[Announce] Fwd: This one

Mon Feb 16 18:07:30 GMT 2015

Dear Andy and all,

Hear, hear! 

Just to ask (and you may already have discounted this option) whether you have thought about setting up an online petition where people can tick a box to sign in favour of saving the trees, rather than writing lengthy letters which they may not have time or indeed the local knowledge to do? You'll get higher numbers of signatories which will give the council pause for thought ( see 38degrees.org.uk for effective online campaigning). 

Good luck with it!
Jane

On 14 Feb 2015, at 12:31, Andy Davey <cartoons at andydavey.com> wrote:

> Dear Carina
> 
> 
> I share others' views that if having what you describe as a "political bun
> fight" is the only way that facts can be revealed, then bring on the buns.
> I don't think Cllr Cantrill was being unnecessarily political in explaining
> that the situation was just as tight in 2011-12. You were happy to invoke
> party politics in a recent email to one of the Alexandra Gardens Trees
> Group committee.
> 
> 
> I would like to make these points, which are elaborated below. I apologise
> to SOS if this is the wrong forum for such a lengthy piece. If so, I will
> remove or reduce it, but the debate is not being seen at present.
> 
> 
> 1.  I am aghast that you seem to have already decided to cut these trees,
> even before the (insufficient) public “consultation” has expired. I see
> this as dangerously undemocratic.
> 
> 2. I strongly object to your reasons for cutting the trees, based entirely
> on financial expediency with no regard to the environment or to the park as
> a beautiful public amenity.
> 
> 3. You have provided no detail regarding the strength of the claims, nor
> any evidence that you have “done everything we can” to save the trees.
> 
> 4. Cutting the trees will mean that you have wasted all the money spent on
> settling the Alpha Road claims. This level of profligacy is unacceptable.
> 
> 5. I am astounded, saddened and angered by a Labour Councillor who is
> prepared to destroy the beauty of a public amenity enjoyed by all in favour
> of complying with demands of insurance companies and local home owners who
> have built modern extensions on ground covered by the root radius of the
> trees.
> 
> 6. The cost to keep these trees is small compared to what has been spent
> and what has been wasted.
> 
> 
> Information on this latest threat to the trees has been scant. I live 50
> yards from Alexandra Gardens, but did not receive notification of the
> Council's intention to cut the trees. I understand only some 100-200
> leaflets were delivered to those houses closest to the park. However, as we
> know from 2011, many residents in a wider area use and love this park. I
> see this as a democratic deficit. Since you have not engaged in public
> debate - unlike Cllr Cantrill in 2010-11 - and not allowed residents the
> chance to raise questions publicly on the Council website, we have to guess
> your intention from emails and flyers. What is alarming to me is that, as
> executive councillor in charge of the care of these 100 year-old trees, you
> seem to have made your mind up already to cut them. Does this mean that the
> Planning Committee will be overridden if they recommend saving the trees at
> the 4th March meeting? Is the Planning meeting just a formality? If so,
> this does not say a lot for democracy at the new City Council. More than
> that, it is recklessly peremptory and defies local government protocol.
> 
> 
> Astoundingly, you do not seem to value public amenity assets. The last
> Council promised to treat CAVAT amenity value of trees as a real,
> accountable public asset. You seem to have reversed that. Unless the
> figures are considered as real assets, then the CAVAT process is utterly
> pointless. You recently said that the public amenity value of these trees
> is "irrelevant to the decision as we cannot raise cash on the back of the
> amenity value". In this dry account-book analysis of the city's amenities,
> you are deeming these trees worthless. I guess that explains your decision
> but I am astounded that you say in a recent flyer that that “one of the
> reasons I got in to politics was to save the Carlyle Road trees”. As chair
> of the Alexandra Gardens Trees Group, I don't recall you at our meetings,
> but I must trust what you say, and maybe you did cajole the Council through
> official channels. However, it has taken a suspiciously short time in
> office to change your mind about trees as a public asset.
> 
> 
> You say that the Council has “done everything we can” to save these trees.
> Could you please provide evidence of exactly what you have done? It seems
> that all you have done so far is to consult your insurers and to ignore the
> gist of the Arboricultural report that you commissioned. Of course,
> insurance companies will advise that you should cut the trees. What else do
> you expect them to say? You say that the Council cannot afford to
> self-insure the park but surely that is exactly what the Council is doing
> by paying for the engineering works to the houses? As I understand it, the
> City Council insurers will not insure against these seasonal movement
> claims (not “subsidence” as claimed in the Council report) unless the trees
> are heavily pollarded, “lollipop” style. The Council is therefore forced to
> pay, the money coming from the pot set aside by Cllr Cantrill. What is this
> but self-insurance? What use are the City Council insurers in all this?
> 
> 
> What has been done to fight these claims and negotiate with the
> house-owners’ insurance companies? We have seen no hard evidence of the
> trees’ culpability. Are there live roots under all the properties (not the
> gardens)? I don’t want to know which houses are involved, but it is obvious
> that almost all properties along the back of the park have large modern
> extensions on to the land occupied by the root systems. The houses are
> built on the edge of the old clay pits used for brickworks. The soil is
> clay, which is susceptible to seasonal movement, as you know. What
> foundations do the extensions have? Is there a differential between the
> Victorian foundations and the new extensions’ foundations? If so, this will
> cause cracking and some responsibility must be accepted by the house owners
> and builders who built the extensions. And that says nothing about the
> irony that all these extensions were presumably given planning permission
> by Cambridge City Council, with no regard for the possible future
> interaction with tree roots. Moreover, it should be noted that the BRE
> (ex-Building Research Establishment) guidelines advise that relatively
> minor cracking such as has been reported should be fixed by filling and
> re-plastering where necessary, not underpinning. Have you looked into any
> of this or is this simply inconvenient detail?
> 
> 
> As you know, Cllr Cantrill set aside a large pot of money in 2012 to cover
> extant and expected claims around the park, in order to save the trees. You
> say that the additional recent claims along Alpha Road and a second claim
> along Carlyle Road have meant that the total amount required to settle
> insurance claims now exceeds the pot of money. I think I am right in saying
> that at least two of the claims along Alpha Road have been settled by the
> Council, the houses having been underpinned. The money spent on these
> claims is now completely wasted if the trees are to be cut to comply with
> insurance companies' demands. You will have paid for underpinning AND cut
> the trees. I have no doubt this will please the insurance companies, whose
> only criteria are reducing risk and increasing profit. I also note that you
> appear to be prepared to settle the second Carlyle Road claim by paying for
> engineering works to the foundations of the house at considerable expense
> from this pot. However, the insertion of a root barrier along that stretch
> of Carlyle Road would have been considerably cheaper (approximately half
> the price). I understand the root barrier option was researched at length.
> Why was the barrier not inserted and why can't it be inserted now, since no
> engineering work has begun at the house? This profligate spending of
> hypothecated money seems to me to be indefensible.
> 
> 
> We deliberately kept party politics out of the 2011 campaign, but I cannot
> resist stating my utter shock at a Labour Council that is prepared to
> destroy a public amenity enjoyed by all, rich and poor, young and old, in
> favour of complying with insurance companies and their private clients'
> wishes. The phrase “private affluence, public squalor” rings a dissonant
> note in my ears. This cold, monetary view of the world is identical to that
> of the central government who you rightly decry.
> 
> 
> I implore you to reconsider your position and find the relatively small
> amount of money (much smaller than the public amenity value of the trees
> and smaller than the amount spent so far on the park) needed to save these
> trees.
> 
> 
> Andy Davey
> 
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Fisher Caroline <
> Caroline.Fisher at cambridgeshire.gov.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Councillor O'Reilly
>> 
>> I feel very strongly that the trees in Alexandra Gardens should be fully
>> protected and preserved for the residents of the area and the whole city.
>> I hope that the preservation of the trees will be a priority for the City
>> Council.
>> 
>> Thank you
>> 
>> Caroline
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: announce [mailto:announce-bounces at soscambridge.org.uk] On Behalf Of
>> Yahoo!
>> Sent: 12 February 2015 18:28
>> To: Carina O'Reilly; Rod Cantrill
>> Cc: announce at soscambridge.org.uk; liz Fenton
>> Subject: Re: [Announce] Fwd: This one
>> 
>> Dear Councillor O'Reilly,
>> As a city resident since 1982, I am delighted that Councillor Cantrill is
>> seeking to protect the trees in Alexandra Gardens and I do not see that you
>> have any cause to describe his objection as "a political bun-fight".    I
>> should have thought that you would have had more concern to protect the
>> city's amenities such a this.
>> Yours sincerely,John Cooper
>>      From: Carina O'Reilly <carinaoreilly at gmail.com>
>> To: Rod Cantrill <rcantrill at millingtonadvisory.com>
>> Cc: "announce at soscambridge.org.uk" <announce at soscambridge.org.uk>; liz
>> Fenton <agtreegroup at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 7:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Announce] Fwd: This one
>> 
>> Again, Rod, this is not the place for a political bun fight.
>> 
>> All the best,
>> Carina
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Rod Cantrill <
>> rcantrill at millingtonadvisory.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Carina
>>> 
>>> Thanks for this - the council always has had difficult choices to
>>> make  regarding how it prioritises it resources.  Funding was just as
>>> tight in
>>> 2012 as it is now - if I recall the council found savings of
>>> approximately  £1.4m in that year.
>>> 
>>> It is a shame you view it as a political point - that is not
>>> something I  have sort to do.  The issue should be about whether the
>>> city council places  importance on its green open spaces and the
>>> amenity value of the trees on  them.  Something that makes the city
>>> unique.  In 2012 - I was convinced by  the arguments put forward by
>>> residents and other stakeholders including  yourself that the solution
>>> was to preserve the trees.  I don't see what the  difference is now as in
>> my view their amenity value has not changed.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> R
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12 Feb 2015, at 14:47, Carina O'Reilly <carinaoreilly at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> The solution found by Cllr Cantrill was to set aside a large amount
>>> of  money to cover the costs of the claims against the council and any
>>> works  needed. Grateful as we all were for that, it's no longer an
>>> option for the  council due to government funding cuts that are forcing
>>> us to make £1.6  million worth of cuts to services every year - as Cllr
>>> Cantrill knows  perfectly well.
>>> 
>>> Having defended myself, I do think that this is a most inappropriate
>>> place to make political points, and I would hope that we can restrict
>>> ourselves in future to leaflets which residents can choose to read or bin.
>>> 
>>> All the very best,
>>> Cllr Carina O'Reilly
>>> Executive Councillor for the City Centre and Public Places  Ward
>>> Councillor Arbury
>>> 
>>> carinaoreilly at gmail.com
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Rod Cantrill <
>>> rcantrill at millingtonadvisory.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Liz
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the mail
>>>> 
>>>> I strongly object to the action proposed by the council - the
>>>> solution we eventually found for the trees on the other side of the
>>>> park (when I was the Executive Cllr) - ensured that the amenity value
>>>> of the trees was preserved on a key green space within the city
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> 
>>>> Rod Cantrill
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Cllr Rod Cantrill
>>>> Ward Councillor Newnham
>>>> Cambridge City Council
>>>> Tel: +44 7919103865
>>>> E-mail: rcantrill at millingtonadvisory.com
>>>> www.newnhamlibdems.mycouncillor.org.uk
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: announce [mailto:announce-bounces at soscambridge.org.uk] On
>>>> Behalf Of liz Fenton
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:29 PM
>>>> To: announce at soscambridge.org.uk
>>>> Subject: [Announce] Fwd: This one
>>>> 
>>>> *TREES IN ALEXANDRA GARDENS *
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Insurance companies claim that some of the trees in Alexandra
>>>> Gardens  are causing cracks in houses near to the park. The council is
>>>> recommending  major tree works (chop off 70%), to mitigate its liability.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This will be a familiar story to many local residents who in 2010
>>>> campaigned successfully, to protect three of the plane trees facing
>>>> Carlyle Road that were targeted for exactly the same reasons. Public
>>>> opposition was so overwhelming that the council withdrew is proposal
>>>> to fell/heavily prune the trees.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Alexandra Gardens is defined by the twenty one plane trees that grace
>>>> its front and back edges. The 110 year old trees have an collective
>>>> amenity and asset value of over £3.25 million. Nine trees which
>>>> shelter the play area for small children are implicated.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Heavy crown reduction is not without risk; the trees become more
>>>> vulnerable to infection and it can shorten their life expectancy.
>>>> While pollarding may be suitable for street trees it is inappropriate
>>>> for trees in a park setting where the natural expectation is for them
>>>> to have branches.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The appalling visual impact of branchless trees in Alexandra Gardens
>>>> would be unavoidable from every aspect. It would devastate the
>>>> appearance of the park as a whole, destroy the cohesive beauty of the
>>>> avenue and reduce the value of each cut tree by an average of £92,000!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The overall loss of asset value is far greater than the estimated
>>>> budget shortfall to keep the trees intact.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> There is to be a 'drop-in' / surgery / meeting on Monday 16th
>>>> February, 3.30-7.30pm at St. Luke's Church Centre (main church
>>>> space). Alistair Wilson, Joanna Davies (Interim Tree Officer),
>>>> councillor Carina O’Reilly and councillor Mike Todd-Jones will all be
>>>> there to discuss this issue and answer questions.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The public consultation period ends on 18th February, it is vitally
>>>> important that people write to object to this irrevocably damaging
>>>> and short sighted recommendation before then. A strong response is
>>>> needed if these trees are to stand a chance.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Write to Green Spaces Manager Alistair Wilson
>>>> Alistair.Wilson at cambridge.gov.
>>>> uk and Executive Councillor Carina O’Reilly carinaoreilly at gmail.com.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The council’s report can be found on the website under Tree Work.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> announce mailing list
>>>> announce at soscambridge.org.uk
>>>> http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/announce_soscambridge.org
>>>> .uk _______________________________________________
>>>> announce mailing list
>>>> announce at soscambridge.org.uk
>>>> http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/announce_soscambridge.org
>>>> .uk
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> announce mailing list
>> announce at soscambridge.org.uk
>> http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/announce_soscambridge.org.uk
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> announce mailing list
>> announce at soscambridge.org.uk
>> http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/announce_soscambridge.org.uk
>> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
>> privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you receive this
>> email by mistake please notify the sender and delete it immediately.
>> Opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily
>> represent the opinion of Cambridgeshire County Council. All sent and
>> received email from Cambridgeshire County Council is automatically scanned
>> for the presence of computer viruses and security issues. Visit
>> www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk<http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk>
>> _______________________________________________
>> announce mailing list
>> announce at soscambridge.org.uk
>> http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/announce_soscambridge.org.uk
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> announce at soscambridge.org.uk
> http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/announce_soscambridge.org.uk