No idea. The article doesn’t say, even if 26 are planted how long before they reach maturity?
I think they do these projects all wrong. They should do them properly from the start. Buy up one side of the roads houses, and use the newly created space properly, could have dedicated bus lane, dedicated cycle lanes, space reserved for future mass transit projects (trams etc). Obviously would cost an absolute fortune, but there seems to be no real plan, just squeeze in whatever is popular at the time and be done with it.
Would be stuck in legal hell for decades before a single house got demolished.
I thought you would be a bit more sympathetic to trees.How many are going to be planted? It’s just more nimby bollocks tbh.
And look how much that that is over budget.Would it take decades? HS2 seemed to be only about 5 years.
Might surprise a few on here but in general I'm all for getting rid of the trees planted along residential streets. They cause far more problems than they solve, which basically amounts to a little bit of air cleaning, maybe a bit of drainage and maybe some shade in the summer.32. And I don’t know. But you make infrastructure decisions for decades. Looking at the pictures it’s not exactly 250 year old oaks that are being torn down.
The PR focus is on trees cos that’s where public sympathy lies but if you read the actual complaints being made it’s the usual crap.
Might surprise a few on here but in general I'm all for getting rid of the trees planted along residential streets. They cause far more problems than they solve, which basically amounts to a little bit of air cleaning, maybe a bit of drainage and maybe some shade in the summer.
On the minus side
- they take up a lot of pavement space and therefore pedestrian space
- are a huge hazard along pavements, especially for those with buggies/wheelchairs, increasingly so as theygrow and make the pavement uneven affecting those with mobility problems.
- a lot of the trees they use cover cars in the sticky pollen in the summer.
- in terms of wildlife the main things that live in them are pigeons crapping on your car.
- because they get tarmaced etc right up to the trunk and can't get access to water etc most of them are in poor health anyway.
- when the leaves fall they create a slippy mess on the pavement/roads as we have less money for clearing them up.
- maintenance of the trees with branch cutting etc is also an area councils could cut costs if the trees weren't there.
- potential for damage to underground infrastructure and in some small cases damage to houses either by the roots or an unsafe tree toppling over in a storm
- prevent parking (either roadside or potential access to front drives)
And the thing I find from a lot of those complaining is they have tarmaced drives and brick walls/fences around their garden. Get all the residents to plant hedges for their boundaries and that would be far more beneficial for wildlife, the environment and be a windbreak and air/noise pollutant reducer. They could even plant their own small tree on their own property if they wanted.
I knew it wouldn't be popular and a lot would disagree, but I stand by what I posted.nah street trees are great. And when they go roads look 1000% grimmer, I agree if replaced with proper front gardens then there’s no need. I’ve long said it’s not really practical (maybe now with drones and AI?) but I’d love some kind of council tax rebate for things like a green front or even putting Christmas lights up and other public facing stuff.
I knew it wouldn't be popular and a lot would disagree, but I stand by what I posted.
I have family that live in a street with trees and it's an absolute mess. Other family that live on a similar road without and it looks much, much cleaner.
Reeves disappointed apparently. Growth in reverse?I'm stunned
I'm stunned
NOYt a nimby issue for me, nowhere near my back yard.I bet that if the locals wanted the trees removed because of loss of light in their homes or the leaves, the council would have told them to fuck off. So they will be removed to create a double lane cycle way for the lycra brigade to ignore and continue riding two abreast down Clifford Bridge road contributing to the terrible congestion approaching the hospital. I read somewhere that Coventry council might be approaching bankruptcy - is this really a priority o send limited public funds. I wonder if they have done n Pacy Assessment or whether they are following their westminster political colleagues and simply not bothering.32. And I don’t know. But you make infrastructure decisions for decades. Looking at the pictures it’s not exactly 250 year old oaks that are being torn down.
The PR focus is on trees cos that’s where public sympathy lies but if you read the actual complaints being made it’s the usual crap.
NOYt a nimby issue for me, nowhere near my back yard.I bet that if the locals wanted the trees removed because of loss of light in their homes or the leaves, the council would have told them to fuck off. So they will be removed to create a double lane cycle way for the lycra brigade to ignore and continue riding two abreast down Clifford Bridge road contributing to the terrible congestion approaching the hospital. I read somewhere that Coventry council might be approaching bankruptcy - is this really a priority o send limited public funds. I wonder if they have done n Pacy Assessment or whether they are following their westminster political colleagues and simply not bothering.
Doesnt mean much. What changes would you have expected to filter through to growth by now?
How many houses will this produce?Well I’m not sure if the locals wanted them removing and replacing with 30% more trees they would.
Funding comes in pots for this sort of stuff. You can’t just choose to spend it on social care.
You’re just flailing around trying to find something to stop things ever being built.
don't know, but then, Im not an economist. One thing I have in common with Reeves. It wasn't me who claimed the UK would have the fastest growing economy in the G7 after the budget. I can only assume they did some sums!
How many houses will this produce?
Fuck all.
Its hardly major infrastructure, is it? Not for a tram system or improved rail links!Well I’m not sure if the locals wanted them removing and replacing with 30% more trees they would.
Funding comes in pots for this sort of stuff. You can’t just choose to spend it on social care.
You’re just flailing around trying to find something to stop things ever being built.
You were saying I ws just trying to stop things being built, knowing your obsession with housing development is what prompted my reply.What?
Its hardly major infrastructure, is it? Not for a tram system or improved rail links!
Some things piss me off on principle.
Unused cycle lanes being an example. If they are there, their use should be mandatory.
You were saying I ws just trying to stop things being built, knowing your obsession with housing development is what prompted my reply.
I won't be using it, that's for sure. If it was a tram system or rail link I might. If it keeps bikes and e scooters off the pavements there would at least be a wider safety benefit. Trouble is, its a big If unless cycle lane use is made mandatory and policed.Do “unused” roads and “unused” pavements piss you off too?
We’re building a network. Or we would be if people like you didn’t bitch and moan at every step. If you don’t want to use it, don’t. But other people will. Just like all the other “unused” cycle lanes because they’re not unused they’re just more efficient than roads so you don’t see traffic jams everywhere on them.
Protection of toads, newts and bats is overdone as well.We need to build a lot more than houses. I don’t believe we should preserve the country in aspic for no reason no matter how much nostalgia it offends, no.
The fact shit like the train station and the lower precinct cafe are listed is a joke tbh. We are far too over protective of the status quo in the built environment.
Even though green spaces and trees absorb CO2?We need to build a lot more than houses. I don’t believe we should preserve the country in aspic for no reason no matter how much nostalgia it offends, no.
The fact shit like the train station and the lower precinct cafe are listed is a joke tbh. We are far too over protective of the status quo in the built environment.
Protection of toads, newts and bats is overdone as well.
Even though green spaces and trees absorb CO2?
Ive never been to one of those secret meetings, bastards not inviting me.There’s more trees!
I believe in green middles, street trees, parks, gardens, etc. I’m not convinced of the ecological benefit of a farmers field or quarry or whatever over that particularly. I’d much rather we insisted on building developments with green space built in that people can actually use without driving to it and that is respectful of nature. I just think this sort of thing should be in a transparent and democratically accountable form that is easy for developers to work to, not a secret meeting of OAPs with esoteric design and political beliefs.
Ive never been to one of those secret meetings, bastards.
The point is that disposable income is at best flat lining and is projected to continue to do so. I don't necessarily expect that Labour is to blame for the economy not growing, but disposable income is not expected to grow as a result of their proposed budget so where are they expecting growth to come from?Doesnt mean much. What changes would you have expected to filter through to growth by now?
Reeves disappointed apparently. Growth in reverse?
Technically in economic recession.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?