Trees & Public Opinion

Email to all councillors

Dear Councillor,

Please read this article from the Guardian of 15/11/01 (click the link
to go straight there)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4299247,00.html


Will you please let me know your estimate of the number of trees which
would be affected by the road scheme proposed by Roger Weaver.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Walker

Cllr Howard Briggs' reply

I regret that I am unable to enter into correspondence on this or any other
contentious subjects until the and of mayoralty next May. In the meantime I
have to take a neutral stance in all matters. However, I have read the
article from the Guardian and am well aware of the respect which the British
people have for trees. 
Regards,
Howard Briggs

Cllr Roger Weaver's reply

Dear Mr. Walker,
Thank you very much for your recent e-mails.  With reference to your last
e-mail, I think it is worthwhile you being aware that the scheme to widen
Priory Crescent is not a personal scheme of mine.As stated previously this
scheme is based on the principles of the 1994 Local Borough Plan which was
put together by the community supported again within the Local Tranport
Plan,a document again prepared through consultation with over two hundred
local organisations and finally supported by the current Labour Government
through its funding process. The current scheme is one recommended by
council officers, agreed by the cabinet and supported by the majority of the
Council. 

I have noticed very recently how this is becoming very much a personalised
campaign against myself & Charles Latham.  I am sure you would not wish to
be involved  or associatedin that type of approach.  Therefore I feel it
would be more helpful to you and based on the information you require to
address your e-mails to t&eservices@southend.gov.uk so that details of the
scheme at planning stage which officers rather than councillors are involved
in can be sent to you.  I and other nominated councillors will be heavily
involved during the decision making processes when the input from all
interested third parties views, opinions and concerns can again be taken
into account. At that stage all written submissions received will be
reevaluated together with the technical reports incorporating the
professional expertise of our officers to make sure that a balanced approach
is being taken.

My credentials publicly & politically are well known.  I am interested &
believe it would be helpful for me to understand your cause,as you came to
this at a late stage & the Council has agreed a scheme which does not
encroach on Priory Park, in whether you have any other interests outside of
the Priory Park Preservation Society.  

Cllr. Roger Weaver

Peter Walker's response

Dear Mr. Weaver,

Thank you for your reply.

I am aware of a good deal of the background to the road scheme, but as you
point out, I have only become involved since the council's plans to remove
trees and redesignate the status of park land came to the fore in early
June. Your credentials are not well known to me other than than you are a
councillor and that you have been responsible for the introduction of this
scheme. The first time I recall your name being mentioned to me was at the
public meeting in St. Mary's Hall in early June, which you attended. You
will forgive me, I am sure, for referring to the road scheme as yours. After
all, newspaper headlines from local papers you endorse have done likewise,
even to the point of declaring that you had one particular idea while on
holiday. You were quoted in that article, and did nothing to disabuse the
reporter concerned, that the scheme you claimed to have dreamed up (by which
I mean the one-way system) was in fact quite well known in some circles and
had even been published on Chris Ford's website for a number of months
before you claimed it as your own.

Frankly, I think that it is inevitable that your name and that of Charles
Latham will have become linked with this scheme largely because of the way
that the two of you have used the press, and in particular the Evening Echo,
as a Council mouthpiece while the Echo has more than once distorted the
views of your opponents. I tackled the editor of the Echo in this respect
last week and I hope that reports in that paper will be more balanced in
future. I have recently written to the editor of the Southend Times
concerning his piece in last week's paper (13/11/01). He mentions that
councillors have been abused and I have said in my letter that I do not
condone the abuse of councillors.

At the same time, Charles Latham was responsible for putting out a letter in
response to about 3000 signed communications (my daughter sent one and
received a reply) which contained flagrant factual inaccuracies concerning
Friends of the Earth. I understand from Jon Fuller (and incidentally I first
met Mr. Fuller at the same early June meeting) that these inaccuracies have
still not been withdrawn. I wish I felt confident that our Council was keen
to disassociate itself from such untruths, but sadly they have been very
slow to do so.

I shall of course be making my views known to the Technical Services
Department, and I am sure that many other residents will as well. I will not
stop tackling other councillors on this issue, however, and I shall continue
to encourage others to do likewise. It is as a result of pressure on
Councillors that we get to learn what is going on. Firstly, you have stated
(and you have not been alone in this) that the proposed road scheme was
merely as a reponse to the traffic congestion in Priory Crescent. My
immediate reaction was that this was an incredible standpoint. Councillors
are not stupid and they would not put forward such a scheme (which anyone
can see will do nothing to ease the congestion at the Bell, Cuckoo Corner
and Sutton Road) as all that would be achieved in Priory Crescent would be 4
lanes of stationary traffic belching out fumes instead of two and
councillors would make themselves most unpopular in the process. I felt that
there had to be a hidden agenda and someone mentioned Fossetts Farm. That
was the first time I had heard of Fossetts Farm.

As a result of  recent correspondence with Councillors of all three parties,
it is becoming more and more clear that the reason for the new road scheme
is indeed to support more building to the east of the town (Thorpe Bay Golf
Course, ex-MoD land in Shoebury etc.) and that Councillors are aware of
this, which rather undermines the stand you were taking in early June. My
experience is that Councillors are in many cases woefully ignorant of the
issues relating to Priory Park and its environs, yet those same councillors
will be voting on an issue which could change radically the character of
this town. This continual development of more and more land is a direct
assault on the quality of life of existing residents and those who are
tempted to move in to each tranche of new houses as they becime available.
The infrastructure simply is not there to support more development, and
since the A127 is the only reasonable road on which to approach Southend,
for the Council to contemplate more housebuilding is little short of
criminal. Since Rochford District and Essex County Councils are against a
relief road coming in from the north then any development must put more and
more pressure on the existing infrastructure: that is not just Priory
Crescent, but also the whole of the A127. If Councillors continually endorse
this extra building they are ensuring the gridlock you claimed you were
anxious to alleviate at the Priory Crescent Working Patry meeting of
11/10/01 and thereby letting down the people of this town.

The fact that you, and other councillors, have shifted your ground as a
result of the pressure we have exerted (I know that you are on record as
having denied this, but I will be polite and call this a politician's
denial) has indicated that you do indeed have an agenda other than simply to
widen Priory Crescent. If you still maintain that this scheme will reduce
congestion, I will make the same offer to you as I have made to a number of
other councillors (who have declined my invitation, incidentally). I am
prepared to meet you at the Sutton Road / Eastern Avenue roundabout at peak
traffic hours at a mutually agreeable date. We will then walk along Priory
Crescent and on to the Bell. I will be able to demonstrate conclusively that
the traffic on Priory Crescent is not flowing simply because it cannot get
out at either end. I am certain that Anglia TV and our local newspapers will
cover the event: it would be a great local interest story.

You ask about my credentials. I am chairman of the Priory Park Preservation
Society. I suggest that you look at our constitution which is on line at
http://www.ppps.org.uk . For a definition of Priory Park, I suggest you look
at the deeds, in particular the conveyance dated 10th May 1929. These too
will be online as soon as we have the time to put them up. You, and several
of you colleagues, have stated that the new road will not encroach on park
land. In that case you won't be building it where you say you will, because
Priory Park does not stop at the existing fence: it carries on right up to
the railway embankment and either side of the existing road between Cuckoo
Corner and the bridge over the railway. All of this land is protected in
precisely the same way as the rest of the Park.

You seem to be implying that the motivation which drives me must somehow be
other than the straightforward wish to stop the further encroachment of
concrete onto hitherto green areas. I am sorry to disappoint you, but that
is all there is to it. It is a desire to be able to take my grandchildren,
when they appear, to the same wonderful park as I have take my children.
That is as far as my own interests go. I believe that I am representative of
the great majority of people in this town in this respect and if in some way
others benefit from the efforts I can direct to this issue then that will
please me. I would imagine that since there is no likelihood of a financial
reward for me in this respect that you would find it difficult to
understand, but I live in hope.

Meanwhile, I wrote to you some weeks ago requesting copies of the notes
taken at the two meetings chaired by you which I attended. These were on
31/7/01 and 11/10/01 in the Councillors' lounge. Will you please let me have
these copies as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Walker

Cllr Jane Norman

Peter,
As you know, David Norman ( my fellow Labour councillor and husband) laid
down a proposal to prevent any of Priory Park land taken. This was lost at
the last Council meeting, it was a named vote.

We are still concerned about the amount of trees that will be destroyed. I
will undertake to read this article and get back with as much information I
can.

Regards
Jane Norman

Labour Councillor for Victoria Ward. 

Cllr Brian Kelly's reply

The number of trees to be removed varies according to which version of the
original alternatives is implemented but from memory the number involved in
the final within the existing highway boundary scheme is in the mid forties.
The park will also be enlarged. 

You also need to remember that as part of the scheme replanting with
semi-mature trees will be undertaken on the basis of two for each one
removed. When the scheme is finished there will be an increase in the number
of trees in Priory Park not a decrease.

Regards,


Brian Kelly

Peter Walker's response

Dear Mr. Kelly,

Thank you for your reply.

I would like to make two points. You state that the Park will be "enlarged".
I refer you to the conveyance dated 10/5/1929 which clearly shows that areas
of land outside the existing Park fence are also covered and protected by
the terms of land transfer agreed between R.A. Jones and the Southend
Corporation. It is the Council's intention to build a second bridge over the
railway on the area described as a shrubbery (and for ever to be maintained
as such) in the conveyance I have mentioned. It is therefore not possible to
enlarge the park without diverting the railway, buying up residential areas
or whatever because the park is clearly defined in those title deeds.

Secondly, you mention replanting with "semi-mature" trees. It is a matter of
great interest to me that when the PPPS outlines the practical difficulties
of importing a number of 50-foot beech and oak trees (like for like
replacements for the existing stock) a councillor suddenly breaks rank and
refers to "semi-mature" trees rather than the "mature" ones so far talked
about. Do we have a definition of semi-mature? Do we have any particular
species in mind? Where will these "semi-mature" trees be placed? Will the
Council publish statistics relating to the survival rate of transplanted
trees of given sizes? Or the fact that imported large trees are normally
overtaken within a few years by smaller specimens imported at the same time?

I think that the public ought to be told.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Walker
Chairman, Priory Park Preservation Society

Cllr Brian Kelly's response

There will be an increase in the current size of the park by a return of an
area of land currently forming part of the junction of Priory Crescent and
Eastern Avenue. There is also to be aditional land included in the park by
the inclusion of part of the curtileges of the first two houses on the east
side of Victoria Avenue which are currently owned by the Council and boarded
up. This is the proposed location of the Golden Jubilee Garden referred to
in various Council minutes.

I am dealing with the current park not what may have been conveyed in 1925.
Clearly since then, if you are correct someone made changes presumably
either with the donor's permission or if he had already died with his heirs.

The park will therefore be enlarged from it's current size.

I refer to semi-mature trees based on some forty years experience in the
construction industry. This technique was pioneered by Capability Brown and
has been in use ever since.
If you wish to see an example visit The Marlowes in Hemel Hempstead and view
the avenue of Lime trees. They were in fact transplanted from the Guiness
Brewery in Park Royal when it was being extended some thrity five years ago.

There is a limit of size, which varies according to species, which can be
successfully moved due to the risk of their becoming windthrown until their
root systems become fully re-established.

Therefore I am using the correct technical expression for the technique.

What the public will see is twice as many trees as have been removed.

Regards,


Brian Kelly

Peter Walker's response

Dear Mr. Kelly, 

I have seen the plan of the "preferred option" and the fact that a left-turn
slip road is shown, taking off the front gardens of the two houses at the
top of Victoria Avenue was perplexing to me: there must be very few people
who wish to turn left from Priory Cresent into Victoria Ave: any journey
involving this turn would be far better served turning left at Sutton Road
and approaching the Town Centre that way or turning left after the railway
bridge and joining Victoria Avenue south of the park This detail alone, if
implemented, would remove two of the large conifers and a yew tree. Given
that one of these conifers is shown in "A History of Southend", by Ian
Yearsley (p.84) in a photograph dated 1924 and its appearance has scarcely
changed in the last 77 years, it doesn't matter how many years you have
spent in the construction industry, there is no way that you will ever
convince me that the Council will be able to provide anything like a
suitable replacement for this tree.

I am not certain how you manage to interpret the expression "for ever" in
the way that you do. At the risk of repeating myself, the vast bulk of
Priory Park was transferred to the Southend Corporation within R.A. Jones'
lifetime and all of it, including the piece I referred to which backs on to
the railway has been placed in the public domain for ever. I refer you to
the PPPS website at http://www.ppps.org.uk/history/conveyance19290510.html
which will give you the information you require. I believe that it is
impossible even for someone in the construction industry to unravel the
terms of this conveyance and I know that nobody has done so yet. This would
explain why it is that this conveyance is amongst the deeds of Priory Park
which are currently held at the Charities Commission and why it is referred
to on the Charities Commission website. Click the link to see the entry on
their database. Ask the council legal department if you can see the deeds.
You may be luckier that I was - they had mysteriously disappeared the day I
went. 
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/cinprs/showcharity.asp?remchar=&chyno=1000195
 
Indeed, you have been a councillor for many years and I would ask you to
provide me with some information. I have a vague recollection that Southend
Borough Council once attempted to sell Victory Sports Ground to Waitrose for
a supermarket to be built. Will you please provide me with the details of
the year that this attempted transaction took place and why it was that it
failed and the supermarket was subsequently built on its existing site. This
whole process gives me a very strong feeling of déjà vu.

My understanding is that techniques of transplanting large trees have
improved considerably in recent years but nevertheless, it remains the case
that the larger the tree that is transplanted, the greater the chance of it
dying. However, although important, this is not the main point I am making.
For the Council to be convincing in this respect, more than a vague referral
to "mature" or "semi-mature" trees is required. It is quite easy to measure
the size of the trees which are under threat and we are talking about a
precise number which the Council have yet to declare. Nevertheless, I can
immediately identify 52 trees of varying sizes (53 if you include the
moderate-sized beech which was removed a few weeks ago) which would have to
go because they are close to the existing carriageway. Add to them the trees
on the shrubbery area (I counted 62 trees here, 29 of which were oaks of
varying sizes) and those within the Park fence but whose branches and roots
would be removed because of their proximity to the planned carriageway and
it is my view that well in excess of 100 trees will be removed for this
scheme. This may be more, given that the angle of the road to the railway is
unlikely to be 90 degrees as I believe that this would make the bend on the
eastbound lane into the bridge impossibly tight. What we need from the Tech
Services Dept is specifics on the largest size of trees of a particular
species which can be imported, the likely cost for each and the forecast
survival rate. Has the Council put in a bid yet for what I would imagine
would be an enormously costly process? Has a piece of land been earmarked
for the planting of these trees? In short, this "larger park, more trees"
promise is in my view a contemptible piece of nonsense which will be dropped
once the site clearance work has commenced. Councillors' promises on this
are completely worthless as this is the sort of frill which will be the
first to go when the cash gets a bit tight.

Yours sincerely, 

Peter Walker 

Cllr Alan Crystall's reply

The number of street trees is not relevant in this issue as the importance
of this road improvement is of major consequence to the whole town, and
trees can easily be replaced.Stationary traffic has a very bad effect on the
health of local residents, who cannot be replanted.

Peter Walker's response

Thank you for your reply in this respect.

You may not be aware that widening the road will do nothing to ease the
traffic flow along this stretch as the congestion is caused by the
roundabouts at either end. This means that four lanes of statonary traffic
will emit double the amount of noxious fumes as are emitted by two. In
addition, trees have a small but beneficial effect upon road pollution by
absorbing some of the dangerous fumes. It is also well-documented that
widening roads adds to traffic problems in the long term, thereby increasing
pollution. Perhaps you would let me know when the promised air quality
testing equipment will be installed along Priory Crescent?

I would be quite happy to meet you at peak traffic hours at a mutually
convenient date at the Sutton Road roundabout and I would suggest a walk to
the Bell and you will be able to see for yourself that the sheer volume of
traffic at the roundabouts is the cause of the problem. Westbound congestion
is worse than eastbound, and the traffic is at its heaviest between Cuckoo
Corner and the Bell. It may be the case that traffic lights at Cuckoo Corner
will ease congestion for westbound traffic along Priory Crescent but this
must be at the expense of causing further congestion to traffic turning
right from the Arterial Road into Victoria Avenue with consequent increases
in pollution levels there.

Furthermore, it is not easy to replace trees. Many of these are 80 years old
and although it is possible at considerable expense to import reasonably
sized trees, their survival rate is low and typically they do not thrive,
often being overtaken by smaller specimens in a few years. The best way to
put a mature oak into a location is to plant an acorn and let the tree do
the rest. The problem with that, of course, is that none of the participants
in this debate will ever see the fruits of their labours.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Walker

Cllr Alan Crystall's response

The roundabout will be completely refigured, the two corner houses will go,
and the traffic lights will be linked to flow streams of traffic
through.Each tree removed will be replaced by two MATURE trees.Doing nothing
is no longer an option.I will be happy to meet you when the new scheme is up
and running, regards, Alan Crystall. You also have to remember that I am a
member of the East of England Regional Planning Panel, building up the new
structure plan, and dualling of major roads is a regional priority.Southend
is also in Thames Gateway, the national and regional priority area for
economic regeneration,and roads have to improved especially to the east of
the town which is still expanding.We have to do this to give the poor and
disposessed who live in the central ares of Southend a chance of work,re
education and reskilling, and to give their underperforming children a
proper chance in life.Bear in the back of your mind that Southend is the
drugs capital of Essex, biggest needle exchange, more teenage pregnancies,
more children with no academic qualifications,and the largest number of free
school meals in Essex, together with an aging population.These residents of
Southend must have their lot improved, which is why we are living in the
largest regeneration area in Europe.More trees, lifelong
learning,reskilling, new jobs, better education and better living standards
for the whole community.The street trees in Priory Crescent will not stand
in the Way.Alan.

Peter Walker's response

CllrCrystall wrote:

> The roundabout will be completely refigured, the two corner houses will
> go, and the traffic lights will be linked to flow streams of traffic
> through.Each tree removed will be replaced by two MATURE trees.Doing
> nothing is no longer an option.I will be happy to meet you when the new
> scheme is up and running, regards, Alan Crystall.

I fail to see how meeting me after any proposed new road is built will help
at all. You are evidently charging headlong and with great enthuiasm into a
scheme which is at best contentious and at worst highly damaging and a huge
waste of public money. It is your duty as a Councillor to meet people whose
views do not necessarily fit in with your own so that your decision when it
comes to the vote can be taken from an informed standpoint. I can only
assume that your unwillingness to meet me and discuss the issues in a
constructive way is indicative of a fear of being proved wrong.

> You also have to remember that I am a member of the East of England
> Regional Planning Panel, building up the new structure plan, and dualling
> of major roads is a regional priority.

You have to remember that you are, as a Councillor, the servant of
the people of this town. Of those who have expressed an opinion on this
matter, the vast majority are against the road widening scheme. I suggest
that you attend some meetings with them so that you can understand their
strength of feeling. I can arrange those meetings if you wish.

In some cases, it may indeed be appropriate to widen or dual roads. In other
cases it will not. Each case needs to be judged on its merits and in my
opinion, as well as those 20,000 others who have signed petitions to that
effect, Priory Park would be hugely damaged by the road scheme and the
people of Southend would not benefit one bit.

> Southend is also in Thames Gateway, the national and regional priority
> area for economic regeneration,and roads have to improved especially to
> the east of the town which is still expanding.We have to do this to give
> the poor and disposessed who live in the central ares of Southend a chance
> of work,re education and reskilling, and to give their underperforming
> children a proper chance in life.Bear in the back of your mind that
> Southend is the drugs capital of Essex, biggest needle exchange, more
> teenage pregnancies, more children with no academic qualifications,and the
> largest number of free school meals in Essex, together with an aging
> population.These residents of Southend must have their lot improved, which
> is why we are living in the largest regeneration area in Europe.More
> trees, lifelong learning,reskilling, new jobs, better education and better
> living standards for the whole community.The street trees in Priory
> Crescent will not stand in the Way.Alan.

This is the first occasion that I have heard of an avenue of trees being
responible for a drugs problem and teenage pregnancies.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Walker

Cllr Alan Crystall's response

The regeneration of the town will require adequate EW transport routes
amongst many other things,horizontal spatial strategies that link
infrastructure with jobs and health and social services and buses etc.,in
overall strategies aimed to be complete by 2021.If you are happy to believe
that a row of replaceable trees is more important than the progress to
prosperity of our poor and disposessed, in a multifaceted renewal strategy,
then I regret wasting my time trying to explain that Priory Crescent is a
just one piece of a regeneration jigsaw that must succeed. If we take your
line and do nothing,there will be 20,000 unemployed in Southend Rochford and
Castle Point by 2011.Please do not think councillors are anti-green morons.
I am one of three councillor members of the East of England Regional
Environmental Strategy Group gathering together a framework of best practice
from Vistas of scenic and historic landscape to urban parks and urban
renaissance, from SSSI's to nature reserves, water resources and coastline.
East of England has a population of 5.4 million, bigger than Scotland and
Denmark,and together with partners in English Nature, Countryside
commission, National Trust etc. are working to safeguard the long term
future of the environment, landscape ,nature conservation air quality and
built environment across the whole region.

Peter Walker's response

Dear Dr. Crystall,

My apologies for having overlooked your latest e-mail.

I do not regard dialogue between opposing viewpoints as a waste of time:  it
must be part of the democratic process that you, as a Councillor, respond to
correspondence, and it is a pity that more of your colleagues do not emulate
you in this respect.

In your latest e-mail you refer to some elaborate statistical
prognostications which must be open to conjecture: you don't say where you
get the statistics from and they must be regarded as no more valuable than
guesswork.

What you have not addressed is the very real problem of the fact that many
people in Southend want the trees to stay and the road to remain single
carriageway. It does not matter how often Councillors repeat the stale
mantra "Doing nothing is no longer an option", doing the wrong, irreversible
thing is infinitely worse than doing nothing. If, for the moment, we do
nothing drastic to Priory Crescent, it may be appropriate to act at a later
date in the light of more information. Meanwhile, we can adopt some of the
less radical approaches, e.g. a genuine attempt to reduce the amount of
traffic which uses Cuckoo Corner, experimenting with different sorts of
junction, a park & ride scheme using some of the surplus land at the
airport.

Although I have no doubt that you will vote in favour of this road scheme
when the time comes, nothing that you have written gives me any confidence
that you have considered at all the views of your consituents. No-one on the
Council has officially admitted that this proposed road scheme is anything
other than a means of relieving a specific traffic problem. As such, I still
fail to understand why you will not accept my challenge, meet me at Sutton
Road and allow me to explain to you why it is that this road will do nothing
to solve the traffic problems of Cuckoo Corner and the Sutton Road / Eastern
Avenue roundabouts.

Regards,

Peter Walker

Cllr Alan Crystall's response

I regret I must diagnose you as a sad case of "treeomania",a condition where
patients think that trees are a more important part of life on earth than
human mammals. There is no cure alas,and the sufferers are to be pitied as
they tend to lack the milk of human kindness.

Peter Walker's response

I have already told Roger Weaver in writing that I do not condone the abuse
of Councillors so my response to this mindless nonsense will be merely to
observe that if this is the level of correspondence that residents of this
town receive from the elected councillors then there is absolutely no wonder
that councillors have handled this issue as ineptly as they have.

Cllr Tony North's reply

Dear Mr. Walker
I am not sure of your interest in the trees around Priory Park, maybe you
are one of those who voiced strong opinions, quite rightly, against the
ridiculous schemes put forward by the Yellow Advertiser. 

You will have to ask the Technical Services Department exactly how many
trees are required to be replaced to accommodate the Council proposed road
scheme(it is not one members scheme but was endorsed by the full council
last week).  At that Council Meeting all the options were displayed and each
one shows the position of any tree which would have to be sacrificed these
will for the basis of the consultation process now underway.

As you may know, and I will repeat it in case you do not, at least two
mature trees will be planted for each tree that has to be felled.  As
Portfolio-holder responsible for the park I will want to see further trees
planted in the extra parts of the park created at the Cookoo Corner and
where the Tranport Depot is at present.

Please look at the proposals judge them in the cold light of reason and be
pleased that they are not designed to desecrate the park as so many people
thought.  

Peter Walker's response

Dear Cllr North,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I have seen a number of schemes put forward by a variety of newspapers and
councillors, some more foolish than others. I do indeed hold strong opinions
on the matter of Priory Park and Priory Crescent.

I have seen the plans which were displayed at the Council meeting of
8/11/01, and in particular plan F5 (the "preferred option"). I am also in
possession of copies of the deeds and conveyances relating to the transfer
of land from R.A Jones to Southend Corporation in the 1920s.

F5 is subject to amendment in the light of further investigations and,
according to James Westgate (SBC Transport Group Manager), is not reliable
on detail, certainly not to the point that individual trees are marked. The
deeds show that the extent of the land subject to the rigorous terms of
transfer agreed by R. A. Jones and the Southend Corporation in the 1920s
does not stop at the Park fence: the shrubbery between Lookers Car Showroom
and the existing railway bridge was also placed in the Local Authority's
hands "for the purposes of open spaces and shrubberies only...and will
forever hereafter maintain the same as open spaces and shrubberies only"
(Conveyance 8727 dated 10/5/1929). There are more than 60 trees, almost half
of them oaks, in this area. You, of all people, should be aware that the
Park as transferred by R. A Jones does not stop at the current fence and any
road widening scheme must, by its definition, take park land. Since the
Charities Commission also holds deeds for land currently outside the Park
fence then it is logical to assume that the Charitable Trust responsible for
the Park also has jurisdiction over the areas I have described.

You may be aware that the planting of mature trees is a very unsatisfactory
process. Many of the trees which would be felled for this road are 80 years
old and although it is possible at considerable expense to import reasonably
sized trees, their survival rate is low and typically they do not thrive,
often being overtaken by smaller specimens in a few years. The best way to
put a mature oak into a location is to plant an acorn and let the tree do
the rest. The problem with that, of course, is that none of the participants
in this debate will ever see the fruits of their labours. That should not
stop us planting trees of course: they are vital to the survival of future
generations.

Furthermore, nobody has yet demonstrated that the widening of Priory
Crescent would in any way ease the traffic congestion. It is clear to me
that the congestion is caused by the roundabouts at Cuckoo Corner and Sutton
Road. I would be happy to meet you at the Sutton Road roundabout at a
mutually convenient date at peak hours so that we can walk the route to the
Bell. You will find that it is the stretch of the existing dual carriageway
westbound which prevents traffic from leaving Priory Crescent, as well as
that turning right into Victoria Avenue. I am aware that it is part of Plan
F5 to replace the roundabout at Cuckoo Corner with lights. It is my view,
having used this junction many thousands of times in the past 25 years, that
it may indeed be possible to improve the traffic flow along Priory Crescent
by this means, but at the expense of the eastbound lanes approaching Cuckoo
Corner.You may not be aware that neither Roger Weaver nor W. S. Atkins
consultants, at the Priory Crescent Working Group meeting of 11/10/01, were
able to give satisfactory answers to questions relating firstly to the
amount of time that would be saved on a journey from Cuckoo Corner to Sutton
Road and secondly, if the traffic lights will make such a difference,why not
put them in without widening Priory Crescent and see whether the desired
benefit can be achieved without removing trees.

I look forward to being able to arrange a meeting.

Yours sincerely

Peter Walker
Chariman, Priory Park Preservation Society

Cllr Tony North's response

Dear Mr Walker
Now I know who you are, the person who puts out leaflets saying that people
are in favour of roads through the park when they have said nothing of the
sort!

I will reply to your e-mail though it will probably be distorted and taken
out of context.

There is no ned to meet and walk the route you suggest, I used to drive that
route everyday and have changed because of the congestion,so i have made the
road a little clearer.

Why I should know the detail of R.A. Jones's will is beyond me I live in the
present and look to the future of all of Southend not just Priory Crescent.
I am sure that such a realist as R.A.Jones would have welcomed the proposed
scheme as one which causes minimum damage to the park, yet maximum benefit
to the residents to the east of the town[which are growing daily].  Perhaps
your undoubted energies could be used to put pressure on Rochford and Essex
to build a relief road round from shoeburyness which could make the scheme
you oppose obsolete.

I was not at the meeting you refered to, but at the Cabinet meeting; which
is open to the public with pre-released agendas, we were told that the plans
did show trees which were under threat.  At no time has the stretch of land
to the east of Priory Crescent and west of the railway line been identified
to me as part of the park.

Peter Walker's response

CllrNorth wrote:

> Dear Mr Walker
> Now I know who you are, the person who puts out leaflets saying that people
> are in favour of roads through the park when they have said nothing of the
> sort!
> 
> I will reply to your e-mail though it will probably be distorted and taken
> out of context.
>
> There is no ned to meet and walk the route you suggest, I used to drive
> that route everyday and have changed because of the congestion,so i have
> made the road a little clearer.

I am looking forward to a Councillor having the courage of their convictions
and agreeing to meet me on these terms. It is easy to demonstrate that
Cuckoo Corner and Sutton Road roundabouts are the cause of the congestion
and to imply otherwise is to mislead the public. To refuse meet someone with
a point of view differing from your own is cowardice.

> Why I should know the detail of R.A. Jones's will is beyond me I live in the
> present and look to the future of all of Southend not just Priory Crescent.

I know nothing of R. A Jones' will. The fact that you refer to it
demostrates the depth of your knowledge of the issues we are discussing.
What I do have is a copy of each of the deeds and conveyances relating to
the transfer of Priory Park to the Southend Corporation in the 1920s. The
piece of land to which I have referred is indeed covered by these
conveyances and I copied to you the relevant part in my previous e-mail. I
was handed my copies by someone who obtained them directly from the
Charities Commission. If the land in question is not adminstered by the
charitable trust, then why should the Charities Commission hold a copy of
the deeds?

> I am sure that such a realist as R.A.Jones would have welcomed the proposed
> scheme as one which causes minimum damage to the park, yet maximum benefit
> to the residents to the east of the town[which are growing daily].

The above sentence is completely untrue. It is remarkable how councillors
determined to dismantle the great work done by Jones claim that he would
have shared their point of view.

> Perhaps your undoubted energies could be used to put pressure on Rochford
> and Essex to build a relief road round from shoeburyness which could make
> the scheme you oppose obsolete.

Development of extra housing does not happen by accident. If irresponsible
councillors approve house building in unsuitable places where the
infrastructure does not exist to support such development, then they are
letting down the people who already live in Southend by causing a
deterioration in their quality of life. They are letting down the incoming
residents because this rapacity and hunger for more building land never
stops. It is also irresponsible to advocate the building of yet more
environmentally damaging roads. Councillors need to understand that
Southend, being not just coastal but also on a peninsula (R.Crouch to the
north, sea to the east, Thames to the south), is of limited access and,
ultimately, remote. As such, a point arrives (and I believe that we have now
reached that point) when further development becomes impossible unless at
unacceptable environmental cost. There are many residents who accept traffic
jams as an occupational hazard of driving. It is the Council's
responsibility to look for ways to reduce congestion and that can only be
achieved ultimately by persuading people who currently drive to use
alternative means of transport.

> I was not at the meeting you refered to, but at the Cabinet meeting; which
> is open to the public with pre-released agendas, we were told that the plans
> did show trees which were under threat.  At no time has the stretch of land
> to the east of Priory Crescent and west of the railway line been identified
> to me as part of the park.

I am now identifying it to you as such. Read the deeds and examine the maps.
You, as a Councillor, are a member of the charitable trust administering
Priory Park and for you to advocate the sort of damage to land which has
been entrusted to you is entirely unacceptable. Priory Park, as well as the
shrubbery across the road and all the grass verges either side of the
stretch of Priory Crescent between the railway bridge and Cuckoo Corner, is
protected by the terms of the transfer of land. The exisiting road was
planned and agreed to under the terms of the transfer. In the case of the
shrubbery, the date of the conveyance is 10th May 1929. You have already
told me that you are portfolio holder with responsibilty for the
administration of Priory Park yet you are ignorant of the terms under which
the Council administers the Park. That doesn't look too good, does it?

Now you have been told, I don't expect you to take my word for it but I do
expect you to check for yourself.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Walker

Cllr Anna Waite's reply

Thank you for forwarding the article. I have not counted the exact number of
trees along the current road nor have I yet seen drawings in sufficient
detail to know which trees may need to removed. The technical services
department of SBC may be able to give you further information regarding the
trees.
Anna Waite

Peter Walker's response

Dear Mrs. Waite,

I find it a little odd that you are not familiar with the details, as they
currently stand, of the proposed road scheme and yet you are prepared to
accept it as a "preferred option". I was able, as a member of the public, to
meet James Westgate and look in detail at the plan concerned with him on 9th
November, the day after the Council took the decision to accept the plan in
principle and voted by a large majority against a proposal to abandon any
scheme which takes land from Priory Park.

Do you not think that it is your duty as a Councillor to familiarise
yourself with the issues since you will be voting on this highly contentious
and unpopular issue in the near future? Firstly, I believe that you should
look carefully at the plan which has been adopted and secondly find out how
the Council are rushing headlong into a scheme which will put them at odds
with the Charities Commission. It may come as a surprise to you to learn
that the land upon which the proposed bridge will be built is all Park land
as defined by the deeds dated 10th May 1929. The Charities Commission hold
copies of these deeds. For detailed information see http://www.ppps.org.uk .

Yours sincerely,

Peter Walker

Back to Correspondence Page
Back to Home Page