THE Green group seem to be taking some stick over the upside-down trees.

This is somewhat unjustified as we have never said we were in favour of them and the scheme was decided upon a long time before we got onto the council. Our arts representative, Tony Pinkney, wrote to defend his area to say that people shouldn't dismiss all artworks just because they didn't like the trees.

I'm probably a little more guilty of apparent upside-down tree appreciation as, when I was originally contacted by a Citizen journalist to give a quote (never having heard about the trees until that moment), I came up with: I prefer my trees with green leaves and roots in the ground.

However, if this artwork tunes people into the destruction of nature then maybe it will serve a useful purpose. Well, given the controversy, and given that, contrary to R. Anderson's assertion (Citizen letters), protection and enhancement of nature is my top priority, I thought I'd better see the trees for myself and check out the second sentence of my quote!

So what did I think? Well, the trees did certainly grab my attention and I know I'm far from the only one who has made the trek to see them. However, that doesn't mean that they are 'art' or worth £7,000 of lottery players' money. On reflection, I concluded that the spot in which the trees are cited is an extremely beautiful natural area and didn't need any 'art' to improve it - it was just fine on its own.

I was also rather dismayed to see the amount of undergrowth and habitat that had been flattened to put the trees in (a similar over-destruction of verges occurs along the length of the cyclepath).

The second part of my quote was not backed up by my experience - the trees didn't particularly tune me into the destruction of nature. They were just trees planted upside down. I consoled myself with the thought that, as the trees rot, they will provide a valuable habitat for insects and small creatures.

Cllr Jon Barry

Lancaster Green Party