Calling trees war memorials step too far

A couple of questions spring to mind:

1. Would they be specific to any particular war, or just to wars in general. If so, which ones – Second World War, First, Crimean, Seven Years war, the Wars of the Roses, perhaps even back as far as the Battle of Hastings.

2. Would this just be a another devious council strategy to deflect attention from Amey’s declared requirement to remove many of the Western road memorial trees?

Remember, that these now magnificent trees were each planted to commemorate individual local young men who became soldiers and gave their lives in defence of our country during the First World War. And that’s why it’s important to keep them.

The trees are mature and healthy, have possibly another 100 years life expectancy, and in many cases can be retained using one of the several options contained within Ameys PFI contract, such as flexi paving, or narrow kerb stones.

As a side issue, in May 2015, the lime tree outside our house on Rustlings road was, along with 12 others on the road noticed to be felled as it was deemed to be one of the six Ds.

After widespread protests over several months, SCC / Amey carried out further inspection on three of these trees,( including “ours”).

In each case, the original felling instruction was found to be wrong, and was, therefore, repealed.

These trees still stand, and this calls into question council officers’/ Amey’s expertise in the first place.

I certainly don’t object to the planting of new trees in Bingham Park – not that the park is short of trees, but calling them war memorial trees is a step too far.

SFJ

by email