Final tree chopped down at Victoria Circus (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
Final tree chopped down at Victoria Circus
9:10am Monday 9th August 2010 in
THE LAST tree on the Victoria Circus roundabout has been chopped down by Southend Council in preparation for a multi-million pound revamp of the junction.
The remaining London Plane tree on the roundabout was removed at 4am today by council contractors.
The council caused outrage in January when contractors chopped down more than 20 trees around the roundabout in the early hours.
After the work, the first stage of the £7 million scheme, there was just the one tree remaining.
Council leader Nigel Holdcroft spoke of his regret at the removal of the London Plane tree and said the council wanted to keep it.
But it has been forced to adjust the project, which is part of the £25m Better Southend initiative, because of BT cables and said this meant having to remove the tree.
Mr Holdcroft said: “In March 2009, prior to the commencement of the Victoria Gateway scheme, the council spoke to all the affected utility companies to establish the extent of their cabling networks in the area.
"On the basis of the information we received at that time, it appeared possible to retain this tree.
“However it was only recently - many months later - that British Telecom provided us with full details of its fibre-optic cabling network and this revealed a very different situation."
What do you think? Please leave your comments below.
*FULL STORY IN TUESDAY'S ECHO.
Comments(61)
frank & monty
says...
9:52am Mon 9 Aug 10
A Council of Despair.
j-w
says...
10:01am Mon 9 Aug 10
Well done SBC.
wotsit
says...
10:04am Mon 9 Aug 10
'V'
says...
10:06am Mon 9 Aug 10
NEVER TRUST A TORY.
j-w
says...
10:11am Mon 9 Aug 10
Anyway, sensible of SBC to get the tree down early morning with no traffic and people about, plus it doesn't give anybody the chance to take over the area leading to costly evictions.
Well done SBC keep up the improvements, time will tell whether they are a good idea.
anon anon
says...
10:24am Mon 9 Aug 10
j-w wrote:agree, good idea to do it at 4am. beet the traffic...
ok, who has been naughty. where are the comments? Anyway, sensible of SBC to get the tree down early morning with no traffic and people about, plus it doesn't give anybody the chance to take over the area leading to costly evictions. Well done SBC keep up the improvements, time will tell whether they are a good idea.
bring on the comments !!!!!!!!!
wotsit
says...
10:28am Mon 9 Aug 10
j-w wrote:What a spanner. Maybe you like the giant plastic greenhouse or the crappy looking lego crap buildings, but most of us don't. Take down trees and replace them with crap, how very futuristic.
ok, who has been naughty. where are the comments?
Anyway, sensible of SBC to get the tree down early morning with no traffic and people about, plus it doesn't give anybody the chance to take over the area leading to costly evictions.
Well done SBC keep up the improvements, time will tell whether they are a good idea.
Peter Pantsless
says...
10:29am Mon 9 Aug 10
This has been causing chaos, and i'm surprised this hasnt caused an accidnet yet!
jayman
says...
10:35am Mon 9 Aug 10
JuliaM
says...
11:23am Mon 9 Aug 10
It would be nice if they spared some time to sort out the new, non-functioning crossing (or put up warning signs to tell people it isn't working), preferably before someone is run down in the road...
NickS
says...
11:30am Mon 9 Aug 10
Peter Pantsless wrote:The bus stops at the station are closed whilst road works are completed they will re-located once done, if you read the notice's on the bus stops that are up you would have know this, it was also in the echo.
Whose idea was it to put a bus-stop outside the museum along vic avenue! This has been causing chaos, and i'm surprised this hasnt caused an accidnet yet!
As for the tree its a tree they grow the get chopped down (or blow down in a storm!) The council were not to know when they said it was safe that BT had cables there so have a pop at BT as it's their cables that have resulted in the tree having to come down.
frank & monty
says...
11:49am Mon 9 Aug 10
How difficult do you really think it would be for BT to route a cable duct around the tree?
Amazing!!!!
westcliff willi
says...
11:50am Mon 9 Aug 10
'V' wrote:What a bore you are, just clear off to north korea or something
This proves what liars SBC really are. NEVER TRUST A TORY.
anon anon
says...
11:53am Mon 9 Aug 10
westcliff willi wrote:Thats not very nice....
'V' wrote: This proves what liars SBC really are. NEVER TRUST A TORY.What a bore you are, just clear off to north korea or something
for the koreans !!!!!
Lesley
says...
11:59am Mon 9 Aug 10
I don't think it was anything to do with BT cables either.
What's going to replace them all?
siddymint
says...
12:11pm Mon 9 Aug 10
No one have even cared about them so why would they care about a tree at victoria
j-w
says...
12:13pm Mon 9 Aug 10
wotsit wrote:nice, well thought out reply, well done.
j-w wrote:What a spanner. Maybe you like the giant plastic greenhouse or the crappy looking lego crap buildings, but most of us don't. Take down trees and replace them with crap, how very futuristic.
ok, who has been naughty. where are the comments?
Anyway, sensible of SBC to get the tree down early morning with no traffic and people about, plus it doesn't give anybody the chance to take over the area leading to costly evictions.
Well done SBC keep up the improvements, time will tell whether they are a good idea.
jolllyboy
says...
12:22pm Mon 9 Aug 10
Peter Pantsless
says...
12:30pm Mon 9 Aug 10
NickS wrote:NickS, think you need to re-read my comment as you missed the point i was making.
Peter Pantsless wrote: Whose idea was it to put a bus-stop outside the museum along vic avenue! This has been causing chaos, and i'm surprised this hasnt caused an accidnet yet!The bus stops at the station are closed whilst road works are completed they will re-located once done, if you read the notice's on the bus stops that are up you would have know this, it was also in the echo. As for the tree its a tree they grow the get chopped down (or blow down in a storm!) The council were not to know when they said it was safe that BT had cables there so have a pop at BT as it's their cables that have resulted in the tree having to come down.
It wasnt about why it is there at all!
anon anon
says...
1:06pm Mon 9 Aug 10
j-w wrote:haha i know, seems like a very well educated person !!!!
wotsit wrote:nice, well thought out reply, well done.j-w wrote: ok, who has been naughty. where are the comments? Anyway, sensible of SBC to get the tree down early morning with no traffic and people about, plus it doesn't give anybody the chance to take over the area leading to costly evictions. Well done SBC keep up the improvements, time will tell whether they are a good idea.What a spanner. Maybe you like the giant plastic greenhouse or the crappy looking lego crap buildings, but most of us don't. Take down trees and replace them with crap, how very futuristic.
BASILBRUSH
says...
1:47pm Mon 9 Aug 10
ScrewedForAnother5years
says...
3:47pm Mon 9 Aug 10
And blaming BT is also a pretty poor excuse, the survey work carried out before the work started would've shown all the cabling etc that was in the area.
It is just this council taking everyone for a mug and thinking they can get away with it.
j-w and anon anon seem be taken in by everything they say
guygrim
says...
4:04pm Mon 9 Aug 10
guygrim
says...
4:39pm Mon 9 Aug 10
siddymint wrote:were trees at Progress Road removed? I regret to say I haven't noticed and I only live round the corner but then again I tend to go to Southend on the bus more so I don't go that way a lot.
Why the fuss why even put it in the paper its not news or the trees that have been cut down at progress road would have been news. No one have even cared about them so why would they care about a tree at victoria
SARFENDMAN
says...
5:15pm Mon 9 Aug 10
el caballero de la noche
says...
6:14pm Mon 9 Aug 10
guygrim
says...
6:21pm Mon 9 Aug 10
SARFENDMAN wrote:trees that look alive
Dont worry folks! There's a fabulous tree planting exercise all along the seafront. Just admire those fabulous non-native brown things they call palm trees. What more could the tree lobby want?
radioman
says...
6:50pm Mon 9 Aug 10
jayman
says...
6:57pm Mon 9 Aug 10
jayman
says...
7:16pm Mon 9 Aug 10
i have copied an exert from the register listed on the Southend council website. (tree protection orders)
3/2008 Victoria Avenue, Southend, CENTRAL MUSEUM, TP/100/299/114
SOUTHEND CENTRAL STATION
T5 London Plane
TP/100/299/114
T6 London Plane
TP/100/299/114
T7 London Plane
TP/100/299/114
T8 London Plane
TP/100/299/114
T9 Sycamore
TP/100/299/114
seems the council cant follow there own rules
keith mclaren
says...
7:56pm Mon 9 Aug 10
Mike Royston
says...
9:11pm Mon 9 Aug 10
At February's Full Council Meeting I made an impassioned plea to Anna Waite to place a protection order on this tree. I was angry that the Council had hacked down the other trees in this vicinity, and feared that a similar fate would happen to the one remaining tree that stood proudly in defiance.
She refused my request for a protection order, and said the tree was to remain.
My fears and mistrust were not unfounded, and the tree is now gone.
It is heart-breaking that this remaining tree has also been hacked down. How can this Tory administration expect anyone to trust it, when it acts in this way?
Mike Royston
Former Councillor for St Lukes ward
(Lab)
bobbypotter
says...
9:35pm Mon 9 Aug 10
ShoeburyCyclist
says...
10:17pm Mon 9 Aug 10
bobbypotter wrote:This is something Southend's cyclists know only too well.
There is only one absolute fact regarding this issue. Its the same fact that also applies to ALL of the many, many contentious issues and actions brought about by SBC and it is this; It does not matter in anyway whatsoever what anybody in this town wants. SBC will do whatever they like and we dont matter. THEY run this town and by God they will NOT be told, advised by, or even listen to us, the mere residents.
jayman
says...
10:18pm Mon 9 Aug 10
Mike Royston wrote:there was an existing protection order on this tree!.. and many others
It is an outrage that the last remaining tree at the Vic Circus roundabout has been hacked down by Southend Council.
At February's Full Council Meeting I made an impassioned plea to Anna Waite to place a protection order on this tree. I was angry that the Council had hacked down the other trees in this vicinity, and feared that a similar fate would happen to the one remaining tree that stood proudly in defiance.
She refused my request for a protection order, and said the tree was to remain.
My fears and mistrust were not unfounded, and the tree is now gone.
It is heart-breaking that this remaining tree has also been hacked down. How can this Tory administration expect anyone to trust it, when it acts in this way?
Mike Royston
Former Councillor for St Lukes ward
(Lab)
NickS
says...
11:00pm Mon 9 Aug 10
Trees have been cut down eversince man walked on the face of the earth if it was not for the first to fall to man we would not have discoverd fire, paper, the wheel, HMS Victory would never have been built and we would be speaking French or Spanish there would be no piers no church pews no oak panneld great halls the list whilst not endless is long.
Trees are a renewable source so plant more and a few decades later you have something usefull.
Sit and think for a sec how much wood is in your house?
still want to stop cutting them down...
sammylu1994
says...
1:02am Tue 10 Aug 10
I think the Council needs to stop wasting all the money on things that were fine how they were.
JuliaM
says...
5:47am Tue 10 Aug 10
NickS wrote:That might be true, NickS, but this tree (and the others) weren't cut down for any of those reasons.
It's a tree, it grows it gets cut down and used.
Trees have been cut down eversince man walked on the face of the earth if it was not for the first to fall to man we would not have discoverd fire, paper, the wheel, HMS Victory would never have been built and we would be speaking French or Spanish there would be no piers no church pews no oak panneld great halls the list whilst not endless is long.
Trees are a renewable source so plant more and a few decades later you have something usefull.
Sit and think for a sec how much wood is in your house?
still want to stop cutting them down...
Are you familar with the term 'non-sequitur'?
SARFENDMAN
says...
6:45am Tue 10 Aug 10
guygrim wrote:Thought more dead than alive. Right trees but wrong climate.
SARFENDMAN wrote: Dont worry folks! There's a fabulous tree planting exercise all along the seafront. Just admire those fabulous non-native brown things they call palm trees. What more could the tree lobby want?trees that look alive
anon anon
says...
7:30am Tue 10 Aug 10
jayman wrote:you need to get out more.....
here are the trees protected in that area. i have seen the number tag on that tree myself before it was cut down.. i have copied an exert from the register listed on the Southend council website. (tree protection orders) 3/2008 Victoria Avenue, Southend, CENTRAL MUSEUM, TP/100/299/114 SOUTHEND CENTRAL STATION T5 London Plane TP/100/299/114 T6 London Plane TP/100/299/114 T7 London Plane TP/100/299/114 T8 London Plane TP/100/299/114 T9 Sycamore TP/100/299/114 seems the council cant follow there own rules
bigidiot
says...
9:20am Tue 10 Aug 10
PJR
says...
9:37am Tue 10 Aug 10
bigidiot wrote:It may have been a network hub, there may have been no way to re-route them without costing thousands of pounds and much hassle to a majority of Southend. It could be that moving fibre optic cables would put them too close to other cables, which would considerably weaken their signal and strength, causing slower communications. It may be that moving the cables may cause signal distortion.
Why did Bt not move their cables then, as they claim to make such huge profits?
...
There are no facts about the reasons as to why BT cannot move the cables within the story. We can speculate all we like, but without the full facts, it's difficult to reach a conclusion.
Un named
says...
10:26am Tue 10 Aug 10
frank & monty wrote:Frank and Monty, i am someone who is not gullible or a council employee and i know that diverting a major BT fibre optic cable is not small job and is deffinitly not cheap. There is no Tree conspiricy here, just a case of moving BT or moving the tree.
NickS. Do you honestly believe that it is due to BT? You must either be totally gullible or be a Council employee. How difficult do you really think it would be for BT to route a cable duct around the tree? Amazing!!!!
BT won
Un named
says...
10:42am Tue 10 Aug 10
PJR wrote:Another reason BT wont move there plant is that they only pay a small percentage towards moving it, the people funding the scheme will have to cough up the rest. An that rest in this case is probably alot of money
bigidiot wrote: Why did Bt not move their cables then, as they claim to make such huge profits?It may have been a network hub, there may have been no way to re-route them without costing thousands of pounds and much hassle to a majority of Southend. It could be that moving fibre optic cables would put them too close to other cables, which would considerably weaken their signal and strength, causing slower communications. It may be that moving the cables may cause signal distortion. ... There are no facts about the reasons as to why BT cannot move the cables within the story. We can speculate all we like, but without the full facts, it's difficult to reach a conclusion.
R85
says...
12:51pm Tue 10 Aug 10
frank & monty
says...
12:54pm Tue 10 Aug 10
This is meant to be a total and integrated project. All of the "stakeholders" are starting from scratch, with the proverbial blank piece of paper. As such BT are not moving a cable, they can lay the thing wherever they like.
The Council have obviously kow-towed to BT on this instead of getting the thing organised properly.
It's not a tree conspiracy, just rank pathetic management of the scheme by the Council which has resulted in well-deserved criticism for being totally abject once agian.
Un named
says...
2:02pm Tue 10 Aug 10
frank & monty wrote:So your telling me if it cost a million pound to move a BT fibre optic cable you would rather the council pay that than take down a tree.
Un named, you are missing the point. This is meant to be a total and integrated project. All of the "stakeholders" are starting from scratch, with the proverbial blank piece of paper. As such BT are not moving a cable, they can lay the thing wherever they like. The Council have obviously kow-towed to BT on this instead of getting the thing organised properly. It's not a tree conspiracy, just rank pathetic management of the scheme by the Council which has resulted in well-deserved criticism for being totally abject once agian.
Regarding BT, it looks like the scheme was changed to avoid BT as BT diversions was too expensive, i dont believe its just a case a lay more cable when it comes to fibre optics.
These kind of problems with utilities companys can be show stoppers
PJR
says...
3:32pm Tue 10 Aug 10
frank & monty wrote:How is it obvious? Do you have all the detailed plans, reports, minutes from meetings and consultations over whether BT should bow down or the council? Where are the facts that you know, that we don't, that make it obvious?
Un named, you are missing the point.
This is meant to be a total and integrated project. All of the "stakeholders" are starting from scratch, with the proverbial blank piece of paper. As such BT are not moving a cable, they can lay the thing wherever they like.
The Council have obviously kow-towed to BT on this instead of getting the thing organised properly.
It's not a tree conspiracy, just rank pathetic management of the scheme by the Council which has resulted in well-deserved criticism for being totally abject once agian.
frank & monty
says...
4:26pm Tue 10 Aug 10
The bit that says "..(the council)..has been forced to adjust the project.".
Sounds very much like the Council were forced to back down, n'est pas?
PJR
says...
5:22pm Tue 10 Aug 10
...
Reading my last post back however, it does sound a tad attacking, which was not my intention. Just adding to the debate, so apologies for that!
frank & monty
says...
5:31pm Tue 10 Aug 10
'V'
says...
5:56pm Tue 10 Aug 10
Southend Borough Council is nothing more than a cheap Tory junta.
NEVER TRUST A TORY.
'V'
says...
6:20pm Tue 10 Aug 10
Southend Borough Council is nothing more than a cheap Tory junta.
NEVER TRUST A TORY.
jayman
says...
6:42pm Tue 10 Aug 10
anon anon wrote:you are probably right.. :)
jayman wrote:you need to get out more.....
here are the trees protected in that area. i have seen the number tag on that tree myself before it was cut down.. i have copied an exert from the register listed on the Southend council website. (tree protection orders) 3/2008 Victoria Avenue, Southend, CENTRAL MUSEUM, TP/100/299/114 SOUTHEND CENTRAL STATION T5 London Plane TP/100/299/114 T6 London Plane TP/100/299/114 T7 London Plane TP/100/299/114 T8 London Plane TP/100/299/114 T9 Sycamore TP/100/299/114 seems the council cant follow there own rules
guygrim
says...
7:02pm Tue 10 Aug 10
bigidiot wrote:They claim it would cost a million or more pounds and set the scheme back 3/4 months.
Why did Bt not move their cables then, as they claim to make such huge profits?
Un named
says...
10:17pm Tue 10 Aug 10
PJR wrote:I totally agree with you.
not entirely. Forced to adjust may mean that it was the only solution available, that there was no solution BT could offer. It doesn't mean backing down as such. It's obvious the council have had to change their plans yes, but backing down suggests BT had an option and wouldn't budge to compromise. If indeed the council offered a solution, and BT refused, that I would see as the council backing down. But it may have been the only solution.
...
Reading my last post back however, it does sound a tad attacking, which was not my intention. Just adding to the debate, so apologies for that!
STEPSIMS38
says...
8:59pm Thu 12 Aug 10
spittingfeathers
says...
5:52pm Fri 13 Aug 10
keptquietillnow
says...
7:53am Sun 15 Aug 10
Just how difficult is it to re-route a cable.
Bravo not.
BASILBRUSH
says...
10:37am Sun 15 Aug 10
keptquietillnow wrote:But why should BT subsidise a Council project? The profitability of a private company is irrelevant.
Its good to know that SBC has decided to help out a poor company that only made only made £547m profits for the first half of 2009.
Just how difficult is it to re-route a cable.
Bravo not.
More News stories
- Fake banknotes crop up in Leigh
- Burglar flees empty-handed
- Man disturbs burglars in his home
- Street cleaner strikes gold by finding £21,000 Rolex watch
- My uni art project has become big business
- Southend Council set to oppose Boris's Thames Estuary airport
- Fast and Furious film could be shot on Southend seafront
- Today's Echo: Joe Ball's mum speaks of her anguish
- Essex Police step up patrols after spate of car crime in Wickford
- Police probe two arsons in Grays
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Peter Pantsless says...
9:48am Mon 9 Aug 10