At 7am on Monday 2 December 2024, over 25 local people gathered beneath a 180-year-old, mature English oak, and adjacent tulip tree, on the south bank of the river in Otley, West Yorkshire, to physically prevent contractors from felling them. They succeeded.
With two subsequent stays of execution, the trees remain at risk of being chopped down from Monday 6 January 2025 onwards. Leeds City Council (LCC) and Balfour Beatty argue that the trees need to be felled so they can install a temporary footbridge over the river.
This is part of the work to replace the 70-year-old footpath attached to the road bridge, for health and safety reasons. The 180-year-old oak and its tulip companion need to be destroyed to make room for a crane that can lift the temporary footbridge into place. This temporary bridge, and associated works, are due to cost in the region of £2mn.
Poor consultation and no evidence
LCC presented Otley Town Council, ward councillors and the community, with a ‘like for like’ replacement walkway (and the consequent temporary footbridge and tree felling while the work’s underway) which would, unfortunately, continue to hide the historic side of the road bridge for another century.
None of the local elected councillors – city or town – were involved in the issue until very recently. Even then, information has been hard to come by: there has been no full consultation as it is being claimed this is “permitted development” and a “repair” of the bridge, despite the Commonplace Otley Bridge webpage describing the works as a “replacement”.
Campaigners have been trying to make sense of LCC decisions. They’ve asked to see key documents which have previously been unavailable. For example, there’s no actual evidence from the Environment Agency as to why an alternative solution – using a three-section bridge, a smaller crane and two further piles in the river – isn’t possible, as the council claims. This option would mean the trees wouldn’t need to be destroyed.
There’s also no evidence from Historic England about their requirements in relation to the installation of a new permanent walk/cycle bridge near to the medieval bridge. This was another reason LCC cited for not being able to install a temporary bridge that uses a smaller crane and protects the trees.
Working together to safeguard the trees
Work on the walkway on the main bridge is not due to start until spring 2025. Yet LCC tried to fell the trees on 2 December, just a week after Mott MacDonald presented an ‘ecological constraints’ report, which included the line “No trees are to be directly affected by the works”.
Since then, campaigners have been working together to safeguard the trees, while trying to achieve proper consultation with local councillors and the community. Zoologist, entomologist and TV broadcaster George McGavin has given his full support to the saving of the oak tree, and a petition to save the trees now has over 3,400 signatures.
Alternative options
As this medieval road bridge approaches its 800th birthday, local transport campaigners are keen to see it restored and preserved to its original state, minus the eyesore of a walkway that was added in the 1950s.
Balfour Beatty presented LCC with three options:
- Minor repairs to the walkway
- Major refurbishment of the walkway
- Complete replacement of the walkway
Options 1-3 had a further three options for pedestrian access over the river during the works:
- Lights on the bridge with one lane for pedestrians and one for alternating directions of traffic
- A temporary footbridge
- A floating footbridge.
LCC chose the temporary bridge option and presented this as a final decision to the community via a letter. In terms of consultation, the council offered 10 early afternoon weekday briefing sessions, and two early evening weekday sessions, for those members of the public who could attend to ask questions. Campaigners feel this has been insufficient and continue to ask for an open and true consultation.
Safeguarding biodiversity and a high-quality oak tree
Despite the biodiversity and climate crisis, LCC did not give due consideration to safeguarding the trees during the design process of the temporary bridge. The design brief does not appear to have included the requirement to find a solution that safeguarded mature trees. But campaigners feel with careful design and re-thinking, these trees could be saved.
In Balfour Beatty’s feasibility report, one of the original cheapest options that the council did not choose, at a cost of £1.3mn, was to make temporary repairs to the walkway (essentially, replacing the walkway surface). This would have given it another 10 years of life, during which time the council could have applied for external funding to either build a new road bridge upstream, or a permanent walk/cycle bridge downstream. It would also have saved the council money, just as it’s about to announce a major round of £50mn budget cuts citywide.
The ‘arboricultural impacts assessment’ of the trees at risk has categorised the oak tree as B, meaning the tree has a life expectancy below 40 years. But oak specimens can live for more than 800 years, providing no one cuts them down. Given the tree’s age and size, with no significant defects, this would indicate that it is a category A1 (high quality) specimen, which raises its significance to planning.
Formal scrutiny required
The council’s intention to destroy trees in a conservation area doesn’t appear to need any process or scrutiny, because it’s listed the project as a ‘permitted development’ and bypassed the planning process. Campaigners are yet to be convinced that this is correct. A formal planning application would have triggered full assessments to be carried out and displayed on the planning portal, including a landscape and visual assessment, an ecological impact assessment, and a climate assessment. At present none of these documents are available publicly to comment on.
Solicitors acting for the campaigners have requested a halt to the felling of the trees until the proper consent process – with full public consultation on the proposals – has been carried out. Campaigners would like to see an up-to-date arboricultural report (a second opinion from a different company would be beneficial), tree protection plans for all trees, an environmental report, and designs for the replacement walkway. They would also like to see adequate carbon, ecological and traffic assessments (including more detailed traffic modelling for option 3a, using traffic lights that adapt to peak times).
On 19 December LCC said, “further information will be circulated to local communities and key stakeholders in the coming week, providing more details about the urgently required replacement works to the pedestrian footbridge and the timeline for carrying out these works. The repairs to the footway will not be delayed”. However, as of 2 January no such information has been provided.
The value of an oak tree
What if, instead of considering the oak as zero value, we looked at all the benefits it provides the community? What if the council were to value the myriad ecosystem services it offers, such as carbon sequestration, flood-risk reduction, biodiversity support, temperature regulation and shade, as well as its benefits to mental health, recreation, heritage and tourism? It took at least two human lifetimes for this tree to become the oxygen-giving, carbon-storing, flood-mitigating, bank-stabilising, natural-cooling asset it is today. We’re sawing off the branch we’re sitting on.
This tree is not merely a part of Otley’s landscape; it is a keystone of the town’s resilience in the climate emergency that the local authority has declared. Its value – ecological, historical, cultural, and emotional – cannot be measured solely in terms of money or convenience. If the community and council truly collaborate, they could explore alternatives that put endurance over expedience. They could seize the opportunity to protect what really matters for Otley’s future generations.
Felling a tree that has lived for 180 years is an irreversible act. Once done, it cannot be undone, nor compensated. With due consideration and careful design, we can find a solution that works for both the community and our environment.
If you would like to contribute to the legal costs to challenge Leeds City Council, this is the crowdfunder link.
