Tree Preservation in Quarry
From:
Jock Coats
Date:
Apr 07 14:46 UTC
Short link
I do know that one reason for confidentiality that I have come across
in the past has been, for example, decisions about domestic abuse
shelters.
I think you'd probably agree that it would be best not to have the
perpetrators knowing where their abused wives and partners have gone
to escape them. It must just be human nature I suppose that people
see wording like that and assume there must be some sinister or
underhand reason for it. There may well be, but I do know there are
very valid reasons also.
Jock
On 7 Apr 2008, at 14:24, Julia Gasper wrote:
> I have discovered the reason why the application to drastically
> reduce the beautiful ash trees at 16a, Trinity Road is no longer
> displayed on the same page. It seems that the tree officer, Mr
> Leyland, has now put a Tree Preservation Order on them, so they are
> listed under Works to a Tree with a TPO.
> That is good news, but it is no reason to be complacent. Trees
> with a TPO can still be lopped, hacked and felled for no particular
> reason at any time of year, merely by getting the permission of a
> Tree Officer, which is regularly granted. Or of course it can be
> done without permission, in which case there is not much anyone can
> do (in the short term) to rectify the harm.
> So, many more objections from the residents are needed to ensure
> that these lovely and majestic trees survive. Ash-trees, one of our
> most ancient native species, do not grow any taller after the first
> sixty years, so there is no need at all to prune them. Doing so
> would destroy the natural fan-shape of the crown and reduce them to
> stumps. Since the woodland in Spring Lane has been destroyed they
> are one of our last links with Shotover and they were incredibly
> beautiful covered in the recent snow. Every day I see birds
> perching in their top-most branches.
> I see on the Council Planning Matters website the following
> words: "Note: For reasons of confidentiality, Oxford City Council
> may choose not to display certain Planning Applications."
> That is very puzzling. Surely by its nature, City Council business
> is public business and therefore should be open to the public. If
> some applications are confidential, what happens to the princoplse
> that the public is entitled to know what is going on and what is
> being done in our name?
> It is rather curious that the citizens who pay the expenses of the
> Council, can be excluded from knowing what the Council is doing.
> What reason is there for this confidentiality in certain cases? Why
> is it necessary?
> There appears to be a discrepancy here between confidentiality
> and the principles of public accountability.
> How is this consistent with the Freedom of Information Act?
--
Jock Coats
Warden's Flat 1e, J Block Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0FF
local rate: 084 JOCKOXFD (56256933) skype:jock.coats?call
<email obscured> http://jockcoats.org.uk
.
