Leicester residents' fury at loss of a 100-year-old tree during building of Sainsbury's
A 100-year-old tree had to be cut down by council staff after being damaged during the building of a small supermarket.
Residents are furious that the London Plane tree, which stood in Walton Street, off Narborough Road, in the city's West End, was removed after builders damaged roots and branches while working on a Sainsbury's Local store.
The 68ft tree was supposed to be protected as part of a planning agreement between Leicester City Council and applicants, Malthurst, who are working on behalf of the supermarket chain.
Damaging the mature tree means the firm is in breach of the agreement and the council, which had to cut the tree down, has said it is seeking legal advice about what action it can take.
SUNDAY OPEN BUFFET EAT AS MUCH AS U CAN £6.99PP & A LA CARTE...
Leicester's ONLY Lebanese Cuisine - Cedars Bar & Restaurant 46/48 Church Gate Leicester LE1 4AJ
View detailsCome & Try our Delicious Menu with an Amazing 15% off all Food Bills on a la carte menu only
Terms: Lebanese & Mediterenian Menu With An Amazing 15% Off Your Food Bills on a la carte menu only
Contact: 0116 2169184
Valid until: Sunday, May 26 2013
Westcotes ward councillor Andy Connelly said he was "furious" the agreement had been broken.
"This is corporate vandalism as far as I'm concerned and it's a failure by the planning department to make sure the agreement is enforced," he said.
"This was one of the concerns raised by residents when the plans were revealed, and they were told everything possible would be done to protect the environment."
Resident Philip Richards, 37, who lives opposite the site, said: "I'm livid. The tree was wonderful and the developer has acted disgracefully.
"I can only hope the council has the fortitude to enforce the breach."
A 31-year-old resident in Ivy Road, who did not want to be named, said: "It's terrible, I don't think they should be allowed to get away with it.
"Even children expect to be punished when they break rules or do something they shouldn't. I don't see how the builders are any different."
A tree conservation survey was carried out in April last year and submitted as part of the planning application.
It identified four Category A trees surrounding the site, including the London Plane, which were described as being of "significant conservation, historical or commemorative value".
The application also raises concerns regarding damage to the London Plane during construction.
It says: "All trees, particularly the large London Plane on the public highway (Walton Street) near the site, shall be protected from damage during building operations."
Developer Malthurst, of Epping, in Essex, said it did not want to comment.
A Sainsbury's spokeswoman said: "We have signed up to take a lease on the future retail unit.
"We did not run the application and are not involved in the construction of the building."
A city council spokesman said: "One of the conditions on the planning permission for the development was intended to control works near to the neighbouring trees to prevent damage to them.
"Despite this, during the construction one of the trees did have some roots damaged and some branches removed by the developers.
"The council has since had to take down the tree – a large London Plane tree – because of the extent of this damage.
"We are investigating the circumstances of exactly how the tree came to be damaged, and taking legal advice on action that can be taken against the developers involved."
Sainsbury's has set itself a target of 20 environmental goals by 2020.
The scheme is called the 20 by 20 Sustainability Plan and includes deforestation, Fair Trade and animal welfare.
Comments
by Eastonian
Thursday, November 29 2012, 4:04PM
“No wonder the developer did not want to comment but sooner or later they will have to. There can be no defence of this wanton vandalism and nothing short of a hefty fine will suffice.
What happened to the planning conditions and who failed to observe what was going on?
So much for the "historical and commemorative value" and my guess is the developer from Essex couldn't care less.”
by jonger
Thursday, November 29 2012, 2:54PM
“The developers should be made to dig up all the roots, reinstate all the disturbed ground and prepare and plant a replacement semi-mature tree and provide an insurance backed bond to cover its maintenance for the next 10 years. It will cost them thousands.
If that was the price of destroying a protected tree then next time they might abide by the conditions.”
by Bigroy1340
Thursday, November 29 2012, 12:40PM
“Its one law for developers in this country and one law for us plebbs when it comes to planning departments. The developers obviously new exactly what they where doing. Planning won`t do anything they are useless.Just shows what all this building is about and its making money not about the enviroment. Local elections next year kick them out.”
by susepp
Wednesday, November 28 2012, 9:29PM
“The developers should not be allowed to get away with this and a hefty fine should be applied”
by New_Walk_View
Wednesday, November 28 2012, 12:16AM
“I hope Council lawyers take stronger action in this case than they did when a tree covered by a Tree Protection Order on the corner of Southernhay and London Roads was butchered recently.
The `tree surgeon' got a slap on the wrist and no action at all was taken against the owner who had employed him.
As karinfall1955 says, you can't put a price on mature trees (particularly of this age); they're irreplaceable.
Council planners and lawyers both need to start waking up to this fact and backing up their policies with strong action. We need a response that will actually deter developers and their agents from this sort of criminal vandalism.”
by Patrick4939
Tuesday, November 27 2012, 4:41PM
“We should have a plant 5 action.
Over the years I have had several houses built home and abroad. For every tree which was felled I planted at least 5. It seemed right when I was young and it is certainly right now.”
by Peter20101
Tuesday, November 27 2012, 1:53PM
“As with any failing to a planning condition or that of a listed tree (or other item) the recompense never appears to include that for the local community.
An old tree is a very positive (but maybe small...I dont know) carbon lung in a heavily polluted area
To plant more saplings in this are would probably be nice but probably impractical, and in itself require seperate planning permission (which it may not achieve)
I do not know the answer to this issue, but a penalty clearly needs to be against the developer and the contractor, for the benefit of the local community (in the long term), as well as ensuring that the planning authority have rigourous structures in place, as they probably should have prevented this damage from occurring as well.
A seperate matter is if this action was deliberate rather than accidental, as this would be a serious breach by any developer”
by leeclarke1981
Tuesday, November 27 2012, 1:35PM
“Oh come on, it was only one tree for goodness sake! It was very close to the new building so obviously the roots were going to get damaged. The tree had also been uprooting the side of the road and blocking up the drain for years! The council should have removed it a long time ago. As for Cllr Connelly's comment "This is corporate vandalism as far as I'm concerned" is laughable. Wasn't he one of the councillors who voted to demolish the bowstring bridge..”
by coyote680
Tuesday, November 27 2012, 12:50PM
“The carbon absorption of the former tree needs to be calculated and at Malthurst's cost, the equivalent number of London Plane saplings need to be planted in the local area to where the former tree stood. In addition, planning applications made by the firm should be revoked until they can prove that they are able to adhere to environmental and conservation agreements.
I agree with Peter20101 a fine will simply encourage a value on future conserved trees that get in the way of development.
I do not recall residents being asked if they wanted/needed yet another supermarket in their local area. This is another example of corporate power gone wildly out of control where they have been allowed to not only flatten our environment and bully out local businesses. If a fine is all the council can manage (IF the firm is brought to prosecution at all!) then that money should and MUST be paid back into the local West End community to aid local business (NOT CHAIN STORES) and to replant several London Plane trees.”
by burnmw1987
Tuesday, November 27 2012, 12:31PM
“I was going to suggest a large fine levied at the company responsible for the damage, however after having read Peter20101's comment I have to agree. Fining them for the damage puts a price on that tree (and therefore ALL other trees), which is wrong. So perhaps not a financial fine, but something that will affect them financially none-the-less?
Perhaps stop them for applying for planning permission for X years, or to be "black listed" so that they can only apply for planning under certain restrictions (for instance that no listed trees are in the vicinity etc).”