This is the White Willow which is on highways ground next to the Elizabeth Way bridge but is still managed by the City Council.

I’ve not ignored the odd reasons given for chopping down trees. I’ve been repeatedly drawing attention to them, and have been challenging councillors when they claim they only fell diseased and dangerous trees.

I’ve written on this website about plans to fell trees for not being in straight lines on Jesus Green, the felling of trees on Parkers’ Piece to enable “more consistent planting” on one side, the felling of trees because they’re non-native at Brooklands Avenue and at Byron’s Pool as well as the misguided “diversity” arguments used to justify felling trees which shade watercourses at those latter two sites.

I asked about the council’s reported advice to EDF fell the Jesus Green Cherry trees both at the West Central Area committee and in my objection letter to the planning application.

I also made all these points when I spoke at the Community Services Scrutiny Committee in March 2009.

While councillors often say they’re felling trees because they’re diseased and dangerous many trees are being lost because of these other reasons. When I challenged Cllr Julie Smith for describing the trees to be felled on Jesus Green as “old and frail, poorly formed or diseased” she retracted this and claimed she had been misled by her officers.

civil servants work for Whitehall, that’s another branch of government entirely, which has a well-known code. Local government workers don’t have such a code and the rules are opaque at best.

I complained that there was no mention of the urgency of the work. If this point had been addressed it might have been answered in terms of probability.

The tone of what happened was that councillors were told the risk was non-zero and therefore decided to call in the chainsaws. Phrases such as “high risk” and “unacceptable risk” and “increasing risk as time goes on” were used by tree officers.

After all, when you live here what rights to behaving like other citizens are you signing away when you join the council. Is it clear? What does ‘impartial’ actually mean?

I think you will find that it is not at all clear.

Seven or eight years ago I applied for public sector roles myself which would have restricted my ability to participate in public debate so I have an awareness from that perspective.

Councillors and candidates from the City and County have responded to what has been written on this site, via comments, emails and references while speaking. It is treated similarly to other forums of discussion.

Are you sure someone connected to a council officer would not write a letter to the Cambridge News commenting on the officer’s area of work? That format might make it harder to identify and highlight a potential conflict of interest, though if one was identified - in the analogous situation of a postal address (or an unusual surname) of a correspondent matching that of a senior officer I would expect investigations to be carried out and if appriopriate an explanatory note printed.

I think there’s a bigger issue here which is what EXACTLY officers sign up to when they become officers.

i.e. are they no longer citizens with rights to say whatever the f*&k they like.

Exactly what rights do they sign away - like civil servants - or are they actually terribly vague, these ‘conditions’.

It doesn’t really matter if they are or are not commenting on an area they have a working interest in, the issue is what liberties are they signing away? What EXACTLY are they allowed to comment on publicly?

I can see where you are coming from prodding away at this but look at this from the other *citizen’s* perspective.

A better avenue, I would venture, is to ask why *they* are not responding to you as they might the CEN.

A note for you ‘followers’ I am not the Tree Officer in question. I just wished to raise a few points without being persicuted.

I note many major websites routinely publish the IP addresses of their contributors, by being active on the internet you are making your IP address known to all who you communicate with.

[I need a policy on moderation and anonymity - it's on the to-do list - comments welcome]

Diana Oviatt-Hamm is the City Council’s Principal Tree Officer. An electoral roll search indicates a Diana E Oviatt-Hamm lives with a Malcolm Oviatt-Hamm. A Malcolm Oviatt-Hamm runs a website selling plants at http://www.oviatt-ham.demon.co.uk/

I have not described the £12K tree ultrasound device as pointless, however the evidence presented from it did not convince me (or Cllr Blencowe). As I have said I do not know where on the tree the ultrasound cross section was taken.

I hope the council plans to (as I hope to) inspect the tree when it is felled to see if it really is almost half rotten as the scan indicated; that is how I plan to determine the effectiveness of the machine for myself. I had no opportunity to ask questions about the effectiveness of the machine before the planning meeting as the scan was only tabled at the meeting - seconds before I spoke. It was not introduced and explained at all until Cllr Blencowe asked what it showed.

Had the machine not been used to condemn the tree I don’t think the council would have any problem claiming it had no reason to think the tree was in any danger of falling should it have caused any damage. Trees and bits of trees fall down occasionally even with the council’s team of tree officers constantly inspecting them.

I wonder if the decision to spend 12K on the tree scanning machine went before an elected councillor or a committee? I believe I am the first person to publicise its existence or its cost and enable people to hold councillors to account for its purchase.

I am prepared to do all I can to prevent the spread of an American style compensation culture in this country.

Conversely, they are saying that if they hadn’t identified it as high risk, they *would* have a defence.

In other words, it all comes down to the £12K machine which they *have* to find a use for. (”This machine for finding rot inside trees… so, how many trees have we found like that? None!! Who authorised its purchase?”)

I think that unretouched (no ‘alarming dotted white lines’ added please) photos of the rot in the trunks must be posted on the Council website.