifted again a root barrier should be put in place. Once the trees have been planted a regular maintenance check should be done every couple of months, to check the trees health and control the growth of the tree.

Personally, i think that if you are going to take these London planes down then make sure that you look after the next ones you are putting in properly! Invest a little more money in these trees, for example root barriers. This is my opinion.

when planting these new trees I would recommend you place a root barrier this will increase the longevity of the tree and reduce the chance of pavement moving in the future I also recommend that you maintain the newly planted trees so they more pretty in the upcoming future love Jannet

As a resident of Broad Street whose windows are currently blocked out by the trees, if they have to be replaced with more trees I would prefer the smallest option available - Option C Malus Trilobata

Following a professional consultation we feel that Malus Trilobata is the preferred option of replacement tree.

Plane trees should never have been planted along the side of the street - they are far too large in every way. Malus is a reasonable and pretty alternative - I would like to see some trees in Broad Street.

Has advice been sought from professionals who love trees & are interested in urban landscape design, rather than simply asking local tree surgeons? If these Planes had been properly maintained & still caused a problem I would respect the need for change, but they have been neglected at crown & at pavement level. The proposed replacements will grow to the same height as the existing Planes; any smaller tree will not make a substantial enough impression. Some serious excavation would be needed in order to give a good start to new trees - stump-grinding is not enough. The aesthetic value of the mature Planes is too great to simply remove them like this, considering the substantial visual & financial sacrifice.

Malus Trilobata will offer seasonal colour

It is sad to lose the London Plane trees but as long as there are trees in Broad Street then that is reasonable.

please ensure we have trees in Broad Street. We need @More Trees@ to enhance the beauty of Pershore

leave trees in situ. Refer above, cost of removal replacing and making good outweighs benefits. Please leave trees at present.

Option D Tilia Cordata is a Lime tree. Limes are notorious for producing ‘honeydew’ from ant/aphid farming of their sap. This coats cars and pavements in a sticky mess. Do not plant these trees in a street!

This is an outrageous questionnaire as it does not include the option of keeping the plane trees and looking after them properly which you have completely failed to do.

These are only proposals and I do not think that they should go ahead. The best long term solution would be to leave the existing trees, maintain them properly, and repair the pavement. Other towns have larger trees than this which are well maintained and valued locally. To recklessly saw the trees down would be a regrettable bad decision which councilors and public would have live with for the foreseeable future.

With proper maintenance the existing trees could be kept. They are part of Pershore and were planted for ecological reasons, as in many other towns and cities. Malus fruits could cause a slipping hazard; Tilia pollen and sap both cause heath hazard; Acer is to me the lesserof 3 evils!

I would really prefer to keep the Plane trees in place, living with their Idiosyncrasies. Are there no other Plane trees that are smaller or more perpendicular. If these are removed you MUST replace with trees, and fruiting trees would suit Pershore best. We have a very perpendicular Pear tree in our front garden that is on a dwarfing rootstock so will never grow tall/large. We are in a countryside/horticultural area, and having trees, plants and even wildlife in the town is very important to me.

Although I have indicated above a preferred option, I would much prefer that further consideration is given to removing the present London Planes and replacing with new ones in, if such things exist, adequate root cages in the ground to contain or divert root growth, unless of course the present trees can be taken out and later replaced in such cages. Instead of concentrating on the problems now apparent, more attention could be given to the benefits of these trees, not least the splendour, particularly in autumn, that they offer to residents. I am not qualified in any way in this and I accept that an “arbouriculturalist” (sic) has recommended replacement with a different species and that “a number of recommendations have been put forward by tree specialists” and that these have been used to provide the shortlist of options. However, although you refer to the “full information” provided by the consultation document, this does not mention who the arboriculturalist and the specialists were, nor offer all the recommendations made, nor say who did the shortlisting. Perhaps such information was too extensive for the document, but perhaps some indication might have been given about where it might be seen. I would particularly like to know whether experts at Pershore college were invited to submit suggestions. Would a Freedom of Information request elicit such information? As to the paving, would not again advice from the college’s landscaping staff be of benefit? In my lay mind, I wonder if a suitably coloured tarmac might be a better option than the block paving which becomes dislodged all over the place both in Broad Street and elsewhere, creating hazards for pedestrians. Finally, to mention the college again, would it be sensible to enter into discussion about whether its staff and students (who might gain valuable practical experience from such a project) might be able to undertake or participate in the eventual work, possibly at lower cost than other contractors.

I have ticked (a) on Q1 not because I want the trees felled but because there is no option to keep the trees! Removal of cages and grills, surfacing tree pits with loose material, root pruning, and improved pruning methods should be tried for a few years before the drastic measure of tree removal with all the costs involved. As detailed in Jim Unwin’s report Dtd 18.11.2015. I believe the county council already have a copy of this report.

It seems only about 12 years or so since the previous trees were taken down in similar circumstances and replaced - on expert advice!! - by the present plane trees. That now seems to have been a costly mistake of judgement and I hope the Council is not in danger of repeating it. For some years afterwards, Broad Street looked very bare without much growth in the new specimens and for that reason I was keen on a suggestion made by a letter-writer recently in the Evesham Journal, who suggested that the trees should not be replaced all at once but perhaps half at a time, followed a year or two later by the others. Another idea that has long occurred to me would be to ask why this ‘square’ has two roads running through it, with parking in the centre, rather than to have one two-way road in the centre and parking on either side. That way, the pavements on either sied could be extended in width and more room created to allow for the growth of the trees - which is bound to happen, whatever variety is planted. Anyway, without any trees Broad Stret would become a desolate open space gievn over enturely to the motor car!

None of the above. This is not a consultation about the future of the trees , it is a fait accomplis . Where is the option to keep and maintain them ? Any proffessional tree expert worth their salt will explain that the canopy will reflect the size of the roots. If you prune the canopy and maintain around the bases, as happens all over the UK in other similar urban situations , the roots will remain proportionate and there will not be a problem . It is not right for the Council to hide behind the rhetoric of saying it must put the safety of people first when that is what it has precisely failed to do until an accident has highlighted this dereliction of care . Please let’s be real about this and not find ourselves hostage to insurance speak of never admitting liability if respect for the integrity of our Council is to be maintained . Everyone has witnessed the situation developing over recent years . We have a perfect town centre , John Betjeman’s favourite . Please can we keep it as he would remember it .

As far as I can understand the following should be followed: “forestry Commission policy strongly advocates the planting of trees, with a recent emphasis on urban areas, if not explicitly street trees.” The removal of the trees without planting a suitable alternative would be a retrograde step and a mistake. Therefore not having any trees is not an option. If what the council say is true and the existing trees need to be replaced why cant they be replaced withe the London Plane tree with suitable root growth restiction put in place and the yearly maintenance.

Whatever tree is planted, there will be the need to keep the foliage such that it does not block the light from buildings and the roots deep enough to prevent another disaster. Another option would be a different species of plane tree with smaller leaves

Back in 2001/2, hundreds of thousands of Tax Payers’ money was spent on “enhancing” Broad Street with new trees to replaced diseased ones, ironwork and blocked paving. Now just 13 years later and after many years of poor management, you are proposing to spend even more money ripping up perfectly healthy trees to replace with new ones. If they couldn’t get it right all those years ago, do we expect to have this situation and cost to the public purse every decade?? I can think of many better things to spend our Council Tax on!! Block paving is a nightmare for elderly people and it’s no wonder people trip on it as there are many points where it is sunken and blocks raised. Elderly people often fall over in Chapman Court outside ASDA, along the High Street and in Church Street where there are no trees so what do they blame that on?!! Those small bollards along the High Street are another hazard as they force people onto the road if you have a mobility scooter or large pushchair coming the other way. We live in a ridiculous “Nanny State” which is probably why you have not offered us the option of keeping the existing trees. In that case. you might as well fell them and leave Broad Street in a cloud of pollution. And for the record, for a local authority so concerned about public safety, why on earth would you even consider Malus Trilobata if it may shed small fruit???!!! Take a walk down Little Priest Lane and see the mess and safety hazard there that schoolchildren and the elderly have to negotiate.

Choice has been decided by the height of the exsisting trees, governed by choice.

I write as the one who organised the planting of theses trees.. Your consultation is a travesty and is merely a cover for a fait accompli. You have massaged the figure for future maintenance of the existing trees to make it look expensive. £1993 per year is not much to retain what we have. You don.’t give retain the status quo as an option . It should be to be democratic. You have got to this situation by incompetence, and failure to take advice. The guards and grids should have been removed in year three,or four at the latest. The block paving should have been installed to close up to the trees. The trees should have been pollarded every other year when it is quick and cheap to do so. You kid us that your replacements will not need maintenance. Of course they will. The lime choice will grow to 15 metres (your words) That will be o.k. will it without maintenance cost? Do you really think you will remove the existing trees and make good all the pavement fro £4860? I think not. Planes were chosen as the only acceptable tree by the main services provider Severn Trent. Are you sure they approve your replacement choice? Plane work in many other towns not least London. What is it about Pershore that you cannot cope? Do Pershore people have a greater propensity to trip up compared with other folk? Why is it that in Broadway with the same District Council and the same Highways management, the recent enhancement actually created needless trip hazards outside the Deli and Lloyds Bank with raised kerbs in the middle of the walkways for no purpose.? It will be crime to remove these trees, when proper management can solve the problems you have created. The rest of the world of tree management operates under a control system for Conservation areas or TPO legislation.. It looks very much as if it is one rule for the public and another for the authorities, which however you view it looks very much like corruption.

2. None of the above. 3. Questionnaire is inadequate. A disgraceful exercise.

Cant understand how the French cope with plane trees in restricted areas in hundreds of towns but our council can’t cope with a dozen trees!,what about replacing the paving at the other end of the high street rather than wasting more on broadstreet.

Revamp the beauty of Broad Street! Remove the existing trees but back both pavements. Move parking centre line to one side by 1½-2 metres. On expanded roadside allow in line parking. Plant London Plant trees in new centre, arranging tree centres to maximise trees and parking spaces. Advantages are obvious. Disadvantage = less trees, less parking spaces, public reaction, finally cost. Short term + Long term -

Refer cutting from Letter to Editor, Evesham and Pershore Observers. “My opinion of Broad Street is one where I would like to see slightly less car parking, parking bays set at an angle to afford safer ingress/egress to parking bays especially when reversing into live traffic flows in areas where buses are prolific but to introduce the tree element within the car parking area and perhaps a bench or two.

B - Streetwise - too surburban - misses market town feel D - Tilia - I love lime trees but their stick deposits on cars therefore malus best option

We believe it is vital to the town to retain trees in Broad Street.

B - recommend as the most suitable in the area. Trees are essential. All towns have trees. We MUST keep some in Broad St. REPLACE but do not remove totally.

Letter - “ I was disappointed to come across the proposals being considered for the London Plane trees in Broad Street, Pershore, as it seems to me the removal of the trees would be a severe over-reaction. Given appropriate management the existing trees could grow into stately specimens enhancing the overall ambience of Broad Street and making the entire square an even more attractive focal point of the town. I recognise the problems being caused to the pavements by the roots and foliage blocking light into first and second floor windowed rooms. These problems appear to be ameliorated in London by surrounding the base of the trees by hard compacted gravel and sand mixture, which is sand-coloured, so would fit in with the current paving blocks and is of such a nature that it doesn’t disintegrate or be stepped upon and get strewn over the surrounding area. Alternatively, I have also seen a surrounding which appears to be a concrete/resin mixture, which of course could be made to any desired colour. Both of these methods would be cheap to maintain and are used to surround both young and mature trees. It may also be noted that with the mature London planes even the lowest branches of the trees are well above the first storey of the adjacent properties, with the bulk of the foliage considerably higher. Therefore I think that with more investigative consideration and appropriate management a cost-effective solution to the present problem could be found that would retain these semi-native (as opposed to the non-native species under consideration) specimens from the chainsaw. Thankyou for making this such an extensive prublic consultation.

option D - a lime tree - is likely to lead to sticky deposits on cars from the tree.

Trees mitigate many of the problems of modern life as described above; furthermore there is an article in the Daily Telegraph of 28th November 2015 advocating the mass planting of urban trees and citing the example of the city of Chicago. The authorities there have planted 3.5 million trees which are estimated to have removed about 888 tons of pollution and absorbed 25,200 tons of carbon dioxide. Pershore is minute in comparison but its trees will have been performing equally well. With the current problems we have been experiencing, such as flloodiing, with the extremes of global warming it seems to be very short sighted to be considering removing Pershore’s trees. The cost of the new planting would be excessive and would waste what had already been spent on the existing trees.

AS above requires a proper consultation with the full facts and options for residents and council tax payers to make the decision. The council are making a lazy decision.


Appendix E: W

ritten CorrespondenceAppendix E: Written Correspondence

Dear Project Team,

Thank you for your e-‐mail.

It is widely recognised that the provision of an attractive public realm is critical to the socio-‐economic success of tourist-‐historic towns such as Pershore. The quality of which is what brings visitors to the town, directly contributing to economic activity and growth.

The presence of well-‐maintained trees within the streetscape can contribute significantly towards the sense of quality public spaces. Unfortunately, the London Plane tree specimens in Broad Street have outgrown their tree pits, which is evident by the noticeable damage that the roots have caused to the public highway. It is clear to me that this situation will deteriorate over time without intervention. The loss of these trees would reduce the sense of a quality public space, therefore, replacement with more appropriate specimens represents a sensible and positive solution to this issue.

Any of the proposed tree specimens (subject to these being accompanied with proposed reinstatement of the paved areas) will result in a long-‐lasting benefit to the streetscape in Broad Street and the wider attraction of Pershore.

I am happy to lend my support to the proposal to replace the street trees in Pershore's Broad Street.

Yours sincerely,

Transport Strategy Manager

Dear ,

I am very pleased that we are able to have a chance to have our say concerning the Broad Street trees. I have been following the ongoing debate in the local paper with increasing annoyance.

As a trained horticulturist I was highly surprised when these plane trees were first planted. They are entirely the wrong species for the road and I had to question as to who had organised their planting It is an absolute necessity to remove these trees before more pavement damage and accidents happen. If the council is prepared to replace them it would be excellent as they do provide a welcoming vista to the road and town. I believe that the choice of the Malus would be the best as besides being a smaller, more compact tree it has the advantage of the deep Autumn colours. Lime is not really suitable for a narrow walkway as it tends to make the ground below sticky.

I do hope you get the support for your proposed felling,

Yours faithfully,

Local Resident

Dear


I would be greatly opposed to the trees being taken and not replaced. This beautiful Street would loose its attractiveness if there were no trees at all. Pershore is my favourite town and it is in no small part due to the trees in Broad Street.

Yours sincerely,

Local Resident

Dear ,

I am very pleased that we are able to have a chance to have our say concerning the Broad Street trees. I have been following the ongoing debate in the local paper with increasing annoyance.

As a trained horticulturist I was highly surprised when these plane trees were first planted. They are entirely the wrong species for the road and I had to question as to who had organised their planting It is an absolute necessity to remove these trees before more pavement damage and accidents happen. If the council is prepared to replace them it would be excellent as they do provide a welcoming vista to the road and town. I believe that the choice of the Malus would be the best as besides being a smaller, more compact tree it has the advantage of the deep Autumn colours. Lime is not really suitable for a narrow walkway as it tends to make the ground below sticky.

I do hope you get the support for your proposed felling,

Yours faithfully,

Local Resident

Dear


I would be greatly opposed to the trees being taken and not replaced. This beautiful Street would loose its attractiveness if there were no trees at all. Pershore is my favourite town and it is in no small part due to the trees in Broad Street.

Yours sincerely,

Local Resident

In response to your email please see below:

Option A) To remove the tree altogether........ It seems a very drastic measure -‐ whilst I can fully appreciate the problems caused by the roots at the moment -‐ surely there MUST be something that can be done. I think the metal framework has only exacerbated the root problem and are more of a hazard. REGULAR pollarding is needed on any tree

Option B ) Any tree with 'winged seeds' is problematic, you will soon have dozens of 'saplings' growing all over the place and if not removed from the ground straight way soon become deep rooted. They are a nuisance. Who is going to go round the cracks in pavements, flower baskets, gutters etc to remove. Used to have one at my previous home -‐ absolute nightmare.

Option C) Crab apples -‐ you are asking for problems -‐ it only takes one person to slip on squashed fruit....... the fruit will fall into gutters, onto pavements. Again, who is going to go round and sweep these up every day....

Option D) It would appear that the Tilia will grow very tall, causing a problem to the residents from the first & second floors of their properties (something which I am led to believe is a problem at the moment. One must remember that it's not just business's in Broad Street, there are a number of residents. I certainly wouldn't welcome my view from an upstairs window blighted by foliage

Personally, I don't think any of the tree species are suitable -‐ maybe it would have been more appropriate to offer the community a wider choice to choose from. But ultimately what a seriously expensive project, that is causing so much controversy.

I appreciate my comments are probably not much help to the cause

consultation report london plane trees, broad …...trees in broad street, pershore, commenced on...

Documents