Forum Topic

Shepherds Bush Green Regeneration plans

It seems from the plans that 13 trees are to be felled, one of which is the lovely Chestnut at the SW corner and one of the big limes along the South stretch among others. And why do we need another Caff? Are there not enough on the North side of the Green that need the business?To view the planning applicaton on the council website go to:http://www.lbhf.gov.uk ang go to planning and then use the application reference 2009/00758/FR3 to see the full application

Vivienne James ● 5832d11 Comments

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions also has a power to make TPOs. In considering requests to make a TPO the Secretary of State will have regard to all representations submitted to him, but it is likely that he would use his power in exceptional circumstances only, where issues of more than local significance are raised, and then only after consultation with the Council in whose area the trees or woodlands are located.So it is really down to the Council to issue the TPO (to itself). As one of the conditions is that TPOs are not normally issued where the trees are in good silvicultural or arboricultural care and management, it may be that none would be issued. If the trees are to be cut down for health reasons, that would be hard to contest without expert advice. If it is, for example, to relay the paths on a different pattern, that would be a very good case for TPOs. Who lives in LBHF who could ask their local councillor to press for this? - I live just 50 yeards outside LBHF

Dan Filson ● 5802d

Tree Preservation Orders are issued by the local council (usually from the planning department) usually on the advice of the borough arboricultural officerSee DEFRA's advice to councils:http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/tposguide

Dan Filson ● 5802d

Are the trees listed? they can be and then insensitive councils can't hack them about - but I don't know how to do it.

Sara Nathan ● 5802d

It is just a major roundabout, but it provides a small lung for the area and for people with no garden who want to be outside, play with kids, balls, dogs and to be safe-ish.The cafe is to be a new structure ON the Green taking customers from the existing cafe businesses. The reason for removing trees is to accomodate the intention for "Mounds" to be incorporated.... very 3-d and so we can't see the drunks. It seems mad to consider felling a mature Chestnut tree when this species is so threatened at the moment, not to mention the other native British trees to be axed, being ash, lime etc. if you look at the planning application,(post number one) there is a map of the trees to go

Vivienne James ● 5803d

Yes it's just an overblown roundabout at present isn't it? Hopeless for decent life.

Sara Nathan ● 5804d

Presumably by "a cafe on the green" you mean chairs and tables outside premises on the north side of the Green which I think would be the only possible place. There would be quite a lot of passing pedestrians - I'm not sure it would be relaxing enough. If they were in the sun for part of the day, the promenades at Westfield (i.e. the southern restaurant parade and the approach path from the Overground and Shepherd's Bush stations) would be more suitable but they either face north or face south to a wall and have no view, and do not look out onto grass which is pleasant to see (and sit/walk on). I just think Westfield is such a misshapen lost opportunity. It's really hard to see how to improve SBG whilst there is traffic passing through at present volume

Dan Filson ● 5805d

I quite like the idea of sitting in a cafe on the green, as long as there are no drunks around, of course. You are right that the traffic fumes are awful - they should be planing more trees to block that out rather than chopping them down.

Lina Leaman ● 5805d

Traffic fumes etc - sadly BoJo being hostile to the congestion charge has signalled he has no problem with the remorseless flow of cars into London through SB Green and the like. The simple fact is that car commuting is insanely inefficient from a public perspective. You could fill Holland PArk Avenue from Notting Hill Gate down to Shepherd's Bush tub station with cars each filled with just the driver, and the same number of people could be carried on 4 buses. If we could only shift the car commuters onto public transport, the vans and legitimate commercial traffic could move freely. I remember talking to a lorry driver who told me how many trips to and from the docks he could do right after the war and how many fewer he could do now to the same area, despite the building of Westway, underpasses and so on.If I felt broadening pavements and narrowing roadways would help, I would advocate it, but it would alas make the congestion worse

Dan Filson ● 5805d

That's bad news. S B Green is awful enough. I think the greenery should be increased to balance the dreadful congestion and traffic fumes. I would have thought more planting as a barrier from the roads would make the green more pleasant to use.

Becky Bell ● 5805d

Just had a snack last night at one of Westfield's restaurants row, and it was DEAD (admittedly Man U v Barcelona had played earlier in the evening) but I just feel there is something quite wrong in the way Westfield is set out. It lacks the Oxford Street ease of walk-in business (the distance from the respective tubes and the rise from street level), and by being separate from Shepherd's Bush Green doesn't benefit the latter at all (nor for that matter feed off the considerable pavement footfall on the north side of the Green).On the trees, someone should establish the precise case tree by tree for each tree being cut down. They seem healthy so I cannot believe that is the reason. I have thought they could rationalise the path layout on the Green which has some duplication, recognise the de facto paths that are not tarmacced, un-tarmac the paths that are not required, and make it a little clearer which are the cycle paths. That would possibly enhance the "Unter den Linden" avenues under trees.

Dan Filson ● 5805d

I'm new to this forum and have only just seen this post.Quite why 13 trees would have to be felled is beyond me.  If it's the case, it would be a disgrace.  Frankly, I find all the proposals unsatisfactory.  I'm quite tired of all this regeneration blah-de-blah, what with Westfield, the library relocation, etc, etcAnd agree entirely that we don't need another cafe.  There are already loads to choose from, many of which I patronise on a regular basis - and will continue to do so.

Terry Abrahams ● 5806d