[Discuss] Alexandra Gardens Meeting coverage in the CEN!

Anne Garvey annemgarvey at ntlworld.com
Mon Oct 18 13:15:11 BST 2010 

That looks like a good report on things, barring the fact that the Arundel
House owner has been apparently misquoted. Can we get him to write in and
say so?

They don¹t get their news from Mason¹s News Service at the Cambridge News,
that¹s a national news agency.

In fact by asking Freedom Of Information questions and following up on them,
an activity which is pretty time consuming as any of us who¹ve done it has
found. Last year for instance the News found out that the Electricity Board
was planning to build a substation on Jesus Green ­ hard to discover since
utilities are not required to publicize their projects in the same way as
the City Council does. Meetings of protest followed last autumn and the
destructive ­ and frankly devastating  -impact this would have on Jesus
Green was averted.

Similarly the massive plan to cut down 59 trees on Jesus Green and
re-develop it with 4 million pounds of public money was averted by constant
coverage from the paper . The 59 trees which Counsellor Julie Smith
announced were¹ diseased and deformed¹ have now shrunk to very few.

The latest plan the Council had to slice down huge avenues of trees on Jesus
Green was very minutely and carefully covered by the Cambridge News down to
the very sparsely attended tree meeting in the Guildhall where the plan was
discussed with Councillors.

With sometimes only three or so journalists to cover the entire region, it¹s
hardly surprising that they cannot come to every community meeting, and with
falling sales, the situation will get worse. I think it is one of the few
features of the Coalition that they oppose public money siphoned into City
Council Œnewspapers¹ purportedly telling us what Œs going on from their
perspective alone­ my favourite was the City Council headline ³ Council
fells trees at Byron¹s pools, fish will get light². These publications take
valuable advertising away from local papers, and in our city we have two of
the things, which give an entirely biassed and unexamined view of City and
Council activity.

Similarly it was the Cambridge News which uncovered recently that mental
health Chiefs were awarding themselves huge salary and bonus sums just as
services to vulnerable mental health sufferers and their carers were being
slashed back. 

If local democracy is to survive, let alone flourish, we have to support our
local paper ­ it¹s amazing how many people get their information from it
second and third hand, when for £2.50 a week they could keep completely up
to date ­ and participate properly in the debate. There isn¹t anywhere else
where this debate can go on, beyond discussion groups like ours, so if we
want to take the issue to the wider community, we have get in there and
assist ­ and subscribe.



- 


On 18/10/10 11:36, "John Lawton" <chair at soscambridge.org.uk> wrote:

> Here is the article:
> 
> <http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Experts-to-take-fresh-look-at-threa
> tened-plane-trees.htm>http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Experts-to-tak
> e-fresh-look-at-threatened-plane-trees.htm
> 
> 
> Well a lot of their stuff (eg Guided Bus) is re-written press
> releases. I thought they also got a lot of their information from
> Masons News?
> 
> Reports where their journalist has actually attended a meeting are to
> be encouraged I agree.
> 
> John
> 
> At 11:33 18/10/2010, you wrote:
> 
> 
>> If there is distortion of the facts by the Cambridge News, this is
>> surely because of lack of information. Their resources are
>> incredibly stretched, it's 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.
>> 
>> Let's 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/$$ADocPa
>> ckPublic.pdf>http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/Published/C00000181/M00000
>> 361/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf>http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/Published/C000
>> 00181/M00000361/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf>http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/Pu
>> blished/C00000181/M00000361/$$ADocPackPublic.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
>> <http://www.soscambridge.org.uk/>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at soscambridge.org.uk
>> <http://soscambridge.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/discuss_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>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
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Save Our green Spaces
> http://www.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/20101018/460ff6ca/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the discuss mailing list