Please read this and then our guidance before completing the survey
Please read our guidance before completing the Armada Way survey
Here is the new Armada Way design, and we've overlaid the six trees that Plymouth City Council want to remove over the top in red. Read about them below the design and tell us what you'd like to see happen to them. We use the word removed rather than translocated, as trees of this age are very unlikely to survive the move.
Limited details of why the trees “must” be removed have been provided. We are told that the trees are to be removed because of either the path, the Sustainable Urban Drainage or levelling. The new plan provided state they are INDICATIVE ONLY and could be changed. Most justifications appear to be due to design elements which we believe could be modified.
Below are some things to consider when completing your consultation survey. If you have already completed the survey, you can re-do it using the same email address and ECF will use your most recent submission.
For information on proposed new trees also worth considering, please read local tree experts Plymouth Tree People response.
None of the trees are being removed due to their condition.
Official Tree Number: 007
Species: Cockspur thorn
What they have said: “The design includes re-engineering of ground level and nearby structures to create the gentle slope required to encourage rainwater to run into the SuDs”.
Basically being removed due to the design which could be modified.
Next to the Copthorne Hotel. Other trees of the same species in the same bed being retained. No conflict with cycle path. We are told it is being removed because of levelling but the visuals show that the bed it is in is being extended, not removed. New trees being planted in same location. No foreseeable visible potential nuisance to the built environment visually identified. Comments in latest report indicate doubts as to whether this tree would survive translocation.
Official Tree Number: 045
Species: Whitebeam
What they have said: “This tree impacts the implementation of the SuDs rill, the cycle route, the parterre layout and the east-west pedestrian route”, “in reasonable health and fair condition”.
Seems to be being removed due to the design which could be modified.
This tree appears to be as close to the rill as other trees which are being retained. Could the shape of the rill be altered slightly to accommodate trees close to it? It could be a feature! Could the cycle route cross from east to west one section lower down? And surely the east-west path could be moved a few feet?
Official Tree Number: 118
Species: Sorbus
What they have said: “The ground levels will need to be re-engineered to create the gentle slope required to encourage rainwater into the SuDs via the rill and rain gardens”, “In reasonable health and condition”.
Basically being removed due to the design which could be modified.
In front of the "Knowledge Hub". In a raised bed. Other trees which are being retained are also in raised beds.
Official Tree Number: 119
Species: Japanese Maple
What they have said: “The position of this tree impacts on the SuDs reed bed, the cycle route and the central processional footpath”, “In good health and fair condition”, “Growing in restricted root space”.
Could the reed bed be modified? The plan provided does not seem to indicate that the location of this tree provides conflict with installing the central path. Could the cycle path be re-routed west further north to avoid these trees and avoid conflict with The Original Pasty House? Possibility that the central view is the real reason this tree was not considered for retention. Planting conditions could be improved as with other retained trees.
Official Tree Number: 120
Species: Japanese Maple
What they have said: “The position of this tree impacts on the implementation of the SuDs reed bed, the cycle route and the central processional footpath”, “In good health and fair condition”, “Growing in restricted root space”.
As above. Could the reed bed be modified? The plan provided does not seem to indicate that the location of this tree provides conflict with installing the central path. Could the cycle path be re-routed west further north to avoid these trees and avoid conflict with The Original Pasty House? Possibility that the central view is the real reason this tree was not considered for retention. Planting conditions could be improved as with other retained trees.
In front of the "Knowledge Hub". In a raised bed. No foreseeable visible potential nuisance to the built environment visually identified.
Official Tree Number: 125
Species: Silver Maple aka The Shopping Basket Tree
What they have said: “The position of this tree impacts on the implementation of the SuDs rain garden”.
No conflict with proposed cycle path. New tree proposed in similar location. Rain gardens are being installed around some Horse Chestnuts and all 16 of the Piazza trees. Why can’t they retrofit around this tree? If they cannot, could it not go without the rain garden as it currently is?
Species: Cabbage Palms
The council have previously said they would translocate all (approximately 12) palm trees. But there's no mention of this in the proposed new design. Translocation of palms has a reasonably high success rate. Please consider mentioning this when you complete your consultation survey.
Some information taken from the YGS 2021 Tree Survey carried out on behalf of Plymouth City Council. Tree categories are rated as per BS:5837 ("Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction to Construction).
Make sure your voice is heard
The Armada Way consultation is open until November 28th. Please make sure you have your say.
Thank you.