From Jim Fedrick on the Fiveways Community Notice Board Facebook Group.
WARNING: I’m not proud to admit this but yesterday I fell victim to a roofing scam, in Fiveways. This guy, Zac Mitchell, knocked on my door and pointed to a loose tile hanging out of my gutter, right over my path. He said it was a danger, and offered to get it out and clean the gutters while he was up there for £30. He was really insistent and ‘helpfully’ had colleagues down the road with a ladder, which was up against the front of my house before I’d even said yes. I said yes to get him to go away.
I went inside to get a key, and by the time I came out he had one of the half-pipe tiles on the crown of the roof off, and was telling me I had a hole in my roof which needed urgent fixing. My roof is not in brilliant shape, but the top of the roof looked ok enough before he got up there. He told he could fix it today for £1000. I told him no. He then asked me what I was going to do about the hole in the roof (that only he can have made), because the roof couldn’t just be left like that. I asked him to climb back up and replace the tiles he’d removed, but he wouldn’t without payment. The upshot was that in the end I agreed (or rather felt forced to agree) to £250 for him to ‘fix’ what he’d broken. (It sounds stupid but I thought where am I going to get another roofer from at short notice to fix it). I was completely flustered from the constant pressure, and the presence of his 2 hefty looking colleagues.
Anyway, he was up there for less than 5 minutes before he was back down, walking into my house uninvited, telling me it was fixed, and showing me photos of the job he’d done. He tried to charge me another £60 for a ‘special sealant’ he’d put on but this time I did manage to say no, that I wasn’t paying him money for something I hadn’t asked for.
I didn’t have cash, which irked him, so he produced his wife’s bank card and asked for a transfer into there, which I did from my phone. Even when the alerts flashed to ask whether this was a scam, he was stood right over me, and I allowed it to continue. Unsurprisingly, he didn’t have any receipt for me. By the time he went, I was shaking like a leaf.
The whole thing felt like it had played out in slow motion, and immediately, even during, it felt like I was being scammed, but the pressure I felt in the moment was like nothing I’d felt before.
Anyway, I’m sure there are plenty who will want to tell me I’m a mug, or that I got what I deserved (I feel stupid just typing this out), but I thought it was worth posting on here in the hope others can avoid the same fate.
Using the wife’s details I was able to find her, and then him, on Facebook. I’m going to hand her bank details to the police, and report what happened, but obviously I’m unlikely to get my money back. I’m glad it wasn’t any more money.
More significantly, I don’t feel as safe in my home as I did. He knows where I live and I do worry he’ll come back, particularly if I notify police.
They drive a black 4×4 / van with A1 Property Maintenance on it. There’s also an email address on the side jharrisonroofing@gmail.com. They appear to be Chertsey or Addlestone based.
Apologies for the length of the post. Hope it helps someone.
Yes, the end of an era … We are no longer involved with the planter at Preston Circus. Some of us first started planting up planters there back in 2011 and 2012.
In 2013, we were awarded funding for planting up four abandoned planters at the Circus. We also organised a workshop guided by Bridget and Deborah at The Garden House. We planted up the four planters in different schemes, and for a while they thrived. We also obtained funding for a water butt installed at the Calvary Church.
There was then a Council initiative to ‘declutter’ at Preston Circus and remove the black planters and the railings. The planters were moved up Viaduct Rd where they have functioned as traffic calming devices. Meanwhile, the area outside the Duke of York’s cinema was resurfaced to create a more pleasant pedestrian space, the Duke of York’s put out cafe chairs and tables and the Council commissioned a custom-designed planter and planting plan, which we agreed to help maintain. That was in 2016-17.
The original planting for the new planter aimed to be drought-tolerant: lavenders, rosemary and achillea were among the plants selected. Sadly, the very strong winds and summer droughts meant that the original plants did not thrive. Over the years, we re-planted the planter with a variety of plants: some thrived, e.g. the old sedum we inherited from replanting at The Level, and some beautiful dianthus; quite a few didn’t and some – increasingly – were simply removed by passers by. Why anyone would want to uproot a straggly rosemary that we were nurturing is beyond me, but depressingly, it happened.
With the pandemic, our efforts came to a standstill but we replanted in the spring of 2021 with a range of foliage plants propagated in our gardens, and in fact, they survived well through last summer.
Sadly, Brighton and Hove City Council saw fit to place four large dumpster bins in front of, and then right next to, our poor old planter. This has meant that people started dumping rubbish in the planter and it was clear that maintaining it was going to be tricky without the heavy dumpsters being moved. This last winter, the wood on the side of the planter next to the dumpsters has rotted.
We were ready in May this year to start replanting and renovating the planter; we were particularly excited as we applied for and received a voucher from the Council for purchasing pollinator flowering plants. We asked for the dumpsters to be moved away from the planter.
However, for whatever reasons, this has not happened, and more rubbish has been dumped on the planter. Sadly, the Duke of York’s ‘square’ seems destined to be a rubbish collection point, rather than the pleasant ‘square’ we imagined back in 2015-16, so we felt it was pointless to invest any further energy in bringing the planter back into bloom. We’ve removed the plants that were growing there, and notified the Council we will no longer maintain the planter.
It was always a difficult site, and has perhaps become more difficult over the years. Increasingly, we ‘lost’ showy flowering plants shortly after they were planted. It was sometimes an effort trekking down to Preston Circus and carrying full watering cans from the Calvary Church to the Duke of York’s.
But wouldn’t it be wonderful if Brighton and Hove City Council could ‘declutter’ their own dumpster bins and find an alternative way of collecting refuse? Continental cities manage to construct local refuse collection points underground with a limited surface presence. Sadly, we’ve not got there yet … and so we continue to live with huge unsightly black dumpsters, and ‘our’ planter is no more.
One of the original black planters before we replanted it in 2011Planting up in May 2021Installing and planting the new planter in March 2017The sad ‘new’ planter and the dumpsters in May 2022The old black planter at the Duke of York’s looking colourful August 2014Old black planter at Duke of York’s looking colourful in 2012
Following on from our successful event in May, those aged 16 and over are warmly invited to join us in the park to create a piece of art using a medium of your choice – pencils, coloured pencils, paint, pastels, ink, collage, mixed media or any other. It will be a great day to meet other people with an artistic temperament and to share experience and knowledge.
Meet for a short briefing near the Chalet Cafe at 10.00 am. Don’t forget to bring all your own art materials. You can then choose any location in the park to create your artwork, being considerate of other park users. Preston Park has many places where you can find interesting subject matter and work directly from life.
Meet back at Chalet Cafe at 13.00 pm to share your work with your colleagues.
Any artwork you create does remain your property but we will ask your consent to take a photograph. We hope to share these online and perhaps in an exhibition in the Park.
The long-awaited planning application for the Gasworks was first made public on December 10th.
It didn’t get off to a great start. Many of the 214 documents comprising the application were initially in a sorry mess. Many of them were complex technical documents over 100 pages long. Dozens of them were untitled.
We wrote to the Case Officer as follows,
“We are concerned…. that the Design and Access Statement had been divided into 16 documents, none of which had any title or gave any indication on the website of the contents of each of those 16 documents…..The situation got even worse when we looked at the Environmental Statement Vol.2. This document has been cut up into 61 sections, not a single one of which gives any indication of its contents. This makes it virtually impossible to be able quickly and easily to find and view the content of all the 61 documents without spending an enormous amount of time.
Even we, who are used to trawling through planning applications, found it confusing and inconsistent. How Joe Public will be able to navigate his or her way through this impenetrable arrangement is beyond us.”
It took a week for the Council to arrange the documentation to make it a bit less confusing. But it still wasn’t very clear. There were still dozens of documents which gave no clue as to their contents.
But the upshot of this mess was that the date when the public consultation officially started was delayed to a week later on 17 Dec. Yes, just before we all downed tools to enjoy our Christmas break. We had to get our objections in by 21 January.
It led to a very hectic few weeks.
Campaign report
Members of the Gasworks coalition of which the Brighton Society is a member, have been meeting every week via Zoom to review and discuss the enormous number of issues raised by the planning application, our responses to all those issues and how best to to organise the campaign on the ground, via social media and using the Brighton Society and AGHAST websites, to get as many people as possible to object to the planning application.
So far as we can tell there have now been around 650 objections lodged with the Council. For comparison there were about 130 objections lodged against the huge Marina development which was recently turned down at appeal.
The Brighton Society objection runs to 30 pages. That’s probably a record for us. You can read the full objection on our website – www.brighton-society.org.uk
We have also been in contact with Historic England and Save Britain’s Heritage to inform them of our concerns about heritage issues.
There were so many objections in the few days prior to the end of the consultation period on 21 January, that the Planning Dept was forced to put up this notice on its website, saying that,
“over the last few days we have received 450 letters from people commenting on this planning application. Our team are working hard to scan them, redact personal information and upload them onto the Planning Register. However it is likely to take until the end of next week for all of these comments to be visible on our system”.
In other words they couldn’t cope. It took two weeks or so to get all the recently submitted 650 objections up on the Council website. Perhaps a small measure of our success so far.
Identification of the Brighton Society’s objection
Besides the number of objections, we have had one other small success too. For some years now we have been fighting a battle with the Council to persuade them not to redact information from objections lodged by the Brighton Society. Not only have they redacted (ie blacked out) the name of the Society from our objections but also our address, the name of the signatory – and even worse, they have refused to identify us on the list of objections on its website. So in a case like the Gasworks where there are hundreds and hundreds of objections, ours would just disappear without trace somewhere into the middle of pages and pages of other anonymous objectors.
We asked before Christmas that this policy be changed so that our objection would be identified. It was refused. So we asked again when our 30 page objection was submitted. And this time it was agreed! The Brighton Society’s objection has now been identified on the Council website. And it now stands out in the middle of all the others.
And there is more good news. Save Britain’s Heritage has made an excellently argued objection to the Gasworks proposals. To have the strong support of a nationally recognised heritage organisation such Save Britain’s Heritage is invaluable.
Important issues
There are two important issues which have emerged.
The first is affordable housing. There is NO affordable housing currently proposed in the planning application. This contravenes Council policy. Under Council rules the application should never have been validated in its current form. You can read more about this under section 9 of the objection.
The second issue is Fire Safety. The Health & Safety Executive has lodged its strong concerns as it appears that the building designs do not comply with new Fire Safety policies introduced in August last year, partly as a consequence of the Grenfell disaster. Section 5.5 of our objection provides more information.
Email to councillors
The Gasworks Coalition has emailed the Head of Planning copied to all councillors requesting that the planning application be withdrawn as it should never have been validated. We are waiting to see what response we get before making a decision on the next steps. One option we are considering is whether to ask the Secretary of State to call in the application on the grounds that planning issues of national importance are involved in both the affordable housing and fire safety issues.
We have had a few responses from councillors including one from Cllr Phélim Mac Cafferty, Leader of the Council, promising that the Head of Planning, Liz Hobden would respond to our concerns.
She did respond to our email, but far from allaying any concerns we had, she has actually increased them. There are so many more questions that her reply has raised that we have felt compelled to ask lots more questions, which we have now fired back to her (again copying our response to all councillors).
What is the current status of the Planning Application?
Our concerns were inflamed even more by the publication by the Council of a statement on the Planning Portal. This seemed to imply – but didn’t say definitely – that the planning process was now subject to the outcome of discussions about further information on design and affordable housing issues being received from the Berkeley Group.
It just added yet another layer of confusion to the situation leading us to ask the following questions:
– What is now the status of the current application?
– Will there be another consultation following further discussions between the Council and Berkeley?
– If so, what would be the start and end dates for the further consultations?
– Where are we in the planning process? Is it stopped? Is it continuing?
– Who is in control of it?
– What is the significance of the March 16 “End Date” set out in the statement on the Planning Portal?
– Are the Council and Berkeley trying to force through a planning approval before the new government affordable housing measures relating to a 25% First Homes requirement come into force on March 28?
– Is that why the planning application was accepted earlier than it should have been, without either a commitment to 40% affordable or without an FVA?
We don’t yet know the answers to all these questions. But the Planning Dept now finally appears to have realised the extent of the opposition to this scheme and have announced a further round of public consultation. Quite what that means is anybody’s guess. We included the following comment in a long list of questions to the Head of Planning;
“We are now in a sort of no-man’s-land where the application is proceeding, the Council are attempting to draw up an as yet undefined list of further issues to discuss with the developer, the results of which will be put out for some form of public consultation, the timescale for which is unknown.”
We need a meeting to discuss the answers to our questions
Local councillor for East Brighton ward Nancy Platts, in response to the questions we made to the Head of Planning, contacted her and the Council’s Legal Advisor. Although we haven’t had a reply from the Head of Planning the Legal Advisor made a few interesting comments:
“It is a matter of fact that an unredacted viability assessment for schemes proposing non policy-compliant affordable housing on viability grounds is one of the Council’s validation requirements. This is as agreed by the Tourism, Development & Culture Committee in January 2018. Accordingly a viability assessment should have accompanied the planning application.
However, in the absence of any court order quashing the decision to validate, the validation of the application without a viability assessment does not mean that the application must be held to be invalid and the process halted. Nevertheless, I must stress that the provision of affordable housing will, of course, be a material planning consideration in the determination of the application and the application will not be determined without the viability assessment having been provided. The applicant confirmed, yesterday, that the financial viability assessment will be provided by 16 March next at the latest.”
This shows that it would require a court order to quash the decision to validate. But crucially it does not deny the fact that the decision was unlawful.
It also confirms that discussions on affordable housing are ongoing between Berkeley St William and the Council. We have heard too (on the grapevine), that Berkeley are in discussion with a leading national Housing Association, presumably in an attempt to convince the Council that some affordable housing might be a possibility……..? We shall have to wait and see.
But the intervention from Nancy Platts has resulted in a suggestion from the Head of Planning that a few members of the Gasworks coalition and a few local councillors meet her to discuss our questions. The Coalition has replied to say that we are very happy to have a meeting – but only to discuss the answers to our questions. So we have written again to the Head of Planning as follows, listing 20 questions at the end of the email to which we would like her answers:
Dear Liz Hobden,
The Gasworks Coalition wrote to you on 1 February with a series of questions arising from your response dated 27 January to our earlier email.
Councillor Nancy Platts subsequently approached you to help get our questions answered.
We understand that you offered to arrange a meeting with Cllr Platts, up to two other councillors and a few representatives of the Gasworks Coalition to talk about our questions.
The Coalition has discussed that idea but the consensus view is that, although we would very much like to have a meeting with you, it would be far better to discuss your answers to our questions rather than just our questions, which have already been clearly expressed. We have also taken account of advice we have received from a Planning Consultant we have commissioned.
We have not had any answers from you yet – but we have seen a copy of an email from the Council’s Legal Advisor to Cllr Platts, dated 17 February, which does provide some useful information, in particular that Berkeley St William will provide a Financial Viability Assessment by 16 March at the latest, and following that, a further round of consultation will be carried out.
But otherwise it confirms our view that the validation requirement still stands and should have been complied with. It fails to explain why the application is not ‘invalid’ – stating only that the LPA registered the application despite it being invalid.
We are therefore requesting once again that you provide your written answers to our questions.
Once we have your responses and after a reasonable period to consider them, we would be very happy to attend the meeting you have offered to arrange.
We have set out the questions in the form of a simple list. We hope this format will help you to provide clear answers.
We also note that there are two outstanding Freedom of Information requests in relation to the Gasworks development to which the Council has consistently failed to respond. The status of the first of these (still unanswered after over a year), which requested information on pre-application correspondence between the Planning Dept and Berkeley St William, is currently the subject of a Decision Notice from the ICO, which has given the council until March 15 to provide the information requested.
The other is currently being considered by the ICO following our complaint to them that the Council has failed to provide the information within the required four-week period.
When we receive information on either or both of these FOI requests, we would appreciate being given time to consider the findings before the date of any Planning Committee meeting is finalised. 30 days would seem to us to be a reasonable period.
We look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely, on behalf of the Brighton Gasworks Coalition
Jeremy Mustoe
Rupert Radcliffe-Genge
Questions from the Brighton Gasworks Coalition: 23 February 2022
Why was the application validated without either a commitment to 40% affordable housing or a Financial Viability Assessment (FVA)? We do not accept the argument that this gave more time for objections. If that was the case why did the yellow Public Notices put up around the area give a deadline for objections as 14 January?
Who took the decision to validate the application without an FVA?
– Was it the Planning Dept?
– Was it discussed by TECC?
– Was it discussed with any councillors?
– If so who?
Was the question discussed with the Council’s Legal Advisor before validation or after?
Or when Cllr Platts asked the question in her email dated 13 February?
You say Berkeley is being “pushed” to provide its proposals on affordable housing?
Why, given that there was a requirement for affordable housing before the application could be validated?
We now understand that an FVA will be submitted by Berkeley St William by 16 March at the latest.
– Will it be transparent, unredacted and open book?
– Will it be available for public inspection and comment?
– Will it set out the information in a readable format able to be understood by non-specialists, including all the key variables defined and their sources declared?
Is the first consultation still proceeding or is it now stopped entirely?
What discussions are being held with Berkeley? What are the topics being discussed which might result in further amended proposals?
What timescale is being envisaged for these discussions? Has Berkeley agreed to any timescale?
What does a “full round of consultation” mean? Is it the same as “further public consultation”? How long is a “full round”. When will this start?
Who will be consulted again? The public? Statutory Consultees? Amenity Societies? All objectors?
National organisations such as Historic England and Save Britain’s Heritage?
What is the current status of the approximate number of 630 objections already lodged?
Will they still be taken into account in a consultation on any future proposals?
If new proposals are introduced, will the whole process have to start again?
Will new objections need to be made to any new or revised proposals?
Is the reason that the FVA was not insisted upon at the time the planning application was lodged, related to the fact that after 28 March, new government requirements will apply and at least 25% of affordable homes provided will have to be First Homes?
Was this an attempt to circumvent these new requirements by validating the application before the required FVA was submitted, in an attempt to get the application decided before 28 March?
If – as now seems highly likely – the application will be decided after 28 March, will the new planning rules referred to in Question 16 then apply?
Why has the Council consistently for the past 12 months, refused to respond to the Brighton Society’s Freedom of Information Request asking to see pre-application correspondence between the Council and the Berkeley Group?
Why has the Council recently failed to comply with our Freedom of Information request to see the minutes of three meetings with the Council on viability and affordable housing? These meetings are listed in the Planning Statement submitted by the applicant and should be in the public domain.
We are back with our in person events at a new venue in North Brighton. We will be able to help you fix clothing, textiles, small electrical goods, bric a brac and software issues on computers.
BH2021/04167 – Brighton Gasworks Land Bounded By Roedean Road (B2066), Marina Way And Boundary Road Brighton BN2 5TJ – OBJECTION
Comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment comprising site preparation and enabling works, demolition of existing buildings and structures; provision of new buildings comprising residential use (Use Class C3) and flexible non-residential floorspace (Use Class E), new private and communal amenity space, public realm, landscaping; car and cycle parking, highway works, access and servicing arrangements; associated plant, infrastructure and other associated works including interim works. (For information: Proposed buildings to be erected range from 3no. to 12no. storeys, with 553no. residential units (Use Class C3) and 2,697m2 (GIA) flexible non-residential floorspace (Use Class E)).
Submission on behalf of the Kemp Town Society (KTS)
1.OVERVIEW / SUMMARY
The Kemp Town Society (KTS), whilst welcoming development of this site, noting it has remained undeveloped for many decades, strongly objects to the proposed mixed-use redevelopment. KTS further notes, that no learnings appear to have been incorporated from the overturning and recent ruling on the Brighton Marina development.
The Grade 1 Kemp Town Estate is a Conservation Area of national importance. It is unique amongst Britain’s Conservation Areas, all buildings being listed. This status demands it is given exceptional protection against harm from developments which could be detrimental to the quality of its character.
The proposed Gasworks development, an urban conglomeration including eleven densely packed tall buildings (over seven stories), neighbours the Grade I Listed buildings of the Kemp Town Estate. The density of the proposed development is significantly out of proportion with all surrounding architecture, comprising 553 residential units and 2697sqm of commercial space. This will have a serious and detrimental impact on current infrastructure, quality of life for residents and visitors, and public health and safety issues.
2. IMPORTANCE OF HERITAGE ASSETS AND LASTING HARM FROM THE GASWORKS PROPOSAL
From Brighton Pier to Roedean School, Marine Parade and Marine Drive together form one of the longest, continuous stretches of seafront in the country, of unparalleled high architectural quality. There are over 200 Listed buildings and structures along its length of two miles, making it the country’s most impressive marine façade to the sea. Immediately adjacent to the proposed Gasworks development, is the Kemp Town Conservation Area which incorporates the Grade 1 Listed Lewes Crescent, Sussex Square, and Chichester and Arundel Terraces; and the Grade II Listed French Convalescent Home. To the east, the locally listed Marine Gate and the Grade II listed Roedean School.
It is imperative that any development on the Gasworks site is of first-class architectural quality and respects the scale, height and character of the consistent architectural excellence of the neighbouring buildings. The proposed development conspicuously fails to respect the architectural distinction of the surrounding buildings
KTS is supportive of this redundant site being redeveloped for housing, which will make a valuable contribution to resolving the BHCC’s housing targets. The current proposal does not include details of affordable housing, important to create a sustainable local community. The current proposal for a densely packed conglomeration of tall blocks will dominate its surrounding neighbours by sheer size, height, scale, density and massing, with impact well beyond the curtilage of the development. With the Marina development now turned down, any proposal that tall buildings are acceptable on the Gasworks site is no longer relevant.
4. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE BRIGHTON MARINA APPEAL
The Planning Inspector for the Brighton Marina Appeal was critical of the jarring relationship of the Marina proposals to the Heritage Assets in the immediate vicinity. Endorsed by the Planning Inspector and the Secretary of State, these are more relevant when applied to the relationship of the tall, densely packed buildings of the Gasworks development to those of the same Heritage assets as described.
It is the opinion of KTS, these grounds alone are sufficiently strong to justify refusal of this planning application. It asks the Council take note of the precedent set by the Brighton Marina appeal decision, and reject the Gasworks planning application outright.
5. DECONTAMINATION
KTS notes the Gasworks site is not identified as a ‘special site’ under Contaminated Land Regulations 2006. Decontamination procedures are effectively excluded from this planning application. Due to the significant risk of developing the site, KTS is not able to support without a detailed contamination survey, to establish there are no health and safety risks to Kemp Town Estate residents, visitors and neighbouring areas. The height and bulk of the proposed buildings, will maximise risks of deep excavations into contaminated ground.
6. INFRASTRUCTURE
A development of the proposed scale will inevitably stretch demands of current infrastructure. The planning application does not address the issues resulting from 553 additional residential units (c. 1000 new residents) and 2697 sqm of commercial space, including:
pressure placed on current medical and educational provision, and parking and public transport, all of which are currently fully used by local residents;
disruption of the congested A259 and Eastern Road thoroughfares, from additional traffic during both the construction stage and in its completed state;
impact on access to the Royal Sussex County Hospital as a result of the additional road usage;
health risk from pollution levels arising from increased vehicle usage (private, public and commercial);
vehicles from proposed development (private and commercial) competing for limited existing car parking spaces;
pedestrian safety concerns from increased traffic.
It is on these six grounds, KTS registers on behalf of its members its strong objection to: BH2021/04167 – Brighton Gasworks Land Bounded By Roedean Road (B2066), Marina Way And Boundary Road Brighton BN2 5TJ.
Our mini-orchard is coming up for ten years old! It’s hard to believe that we planted our cordonned fruit trees – four apples and two pears – back in March 2012. They’ve done well and given us lots of fruit, particularly the pears.
The last couple of years we’ve faced a few challenges. Because of lockdowns and restrictions, we’ve not always been able to get in to prune and/or tend to them in January-February and July-August, which are key moments. We’ve also had serious attacks of rosy aphids, woolly aphids leading to leaf curl; a couple of the trees have been affected by canker but we’ve managed to cut out affected wood. And this year, we had reports of somebody reaching over to harvest several bags worth of our precious pears. We hope they were enjoyed – some have tried picking them before they are ripe – but would obviously prefer for this not to happen!
But the trees have really grown, now requiring a tall ladder to prune the tops. The top left photo shows them before pruning this January. I finally got around last week to doing winter pruning (normally reserved for renovating the shape of the trees). The other photos show the cordons looking a little like shorn sheep after pruning.
Forget about the usual advice to cut back all laterals to three or four buds – our cordons are trying really hard to be proper grown-up apple trees. I’ve managed to cut back the leader stems to the top of our wires and to then try to cut the laterals so that we don’t have any growing forward and weak growth is pruned. It’s always a bit hit and miss … our trees just don’t look like the pruning advice pictures!
I don’t find it easy cutting back our beloved trees but previous years’ experience does suggest it’s for the best. I’ve covered the major cuts with a wound sealant and at least this year, we should be able to monitor the trees for any infestations as they come into bud. Fingers crossed!
Southdown Rise Residents Association 