"Tree-hugging" protests backed by David Attenborough continue as council chops down trees to make way for controversial cycle lane

Opposition to the felling of 26 trees to make way for a cycle lane in Coventry, a campaign which received support from Sir David Attenborough and was subject to an unsuccessful High Court challenge, has continued as the council begins work to cut down the trees.

Tree surgeons have now removed some of the trees on Clifford Bridge Road, disgruntled residents continuing their protests by chaining bicycles and pinning notes to the trees, and sitting out on the pavement as council-contracted workmen continue the project. 

Trees cut down for Coventry cycle lane on Clifford Bridge Road (credit: Saw You On Foleshill Road/Facebook)

Attenborough previously expressed support for the campaign and more than 900 people turned up for a "tree hugging" protest last year, the council's plans since the subject of an unsuccessful High Court challenge from residents against the "destructive" proposals.

Tree hug to save 26 trees, Coventry (credit: gilly_t_photography on Facebook)

It all concerns a planned cycle lane on the road, a final stretch of a 6km (3.7-mile) Binley Cycleway, a £12m project that will connect the city centre with University Hospital Coventry. While most other sections are now complete, the Clifford Bridge Road section has faced delays and outspoken opposition from sections of the local community.

Binley Cycleway, Coventry (credit: Coventry City Council)

Residents have claimed they are not anti-cycling, instead genuinely "concerned about the safety of cyclists and vehicles", and accused the local council of spreading "misinformation" about their motives for opposing the cycleway. However, Coventry City Council has strongly rejected many of the complaints, the local authority's head of public realm Mark O'Connell having told us the whole reason the initial plans (which only included the loss of a small number of trees) were rejected was because of outrage at the loss of on-street parking and the road being narrowed.

> "They just don't want a cycleway": Campaigners criticised for staging country's largest tree hug to block "destructive" bike lane plans — while suggesting it could be built by "lighting up" nature reserve

There was, he noted, "obviously a lot of uproar, petitions, and public feeling" but ultimately "the increase in loss of trees is due to residents not being happy with the loss of parking in the first iteration".

A last-ditch attempt by residents to take their challenge to the High Court was rejected by a judge and the council's contractors have begun work removing the trees to make way for the cycle lane.

One resident Annette Bull reported watching "the utter devastation on Clifford Bridge Road" as the trees began to be cut down.

She said: "We have fought this unsafe cycle route, for many years, and decided we would waste our own time and pay homage to the beautiful trees that have graced the road for many years. We have had some lovely conversations with Beechwood Trees & Landscapes Ltd and the security team. They are mainly young lads, who are pawns in the situation. These lads have bills to pay like the rest of us.

"We could complain that Beechwood should not have taken the contract to fell the trees, as they are a local company, but they have the contract with Coventry City Council. The security team have been a bit over zealous, but I don't think they are overly keen to be there."

A bike was pictured left chained to one of the trees while another had a handwritten note protesting the council's plan.

Another resident, Dawn McCann, who has opposed the project throughout said: "The council haven't finalised the plans, for the cycleway, have no disability audit. Have a document they have kept hidden from us and most councillors. The document is an independent safety audit with 30 safety issues, showing the present plan to be unsafe for all.

Clifford Bridge Road driveways, Coventry (Google Maps) (credit: road.cc)

"Until a safe for all plan is produced, there is no need to remove the trees... it may be that eventually some of the trees could stay, who knows? Once they're gone, they're gone, we can't pop them back. Please stop the madness."

The council's report into the project appears to refute some of these claims and states, "The safety of all road users is paramount and has been considered."

It then explains the scheme has been designed to the relevant design standards and guidance such as LTN 1/20 and Inclusive Mobility and Manual for Streets. Stage 1 and Stage 2 Road Safety Audits, in accordance with GG119, have been undertaken on the scheme, while "collisions that have resulted in personal injury (PICs) have significantly reduced across the previously completed sections of Binley Cycleway".

> These controversial cycle lanes caused uproar — but what actually happened once infrastructure was installed?

"The total number of PICs have reduced from 33 in the three years prior to the scheme being opened to 12 post-scheme opening. PICs involving cyclists have reduced from nine to three. A joint design review panel with Transport for West Midlands and Active Travel England has been completed on the scheme. An Equality Impact Assessment has been undertaken."

Ms McCann has also claimed the "proposed cycleway is probably one of the most dangerous cycleways planned in England".

"This cycleway is not safe for anyone, pedestrians, residents and cyclists," she added. "We have been insisting on a safe for all plan. The trees are unfortunate victims of a ridiculous scheme. Build a cycleway, that isn't the problem, it's how unsafe it is. All our safety concerns and more are in this hidden independent safety report."

The "hidden independent safety report" in that quote refers to the Stage 1 road safety audit which McCann shared screenshots from on social media. It lists numerous recommendations which were made in response to the design, for example that the footway and cycleway should be widened to 3m to give cyclists and pedestrians sufficient space.

It also suggested a speed limit on the road should be reduced, a "suitable onward route should be provided for cyclists", and that give way markings added at junctions to require motorists to give way to pedestrians and cyclists.

Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry (credit: Google Maps)

When the case was heard at the High Court at the start of the month, deputy judge Richard Kimblin said "the decision taken is one which was plainly open to the decision-makers to make, and was plainly one which took account of all the material considerations – including, and expressly, the decision to remove the trees".

"The overarching decision is not one which can be reasonably said to be irrational," he added. "I have no doubt at all that the decision-makers were fully aware of the amenity value of the trees being familiar – as they will have been – with their local area and the long period of consultation and controversy which this scheme attracted."

A statement issued by solicitors representing those opposing the scheme expressed disappointment at the decision: "We are frustrated that after all the requests for information about the safety of the scheme and the trees by Coventry residents, it was only once we issued court proceedings that the council disclosed to us that it has in fact undertaken an independent safety audit."

The judge also addressed another disputed factor that had emerged numerous times, namely the health of the trees in question. The council told us many of the trees on Clifford Bridge Road are suffering from Ash dieback.

"They wouldn't all die tomorrow, but they would eventually die over the next 10 years, just at different rates," O'Connell explained. "So we can then introduce some replacement purpose-built tree pit, or some sort of native species which will flourish. But along the route where the trees are of significant value, we've actually narrowed the cycleway, so it's not 2m the whole the way through, saving those trees that have significant. So we haven't just gone carte blanche."

Despite some claims to the contrary about the trees' health from opponents to the scheme — at the High Court, the judge said assessments of the trees' health had been made by appropriate experts.

"Sir David agrees to save our trees" banner in Coventry (credit: Abigail Hinley on Facebook)

Reflecting on Attenborough's brief involvement (when he responded to a letter from an 11-year-old boy and advised him on how to stage a protest to halt the bike lane's construction, and told campaigners to ask for advice from the Wildlife Trust), O'Connell of Coventry City Council said: "He [Attenborough] advised him to go to the Wildlife Trust. And we have. They haven't raised any concerns. They haven't objected to the scheme."

> David Attenborough encourages boy to stage anti-cycle lane protest, as veteran broadcaster weighs in on plans to "sacrifice 26 irreplaceable trees" for new bike route

O'Connell also highlighted the apparent hypocrisy evident in the campaigners' suggestion to reroute the cycleway through a nearby parkland along the River Sowe – a plan, he says, which would wreak a lot more natural devastation than the proposed cutting of 26 trees on Clifford Bridge Road.

"One of the biggest things they've asked is 'why does it have to be on Clifford Bridge Road? Why can't it be an alternative route?'," he said. "And the main suggestion that came through time and time again was the River Sowe valley parkland. But there are obvious safety issues, the park's not overlooked, you'd have to organise lighting, and it's also a flood plain.

"But the primary issue is that to go through there, you'd have to fell a lot more than 26 trees. And we've made that quite clear when we've done the reanalysis from start to finish on this."

Coventry's head of public realm also compared the seemingly belligerent stance of the Clifford Bridge Road residents to those on the city's London Road, who he says were "happy to narrow the road to save the trees".

"If you read the publicity and the petition that went out around the trees, and they put up notices on trees and all sorts, you'd get why some people felt so passionately about it," he says.

"The sign will say 'the council want to chop down these trees for a cycleway, even though there's an alternative route, and it's better'. So it reads like the council are doing this because the council want to do this.

"There's no context about the history of it, the three iterations, the parking spaces, or road width, or the tree species. It's literally just 'the council want to chop down 26 trees, please help us stop them'.

"If you look at the carbon issue as well, there's 26 trees, but we're going to plant more trees than we take out. And we're aiming for modal shift – if you can take vehicles off the road, it has a much bigger impact than a tree would when it comes to carbon reduction.

"But all of that is lost, as it's all focused on 'these trees are critical, please help us'. And that's why it's got the traction it's got."