Tesco are about to resubmit a planning application for their new flagship store in Slough. Only problem is – there’s a rare, 144 year old, Lebanese Cedar tree in the way. Being Corporate Sponsors of the Woodland Trust (protectors of ancient trees), there is obviously a contradiction as they now intend to chop it down. Locals are organising a campaign to save the tree.
When Tesco first bought and developed the site, this rare tree was granted a specific Tree Protection Order, in recognition of its importance. Now, Tesco have new expansion plans, which do not include keeping the Cedar.
Local residents have gathered several thousand signatures in various petitions of protest and are planning demonstrations, including a protest outside the Planning Committee on Tuesday 28th September at Slough Town Hall.
Read the Full Story
When Tesco first bought and developed the site, this rare tree was granted a specific Tree Protection Order, in recognition of its importance. Now, Tesco have new expansion plans, which do not include keeping the Cedar.
Local residents have gathered several thousand signatures in various petitions of protest and are planning demonstrations, including a protest outside the Planning Committee on Tuesday 28th September at Slough Town Hall.
Read the Full Story
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
getting the message across
27.09.2004 11:33
in store advertising
Tesco - do you want to knock down this tree more than we want to keep it? Sure about that?
D Brent
update - plan approved
01.10.2004 10:41
the council decided not to take the risk, and sacrificed the tree to Tesco's never-ending greed
unimpressed
up goes the fence
11.10.2004 13:21
it's not known at this point whether this has been done by Tesco to keep undesirables out, or by as yet unknown tree-campaigners to keep undesirables (eg Tesco) out
ring of steel
judicial review request
13.10.2004 22:25
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
I am still doing the paperwork for the Judicial Review application.
To comply with court procedures I have served the following, in the form of a fax, on all interested parties including Tesco Head Office, their planners, the council's planning committee, the store and GOSE's (the Government Office for the South-East of England).
------------------------------------------------------------
The Company Secretary
Tesco Stores Ltd
Cheshunt
by fax to 01992 - 644 809
Dear Company Secretary
Judicial Review Application - Planning Application P/01196/032
I am writing to notify Tesco Stores Ltd, being an interested party, that I am applying for a Judicial Review of Slough Borough Council's planning committee's decision on 28 September 2004, relating to the development of a new store on the site of an existing Tesco supermarket, in favour of the applicant Tesco Stores Ltd.
I am seeking an interim injunction to prevent Tesco Stores Ltd, its employees, agents, contractors and those under its control and/or direction interfering directly or indirectly with, or undertaking any action which may harm or which may have the potential to harm, the mature Cedar tree circa 144 years old on the western side of the site near Brunel Way (Mackenzie Street) at its junction with Wellington Street, Slough pending the result of the Judicial Review application and, if granted, the judgement of the Court and that an identical planning application submitted by Tesco Stores Ltd, planning reference P/1196/033, be not heard by the planning committee until the matter of Judicial Review is decided.
Please acknowledge receipt of this notification.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Janik,
Borough Councillor.
------------------------------------------------------------
The planning application is being examined by GOSE. They are unlikely to make a decision before 27 October. They may decided to "call it in" or approve it. This gives me another week to finalise my Judicial Review (JR) application. I hope it will be ready sooner.
I wonder if you will be as surprised as me to learn:
(1) When Tesco's planning application costing about £26 million was received by Slough Borough Council, the council system decided to let one council employee in private determine this massive development and NOT to refer it to the planning committee. The existing planning system, inherited from the previous Labour administration, prevents the planning committee hearing applications that have been decided by a member of the council's planning staff. Luckily Saba Malik discovered what was going on.
The fuss she started stopped a council employee making a decision without any public scrutiny. The council's planning system does need to be improved.
(2) This application has been referred to GOSE, our regional government office, because "Under the Town and Country Planning (Shopping Direction) (England and Wales) (No 2) Direction 1993, any planning application in the following categories should be referred to the SSETR, or National Assembly for Wales, before the grant of consent:
(i) applications which include gross shopping floor space of
not less than 20,000 sq metres; or
(ii) applications which include gross shopping floor space of
less than 20,000 sq metres (but not less than 2,500 sq metres),
but which will exceed 20,000 sq metres when aggregated with
gross shopping floor space of not less than 2,500 sq metres
which is comprised or included in any other development within
a 10-mile radius, in respect of which a planning application
has been made but not finally determined; or where planning
permission has been granted in the last five years; or where
development has been substantially completed in the last five
years."
The Town and Country Planning (Shopping Direction) (England and Wales) (No
2) Direction 1993 is also called "Circular 15 of 1993". I'm trying to get a copy to see what else is in it.
=====================================================================
APPEAL FOR WITNESSES
=====================================================================
To help me with my JR, I do need to get statements from anyone who witnessed any of the following events or who can provide extra information relating to the granting of planning permission.
If you are a witness, please contact me as soon as possible by email or ring 511911. I will then type a statement in your own words to describe what you saw and/or heard. It must be the complete truth. You then sign your statement.
Witness statements will be read by a Judge who will be trying to see whether the case I want to bring can be substantiated. Witnesses are unlikely to be asked to appear in Court although members of the public connected with the tree might be allowed by the Judge to attend the proceedings. The case will be heard in central London at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, WC2.
Did anyone witness:
(1) Cllr Joginder Bal, red turban, say at the beginning of the meeting on
28 September that he was in favour of keeping the tree?
(2) Cllr James Swindlehurst (plump with spectacles, sitting 2 places away from Cllr Bal) talk to Cllr Bal after Cllr Bal made his statement that he was in favour of keeping the tree?
(3) Cllr May Dodds (sitting next to Cllr Bal) talk to Cllr Bal after Cllr Bal made his statement that he was in favour of keeping the tree?
(4) Cllr David MacIsaac, the planning committee chairman (wearing
spectacles) sitting in the middle, frequently look up into the public gallery?
(5) Where were Tesco's people sitting in the public gallery?
(6) Tesco's people approach and talk to any member of the planning committee before the start of the meeting?
(7) any mention of "compensation" having to be paid by the council if the planning application was refused?
(8) any of the comments of Cllr David MacIsaac before, during and after the meeting?
(9) any other useful information? If you are unsure whether your information will be useful please call me on 511911 and let me decide if your information can be used.
I do need your help.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Paul Janik.
cedrus
Use of Copyright image
05.12.2004 21:15
The copyright belongs to me.
The image appears in the discussion Campaign Against Tesco: Save the Slough Cedar which has been online since 25.09.2004 which is published by you at
The image is hosted at:
Whilst I appreciate that one of your contributors may have provided you with this image, you will no doubt be aware, that as publishers, you are ultimately responsible for the content that you host. You may use this image without charge, provided that a credit appears immediately below the image to the effect: Photograph courtesy of Richard Hill www.richardhill.co.uk
Otherwise, the fee for publishing this image is £50 sterling (UKP). Cheques should be made payable to 'Richard Hill' and sent to the address below.
Yours faithfully,
Richard Hill – Writer
8 Folkestone Court
Langley
Berkshire
United Kingdom
SL3 8LX
Website: www.richardhill.co.ukE-mail:
Richard Hill
e-mail:
mail@richardhill.co.uk
Homepage:
http://www.richardhill.co.uk
copyleft and freedom
05.12.2004 21:33
It appears that your name is already mentioned (embedded in the image), even with a (c).
Are you saying that you want specific attribution below the picture as well? Do you *demand* an active web link?
One would have hoped that the issue of saving the tree was of paramount importance and as such would override the copyright issues of a photograph. Did you not take a picture of that tree, because you thought it was a nice tree well worth preserving in mediated form as well in real natural life?
You are indeed right that "someone has posted" it, for Indymedia is just a platform - it is a commons, an open public space with no exclusive rights over anything, and a collaborative sphere in which people have rejected the anti-social nature of exclusive, private property rights, such as the conventional Copyright configuration that you make claims to, in favour of creatively sharing the resources that we have access to.
Without collaboration on saving that tree and mutual recognition of the necessesity to foster a commons in this world without social justice, where do you think that your lense will find its next worthy object?
Pardon me if you think I am being rude, but you might be aware that Indymedia is facing various threats of a much more serious nature than the copyright of an amateur photographer and that as a volunteer network resources (read: time) are scarce..... see:
Shall we consider your attribution sorted herewith?
If it was up to me, I'd say delete the picture it has horrible copyrights attached to it - and then nobody would have ever heard of Richard Hillman..... or cut the (c) bit out and just claimed that it must have been someone else who coulfd also figure out that pointing a camera at that tree from that angle would produce such a photograph.
Caught me in a bad mood? well, you should see when it comes to matters such as war what my mood is like........... let us share the world.....or what?
commoner
Homepage:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
what a bastard
05.12.2004 23:11
A whole bunch of people are putting time, effort and probably money into trying to keep somthing natural (Save the Slough Cedar), others are helping to spread awarness of this Campaign giving time effort and probably money also (indymedia) and this skinflint wants more recognition or money.
Activists dont get much in the way of returns only the fact that they have done somthing about the endless flow of shit in this world ,maybe made it a slightly less dangerous or uneven world, and possibly made some friends.
Whereas this guy is not satisfied with helping a good cause with his wonderful(not) photo and getting some free publicity, he wants money or another credit when he has got his name printed already on the photo.
Honestly there are some right greedy, money grabbing scumbags in this world, typical capitalist would sell you the rope that he knows your going to use to lynch him with so he can make a few bucks, right now.
The sort that didnt speak out when his neighbours were being put into catle waggons, the sort who says "im alright Jack" untill its his turn under scrutiny or they come to take him away.
and a hypocrit too bet he never asked if he could use this drummers image b4 he took the photo
you should just take it down and tell 'A miser living and working in Langley, Berkshire UK' to shove it
copyfuck
!APOLOGY ACCEPTED!
06.12.2004 22:23
See Richard's apology here:
--
Dear Richard Hill,
Thank you very much for your understanding. Glad to share with you the struggle to create Freedom of Information. The electrons is one side of things, the other is human flesh and blood, and is the struggle for Freedom of Movement, and to have nice places to visit where old trees can speak of times long gone, -kept in the memory of the place. It is great to share with that struggle as well. My freedom is bound up with yours. Therefore I also apologise for being ill-tempered above.
Your idea to incorporate the tree into the design is a good one, and a simple way to preserve a few bits from the concrete profit of tarmac; amazing that it so rarely happens. Have you ever come across the Space Hijackers and the Anarchitects?
Anyway, thank you for showing us that the Copyleft movement can indeed survive and sustain it self-organisation with such practices as collaboration and mutual recognition.
Gapitalims's Not Unbeatable...
-----------the volunteer.........x..
rms_in_disguise
Homepage:
http://www.gnu.org