The Chairman introduced the item, explaining
that a petition of over 8,500 signatures had been collected,
opposing the removal and replacement of the trees in the Market
Place, as proposed by a design being put forward by the Salisbury
Vision.
At the Chairman’s invitation, Laura Bell
spoke on behalf of Save our Salisbury Trees (SOS Trees), who had
organised the petition:
- The majority of signatures had been
collected in the Marketplace on market days, with some forms being
taken away and sent in to the campaign.
The current number of signatures was 8,962. The petition welcomed the proposed £3
million investment in the marketplace, but opposed the felling of
the existing trees.
- In response to the main arguments
given for the removal of the trees, the petitioners considered that
only eight of the trees were currently unhealthy. In relation to the concerns over rising pavements
caused by root growth, it was noted that there were options for
addressing this, such as good maintenance and use of flexible
surfacing. Furthermore, a Freedom of
Information request had revealed that there had been no insurance
claims for trips over rising pavements at the Market Place.
- It was considered that tree pits (as
proposed by Salisbury Vision) were untested and could not be
guaranteed to deal with the issue.
Reference was also made to measures used in Norwich to retain
mature trees in the market place, such as built up cobblestones and
circular seating around the base of trees (pictures of this were
circulated to the Area Board members).
Finally, in relation to the point about damage to drains, the
petitioners noted that the new drains could be relocated away from
the trees, to minimise the risk of future damage by tree
roots.
- The SOS Trees campaign welcomed the
change to the type of trees proposed, and also the Salisbury
Vision’s undertaking to talk to the Council’s Tree
Officer. It was hoped that a mutually
acceptable solution could be found.
The Chairman thanked Laura for her comments
and invited Richard Walters, Director of Salisbury Vision, to
respond to the points made.
- Richard set out the background to
the refurbishment of the Market Place, referring to the background
to the project. It seemed to be
generally agreed that some form of refurbishment was required in
the Market Place to match the investment being made by regional
competitors in their city centres. The proposals had been designed
to address a number of issues, by improving lighting, replacing the
current poor quality surfacing, and providing a more flexible
space. The principle of this
development was supported by the business community, including the
Federation of Small Businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, and the
City Centre Management.
- This was a timely opportunity for
significant investment in the Market Place to provide a long term
solution over the next 50 years or so. The original design,
selected via a competition in 2009, had included the retention of
the existing trees. However, following specialist advice on trees
and sub-surfaces, the decision was taken to replace the
trees. This was to prevent the roots
damaging the new surfaces, and blocking drains, and also as some of
the trees had been allowed to grow too large and were obscuring the
buildings behind. The majority of the
Market traders supported the plans to address the problems caused
by tree roots.
- Following an earlier consultation,
the proposed replacement trees had been changed from Ornamental
Pears to Tulips and Hornbeams. Advice
from experts was that this would recreate a similar canopy within
five years, by planting semi-mature trees.
- The use of tree pits was also
proposed to encourage root growth downwards, creating more stable
trees. The Vision’s view was that
these had been tested successfully in North America. Richard also noted that most of the trees would
need to be replaced over the next 10-20 years, and that for this to
be done piece-meal, would be most expensive and disruptive and
result in unattractive patchwork surfacing.
The Chairman thanked Richard for his comments
and invited questions and comments from the floor. There was a lengthy debate with a number of views
being expressed on both sides of the argument. Some of the points made included the
following:
- There was concern over the accuracy
of the straw poll which stated that most of the Market Traders
supported the Vision’s proposals.
Another straw poll had shown that the majority wanted the trees
retained, as they provided shade and were liked by
customers.
- The view was expressed that the
Market Place (and Salisbury city centre as a whole) was unique, and
needed to retain its own particular culture. It was also noted that the high street could not
recreate the buzz of a market.
- In relation to the tree canopy, it
was suggested that this helped obscure some unsightly shop
fronts. Responding to a question about
the canopy which would be created by the proposed replacement
trees, Richard explained that this would be similar in width, but
shorter and managed more appropriately.
- It was suggested that the existing
healthy trees could be retained and the design worked around them,
with space left for growth. However,
the view was also made that this would not allow for the
replacement surfacing to be installed, and may cause disruption to
the layout of the market.
- Concern was expressed that there
were a number of misconceptions circulating, with people having
understood (incorrectly) that the proposals were for no replacement
trees, or for the trees to be replaced with saplings. General concern was expressed about the lack of
public awareness of the scheme, although it was noted that the
information was available online, and had been published via
several means, including the Salisbury Journal.
- In relation to tree pits, the view
was made that growing conditions in North America were
significantly different, and that use of them to encourage downward
root growth would not be suitable in Salisbury, with its high water
table, as this could cause the roots to rot.
- It was noted that the Market had
been there for 800 years, and that trees had first been planted 150
years ago.
- In response to comments about the
democratic accountability of the Salisbury Vision Board, it was
noted that this partnership body consisted of representatives from
a number of local bodies, including Wiltshire Council, Salisbury
City Council, the business community, the cathedral, the Civic
Society, and the Community Area Partnership.
- The view was expressed that although
8,500 signatures to the petition was a significant number, this
left 38,500 who had not signed the petition.
- In relation to surface root growth,
it was noted that these could not be pruned without the risk of
destabilising the tree.
To conclude, the Chairman invited comments
from the Area Board Councillors. Views
were expressed in support of both retaining and replacing the
trees. Following debate, the following
motion was agreed:
Decision
1.
The Salisbury Area Board acknowledges the good work
being carried out by the Salisbury Vision for the benefit of
Salisbury.
2.
Because of the considerable public concern being
expressed over the current planning application for the Market
Place, in particular the petition in respect of the replacement of
the trees, the Area Board respectfully requests that the planning
applications (S/2011/1320, S/2011/1321 and S/2011/1322) not be
taken to Committee for determination until such time as the
situation regarding the trees is fully understood, through further
liaison with the Wiltshire Tree Officer and other professional
advisors as necessary.
3.
We would like to work with the Vision Board and arrange
for the issues to be fully debated in public at an Extraordinary
meeting of the Salisbury Area Board, to be arranged for the
purpose, once the outcome of this further advice on the trees is
known.
4.
We would also propose that Salisbury City Council and
the business community give their views.
It was also suggested that the public
consultation period on the planning application be extended to
remove any concern over the deadline for submitting comments on the
current proposals.