Merlin magic for young and old


DOZENS of excited school children made their way to Glebe Field in Harrietsham to see a magnificentMerlin helicopter. The RAF’s most high-tech ’copter had


flown in to mark 78 Squadron’s 95th an- niversary. As the youngsters snaked across the field, members of the parish council and the Royal Air Forces Associationwere join- ing in the celebrations. It was November 1, 1916, when No 78


Home Defence Squadron was formed at Stede Court, Harrietsham, as part of the re- sponse to the growing German airborne threat. The squadron as such existed purely on


paper for a while, as it was based at a coun- try house, with no aircraft! In fact, No 78 Sqn’s association with Har- rietsham was extremely brief as, in early 1917, itmoved to a newHQat Hove, Sussex. But that did not stop RAF top brass from ensuring Harrietsham’s role in the squadron’s history was overlooked. Sqn leader Matt Tandy said: “It’s incredi-


bly important to our current personnel that we honour this fine heritage.” The Merlin landed after making a dra-


matic swoop over the church. Members of Hollingbourne RAFA gathered in front of the machine (pictured left) while the chil- dren clambered aboard.


So why did these trees have to be felled? W


HEN Bearsted resident Frank Jagger asked “straightforward questions” about why trees were cut down in a car park, he never expected it to take so long to get satisfactory answers.


In fact, Mr Jagger says he is still puzzled – and increasingly angry – that the parish council has not given clear reasons for felling the trees earlier in the year. Mr Jagger was so frustrated he approached the Downs Mail in late October.


His quest for the truth started early


this summer when he heard conflict- ing stories about why more than a dozen trees, mainly sycamores, had been axed on the Church Landway car park. Mr Jagger, who lives nearby at The Orchard and is a regular dog-walker, was perturbed and decided to write to the parish council for clarification. That was on July 4. He asked:


1. Why were these trees cut down? 2. What are the plans to replace them? 3. Will there be public consultation about their replacements? 4. What will be the cost of removing and replacing the trees? At the same time, Mr Jagger, a re-


tired paper industrymanager, noticed on the council website that it had car- ried out works to “remove the dis- eased sycamore trees” next to the allotments. But Mr Jagger has done a thor-


ough search of the council’s minutes and correspondence and found no refer- ence, before or since, to the trees being “diseased”. The website also said the tree felling had “opened up” the area, which had been a concern for the police. But according to Bearsted’s PCSO Jim Stevens there had not been any anti-social behaviour at the car park. “Cutting the trees down was purely


down to the parish council,” he told the Downs Mail. On August 5, a month after Mr Jagger’s


FRANKJagger insisted his con- cerns did not relate to the trees themselves – “I am not a tree- hugger,”hetoldus–buttothe way decisions had been made and to the lack of consultation. Mr Jagger had attended the council’s environment commit- tee on July 7 when, he said, chairman John Hughes assured him the public would be con- sulted. Later, Mr Jagger told chair-


man Chris Dyke the plan for a fruit tree hedge “smacks of a done deal”. He wrote: “Does the council


have its own agenda regarding the planting of trees in this


4 East


questions, council chairman Chris Dyke replied.


Question 1: “The issue of the trees first


came to the forefront of discussion follow- ing comments from allotment holders re- garding the shadowing of plots from the trees. Upon further investigation it was found that the trees, self-sown sycamores, would create a potential safety issue in fu- ture years; being too close to nearby build- ings and a well frequented public path. “Following discussions between myself,


as chairman of the parish council, and the contractor, a decision was made to fell all


‘Not a tree hugger’


area and is it trying to avoid any genuine public consulta- tion?” He wrote, on August 24, after researching the council min- utes: “Although I could find reference to the vote to use Tantons to fell the trees I could find no reference to the coun- cil’s initial decision/vote to re- move these trees. Obviously, this would need to have pre- ceded the decision of who to use for the actual work.” But Mr Dyke, in a follow-up


reply to Mr Jagger on Septem- ber 10, said the “decision to re-


move the trees” was taken by all members of the council at its January 18 financemeeting. Indeed, the minute said: “Mr


[John] Hughes reported on his meetings with all three con- tractors. Whilst all are fairly similar itwas felt that the serv- ice provided by Tantons, the parish council’s usual contrac- tor, justified the additional ex- penditure. “Mr [Paul] Young stated that


if Mr Hughes, as chairman of open spaces, was happy with this, the council should support his judgment.Vote - 10


BEFORE


16 trees in the location, to allow for the re- development of the area, in linewith those of the BearstedWoodland Trust, which also has a fruit tree collection.” Mr Dyke’s letter said the decision to carry


out the work was “endorsed” after the felling; that a number of the stumps were split – a safety matter – and that the reason for felling was “further en- dorsed” when, during the work, a rot- ten branch fell and damaged the fence of Mote Hall. Mr Jagger claimed Mr Dyke’s reply indicated the decision to fell the trees was a ‘fait accompli’ and that “retro- spective justification” only emerged after the event. Mr Dyke then addressed Question 2


AFTER


about replacements. He said that “be- fore being swamped by the sycamores the area was a fruit tree hedge bound- ing an orchard” and, with that in mind, a fruit hedgerow is to be planted as part of the Tree Council’s Harvest Hedgerow project. He said the pack was donated


to the council and consists of 12 dif- ferent varieties, including apple, plum, medlar, walnut, mulberry and hazel. Mr Dyke’s answer to Question 3


about public consultation: “We anticipate informing local residents and users of our intentions early in the autumn and will welcome any comments. The trees should be in by late autumn.” Question 4: Mr Dyke said the works had


cost £3,600 (as of August). Mr Jagger said the answers to Questions


2-4 showed the replacement decision was also a fait accompli. He wrote to the council on August 10:


“All in all, I think this is a totally inade- quate and unsatisfactory response.”


for, 2 abstentions.” But Mr Dyke did not refer to


an actual decision to fell the trees. He reiterated that he stood by his opinion in his Au- gust letter. He said that since that re- sponse, research had identi- fied, “a letter from a resident expressing concern about the sycamores in 1999, stating they were too close to their property boundary and that they were growing too large for the site”. Mr Dyke added: “Had action


been taken at this stage then is- sues now facing the parish council may have been avoided.”


You can e-mail the Downs Mail — info@downsmail.co.uk


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48