Comments on: Cambridge City Council to Debate Tree Felling Policy

By: Robin Hull

Robin Hull — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:23:26 +0000

I came upon your website while making a search around the announcement, (Daily Telegraph 16 June), that Lord Young of Graffham is to review the Heath and Safety regulations and that he aims to put “commonsense back into health and safety” rules. Our trees are clearly under attack across the country on the basis of unacceptable interpretations of H&S requirements. I live in Islington, north London, and make representations through a couple of amenity groups as well as personally to my local council – who seem to have a more open ear than yours – on tree matters and on Islington’s draft tree policy. I have found the Woodland Trust approachable and supportive of urban trees. There is a large body of published work in the form of reports on the need to maintain trees and woodland, and within council tree policies. Please email me if you would like me to send some to you or give you the links.

By: Paris Hague

Paris Hague — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:29:15 +0000

The tree felling situation is appalling across the country. Tree felling proposals are not even given planning references. It is secret method of extracting public money which lands in the hands of felling contractors. Insult is added to injury by Councils stealing common land and managing it to death by chainsaw and JCB, turning wild places into instant municipal parks, and then, if the Council feels like it, development sites.
St George’s Trust contacted the City Council and found that our objection, over which so much trouble was taken, had not resulted in the Coe Fen/Vicar’s Brook felling getting on to the agenda of next week’s 29th April Planning Committee. Presumably this means that officers overruled the objection.

I am writing this on the night of St George’s Day, 23rd April to highlight Britain’s greatest travesty. In our worst recession since World War 2, we are still awash with money to destroy the world we need to live in. There is no democracy for tree-lovers.

But mechanical tree felling has just been made a lucrative job for the foreseeable future. How stupid. The nanny state (”tree felling is for your own safety”) has just revealed herself as the evil stepmother. How dangerous for her children is that?

By: Brian Johnson

Brian Johnson — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:24:50 +0000

So, the council are

(a) ignoring petitions and

(b) requiring individual objectors to use a product made from dead trees in order to voice their objections about chopping down trees?

Okay. I think I see what’s happening here.

By: John Lawton

John Lawton — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:23:12 +0000

Thanks Richard, this is excellent. At a recent meeting to discuss the future for Jesus Green, it was admitted that a more cautious tree safety policy is in operation nationally due to the requirements of the insurance industry. This means more precautionary felling.
It was also stated that the Addenbrookes roundabout trees had significant rot.
As Councillor Howell has asked, how do you quantify risk? I agree with you that after felling there should be a post-mortem to determine whether the assessed risk was in fact correct.