Removing school hedge not good for the pupils
What are Park House School going to do about their desecrated hedgeline?
While I sympathise with the headteacher over his sadness at the removal of the hedge adjacent to Monks Lane (Newbury Weekly News, June 6), the damage has now been done by their reckless contractors.
I can understand that it is necessary to ensure the pupils are safe while on school premises, but feel that the pre-existing dense, deep hedge and chain-link fence provided a more than adequate barrier to potential intruders.
If the aim was to ensure a completely impenetrable barrier, this could have been achieved by placing a fence inside the hedge line.
The long-term safety of the pupils surely depends on having a sustainable healthy environment in which to live.
The removal of mature hedges does not contribute to this priority.
We could ask whether there was a supervisor from the school on site during this work to install a new tall fence.
If so, I would have thought they might have halted work when the problem of the fence being entangled with the hedge was noticed, so that another plan could have been made.
This issue should have been considered during the pre-work inspections as well, it is not an unusual occurrence after all.
Anyway, we must now focus on how to improve the situation.
I am relieved to hear that their contractor will complete the remedial pruning of the damaged trees – of course this is the least they can do.
I am pleased to hear that they will reinstate a hedge along this boundary, although it will be many years before it provides screening and any environmental benefit.
It is to be hoped that they will use native species to plant a mixed hedge beneficial to wildlife, and which is also designed to cope with the unpredictability of our future climate.
I have contacted the headteacher with this request.
Susan MillingtonCoordinator, Newbury Friends of the Earth
Grubbing out the hedge at Park House School
In your article (Newbury Weekly News, June 6) regarding the Monks Lane section of the hedge outside Park House School the headteacher James King is said to have said that ‘the hedge was never included in the school’s plans and that the school had waited for planning permission to install the new fence in order to avoid damaging the existing greenery’.
I do not understand this statement, unless he is saying he has been let down by the council’s planning process.
Instead of grubbing out the whole lot, outside the nesting season the hedge should have been cut down to stumps, the old fence cut around the stumps with angle grinders and bolt croppers, leaving some ingrown wire in situ.
It would have looked ugly at first, but the stumps would have re-grown and by filling the gaps with appropriate hedging species, a really good hedge could have been re-established.
I recognise the difficulty and greater expense of removing the old fence grown around and through by the hedge, but it could have been done.
I have done plenty of that sort of thing myself over 30 or 40 years, so I know it is entirely practicable.
This mess was probably the result of taking the cheapest quote, without oversight from the beginning and with costly environmental consequences.
The arboricultural (arb) report, the Arb Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan is clearly a ‘tick the box’ exercise and in error by referring only to the trees and not the hedge.
The hedge should have been highly significant within the report as a topographical feature, for its screening and ecological importance and should have been retained.
Neither do they refer to the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981 (CAWA) and the nesting season.
The letter from the ‘independent’ ecologist stipulates that the work should be done outside the bird nesting season but, if this is not the case, a trained ecologist should have observed the hedge for avian activity for 48 hours before the work begins.
If this was carried out presumably the council has a report stating there was no evidence of nesting birds using the hedge.
This is very disappointing because I would argue that the hedge was a more important ecological feature than the trees that have been retained.
Where trees have been pruned, the work itself is atrocious.
The council should have insisted on retaining a hedge as part of a landscape requirement, although their planning consent is categoric that the work should comply with the CAWA.
The planning application from Barkers, the arb report and the ecological letter are all from companies in Essex.
The difficulty of the work would have been apparent at the quotation stage, not just ‘when work commenced’, as Barkers state. Why could local firms not have been used?
The contractors should not have carried out the work unless they had demonstrated that there were no active birds’ nests in the hedge.
What has been done is almost certainly a criminal act and also contravenes the planning consent.
Although the drawings in the application imply that a 2m hedge will be re-established nowhere could I see this stated.
Given the climate emergency and the emphasis on tree planting, one would hope this is the intention.
However, it will be hard to get a young hedge going in the impoverished soils and increasing shade of the retained trees and it will never be as vigorous and ecologically beneficial as the old one, which was considerably older than the trees.
This is all a question, as it often is, of going for the cheapest quote, oversight and enforcement.
John HandyTree advisor to the Newbury Society
Why resurface these footpaths in Speen?
Why on earth has West Berkshire Council wasted precious resources and resurfaced the footpaths in Sutton and Groveland Road when there was nothing wrong them?
I expect more parts of Speen are on their list.
And possibly other parts of Newbury.
The roads around the district – especially East Shefford into Newbury – has great big potholes.
The whole road needs resurfacing, not just filling the holes in but of course it won’t be done because of lack of funds.
This action has made me angry as I know for a fact if I damage my car through these great big potholes on my journey into work the council will pay for the repairs? I think not.
Mrs Lesley CaveLambourn Place, Lambourn
Thanks to all who supported Eight Bells
This is to say a warm thank you to the kind people of Newbury, Hungerford and Thatcham who kindly supported recent collections in aid of the Eight Bells for Mental Health.
What is the Eight Bells for Mental Health?
On one level it is a drop-in centre for those living with a mental health diagnosis.
However it is so much more than that, providing warmth, friendship and peer support which can mean so much to someone living with a mental health diagnosis.
It provides a safe and welcoming environment for members.
This can make so much difference for people living with a mental health diagnosis, something which can be incredibly challenging at times
Eight Bells for Mental Health is a vital resource for people living with a mental health diagnosis.
Thank you for supporting.
Rachel Jones~Prospect Place, Newbury
Let candidates know ‘dignity has your vote’
New polling on assisted dying by Opinium shows that 79 per cent of people in the Newbury constituency support a change in the law to allow an assisted dying law for terminally-ill, mentally competent adults.
Furthermore, the poll found that every constituency in England and Wales has a majority in favour.
If you support a change in the law, please let all the candidates know, before the election, that ‘dignity has your vote’ at dignityindying.org.uk/candidates
It takes just one minute to complete the form and the candidates will be emailed on your behalf.
The campaign has made incredible progress in recent months and three parties (Lib Dem, Green and Conservative) have included assisted dying in their 2024 manifesto.
In March, Keir Starmer reaffirmed his personal support for law change and has committed to making time for a debate.
It is important we keep up the momentum so the next Government can introduce a law to provide terminally-ill people with a choice to end their lives should they get to a stage where palliative care is no longer able to ease their pain and suffering.
Sara FentonWest Berks Dignity in Dying co-ordinator
