On 26/01/06 11:38 Paul Oldham wrote: > What I don't understand is why these particular trees posed a safety > risk given they weren't located very close to a public path and it was > difficult to get close to them by yomping through the undergrowth, not > least as it's a mass of nettles for half the year. A while ago we agreed > with SCDC a policy of grading trees on the basis of risk and only doing > works on those which posed a risk ... OK. I met with Simon McIntosh this morning, along with Keely Adams (the ranger wielding the radio mic on Sunday for those of you who were there). The story on these particular trees is that they did present some danger of falling (although as I pointed out they weren't very near a path, there's lots nearer that should be higher priority) but the main issue turns out to be the pool. Around the time that the park was created the pool was bubbling up "noxious" gas (I think they mean it was stagnant - there's areas in Milton Hall lake which are like that) to the point where the Environment Agency came out, did tests, and dredged the pool to reduce the leaf litter. The concern is that the trees overhanging the pool were simultaneously filling the pool with leaves and denying it sunlight to help break it down. Thus recreating the conditions they found a decade ago. So they've opened up the area to let light in. I pointed out some other trees which I was surprised weren't a higher priority from a safety point of view as they were right next to the path and expose to the wind (on the edge of Todd's just after you come in from Old School Lane). Apparently these are about to be pollarded too. I can see some sense in doing these. He agreed that the timing of these new works was unfortunate, only days after the meeting when he was explaining about the cutbacks, but he's got budget for this year and he's trying to use it while he can, as it's going to be more problematic in future years. We talked about the general issue of how tree maintenance is done and in particular how trimmings are left. There's a feeling that I and others have had for a while that there's a deliberate policy of trying to exclude people from any area away from the path by the way trimmings are laid. We went and looked at one area in particular where this was the case, where a path appeared to have been deliberately blocked. It turned out that this was indeed the intention - to prevent unauthorised fishing from the area beyond it. We discussed whether policy might be to *not* block paths unless there was a good reason to do so. We also talked in general about the park and some of the feedback Simon got from the forms you filled in at Sunday's meeting. Ideas he mentioned, some of which he liked, were picnic tables at the Fen Road end, play equipment for older children, and a sculture park at the A14 end. I also mentioned the BMX mound at Hinchingbrooke as a potential way of providing play equipment to older children for little expense.