Vandals who defaced Christchurch trees slammed by council ahead of decision over whether to fell seven

Bournemouth Echo: DEFACED: Marked trees in Druitt Gardens DEFACED: Marked trees in Druitt Gardens

VANDALS have defaced trees in Christchurch town centre gardens ahead of a decision to fell seven as part of a controversial development.

Around 15 trees in Druitt Gardens have had yellow crosses or other symbols including the words ‘save us’ painted on them, more than a week before a tree felling proposal to remove seven trees and prune three others goes before Christchurch Borough Council’s planning committee.

The vandalism was raised at a meeting of the community services.

Chairman of the committee, Cllr Sally Derham-Wilkes said she was ‘disgusted’ when she was told about the damage and ‘pure vandalism’ to the trees.

“I am really disappointed to think that some members of our community have done something like that.”

Local residents have objected to the application to remove the trees, which has come about after permission was granted to transform the Cornfactor site in Christchurch town centre, which is next to Druitt Gardens, into apartments.

The objectors believe the removal of the trees will damage the gardens for users.

At the community services committee, members agreed for a builders’ compound for the Cornfactor development to be placed in part of Wick Lane car park with access over part of Druitt Gardens during the construction period.

Ward councillor Peter Hall told the committee he was ‘disappointed’ by the compound report.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:31pm Fri 27 Dec 13

BIGTONE says...

I'm confused........who is doing the vandalism here?
I'm confused........who is doing the vandalism here? BIGTONE

5:05pm Fri 27 Dec 13

Battok says...

Vandalism ??? The dye on the trees will wash off in a month ! Councillor Wilkes and her cronys want to cut these trees down and permantly vandalise the gardens in pursuit of the sacred dollar.
It seems that certain councillors are embarrassed at having their plans held up to the light.
In the early seventies a similar mob ruled Christchurch Council and were blown away by a strong independent challenge for behaving in a similar fashion.
To Mrs Wilkes, Mr Nottage and others of your ilk, look out ,the true residents of Christchurch are coming to get you.
Vandalism ??? The dye on the trees will wash off in a month ! Councillor Wilkes and her cronys want to cut these trees down and permantly vandalise the gardens in pursuit of the sacred dollar. It seems that certain councillors are embarrassed at having their plans held up to the light. In the early seventies a similar mob ruled Christchurch Council and were blown away by a strong independent challenge for behaving in a similar fashion. To Mrs Wilkes, Mr Nottage and others of your ilk, look out ,the true residents of Christchurch are coming to get you. Battok

5:38pm Fri 27 Dec 13

damnlion says...

I too am confused....surely it is the council who are the 'vandals' for wanting to cut the trees down....?
It would seem that they are indignant because someone has drawn our attention to their appalling plans...
Sooner this council goes the better.
I too am confused....surely it is the council who are the 'vandals' for wanting to cut the trees down....? It would seem that they are indignant because someone has drawn our attention to their appalling plans... Sooner this council goes the better. damnlion

6:08pm Fri 27 Dec 13

mikeymagic says...

I hope someone sprays a yellow cross on Wilkes.
I hope someone sprays a yellow cross on Wilkes. mikeymagic

8:05pm Fri 27 Dec 13

Abc1970 says...

I see, so I'm not allowed to even prune my fully mature trees in my garden in order to protect my property and that of my neighbours due to tree preservation orders, however the council are allowed to cut down trees to make way for more overpriced flats, sound like the usual money grabbing councils making up the rules to suit them as always.
I see, so I'm not allowed to even prune my fully mature trees in my garden in order to protect my property and that of my neighbours due to tree preservation orders, however the council are allowed to cut down trees to make way for more overpriced flats, sound like the usual money grabbing councils making up the rules to suit them as always. Abc1970

3:44am Sat 28 Dec 13

grumpy om says...

i include the meaning of a vandal from the oxford english dictionary so painting some some comments or crosses on a tree to try to bring peoples attention to this is either destroying or damaging the tree is vandalism,i dont think so,i believe the removal of what look like native trees is more akin to vandalism.
i include the meaning of a vandal from the oxford english dictionary [ 1a person who deliberately destroys or damages property belonging to others:] so painting some some comments or crosses on a tree to try to bring peoples attention to this is either destroying or damaging the tree is vandalism,i dont think so,i believe the removal of what look like native trees is more akin to vandalism. grumpy om

3:45am Sat 28 Dec 13

AdelaidePete says...

Surely any journalist worth their salt would have had a field day with this story. Was this one on the council payroll?
Surely any journalist worth their salt would have had a field day with this story. Was this one on the council payroll? AdelaidePete

7:46am Sat 28 Dec 13

anigel says...

Of course painting a yellow cross on a tree is just so much more destructive than chopping it down.
Of course painting a yellow cross on a tree is just so much more destructive than chopping it down. anigel

11:26am Sat 28 Dec 13

whataboutthat says...

AdelaidePete wrote:
Surely any journalist worth their salt would have had a field day with this story. Was this one on the council payroll?
Answer: Katie Clark would have trouble writing a shopping list.
[quote][p][bold]AdelaidePete[/bold] wrote: Surely any journalist worth their salt would have had a field day with this story. Was this one on the council payroll?[/p][/quote]Answer: Katie Clark would have trouble writing a shopping list. whataboutthat

10:55pm Sat 28 Dec 13

hooplaa says...

whataboutthat wrote:
AdelaidePete wrote:
Surely any journalist worth their salt would have had a field day with this story. Was this one on the council payroll?
Answer: Katie Clark would have trouble writing a shopping list.
haha ! How the hell has this made news?! 'slammed by council'!! Its paint on a tree, bird poo and dog wee do worse than that and they are cutting them down!!!! I honestly cannot believe the things i read on here its great!!

Daily newspaper of the year!!! Keep going!!
[quote][p][bold]whataboutthat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AdelaidePete[/bold] wrote: Surely any journalist worth their salt would have had a field day with this story. Was this one on the council payroll?[/p][/quote]Answer: Katie Clark would have trouble writing a shopping list.[/p][/quote]haha ! How the hell has this made news?! 'slammed by council'!! Its paint on a tree, bird poo and dog wee do worse than that and they are cutting them down!!!! I honestly cannot believe the things i read on here its great!! Daily newspaper of the year!!! Keep going!! hooplaa

1:05pm Sun 29 Dec 13

themummy says...

Unbelievable and somewhat scary that these monkeys are in charge. What mindset would consider some paint as being vandalism, and yet total destruction not!?
Unbelievable and somewhat scary that these monkeys are in charge. What mindset would consider some paint as being vandalism, and yet total destruction not!? themummy

2:28pm Sun 29 Dec 13

xchresident says...

Vandalism?!! What hypocrisy! It is this very Council which plans to fell those trees-- simply to accommodate a developer so greedy that the buildings will go right up to the Druitt Gardens boundary. A development as tall as the Regent Centre's extension will front the Gardens, and the flats will look straight into the them. Their view, unimpeded by the existing mature trees, will be a selling point--at the expense of the wildlife and users of the Gardens. This is a planning debacle and should never have been agreed without the requisite arboricultural survey and the details of construction access being discussed at the time of the decision.
A turning compound for heavy vehicles in Druitt Gardens?? The main access footpath from Wick Lane carpark shut? Once again the Council comes down on the side of developers.
Vandalism?!! What hypocrisy! It is this very Council which plans to fell those trees-- simply to accommodate a developer so greedy that the buildings will go right up to the Druitt Gardens boundary. A development as tall as the Regent Centre's extension will front the Gardens, and the flats will look straight into the them. Their view, unimpeded by the existing mature trees, will be a selling point--at the expense of the wildlife and users of the Gardens. This is a planning debacle and should never have been agreed without the requisite arboricultural survey and the details of construction access being discussed at the time of the decision. A turning compound for heavy vehicles in Druitt Gardens?? The main access footpath from Wick Lane carpark shut? Once again the Council comes down on the side of developers. xchresident

7:04pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Crank says...

Agree with all the above, and how good it feels to have councillors actually angry at the voters! Maybe they know now how so many of us have felt about their sheer, wilful ignorance about heritage and the environment. The damage they have permitted is staggering in scope, and to add nature reserve woodland trees to the destruction (and breach a county council covenant in doing so) , which were left to the town as a 'bird sanctuary', is vandalism of gross scale - and to do this to permit a vast development to be built, without this factor ever being part of the planning application - well, gobsmacking, and very very sad for the woodland creatures.
Kick 'em out. You all know how.
And make sure you object - ref is T/13/0248, but be very quick.
Agree with all the above, and how good it feels to have councillors actually angry at the voters! Maybe they know now how so many of us have felt about their sheer, wilful ignorance about heritage and the environment. The damage they have permitted is staggering in scope, and to add nature reserve woodland trees to the destruction (and breach a county council covenant in doing so) , which were left to the town as a 'bird sanctuary', is vandalism of gross scale - and to do this to permit a vast development to be built, without this factor ever being part of the planning application - well, gobsmacking, and very very sad for the woodland creatures. Kick 'em out. You all know how. And make sure you object - ref is T/13/0248, but be very quick. Crank

11:25am Mon 30 Dec 13

RolloR says...

Unbelievable stupidity even by the standards of the eponymous Con group at Christchurch council. And as deceitful as could be expected from them. Thess trees were gifted by Druitt to the people of Christchurch, but she wisely did not make them to Christchurch Council but gave them to the County Council because she could not trust the Borough. Unfortunately the County gave the woodlands back to the Borough, with the covenant protecting the natural habitat in place. Our council is doing everything it can to destroy the woodland, destroy Druitt Hall and fill the twon centre with old peoples' homes. GET RID OF THE CON COUNCILLORS, NOT THE TREES
Unbelievable stupidity even by the standards of the eponymous Con group at Christchurch council. And as deceitful as could be expected from them. Thess trees were gifted by Druitt to the people of Christchurch, but she wisely did not make them to Christchurch Council but gave them to the County Council because she could not trust the Borough. Unfortunately the County gave the woodlands back to the Borough, with the covenant protecting the natural habitat in place. Our council is doing everything it can to destroy the woodland, destroy Druitt Hall and fill the twon centre with old peoples' homes. GET RID OF THE CON COUNCILLORS, NOT THE TREES RolloR

6:50pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Jo Ikarus says...

Words like incompetence and collusion keep going around my head on this!
How can you accept such a great over-development such as this with the only access being across the High St pavement !!? Of course the developer claims that the access and lack of parking are OK for their needs. Where have we been caught out by this before? As soon as the development goes ahead or is complete there will be a steady drip drip of whining and lo behold the council will allocate fixed spaces in the Wick Lane car park taking away shopping spaces etc . Or will this car park have to be extended into Druitt Gardens with its own vehicle access to the rear of the flats. us the starter for further eating away the gardens.
Words like incompetence and collusion keep going around my head on this! How can you accept such a great over-development such as this with the only access being across the High St pavement !!? Of course the developer claims that the access and lack of parking are OK for their needs. Where have we been caught out by this before? As soon as the development goes ahead or is complete there will be a steady drip drip of whining and lo behold the council will allocate fixed spaces in the Wick Lane car park taking away shopping spaces etc . Or will this car park have to be extended into Druitt Gardens with its own vehicle access to the rear of the flats. us the starter for further eating away the gardens. Jo Ikarus

10:59pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Crank says...

People power prevailed at the council meeting tonight. 450+ letters of objection and a packed gallery of 'vandals' woke the councillors up. Turns out the trees don't even need to go for the rear access build to take place - it was all about making the view of the new monster flats more 'acceptable'- cherry trees, and daffodils, not sycamores and bay trees and wildlife. To hear the Planning Committee members criticise their own decision to grant permission for he flats was astounding: they seemed seriously and very easily led by the nose by the officers. Live on, trees!
People power prevailed at the council meeting tonight. 450+ letters of objection and a packed gallery of 'vandals' woke the councillors up. Turns out the trees don't even need to go for the rear access build to take place - it was all about making the view of the new monster flats more 'acceptable'- cherry trees, and daffodils, not sycamores and bay trees and wildlife. To hear the Planning Committee members criticise their own decision to grant permission for he flats was astounding: they seemed seriously and very easily led by the nose by the officers. Live on, trees! Crank

2:56pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Isosceles says...

According to the BBC people power seems to have worked
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/england/dorset
/

Trees in a garden of rest which could have been felled to make way for housing have been saved by one vote.
According to the BBC people power seems to have worked http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/england/dorset / Trees in a garden of rest which could have been felled to make way for housing have been saved by one vote. Isosceles

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree