Robin-H

Don’t worry - as long as you don’t eat them you won’t wet the bed.

You can design housing next to rivers (particularly in urban environments) pretty successfully - utilise things such as sacrificial ground floors for parking etc.. Just look at Little Kelham just down the river. The flooding mitigation works done upstream after 2007 have also helped reduce the amount that that river floods. Not saying there wont be a big flood again, but we’ve seen nothing remotely like 2007 since despite extreme rainfall/storms.

Saying ‘to be built’ makes it sounds like it’s something that’s definitely going to happen, whereas this is just Sheffield Council outlining what they would like to happen is it not? The only actual housing development I’m aware that’s coming forward in that area is the Cannon Brewery site, which has recently been bought by Capita and Centric..

Surely is shows weaker leadership to stick to your guns even when it’s clear the mood of the country is against you, than to admit you were wrong and go above and beyond what was asked for..?

Yes, they can. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-7443091/HSBC-makes-easier-mortgage-zero-hours-contract-bank-relaxes-application-rules.html And you don't think crime, drugs, poor schools, or horrendous neighbours were problems in the 70s/80s!!?

That’s a pretty grotesque comment.

Um probably not no...there isn’t even any particularly compelling evidence that Jesus existed. There is even less evidence he was executed, or the reasons why..

Recent news re efforts to tackle homelessness. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/funding-allocated-for-3-300-new-homes-for-rough-sleepers “More than 3,300 new long-term homes for rough sleepers and other vulnerable people have been approved, the Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick MP has announced today (29 October 2020). Backed by government investment of more than £150 million the new homes will be made available in every region of England. This will enable people who sleep rough, or at risk of sleeping rough, to be rehoused in secure, long-term accommodation, providing some of the most vulnerable in society with a permanent place to live and help to rebuild their lives.”

Why are you still seemingly trying to justify the unnecessary removal of healthy trees? That argument has thankfully already been lost, and the council forced to admit they were wrong and apologise. Felling was never a ‘last resort’, but a mechanism through which Amey could increase their profits. To answer your question directly - it depends what you mean by ‘noticeable environmental impact’. If you mean the total of amount of Co2 sequestration, then even felling 100% of street trees would have a negligible impact. If you measure it by the reduction in airborne particulate matter on certain roads, or the cooling effect on hot days, then the loss of street trees would cause a much greater impact. If you’re talking about the loss of the habitat of the rare white lesser hairstreak, then the loss of a single tree would have a noticeable impact.

Felling any tree has an environmental impact... Saying that felling non streets trees has the same environmental impact as felling street trees is clearly not the same as saying it doesn’t have any environment impact.

And? Who has said street trees have a different environmental impact to trees a few yards from streets? The important difference is that healthy street trees were being unnecessary and systematically felled to increase the profit margins of Amey, whereas the other trees weren’t..

I agree that trees need to be properly maintained.

They’re in a grave yard. They’re not street trees. Edit: not technically street trees, in that they would be outside of the contract with Amey.

If somebody purchased a house with a sapling outside not realising that if they were still in the house in 20 - 30 years time that the tree would be larger by then, then I don’t have much sympathy... Fortunately, as dave has pointed out, not liking having a tree on street by your house was never grounds for having it removed (for reasons that should be obvious..)

Funny how trees can suddenly appear that weren't there when people purchased their homes...

I don't think it's a strange question at all. If you haven't noticed, lots of places are closed at the moment when they would ordinarily be open..

That's just demonstrably not true. SCC have improved lots of things, as has been pointed out in this thread. Also, Park Hill wasn't done by the council, it was Urban Splash.

Isn't the Three Tuns an asset of community value? This should prevent it being converted into flats or something..

What drivel. Sheffield has more Academy of Urbanism awards than any other city in the UK.

Good news. That is the plan now. https://sheffieldnewsroom.co.uk/news/block-h-cultural-heart/ "In contrast, the development for H3 (to be known as Cambridge Street Collective) will be aiming to retain as much of the quality, existing fabric and façades along Cambridge Street and Wellington Street as feasible – helping to attractively balance the old and new across the site." "The emerging proposals for this block now showcase the retention of far more original architecture than envisaged in the 2018 masterplan. Plans now include the preservation and sympathetic restoration of the quality fabric and façades along Cambridge Street and Wellington Street, including the listed Bethel Sunday School and Leah’s Yard, as well as the Bethel Chapel and the buildings that formerly housed Brewhouse and Henry’s. The historic buildings fronting these streets will be kept with internal adaptations and reconstruction carried out where necessary to bring them back into use." I don't say this often, but congratulations to SCC for this enlightened and sensible decision!

I'm sure that the exact figures will vary slightly from site to site yes, but I think it's generally accepted that chicken has slightly more protein per kg than beef, tho it may be different for the raw meet (tho people don't tend to eat raw beef, and never eat raw chicken!). Like I said, it's why a body builder's go to for protein is chicken rather than beef (a quarter pound of ground beef has 20 grams of protein. A skinless chicken breast boasts 52 grams of protein). But no, that doesn't directly address the land use issue, but it makes it clear that if you were choosing an animal to rear in order to get the most protein out of a certain area of land (say per acre) you'd be massively better off to go for chicken rather than beef. Just think how many chickens you could fit on an acre of land compared to how many cows.... And, as the link I provided earlier showed, you'd be even better off in terms of protein per acre if instead of meat, you planted something like soybeans instead. https://www.truthordrought.com/soybean-myths "This might seem counter-intuitive, but were we to eat soya rather than meat, the clearance of natural vegetation required to supply us with the same amount of protein would decline by 94%. Producing protein from chickens requires three times as much land as protein from soybeans. Pork needs nine times, beef 32 times."

Nope. Chicken has the highest. It's why body builders are always eating chicken. https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food-and-ingredients/protein.html Chicken breast (grilled without skin) 32g/100g Beef steak (lean grilled) 31.0g/100g Lamb chop (lean grilled) 29.2g/100g Pork chop (lean grilled)31.6/100g

I think you will struggle to find any reputable scientific source that agrees with the claim that there is not an environmental benefit in reducing meat consumption. If you can find one I would be interested to read it.

This argument makes no sense. How much land is required to produce 1000g of protein by growing vegetables? How much land is required to produce 1000g of protein by rearing meat? How much water is required to produce 1000g of protein by growing vegetables? How much water is required to produce 1000g of protein by rearing meat? How much energy is required to produce 1000g of protein by growing vegetables? How much energy is required to produce 1000g of protein by rearing meat? The answer to all three is that on average, it requires less land, less water, and less energy to produce protein from vegetables and pulses etc than from meat. I'm sure it is possible to find exceptions to that, but that doesn't mean reducing meat consumption isn't a good thing. It demonstrably is.

https://humaneherald.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/calories-and-protein-produced-per-acre-1.pdf Soybeans are the highest producer of protein per acre at 513,066 (g)/acre Soybeans, dry peas, and dry beans all yield more protein per acre than the most productive animal product, chicken for meat (163,212 g/acre) Soybeans produce 314% more protein per acre than chicken Soybeans are the highest producer of calories per acre at 6,271,268 (g)/acre All plant-based crops (soybeans, dry beans, dry peas, lentils, wheat, and sunflower seeds) yield more calories (kcal) per acre than the most productive animal product, chicken for meat (1,496,809/acre) Soybeans produce 419% more calories per acre than chicken