1500 people join birthday party for David Attenborough!

Approximately 1500 people gathered in Attenborough Arboretum yesterday, to celebrate the 100th birthday of Sir David Attenborough with us. We organised the community picnic with nature-themed activities for the whole family, to inspire people to continue Sir David’s love for the natural world.

A wide range of Leicester environmental and wildlife groups participated and organised activities. An education officer from the Botanic Gardens led pond dipping and minibeast hunting sessions. Leicester Botany Group took people on a guided walk through the trees of the arboretum. Leicestershire and Rutland Bat Group helped people to make bat finger puppets and bunting and had hundreds of conversations with people about how they could help bats. Leicester Green Quakers led ‘mindful moments’ in quiet parts of the arboretum. Parents for Future Leicestershire created a collage from plastic waste and talked to people about how they could reduce their plastic use at home. Climate Action Leicester and Leicestershire led a workshop on ‘Greener Gardens’ for wildlife and adapting our cities to climate change. Insecta Collective helped people to make animal masks and talked to everyone about their upcoming nature-themed art exhibition. 9th Leicester Cubs, of which David Attenborough was a member as a boy, showed people how to make their own natural art materials. 

On our stall, we made wildflower seed bombs and invited people to sign our pledge not to use pesticides in their gardens at home. We also co-ordinated a giant birthday card for Sir David and invited everyone to add their own message. 

Picnickers spread throughout the arboretum, with people sitting to share food with family and friends. The event culminated with a mass happy birthday sing, around a beautiful cake baked by students at Leicester College. A video of the singing and the birthday card will now be sent to Sir David.

Sam Holmes from Parents for Future Leicestershire left us with her thoughts:

"This is a critical time for us all to join together and act to restore our beautiful natural world. At Parents for Future Leicestershire we want to celebrate Sir David's incredible legacy, and protect the planet for all of our kids' futures. The event today has enabled us to increase awareness in our local community of the things that all of us can do, and how we can use our voices and actions to change the world, together."

Local Nature Recovery Strategy for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland

 By law all councils need to come up with a Local Nature Recovery Strategy, as laid down in the Environment Act 2021. For Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland this is being led by Paul Killip, from Leicestershire CC.

Local Nature Recovery Strategies are a new mandatory system of spatial strategies that will:

• Map the most valuable existing areas for nature.
• Establish priorities.
• Map proposals for specific actions to drive nature’s recovery and achieve wider environmental benefits.

Why bother?

• The State of Nature 2023 report reveals that over 26% of terrestrial mammals in the UK are facing the threat of extinction.
• Birds are one of the most severely impacted groups, with 43% of species facing risk of extinction.
• Species like the Turtle Dove and Curlew have seen catastrophic declines.
• Pollinator species have decreased by 18% on average, while crop pest control invertebrates, such as the 2-Spot Ladybird, have declined by more than 34%.
• Freshwater habitats are particularly vulnerable, with species such as the European Eel and Atlantic Salmon facing dramatic population declines. The European Eel has seen a 95% decrease.
• In future Local Planning Authorities will have to take account of nature recovery areas when making planning decisions.  It would be good to think improvement initiatives would involve members of the public so we could get some local ownership going.

The LNRS aims to achieve 8 Strategic Aims:

1. Increase the area and diversity of land and water managed for wildlife in Leicestershire, Leicester, and Rutland.
2. Increase biodiversity by improving the ecological condition (habitat quality) of existing areas for nature conservation.
3. Re-instate natural processes and utilise Nature-Based-Solutions to support nature and climate resilience.
4. Protect and enhance green and blue spaces within urban habitats.
5. Promote sustainable agriculture and support local food systems.
6. Improve ecological connectivity by establishing coherent and resilient ecological networks at scale.
7. Reduce major pressures and threats to nature including Invasive Non- Native Species control.
8. Improve our understanding of the State of Nature and actively monitor habitats/species change over time.

The strategy has identified 8 priority habitats:

1. Woodland
2. Freshwater
3. Grasslands
4. Urban
5. Agricultural
6. Open mosaic
7. Nature networks
8. Geodiversity

Extensive studies have mapped the whole of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland seeking to identify areas for nature recovery.  The maps are available to look at online, including one where the general public can identify areas they think worthy of mention.

Following a session with Paul Killip LFoE have reviewed both the draft and the actual report and submitted suggestions for improvements.  The next version is due out in July so we look forward to seeing this strategy coming into being.

Climate finance and developing countries

This is a summary of issues raised in various online reports and COP 26 decisions.

We know that getting climate justice for the nations most affected by climate change, who have contributed little or nothing in emissions, is a huge priority.   The most affected areas include Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands threatened by rising sea levels, parts of sub Saharan Africa and the Arctic and the Caribbean.

The pledge from Copenhagen 2009 to provide $100 billion a year starting 2020-25 has not yet been delivered – figures from 2019 show that poor countries were given $80 billion according to the OECD.

The two main distinctions are between money for projects aimed at mitigating green house gasses, such as developing alternative energy generation using solar panels, hydro and wind farms etc., and projects designed for adaptation, such as early warning systems for extreme weather events, air conditioning to counter extreme heat, resettlement of communities away from coastal areas and changing agricultural practices to crops more resistant to drought. Examples from the November Geographical magazine include creating mangrove seawalls in Indonesia, building amphibious rather than stilted houses in Vietnam and planting salt tolerant crops in Bangladesh.

Both approaches are valid but the key issue for developing countries is that only about 20% of the $80 billion funding allocated is for adaptation projects – Global North countries preferring to sell the type of material on which they can make a profit.

Global South countries are lobbying for the financial allocation between mitigation and adaptation to be 50:50, rather than the skewed distribution at present.

Another problem is the status of the finance provided. In 2019, 71% of the public climate finance took the form of loans rather than grants. This can suck poorer countries into a cycle of debt. They have to borrow money at punishing rates of interest to repair the effects of hurricanes and cyclones and, if they use their loan to pay for a project that gets destroyed in the next extreme weather event, they are left with a debt and no tangible benefit.

Small island states and the least developed countries are now lobbying for a new stream of funding for loss and damage, in addition to mitigation and adaptation projects. Historically, the Global North has been extremely reluctant to buy into this and resists any notion of funding being compensation or restitution.

Antigua, Barbuda and Tuvalu have announced a commission to explore if there might be legal grounds for loss and damage funding from polluting countries. 

COP 26 Decisions

Many developing countries were left very disappointed by the decisions made on issues which were critical for them. It would seem that the conference was a debate between Global North countries about how far they were prepared to go to reduce emissions, having accepted to some extent there was some urgency required to keep within 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some of the developing country decisions appear to be a holding operation to be considered at another day. 

Climate funding

There were new pledges from US, UK, Germany, Japan and others of climate funding which it is estimated would finally achieve $1 billion by at least 2025 or perhaps a little earlier if other funding could be brought in. Some experts are saying that funding in trillions would be more realistic.

There was a recommendation, rather than a requirement, that developed countries should double their collective provision for adaptation projects by 2025, but this would still fall short of the 50:50 provision requested by Global South countries and there was no detail concerning time scales and transparency.

There was a mention of the impact of debt levels carried by poorer countries for the first time but no indication of how this could be reduced. It does provide a marker for future discussion, however.

There was some recommendation about making funds available as grants but also recommendations about making cheap loans which still allowed wide discretion on the part of funders.

Jubilee Debt Campaign claims, however, looking at the small print, that some countries may pay their contributions out of their existing aid budget instead of making new money available which is in the spirit of the funding. This could include the UK.

Loss and Damage Funding

This was a very important issue for frontline island nations and others which was effectively sidelined, with the promise that a “dialogue on loss and damage would begin next year in Egypt.”

To their great credit, Scotland has promised £2 million to a special Loss and Damage Fund, managing this way to provide UK money, but circumventing Boris and the Treasury who have made no such pledge. Wallonia – an area of Belgium has also pledged 1 million euros.

There will be a huge head of steam on this issue by next year, particularly after another year of global warming induced weather events, so we will wait to see what transpires.

Indigenous People Support

Five countries, including the US and UK, and global charities have promised $1.7 billion to support indigenous people and the conservation of their land. How this gets to the grassroots in an effective way will need scrutiny.

Deforestation

A group of countries have pledged £14 billion by 2030 to halt and reverse global deforestation by restoring degraded land, managing wildfires and supporting indigenous people. This has included Brazil's president, who will need detailed supervision on this!

 

The introduction of an annual review of emissions pledges at COPs means we are now in continuous campaigning mode on this issue, which should increase important pressure.

By Alison Skinner

Do you love/hate Marmite?

So, do you want HS2?

It seems to me it is like Marmite or Brexit or Veganism. You either want it or don’t want it – love it or hate it. Everyone has an opinion.

I’m afraid I don’t want it – well not in its present form – but not because I don’t want railways because I do. Well, I try to be an environmentally conscious person so I would - wouldn’t I? I want to get some cars off the road and get more people onto trains after all. Also, it isn’t because of the cost although I realise that is astronomical.

No, the reason I have to say – we can’t go ahead is because of the Ancient Forests. Did you know that 108 Ancient Forests are in the path of HS2? Which makes me wonder what the point is in the Government saying let’s plant 11 million new trees, whilst at the same time planning to chop down thousands of ancient trees!  Obviously planting new trees is good but saplings are not nearly the same as a 300-year-old tree when it comes to sucking up the CO2 in the atmosphere.

So, whether you love/hate Marmite, Brexit or HS2 – take a stand for nature – for the Ancient Forests – take a stand and say NO we can’t do this! We have to look for another route or another way forward – if you have time – write to your M.P. and don’t just ask them to re-think – beg them to save the trees. Make a stand for Nature and help us all to breathe cleaner air. We might not get a second chance.

Melanie Wakley

'Trees Please' at the Big Climate Fightback

Since the launch of Climate Action Leicester and Leicestershire, working groups have formed to look at different areas of climate policy and they have all been busy. The trees group have dubbed themselves ‘Trees Please’ and on Saturday 30^th November, they organised a trip to Shipley Country Park in Derbyshire, to help the Woodland Trust plant the Young People’s Forest as part of the Big Climate Fightback campaign. X people and one dog went along and spent the afternoon braving the mud to plant trees, with most people managing to plant about 15 trees each. (The dog tried to dig a few up, but we distracted her with a stick to chew.) This was good training because ‘Trees Please’ are aiming to plant 20,000 trees in Leicester! 



If you’re not already part of Climate Action Leicester and Leicestershire, get in touch to find out how to get involved.

A Manifesto for Leicester's Wildlife

Today we presented our Manifesto for Leicester's Wildlife to Leicester City Mayor, Peter Soulsby. Our biodiversity campaigner, Malcolm Hunter, explains:

“All around us the natural world is in decline, but there is a lot we can do to help to halt and reverse this, even in an urban area such as Leicester, given the large amount of land now occupied by urban areas and the fact that urban areas can sometimes actually provide a haven for wildlife that is struggling to survive in surrounding intensively farmed countryside.

The City Council are already doing some good work in this area, but we believe that even more can be done and we hope that the City Council will find our suggestions useful and give serious consideration to taking them on board”.

City Mayor Peter Soulsby said:

“I very much welcome this initiative from Leicester Friends of the Earth and look forward to working with them to look at how we can best use their suggestions to further develop the City Council’s work in this area”.

A Manifesto for Leicester’s Wildlife

Across the world, nature is declining at an unprecedented rate. This will have serious implications for the long-term sustainability of human society[1].

When people think about nature, they tend to think about the countryside, but urban areas are also important as they now occupy a significant proportion of land.  In fact, cities can provide a haven for many species that are struggling to survive in intensively farmed rural areas.[2]

Leicester City Council has a 10-year biodiversity action plan[3], which contains many laudable aspirations and policies.   However, although progress has been made, such as in the creation of wilder areas in many parks, we believe that much more could be done.  We are keen to work with the Council and other stakeholders to look at how current good work can be built upon.   

This document is not intended to be a comprehensive catalogue of everything that needs doing.   However, it aims to contribute some ideas and encourage further discussion.

We would like to make the following suggestions:

Look at the city as one habitat.  Leicester’s existing biodiversity action plan is very focused on protecting sites of particularly high wildlife value and on identifying and improving other sites with high potential.  The rest of the City is also important because the total area of potential habitat involved is greater, even if its quality is lower, and one continuous area of habitat can support more wildlife than several separate areas.  The more that we can connect up areas of prime habitat, the better.  This could be achieved by a drastic reduction in both the frequency and degree of pruning of street trees and a further reduction in the frequency of cutting of roadside verges. 

Plant more trees.  The Council’s current policy is to replace any tree felled with a newly planted sapling, but this does not replace like with like, in terms of providing wildlife habitat or mitigating climate change[4].  Mature trees contribute far more to both than newly planted saplings.  The Council should acknowledge this and adopt a policy of replacing any tree it fells with, say, 20 saplings.  This would come much closer to replacing what has been lost and would allow for more informed decisions to fell mature trees. 

Become a pesticide and herbicide-free town.  Recent years have seen a massive decline in insect populations, with knock-on effects for other species.  Alongside habitat loss, a major driver of this decline has been the use of pesticides.  We would like to see Leicester sign up to become a pesticide-free town[5].   The Council should not only avoid the use of pesticides, but also adopt a policy of making sure that any seeds or plants purchased from external suppliers do not contain pesticide residues. 

Plan to make space for wildlife.  The Council should review its planning policies to check that it makes maximum use of the powers available to prevent environmentally damaging developments and to ensure that developments protect and enhance biodiversity.  This can be done with green spaces, sustainable urban drainage, nesting boxes, hedgehog holes in new walls and fences, restrictions on paving over of gardens and requirements to incorporate green roofs and walls.  In addition, the Council should review whether it has sufficiently robust procedures in place for monitoring whether planning requirements are actually complied with.

Incorporate green roofs and walls into Council properties.  The Council should consider incorporating green roofs and walls into the new council housing that it is hoping to build and its existing buildings.  Green roofs can also be added to bus shelters.[6]

Reduce light pollution to protect wildlife.  The Council’s current policy makes no mention of reducing the impact of light pollution on nocturnal wildlife; something needs to be added to the strategy on this issue.

Consider potential biodiversity and climate change impacts of all Council decisions.  While one part of the Council may be striving to act in an environmentally sustainable way, this may be undermined by the actions of other parts of the Council with different priorities.  We would like to see the Council declare a “biodiversity emergency”, in addition to its recent declaration of a “climate emergency”.  It should adopt a policy of assessing both the biodiversity and climate change impact of all Council decisions and these assessments should play a major role in guiding decision-making. 

Green up the Council’s purchasing and investment policies.  Beyond the boundaries of Leicester, the Council’s purchasing and investment decisions can have a major impact on biodiversity.  For example, the City Council has recently established Fosse Energy, a not-for-profit energy company that aims to source all the electricity it provides from renewable sources.  This is a very welcome initiative but they count electricity produced by burning biomass as renewable.  In fact, electricity generation from burning biomass is leading to large-scale felling of forests, with severe negative implications for nature and the climate.  The Council should avoid using biofuels for similar reasons.  

Engage all citizens of Leicester in helping to promote biodiversity and wildlife.  In an era of financial constraints, one avenue for reaching people is schools, not just in terms of educating and involving a new generation, but also as a way of reaching families.  Relevant teaching materials and lesson plans could be provided for teachers and the Council could consult with the Young People’s Council.  Local media outlets, such as the Leicester Mercury and Radio Leicester, could help get messages out.  As allotments can play a potentially important role in supporting urban wildlife; the Council could provide allotment holders with advice on how to best manage their plot to enhance biodiversity.

Organise a biodiversity conference.  Finally, to help catalyse a wider conversation, the Council could consider organizing a conference to look at further developing local policy.  As well as involving environmental organizations such as Leicester Friends of the Earth, Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust, the RSPB, etc., this could involve schools (with teacher and student reps); youth organizations; trades unions; the Chamber of Commerce; the universities; community and faith organizations.  To help organize this and to research what is happening elsewhere, the Council might look at appointing one or more graduate trainees.  

---

[1] Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment

[2] This important role for urban areas is recognized in the IPBES report. A People’s Manifesto for Wildlife have also produced a list of policies that they would like to see adopted by towns and cities in the UK to allow nature to flourish.

[3] https://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/113637/leicesters-biodiversity-action-plan-2011-21.pdf

[4] A recent report has the role of trees in mitigating climate change: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76

[5] http://www.pan-uk.org/pesticide-free/

[6] This has been done in Utrecht: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/bus-stop-plants-green-roof-bees-holland-utrecht-a8997581.html

The trees of St George's Churchyard are safe!

Leicester City Council's planning committee considered the application to cut down 21 mature trees in St George's Churchyard again tonight. They first considered the proposal back in January but postponed making a decision until a site visit could take place. 

Three people spoke against the proposal. The first was Melanie Wakley, speaking on behalf of Leicester Friends of the Earth. She pointed out that the bat survey had been conducted in November, when bats are known to be hibernating, so it was not sufficient. She also asked the planning committee to consider the impact on bees and other pollinating insects if 21 mature trees were removed from the city centre and she quoted a local beekeeper, who highlighted the wildlife value of mature lime trees. The next speaker was Steve Matijas, from the Serbian Orthodox church that owns the land. He stated that the council has a licence to maintain the grounds but this doesn't include removing trees. The church only want the trees nearest the church to be pruned back. The third speaker was Olga Suhomlinova, a resident of the flats overlooking the churchyard. She asked that the churchyard be retained as a quiet green space, rather than allowing local bars to use it for outdoor seating, which would create a lot of noise for local residents. 

Patrick Kitterick, the local councillor, then spoke against the proposal. He reminded the committee that trees take a long time to grow and it would take a generation to replace them. He also summarised the arguments of the other speakers and pointed out that the church, the local residents and the environmental movement all opposed this plan.

The planning committee discussed the application for a few minutes, raising their own concerns about the impact on biodiversity and air pollution if the trees were removed. The chair then recommended that they reject the application and the rest of the committee voted with him. 

So the trees of St George's Churchyard are safe!! We are very glad that the council have decided to reject the planning application. This is wonderful news to end the year.  

The Leicester Mercury reported this story in detail. 

‘Last chance’ to save St George’s trees

St George’s churchyard in autumn 

The City Council have announced that they will be re-considering the application to cut down 21 trees in St George’s churchyard, opposite Curve, at the next planning committee meeting on 12^th December. Campaigners have immediately expressed their dismay and are planning a ‘last chance’ Tree Festival in Orton Square on Sunday 9^th December, from 12 noon to 2 pm, to show the Council how much people care about the trees.

Anne Scott and Kelly Swann performing The Lorax

The Tree Festival will begin with a performance of The Lorax, the Dr Seuss story about a forest that is lost to economic greed. Two local teachers, Anne Scott and Kelly Swann first performed the story for the Everybody’s Reading Festival in September and have agreed to repeat it in Orton Square on Sunday as part of the campaign to protect the trees. The story is loved by children and adults alike. Leicester Friends of the Earth and CivicLeicester, who are organising the Tree Festival, hope that it will encourage more people to oppose the planning application.

The proposal for the churchyard was first considered in January but the planning committee deferred making a decision until a site visit could take place. At that meeting, some councillors expressed concerns about the removal of so many trees, especially those that are covered by protection orders. They decided that they needed more information about the state of the churchyard. Campaigners expected that a decision would be made one month later, as normally happens when a site visit is required. It is not clear why the Council have waited 11 months.

Hannah Wakley from Leicester Friends of the Earth said:

“We are disappointed that the Council's idea of Christmas cheer and solidarity with the environmentalists currently meeting in Poland on climate change, is to reinstate their plan to cut down 21 trees in St George's churchyard. The trees have done their job of soaking up carbon emissions for the past 11 months but seemingly no-one on the Council has used this lengthy time to consider any viable alternatives to their original ideas. But as the Lorax says, ‘Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.’ We will speak for the trees of St George’s churchyard and we hope the Council will listen. These much-loved trees should not be cut down just to please the local business owners.”

Ambrose Musiyiwa from CivicLeicester said:

“Trees are an important part of our city’s heritage. The cluster of trees in St George's Churchyard is particularly unique and important because of the work it does to combat air pollution in the city. The cluster needs to be preserved. Cutting down 21 of the trees, as the city council want to do, will be an act of vandalism that will have a negative effect on the health of the city.

"I hope people will continue opposing these plans.

"I hope they will continue writing to the planning committee and I hope they will come to the Tree Festival on 9 December and to the City Council's planning committee meeting on 12 December to oppose the plan."

St George's Festival Fringe: celebrating trees as the real heroes

We held a fringe festival at the City Council’s St George’s Day event in Orton Square, near Curve, to highlight the Council’s plans to cut down 21 mature trees in St George’s Churchyard. Following the successful Tree Festival in January organised with CivicLeicester, we returned to celebrate the trees as the real heroes of the city. 

Ambrose Musiyiwa, of CivicLeicester, said:

"The trees in St George's Churchyard are unique. They should be celebrated. They are the single, biggest cluster of trees in a city centre that has now been taken over by concrete, steel and glass. Trees clean our air, store carbon, provide a habitat for wildlife and make Leicester a healthier, happier place to live. We hope that our celebration will slay the dragon of habitat loss!"

Attendees were invited to wear something green. As part of the celebration, each of the threatened trees was dedicated to the people of a Leicester ward - there are 21 wards in Leicester and 21 trees. There was a 'thank you' book to sign, so that members of the public could express their appreciation for the trees. The campaigners also plan turned the railings of the churchyard into a gallery celebrating the trees and people brought pictures, poems and other artwork to add. 

Hannah Wakley, of Leicester Friends of the Earth, said:

“The planning committee first considered the proposal to cut down 21 trees back in January and they still haven’t made a decision. We don’t know what is causing the delay - perhaps they are hoping we will forget about it and stop objecting. But people are still paying attention and we are gathering to show the Council that we value the trees in our city and want to keep them." 

Tree Festival

Leicester City Council are planning to cut down 21 mature trees in St George’s Churchyard, near Curve, as part of a planning application to open up the area. At the planning committee meeting on 10th January, Deputy City Mayor Adam Clarke said that the trees do not fit the Council’s ‘vision for the Cultural Quarter’. Campaigners have responded that the City Council need a new vision.

Civic Leicester and Leicester Friends of the Earth held a Tree Festival to show their vision of a culture that celebrates trees rather than cutting them down. They invited artists, poets, musicians, children and anyone who cares about trees to come and help create this vision. There was a programme of contributions that included Morris dancers, poetry readings, songs and a re-telling of 'The Lorax' by Dr. Seuss. Over 100 people attended, in spite of the cold and the rain, and the event was covered by BBC East Midlands Today and the Leicester Mercury.

The Council say they will replant two trees for every one that is lost. But two saplings are not the same as one mature tree that has taken decades to grow. And they only plan to replant eight trees in the churchyard – the rest will be scattered and so cannot provide the same sort of habitat for insects and birds. The lime trees that they want to cut down are pollinated by insects, particularly bees. This proposal represents an enormous loss of food for pollinators.

 

St George’s church is on the ‘Heritage At Risk Register’ and the Council say the trees are damaging the church. However, the only reference to damage in the planning documents is a leak caused by a blocked gutter. We have responded that gutters can be cleaned and that is not a reason for cutting down 21 trees. The event was promoted on Facebook. 

Press release: Call for better protection for city's trees

We have sent out the following press release about our response to the draft Tree Strategy. The decision on the application to cut down 21 trees in St George's Churchyard will be made next Wednesday and we encourage everyone to attend the meeting at 5:30 pm at City Hall on Charles Street. 

Leicester Friends of the Earth press release

Local campaigners call for better protection for city’s trees

Environmental campaigners have responded to the City Mayor’s request for comments on the new Tree Strategy by calling for better protection for the city’s trees.

Leicester Friends of the Earth have written to Peter Soulsby with their feedback. They have approved the commitment to replant trees that have to be removed but cautioned that the new strategy needs to focus more on the wildlife value of trees. They have also expressed their disappointment that the document only contains one brief mention of air pollution, when the role of green spaces in reducing air pollution is well understood.

Hannah Wakley said:

“We are glad that the City Council recognises the importance of trees in Leicester, both for wildlife and for people, but we want to see a much clearer commitment to protecting existing trees as the city develops.

Trees have been cut down in Victoria Park to expand the car park and now the Council want to remove 21 trees from St George’s Churchyard in the Cultural Quarter. Mature trees have enormous value for wildlife and they help to clean our air. They cannot be replaced by newly planted trees that will take 50 years to grow.

We are asking the City Council to sign up to the Woodland Trust’s Tree Charter, as the UK’s first Environment City, to demonstrate their commitment to protecting trees.”

The planning application for St George’s Churchyard will be considered by the planning committee on 10th January. It received 49 separate objections and a letter of objection signed by 20 local residents but the planning officer has still recommended it for approval. 

Objection to planning application for St George's Churchyard

In October, Leicester City Council put in a planning application to cut down 21 trees in St George's Churchyard in the Cultural Quarter (near Curve). They say that the trees make the churchyard gloomy and encourage anti-social behaviour. However, St George's Churchyard is right next to the ring road, where the levels of air pollution exceed legal limits.

Last autumn, when this planning application was first discussed, we put up diffusion tubes to measure NO2 levels in the churchyard and nearby. We found that the air in the churchyard was cleaner than the air in a nearby street, a similar distance from the ring road, suggesting that the trees are protecting local residents from dangerous levels of air pollution. Mature trees also support wildlife and give us all access to nature, both of which are desperately needed in the middle of the city. 

Leicester Friends of the Earth therefore objected to the planning application and encouraged individuals to send in a short version of our objection, to help convince the Council to reject the planning application. Our letters are below. We are now waiting for the decision...

Suggested text for individual responses --------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Ipgrave,

I am writing to object to the planning application for St George's Churchyard on the following grounds:

Air pollution

Leicester Friends of the Earth’s monitoring data shows that the trees in St George’s Churchyard seem to be absorbing pollution and thereby protecting local residents from the serious health effects of breathing dirty air. I am concerned that removing 21 trees would increase the level of pollution in the area, potentially exposing people to illegal levels of air pollution.

Biodiversity

Mature trees provide an important wildlife habitat and help to keep the urban area cool. The City Council’s own planning guidance acknowledges this. Mature trees cannot be replaced by saplings. Furthermore, there is already a shortage of green space in the centre of the city. The Council should not cut down any trees without a very good reason.

Anti-social behaviour

The planning application states that the trees should be removed to combat anti-social behaviour but that is nonsensical. If local authorities cut down a tree in every place where they received a complaint of anti-social behaviour, there would soon be no trees left and the air would be unbreathable. Moreover, research has shown that green space reduces anti-social behaviour and is essential for the mental and physical well-being of people living in cities. Improving the lighting and removing the railings alongside the path will help people to feel safe in the churchyard. There is no need to cut down the trees.

Yours sincerely,

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And just in case you want to read our full objection, here it is:

Dear Mr. Ipgrave,

Re: Planning application 20171911: St George’s Churchyard

We are writing to object to the above application. As Leicester Civic Society have already pointed out, the results of the public consultation about this development last year were inconclusive. We regret that the advice of the Economic Development, Transport and Tourism Scrutiny Commission, ‘that the proposal to remove trees at St George’s Churchyard should proceed with caution’, does not seem to have been followed. Our objections are outlined below.

Air pollution

St George’s churchyard is adjacent to the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), where air pollution levels exceed legal limits. Leicester City Council’s Air Quality Action Plan outlines the importance of trees for reducing pollution:

‘In urban areas, trees, vegetation and green space can help absorb pollutants and improve air quality by absorbing pollutants, and preventing pollutant concentration.’ (p.35)[1]

Leicester Friends of the Earth are very concerned about the levels of air pollution in Leicester, given the links to stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and both chronic and acute respiratory diseases, including asthma[2].

When this planning application was first discussed last autumn, we decided to measure the air pollution levels in the area. We put up four diffusion tubes to measure NO2 levels; two on the ring road and therefore within the AQMA (tubes 1 and 2), one in the middle of St George’s Churchyard (tube 4) and one approximately the same distance from the ring road as the churchyard but not in a green space (tube 3). The tubes were in place from 23/10/2016 - 11/11/2016. At this time of year, the trees were losing their leaves and therefore perhaps less able to absorb pollutants than they would be during the height of summer. The results from the diffusion tubes require calibration and adjusting alongside government figures, known as a bias adjustment. National Friends of the Earth consulted experts in monitoring and adjusted our results for accuracy using a bias correction factor for the type of diffusion tube we used. This involved multiplying our results by 0.92. The full laboratory report can be found in the separate file sent with this letter and the adjusted results are shown below.  

Location		NO2 µg/m3		Adjusted NO2 µg/m3
1. Junction Ring Road/St George St (LE1 1SH)		70.16		64.55
2.  Junction Charles St/Ring Rd (LE1 1SH)		60.89		56.02
3. Junction Colton St/Church St (LE1 1QH)		46.67		42.94
4. Middle of St George's Churchyard (LE1 1RE)		35.43		32.60

The legal limit value for NO2 is 40 µg/m3 in a calendar year. As our results clearly show, the level of air pollution along the ring road was considerably over the legal limit during our monitoring period. At Colton Street, which is approximately the same distance from the ring road as St George’s Churchyard, NO2 levels were lower but still illegal. However, in St George’s Churchyard, the levels of NO2 were below the legal limit. We therefore suggest that removing 21 trees will increase the level of air pollution, probably pushing it above the legal limit and leading to an extension of the AQMA. More importantly, removing the trees would threaten local residents' right to clean air.

We have been told that this development does not require an Environmental Impact Assessment. However, we believe that it falls into the category of ‘Urban development project’ in Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017[3]. The guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government[4] states:

‘Projects listed in Schedule 2 which are located in, or partly in, a sensitive area also need to be screened, even if they are below the thresholds or do not meet the criteria.’

The selection criteria for screening state:

‘The characteristics of development must be considered with particular regard to: …the risks to human health (for example, due to water contamination or air pollution)’

Therefore, we assert that this planning application (and all other planning applications that include the removal of trees either within or close to the AQMA), should have been subjected to an Environmental Impact Assessment and cannot be properly considered without that information.

The phrase ‘ignorance is bliss’ does not apply to air pollution; pollution that is not measured or acknowledged will still harm people.  If the Council does not take pollution levels into consideration when deciding whether to approve or reject planning applications, they are neglecting their statutory responsibility for public health. Planning guidance[5] empowers local authorities to reject applications if there is reason for concern about air pollution and we believe that there is significant reason for concern in this case.

Biodiversity Leicester City Council’s Core Strategy[6] acknowledges that, ‘Habitats that are beneficial for wildlife in the City include: small areas of woodland’ (p.91). We believe that St George’s Churchyard should be considered as a small wood. Core Strategy Policy 17 (p.93) states:

‘The Council will expect development to maintain, enhance, and/or strengthen connections for wildlife, by creation of new habitats, both within and beyond the identified biodiversity network.’

The Supplementary Planning Guidance on biodiversity[7] states:

‘4.10 Wherever possible, and as long as there is no conflict with public safety or amenity, mature trees and standing dead wood habitats should be retained. Rather than remove trees altogether, it is preferable to crown reduce or pollard trees in order to preserve at least some of the standing dead wood habitat.’ (p.20)

The Supplementary Planning Document on climate change[8] explains that green infrastructure mitigates the urban heat island effect, which will become more dangerous as the climate warms and heatwaves become more common. The importance of trees in combatting this problem is further emphasised in section 6.4, Planting:

‘Even modest increases in tree cover contribute to lowering the heat island effect. Mature trees and green spaces have far greater benefit than newly planted trees and so these should be preserved where possible.’ (p.6)

The Council’s own planning guidance does not allow mature trees to be cut down without a very good reason and no good reason has been given.

The Council say that the trees are damaging the church but no evidence is provided for this claim. The only reference to ‘damage’ is that fallen leaves have blocked the gutters. This is not a valid reason for removing trees - gutters can be cleaned and the value of trees far outweighs the minor inconvenience of removing fallen leaves. If the trees are causing structural damage, the Council should have provided full details and specified which trees are causing the problem.

It is proposed that the 21 mature trees will be ‘replaced’ by 8 saplings. Saplings can never replace mature trees, as noted above. The suggested replacement species, whilst attractive, with seasonal leaf changes and berries for wildlife value, will be smaller in stature even when they reach maturity and probably rather shorter lived. They will not provide the same amount of habitat for wildlife as the mature lime trees currently growing in the churchyard.

Anti-social behaviour

One of the main reasons given by the Council for the culling of so many trees in this area is that they encourage 'anti-social behaviour'. We believe that this aspect has been overstated and, in the longer term, this application may contribute to anti-social behaviour.

Anti-social behaviour occurs at many places around Leicester and to blame this on trees is nonsense. If security of the area needs improving then the lighting should be altered. A visit to this area at night shows that the lighting in St George's Churchyard is currently poorly located and not maintained. In other areas where security has been a concern, such as along certain streets, improved lighting has been the first thing considered. Removing the railings alongside the path will help to make the area less intimidating to pedestrians. If necessary, the Council could also consider judicious crown-lifting of the trees to make the path more open.

Removal of trees and reduction of natural areas has actually been shown to increase the likelihood of anti-social behaviour. For example, Kuo and Sullivan, (2001a, 2001b) showed that urban areas with higher vegetation cover have lower rates of crime.[9] The recognised value of ‘natural environments’ to human health and wellbeing has been a topic of extensive systematic study for 30 to 40 years, and amongst these the affective impact of trees features prominently[10]. Removing trees to reduce anti-social behaviour may actually be counter-productive.

Process There seem to be some errors of process with this planning application, which we find concerning. The Land Registry information for the church and churchyard shows that there are protective covenants on this property, which the Council do not seem to have addressed. For example, it is stated that ‘the removal or disturbance of any tombstone monument or memorial on the said property’ is forbidden without the consent of the commissioners. Have the Council consulted the church commissioners about moving the gravestones? There is no indication of whether this has been done.

We also note that, Munro Whitten, the landscape architecture consultants, are based at the LCB Depot. The LCB Depot is shown on the plans as having a new direct connection into the churchyard, which itself requires the removal of some trees. It is a conflict of interest for this architect to have worked on a proposal from which they stand to benefit and the Council should have been aware of this and chosen a different architect. Finally, we note that a response in support of this application has been submitted by the businesses nearby, who are presumably intending to use the new space to expand their seating area. It is inappropriate for those who stand to materially benefit to respond to the planning application and we ask that this submission be disregarded.

The importance of trees for clean air, wildlife habitat, cooling urban areas and improving physical and mental well-being has been recognised recently in the Charter for Trees, Woods and People[11], which has been created by more than 70 organisations and signed by more than 90,000 people. Leicester City Council have recognised this in their policies and planning guidance too. We do not understand why these policies have been ignored recently and why the Council are trying to remove healthy, mature trees. We call on Leicester City Council to return to their previous understanding of the importance of trees in an urban area and refuse consent for this application.

Yours sincerely,

Hannah Wakley

Joint Co-ordinator of Leicester Friends of the Earth

 

[1] Leicester City Council’s Air Quality Action Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/180653/air-quality-action-plan.pdf

[2] World Health Organisation Factsheet, ‘Ambient (outdoor) air quality and health’. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

[3] The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/571/contents/made

[4] Department for Communities and Local Government guidance - Environmental Impact Assessment. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/environmental-impact-assessment

[5] Department for Communities and Local Government guidance - Air Quality. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-quality--3

[6] Leicester City Council. Core Strategy. Retrieved from: http://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/179023/core-strategy-adopted-july-2014.pdf

[7] Leicester City Council. Supplementary Planning Guidance - Biodiversity in Leicester. Adopted 13th October 2003. Retrieved from: http://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/179106/biodiversity-in-leicester-spg-october-2003.pdf

[8] Leicester City Council. Supplementary Planning Document - Climate change. Adopted January 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/179107/climate-change-spd-january-2011.pdf

[9] Kuo, F.E. & Sullivan, W.C., (2001a), Environment and Crime in the Inner City. Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343 - 367. Kuo, F.E. & Sullivan, W.C., (2001b), Aggression and Violence in the Inner City - Effects of Environment via Mental Fatigue, Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 543 - 571.

[10] Wikiversity. Psychology of natural scenes. Retrieved from: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Psychology_of_natural_scenes

[11] Woodland Trust. Charter for Trees, Woods and People. Retrieved from https://treecharter.uk