Bullock’s Batty Folly #4

Lewisham Council are a law unto themselves and THEY KNOW BEST!

Apologies for shouting.

They probably get that from Sir Mayor – top down and all that. I am given to understand that Sir Mayor isn’t too fussed about the opinions of many Lewisham residents and he is good at ignoring petitions of thousands of signatures.

So, when the Health and Safety Executive warn Lewisham of a danger posed to the public visiting one of their sites, of course Sir Mayor’s cohorts ignore it.

Are they bovvered about the £150K fine, £65K costs, bad publicity and avoidable dent in the borough’s finances?

Are they setting themselves up for another accident (perhaps fatal) fine and costs with regard to the fake lake vanity project at Beckenham Place Park?

The margins of the new fake lake will be shallow, so it will be easy to get out of.  So that’s alright then?!  Is the council (and complicit Heritage Lottery Fund) not aware that it is possible to drown in a bath – a large puddle even?

Then there is the issue of the council’s legal, statutory obligations to bats and bat roosts when planning for such events as felling trees.

This is an email I sent on 23rd January 2018 to the project officer for Beckenham Place Park (a salaried post paid by Lewisham Council whose only responsibility is to oversee the fake lake etc vanity project) – email slightly tailored in layout for this blog.

Begins:-

“Dear Ms Taylor,

Please refer to the screen shots and I suggest that Lewisham Council cannot prove it has not caused an absolute offence as per the screenshot for the Forestry Commission website. I would remind you that development works that may cause killing or injury of bats, or that would result in the damage, loss or disturbance of a bat roost, would require a licence.

I would draw your attention to the following.

1) The final ecological appraisal submitted by LUC dated February 2017 states (page 32, paragraph 5.24) that 18 trees with high bat roost potential are located within the works area of the lake footprint, 13 of which will be felled.

2) Your reply to me dated 21st January 2018 states that a further survey was carried out in Jan/Feb 2017 prior to submission of the final report with no evidence of active roosts. You claim that as tree works commenced in November 2017 i.e. less than a year later, therefore no further reports were required.  See screen shot:-

3) But tree works did not begin in the lake footprint in November 2017, did they? They began a few weeks ago. (Please also refer again to the Forestry Commission screenshot “Bat roosts are protected by law even if bats are not present at the time.”).

4) I would refer you to page 2 of the ecological report and the table summarising the contents of all seven versions of the report. Version 4 refers to final issue following completion of surveys and this was dated November 2016 (and many of the surveys had taken place earlier in the year, as per pages 26 and 70 to 100 of the version 7 report of February 2017). The details in the table relating to versions 5,6 and 7 make no reference to further surveys having been carried out. Please, therefore, supply the new surveys you claim to have been carried out in Jan/Feb 2017 or contact details.

5) Turning to the screenshot of Appendix 9 of the ecological report – also set out on page 33 paragraph 5.34 of the main body of the report, the flow chart asks you to consider the level of bat roost potential per tree. If high (and the report already states 13 HBRP trees are to be felled and a further 5 remain) it asks if arboricultural operations are required immediately in the interests of the public. The answer to this is clearly no, there was no danger to the public. If no, the flow chart states “work can only be carried out between late August and early October or between March and April.” Whereas, you have allowed tree felling in the HBRP area in January, even though you claim November – which is also not one of the acceptable months.

6) The flow chart also advises that “work should be conducted in a sensitive manner”. Please advise how the use of large mechanical diggers (of which there are plenty of photographs posted on social media) fit into this scenario?

7) The flow chart says “If bats or roosts are discovered during operations, re-consult the flow chart and follow the advice for a confirmed bat roost presence.” Please advise how the use of mechanical diggers allows for the discovery of bat roosts in an area previously identified as having HBRP?

I look forward to your reply.

Carole Hope”

Email ends

And here we have the prospective Labour candidate for Rushey Green who (along with Sir Mayor’s other echo chamber inhabitants of Lewisham Labour) believes the council are *managing* trees in Beckenham Place Park.

When what they are actually doing is vandalising trees and appearing to break the law with regard to protocols for trees with High Bat Roost Potential.

But Bullock’s Folly will continue apace and eventually the new mayor will have to carry the can.