Timing given for felling of protest trees mired in 'misinformation'
The long-running saga of Falmouth’s tree felling, which has seen three protests since the end of last year, continues
The long-running saga of Falmouth’s tree felling, which has seen three protests since the end of last year, continues. Cornwall Council has now given the timing of when three 60-year-old lime trees will be chopped down and replaced with four new trees on Trelawney Road in the town.
However, a protest group of residents – which was formed in a bid to stop the healthy trees being cut down – has accused the council of “misinformation” and is still demanding to know exactly what the legal reasons are for the trees having to come down.
The trees were given a reprieve earlier this year when the Stop the Chop! campaign group carried out much-publicised protests to save them, with a couple of locals risking their lives by climbing the trees and refusing to come down. Last month the council said that the trees will still have to be felled.
A spokesperson said the unitary authority had been unable to give the reasons why previously because of court proceedings. The council revealed that six separate services – including streetlight power cables, water pipes and internet cables – run beneath the footpath between a boundary wall and the trees, where they are tangled with tree roots. The surface of the road and the footway had also been disrupted by roots and kerbs have been removed because they were unsafe.
The council said options had been explored to retain the trees, but it was not possible. Due to continuing “serious damage” being caused by the roots, the council stated there is no alternative but to cut them down. However, they did not provide details of the court proceedings.
Labour councillor Laurie Magowan, who represents the area at Cornwall Council, was highly critical of the council’s reasons. He said: “It was hoped that this long-awaited statement would provide clarity on the legal justification for felling these mature lime trees. Unfortunately, the various statements released by Cornwall Council have done nothing to evidence the environmental need to fell the trees and have instead raised further questions on the process and legality of removal.
“Instead, they allude to (unproven) historic and ongoing impact on utility services and street infrastructure that does not provide legitimate legal reason to fell the trees. There have been no reports of impact on water, gas or electricity supply in the area and no utility companies have been involved in the issue to date.
“It has been confirmed to me that it was not the intention of the statement, to directly attribute utilities damage as the foundation for decision making. This indicates that the wording of the communication is clumsy at best and arguably aiming to mislead.”
He added: “The statement also refers to damage to nearby properties and mentions ‘court proceedings’ that have caused the delay in releasing this new information. Cornwall Council needs to provide greater clarity and further information on these issues.”
The council has now given us a statement giving more details of when the trees will be chopped down – most likely in October – and again mentions a “legal obligation” but provides no further details.
A spokesperson said: “Cornwall Council has a legal obligation to remove the trees. We have extended another invitation to Stop the Chop! to meet with us before any scheduled work takes place.
“Four new trees will be planted. To give them the best possible chance of taking root this needs to happen as early in the planting season (October to March) as possible. For safety reasons, part of Trelawney Road will need to be closed while the work takes place. Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders typically require a 12-week statutory lead-in period, so we need to begin this process now.”
There has been much discussion among residents that a previous road closure order in the area which will be in effect from October 19 and November 1 would allow the council’s Corserv arm to fell the trees. However, the council has confirmed that this closure is for resurfacing works on Woodlane, which will also see other adjoining roads closed, and has nothing to do with the proposed felling.
Deb Newman, from the Stop the Chop! campaign group, responded to the latest statement: “Cornwall Council has stated that it has ‘a legal obligation to remove the trees’. Perhaps the council would like to tell the public what that legal obligation is please without recourse to the misinformation it has so far put out.
“Cornwall Council has already confirmed that it was not the intention of its last statement to attribute utilities damage as the foundation for decision making. So what is? Could it be an out-of-court settlement agreed with a third party that includes the felling of the trees, a six-figure payment and a confidentiality clause that very conveniently prevents any public scrutiny? Oh and probably a deadline for removal as well.
“Given that these are much-loved street trees in a conservation area and taxpayers’ money has presumably been used, Stop the Chop! believes that this information should be in the public domain. How much money has been paid out and for what reason exactly? We call for transparency from our local authority not secrecy.”
She added: “Regarding a meeting, Stop the Chop! would like to remind the council that its original commitment made in the March statement was to meet with us and the public before any decision on the trees was made. Despite our many requests made in the interim, this promise has not been honoured. We will respond to officer Phil Mason on this in due course.”
In an apparent nod to the Trelawney trees controversy, Cllr Magowan posed a question for Cornwall Council’s Lib Dem leader Cllr Leigh Frost at the last full council meeting. He said: “As elected members we’re required to adhere to the Nolan principles which include integrity, openness and accountability. With this in mind, can the leader provide details of how many out-of-court settlements Cornwall Council has entered into since May 2021, how many of these include confidentiality clauses, the total value of these agreements and which portfolio areas these originate from?”
Cllr Frost gave quite a confusing reply: “That’s quite a big question and one I’m going to have to give you a written answer to as we don’t actually store that information. What we’ll have to do is manually go back through and there’s a question of confidentiality, so what I can tell you about the things I’m not allowed to tell you about is also a bit of an issue. However, I can tell you that I haven’t signed any sheets to say that I can’t tell you anything.”
Cllr Magowan asked for a review and analysis of the arrangements to minimise and ultimately stop their use in future.