to cllr Martin Elengorn councillor for the environment

Vincent has just given me, fri 2nd, a copy of your 
reply  of 14 feb to him. and suggests i take
up the matter with you, where he left off, so:

		
2007feb
9th	2 irregularities brought to Vince Cable:	
		1 Delay of publication of Consultation 
			Document(CD) 2.5 
			days after start of tree 
			cutting and 
		2 Total ommission of Petition 
			from the CD
12th	Vincent Cable raises  these with you	
12th	A forced "Thank you for the petition" comes 
	from Philipp Wealthy, Head of Policy and 
	Design, only after Vince Cable and Heritage Lottery 
	Fund(HLF) are questioning the integrity of 
	the consultation process
	
	Wealthy continues "All the responses 
	to the consultation were very carefully
	considered ..."
	We cannot put much confidence in this 
	statment as it too had to be forced 
	from him

THE SEQUENCE:
-exec committee meeting, 6th
-tree cutters working 7th
-defective CD published after work started 
	9th ( disregard to all respondees)
-the prompting of Vince Cable/HLF leads
	to a new CD file being created 
	afternoon of 12th that mentions a 
	petition but its not the WarrenPath
	Petition but a diminished LBR 
	version of it published 13th
-your failure to mention let alone explain 
	the ommission to Vince Cable 14th
	-while at the same time 
-you offer him a distortion of the facts, 
	when you say "as you can see 
	the exec committee.. agreed to retain 
	most of the trees the respondents 
	were concerned about.". The 
	responding petitioners (now risen 
	to 600+) sought to keep all the living 
	elders(20), sycamores(35) and 
	laurels(2) with the intention that the 
	path remain as it grew on its own. 
	Not 6/10 as in Wealthy- and -
-then you go onto say "the works are very 
	minor and, if it would have been 
	anything but arcadia where the 
	grant making bodies require 
	consultation, would have been 
	treated as ordinary tree management." 
	diminishing the action of arcadia to 
	persuade Vincent it's "ordinary tree 
	management."
	all this 
HAS RESULTED IN the petition still not being 
	truly recognised and entered into the 
	consultation document. What then is 
	the validity of your consultations
	which you are contracted with Heritage 
	Lottery Fund to make?

	i guess the HLF need to see a true CD 
	to be sure you are doing whats wanted 
	and theyre not paying for what's not.
	
	Further more you are now 

	exceeding the work on the CD, 
	pollarding by definition is head removal 
	and we had from Jason Debney that 
	this kind of clinical bank stripping was 
	not on. The ducks now have no cover 
	from the great mallard gang bang.
	
	So we ask you to stop in view of 
	defective and exceeded consultations
	
	Mcculloch