Apparently, it’s the tenth anniversary of my joining Twitter. I knew it was this month, but wasn’t sure of the exact date. Today, apparently.

In itself it’s not particularly important, but it’s led me to think back, to think about why I joined Twitter in the first place, and reminded me that it’s all to do with a tree.

And reminded me that it’s ten years today since York Stories was mentioned/quoted in the Guardian, in the Northerner, in a piece by Martin Wainwright, on a tree in Irton that was the focus of protests in late September 2011.

‘An extremely good website York Stories sets out the full history of this saga and is well worth visiting’.

It includes a quoted part of that page:

“Everyone who thinks trees enhance a place should care about this case. we should all be bothered. This is probably just the start of it. If you care about a particular tree in your neighbourhood and it’s close to someone’s wall, or a drain – as it probably is – practise your tree-climbing skills …”

Originally, it was through local radio – BBCYork – that I heard about the first protester who had climbed up the tree in Irton, and occupied it, to protest against the proposed felling.

The whole Irton tree saga was thought-provoking, and inspiring. Back then, in September 2011, I was still making old-style handcrafted pre-blog-style pages for York Stories, like the one linked to above. A few more pages followed, on the subject. I even sent a card/note in the post, to the tree and its occupier. All very old-style. Nice to remember it.

The article in the Guardian, on 30 September 2011, included the Twitter account for the tree (@IrtonTree).

I hadn’t wanted to get involved in the social media thing, I had my own website and domain name, had people who read my website regularly, and didn’t want to get distracted by Twitter and the like. I didn’t use Facebook (still don’t), but was drawn in to wanting to follow the progress of the case of @IrtonTree.

So signed up to Twitter. It was a Friday night, apparently. I vaguely remember looking at some tweets and having that feeling like I’d gone to a late night party where I didn’t know anyone and had no idea what they were talking about. I think I encountered some ‘HT’ and ‘#’ and felt baffled. Probably got a recommendation to follow Stephen Fry.

Didn’t actually say anything much publicly on Twitter for quite some time.

But once I’d signed up the tree @IrtonTree followed me back. Or rather, the @IrtonTree account that was defending it did. I remember that I found this funny, amusing, touching. The word ‘follow’ seems quite daft, when it’s about a tree, the point of which is that it’s firmly rooted in the ground. That’s why we care about them, grow to love them, precisely because they stay put, anchor themselves in. Or they do if they’re allowed to. There was a magical, fairytale element to it, an appreciation of the spirit of trees, the idea that they’d get up and walk if they could, and follow souls who cared about them.

I’m not sure who it was doing the tweets from @IrtonTree back then, several people perhaps, but many of the tweets – particularly around the time of the tree’s felling, not long after – were brilliant, like poetry, so poignant and expressive, within the very short Twitter format.

And so I ended up feeling truly drawn in to the spirit of a tree and a place and the people who cared about the tree, even though I’d never seen the tree, never been to the place, didn’t know any of the people involved in the protests.

But there was something universal about it, and that’s what I tried to convey back then.

Now, in 2021, I can’t help thinking about the people who climbed up the tree, and how they’re doing now, ten years on. And all that’s changed since, on Twitter, and elsewhere.

But for now, pleased to be remembering a truly impressive campaign to save one particular tree, and how pleasing and rewarding it was, back then, to be able to find out so much about it, and the case surrounding it – despite being some distance away – because of the available information online in general, and @IrtonTree on Twitter.

 . . . . .

Yes, it has been a long time. Anyone who appreciates staying power can support this website/blog at present via ko-fi.com. (Suggested amount – the ko-fi default – can be altered if you’re feeling rich.)

The post A tweeting tree … and ten years on Twitter appeared first on York Stories.

Tree under threat of felling, for posh paving, Stonebow House (image: Google Street View)

It appears that the city centre might lose another couple of its trees, if applications to fell are approved. Let’s start with this tree pictured above, on the corner of St Saviourgate, next to Stonebow House.

17/03025/TCA | Fell Whitebeam tree in a Conservation Area | STREET RECORD St Saviourgate York

There’s an application to fell this tree because it gets in the way of plans for posh paving, part of the gentrification of Stonebow House.

This was a public garden area, and the tree is apparently owned by City of York Council. So it’s one of ‘ours’, people of York. If anyone would like to object to its proposed felling you can use that link above. Or there’s information on how to comment by email or post on this link to the council’s website. (Include the reference number: 17/03025/TCA)

If no one objects then the felling will probably be approved. It might be anyway, but we might feel we don’t want to just roll over and pander to developers.

The original planning application showed this tree being retained, I thought. I’ve revisited 16/01003/FUL and yes, the idea was to work around it. Here’s a detail from a landscaping plan for this corner of the site, from the original planning application documents (PDF here):

Detail from previously approved landscape plan (Sept 2016)

According to the tree report (via this link):

The original intention of the development was to retain the tree, however arboricultural investigations have shown that safe retention of the tree is unlikely to be possible without considerable alterations to the current design.

Maybe alter the current design then? Invest a bit of the no doubt enormous profits from this development into a bit more design work and a better solution?

Stonebow House tree, growing happily, pre-gentrification (May 2016)

More later maybe on the ‘transformation’ of Stonebow House. For now we need to move on to look at another (particularly handsome) tree, nearby.

Application to fell ‘over mature’ horse chestnut, Peasholme Green

Splendid horse chestnut, St Cuthbert’s churchyard, Peasholme Green (image: Google Street View)

There’s an application to fell this tree too.

17/02534/TCA | Fell Horse Chestnut in a Conservation Area | St Cuthberts Church Peasholme Green York YO1 7PW

It appears that there’s no decision as yet, even though the application was made some months back (though perhaps a decision has been made and the document just hasn’t been uploaded – I’m trying to get clarification on this). There have been two objections lodged. If you’d like to add your own, you can do so via that link above. Or there’s information on how to comment by email or post on this link to the council’s website. (Include the reference number: 17/02534/TCA)

We’re back on familiar territory, in that I’ve written about the city’s trees so many times before, starting back in autumn 2011.

The application form and attached report (PDF) gives reasons for the proposed felling of the tree:

The tree is identified as mature/over mature, with evidence of direct/indirect root damage to the brick retaining wall. This has caused significant historical/recent movement of the wall forcing the upper section of the wall towards the public footpath and highway. Both these access routes are heavily used by pedestrians/vehicles.

After that it discusses reasons why the wall can’t be repaired instead, and then as an apparent afterthought mentions evidence of bleeding canker and horse chestnut leaf miner evident within the canopy of the tree ‘leading to medium to long term health issues’.

But any disease in the tree doesn’t seem to be the main reason being put forward. Even if it is diseased, can this not be managed without felling it completely? We’ve lost other mature horse chestnuts in recent years. It’s very sad. The canker may be a more serious issue but the leaf miner damage doesn’t as I understand it affect the overall health of the tree or make it unsafe.

While being completely aware that I’m not a tree expert, I’m reminded of the fact that the case of the Irton tree highlighted that different tree surgeons can have differing opinions on a particular tree and how to manage any ‘issues’, particularly those involving walls and drains and the like.

If any tree surgeons are reading this I’d be interested in their views.

I’m ill with some nasty cold/virus thing at present, and so haven’t been able to walk over to the other side of town to see if the poor old tree is still there, and to take some photos of it, but I do have a few from previous years. Including this rather pleasing one of the memorial cross in the churchyard with the church behind and the horse chestnut tree in question gracefully hanging over the scene.

Cross and horse chestnut tree, St Cuthbert’s, 20 June 2007

Peasholme Green, with horse chestnut, 20 June 2007

Peasholme Green, with horse chestnut tree, 31 Aug 2010

. . . . .

These pages are powered by virtual coffees, via Ko-fi and Paypal.

Thanks for coffees and kind comments recently. Your appreciation is appreciated.

Map

Google map showing location of trees mentioned above.

Update, 25 Jan

The application to fell the whitebeam at the corner of the Stonebow House site, referred to above, has been withdrawn. There were quite a few objections registered, including one from Cllr Dave Taylor.

As is usual, there’s no publicly available information on the reasons for the applicant’s decision to withdraw, just the standard document on this link. (Comments from objectors are also removed after a withdrawal or decision).

There will presumably be another application at some point, worth looking out for that.

The post Applications to fell trees at Stonebow House and St Cuthbert’s appeared first on York Stories.

Ordnance Lane buildings, May 2016

Sometimes, on a Thursday, I settle down to watch a bit of ‘council telly’, as we call it in this house — the City of York Council webcast. There are many of these, but Thursday is usually the day for the planning committee, or, like this week, the executive meeting. It sounds quite dull, doesn’t it, but don’t leave yet. I just wanted to point out a few things of interest relating to buildings already discussed here on these pages in the past.

Ordnance Lane, plans abandoned

A while back, 27 May 2016, I wrote a piece about a planning application to demolish the interesting buildings on Ordnance Lane (pictured above). The planning application languished, undecided, for months. The matter was discussed at this week’s executive meeting (number 17 on this link), as there’s now a change of plan, involving using a different building, on James Street, for emergency accommodation for people who need assistance after becoming homeless. It sounds far more suitable.

James House, James Street

There’s more information in the report prepared for the meeting (PDF).

What will happen to the Ordnance Lane buildings remains to be seen, but for now they’re apparently safe from being flattened. They would make desirable residential accommodation if refurbished.

As they’re apparently still council owned I hope the council will aim for that outcome. Enough unlisted heritage has been destroyed recently. The council has a duty, I think, to do its best to preserve those heritage assets it still owns, particularly the vulnerable ‘recent’ heritage (19th century onwards), as we can’t do anything much to protect the privately-owned heritage assets/buildings of significance in a system so weighted in favour of developers.

Which leads me on to …

Carlton Tavern (Godfrey Walker Home), plans submitted

This wasn’t on the agenda at this evening’s council executive meeting, but the planning application for the building that was the subject of last week’s page has just gone online:

17/00476/FULM | Erection of three-four storey 79no. bedroom care home with associated parking, cycle racks and landscaping following demolition of existing public house | The Carlton Tavern 140 Acomb Road York YO24 4HA

There are some similarities between the Ordnance Lane buildings and this building, in that they’re both some way out of the city centre on main roads from town, and neither has the protection of any listed status. But as the Carlton Tavern (formerly West Garth, and the Godfrey Walker Home) is owned by a pub company who are selling it to a care home company it’s hard to see it surviving.

The proposed demolition seems like a wasteful and crass destruction of a handsome building that is part of the history of its area, just like the Ordnance Lane buildings are part of the history of their area. Surely, in the 21st century, we’ve got the wit and understanding and technical expertise to incorporate buildings like this into plans for redevelopment of a site, rather than just smash them to bits?

The Carlton Tavern site is large, and it appears that there’s plenty of room for the developers to maximise their profit on the land around it.

If you’d like to comment on the planning application you can do so on this link.

Vibrant hubs and sell-offs

On the link to the recording of the meeting on the council’s YouTube channel the executive meeting agenda is posted under the video, and it’s also available to read on the relevant page on the council’s website. Reading through the list gives a snapshot of York and its concerns and changes at this time, March 2017.

I have to focus on particular aspects here on these pages, as I can’t cover it all. But the meeting covered a lot of ground. There’s also the long-running saga of the community stadium, which has grown into some huge unwieldy thing since I wrote about it years ago. And there’s the plan to turn the Guildhall complex into ‘a vibrant hub’. And the selling off of the site of Oakhaven older people’s accommodation for much less than its market value to Ashley House plc in exchange for an 80 year agreement. I guess the new accommodation might end up looking something like this one in Grimsby.

So much being sold off, moved out of local authority control, privatised.

Lettering on the exterior of Yearsley Baths, May 2015

And a tree

Never mind, if it all gets a bit too much I find it helps to head off for a brisk walk away from the hard-to-keep-up-with vigorous visions and vibrant hubs of the city centre towards the greenery and fine old trees at Clifton Park.

Where, recently, a healthy and supposedly TPO-protected tree was felled, so the Dormouse pub could put up a big advertising sign, alongside a row of more signs (info on this link).

Stump of felled tree, by the Dormouse pub sign

There appears to have been a clearance of vegetation to better display them. As the report (PDF) on this (retrospective) planning application states:

In order to erect the sign, which is already in place, a protected tree has been removed without consent. The TPO reference number is 173/1991 and was served in 1991 as an ‘area’ order which relates to all the trees within a demarcated area, such that all the trees in existence at the time of serving the order are protected.

Not clear whether this is a case of ignorance — not knowing about the TPO protection — or arrogance, thinking that ignoring such things is okay.

The roadside signs didn’t get planning permission so I imagine they will have to come down. Hard to put back the tree though isn’t it.

The post Ordnance Lane, Carlton Tavern, musings … and a tree appeared first on York Stories.

It’s National Tree Week. As I’m a bit of a tree-hugger, and as I admire trees every week and haven’t mentioned them for a while, it seems a good time to do so, and to highlight some concerns.

Earlier this week, one sunny afternoon, I had a quick stomp out to get some fresh air and sunshine and walk on some grass under some trees. Something I like to do as often as I can, whether it’s National Tree Week or not. The photos on this page are all from that walk, and taken in that golden hour in the later afternoon, leading up to the sunset.

To celebrate National Tree Week I’d like to write a positive and cheery page about trees. But it’s harder and harder to be cheery and positive about trees, because now when I see a fine mature specimen I wonder how safe it is, whether it has any protection (eg a TPO), who owns the land its on, and how likely it is that it will survive another ten or twenty years without being felled as dangerous or in the way of some development or other.

Recently there has been a lot of press and social media coverage of the situation in Sheffield, where street trees are being felled.

many of the trees which are being removed are not dangerous but are merely seen to be “damaging” (to the pavement or nearby walls) or “discriminatory” (causing alleged obstruction to people with visual or physical impairments).

— says the Woodland Trust, which is, as its name suggests, primarily concerned about trees in woodland, but has ‘been gradually drawn into the Sheffield Street Tree controversy by the sheer scale of the felling involved and also the way the Council has failed to communicate effectively with its local residents.’ The Trust suggests that in many cases pruning the tree or resurfacing the pavement would be a more sensible option.

It does sound like a horribly managed tree-destroying mess, over in Sheffield.

But, I wonder, is a similar situation going to happen in other cities? Here in York the council has recently been working on a new policy for the trees it manages (see links below). But perhaps here and in other places, do we need to be a bit more involved and proactive in protecting our mature street trees and trees in our parks and on our strays? And should we be asked about decisions taken on the future of these trees?

I wonder how many people remember the Irton tree, the beech, back in 2011. I wrote about it at the time, several pages. One of them was mentioned in a piece by Martin Wainwright in the Guardian. The Irton Tree campaign is the reason I ended up on Twitter — as a way to keep up with the campaign — and its Twitter presence is still a beautiful example of how to use Twitter. It was  perhaps the first ‘tweeting tree’, or one of the first.

The Irton case is also the reason I began to develop a wider appreciation of trees, of particular trees on my local patch and noticed on walks around York. In the weeks leading up to the felling of that tree, during the campaign to save it, I read a lot, and realised where things were heading, that it wasn’t just this tree, that the felling of mature trees planted by previous generations was probably going to become more common, because of disease, safety fears, or perhaps just because they’d got into someone’s drains or made the pavements a bit wonky.

There seems to be a lot of tree planting going on, and many people with a more practical approach seem to think that as long as a new tree is planted for any tree felled then that’s okay. But surely we can all appreciate that large mature trees are of greater value than any young sapling, for so many reasons — environmentally and aesthetically. The older and bigger they are the more impressive they are. But perhaps now, in our increasingly built-up urban areas, the older and bigger they are the more vulnerable they are to being seen as a danger or an inconvenience.

Longevity seems to be likely only if they’re miles away in the middle of the countryside or perhaps a particularly ancient specimen seen as ‘iconic’ and special. Then they can drop whole limbs and do the things that old trees do without being interfered with. Otherwise they’re continually monitored for disease and associated perceived risk.

I’ve recently discovered that the ‘Localview’ site for York includes a map option showing the location of the city’s trees and giving details of those with Tree Preservation Orders (though having one of those doesn’t necessarily stop the felling, as the Irton case demonstrated). I’m not sure whether it’s complete, as it doesn’t seem to include sites like the Museum Gardens, which presumably has several TPO trees. But it’s interesting to peruse, and includes the date when a tree was last inspected. Making us realise, if we didn’t before, that regular inspections are carried out to check on the health of trees and whether they’ve become diseased and potentially in danger of falling or dropping branches.

There are also of course other ‘problems’ with trees, if you’re looking for problems. Leaves falling and causing a mess, roots making pavements a bit lumpy, and in Sheffield it seems that Amey have found a whole load of justifications for removing healthy trees, not just diseased ones.

In campaigns to retain mature trees their environmental benefits tend to be emphasised in a ‘scientific’ kind of way. This doesn’t quite capture their true value, does it. It’s deeper than that. Partly perhaps a recognition of the fact that someone many generations ago planted this now huge and beautiful thing, as a seed or a sapling, with faith in the future, knowing that future generations would benefit from it. Decades of survival and growth, and that solidity they get, and the grace of great long branches sweeping down to meet us. And the scent of lime flowers in summer. And all the birds flitting through them, and nesting in holes in their gnarly old trunks.

Personally I find that my appreciation of trees deepens with the years, from a general appreciation when I was younger to a developing interest and understanding.

This autumn I ate beech nuts for the first time, gathered from a tree whose branches had been left to lean low towards the ground. And gathered sweet chestnuts all shiny from where they’d fallen in prickly-shelled profusion.

Now, in December, I’m admiring branches both delicate and strong, black against the early sunsets of winter skies. And I hope you are too.

More information

Dawn tree felling in Sheffield sparks outrage (BBC, 17 Nov 2016)

Sheffield council urged to drop plans to fell war memorial trees (Guardian, 30 Nov 2016)

The Sheffield campaign has been running for some time: Sheffield residents in bitter row with council over tree-felling proposals (Independent, 17 October 2015)

Our own council in York has been working on a new ‘Arboricultural Policy’ for the management of the council’s public trees. More info on this link and here.

In York, applications for tree works on trees in Conservation Areas and TPO trees can be found with the other planning applications on the council’s website via https://planningaccess.york.gov.uk/online-applications/

At this time of the year there are often quite a lot. Here’s one of the current ones, awaiting a decision:
16/02670/TPO | Fell 3 no. Plane trees and 5 no. Poplar trees protected by a tree presavation order. | York Racecourse Racecourse Road Knavesmire York YO23 1EJ
— perhaps people in the area more familiar with the trees in question will want to read more about the justification for the proposed removal. The documents are viewable on that link.

The City of York Council website also includes a map of protected trees (Tree Preservation Order on in Conservation Areas).

Sometimes trees are removed without any obvious notification or publicly accessible paperwork. This apparently happens when they’re considered a danger in need of immediate removal, or so I was given to understand. This happened with a mature horse chestnut in the grounds of Bootham Park. It was perhaps a similar situation with a tree felled recently by the building site for a new house being built near Monk Bar. I couldn’t find any information about the reasons for its removal.

. . . . .

Shopping via my Amazon links (above and below, and this text link if you can’t see the ads) helps to support this site via a small amount of income from the Amazon Associates programme. Just a seasonal reminder, in the run up to Christmas, when many people may be spending a lot of money via Amazon.co.uk. Thank you.

The post Trees, in National Tree Week: appreciation, and concerns appeared first on York Stories.

Ring road on the left, retail park on the right, handsome trees in between

In which your correspondent heroically cycles over to the furthest reaches of Clifton Moor, to investigate the Clifton Moor trees under threat

Most weeks I check the planning applications recently validated, via the weekly/monthly list search option on the council’s ‘planning access’ pages. Some weeks I don’t get around to it and miss things. I didn’t get around to it last week, but the Press has drawn attention to one of the applications just submitted, a rather surprising request to fell a large number of trees at the edge of the Clifton Moor retail park, because they’re obscuring the view of the shops.

The application can be found on this link:

16/01342/TPO |Fell 103no. trees protected by Tree Preservation Order no.: CYC344 | Clifton Moor Centre Stirling Road York

Though 103 trees is a lot, it is only part of the ‘tree offer’ next to Clifton Moor’s ‘retail offer’. There are a lot of trees on the boundary, the very long boundaries of this massive place, once large enough to contain an airfield. Now it’s a sprawl of shops, out here on its northern part, nearest the ring road. The application relates to a particular section of tree planting, near to Matalan, Iceland, Dunelm, etc. See the ‘Further information’ below for links to the plans.

A letter accompanying the planning application (PDF) contains this sentence:

In considering the application it is important to recognise that the original landscape scheme was designed to be low key and to be maintained at a low level to enable customers to enjoy views of the retail units.

Views like this:

Matalan, Clifton Moor

Cycling out to see the trees

I know from previous excursions that Clifton Moor retail park is a horribly unfriendly place to any visitor not in a car. I’ve tried to navigate it a couple of times by bike (with bits of walking when I came across frightening roundabouts and decided to dismount) and I have to say that it’s probably the most cyclist-unfriendly and pedestrian-unfriendly place I’ve visited in my wanderings/cycling around York.

So I hoped I could illustrate this piece with images from Google Street View, and not have to visit it.

But, that proved inadequate. So, dear readers, I went the extra mile (or several), gathered all my courage and fortitude, and set off on Old Bikey, up the pothole-filled roads of outer York, towards the outer fringes of the retail park, to bring you the photos on this page of the actual trees under threat.

The photos were all taken yesterday, as I dodged the cars on a Clifton Moor retail park access road, unprotected by pavement or cycle lane, while the ring road traffic whizzed by on the other side of the trees. I don’t want a medal but please feel free to express appreciation for my ongoing endeavors in citizen journalism in a supportive financial way, should this page inspire you.

Studying the threatened trees

Retail park on the left, ring road on the right, threatened trees in between

Perhaps many readers will have admired these trees while sitting in traffic on the ring road. Or perhaps not. We tend to take trees for granted until they’re under threat of being felled, or, as is more usual, until we see them being felled, having not realised they were going to be. Anyway, let’s appreciate them now.

Some of these trees are thick-trunked and have interesting bark

They’re a mix of species, some of them with thick trunks and interesting bark, and they’re all looking robust and healthy. They’re not those usual town trees, small rowans and the like, the kind we plant now in tight spaces. We have oaks in here. Yes, oaks.

The planting also includes poplar, alder, ash and birch.

There’s evidence that a few of the trees have been felled in the past, stumps remaining.

Previously felled, some time ago

And also evidence that perhaps it isn’t that easy to kill them, that nature so often surges back, defiant.

Trees apparently regrowing from stumps. Middle one is an oak.

Growth was sprouting from the ground again on this patch. Perhaps this kind of low growth is preferred by the shop owners, as it doesn’t obscure the view of the retail offer.

This photo including a car gives a better idea of scale — how tall many of these trees are. They’re fairly lofty, but just getting going really, doing their tree thing.

With car, to give an idea of the size of some of the trees

Tree protection and the ownership question

Letters to the Press and other online comments have referred to ‘our’ trees. There appears to be a sense of ownership, perhaps because they’re in a public place, near roads.

A hedge between them and the ring road looked like it was the boundary of the retail park, which is private property, as this sign on one of the photos I took makes clear (in a blurry way, apologies for the quality).

‘This Retail Park is Private Property. …
Beware Of Barriers’

I wondered who owns the land they’re planted on. The form for the planning application provides the answer:

Excerpt from planning application form

‘Is the applicant the owner of the tree(s)?’ it asks. The answer is ‘yes’.

So it could be said that we the public have no right to tell the owners of the land what to do with their trees. And we might also think about how vulnerable ‘our trees’ are in other publicly visible/accessible places, where they’re probably not ‘ours’ at all.

The trees do have some protection, from a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The reasons given in the TPO for the area:

The belt of trees located between the access roads for Clifton Moor Retail Park and the outer ring road (A1237) are considered to be an essential component of the highly visible landscape infrastructure of the retail development, and the setting of the city. The trees (and hedge) can be suitably managed to allow views in to the development whilst retaining a suitable landscape setting. Potentially the trees are no longer protected by conditions of planning consent, therefore it is felt expedient to serve a tree preservation order to protect the integrity the tree belt and the public amenity that it affords.

But a TPO isn’t a guarantee that trees will be protected, as previous experience shows. Tree Preservation Orders can be revoked.

Alongside all their other benefits, these trees also provide extra advertising space

And later, and nearby, and elsewhere

The proposed dualling of the ring road, which I keep hearing mention of every now and then, would presumably wipe out a lot of the wildlife-friendly vegetation now well-established alongside the existing road, and destroy a habitat we’d then have to recreate again, around the wider road.

Trees are being removed all the time, for all kinds of reasons. A huge healthy ash tree has just been felled on the TA barracks site on Burton Stone Lane, to make way for a firing range. Often trees are removed with barely anyone noticing. Thankfully in this case there are many objections, and if you’d like to add to them, the link and info follows. But let’s close the page with the objection posted by Michelle Wyatt, the first objector in what is now a long list:

I do not believe the poor performance of retail outlets is due to trees. I disagree with destroying what little is left of habitats for animals and wildlife to ‘improve views’. I can tell you why I dont shop at Clifton Moor. Its because its hard to get to if you dont have a car & because internet shopping is now my main way to shop. You can chop down as many trees as you like. Everyone will still shop with Amazon. You will simply attract dislike and become unpopular. Please keep the trees. Thankyou

More information

Planning application: 16/01342/TPO |Fell 103no. trees protected by Tree Preservation Order no.: CYC344 | Clifton Moor Centre Stirling Road York

And as always, I’d like to be helpful and include direct links to the most interesting documents included in the above, but the creaky online system often refuses to display documents. So if the following links don’t work either try again later or try the main link above and scroll down the list.

Application form (PDF)
Letter from Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd (PDF)
Plan clarifying location of trees (PDF) (application relates to block A3)
Plan of proposed removals (PDF)

The objections/comments are also viewable either on the main link or this link, under ‘Comments’, depending on your device.

York Press report on the tree-felling application

View the site via Bing maps

And finally

Providing information like this takes many hours of work — research, thought, writing, photography, and in this case, cycling. It’s all created by one person, who receives no public funding to provide this valuable online resource. The site’s continuation with regularly updated content is more likely if more people support it financially. I have bills to pay just like everyone else. If you’d like to say thank you for this labour of love, here’s a link for that, and more information on this page.

The post Clifton Moor trees: application to fell appeared first on York Stories.

24 April 2005: path alongside the remnants of Clifton Hospital

On this day eleven years ago I had a walk up by the riverside area of Clifton, in the early days of beginning to properly appreciate my local patch, and discovering more of it. On the boundary of the built-up area of what was the old Clifton Hospital site (now Clifton Park) there’s a narrow path between an avenue of trees, leading from Rawcliffe Meadows towards Shipton Road. At the time I walked along here, on this day all those years ago, the light caught it beautifully.

So many well-worn paths, we tend to take them for granted. Not giving much thought to whether they’re protected, whose land they’re on. The longer I work on this site the more I think about land ownership and public access, and it becomes less about individual buildings but more about the way we move through what’s there and what rights we have to keep walking that way. How many paths really are ‘rights of way’. Even those can be closed, as many people in the Clifton area may remember. More on this story later … but for now, I hope we’re enjoying the well-worn paths through the springtime trees.

The post Trees, light, rights of way: April daily photo 24 appeared first on York Stories.