‘Benefits outweigh the negatives’: Plans to cut down ‘ancient’ trees to make way for hospital rebuild

A campaign group has accused planners of lacking “wisdom” amid plans to cut down a number of “ancient” trees to make way for a hospital rebuild.Extinction Rebellion King’s Lynn & West Norfolk (KLXR) says that when a new Queen Elizabeth Hospital is erected, trees which have stood four times as long as the existing building could be removed.Members believe that any new ones planted could take two centuries to grow into suitable replacements – although hospital bosses have defended the plans by saying that space is “extremely limited”.

The space the trees currently occupy has been set aside for a new sterile services department, and the importance of this facility has been highlighted.It is therefore considered that the benefits of removing the trees to provide the vital services in the department will outweigh the negatives of removing the trees.No decision has been made at this stage, and the campaign group has called for the trees to be protected. A spokesperson for KLXR said: “We understand the pressures that the QEH and the NHS as a whole is under, but nature and our climate are under great pressure too.”They said a member of staff at the QEH told them the trees have stood four times longer than the hospital has existed, and that they find the idea of removing them “disgusting”. “The hospital was built around these trees, presumably, the planners had the wisdom to know the value of ancient trees,” the KLXR spokesperson added.“That wisdom seems to be forgotten in these plans today.”Ancient trees cannot be replaced with new trees. It takes a long time for trees to develop to support a vast range of species and habitats. These trees are 200 years old, it will take 200 years for new planting to be a replacement. “The trees have so-called ‘tree preservation orders’ which unfortunately don’t provide much protection. We call on the council to protect these ancient trees.”However, Paul Brooks, the director of estates and facilities at the QEH, drew attention to the urgent need for a rebuild of the country’s most crumbling hospital.He also stressed the importance of a new, up-to-date sterile services department.“Space on our site is extremely limited for the level of work we need to undertake due to our ongoing RAAC programme,” Mr Brooks said. “Limiting our impact on the environment is very important to the trust, and prior to selecting this area, we surveyed several potential alternative locations across the site – unfortunately, due to the services we require, none of these were suitable.“The removal of trees is not something we would do unless absolutely necessary. As part of the planning application, we have proposed to plant 58 new trees in place of the eight that need to be removed.“The new landscaped areas which form part of the plans, will provide a range of native trees and grassland, including bird, bee and bat boxes to encourage more wildlife, delivering a net gain in biodiversity as a result of the proposals.”Jo Rust, a borough council cabinet member who represents the Springwood ward and has also been a prominent member of the Save the QEH campaign group, has also weighed in on the issue. Overall, she believes the benefits of a new hospital outweigh the negatives of removing the trees.”As a borough councillor who had been a member of the planning committee and the chair of that committee, I am fully aware that there is a formal process that has to be followed,” she said.“As such the QEH has submitted a planning application on a part of the site that it has identified for a proposed new services building.“The council is required to decide the application on the individual merits in line with planning policy, as it must with any application. “Tree Protections Orders (TPOs) are a planning consideration in their own right. This means that the unfortunate loss of protected trees must be balanced carefully against the gain from any proposed development.“The hospital is also legally required to submit a plan for achieving a 10% biodiversity net gain from the development. It’s important to know that at this moment in time, no decision has been made.”As the ward councillor for Springwood, I wholeheartedly support this application. While I’m uncomfortable with the loss of these significant trees, I feel that the benefits outweigh the negatives.“If we can’t supply sterile services in our hospital, it would have to close down and we would be forced to take to our cars more and travel a further distance. “The loss of these trees is not ideal at all. In normal circumstances, I’d be fighting to save them.“But none of the circumstances here is what any one of us would have wanted. As a ward councillor, not as a cabinet member, I will be supporting this application.”