http://www2.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/db/pressrel.nsf/6fcbd4565a583c6480256b52004254fd/f05c01229ea4156d802577930053eeed?OpenDocument

Not all trees and saplings growing on the sides of the brook have been removed - the effect is drastic, but less extreme than it could have been. It appears that the banks have been reshaped and cut sharply in places.

One side effect of clearing vegetation from the bank is that goats (and sheep?) grazing on Sheep’s Green now able to walk up the bank and continue the council’s work keeping the plants down. I expect this is an unintentional consequence of the work and the fence will now need repairing. I quite like the idea of the council’s tree officers using goats - I expect they’ll be cheaper than their usual contractors.

I was told that the Executive Councillor has not yet made the decision, despite having been sitting on it for five weeks.

They have a drain doing straight into the brook. In fact they have an extensive amount of underground drainage equipment (which has been replaced at least once whilst building due to mechanical equipment damaging it) costing over £10,000 a set (I heard) that I guess all trickles out into the brook. I don’t know if this sort of thing was taken into consideration at any point.

One of my issues with all this, as well as what everyone else has said is that if they cared atall about trees blocking waterways they’d have cleared the trees that have been sagging into the main river itself, those smaller trees that are dipped well into the water or maybe even remove the tree that fell into the stream that leads under Fen Causeway up to Bella Italia. That was well over a year ago and causes debris and water blockage as well as impeding birds going up and down that stretch.

My email to the council asking what happened at the planning meeting has not been responded to. They don’t have a culture of transparency and freedom of information.

I did not attend; I have asked officers what happened but they have not yet replied.

I think the council ought publish “decision notices” as soon as possible following meetings so that wider public don’t have to wait until the minutes are released to find out what was decided.

I have been told that the Council’s new protocol will be followed. However that requires public (and councillor) notification of the proposals which does not appear to have taken place.

It reveals that the planning committee are going to be asked to advise the Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation, Julie Smith, on if these trees ought be felled or not.

I asked about the decision making process on the 28th of April but have not yet had a reply.

Despite this not being a planning application members of the public, who are not formal objectors or supporters of planning applications can’t speak on it at the meeting. If the planning committee is to start considering non-planning matters routinely then this ought be changed. There has been much less public notification of these works than there would be for a planning application.

The decision will presumably go to the community services scrutiny committee after it has been taken to the planning meeting. At that meeting any member of the public will be able to speak.

A reader has pointed out that the report states Newnham ward councillors have been consulted; however the works are in Trumpington ward.

As of today, those writing their objections on the notice have been bolder with:

It looks as if the council have either cleaned off the previous scrawled comments or replaced the notice.

Formally objecting to tree felling needs to be made as easy, if not easier, than getting some sticky-back paper and a black marker and defacing the notice.

The Councils are getting away with envirnmental destruction by not even putting a Planning reference on tree felling work, making th item more difficult to track through committees.
But our guess is that it will not even surface. These decisions are taken in secret by officers. Your money is buying in-house “experts” who will not brook external opinions, and will not allow third party expert reports which refute their own.
Democracy does not apply to British trees.
St George’s Day 23rd April 2009`

Their groundwork activity is unfortunately very typical of the current style of public environmental management, i.e. interventionist, heavy machinery, employment opportunities, budget preservation, “public safety” measures, potential development area when the immediate fuss from Nature Lovers has died down.

There is something odd about the felling proposal since the stated deadline was actually Good Friday.

In our experience, plans that are engineered to hit a public holiday often go unchallenged, so we would regard this plan and its intended outcome, whatever that may be, as a contentious issue.

We would like to encourage everyone who feels upset by local plans to write a letter or e-mail stating their views to the Council. If they don’t receive any objections, the Council will just carry on regardless and assume everyone is happy. This may seem a bit simplistic, but we are all responsible for their actions on our behalf and therefore must remain vigilant.

With your permission, we would respectfully encourage anyone who would like to regain Common Ownership of the Fen to join our lobby via Campaigns at: http://www.stgeorgestrust.com

We are willing to help private campaigners on a voluntary basis on any environmental issues if we are able to do so.

Many thanks and congratulations to Richard Taylor for his excellent blogsite and public spirited ethic in this Big Brother era of the world.

Currently the reasoning is unclear, and internally inconsistent.

None of the trees to be felled would impede the flow, in flood, as much as the pipes under this bridge:

Well done again Richard for helping bring attention to the latest enormity