Plans for 4k cycle route through Plymouth woodland are approved

“paulmh66. I cant figure, is your comment based on ignorance or stupidity?”

“paulmh66: Eh? -

The comments and thumbs on these stories are generally very much in favour of the trails. You don't need to take my word for it though, just read the comments on this thread and others.

However all this might really indicate is how much more plugged into the internet the suporters of this trail are than the objectors. As an example, quite a few of the letter of objection sent to the council this time and last time were hand written. None of the letters of support were, in fact I think they were all emailed or done directly online. The last petition that the supporters of the trails handed in was done online in about 10 days, yet it had 570 people on it: again, you have to go out of our way to sign an e-petition, but if you are on a computer on a daily basis it is far more likely you will be reached without waiting for one of the FOPW to knock on your front door. I expect it took them some weeks to get round the 1000 or so people they claimed to have sign it, and possibly missed a few dozen more people they could have got if they had met them face to face. I don't think there is anything wrong with one group being less technologically adept than another, but I wouldn't be so hasty as to judge everything on what you can see online. Well, not for another half a generation or so anyway!

It IS completely unprecedented however to have anything more than a handful of letters of support for a planning application. The Guardian even ran a story/blog on it last autumn, the central point being that the PCC had never seen anything like the 400 for/400 against ratio of letters of representation.

However, numbers are only numbers. Objections and letters of support are judged by planning officers and committees on their merits and relevance, not necessarily their quantity.

Witness the planing officer in this case suggesting that the dozens of "letters" that were either cut-n-paste's of Arthur Ainslie's letter, (or just photocopies of his with a different name and signature at the bottom!) might be seen more in the context of a very detailed petition. A petition whose objections and concerns were largely explained/dealt with by the planners, the Ancient Woodland specialist from Natural England and the PCC's tree specialist. As well as that lady sat next to the chair who despite her somewhat advanced years, spoke with great enthusiasm about a similar project up and running in her "patch". If anyone is interested enough to lose 2 hours of their life, the "webcast" of the meeting is now available to watch here: http://tinyurl.com/bly29zv
(Plym Bridge bit is between 20 minutes and 1hr 35 in on the video)

Bottom line is, you could have thousands object to a planning application, but if they are objecting on grounds that the planning committee do not consider to be all that serious, or if the planning committee consier that the benefits will outweigh the likely costs, then the planning application will be passed.”

“JoeFogey get over it you idiot you lost, man up and suck it up, as for your `environmental concerns` its not just bikers that drop litter etc or whatever it is your whining about, yet you dont have a problem with others using the woodland? hypocrite just like your mate arth :P”

“Makes me laugh when people say what we think of nature and the way we are harming nature. The fact is, we are part of nature and anything we do, good or bad, can be considered part of nature. It's a tad arrogant to say otherwise.
I personally would like to see the "hundreds of signatures scribbled on petitions" so we can see exactly what the figures are. The comments and thumbs here alone where more against than for this, lets face it, short term use track. Just look at the old disused track in the woods nearby as evidence of that. Mountains bikes is for mountains, not woodland.”

“Isn't it time for Arthur's Anti Army to shut up and move on now that their dishonest hypocrisy has been laid bare?
Maybe next time you want to make a point you'll learn the lesson that it' s better to act honourably.”

“What a pity - more of nature destroyed at the behest of those with a narcissistic sense of entitlement. There's no difference between the attitude of the NT and mountain bikers who want this track, and those farmers who want to gas badgers. They both believe nature is there for their benefit and that any adverse effect of their need for profit or pleasure can be dismissed as insignificant. The National Trust bear most blame - they seem determined to turn our natural heritage into a theme park. That strange whirring is the sound of Beatrice Potter and the Trust's other founders turning in their graves.”

“Black pot.......good job otherwise we'd all still be living in caves or in trees like apes”

“One things for sure,nobody gives a damn about the enviroment.”

“The FOPW missed a trick. They could have blamed the forthcoming tragic destruction of ash trees on the trail. It's not true but that doesn't usually trouble them.”

“£400,000..... you are kidding right ? Four hundred thousand quid to ride a bike in a wood ? What planet are these people on who give money away all the time like this ? Would they do this with their own money ?
The planet and indeed the country I live in cant even find money for its homeless and sick and elderly unless it is borrowed . What the eff is going on ?”