'Chainsaw massacre' that saw 110 trees chopped down in dead of night in city centre without telling anyone cost council at least £3.3m
A Labour council's decision to cut down more than 100 trees in the middle of a city centre has cost them at least £3.3m, a report has found.
Plymouth City Council (PCC) sparked outrage when its group of 'monsters in the night' felled 110 trees on the city's Armada Way in March 2023 in what was described as a 'chainsaw massacre'.
The move was part of a regeneration project but furious campaigners labelled it 'ecological vandalism'.
And according to an independent review into the council's actions, the tree-felling 'still reverberates today'.
The review led by a panel of independent experts through Solace, explored how decisions were made, how the project was managed, and how the council communicated with the public.
The report added that 'significant tensions' remain within the council and between the groups and individuals involved.
The 79-page report, which looks at the timeframe of the Armada Way plan, added: 'It is apparent that there are wounds still to be healed for those individuals most directly impacted.
'There are pockets of regret, remorse, guilt, blame and defiance.'
In response, the council acknowledged weaknesses in the delivery of the project and said lessons would be learned.
They also provided an estimate of the costs involved including legal costs, inflationary increases, staff time and the £130,000 spent on the review itself.
The report said: 'Understandably, no quantification has been made of the cost to the City Council of reputational damage or the cost of re-building trust.'
It added: 'More significantly, no assessment has been made of the costs to business and the lost revenue to the local economy from having the key artery of the city centre so impacted.'
It said the £3.3m figure was 'the lower end of the likely cost' and said this showed the importance of major projects being 'adequately resourced with 'thorough political and senior officer oversight'.
The council said the £3.3m figure was 'the lower end of the likely cost' and said this showed the importance of major projects being 'adequately resourced with 'thorough political and senior officer oversight'
Armada Way started as a circa £12.7m project and is now projected at circa £30m.
Campaigners brought a case to the High Court in March 2024 claiming that Plymouth City Council had acted unlawfully.
The case was dismissed but Judge David Elvin KC was scathing of the council's conduct relating to the hearing and said the local authority's production of evidence had been 'highly unsatisfactory and revealed the lack of transparency in its procedures'.
The report added: 'It is important that the council finds a means to rebuild trust, internally and externally, if it is going to maximise the benefit to its citizens that its strong regeneration programme should bring to the city.'
PCC Chief Executive Tracey Lee said apologised and said the council 'came up short of where we needed to be'.
She said: 'The issues highlighted in this report are not reflective of the vast majority of what we do. But they do show us where we need to improve.
'We are committed to being a learning organisation - one that reflects honestly, adapts, and grows from experience. That's not just important for us as a Council - it's vital for the people we serve. When we learn, we improve.. And when we improve, we deliver better outcomes for our communities.'
Ms Lee emphasised that Plymouth City Council is not 'anti-tree', adding that there are 'over 35,000 new trees growing and establishing across the city'.
She added: 'This has resulted in us being recognised by the Tree Cities of the World programme. But we are also ambitious for Plymouth. We want this city to grow - and that means making difficult decisions.
'This review was about how we made those decisions, and it's evident that we didn't always get it right. We are committed to learning from this experience and doing better.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
19 minutes ago
- BBC News
Illegal work arrests double in year as police target 'unscrupulous' employers
Arrests for illegal work have doubled in a year as police focus on "unscrupulous" employers who exploit undocumented migrants, the government officers arrested more than 6,400 people in the past year in raids at businesses across the UK, data released by the Home Office shows. It said the figure is 51% higher than the previous year. It did not provide numbers as to how many arrests led to charges, convictions or said immigration enforcement officials had "intensified" their work to "tackle those abusing the UK immigration system and exploiting vulnerable people". Officers had visited more than 9,000 businesses - among them restaurants, nail bars and construction sites - to check paperwork and working businesses had often subjected migrants to "squalid conditions and illegal working hours" as well as below-minimum Home Office said there were a range of industries exploiting migrant one case in Surrey, officers arrested nine people at a caravan park who had been working as delivery one one major operation in March, officers arrested 36 people at a building site in Belfast's Titanic Quarter. Some had breached visa conditions while others didn't have working Enforcement director Eddy Montgomery said there were many cases where people travelling to the UK were "sold a lie by smuggling gangs that they will be able to live and work freely in the UK."In reality, they often end up facing squalid living conditions, minimal pay and inhumane working hours," he Angela Eagle, the minister for border security and asylum, said the government would "continue to root out unscrupulous employers and disrupt illegal workers who undermine our border security".The government said it had also returned nearly 30,000 people over the past year who did not have the right to be in the has said it is cracking down on illegal migration, setting out its plans in a White Paper to tighten work visas and those overstaying. It scrapped a special visa for care workers introduced during the pandemic, noting that this had been a pathway exploited by was mixed reaction to the plans, with some business sectors decrying the restrictions on work visas, while some Conservative opponents said the reforms didn't go far enough to stop illegal most recent data shows that approximately 44,000 people have entered the UK illegally in the year to March 2025, more than 80% through small boat journeys.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trans lobby groups 'lied for years' that anyone self identifying as a different gender could access women's' toilets, equality chief says
Transgender people were misled about their rights to female only spaces by lobby groups, according to a senior member of an equality watchdog has said. In April a Supreme Court ruling confirmed the terms woman and sex in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. Akua Reindorf, a barrister who is one of eight commissioners at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said trans people had been deceived about their rights were. Speaking in a personal capacity during a debate about the recent ruling, she said there must be a 'period of correction' to acknowledge women's right to women-only spaces. The decision made it legal for trans people to be banned from women-only sports teams, and from using bathrooms and changing rooms for the gender they lived as. These terms were later supported by interim non-statutory advice given by the EHRC last April. When an audience member at the debate raised fears about the recent Supreme Court ruling and how it could strip away trans peoples rights, barrister and panellist, Naomi Cunningham said: 'It can't be helped, I'm afraid.' In agreement with her fellow panellist, Ms Reindorf said she believed trans lobbyists were at faults for the misunderstanding. 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are,' she said. 'It's like Naomi said – I just can't say it in a more diplomatic way than that. They have been lied to, and there has to be a period of correction, because other people have rights' She claimed it boiled down to the law prior to the Supreme Court ruling being misunderstood due to groups contending trans people who self-identified should be treated as their preferred gender. However, this was only the case for the those who had obtained a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The barrister said the amalgamation of different rights made the Equality Act nonviable from a personal capacity. 'The catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place,' she said. As such, the feeling of a loss of right of trans people was due to an overwhelming product of 'misinformation' perpetrated by 'lobby group and activists'. Author JK Rowling backed the barrister's recent comments, saying lobby groups lied 'about what the law said'.' However, the head of gender justice at Amnesty International UK, Chiara Capraro, hit back Ms Reindorf's comments. She said: 'The EHRC has the duty to uphold the rights of everyone, including all with protected characteristics. We are concerned that it is failing to do so and is unhelpfully pitting the rights of women and trans people against each other.' A spokesman for the EHRC told The Guardian: 'Akua Reindorf KC spoke at this event in a personal capacity. This was made clear at the event and in the video recording published online. 'As Britain's equality regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission upholds and enforces the Equality Act 2010 to ensure everyone is treated fairly, consistent with the Act. 'Our board come from all walks of life and bring with them a breadth of skills and experience. This helps us take impartial decisions, which are always based on evidence and the law.'
Wales Online
3 hours ago
- Wales Online
The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Over the last few days, there has been one hot topic in the world of Welsh politics - a train line which will run between Oxford and Cambridge. Given these two cities are roughly 200 miles from Wales, you can be forgiven for asking why. East West Rail is a railway project which will link Oxford and Cambridge at an estimated cost of £6.6bn. Any money spent on it will trigger extra payments to Scotland and Northern Ireland so they can spend it on their transport systems. But, just as has been the case throughout the HS2 debacle, there won't be any extra money for the Welsh Government. The reason for this is both incredibly simple and reasonable on the surface but devillishly complicated and truly unfair beneath it. It may not necessarily be a scandal in itself. But it symbolises everything that is wrong with how rail funding is allocated in England and Wales. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here On the face of it, this issue isn't linked to the spending review that has been happening in Westminster for the last six months or more and of which chancellor Rachel Reeves will stand up in the Commons on Wednesday and deliver the conclusion. Yet it helps shed a light on why that will be enormously complex to understand and why the real story may not be the one you read in headlines that evening. So bear with us while we go through it. The fury from politicians Opposition politicians in Wales have been fulminating about East West rail. They say that the rail line should have been classified as an England-only project like Crossrail so that the Welsh Government would get a guaranteed share. Lib Dem MP David Chadwick said Wales will lose out to the tune of between £306m and £363m as a result. Describing it as another HS2, he said: "Labour expects people across Wales to believe the ridiculous idea that this project will benefit them, and they are justified in not giving Wales the money it needs to improve our own public transport systems. 'It's a disgrace, and it shows there has been no meaningful change since in the way Wales is treated since Labour took power compared to the Conservatives." Plaid Cymru's leader Mr ap Iorwerth took a similar tack, telling plenary: "For all the talk of the UK Government acknowledging somehow that Welsh rail has been historically underfunded, this is some partnership in power." Yet, while there's a lot of truth to what they're saying, it's also much more complicated. Which is where the spending review comes in. Comparability factors There will be so many numbers in the paperwork that accompanies Wednesday's spending review that finding the most important ones isn't straightforward. Yet if you want to know just how much of the England and Wales transport pot is going to be sucked into paying for massive rail projects in England like HS2 (£66bn) or East West rail (£6bn) or all the tram/train projects being promised in England outside London (£15bn), then look out for the overall transport comparability factor for Wales. Very simply, this is the number that the Treasury uses to work out how much the Welsh Government should get for every £1 it spends on transport in England. The reason everyone has been so, so angry about HS2 and the massive billions being poured is that back in 2015, Wales used to get a comparability factor of 80.9%. Yet when the number crunchers in Horse Guards Road sat down to work out how much the Welsh Government should get at the last spending review in 2021, that comparability factor fell to just 33.5%. Ouch. For every £1 spent on transport by Westminster, since the last spending review the Welsh Government has received a population adjusted share (5%) of 33.5%. Or about 1.6p. For context, it used to be around 4p. If Mr Chadwick and Mr Iorwerth are right and the UK government plans to plough even more money into rail in England in the coming years on projects like HS2, East Coast and what the Tories used to call Northern Powerhouse rail, then the new comparability factor that the Treasury mathematicians will conjure up this time could be even lower. But even that is massively misleading. Because if the UK government also promises to plough vast sums into rail in Wales then the comparability factor for the Welsh Government would not rise - it would fall further still. Is your mind boggling yet? We said it was complex. What the Welsh Government wants Because the Welsh Government isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending, the transport comparability factor really just reflects how much money is going on rail. The less that's spent on rail, the higher a share of the overall transport pot the Welsh Government gets. The more that goes on rail, the lower a share of the overall transport spot the Welsh Government gets. The real problem for Cardiff Bay then is not the comparability factor. Neither is it the fact that East West rail isn't classified as England-only. The problem, as far as the Welsh Government is concerned, is the fact that the England and Wales rail pot itself isn't shared fairly. HS2 and East Coast rail are the symbols of a system that is broken that pours vast sums into English rail projects while Wales misses out. Even if they were classified as England-only, the money would go to the Welsh Government which isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending. "The way that the system operates at the moment—for years I've been saying—is redundant," Wales' transport minister Ken Skates has said. "The east-west line, which has been in development, I believe, for around about 20 years now, is part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, where everything in a large footprint, a substantial footprint, including Wales, is packaged together. "Where you have all schemes in England and Wales packaged together in what's called the regional network enhancement pipeline it means that projects in Wales are always going to be competing on the business case with projects in affluent areas of the south-east, of London. That means that we are at a disadvantage. "I want to see it change. I've been saying it for years. There's nothing new in this story. I've been saying that we need reform for years and suddenly people have woken up to it." Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan has said the same. "What we have is a situation where there is a pipeline of projects for England and Wales. Are we getting our fair share? Absolutely not. Are we making the case? Absolutely." "I've made the case very, very clearly that, when it comes to rail, we have been short-changed, and I do hope that we will get some movement on that in the next week from the spending review," she said. What does this mean for the spending review When Rachel Reeves stands up in the Commons on Wednesday, we fully expect she will announce some funding for rail in Wales, as you can see in our piece here, and our expectation is that will be about the rail stations earmarked in the work by Lord Burns after the M4 relief road was axed. They would be in Cardiff East, Parkway, Newport West, Maindy, Llanwern and Magor. But what matters is how much and when - and how that compares to the money being spent in England. Imagine the chancellor announces a few hundred million pounds for those rail stations in Wales in the spending review, what we do not - and will likely not know for many years - is whether that amount is a fair reflection of the mass spending she has announced in England because we know she has also touted £15bn of improvements in England. It will likely take years for academics to assess what kind of share of the rail pot has been spent in Wales. In the past, it certainly has not been fair. In 2018, a Welsh Government commissioned report by Professor Mark Barry estimated that the Network Rail Wales route, which covers 11% of the UK network, received just over 1% of the enhancement budget for the 2011-2016 period. In 2021, the Wales Governance Centre told MPs on the Welsh affairs select committee that had rail been fully devolved to the Welsh Government, Wales would have received an additional £514m for enhancements via Network Rail had rail infrastructure been devolved as it is in Scotland. So when Leeds West and Pudsey MP Ms Reeves gets to her feet in the Commons on Wednesday, you can pretty much guarantee there will at least one or two headlines relevant Wales. But we may not understand what they really mean for a while yet and East West rail won't help us understand either.
