Battle goes on to save ancient tree from being felled at Silsden supermarket construction site

Battle goes on to save ancient tree from being felled at Silsden supermarket construction site

BATTLE: Ecology Building Society worker Anna Laycock who is trying to save the 250-year-old lime tree

PROTEST: Ecology Building Society chief operating officer George Haslem talks to contractors in bid to save tree

First published in News
Last updated
Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , Aire/Worth Valley Reporter

STAFF at the Ecology Building Society, Silsden, successfully delayed chainsaw-wielding workmen who attempted to fell an ancient tree on the site of new Aldi store yesterday.

The supermarket giant has planning permission to remove the massive lime tree, now thought to be 250 years old, from the site off Keighley Road.

But workers at the green-minded building society are fighting to overturn that approval granted by Bradford Council and are appealing to Aldi to change its plans at the last minute.

And yesterday they vowed to keep constant vigil beneath the tree which borders their property after contractors began hacking at its lower boughs.

Workers stood beneath its branches and hugged its trunk thus creating health and safety issues for those keen to cut it down.

During the day they desperately tried to persuade Aldi to stay the axe during ground clearance work prior to building on the Keighley Road site, said EBS ethics manager Anna Laycock.

"We have challenged them on every front and taken every action that we can," she said.

"An we've been absolutely overwhelmed by support from local residents and also people on-line.

"People have been messaging us - and Aldi - from all over the country saying please don't cut the tree down.

"Sadly the only response we have had so far from Aldi is that they are doing is legal - but that doesn't make it right."

One fresh issue raised yesterday was the possibility that while Bradford Council planners had approved removal of the once-protected tree, that was subject to final approval of landscaping plans scheduled to be discussed on August 25.

"Aldi have said they will send us a document which says either that the landscaping plan has already been somehow approved or that they can remove the tree regardless," Miss Laycock said.

"We shall see what tomorrow brings," she said.

An Aldi spokesman told the Telegraph & Argus: ““We are carrying out our development in line with the approved plans.

"There will be a significant replanting scheme within the site, prior to completion of the scheme”.

And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee. The Tree Preservation Order still stands on a number of other trees on the site.

"One of the conditions of planning application being granted was that the new landscaping of the site would include the planting of a semi-mature lime tree close to the position of this tree."

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:01am Thu 7 Aug 14

Thackleygirl says...

"And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee".

Yes and she would say that wouldn't she - look at everything else she says and approves - disgusting.....

Well done to all at Ecology Building Society, Silsden for standing up for what you believe in and for protecting this beautiful tree.
"And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee". Yes and she would say that wouldn't she - look at everything else she says and approves - disgusting..... Well done to all at Ecology Building Society, Silsden for standing up for what you believe in and for protecting this beautiful tree. Thackleygirl
  • Score: 11

10:32am Thu 7 Aug 14

Albion. says...

Thackleygirl wrote:
"And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee".

Yes and she would say that wouldn't she - look at everything else she says and approves - disgusting.....

Well done to all at Ecology Building Society, Silsden for standing up for what you believe in and for protecting this beautiful tree.
So if Aldi pull out and everyone carries on driving miles for their shopping, you would prefer a higher level of pollution to a replaceable tree?
[quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: "And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee". Yes and she would say that wouldn't she - look at everything else she says and approves - disgusting..... Well done to all at Ecology Building Society, Silsden for standing up for what you believe in and for protecting this beautiful tree.[/p][/quote]So if Aldi pull out and everyone carries on driving miles for their shopping, you would prefer a higher level of pollution to a replaceable tree? Albion.
  • Score: -5

10:57am Thu 7 Aug 14

Sycamore77 says...

Albion. wrote:
Thackleygirl wrote:
"And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee".

Yes and she would say that wouldn't she - look at everything else she says and approves - disgusting.....

Well done to all at Ecology Building Society, Silsden for standing up for what you believe in and for protecting this beautiful tree.
So if Aldi pull out and everyone carries on driving miles for their shopping, you would prefer a higher level of pollution to a replaceable tree?
Except that they could've kept the 250 year old tree if the supermarket was smaller. Or they picked a better site. It was not one or the other.
Of course smaller wouldn't do would've affected profit margins by half a percent or something. Nor a different site - would've been slighly more constly to buy and possibly slightly more difficult to obtain planning permission.

Also you seem particularly concerend about carbon footprints. A new supermarket and carbon footprints.....hmmmm
m.....less said about your point there the better.....

Also a replaceable tree? What in 250 years? Presumably you can guarantee the "semi mature replacement" (which is basically a 10 year old tree at a cost of about £250) will be in existence in 250 years time to "replace" the original?
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: "And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee". Yes and she would say that wouldn't she - look at everything else she says and approves - disgusting..... Well done to all at Ecology Building Society, Silsden for standing up for what you believe in and for protecting this beautiful tree.[/p][/quote]So if Aldi pull out and everyone carries on driving miles for their shopping, you would prefer a higher level of pollution to a replaceable tree?[/p][/quote]Except that they could've kept the 250 year old tree if the supermarket was smaller. Or they picked a better site. It was not one or the other. Of course smaller wouldn't do would've affected profit margins by half a percent or something. Nor a different site - would've been slighly more constly to buy and possibly slightly more difficult to obtain planning permission. Also you seem particularly concerend about carbon footprints. A new supermarket and carbon footprints.....hmmmm m.....less said about your point there the better..... Also a replaceable tree? What in 250 years? Presumably you can guarantee the "semi mature replacement" (which is basically a 10 year old tree at a cost of about £250) will be in existence in 250 years time to "replace" the original? Sycamore77
  • Score: 6

11:15am Thu 7 Aug 14

Albion. says...

Sycamore77 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
Thackleygirl wrote:
"And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee".

Yes and she would say that wouldn't she - look at everything else she says and approves - disgusting.....

Well done to all at Ecology Building Society, Silsden for standing up for what you believe in and for protecting this beautiful tree.
So if Aldi pull out and everyone carries on driving miles for their shopping, you would prefer a higher level of pollution to a replaceable tree?
Except that they could've kept the 250 year old tree if the supermarket was smaller. Or they picked a better site. It was not one or the other.
Of course smaller wouldn't do would've affected profit margins by half a percent or something. Nor a different site - would've been slighly more constly to buy and possibly slightly more difficult to obtain planning permission.

Also you seem particularly concerend about carbon footprints. A new supermarket and carbon footprints.....hmmmm

m.....less said about your point there the better.....

Also a replaceable tree? What in 250 years? Presumably you can guarantee the "semi mature replacement" (which is basically a 10 year old tree at a cost of about £250) will be in existence in 250 years time to "replace" the original?
It's called progress and sacrifices have to be made, if we all took your stance we would be living in mud huts (and not growing or cutting wood for building) and eating what we could grow. The store is much needed in the area (personally I would have preferred Tesco) and should be encouraged.
By the way, I didn't mean a literal replacement, it's common practice in these situations to ask the developer to plant other trees (usually more than have been felled) not necessarily in exactly the same spot.
[quote][p][bold]Sycamore77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: "And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee". Yes and she would say that wouldn't she - look at everything else she says and approves - disgusting..... Well done to all at Ecology Building Society, Silsden for standing up for what you believe in and for protecting this beautiful tree.[/p][/quote]So if Aldi pull out and everyone carries on driving miles for their shopping, you would prefer a higher level of pollution to a replaceable tree?[/p][/quote]Except that they could've kept the 250 year old tree if the supermarket was smaller. Or they picked a better site. It was not one or the other. Of course smaller wouldn't do would've affected profit margins by half a percent or something. Nor a different site - would've been slighly more constly to buy and possibly slightly more difficult to obtain planning permission. Also you seem particularly concerend about carbon footprints. A new supermarket and carbon footprints.....hmmmm m.....less said about your point there the better..... Also a replaceable tree? What in 250 years? Presumably you can guarantee the "semi mature replacement" (which is basically a 10 year old tree at a cost of about £250) will be in existence in 250 years time to "replace" the original?[/p][/quote]It's called progress and sacrifices have to be made, if we all took your stance we would be living in mud huts (and not growing or cutting wood for building) and eating what we could grow. The store is much needed in the area (personally I would have preferred Tesco) and should be encouraged. By the way, I didn't mean a literal replacement, it's common practice in these situations to ask the developer to plant other trees (usually more than have been felled) not necessarily in exactly the same spot. Albion.
  • Score: -3

12:14pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Sycamore77 says...

Albion. wrote:
Sycamore77 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
Thackleygirl wrote:
"And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee".

Yes and she would say that wouldn't she - look at everything else she says and approves - disgusting.....

Well done to all at Ecology Building Society, Silsden for standing up for what you believe in and for protecting this beautiful tree.
So if Aldi pull out and everyone carries on driving miles for their shopping, you would prefer a higher level of pollution to a replaceable tree?
Except that they could've kept the 250 year old tree if the supermarket was smaller. Or they picked a better site. It was not one or the other.
Of course smaller wouldn't do would've affected profit margins by half a percent or something. Nor a different site - would've been slighly more constly to buy and possibly slightly more difficult to obtain planning permission.

Also you seem particularly concerend about carbon footprints. A new supermarket and carbon footprints.....hmmmm


m.....less said about your point there the better.....

Also a replaceable tree? What in 250 years? Presumably you can guarantee the "semi mature replacement" (which is basically a 10 year old tree at a cost of about £250) will be in existence in 250 years time to "replace" the original?
It's called progress and sacrifices have to be made, if we all took your stance we would be living in mud huts (and not growing or cutting wood for building) and eating what we could grow. The store is much needed in the area (personally I would have preferred Tesco) and should be encouraged.
By the way, I didn't mean a literal replacement, it's common practice in these situations to ask the developer to plant other trees (usually more than have been felled) not necessarily in exactly the same spot.
That's what you call a tu quoque and ad hominem arugment. I'd suggest you look these up!

Your post also fails to properly address a single point I raised. Never mind.

Anyway I have read your postings on a number of matters and you seemed dead against the population increase, yet you are now happy for supermarkets to be built to serve this increase in the name of "progress"?
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sycamore77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: "And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee". Yes and she would say that wouldn't she - look at everything else she says and approves - disgusting..... Well done to all at Ecology Building Society, Silsden for standing up for what you believe in and for protecting this beautiful tree.[/p][/quote]So if Aldi pull out and everyone carries on driving miles for their shopping, you would prefer a higher level of pollution to a replaceable tree?[/p][/quote]Except that they could've kept the 250 year old tree if the supermarket was smaller. Or they picked a better site. It was not one or the other. Of course smaller wouldn't do would've affected profit margins by half a percent or something. Nor a different site - would've been slighly more constly to buy and possibly slightly more difficult to obtain planning permission. Also you seem particularly concerend about carbon footprints. A new supermarket and carbon footprints.....hmmmm m.....less said about your point there the better..... Also a replaceable tree? What in 250 years? Presumably you can guarantee the "semi mature replacement" (which is basically a 10 year old tree at a cost of about £250) will be in existence in 250 years time to "replace" the original?[/p][/quote]It's called progress and sacrifices have to be made, if we all took your stance we would be living in mud huts (and not growing or cutting wood for building) and eating what we could grow. The store is much needed in the area (personally I would have preferred Tesco) and should be encouraged. By the way, I didn't mean a literal replacement, it's common practice in these situations to ask the developer to plant other trees (usually more than have been felled) not necessarily in exactly the same spot.[/p][/quote]That's what you call a tu quoque and ad hominem arugment. I'd suggest you look these up! Your post also fails to properly address a single point I raised. Never mind. Anyway I have read your postings on a number of matters and you seemed dead against the population increase, yet you are now happy for supermarkets to be built to serve this increase in the name of "progress"? Sycamore77
  • Score: 6

12:35pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Albion. says...

Sycamore77 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
Sycamore77 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
Thackleygirl wrote:
"And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee".

Yes and she would say that wouldn't she - look at everything else she says and approves - disgusting.....

Well done to all at Ecology Building Society, Silsden for standing up for what you believe in and for protecting this beautiful tree.
So if Aldi pull out and everyone carries on driving miles for their shopping, you would prefer a higher level of pollution to a replaceable tree?
Except that they could've kept the 250 year old tree if the supermarket was smaller. Or they picked a better site. It was not one or the other.
Of course smaller wouldn't do would've affected profit margins by half a percent or something. Nor a different site - would've been slighly more constly to buy and possibly slightly more difficult to obtain planning permission.

Also you seem particularly concerend about carbon footprints. A new supermarket and carbon footprints.....hmmmm



m.....less said about your point there the better.....

Also a replaceable tree? What in 250 years? Presumably you can guarantee the "semi mature replacement" (which is basically a 10 year old tree at a cost of about £250) will be in existence in 250 years time to "replace" the original?
It's called progress and sacrifices have to be made, if we all took your stance we would be living in mud huts (and not growing or cutting wood for building) and eating what we could grow. The store is much needed in the area (personally I would have preferred Tesco) and should be encouraged.
By the way, I didn't mean a literal replacement, it's common practice in these situations to ask the developer to plant other trees (usually more than have been felled) not necessarily in exactly the same spot.
That's what you call a tu quoque and ad hominem arugment. I'd suggest you look these up!

Your post also fails to properly address a single point I raised. Never mind.

Anyway I have read your postings on a number of matters and you seemed dead against the population increase, yet you are now happy for supermarkets to be built to serve this increase in the name of "progress"?
I'm certainly against an imported population increase, if it weren't for that there would be less of a rush to escape to the outer regions and less need for accessible shopping facilities, but there is need and one tree shouldn't stand in the way.
[quote][p][bold]Sycamore77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sycamore77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thackleygirl[/bold] wrote: "And Coun Val Slater Bradford Council's executive member for housing, planning and transport, said: "The removal of the tree was allowed following the grant of planning permission by Committee". Yes and she would say that wouldn't she - look at everything else she says and approves - disgusting..... Well done to all at Ecology Building Society, Silsden for standing up for what you believe in and for protecting this beautiful tree.[/p][/quote]So if Aldi pull out and everyone carries on driving miles for their shopping, you would prefer a higher level of pollution to a replaceable tree?[/p][/quote]Except that they could've kept the 250 year old tree if the supermarket was smaller. Or they picked a better site. It was not one or the other. Of course smaller wouldn't do would've affected profit margins by half a percent or something. Nor a different site - would've been slighly more constly to buy and possibly slightly more difficult to obtain planning permission. Also you seem particularly concerend about carbon footprints. A new supermarket and carbon footprints.....hmmmm m.....less said about your point there the better..... Also a replaceable tree? What in 250 years? Presumably you can guarantee the "semi mature replacement" (which is basically a 10 year old tree at a cost of about £250) will be in existence in 250 years time to "replace" the original?[/p][/quote]It's called progress and sacrifices have to be made, if we all took your stance we would be living in mud huts (and not growing or cutting wood for building) and eating what we could grow. The store is much needed in the area (personally I would have preferred Tesco) and should be encouraged. By the way, I didn't mean a literal replacement, it's common practice in these situations to ask the developer to plant other trees (usually more than have been felled) not necessarily in exactly the same spot.[/p][/quote]That's what you call a tu quoque and ad hominem arugment. I'd suggest you look these up! Your post also fails to properly address a single point I raised. Never mind. Anyway I have read your postings on a number of matters and you seemed dead against the population increase, yet you are now happy for supermarkets to be built to serve this increase in the name of "progress"?[/p][/quote]I'm certainly against an imported population increase, if it weren't for that there would be less of a rush to escape to the outer regions and less need for accessible shopping facilities, but there is need and one tree shouldn't stand in the way. Albion.
  • Score: -2

12:44pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Sycamore77 says...

I wonder then whether the removal of such a tree and indeed green space would be equally acceptable in your eyes if it were in central Bradford rather than the outer areas?
I wonder then whether the removal of such a tree and indeed green space would be equally acceptable in your eyes if it were in central Bradford rather than the outer areas? Sycamore77
  • Score: 2

1:15pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Albion. says...

Sycamore77 wrote:
I wonder then whether the removal of such a tree and indeed green space would be equally acceptable in your eyes if it were in central Bradford rather than the outer areas?
That would depend on the circumstances, as I don't live in Bradford or indeed near this particular development, it wouldn't really bother me. I certainly support more tree planting, just as I support necessary projects such as this and I do know people who are looking forward to shopping there and lessening the number of shopping trips to Ilkley, Keighley and Skipton that they currently have to make.
[quote][p][bold]Sycamore77[/bold] wrote: I wonder then whether the removal of such a tree and indeed green space would be equally acceptable in your eyes if it were in central Bradford rather than the outer areas?[/p][/quote]That would depend on the circumstances, as I don't live in Bradford or indeed near this particular development, it wouldn't really bother me. I certainly support more tree planting, just as I support necessary projects such as this and I do know people who are looking forward to shopping there and lessening the number of shopping trips to Ilkley, Keighley and Skipton that they currently have to make. Albion.
  • Score: 1

2:02pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Sycamore77 says...

You dont live near the development yet feel the need to comment which your right, of course. However I do live near the development and I prize the tree and the green space over driving to Keighley for shopping which takes all of 7-10 mins there and 7-10 mins back. Once a week.
You cannot really get a full weeks shopping at a discount supermarket anyway so the trips to Keighley will still have to occur on a weekly basis.
However in the meantime a mangificent 250 year tree is gone forever. I do not believe that the loss of such things over having a slightly (ever so slightly) more convenient lifestyle is justified although obviously yourself and others such as our esteemed councillors on the planning committee share a different view and believe that its "progress".
You dont live near the development yet feel the need to comment which your right, of course. However I do live near the development and I prize the tree and the green space over driving to Keighley for shopping which takes all of 7-10 mins there and 7-10 mins back. Once a week. You cannot really get a full weeks shopping at a discount supermarket anyway so the trips to Keighley will still have to occur on a weekly basis. However in the meantime a mangificent 250 year tree is gone forever. I do not believe that the loss of such things over having a slightly (ever so slightly) more convenient lifestyle is justified although obviously yourself and others such as our esteemed councillors on the planning committee share a different view and believe that its "progress". Sycamore77
  • Score: 2

2:19pm Thu 7 Aug 14

rustynutz says...

Keep that tree!!
Keep that tree!! rustynutz
  • Score: 2

2:31pm Thu 7 Aug 14

davetherave2012 says...

Don't some people just make you laugh, if it were there house to be pulled down, because of progress, they be moaning, but its only a tree, even though its 250 years old, if you all stood your ground, and told them you wont use the market, they might think about twice about building it.
Don't some people just make you laugh, if it were there house to be pulled down, because of progress, they be moaning, but its only a tree, even though its 250 years old, if you all stood your ground, and told them you wont use the market, they might think about twice about building it. davetherave2012
  • Score: -3

2:50pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Albion. says...

Sycamore77 wrote:
You dont live near the development yet feel the need to comment which your right, of course. However I do live near the development and I prize the tree and the green space over driving to Keighley for shopping which takes all of 7-10 mins there and 7-10 mins back. Once a week.
You cannot really get a full weeks shopping at a discount supermarket anyway so the trips to Keighley will still have to occur on a weekly basis.
However in the meantime a mangificent 250 year tree is gone forever. I do not believe that the loss of such things over having a slightly (ever so slightly) more convenient lifestyle is justified although obviously yourself and others such as our esteemed councillors on the planning committee share a different view and believe that its "progress".
It isn't a slight advantage to the elderly, infirm and car less. If the store is built and everyone follows your example it wont last long, but everyone wont follow your example. Anyway we've had our say, do have a nice day.
[quote][p][bold]Sycamore77[/bold] wrote: You dont live near the development yet feel the need to comment which your right, of course. However I do live near the development and I prize the tree and the green space over driving to Keighley for shopping which takes all of 7-10 mins there and 7-10 mins back. Once a week. You cannot really get a full weeks shopping at a discount supermarket anyway so the trips to Keighley will still have to occur on a weekly basis. However in the meantime a mangificent 250 year tree is gone forever. I do not believe that the loss of such things over having a slightly (ever so slightly) more convenient lifestyle is justified although obviously yourself and others such as our esteemed councillors on the planning committee share a different view and believe that its "progress".[/p][/quote]It isn't a slight advantage to the elderly, infirm and car less. If the store is built and everyone follows your example it wont last long, but everyone wont follow your example. Anyway we've had our say, do have a nice day. Albion.
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Thu 7 Aug 14

DCarbz says...

Never mind the tree. has anyone done an assessment as to what effect a ????? sq yard/m car park will have on flooding after a heavy rainfall. It is not as if this area has never flooded before is it?
Never mind the tree. has anyone done an assessment as to what effect a ????? sq yard/m car park will have on flooding after a heavy rainfall. It is not as if this area has never flooded before is it? DCarbz
  • Score: -3

5:44pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Robin of Loxley says...

The pic looks like an advert for naturism...
The pic looks like an advert for naturism... Robin of Loxley
  • Score: -4

4:01pm Fri 8 Aug 14

fellorunner says...

Save the tree.
Save the tree. fellorunner
  • Score: 1

12:32pm Sat 9 Aug 14

wigwambam says...

Albion you really are a numpty and then admit you don't live in bradford, so stop commenting and mind your own business this doesn't effect you. How many areas in Bradford have been permentant changed supposedly in the name of progress and after yesterday's flooding it just goes to prove the need to keep our trees and green spaces or are you too I'll educated to understand that
Albion you really are a numpty and then admit you don't live in bradford, so stop commenting and mind your own business this doesn't effect you. How many areas in Bradford have been permentant changed supposedly in the name of progress and after yesterday's flooding it just goes to prove the need to keep our trees and green spaces or are you too I'll educated to understand that wigwambam
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree