From john at lawton.me.uk Tue Mar 3 16:27:44 2015 From: john at lawton.me.uk (John Lawton) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:27:44 +0000 Subject: [Announce] Alexandra Gardens decision at Council Planning Committee meeting Wednesday 4th March Message-ID: <54F5E100.80109@lawton.me.uk> Just to let you know that the Planning Committee will consider the report on Alexandra Gardens tomorrow. This is expected to be discussed some time after 12:30pm. The agenda and reports can be found here: http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=181&MId=2608&Ver=4 This isn't the end of the story as their decision will then inform that of the Director of Environment, who, after consulting the Executive Councillor, will make the final decision, but it isn't looking good for the trees. Regards, John Lawton SOS Chair From john at lawton.me.uk Fri Mar 27 09:27:36 2015 From: john at lawton.me.uk (John Lawton) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:27:36 +0000 Subject: [Announce] Alexandra Gardens trees to be cut Message-ID: <55152288.1060202@lawton.me.uk> Dear All, the AGTG http://www.alexandragardens.org.uk/ have fought a valiant fight to save the trees, but there is bad news from them about the recent legal fight, see below. They deserve our support. We are disgusted to see such a wanton act of political cowardice from the the Labour Council in forcing through these cuts in the face of pressure from big business insurance rather than spending resources in defending and preserving our green spaces as we would expect them to do. It is our view that as a result they have lost all credibility in preserving our precious public assets. Councillor O'Reilly stated at the time that she entered politics that she did so to preserve these trees. It is regrettable that her political career has so soon encountered such a fundamental failure. John Lawton SOS Chair Here is Andy's recent message: AGTG group update 26/3/15 Dear Supporters Thank you so much for your donations, pledges and advice over the past week. I am sorry we may not have replied to all, but all were received gratefully. The sad news regarding the Alpha Road trees is that we have lost the case and they will be cut severely - probably tomorrow (Friday) or Saturday or Monday at the latest. There is no further legal redress we can seek. So it is the end of the road for these five trees in their pristine state, as Carina O?Reilly proclaimed back in January. I spent today in the Appeal Court with our lawyer - Richard Buxton - and the barrister who was representing us. Simon Pugh, CCC?s Legal Officer, was also present throughout. It was a dispiriting experience, but at least we know that we took it as far as possible. I won?t go into the full detail of the case because (a) it would take too long, (b) I would probably hideously misrepresent the whole thing and (c) I can?t face it now. We will send the transcript on when it becomes available. The very very brief summary is that McCombe agreed with Mittings, the High Court judge who heard our original application to apply for Judicial Review. Today?s hearing was almost all about legal procedure; no real facts were discussed. It was eventually decided as a balance of probabilities of risk, couched in high Legalese. I?m assured - by the barrister - that the higher you climb the ?tree? (sorry - his metaphor) of the system, the more precise the argument becomes - you get trapped on one particular ?branch?. And so it was here in the rarified Appeal Court. But still, essentially the decision boiled down to the ?nuisance? of damage to buildings vs. the loss of public amenity. It is obvious that private nuisance wins that argument in English law. No factual discussions of root trespass, evidence or anything so tangible were entertained. As it turned out, the ?branch? we were trapped on was our assertion that the consultation had been poor. Even if we had won the case on that ground, it would likely have been a Pyrrhic victory as I heard Pugh say today that in that case he would have simply re-consulted more rigorously in September. We would have had no defence against that. We have no way of knowing if any of you are interested enough to keep pressurising the Council if they - as we expect they will - decide to prune the other trees along that avenue because their insurers - Zurich - may insist they do as a precautionary measure. We would like to think you are still keen, although we would understand if you?ve had enough. Perhaps more importantly - and more ambitiously - we hope that some of you might be interested in using the momentum we?ve gained to raise awareness of this nationwide problem of the loss of large park trees because of aggressive insurance companies and compliant councils. It is time that trees are seen as a public asset rather than being associated in law with ?nuisance?. Richard Buxton is certainly keen to keep the momentum going, calling what councils are doing ?environmental vandalism?, done only because they have no will to think around the subject. But that?s for later. I don't have the energy to think about that at the moment Now it?s time for a short break. Thanks once again for your generous support. Andy From john at lawton.me.uk Tue Mar 3 16:27:44 2015 From: john at lawton.me.uk (John Lawton) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:27:44 +0000 Subject: [Announce] Alexandra Gardens decision at Council Planning Committee meeting Wednesday 4th March Message-ID: <54F5E100.80109@lawton.me.uk> Just to let you know that the Planning Committee will consider the report on Alexandra Gardens tomorrow. This is expected to be discussed some time after 12:30pm. The agenda and reports can be found here: http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=181&MId=2608&Ver=4 This isn't the end of the story as their decision will then inform that of the Director of Environment, who, after consulting the Executive Councillor, will make the final decision, but it isn't looking good for the trees. Regards, John Lawton SOS Chair From john at lawton.me.uk Fri Mar 27 09:27:36 2015 From: john at lawton.me.uk (John Lawton) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:27:36 +0000 Subject: [Announce] Alexandra Gardens trees to be cut Message-ID: <55152288.1060202@lawton.me.uk> Dear All, the AGTG http://www.alexandragardens.org.uk/ have fought a valiant fight to save the trees, but there is bad news from them about the recent legal fight, see below. They deserve our support. We are disgusted to see such a wanton act of political cowardice from the the Labour Council in forcing through these cuts in the face of pressure from big business insurance rather than spending resources in defending and preserving our green spaces as we would expect them to do. It is our view that as a result they have lost all credibility in preserving our precious public assets. Councillor O'Reilly stated at the time that she entered politics that she did so to preserve these trees. It is regrettable that her political career has so soon encountered such a fundamental failure. John Lawton SOS Chair Here is Andy's recent message: AGTG group update 26/3/15 Dear Supporters Thank you so much for your donations, pledges and advice over the past week. I am sorry we may not have replied to all, but all were received gratefully. The sad news regarding the Alpha Road trees is that we have lost the case and they will be cut severely - probably tomorrow (Friday) or Saturday or Monday at the latest. There is no further legal redress we can seek. So it is the end of the road for these five trees in their pristine state, as Carina O?Reilly proclaimed back in January. I spent today in the Appeal Court with our lawyer - Richard Buxton - and the barrister who was representing us. Simon Pugh, CCC?s Legal Officer, was also present throughout. It was a dispiriting experience, but at least we know that we took it as far as possible. I won?t go into the full detail of the case because (a) it would take too long, (b) I would probably hideously misrepresent the whole thing and (c) I can?t face it now. We will send the transcript on when it becomes available. The very very brief summary is that McCombe agreed with Mittings, the High Court judge who heard our original application to apply for Judicial Review. Today?s hearing was almost all about legal procedure; no real facts were discussed. It was eventually decided as a balance of probabilities of risk, couched in high Legalese. I?m assured - by the barrister - that the higher you climb the ?tree? (sorry - his metaphor) of the system, the more precise the argument becomes - you get trapped on one particular ?branch?. And so it was here in the rarified Appeal Court. But still, essentially the decision boiled down to the ?nuisance? of damage to buildings vs. the loss of public amenity. It is obvious that private nuisance wins that argument in English law. No factual discussions of root trespass, evidence or anything so tangible were entertained. As it turned out, the ?branch? we were trapped on was our assertion that the consultation had been poor. Even if we had won the case on that ground, it would likely have been a Pyrrhic victory as I heard Pugh say today that in that case he would have simply re-consulted more rigorously in September. We would have had no defence against that. We have no way of knowing if any of you are interested enough to keep pressurising the Council if they - as we expect they will - decide to prune the other trees along that avenue because their insurers - Zurich - may insist they do as a precautionary measure. We would like to think you are still keen, although we would understand if you?ve had enough. Perhaps more importantly - and more ambitiously - we hope that some of you might be interested in using the momentum we?ve gained to raise awareness of this nationwide problem of the loss of large park trees because of aggressive insurance companies and compliant councils. It is time that trees are seen as a public asset rather than being associated in law with ?nuisance?. Richard Buxton is certainly keen to keep the momentum going, calling what councils are doing ?environmental vandalism?, done only because they have no will to think around the subject. But that?s for later. I don't have the energy to think about that at the moment Now it?s time for a short break. Thanks once again for your generous support. Andy From john at lawton.me.uk Tue Mar 3 16:27:44 2015 From: john at lawton.me.uk (John Lawton) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:27:44 +0000 Subject: [Announce] Alexandra Gardens decision at Council Planning Committee meeting Wednesday 4th March Message-ID: <54F5E100.80109@lawton.me.uk> Just to let you know that the Planning Committee will consider the report on Alexandra Gardens tomorrow. This is expected to be discussed some time after 12:30pm. The agenda and reports can be found here: http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=181&MId=2608&Ver=4 This isn't the end of the story as their decision will then inform that of the Director of Environment, who, after consulting the Executive Councillor, will make the final decision, but it isn't looking good for the trees. Regards, John Lawton SOS Chair From john at lawton.me.uk Fri Mar 27 09:27:36 2015 From: john at lawton.me.uk (John Lawton) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:27:36 +0000 Subject: [Announce] Alexandra Gardens trees to be cut Message-ID: <55152288.1060202@lawton.me.uk> Dear All, the AGTG http://www.alexandragardens.org.uk/ have fought a valiant fight to save the trees, but there is bad news from them about the recent legal fight, see below. They deserve our support. We are disgusted to see such a wanton act of political cowardice from the the Labour Council in forcing through these cuts in the face of pressure from big business insurance rather than spending resources in defending and preserving our green spaces as we would expect them to do. It is our view that as a result they have lost all credibility in preserving our precious public assets. Councillor O'Reilly stated at the time that she entered politics that she did so to preserve these trees. It is regrettable that her political career has so soon encountered such a fundamental failure. John Lawton SOS Chair Here is Andy's recent message: AGTG group update 26/3/15 Dear Supporters Thank you so much for your donations, pledges and advice over the past week. I am sorry we may not have replied to all, but all were received gratefully. The sad news regarding the Alpha Road trees is that we have lost the case and they will be cut severely - probably tomorrow (Friday) or Saturday or Monday at the latest. There is no further legal redress we can seek. So it is the end of the road for these five trees in their pristine state, as Carina O?Reilly proclaimed back in January. I spent today in the Appeal Court with our lawyer - Richard Buxton - and the barrister who was representing us. Simon Pugh, CCC?s Legal Officer, was also present throughout. It was a dispiriting experience, but at least we know that we took it as far as possible. I won?t go into the full detail of the case because (a) it would take too long, (b) I would probably hideously misrepresent the whole thing and (c) I can?t face it now. We will send the transcript on when it becomes available. The very very brief summary is that McCombe agreed with Mittings, the High Court judge who heard our original application to apply for Judicial Review. Today?s hearing was almost all about legal procedure; no real facts were discussed. It was eventually decided as a balance of probabilities of risk, couched in high Legalese. I?m assured - by the barrister - that the higher you climb the ?tree? (sorry - his metaphor) of the system, the more precise the argument becomes - you get trapped on one particular ?branch?. And so it was here in the rarified Appeal Court. But still, essentially the decision boiled down to the ?nuisance? of damage to buildings vs. the loss of public amenity. It is obvious that private nuisance wins that argument in English law. No factual discussions of root trespass, evidence or anything so tangible were entertained. As it turned out, the ?branch? we were trapped on was our assertion that the consultation had been poor. Even if we had won the case on that ground, it would likely have been a Pyrrhic victory as I heard Pugh say today that in that case he would have simply re-consulted more rigorously in September. We would have had no defence against that. We have no way of knowing if any of you are interested enough to keep pressurising the Council if they - as we expect they will - decide to prune the other trees along that avenue because their insurers - Zurich - may insist they do as a precautionary measure. We would like to think you are still keen, although we would understand if you?ve had enough. Perhaps more importantly - and more ambitiously - we hope that some of you might be interested in using the momentum we?ve gained to raise awareness of this nationwide problem of the loss of large park trees because of aggressive insurance companies and compliant councils. It is time that trees are seen as a public asset rather than being associated in law with ?nuisance?. Richard Buxton is certainly keen to keep the momentum going, calling what councils are doing ?environmental vandalism?, done only because they have no will to think around the subject. But that?s for later. I don't have the energy to think about that at the moment Now it?s time for a short break. Thanks once again for your generous support. Andy From john at lawton.me.uk Tue Mar 3 16:27:44 2015 From: john at lawton.me.uk (John Lawton) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:27:44 +0000 Subject: [Announce] Alexandra Gardens decision at Council Planning Committee meeting Wednesday 4th March Message-ID: <54F5E100.80109@lawton.me.uk> Just to let you know that the Planning Committee will consider the report on Alexandra Gardens tomorrow. This is expected to be discussed some time after 12:30pm. The agenda and reports can be found here: http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=181&MId=2608&Ver=4 This isn't the end of the story as their decision will then inform that of the Director of Environment, who, after consulting the Executive Councillor, will make the final decision, but it isn't looking good for the trees. Regards, John Lawton SOS Chair From john at lawton.me.uk Fri Mar 27 09:27:36 2015 From: john at lawton.me.uk (John Lawton) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:27:36 +0000 Subject: [Announce] Alexandra Gardens trees to be cut Message-ID: <55152288.1060202@lawton.me.uk> Dear All, the AGTG http://www.alexandragardens.org.uk/ have fought a valiant fight to save the trees, but there is bad news from them about the recent legal fight, see below. They deserve our support. We are disgusted to see such a wanton act of political cowardice from the the Labour Council in forcing through these cuts in the face of pressure from big business insurance rather than spending resources in defending and preserving our green spaces as we would expect them to do. It is our view that as a result they have lost all credibility in preserving our precious public assets. Councillor O'Reilly stated at the time that she entered politics that she did so to preserve these trees. It is regrettable that her political career has so soon encountered such a fundamental failure. John Lawton SOS Chair Here is Andy's recent message: AGTG group update 26/3/15 Dear Supporters Thank you so much for your donations, pledges and advice over the past week. I am sorry we may not have replied to all, but all were received gratefully. The sad news regarding the Alpha Road trees is that we have lost the case and they will be cut severely - probably tomorrow (Friday) or Saturday or Monday at the latest. There is no further legal redress we can seek. So it is the end of the road for these five trees in their pristine state, as Carina O?Reilly proclaimed back in January. I spent today in the Appeal Court with our lawyer - Richard Buxton - and the barrister who was representing us. Simon Pugh, CCC?s Legal Officer, was also present throughout. It was a dispiriting experience, but at least we know that we took it as far as possible. I won?t go into the full detail of the case because (a) it would take too long, (b) I would probably hideously misrepresent the whole thing and (c) I can?t face it now. We will send the transcript on when it becomes available. The very very brief summary is that McCombe agreed with Mittings, the High Court judge who heard our original application to apply for Judicial Review. Today?s hearing was almost all about legal procedure; no real facts were discussed. It was eventually decided as a balance of probabilities of risk, couched in high Legalese. I?m assured - by the barrister - that the higher you climb the ?tree? (sorry - his metaphor) of the system, the more precise the argument becomes - you get trapped on one particular ?branch?. And so it was here in the rarified Appeal Court. But still, essentially the decision boiled down to the ?nuisance? of damage to buildings vs. the loss of public amenity. It is obvious that private nuisance wins that argument in English law. No factual discussions of root trespass, evidence or anything so tangible were entertained. As it turned out, the ?branch? we were trapped on was our assertion that the consultation had been poor. Even if we had won the case on that ground, it would likely have been a Pyrrhic victory as I heard Pugh say today that in that case he would have simply re-consulted more rigorously in September. We would have had no defence against that. We have no way of knowing if any of you are interested enough to keep pressurising the Council if they - as we expect they will - decide to prune the other trees along that avenue because their insurers - Zurich - may insist they do as a precautionary measure. We would like to think you are still keen, although we would understand if you?ve had enough. Perhaps more importantly - and more ambitiously - we hope that some of you might be interested in using the momentum we?ve gained to raise awareness of this nationwide problem of the loss of large park trees because of aggressive insurance companies and compliant councils. It is time that trees are seen as a public asset rather than being associated in law with ?nuisance?. Richard Buxton is certainly keen to keep the momentum going, calling what councils are doing ?environmental vandalism?, done only because they have no will to think around the subject. But that?s for later. I don't have the energy to think about that at the moment Now it?s time for a short break. Thanks once again for your generous support. Andy