NEWSLETTER No. 2 | April 2000 |
The efforts of those who campaigned about Library Wood have not been in vain. Obviously a mistake occurred in the planning process and it was unfortunate that the full nature of this mistake was not recognised until it was too late.
However, notice of the campaign has been taken by City Hall and this has helped to progress the development of an Urban Forest Strategy, which will be ready in June 2000. This is a major achievement on the part of the Tree Protection Officer (T.P.O.) and of the Green Spaces department, working in conjunction with the Planning Department.
It is anticipated that all significant trees within the city shall be identified; Community Fora and Tree Wardens will be used to effect this end.
Further, in future, applicants for development permission will be required to submit and pay for an arboricultural survey. Thorpe Hamlet Community Forum is already monitoring all applications for development with particular regard to their environmental impact. It has already successfully made its views known about one inappropriate development: rejected on an all-party basis after a motion for rejection had been passed by the Community Forum.
Finally, the Planning Department now conducts a weekly review of trees. Thus, a close liaison between the T.P.O. and Planning is essential. In this regard, we believe it will assist the T.P.O. if they be allowed to continue working within City Hall, so as to maintain day-to-day contact with planning officers. We urge that this be considered, even though the T.P.O. falls under Green Spaces.
The Tree Protection Officer is in the process of putting together a set of practices which will be of immense value to the Norwich environment. We have believed for some time that better procedures would have prevented inappropriate development in Library Wood. We do not blame individuals or parties for being confused. We are very pleased to learn that the City Council will now be able to act in a systematic and proactive manner, according to good procedures and with the necessary knowledge and power. We are grateful that the T.P.O. has had the opportunity to improve matters. We are also grateful to our local Councillors and to others who have understood and supported us in trying to make good the loss suffered.
Did you know? ... that the saying "cast not a clout `ere May be out" refers not to the month but in all probability to the blossom of the Hawthorn, or May Tree - the traditional announcement of the summer half of the year.
The glorious leaning Hawthorn in Library Wood has happily been spared and will soon be in bloom, perhaps portending better things to come?
Library Wood is not a party-political issue: it is a shame the Labour Party has chosen to make it one. The Party's recent election leaflet for Thorpe Hamlet carried an attack on our local Ward Councillors who have been so supportive of us, just because they are Liberal Democrats. The article claims that our Councillors have their facts wrong over Library Wood, yet everything cited to back this up is itself incorrect:
1 No local Councillor raised an objection when planning permission was first granted.
Wrong: Cllr. Bowling did, but Councillors were persuaded that only a couple of trees were to be felled.
2 A planning brief was drawn up and no local Councillor commented on it.
Wrong: planning notes were produced, which, unlike a brief, do not require Committee approval. Furthermore, these notes were not adhered to in the granting of planning permission, yet the public had been led to believe that they would be by the publication of the salient points in the newsletter of... Thorpe Hamlet Labour Party! That edition of Eastside quoted the party's Andy Pearmain as saying:
"Development should respect the existing tree growth on the site. The retention of this screen is crucial and the careful and precise location of a building to avoid conflict with root spread and canopy growth must be determined".
3 No local Councillor commented on what the County Council should sell the land for.
Wrong: Cllr. Hacker made local views known to the County Council in both 1994 and 1996.
4 Independent tree surveys were carried out for the City council and the developers.
And for the Friends - which showed that there was nothing wrong with the vast majority of trees which have been felled.
5 The Labour Party stopped the land being used for the Inner Ring Road Phase III.
Wrong: Whilst the City Council's opposition was significant, it was the campaign by Norwich citizens, led by the Norwich Road Action group, which stopped that anachronistic road scheme - as made clear by the Public Inquiry Inspector's report.
The implication of the article is also that the Friends is a front for the Liberal Democratic Party. This could not be further from the truth. Our membership includes supporters of at least two other parties, and plenty who are aligned with none. The Councillors who have supported us have done so because they are as concerned as the rest of us for our local environment, and as representatives of the community, not because of their party allegiance.
So, vote for whomsoever you think fit on 4th May, but make sure they've got their facts right!
The Friends has been asked by George Ishmael, the City Council's Landscape Manager, to put together a brief -the basis for a plan - for the piece of Library Wood to be left as public open space.
Please think about this - what it would be appropriate to have in our remaining corner, and what there shouldn't be. We will have a meeting to put the brief together in the second half of May.
| Return to the top of this page. | Destruction and desecration (December 1999). | Newsletter No. 1 (October 1999). |
Return to Homepage | The Background | How to find Library Wood | Join the Friends