Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Guest makapaka]

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 ----------

 

 

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.

 

I think you're referring to me here and I accept that the ITP doesnt have the final decision.

 

Looking on the website they express their views and then there is a further column where the contractor / council offers their view on the ITP's recommendations and it's clear in some instances the proposals are not accepted.

 

I fail to believe that the counter argument has to then be accepted by the panel.

 

I also fail to see how a further strong voice couldn't add weight to the argument to retain a tree.

 

I also fail to see how it wouldn't benefit stag to be able to highlight any ignoring of the panels recommendations at the coal face, if after each meeting stag set out what was discussed and the validity of the challenge.

 

I for one would be very interested in seeing that and it would better inform my view than the totally arrogant responses of people on this forum who seem to see their views as unchallengeable- "promptly corrected"? Good grief.

[Robin-H]

I think you're referring to me here and I accept that the ITP doesnt have the final decision.

 

Looking on the website they express their views and then there is a further column where the contractor / council offers their view on the ITP's recommendations and it's clear in some instances the proposals are not accepted.

 

I fail to believe that the counter argument has to then be accepted by the panel.

 

I also fail to see how a further strong voice couldn't add weight to the argument to retain a tree.

 

I also fail to see how it wouldn't benefit stag to be able to highlight any ignoring of the panels recommendations at the coal face, if after each meeting stag set out what was discussed and the validity of the challenge.

 

I for one would be very interested in seeing that and it would better inform my view than the totally arrogant responses of people on this forum who seem to see their views as unchallengeable- "promptly corrected"? Good grief.

 

Promptly corrected yes because what you wrote, which was 'that they could sit on the panel that decided the trees future but don't because there's no point' was wrong.

 

Now it may have been the case that it was just the phrasing you use, and I accept that you know that the ITP do not decide on the future of trees, but I think you would agree that that point shouldn't have been left uncorrected.

 

I fail to see the logic of complaining about being corrected whilst also complaining that people are arrogant for expressing their (unwavering) viewpoint.

[Guest makapaka]

Promptly corrected yes because what you wrote, which was 'that they could sit on the panel that decided the trees future but don't because there's no point' was wrong.

 

Now it may have been the case that it was just the phrasing you use, and I accept that you know that the ITP do not decide on the future of trees, but I think you would agree that that point shouldn't have been left uncorrected.

 

I fail to see the logic of complaining about being corrected whilst also complaining that people are arrogant for expressing their (unwavering) viewpoint.

 

It was the wording which I accept wasn't correct but there is a lot of picking on wording when it's clear of a posters intention. This is then quickly stated as being "corrected" without acknowledgement of the intended argument and normally in a quite dismissive manner.

 

However I accept the correction.

 

An example of the instances I saw were where the panel said something along the lines of a tree could be saved by chopping off top roots and depressing lower roots and the response was that this would leave the tree unstable.

 

Now I don't know which is correct, but if the latter is incorrect that's where the challenge should surely come.

 

If that challenge was made - and again ignored - that would be an ideal platform for a stag panel representative to record and highlight and I would certainly expect answers from streets ahead as to why that was the case.

 

Maybe the ITP is not strong enough and stag could support them?

[Robin-H]

It was the wording which I accept wasn't correct but there is a lot of picking on wording when it's clear of a posters intention. This is then quickly stated as being "corrected" without acknowledgement of the intended argument and normally in a quite dismissive manner.

 

However I accept the correction.

 

An example of the instances I saw were where the panel said something along the lines of a tree could be saved by chopping off top roots and depressing lower roots and the response was that this would leave the tree unstable.

 

Now I don't know which is correct, but if the latter is incorrect that's where the challenge should surely come.

 

If that challenge was made - and again ignored - that would be an ideal platform for a stag panel representative to record and highlight and I would certainly expect answers from streets ahead as to why that was the case.

 

Maybe the ITP is not strong enough and stag could support them?

 

I believe that assertion by the council has been challenged. The ITP are not in the position to challenge the council's response to their recommendations as there is no mechanism through which they can do so, and it is not in their remit.

 

This is why direct meetings with Julie Dore are a more appropriate place to raise these issues.

[Hairyloon]

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.

I agree that the '72 act makes no mention of the formation of parishes, but it cannot rely on the '97 act for the formation of those parishes. Nor, so far as I can tell, does the '97 act revoke earlier legislation: I assume it is intended to supplement rather than replace it.

Also, it seems to refer mainly to the formation of parish councils: I am not persuaded that you cannot have a parish without a council.

 

But one answer would be to suck it and see: hold the meeting, ask for the poll and see what arguments the council puts up.

STAG are having various meetings anyway, it would take only a little more effort to tick the boxes for a proto-parish meeting, and if the council refuse, then we've lost nothing.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Hairyloon

[taxman]

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.

 

Well seeing as the council always claimed that felling was a last resort, and if, as you say, the ITP have suggested alternatives....why haven't they been taken up?

 

If they believe 6 out of 8 could be retained why did Amey and SCC just ignore them?

 

And don't claim it's because of cost for the council tax payer until you can point us in the direction of an un-redacted Streets Ahead contract.

[Guest makapaka]

I believe that assertion by the council has been challenged. The ITP are not in the position to challenge the council's response to their recommendations as there is no mechanism through which they can do so, and it is not in their remit.

 

This is why direct meetings with Julie Dore are a more appropriate place to raise these issues.

 

But surely there's even less of a mechanism through outside discussions with Julie dore.

 

Sound like the issue is the ITP?

[Crosser]

Shame we can't have a tree without a chainsaw!

 

The ruddy leaves will be back soon, ready to block my light and provide a perch for birds to cack on my car! I cannot wait(!) .... Then the Autumn.... BILLIONS of leaves deposited all over my lawn for ME to deal with whilst my lawn dies ... oh! and the roots lifting my tarmac, those great big arterial cracks which now look like a scene from "Earthquake"....

 

For God's SAKE! Plant trees where they won't bother people in a City! NOT where they cause maximum annoyance to the populace.

 

There are millions of such places, but roadsides/verges isn't one of them!

[Robin-H]

I agree that the '72 act makes no mention of the formation of parishes, but it cannot rely on the '97 act for the formation of those parishes. Nor, so far as I can tell, does the '97 act revoke earlier legislation: I assume it is intended to supplement rather than replace it.

Also, it seems to refer mainly to the formation of parish councils: I am not persuaded that you cannot have a parish without a council.

 

But one answer would be to suck it and see: hold the meeting, ask for the poll and see what arguments the council puts up.

STAG are having various meetings anyway, it would take only a little more effort to tick the boxes for a proto-parish meeting, and if the council refuse, then we've lost nothing.

 

I am not suggesting that it is not possible to have a civil parish without a council, indeed the '72 legislation specifically mentions that this might be the case in some situations. I do not believe however that it is possible to form a new civil parish without a council.

 

I cannot find any extant legislation that refers to the creation of civil parishes other than the '97 act. I therefore believe that it is that act on which rights to set up civil parishes are based.

 

---------- Post added 15-03-2017 at 22:59 ----------

 

But surely there's even less of a mechanism through outside discussions with Julie dore.

 

Sound like the issue is the ITP?

 

The issue is not the ITP per se no. The ITP are doing exactly what they were tasked to do, however they are essentially powerless and the final decision ultimately lies with the council.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Robin-H

[Hairyloon]

I do not believe however that it is possible to form a new civil parish without a council.

That thought had crossed my mind also, but it does not make logical sense: if you can have a parish without a council, then why do you need a council to set up a parish?

I cannot find any extant legislation that refers to the creation of civil parishes other than the '97 act. I therefore believe that it is that act on which rights to set up civil parishes are based.

I have found none either, but I do not believe that the '97 act covers the relevant point. Though I do confess that I have not read the whole thing.

 

My last point still stands unchallenged though: if we were to ask for a poll, through the process described in the '72 act, then the council would have to give their reasons for refusing it.

From there, we can choose to argue the point, else address it and try again.