Jump to content

Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

Recommended Posts

This meant the tree panel did not need to be consulted and the Council/Amey could go ahead and remove the trees, following which the much needed repairs to pavements, kerbs and the road surface could proceed.

 

The much needed repairs to pavements, kerbs and the road surface could proceed without the need to cut down the trees, but it's just cheaper for Amey to fell the trees rather than seek engineering solutions.

 

Note, any engineering solutions wouldn't cost the council or the taxpayer any more money...it would just mean Amey wouldn't be making so much profit out of this ridiculous 25 year contract they've signed up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that would still be the case if the majority of councillors were Tory,Lib Dem, UKIP, Green, Nazi, Communist...whatever. Makes no difference at all.

 

If they actually thought that their actions would determine whether they gain/lose votes then they would be very interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stop voting back in a Labour council you bunch of sheeple. Can't you get it the council don't care about your opinion. The ONLY people with any influence over the council work for the University.

 

Does anyone know if these tress are considered dangerous to the public?

 

I think you may find the fingerprints of Paul Scriven on the contract.

"Sheffield Council leader Paul Scriven said: "Choosing the best contractor to undertake this work is crucial and we have to make sure we get it right."

 

Read more at: http://www.thestar.co.uk/whats-on/out-and-about/on-the-road-to-recovery-1-1830923

http://www.thestar.co.uk/whats-on/out-and-about/on-the-road-to-recovery-1-1830923

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Several very large trees on Dunkeld Road are to be removed and replaced with smaller trees more suitable to the environment. Residents were advised that a small number of trees (eight? I don't recall exactly how many) were to go and all 65 houses on the road (including mine) were invited to comment. Of which only 29 responded (including me) and only 9 gave adverse comments (also including me, though my concern was for only one of the condemned trees). So, a large majority of residents may be presumed to be content with the proposals. This meant the tree panel did not need to be consulted and the Council/Amey could go ahead and remove the trees, following which the much needed repairs to pavements, kerbs and the road surface could proceed.

 

Amey sent a contractor yesterday to remove the first tree. Within minutes some protesters arrived and stopped the work. More protesters arrived during the day and at one time there were around 20 present. Few, if any, of these protesters were residents of Dunkeld Road. The police were called but were too busy elsewhere dealing with more important matters and so nothing could be done and the contractors left, having removed just a couple of branches.

 

This was repeated today, only this time the police were able to attend and clear a working area for the contractors. Most of the tree was felled, reduced to a trunk of maybe 8 feet high.

 

So the protesters' actions have proved to be pointless and resulted only in making the project more costly than it need have been, wasted police time, delayed the necessary street works and inconvenienced the residents.

 

My plea to the protesters: you have made your point; you have lost the argument; now please go away and let the work on the remaining trees go ahead without your unnecessary and ultimately pointless delaying tactics and save the residents further inconvenience.

 

I would add that several large trees (probably London Planes) were removed from Dunkeld Road the last time the pavements were resurfaced maybe 10 or 12 years ago. These were replaced with smaller varieties which are now a beautiful part of the street scene. I look forward to seeing the replacement trees thriving in years to come.

 

A well informed and balanced report on a specific case. I'd add that Dunkeld Road has reasonable sized gardens where most houses have trees that further add to the green cover in Sheffield. Any modest loss in the short term will be more than made up by the growth of all the nearby trees, both street and garden.

 

It's a shame so much hot air is being expended when the vast majority of trees being replaced across the city will bring longer term benefits all round. With over 2 million in Sheffield the current programme is making the smallest of impressions on the total situation.

 

That said, some aspects of the programme have undoubtedly been conducted with inadequate consideration of all factors. A few special case exemptions in response to local feelings wouldn't really do too much harm. However, as this post about Dunkeld Road sets out, maybe the feelings aren't quite as strong as they've been made out to be. They certainly aren't on my road either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impact that the unnecessary removal makes isn't the point. The fact that trees are being removed ONLY to boost profits for Amey is surely what's important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The impact that the unnecessary removal makes isn't the point. The fact that trees are being removed ONLY to boost profits for Amey is surely what's important.

 

There is a declared aim of reducing maintenance costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a declared aim of reducing maintenance costs.

 

They also declare that removing a tree is only ever a last resort, after seeing if any of the 14 engineering solutions within the contract can be used to retain the tree.

 

It has now become clear that that is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a declared aim of reducing maintenance costs.

 

Is that supposed to be a justification? The maintenance cost is a cost to Amey, not the council.

So the "declared aim" can be satisfied by cutting down just as many trees as they can get away with. That doesn't make it okay.

If I declare an aim of buying a ferrari, it doesn't make it okay to start stealing does it! :suspect:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The impact that the unnecessary removal makes isn't the point. The fact that trees are being removed ONLY to boost profits for Amey is surely what's important.

 

I for one don't accept either premise. It is necessary to replace some trees. It is not a fact that the scheme is only to boost anyone's profits.

 

Good forest, woodland, parkland and street tree management requires a degree of thinning, pruning, pollarding, coppicing and replacement. It is a fact that all that had been neglected in recent years for our street trees. Far too many have been felled without any replacement. For me that's a far bigger isssue. So many street trees have gone in recent years that many residents won't even know how many we've lost. Residents were offered the opportunity to pay for replacements, at about £150 a time. Few paid up, so there are many gaps.

 

Amey have a contract, part of which includes tree management. Of course overall they aim to make a profit, but it was not they who decided the specification of works required. In most of the streets that have been completed the finished result is an improvement. It's inevitable that we'll not all agree about every tree in every street. The fact that any tree that now needs to be felled will be replaced is a very major improvement on what went before. That condition in their contract gives Amey a big incentive to look after all the trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I for one don't accept either premise. It is necessary to replace some trees. It is not a fact that the scheme is only to boost anyone's profits.

 

Good forest, woodland, parkland and street tree management requires a degree of thinning, pruning, pollarding, coppicing and replacement. It is a fact that all that had been neglected in recent years for our street trees. Far too many have been felled without any replacement. For me that's a far bigger isssue. So many street trees have gone in recent years that many residents won't even know how many we've lost. Residents were offered the opportunity to pay for replacements, at about £150 a time. Few paid up, so there are many gaps.

 

Amey have a contract, part of which includes tree management. Of course overall they aim to make a profit, but it was not they who decided the specification of works required. In most of the streets that have been completed the finished result is an improvement. It's inevitable that we'll not all agree about every tree in every street. The fact that any tree that now needs to be felled will be replaced is a very major improvement on what went before. That condition in their contract gives Amey a big incentive to look after all the trees.

 

That is not quite true.

 

There is a big incentive in the Amey contract for them to fell as many trees in the early years of the contract as possible.

 

They can charge the Council for every sapling they they plant (in Birmingham they were charging the council £2,000 for every sapling they planted).

 

Not only this but they also avoid having any of the future maintenance costs for that tree such as pruning, pollarding, crown lifting etc etc. The contract is for 25 years, so by the time that the new trees are big enough to require any such work, they will not be responsible.

 

I would disagree that most streets that have had trees felled have been improved, although I accept that that is a matter of opinion. I however much prefer the former..

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/09/23/31076CEE00000578-0-image-a-4_1455059662224.jpg

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/09/23/31076CF600000578-0-image-a-5_1455059666012.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do people know what is in the amey contract ? Has it been made publicly available? If so, please post a link. Or provide some sort of proof to back up your argument of tree felling financial incentives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do people know what is in the amey contract ? Has it been made publicly available? If so, please post a link. Or provide some sort of proof to back up your argument of tree felling financial incentives.

 

The contract is freely available online here.

 

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/works/schemes/streetsaheadproject/contract.html

 

Some parts are however heavily redacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.