Council tree-felling plans

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Brian L Johnson

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 5:14:00 AM8/11/09
to
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/plans-to-fell-trees-on-lammas-land.html

Exec summary:

Intended to go ahead without public consultation, 18 trees were to be cut
down and 8 others planted at some point in the future.

--
-brianlj-

magwitch

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 6:44:38 AM8/11/09
to
How (from the picture) do those trees impinge on the tennis
courts/bowling greens in any way?

Brian L Johnson

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 7:14:59 AM8/11/09
to
magwitch <magw...@invalid.net> wrote:

From
http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/docs/Lammas%20Land%20tree-works%20map.pdf
(2.2 MB)

I can see that a few trees lean over the courts. I can't imagine that
they'd get in the way of actual play, but they may be shedding leaves in
autumn. The ones around the bowling green... well, I'd say that they
formed a much-appreciated barrier between the green and the road.

--
-brianlj-

magwitch

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 9:19:53 AM8/11/09
to
We are faced with the prospect of an avenue of 50 aspen poplar trees
being felled imminently. Some have succumbed to wood borer at the base
but over half of them are ok atm. The figure of 50 has been arrived at
as the contractor will not turn up to do the work as it's not worthwhile
otherwise. All comes down the cash.

I liked this from Peter Hitchens (second article on the blog):

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/03/index.html

Brian L Johnson

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 9:50:02 AM8/11/09
to
magwitch <magw...@invalid.net> wrote:

The Health & Safety aspect bears very heavily on this Council's decision
whether or not to fell trees. They think that if someone gets hit by a
falling tree/branch/leaf, they'd be hearing from the victim's Lawyers4U
quicker than they could say 'public liability'.

Of course, the tree-testing machine (ᅵ12,000) which the Council's
tree-dept have bought (in order to justify their duty of care) is quite an
invasive procedure. If it didn't have fungal spores inside it before the
test, there's a good chance it'll have them afterwards.

Then it'll rot and they can chainsaw it down!

--
-brianlj-

Roland Perry

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 9:41:09 AM8/11/09
to
In message <h5rr8v$8gn$1...@news.albasani.net>, at 14:19:53 on Tue, 11 Aug
2009, magwitch <magw...@invalid.net> remarked:

>We are faced with the prospect of an avenue of 50 aspen poplar trees
>being felled imminently. Some have succumbed to wood borer at the base
>but over half of them are ok atm. The figure of 50 has been arrived at
>as the contractor will not turn up to do the work as it's not
>worthwhile otherwise. All comes down the cash.

So you can't ask him to cut down half, but pay him as if it was 50?

Does the contractor not realise there's a recession on.
--
Roland Perry

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 10:05:57 AM8/11/09
to

Actually he is dead wrong in one respect. Apparently most of Constables
views cannot now be recognised due to the immense number of trees that
have grown up in between the time he painted, and now.

We are actually getting back to a fairly well afforested state compared
with the late middle ages, after they all got cut down for fields, and
to make warships out of..

The hedgerows suffered the biggest outage in the 60's, but those are
being reinstated too.

magwitch

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 11:51:01 AM8/11/09
to
Err how do you think they had enough firewood in the Middle Ages?
Through coppicing is the answer, for that they needed lots of mature
trees which were coppiced and re-harvested on a 10-20 year cycle.

We owe much of the longevity of some of our ancient trees to this
practice which extended their natural lifespan by centuries.

magwitch

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 11:54:12 AM8/11/09
to

No because part of the deal is the contractor keeps the wood. They were
originally planted 60 years ago for as pit props... not sure what their
more modern usage will be.

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 2:57:22 PM8/11/09
to
In article <op.uyhqlmea0v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid (Brian L
Johnson) wrote:

Did you look on the City Council web site instead of a dodgy blog?

You could try
http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/development-control/tree-works-sche
dules.en, for example. All I did was a search for "Lammas Land Trees",
hardly "deep within". They look like pretty detailed reports to me.

There is an Area Committee meeting on 20 August, at which you can raise
this question in the Open Forum. You won't be able to hide behind online
anonymity though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Patrick Gosling

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 3:06:19 PM8/11/09
to
In article <mtqdndPlxKaPIhzX...@giganews.com>,

<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>There is an Area Committee meeting on 20 August, at which you can raise
>this question in the Open Forum. You won't be able to hide behind online
>anonymity though.

Do attendees have to present ID cards or passports?

-patrick.

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 3:28:29 PM8/11/09
to
In article <h5sffb$cjm$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk
(Patrick Gosling) wrote:

No. Richard Taylor has been able to ask questions at the West Central Area
Committee even though it's not the one he lives in.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Roland Perry

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 3:26:30 PM8/11/09
to
In message <mtqdndPlxKaPIhzX...@giganews.com>, at 13:57:22
on Tue, 11 Aug 2009, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:

>You could try
>http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/development-control/tree-works-sche
>dules.en, for example. All I did was a search for "Lammas Land Trees",
>hardly "deep within". They look like pretty detailed reports to me.

Which leads to:

<http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/docs/Lammas%20Land%20tree-
works%20map.pdf>

...as disclosed earlier. The only problem is that it doesn't seem to
show which are the 18 trees in question (there are far more than 10 grey
"trees", and the others are numbered into the 200's).
--
Roland Perry

Tim Ward

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 3:55:25 PM8/11/09
to
"Patrick Gosling" <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:h5sffb$cjm$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...

No.

For some items there is some theory that maybe the views of residents of the
area covered by the committee might count for more than people from further
afield, but I've never seen this applied in practice. When I chaired an area
committee every member of the public who wished to speak gave their name,
and none as asked to prove it. Had someone requested anonymity the committee
would no doubt have decided how reasonable this was and treated their views
accordingly.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor


Duncan Wood

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 4:57:29 PM8/11/09
to

Ah, so the council obviously has a devious plan to get rid of all trees as
they're obviously bad & evil.

Brian L Johnson

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 6:15:55 PM8/11/09
to
Duncan Wood <nntp...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:

If you're implying that the council are bad and evil, I'd have to disagree
with you. After all, if they wanted to get rid of all the trees, they
wouldn't be spending money on planting more, would they? :)

--
-brianlj-

Brian L Johnson

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 6:16:34 PM8/11/09
to
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <op.uyhqlmea0v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid (Brian L
> Johnson) wrote:
>
>> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/plans-to-fell-trees-on-lammas-land.html
>>
>> Exec summary:
>>
>> Intended to go ahead without public consultation, 18 trees were to
>> be cut down and 8 others planted at some point in the future.
>
> Did you look on the City Council web site instead of a dodgy blog?

No, I didn't, because the City Council web site doesn't give me easy links
to matters that I'm interested in. Nor does it give me regular updates on
them. The 'dodgy blog' does.

> You could try
> http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/development-control/tree-works-sche
> dules.en, for example. All I did was a search for "Lammas Land Trees",
> hardly "deep within". They look like pretty detailed reports to me.

They are, yes. As Roland points out: they're the ones that Richard Taylor
found.

So, Colin, without knowing that trees were about to cut down on Lammas
Land, how did you know to search for "Lammas Land Trees"?

Y'see, I just searched for 'trees' -- a much more general search, you'll
agree -- and didn't find those documents. Nothing linking to the
documents that you found is shown in the first 150 URLs found by the City
Council website search facility's search for 'trees'. It might have turned
up in the next 2 or 300 but... life is short.

I then tried clicking on various likely looking headings and links from
the City Council website front page and found myself in many interesting
places, but not the list of tree works. I first tried "Parks and open
spaces consultation". That sounds likely doesn't it? Then "Park
maintenance and management" Nope. That leads round in circles with
off-shoots to surveys and maps of parks. Lots of PDFs, but not what I was
looking for.

But, I'll admit that I may have missed the most obvious of links: I'm not
perfect.

Care to give a click trail from http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ ?

> There is an Area Committee meeting on 20 August, at which you can raise
> this question in the Open Forum.

What question? The one about how you knew to search for 'Lammas Land
Trees' or the one about the click trail?

> You won't be able to hide behind online
> anonymity though.

Anonymity? Explain please.

--
-brianlj-

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 7:38:51 PM8/11/09
to

Ah, but coppicing is NOT mature trees.

And it was the onset of coal and steel which marked the end of wood as
the primary fuel. And the primary structural material as well, apart
from stone.


> We owe much of the longevity of some of our ancient trees to this
> practice which extended their natural lifespan by centuries.

Most trees around now are younger than the industrial revolution.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 7:39:54 PM8/11/09
to

Lightweight plywood for caravans and motor homes (and toy planes!) and
lollypop sticks mainly.

PaulB

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 7:46:19 PM8/11/09
to
Brian L Johnson wrote:
> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>

>> You won't be able to hide behind online
>> anonymity though.
>
> Anonymity? Explain please.
>

no.e...@address.invalid

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Aug 11, 2009, 8:20:00 PM8/11/09
to
In article <op.uyiqtwe60v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid (Brian L
Johnson) wrote:

> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <op.uyhqlmea0v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid
> > (Brian L Johnson) wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/plans-to-fell-trees-on-lammas-land.html
> >>
> >> Exec summary:
> >>
> >> Intended to go ahead without public consultation, 18 trees were to
> >> be cut down and 8 others planted at some point in the future.
> >
> > Did you look on the City Council web site instead of a dodgy blog?
>
> No, I didn't, because the City Council web site doesn't give me
> easy links to matters that I'm interested in. Nor does it give me
> regular updates on them. The 'dodgy blog' does.
>
> > You could try
>
http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/development-control/tree-works-sche
dules.en,
> > for example. All I did was a search for "Lammas Land Trees",
> > hardly "deep within". They look like pretty detailed reports to me.
>
> They are, yes. As Roland points out: they're the ones that Richard
> Taylor found.
>
> So, Colin, without knowing that trees were about to cut down on
> Lammas Land, how did you know to search for "Lammas Land Trees"?

You mentioned Lammas Land.

> Y'see, I just searched for 'trees' -- a much more general search,
> you'll agree -- and didn't find those documents. Nothing linking
> to the documents that you found is shown in the first 150 URLs
> found by the City Council website search facility's search for
> 'trees'. It might have turned up in the next 2 or 300 but... life
> is short.
>
> I then tried clicking on various likely looking headings and links
> from the City Council website front page and found myself in many
> interesting places, but not the list of tree works. I first tried
> "Parks and open spaces consultation". That sounds likely doesn't
> it? Then "Park maintenance and management" Nope. That leads
> round in circles with off-shoots to surveys and maps of parks.
> Lots of PDFs, but not what I was looking for.
>
> But, I'll admit that I may have missed the most obvious of links:
> I'm not perfect.
>
> Care to give a click trail from http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ ?

I did exactly one search and got the page I cited.

> > There is an Area Committee meeting on 20 August, at which you can
> > raise this question in the Open Forum.
>
> What question? The one about how you knew to search for 'Lammas
> Land Trees' or the one about the click trail?

You raised the matter of the consultation (saying there was no
consultation) on the Lammas Land trees. unfortunately I see the closing
date was yesterday (Monday) though.

> > You won't be able to hide behind online anonymity though.
>
> Anonymity? Explain please.

Ah, sorry. I was seeing your email address only.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Roland Perry

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 2:41:44 AM8/12/09
to
In message <U8ydnRyomYwtlx_X...@giganews.com>, at 19:20:00
on Tue, 11 Aug 2009, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:

>> So, Colin, without knowing that trees were about to cut down on
>> Lammas Land, how did you know to search for "Lammas Land Trees"?
>
>You mentioned Lammas Land.

Yes, but that's after the debate has started.

If you didn't know the project (to cut the trees there) existed, how
would you ever stumble over the pages mentioning it?

That's the issue.
--
Roland Perry

Brian L Johnson

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 3:13:03 AM8/12/09
to
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <op.uyiqtwe60v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid (Brian L
> Johnson) wrote:
>
>> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <op.uyhqlmea0v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid
>> > (Brian L Johnson) wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/plans-to-fell-trees-on-lammas-land.html
>> >>
>> >> Exec summary:
>> >>
>> >> Intended to go ahead without public consultation, 18 trees were to
>> >> be cut down and 8 others planted at some point in the future.
>> >
>> > Did you look on the City Council web site instead of a dodgy blog?
>>
>> No, I didn't, because the City Council web site doesn't give me
>> easy links to matters that I'm interested in. Nor does it give me
>> regular updates on them. The 'dodgy blog' does.
>>
>> > You could try
>> >
>> http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/development-control/tree-works-sche
>> > dules.en,
>> > for example. All I did was a search for "Lammas Land Trees",
>> > hardly "deep within". They look like pretty detailed reports to me.
>>
>> They are, yes. As Roland points out: they're the ones that Richard
>> Taylor found.
>>
>> So, Colin, without knowing that trees were about to cut down on
>> Lammas Land, how did you know to search for "Lammas Land Trees"?
>
> You mentioned Lammas Land.

Let me put it in a simpler fashion: as a general member of the public, how
am I supposed to know that the City Council plan on chopping down trees on
Lammas Land without knowing in advance that the City Council plan on
chopping down trees on Lammas Land? Am I to guess locations in sequence
until I find somewhere?

<snip details of my fruitless searches>


>>
>> Care to give a click trail from http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ ?
>
> I did exactly one search and got the page I cited.

As I said, Colin, you used a search term already knowing that it was there.

I'll ask again: can you give me a click trail from the City Council's
website front page which will lead me to the tree works on Lammas Land?

>> > There is an Area Committee meeting on 20 August, at which you can
>> > raise this question in the Open Forum.
>>
>> What question? The one about how you knew to search for 'Lammas
>> Land Trees' or the one about the click trail?
>
> You raised the matter of the consultation (saying there was no
> consultation) on the Lammas Land trees.

Ah, yes, 'matter = question'. My apologies.

> unfortunately I see the closing
> date was yesterday (Monday) though.

That's correct. The date passed without the chance for me to comment or
-- should I choose -- to ask questions, because the proposed tree works
weren't published in an obvious location.

As I keep pointing out: unless a general member of the public knows the
plans are there, it's not obvious how to find them.

>> > You won't be able to hide behind online anonymity though.
>>
>> Anonymity? Explain please.
>
> Ah, sorry. I was seeing your email address only.

Yes, it's a (belated) attempt to stem the flow of spam, but hardly a
cunning plan for anonymity.

--
-brianlj-

david vincent

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 3:21:17 AM8/12/09
to
On Aug 11, 7:57 pm, rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <op.uyhqlmea0v1caa@thedell>, no.em...@address.invalid (Brian L

>
> Johnson) wrote:
> >http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/plans-to-fell-trees-on-lammas-land.html
>
> > Exec summary:
>
> > Intended to go ahead without public consultation, 18 trees were to
> > be cut  down and 8 others planted at some point in the future.
>
> Did you look on the City Council web site instead of a dodgy blog?
>
> You could tryhttp://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/development-control/tree-work...

> dules.en, for example. All I did was a search for "Lammas Land Trees",
> hardly "deep within". They look like pretty detailed reports to me.
>
> There is an Area Committee meeting on 20 August, at which you can raise
> this question in the Open Forum. You won't be able to hide behind online
> anonymity though.
>
> --
> Colin Rosenstiel

Do you really think Richard's web-site should rightly be described as
"dodgy"?

Whilst I do not necessarily agree with his political positions (other
than a commitment to transparency, openness and a democratic and
accountable decision making process) or all of his obsessions, I find
it regularly more informative than anything put out by the Evening
News, any elected Councillors or the Council in general. You have to
be triggered to search the Council web-site for specific details and
I, for one, find it very useful to have someone who has the time and
energy to attend so many meetings, ask so many questions and report
the answers. It's what the press should be doing, of course, but they
don't.

Brian L Johnson

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 3:25:50 AM8/12/09
to
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <op.uyiqtwe60v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid (Brian L
> Johnson) wrote:
>> Care to give a click trail from http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ ?
>

Found it!

Planning & building Control...

Historic buildings & trees...

Tree works schedules...

Obvious when you think about it.

--
-brianlj-

magwitch

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 3:30:01 AM8/12/09
to
Indeed - I've bookmarked him in my Campaigns/Politics folder, where
he'll join the likes of Doug Carswell and Guido Fawkes.

Patrick Gosling

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 3:50:07 AM8/12/09
to
In article <7685bd76-beb2-4df7...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

david vincent <diner....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Do you really think Richard's web-site should rightly be described as
>"dodgy"?

I think the Lib Dems (particularly the longer standing ones) _still_
haven't quite got the hang of the fact that they're not in permanent
opposition (locally) any more, and therefore don't have the innate
righteousness of all opposition parties.

As a result, they appear to be remarkably sensitive to any form of
criticism, and have the habit of making deeply unpleasant commentary on
the qualities and motivations of anyone they perceive as being critical
of them.

And suddenly, as always happens when an opposition get into power, all
the behaviours of people who wish to criticise the system, switch from
being part of the admirable struggle to make the world a better place,
to become the "dodgy" behaviours of "nasty" people who are just trying to
vindictively sabotage the wondrous five year plan.

It'd be quite funny if it weren't so depressing.

-patrick.

Brian L Johnson

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 4:02:40 AM8/12/09
to
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:

> "Patrick Gosling" <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:h5sffb$cjm$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>> In article <mtqdndPlxKaPIhzX...@giganews.com>,
>> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>>> There is an Area Committee meeting on 20 August, at which you can raise
>>> this question in the Open Forum. You won't be able to hide behind
>>> online anonymity though.
>>
>> Do attendees have to present ID cards or passports?
>
> No.
>
> For some items there is some theory that maybe the views of residents of
> the area covered by the committee might count for more than people from
> further
> afield, but I've never seen this applied in practice. When I chaired an
> area committee every member of the public who wished to speak gave their
> name,
> and none as asked to prove it. Had someone requested anonymity the
> committee
> would no doubt have decided how reasonable this was and treated their
> views accordingly.
>

From the overview given on
http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/committees/speaking-at-meetings.en
it appears that all "members of the public" are entitled to speak at
Council meetings.

However, the constitution[1] gives more detail and says

8.2.5 Area committees have these principal purposes:
<3 purposes snipped>
• To provide a forum for local residents to raise issues about their area;

So, non-locals need not be allowed to speak at Area Committee meetings.

Which means that members of the public who *do* wish to speak should have
to prove that they live in the appropriate area. Interesting.

Footnote
---------
1. The link to 'The Constitution on the right hand column' has been
removed. I found a copy at
http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/docs/Council%20constitution.pdf

--
-brianlj-

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 4:44:05 AM8/12/09
to
In article
<7685bd76-beb2-4df7...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
diner....@googlemail.com (david vincent) wrote:

> Do you really think Richard's web-site should rightly be described as
> "dodgy"?
>
> Whilst I do not necessarily agree with his political positions (other
> than a commitment to transparency, openness and a democratic and
> accountable decision making process) or all of his obsessions, I find
> it regularly more informative than anything put out by the Evening
> News, any elected Councillors or the Council in general. You have to
> be triggered to search the Council web-site for specific details and
> I, for one, find it very useful to have someone who has the time and
> energy to attend so many meetings, ask so many questions and report
> the answers. It's what the press should be doing, of course, but they
> don't.

He has circulated completely unfounded rumours in the past and been
extremely unpleasant to at least one councillor in a totally unjustified
manner. At least the Cambridge News sticks to some journalistic standards,
like checking their sources occasionally.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 4:44:04 AM8/12/09
to
In article <op.uyjf9cqq0v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid (Brian L
Johnson) wrote:

> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <op.uyiqtwe60v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid
> > (Brian L Johnson) wrote:
> >> Care to give a click trail from http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ ?
>
> Found it!
>
> Planning & building Control...
>
> Historic buildings & trees...
>
> Tree works schedules...
>
> Obvious when you think about it.

Did you perform the search I suggested from the Home page?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 4:44:04 AM8/12/09
to
In article <aUAWcVjoQmgKFAA$@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
Perry) wrote:

Did you read the link in the root message?

> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/plans-to-fell-trees-on-lammas-land.html

A bit of a clue to location there!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

magwitch

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 4:50:47 AM8/12/09
to
If you look at old oak trees, most of them have very thick trunks with
the branches starting about 6-8 feet up the trunk - evidence I'd have
thought that they were fairly mature before they were first coppiced,
although I'm no dendrologist... is there anyone on here who is?

magwitch

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 4:56:33 AM8/12/09
to
Cite please.

Brian L Johnson

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 5:07:21 AM8/12/09
to
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:

You are being obtuse.

--
-brianlj-

Roland Perry

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 5:05:09 AM8/12/09
to
In message <F7qdnbSrlYZJHR_X...@giganews.com>, at 03:44:04
on Wed, 12 Aug 2009, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:

>> >> So, Colin, without knowing that trees were about to cut down on
>> >> Lammas Land, how did you know to search for "Lammas Land Trees"?
>> >
>> >You mentioned Lammas Land.
>>
>> Yes, but that's after the debate has started.
>>
>> If you didn't know the project (to cut the trees there) existed,
>> how would you ever stumble over the pages mentioning it?
>>
>> That's the issue.
>
>Did you read the link in the root message?
>
>> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/plans-to-fell-trees-on-lammas-land.html
>
>A bit of a clue to location there!

But that is AFTER THE DEBATE HAS STARTED.

BEFORE THAT - How was a member of the public to know to search for
"Lammas land trees" on the off-chance that there might be something
about to happen?

Should we all be searching for "Parkers Piece helipad", on the
off-chance there's a secret council plan to build one?
--
Roland Perry

Brian L Johnson

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 5:17:00 AM8/12/09
to
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:

Interesting. On the 'Planning and Licensing Challenges Face Mill Road
Tesco'[1] section of his site, I see that he requested (via an FOI ) to
see and hence check the licensing application (and the police response to
it) but was told that those documents weren't available online. He was
told that they were available at the Guildhall and so he went down there
in person to check them.

There he found that the section showing public objections was missing.

What more checking do you suggest that he, as a member of the public,
should do to keep abreast of facts?

Footnote
--------
1.
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/planning-and-licensing-challenges-face-mill-road-tesco.html
or, shorter, http://is.gd/2deWI

--
-brianlj-

Andrew Mobbs

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 5:58:24 AM8/12/09
to
Brian L Johnson <no.e...@address.invalid> wrote:
><rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <op.uyjf9cqq0v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid (Brian L
>> Johnson) wrote:
>>
>>> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <op.uyiqtwe60v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid
>>> > (Brian L Johnson) wrote:
>>> >> Care to give a click trail from http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ ?

Does anybody click through web sites these days? IIRC from a large
commercial website I worked on, about 90% of the accesses were front
page -> search -> product page

>>> Found it!
>>>
>>> Planning & building Control...
>>>
>>> Historic buildings & trees...
>>>
>>> Tree works schedules...
>>>
>>> Obvious when you think about it.
>>
>> Did you perform the search I suggested from the Home page?
>
>You are being obtuse.

Just searching for the word "trees" gets you to the "Historic buildings
& trees" site as top hit. If you are concerned about trees, that'd seem
a reasonable way of navigating the site.

--
Andrew Mobbs - http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andrewm/

Jennifer Liddle

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 6:04:29 AM8/12/09
to
Brian L Johnson wrote:

> So, non-locals need not be allowed to speak at Area Committee meetings.
>

*need not be allowed*, possibly. However, almost all of these things are
at the chair's discretion. In my experience, all chairs will err on the
side of allowing people to speak.

--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any
Indian. - Robert Orben

magwitch

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 6:08:20 AM8/12/09
to

And another thing (not related to the Cambridge city council website but
broadly similar on the inaccessabilty issue) is, why doesn't typing in
an address and correct postcode produce a pending planning application?
I only found our neighbour's one after spending 2 hours trawling through
every planning app submitted in a 3 month time-frame to obtain the app.
number.

Once I had the number, I found the relevant documents. But an address
alone is not enough. How are we supposed to know the number allocated in
advance?

Andrew May

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 6:30:54 AM8/12/09
to
magwitch wrote:

> And another thing (not related to the Cambridge city council website but
> broadly similar on the inaccessabilty issue) is, why doesn't typing in
> an address and correct postcode produce a pending planning application?
> I only found our neighbour's one after spending 2 hours trawling through
> every planning app submitted in a 3 month time-frame to obtain the app.
> number.
>
> Once I had the number, I found the relevant documents. But an address
> alone is not enough. How are we supposed to know the number allocated in
> advance?

Where are you? Works fine in South Cambs. At least down to road level.
Enter road name and dates and it finds them all. Then, if they are
fairly recent you can download the planning documents, including the
plans. Cambridge City though seems to be way behind.

Brian L Johnson

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 6:55:52 AM8/12/09
to
Jennifer Liddle <jenn...@jsquared.co.uk> wrote:

> Brian L Johnson wrote:
>
>> So, non-locals need not be allowed to speak at Area Committee meetings.
>>
>
> *need not be allowed*, possibly. However, almost all of these things are
> at the chair's discretion. In my experience, all chairs will err on the
> side of allowing people to speak.

Oh, yes, generally the desire is to see that things are seen to be done
fairly. OTOH, if time were short, and others wanted to speak, it would
appear that they would be within their rights to impose restrictions.

--
-brianlj-

Naich

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 7:26:57 AM8/12/09
to
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, magwitch wrote:

> And another thing (not related to the Cambridge city council website but
> broadly similar on the inaccessabilty issue) is, why doesn't typing in an
> address and correct postcode produce a pending planning application? I only
> found our neighbour's one after spending 2 hours trawling through every
> planning app submitted in a 3 month time-frame to obtain the app. number.
>
> Once I had the number, I found the relevant documents. But an address alone
> is not enough. How are we supposed to know the number allocated in advance?

This looks interesting. It might have been posted to cam.misc before.

http://www.planningalerts.com/

I had one pop up the other day, so I think it works, although I've no idea
if it has missed any.

Naich.
--
http://naich.net ..... My rubbish blog
http://asshol.es ..... Stupidity in pictures
http://sodwork.com ... A waste of time
Motto: Most people make sense. I'm not one of them.

Andrew Mobbs

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 8:09:13 AM8/12/09
to
magwitch <magw...@invalid.net> wrote:

>david vincent wrote:
>>
>> Do you really think Richard's web-site should rightly be described as
>> "dodgy"?
>>
>Indeed - I've bookmarked him in my Campaigns/Politics folder, where
>he'll join the likes of Doug Carswell and Guido Fawkes.

That's rather unfair on Richard.

Theo Markettos

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 8:15:49 AM8/12/09
to
Andrew Mobbs <and...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Does anybody click through web sites these days? IIRC from a large
> commercial website I worked on, about 90% of the accesses were front
> page -> search -> product page

Oh yes. Because sites' own search engines are usually truly dire. Quite
often I resort to "site:example.com <search term>" on Google instead.

> Just searching for the word "trees" gets you to the "Historic buildings
> & trees" site as top hit. If you are concerned about trees, that'd seem
> a reasonable way of navigating the site.

But that's if you were specifically concerned about trees. But if you're
concerned about general changes to vaguely-defined areas of the city you
care about, it's rather difficult to find that out unless you do that search
frequently. Typically reading lampposts or the front page of the CEN are the
easiest ways.

Theo

Roland Perry

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 8:41:04 AM8/12/09
to
In message <juE*DY...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 13:15:49 on Wed,
12 Aug 2009, Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
remarked:

>But if you're concerned about general changes to vaguely-defined areas
>of the city you care about, it's rather difficult to find that out
>unless you do that search frequently.

I've just set up a Google Alert for <"Newnham Croft" monorail>. We'll
see if it produces any results over time.
--
Roland Perry

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 1:15:25 PM8/12/09
to
In article <op.uyjpzeco0v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid (Brian L
Johnson) wrote:

That's never happened at West/Central, the Area Committee I'm on.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 1:15:26 PM8/12/09
to
In article <gJrIrjsF...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
Perry) wrote:

> In message <F7qdnbSrlYZJHR_X...@giganews.com>, at
> 03:44:04 on Wed, 12 Aug 2009, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
> >> >> So, Colin, without knowing that trees were about to cut down on
> >> >> Lammas Land, how did you know to search for "Lammas Land Trees"?
> >> >
> >> >You mentioned Lammas Land.
> >>
> >> Yes, but that's after the debate has started.
> >>
> >> If you didn't know the project (to cut the trees there) existed,
> >> how would you ever stumble over the pages mentioning it?
> >>
> >> That's the issue.
> >
> >Did you read the link in the root message?
> >
> >> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/plans-to-fell-trees-on-lammas-land.html
> >
> >A bit of a clue to location there!
>
> But that is AFTER THE DEBATE HAS STARTED.

That was the first message in this thread, Roland!

> BEFORE THAT - How was a member of the public to know to search for
> "Lammas land trees" on the off-chance that there might be something
> about to happen?
>
> Should we all be searching for "Parkers Piece helipad", on the
> off-chance there's a secret council plan to build one?

Not in a thread asking about Lammas Land trees.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 1:15:26 PM8/12/09
to
In article <h5u072$c1c$1...@news.albasani.net>, magw...@invalid.net
(magwitch) wrote:

They were about my plans. You can work it out for yourself. As for his
public attacks on Councillors see what follow up there was to determine
the veracity of the original attacks.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Tim Ward

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 1:27:43 PM8/12/09
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aUAWcVjoQmgKFAA$@perry.co.uk...

>
> If you didn't know the project (to cut the trees there) existed, how would
> you ever stumble over the pages mentioning it?

The council maintains many thousands of trees and has done so for many
years. Guess what - the council is going to cut down *every* *single* *one*
of them ... each at an appropriate time, some time over the next few
centuries, except for the few that fall down because we don't get to them
soon enough. You can work out for yourself how many trees per week that
makes.

So the fact that a "project" "to cut trees" exists is hardly a surprise -
there are always several such projects in hand. If you have particular
interest in particular trees and you can't find the stuff on the web for
yourself you can ask a relevant ward councillor.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor


Tim Ward

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 1:29:27 PM8/12/09
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gJrIrjsF...@perry.co.uk...

>
> BEFORE THAT - How was a member of the public to know to search for "Lammas
> land trees" on the off-chance that there might be something about to
> happen?

Did you?

> Should we all be searching for "Parkers Piece helipad", on the off-chance
> there's a secret council plan to build one?

You could guess from the rejection of the planning application to concrete
over a chunk of Parkers Piece for a base station for a tethered balloon that
any such planning application, whether from the council or anyone else,
would be unlikely to succeed. The council, or anyone else, could have no
such secret plan, because planning applications are not secret.

Tim Ward

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 1:32:02 PM8/12/09
to
"Brian L Johnson" <no.e...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:op.uyjfn1g10v1caa@thedell...
>
> Let me put it in a simpler fashion: as a general member of the public, how
> am I supposed to know that the City Council plan on chopping down trees on
> Lammas Land without knowing in advance that the City Council plan on
> chopping down trees on Lammas Land?

See my other post. You can assume that any particular tree you're interested
in will be chopped down sooner or later. The fact that trees have a finite
life is sufficient for you to be "supposed to know" that there will be plans
to chop them down (except in the case of trees that become suddenly and
unexpectedly dangerous, in which case they might get dealt with as an
emergency without any published plans).

Tim Ward

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 1:32:55 PM8/12/09
to
"Brian L Johnson" <no.e...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:op.uyjf9cqq0v1caa@thedell...
> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <op.uyiqtwe60v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid (Brian L

>> Johnson) wrote:
>>> Care to give a click trail from http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ ?
>>
>
> Found it!
>
> Planning & building Control...
>
> Historic buildings & trees...
>
> Tree works schedules...
>
> Obvious when you think about it.

It's the first step that's usually non-obvious - the public shouldn't really
be expected to know under which council department anything fits.

Tim Ward

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 1:36:29 PM8/12/09
to
"david vincent" <diner....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:7685bd76-beb2-4df7...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>
> Do you really think Richard's web-site should rightly be described as
> "dodgy"?

He often gives perfectly good reports of meetings (those parts that he
chooses to report). On the other hand he occasionally gets hold of entirely
the wrong end of the stick. So bits of it are certainly somewhere on the
"dodgy" scale, yes, if you, the reader, aren't in a position to know which
bits are right and which bits are misunderstandings.

Tim Ward

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 1:41:12 PM8/12/09
to
"Brian L Johnson" <no.e...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:op.uyjhyqyv0v1caa@thedell...

>
> So, non-locals need not be allowed to speak at Area Committee meetings.
>
> Which means that members of the public who *do* wish to speak should have
> to prove that they live in the appropriate area. Interesting.

There's various bits of stuff that the lawyer has put into the constitution
to give the chair power to control a meeting in the face of organised
disruption. When I chaired an area committee I never looked up what those
powers were and certainly never found myself in a position of having to
consider using them.

If there had ever been, say. a concerted effort by a group of outsiders to
keep the meeting going until midnight by repeating the same position over
and over again I might have starting thinking about which mechanism I was
going to use to get them to shut up.

Tim Ward

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 1:44:22 PM8/12/09
to
"Brian L Johnson" <no.e...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:op.uyjpzeco0v1caa@thedell...

>
> Oh, yes, generally the desire is to see that things are seen to be done
> fairly. OTOH, if time were short, and others wanted to speak, it would
> appear that they would be within their rights to impose restrictions.

I've never imposed a restriction based on *who* wanted to speak. On occasion
it's been "I'm sorry folks we've got a long agenda tonight so I'm going to
shut you up if you start repeating yourself or get boring or whatever," or
"Mr Bloggs, do you mind not asking your third and fourth questions, and I
promise to get the relevant councillors to get in touch with you
afterwards," and that has been sufficient - it's accepted by the regulars
who do sometimes like to discuss things at length because they know they'll
get a longer go next time.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 2:10:35 PM8/12/09
to
>> Do you really think Richard's web-site should rightly be described as
>> "dodgy"?
>>
>> Whilst I do not necessarily agree with his political positions (other
>> than a commitment to transparency, openness and a democratic and
>> accountable decision making process) or all of his obsessions, I find
>> it regularly more informative than anything put out by the Evening
>> News, any elected Councillors or the Council in general. You have to
>> be triggered to search the Council web-site for specific details and
>> I, for one, find it very useful to have someone who has the time and
>> energy to attend so many meetings, ask so many questions and report
>> the answers. It's what the press should be doing, of course, but they
>> don't.
>
> He has circulated completely unfounded rumours in the past and been
> extremely unpleasant to at least one councillor in a totally unjustified
> manner. At least the Cambridge News sticks to some journalistic standards,
> like checking their sources occasionally.
>
Well as one councillor who has been extremely unpleasant to more than
one motorist..

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 2:11:48 PM8/12/09
to

If you go to a park, where here are old trees, you will find there are
no branches within oral distance of deer or cows..

I suggest this is a more likely explanation.


Roland Perry

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 2:18:59 PM8/12/09
to
In message <UbidnQhimqYzZR_X...@giganews.com>, at 12:15:26
on Wed, 12 Aug 2009, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> >> >> So, Colin, without knowing that trees were about to cut down on
>> >> >> Lammas Land, how did you know to search for "Lammas Land Trees"?
>> >> >
>> >> >You mentioned Lammas Land.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but that's after the debate has started.
>> >>
>> >> If you didn't know the project (to cut the trees there) existed,
>> >> how would you ever stumble over the pages mentioning it?
>> >>
>> >> That's the issue.
>> >
>> >Did you read the link in the root message?
>> >
>>> > http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/plans-to-fell-trees-on-lammas-land.html
>> >
>> >A bit of a clue to location there!
>>
>> But that is AFTER THE DEBATE HAS STARTED.
>
>That was the first message in this thread, Roland!

Yes, but this thread is as a result of a tip-off AFTER the debate
started.

Hint: debates can start other than here.

>> BEFORE THAT - How was a member of the public to know to search for
>> "Lammas land trees" on the off-chance that there might be something
>> about to happen?
>>
>> Should we all be searching for "Parkers Piece helipad", on the
>> off-chance there's a secret council plan to build one?
>
>Not in a thread asking about Lammas Land trees.

But it seems like a sensible strategy because unless we do such searches
we may not find out (about surprising schemes) until too late.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 2:22:06 PM8/12/09
to
In message <7egcfoF...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:29:27 on Wed, 12
Aug 2009, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:gJrIrjsF...@perry.co.uk...
>>
>> BEFORE THAT - How was a member of the public to know to search for "Lammas
>> land trees" on the off-chance that there might be something about to
>> happen?
>
>Did you?

What: know, or search at random?

Neither.

>> Should we all be searching for "Parkers Piece helipad", on the off-chance
>> there's a secret council plan to build one?
>
>You could guess from the rejection of the planning application to concrete
>over a chunk of Parkers Piece for a base station for a tethered balloon that
>any such planning application, whether from the council or anyone else,
>would be unlikely to succeed. The council, or anyone else, could have no
>such secret plan, because planning applications are not secret.

But they are also not publicised. Unless you know where and when to do
repeated searches, how do you discover this non-secret information?

The infamous "beware of the leopard" syndrome is still alive and
kicking, 31 years on.
--
Roland Perry

Duncan Wood

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 2:33:46 PM8/12/09
to

& it depends how close planted they where originally, young oak trees tend
to be very competitive about getting as high as possible as fast as
possible.

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 4:24:53 PM8/12/09
to
In article <rvZqCXXO...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
Perry) wrote:

They are publicised. You can ask to get the weekly list of applications by
email. And important ones (by the Government's definition admittedly) have
to be advertised in the Cambridge News. The fact that you don't live in
Cambridge might limit the usefulness of the latter in your case but even
you can ask for the former.

I believe a notification system based on the web portal is imminent too
but this is not my field so I don;t have details or a time frame.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Tim Ward

unread,
Aug 12, 2009, 4:40:48 PM8/12/09
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rvZqCXXO...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <7egcfoF...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:29:27 on Wed, 12
> Aug 2009, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:gJrIrjsF...@perry.co.uk...
>>>
>>> BEFORE THAT - How was a member of the public to know to search for
>>> "Lammas
>>> land trees" on the off-chance that there might be something about to
>>> happen?
>>
>>Did you?
>
> What: know, or search at random?
>
> Neither.

So you weren't actually interested.

>>> Should we all be searching for "Parkers Piece helipad", on the
>>> off-chance
>>> there's a secret council plan to build one?
>>