[Discuss] Alexandra Gardens Meeting coverage in the CEN!

[Anne Garvey]

If there is distortion of the facts by the Cambridge News, this is surely
because of lack of information. Their resources are incredibly stretched,
it¹s amazing they can get out a daily paper on the hard-pressed few
journalists they have there, so they have to rely on input from the
community ­ they are are ONLY independent news outlet and we should support
them with data ­ and by getting the paper. There is a tendency to think the
Cambridge News will go on and on without a significant section of the
citizenry buying it at all. I may be biased as a family member works for
them , but Cambridge seems to be one of the few places not to universally
support their local paper.

Let¹s get writing letters and ringing up,


Anne


On 18/10/10 11:10, "B Shachar-Hill" <bsh1 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> The coverage by Havergal of the proposed felling of Plane trees in Alexandra
> Gardens has been biased from the start.
> 
> He has accepted the claim that the trees are the cause of subsidence from the
> start and distorts the contribution of Mr Norfolk from the Arundel Hotel to
> give the impression that he wanted a tree felled.
> Having been to the meeting the truth is the opposite!
> Mr Norfolk stated that he wanted some branches removed and a tree was felled
> without informing him! He arranged for underpinning of a building without
> demands being forwarded to the council. He complained that he asked for some
> branches of a very near tree to be removed and nothing was done.
> It seems that the local paper accepts the unsubstantiated claims by insurers
> and distorts evidence at meetings rather than support tree preservation.
> 
> Bruria Shachar-Hill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Alarmingly there is another case that has come to light concerning trees that
>> are recommended for felling because they are blamed for subsidence problems
>> this time in Robert Jennings Close.  The trees in question are the subject of
>> preservation orders!
>> 
>> < 
>> http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/Published/C00000181/M00000361/$$ADocPac
>> kPublic.pdf">http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/Published/C00000181/M00000
>> 361/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf>http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/Published/C000
>> 00181/M00000361/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf
>> <http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/Published/C00000181/M00000361/$$ADocPa
>> ckPublic.pdf>  
>> <http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/Published/C00000181/M00000361/$$ADocPa
>> ckPublic.pdf%3Ehttp://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/Published/C00000181/M000
>> 00361/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf>  (big dowload, see page numbered 293 onwards).
>> 
>> This is set to be decided at a Council planning meeting on Wednesday October
>> 20th.
>> 
>> Again, we are concerned that the council is accepting, too readily, the
>> advice of structural engineering advisors working for the insurance
>> companies, and is not mounting a strong enough defence of the trees, in this
>> case protected ones.
>> 
>> We think that Cllr Cantrill should delay any decision on these trees until
>> the issue in Alexandra Gardens has been decided as they could set an
>> unhelpful precedent.
>> 
>> John Lawton
>> SOS Chair
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Save Our green Spaces
>> http://www.soscambridge.org.uk <http://www.soscambridge.org.uk/>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at soscambridge.org.uk
>> http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/discuss_soscambridge.org.uk
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at soscambridge.org.uk
> http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/discuss_soscambridge.org.uk


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://soscambridge.org.uk/pipermail/discuss_soscambridge.org.uk/attachments/20101018/df4eae2a/attachment-0001.htm>