RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:26 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:10 am Tree huggers involved now, apparently.

2-3 weeks ago, and already addressed (unless there's been another one)
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/publisher/do ... AD02FD.pdf

Link broken?

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 10:06 am Link broken?

Hmmm, weird, looks like I can only successfully link to the page of pdfs, not any specific pdf
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/webforms/pla ... ts_Section

4th document, 16/05/2025 "ADDENDUM ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT AND ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT"

For me, the most interest bit (low bar, none of it is interesting) is that despite claims in the media about it being a veteran or even ancient tree - it's only been registered as "notable" and doesn't really fit that description, let alone veteran or ancient.
Also "interesting" that it was registered that way after applying for planning - which doesn't remotely mean that it shouldn't be protected, just "interesting". Tree is owned by Rosie Carne, a known NIMBY and opponent of Bath playing on the Rec (I've no idea when she bought the tree)

From that report (paid for by the people wanting to build), it looks like, at best, protective measures would need to be taken - which IIRC, was already the case, but may have been "already the case" for different trees.

Name checking the copper beech alongside the Sycamore Gap tree seems... a little OTT

ETA: on when she bought the tree - it looks like the trunk of the tree is in her private garden; so the tree would have come with the house - no conspiracy there.
Still a tonne of mis-representation though.

"Notable tree" is going on my epitaph, what an accolade

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 10:20 am

Puja wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 10:06 am Link broken?

Hmmm, weird, looks like I can only successfully link to the page of pdfs, not any specific pdf
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/webforms/pla ... ts_Section

4th document, 16/05/2025 "ADDENDUM ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT AND ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT"

For me, the most interest bit (low bar, none of it is interesting) is that despite claims in the media about it being a veteran or even ancient tree - it's only been registered as "notable" and doesn't really fit that description, let alone veteran or ancient.
Also "interesting" that it was registered that way after applying for planning - which doesn't remotely mean that it shouldn't be protected, just "interesting". Tree is owned by Rosie Carne, a known NIMBY and opponent of Bath playing on the Rec (I've no idea when she bought the tree)

From that report (paid for by the people wanting to build), it looks like, at best, protective measures would need to be taken - which IIRC, was already the case, but may have been "already the case" for different trees.

Name checking the copper beech alongside the Sycamore Gap tree seems... a little OTT

"Both the local Councillor and the tree owner have referred to the tree as a veteran ancient tree." The report then carefully lays out the characteristics that would make a tree veteran or ancient before pointing out bluntly that this tree has none of those and that, if it did start to exhibit those characteristics, its location means that it would need to be removed for public safety considerations anyway, as this type of tree "declines rapidly once physiological health starts to decline" and "it cannot be ignored or argued that ecology and preservation will take precedent over current and future public safety."

It's not even as though the plans involve cutting down the damned thing - the best the NIMBYs have managed to complain about is that construction will be happening near the tree and might damage its roots, which is an interesting take considering the tree is in the corner of a garden and two sides of it are covered in tarmac - hardly as though they're paving over a grassy bower!



Puja

It's a nice tree to be fair.

Yep, no problem with it being protected during building work

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:26 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:10 am Tree huggers involved now, apparently.

2-3 weeks ago, and already addressed (unless there's been another one)
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/publisher/do ... AD02FD.pdf

Can't get that link. I'm referring to page 34 of today's DT. Can't copy article as in a holiday cottage without PC etc.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 4:35 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:26 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:10 am Tree huggers involved now, apparently.

2-3 weeks ago, and already addressed (unless there's been another one)
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/publisher/do ... AD02FD.pdf

Can't get that link. I'm referring to page 34 of today's DT. Can't copy article as in a holiday cottage without PC etc.

https://archive.ph/qx4kg

Interesting that it's made the Telegraph, but that's mostly because Rees-Mogg has come out against the "Woke Lefties killjoys" and so it's part of their culture war reporting. It doesn't feel good to have Rees-Mogg on the same side as me and it did make me double-check my position, but he's there almost accidentally, without understanding the issue any better than the Green councillor.

Puja

Ohhhhhhh man I'd give my left ball to see him on a rugby pitch. Even Ford would shatter him like a boiled sweet.