Let’s start at the very beginning……
So basically, the opening statement from the LCCC should be setting your alarm bells off.
Here’s a bullet point breakdown:
“….carrying out some routine maintenance” - none of the works, in process or planned, are routine of any sorts.
“the council is conscious has generated some community interest” - The community have always been interested in what happens in the area and have responded in defence of what was and is clearly unrecognisable as routine work.
“…we wish to explain planned works…..” - Planned implies it is yet to happen, though much has happened and in motion.
“…the opportunity to comment on…“ - so you can only comment on, no choice, no suggestion that your comments can impact any outcome. Also, hard to do that if the work has already completed or initiated.
Much of the discourse that the community has with our councils’ recent encroachments around the Killeaton Fields, is the huge impact to community wellbeing without any proper consultation. The attempt to hide these works under the guise of minor routine maintenance, when this is not the case, is a move to avoid any proposals been brought to council committee and then open to proper scrutiny and consultation with the community to whom our council serves. This is in direct contravention to our councils Constitution and Core Values over the services they provide.
Let’s look at the tree maintenance works along the boundary between point A-B.
Here’s a bullet point breakdown:
. This report laid these residents to believe that the council were finally taking responsibility for the long overdue maintenance.
When other works took place on the Killeaton Fields – it was then revealed that further plans where afoot and then confusion set in. This prompted residents to raise concern and ask around, thus revealing the tree survey report that did not detail any of these further works. (we will return to these other works later)
· It was then as the tree survey was circulated that other residents, who were not consulted, discovered that there was to be a substantial loss of mature trees and a huge change to the outline and outlook of the area.
As more questions were asked of the council and the councilors. It was discovered that these residents only received half of the tree survey report.
This further section of the report also identified the long-term mismanagement of the trees that now deemed the trees problematic.
Interesting this survey and report only concentrated on the trees on the back boundary and no other tree in the fields – should the council not be wanting to properly manage all trees?
This report also did not identify any tree as “Good”
This full report is available on the saveopenspaces.co.uk website
The council partners with the Woodland Trust. They suggest that for every tree that must be removed 3 should be planted in its place. This is not something that the council even shares with its partner. The council say that they will replant 2 for 1 instead, and maybe not even in the same place, in fact maybe not even in the same area.
Here is a statement taken from the LCCC website on Biodiversity. –
“Threats to Biodiversity - Many human activities are having a detrimental effect on our Biodiversity. This is due to habitat loss, degradation, and destruction of natural habitats due to development, changing land use practises,…..”
According to their own statement – the removal of 20 trees, the underling shrubbery and bushes would have a disastrous affect. Even if they replanted trees, it could take years to recover.
Residents spoke to ecologists, tree management groups, tree surgeons and others. Having walked around and inspected the site and the trees, none could not find any tree that posed any imminent danger. What they did all agree was that the was clearly no routine maintenance at all, and that previous work had rendered many of trees irrecoverable. They did also state that the removal of all the trees in one go was not the correct approach. They all recommended a staged approach over 10 years, removing and replacing just a couple each year. This would help the biodiversity recover each year.
They also stated that further trees should be added to the road boundaries, species that would absorb toxic chemicals, like long-living native species such as oak and maple. Again, this is on the council’s website biodiversity section yet seemingly they are choosing to ignore it and not plant what is recommended.
In basic summary to the imminent felling of most of the mature trees, the council have not properly consulted on what could only be described as major rescue attempt of what has clearly been the result of years of below standard maintenance of the trees within the field. This is not routine and hence should require a proper informed plan and not action based on the bias survey of one of the councils appointed tree management companies, who primarily fell trees for profit. Stating and using residents’ requests for a tree survey to literally cover up the mismanagement of trees is also not minor maintenance. Any such survey that highlighted the extent of major problems should have been brought to committee to maintain transparency, accountability, and excellent standards.
The council should be approaching their environmental, ecological, biodiverse specialist partners who are truly independent and have no financial incentive or gain. To firstly create a plan of revitalization and then a subsequent plan for routine maintenance.
In response to the 3 issues that the council would like your opinion on.
Do not think that this is our council consulting with residents. This is them trying to sweep up a mess that they made. The fact that they have framed the survey using suggestive terms and an “exclusively positive spin” to drive their agenda, rather than engage in genuine discussion.
Issue 1
“ encourage them to take ownership for their environment…” - what message do we send our youth council, if we are to allow this unacceptable behavior by the council. What legacy do we leave, if we say its ok to ignore the community, its ok to get a nice photo in the paper with the mayor, even if it leaves a community in confusion and some citizens even upset. No self-respecting youth would want that as the legacy of their time in council. How is that taking ownership of their environment. Their environment has real people who live in it, and they ignored them. We are sure that they were not even informed of the distress left behind and doubt they have even been told since.
on an area that you use, without asking for them or knowing they were to arrive. To then be told that further space that you use will disappear and that its happening and you can seemingly do nothing to stop it. You have every right to be shocked. Several families told us how they could no longer use the field – they could not let their children use the further fields as then they where out of sight of them. This stopped them completely from their normal use. This left them with the feeling of great loss. One stated “It took the shine of the area for us, its not a nice feeling at all – I even had thoughts of wanting to move”
The councils first statement to us was that “the small field had no use at all to anyone”.?????
Residents held a public meeting and there were many people who were angry, frustrated and saddened. There were lots of statements on how this intrusion impacted people.
Now it would be easy to get caught up in all the emotion of how this affected people. We will avoid that as the affect is not the issue it’s the outcome.
The council had no place what-so -ever to plant trees, no matter how positive they want to spin it. This was a major piece of work and should have been put through committee and through the proper consultation process. This did not happen and now they are trying to clean up the mess.
If they valued your opinion, then they should have valued it at the appropriate stage, not after the work is completed. To ask residents in a so-called engagement survey to vote on any issue after the fact is an insult. Not only is it a biased question, but it is also made even more difficult as of the nature of what they are asking. They should be admitting their mistake and then offering to rectify it, not giving further unplanned or un-consulted ultimatums.
The residents did not ask for the trees to be relocated to the boundary as the council suggested, the few residents on the zoom call simply pointed out that if the council were intending to plant trees around the boundary (another major works that has had no committee approval or consultation) of the field, then these trees could be used there -thus returning the field to its former use. It should be noted that all the concerns from the residents public meeting were presented to the council and have obviously been ignored.
In summary – No one is against enhancements or the planting of trees, as long as they do not hinder or remove what is valuable to the community. All Killeaton Fields are a free open space with no set use and yet multiple use for all. The residents want it left this way and any plan should follow the proper consultation process.
The community should understand that to answer NO to the first question, is basically stating that the council can do what they want to. Don’t be fooled or let them play with your emotions. The 20 trees can be used elsewhere. If the community so desired and an agreed location could be identified, then they could be planted within the Killeaton Fields.
unless a group of volunteers had brought this to the council to rectify, then this survey would not even be taking place
Issue 2
Much of the same argument applies to this as from the previous issue. The meadow has some but not all the same affect that the trees have -however please refer to the videos on the website and the images below that highlight how the council are misleading residents.
In brief, the council on their “Community Engagement Survey” showed the above left picture, yet only showed the blue triangle as to the intended wildflower meadow. In the right picture the yellow triangle is the actual space that has been chemically sprayed and had the grass killed off for the wildflower meadow. The Green area shows the area now takin up by the trees. The intended grey path can also be seen. So where does that leave those who used this space. The irrevocable change of use of the fields merits a more honest discussion
Now if it is true, and the council are intending to keep the wildflower meadow to the lower part of the small field highlighted in blue and not that which has been marked out. This may be something that the community wants. Still, this requires consultation and not an after thought approach. It would be judicious to vote NO to the second question, until such time as our council consults properly and offer a valid transparent plan. Not one that causes confusion and misleads.
Issue 3
3. “The council is keen to ensure that all its residents have equal opportunity to enjoy access to this beautiful natural environment regardless of their mobility needs.” – well the quick answer is that currently everybody does have equal opportunity to enjoy access to all the fields regardless of their mobility needs.”
So here is where we need to be careful with how this is articulated, and this, if misunderstood, can sound as if its against people with disabilities or those with mobility needs and it’s not at all.
Again, much of the arguments of issues1 and 2 apply here also. It should be debated in the same way as that of the trees and the meadow are removing the use for people, well then so is the path. In fact if you view the image above right. You can see that with the addition of the path this almost renders the small field with no useable grass areas at all. How can the seemingly worthy argument for equal access, allow for the removal of the access of another. Especially when the removal of access is from a larger group of field users. Anyone with mobility needs, even if though it may be a struggle or more difficult, can still access the field.
Could another area be identified for the path to go to? Well, that would need a further and proper plan with options and consultation.
• There was also concern raised over the establishment of a pathway. Once established, then this comes under protection of health and safety and also if established as a disabled access route, then like Bells Lane, disabled parking will be required and then the need for a car park that would then open the floodgate to recycle points, more traffic and then a park status that would have bylaws and then evening closure.
• The council also stated that if these changes in the small field were passed then the intention would be to do the same in the other fields - though they did at least say that residents would be consulted. For some reason though it’s the same type of work the larger field would require consultation but the smaller field with the same works is seen as minor works and does not require consultation.
Let’s take a step back though, and to what the council are asking and how it has been presented.
• In the previous note on the planned works – the council stated that it was a legal requirement to provide disabled access – well no this is not true, not for a field – this is a loaded and misleading statement and only confuses further a sensitive issue.
• A path in Killeaton field gives no better access than the footpath that circles the field. – a pathway limits a person with mobility issues to the path, they encounter the same equal challenge once the transition off the path into the field is made. One could argue that a path itself is restrictive and argue even further that it is a weak response, from our councils, our government, our society, to not tackle making everywhere accessible to those with mobility issues. Though this is maybe a greater debate for a future time. Again, please understand that this is not about de-valuing anyone.
• We have a saying here in Northern Ireland “there is no such thing as bad weather, only unsuitable clothing” - what that tells us is that we don’t stop going out in the bad weather, we dress suitably and get moving out in it, and it shouldn’t stop us.
• The same can/should be said about access “there is no such thing as rough terrain, just unsuitable equipment” -creating a pathway to conquer access is not the answer. That’s like saying we will build a covered walkway to go from A to B when it rains – but that limits us – what about when we need to go all the other places – do we cover the world in an umbrella – no we wouldn’t, and we shouldn’t.
• Do we build a pathway from A to B again that’s limits us, do we pathway/concrete the entire world because we think it gives equal access – no that wouldn’t be good either.
• As the saying above goes, we are better to find suitable clothing/equipment to conquer the challenge that faces us. Resources should be better directed to research/make/provide suitable equipment to allow a person with mobility needs to go wherever they want to – then that gives true equal access.
• The councils plan shows a path in the small field connecting the gate to the Bus stop. Why? Did they just decide for those with mobility issues that this is where they can go? If they had consulted, then they would have realized that this location was problematic – This path is also a direct mirror image of the footpath that starts and finishes at the same point -from the gate to the bus stop. Resource would be better directed at repairing the current footpath.
• Again – leaving all the issues or opinions/debates to one side. The fact remains that to understand the communities needs, a community with many various needs our council should be consulting and presenting what is an appropriate response.
In conclusion, there are many problems with the council’s recent community engagement survey.
No matter what the issues are or what they present, the fact remains that they did not consult on any works. They went ahead and initiated them without getting any approval from committee or councilor or citizen.
These works would not only significantly change the use of the fields and have great impact on the community, but also dramatically change the aesthetics of the area and have a detrimental effect on the established biodiversity and the mental health and wellbeing of the community. This is in direct contravention to our councils Constitution and Core Values over the services they provide.
We would encourage that to support the community’s efforts and to have all these items brought before committee were they can be properly assessed and were Transparency, Accountability and Excellent Standards with proper Community Consultation can be maintained. Then you should return your survey with the Answers:
1. YES
2. NO
3. NO
And request that a full and proper long-term maintenance plan for the trees be properly researched and implemented with full transparency.
On numerous occasions over the years the local community have reconfirmed their desire that the field remains properly maintained with no set use, but with free and multiple use for all. We believe that this is still the desire of the community.
We encourage you to contact your local councilors, who are available as your advocates to speak on your behalf.
Comments