IN the face of staunch local opposition, Leeds City Council has vowed to press ahead and cut down two mature trees in Otley.

Dismayed campaigners said they still wanted last-ditch talks with the local authority to stop them destroying the trees - one of which is a mature oak believed to be 180 years old in Tittybottle Park as part of the revamp of the footbridge over the River Wharfe.

They say there should be a pause in the proceedings while proper discussions take place to work through all possible alternatives. However, the council has said it plans to cut the trees down, which protesters believe will be as early as Monday.

Their decision comes after Leeds North West MP Katie White held last-minute emergency online talks with Jonathan Pryor, the deputy leader of Leeds City Council (LCC), and local campaigners.

Several individuals and groups, including Otley 2030, have been pushing for the council to think again and delay the works so that alternative ideas could be properly thrashed out.

The council is about to start refurbishment of the ancient stone bridge over the river and is putting a temporary footbridge in place while the works take place, which they say necessitates the removal of the trees.

An Otley 2030 spokesperson said: "Local organisations are keen to work with LCC to get this project done well, and we feel that the lack of consultation with Otley residents is a grave misjudgement.

“We are grateful to Katie White for convening a meeting with Jonathan Pryor but the outcome was very disappointing with no clear answers provided.

“We believe that there is no good reason to remove the mature trees next week and that there are legal implications in LCC going ahead with the project.”

Katie White MP said: “In recent months, I have received hundreds of messages from concerned residents in Otley and beyond, deeply concerned by the planned tree felling and urging me to help find an alternative solution for the dangerous bridge.

“Ordinarily, I wouldn’t get involved in matters handled by the Council, but having spent my career focused on climate and nature, I feel strongly about these plans.

“My team and I are working tirelessly to explore every possible option to save the oak tree while ensuring the bridge can be safely replaced. I will continue to work closely with both the Council and local residents on this vital issue.”

The campaigners suggested an alternative design of a permanent footbridge instead of the temporary structure LCC is planning to build, but the council today dismissed the idea.

A Leeds City Council spokesperson said: “We have listened to local feedback and received representations from the community about the plans to replace Otley Bridge footbridge.

“During this process we learned about an alternative new footbridge proposal for the Wharfe at Otley developed by students.

“Upon examining this, it ignores the general access and land ownership issues, ecological constraints, flood risk and lacks consultation with Historic England and the Environment Agency.

“We very much regret that two mature trees will need to be removed to enable the installation of the temporary footbridge. We understand the importance of trees to the community and our policies to mitigate tree loss means we will plant several semi-mature trees on and off-site for each tree lost on scheme completion.”

The council spokesperson said their priority is for pedestrian safety, and that they urgently need to demolish the footway and replace it with a structure up to modern standards, as it’s coming to the end of its useful life span.

They added: “While keeping pedestrians access across the river, the temporary footbridge will allow the works to Otley Bridge footbridge to be carried out safely and minimise disruption to vehicle flow across the town. The only alternative to a temporary footbridge is to divert pedestrians over Otley Bridge, which would reduce the carriageway to one lane and need traffic lights to manage the lane closure.

“Based on previous experience, traffic lights at Otley Bridge cause significant delays to traffic, congestion, air pollution, and impact the town economically as people will stay away to avoid the traffic.

“We continue to receive feedback which supports the view that there would be significant consequences with this option.

"Vital work like this always involves disruption, and best efforts are being made to minimise this. We appreciate your understanding whilst we do this urgent work.”