Recent Background

Press Statement (23rd June 2020) following decision to approve the felling

"We are pleased that the matter was considered in an open committee but it is shocking we had to go to the High Court to secure that and have requested an investigation into what went wrong. We are concerned that the committee was too easily taken in on health and safety grounds and simply did not consider the differences between the experts on two of the trees. The visual amenity and historical value of the trees which are being felled is around £266,000, which councillors totally failed to consider. We are very concerned that all mature Monterey pines in Southampton will now be at risk from developers who want to play the health & safety card. The watchword must be greater vigilance for these applications in the future."

Marlhill Copse is a beautiful woodland just off Riverside Park in Southampton. It is under threat from Southampton airport who bought it in 2018 and shortly after revealed plans to reduce the height of 219 trees that it alleged were a threat to air safety. Some of these trees were to be completely chopped down (around 20 large old pines) whilst others were to be severely crown-reduced (93 by more than 10 metres [Photos]). These plans were approved by Southampton City Council in 2019 despite the trees having Tree Protection Orders and being in a conservation area. It become apparent that the trees were not a threat to air safety but an obstacle to the expansion of Southampton airport - because the trees get in the way of the reduced take off angle required for heavier and more laden planes. The type of large jets the airport wants to fly to destinations such as Greece would require a runway extension and reduced tree height at Marlhill.

Just before the works were due to start on 1st April 2019 Richard Buxton solicitors in Cambridge - specialising in Environmental Planning and Public Law - succeeded in getting a temporary injunction against the Council's decision which means that tree works were forbidden. Lawyers from the City Council and airport succeeded in getting this reversed at beginning of June [Background to the campaign]. These trees are therefore no longer protected by the law. Other ways were found to protect them [Events].

The pages on this site contain: links to the history [History; Jekyll & Hyde] of Marlhill Copse which includes a possible Saxon canal; details of the campaign to date [Background to the campaign] and in the future [Petition]; maps - including one from 1791 [Maps]; thoughts on airport expansion and its further effects on the environment [Airport expansion].

Please visit Marlhill Copse and enjoy its delights and mysteries - when you still can. Details of walks and diversions are being added [Google Earth].

MarlhillCopse999@gmail.com

Trees - a liability or asset?

Developments in 2020:

1. The airport applied to fell 5 trees (application validated 29 March) - ref 20/00067/TPO

2. The Tree Officer said on 4rd April that he alone would take the decision rather than referring it to the public PROW committee of City Councillors.

3. I wrote to Richard Ivory (Service Director: Legal & Business Operations) at the beginning of April reminding him that he had promised that the decision would not be delegated to officers but that a public planning meeting with full transparency of process and decision-making would occur. I asked him to explain the contradiction with the tree officer's intentions. He replied to me in a vague and evasive manner a month later.

4. The very next day the Tree Officer issued a notice approving the felling of the 5 trees despite 50 objections to the planning application having been made,

5. Cllr. Chris Hammond says to the Echo that the decision was not reffered to committee because it needed to be an emergency one made on health & safety grounds https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18438480.council-accused-killing-democracy-giving-secret-go-ahead-fell-trees/

6. I write to all Councillors pointing out: a) if the lack of public meeting was on emergency grounds why had the tree officer signalled his intention to do that a month earlier? b) Where was the evidence that it was an emergency? : The airport's tree survey (February - https://planningpublicaccess.southampton.gov.uk/online-applications/files/A67D8B404190CB74E0FC4917944AFE37/pdf/20_00067_TPO-SUPPORTING_DOC_-_REDACTED-1388037.pdf ) and summary report (March - https://planningpublicaccess.southampton.gov.uk/online-applications/files/D77370A27603B79979313C55BCA1E449/pdf/20_00067_TPO-SUPPORTING_DOC_-_REDACTED-1385584.pdf ) said that the risk to the public posed by the trees was "extremely low. C) how incredibly unlikely it was that 5 trees (fairly evenly spaced over 100 metres suffer sudden unexpected failure simultaneously and that the nature of this failure required immediate felling rather than limb removal, propping or other mitigations.

7. Monday 11th May: Work starts on the felling.

8. Thursday 14th May - airport postpones works until Monday 18th to enable the Council to provide its evidence that was considered in its 'emergency decision'. This SCC could not do.

9. Friday 15th May. We lodge a claim at the High Court that the SCC decision was illegal.

10. With unexpected speed a judge agrees to hear the case on Monday 18th and a virtual hearing is arranged.

11. At the 11th hour the airport agrees to postpone felling the Montereys until 2 june to allow SCC to consider the matter at the PROW meeting scheduled for that date. This SCC has not done [see breaking news above].