Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Hairyloon]

I am not looking at the rules for making a parish council, I am looking at the rules for forming a civil parish.

Perhaps you can share a link, so we can be sure we are on the same page?

[taxman]

Can you point to an example of where the ITP has actually recommended that a tree not be removed?

 

Are you being willfully ignorant, obtuse or stupid?

 

The majority of the Rustling Road trees were assessed by the tree panel and they advised they shouldn't be removed. Their decision was published at 4.21 am on the morning they were cut down.

 

You know this, you've been told it many times before so why are you still asking?

[Robin-H]

Perhaps you can share a link, so we can be sure we are on the same page?

 

I am saying that they are essentially now the same thing. I don't believe it is possible to set up a civil parish without also setting up a parish council.

 

I am referring to Local Government and Rating Act 1997

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/29/contents

 

Are you saying that if I wanted to set up a civil parish without a parish council I could just draw a line of a map and that'd be it?

[Eater Sundae]

Are you being willfully ignorant, obtuse or stupid?

 

The majority of the Rustling Road trees were assessed by the tree panel and they advised they shouldn't be removed. Their decision was published at 4.21 am on the morning they were cut down.

 

You know this, you've been told it many times before so why are you still asking?

 

I have read the ITP report for Rustlings Road. They specifically did not use words like should or shouldn't. They say that alternatives are available, but also state that it is not up to them. They do not give any opinion as to what Amey SHOULD do. Yet some people wilfully continue to claim that they have. A bit more honesty wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Robin-H]

I have read the ITP report for Rustlings Road. They specifically did not use words like should or shouldn't. They say that alternatives are available, but also state that it is not up to them. They do not give any opinion as to what Amey SHOULD do. Yet some people wilfully continue to claim that they have. A bit more honesty wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

Right on cue.

 

Read post #1093.

[Hairyloon]

Are you saying that if I wanted to set up a civil parish without a parish council I could just draw a line of a map and that'd be it?

 

Not entirely: you would need the agreement of some other parishioners: you can discuss that at the parish meeting.

[Robin-H]

Not entirely: you would need the agreement of some other parishioners: you can discuss that at the parish meeting.

 

But I don't yet have a parish. How can I have a parish meeting?

 

Also, what legislation are you referring to?

Edited March 15, 2017 by Robin-H

[Eater Sundae]

Are you being willfully ignorant, obtuse or stupid?

 

The majority of the Rustling Road trees were assessed by the tree panel and they advised they shouldn't be removed. Their decision was published at 4.21 am on the morning they were cut down.

 

You know this, you've been told it many times before so why are you still asking?

 

Right on cue.

 

Read post #1093.

 

But that's the whole point. The ITP don't know the full situation. They can comment on the engineering as to whether there are ways to retain a particular tree. However, they don't, for example, know the relative costs and/or whether there are other overriding constraints. So they use words like can and could. Yet some on here consistently misrepresent what the ITP have said, by using words such as should.

 

Why do this? Unless it is to wilfully deceive an unaware reader.

[Hairyloon]

But I don't yet have a parish. How can I have a parish meeting?

It is as easy as the chicken and the egg. You define an area and call a meeting for that area, at the meeting you decide that the area is a parish and lo, it is a parish meeting.

Also, what legislation are you referring to?

Local Government Act 1972.

[Robin-H]

It is as easy as the chicken and the egg. You define an area and call a meeting for that area, at the meeting you decide that the area is a parish and lo, it is a parish meeting.

 

Local Government Act 1972.

 

I'm not sure that the legislation says that at all.

 

I can't see anything in the Local Government Act 1972 that refers to the creation of civil parishes. That is stipulated in the act that I linked to, the Local Government and Rating Act 1997.

 

The 1972 Act refers to the convening of meetings, not the creation of parishes. A parish must already exist - it does not have to have a council, but there must be a parish.

 

---------- Post added 15-03-2017 at 20:41 ----------

 

But that's the whole point. The ITP don't know the full situation. They can comment on the engineering as to whether there are ways to retain a particular tree. However, they don't, for example, know the relative costs and/or whether there are other overriding constraints. So they use words like can and could. Yet some on here consistently misrepresent what the ITP have said, by using words such as should.

 

Why do this? Unless it is to wilfully deceive an unaware reader.

 

They know the costs as they know which engineering solutions are within the contract and know which are outside of it.

 

On Rustling Road for example, where one tree may have required an engineering solution outside of the 14 within the contract they clearly stated that this may require additional expenditure.

 

When the solutions they recommend are within the contract, they know that it would not require additional expenditure (despite what Cllr Lodge claimed).

 

There might be other overriding constraints, although I am not sure what these would be.

 

I have clearly stated on here, as have others, that the ITP do not have the power to decide the fate of the trees in question, and their role is only to advise the council. Indeed, when somebody erroneously suggested that a member of STAG should be on the panel as they 'decide on the whether the trees are felled' (or words to that effect) they were promptly corrected.