Jump to content


Council tree felling...

Recommended Posts

You will find that large swathes of the contract are missing from the SCC website. Certainly, anything that even even vaguely hints at penalties will have been redacted, and indeed large amounts of things that shouldn't be excludable under the FOI "commercial confidentially" exception are completely missing.

 

For example the "Highway Tree Replacement Policy", a crucial document which could resolve many of the points STAG and SCC have been arguing over for years, isn't merely redacted, it's missing in its entirety. Not only that, Schedule 29 (Authority Policies) which contains that policy, is entirely missing from the website. As is Schedule 30, which lists which parts of the contact are supposed to be commercially sensitive. So its impossible even to check whether SCC have released all the parts of the contract which they're not contractually restricted from doing.

 

So no one knows anything, either way.

 

The only conclusion we can draw is that, with so much redacted, it seems like there is something to hide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posts have been removed.

 

There has already been more than one warning on this thread about personal comments and bickering, if there are any further instances accounts will be suspended.

 

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B

Cyclone say that Amey are in serious material breach - I said that might not be the case and did they have any evidence of it; they said I was inventing Variation Orders, amendments to the Contract, was disingenous.

 

I don't think I'm the one with the issue personally - I'll leave it at that.

 

The evidence we do have is that they are in breach, as usual you'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, and without any evidence of variation orders or terms that allow them to fail to delivery, you're arguing that they aren't.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2018 at 16:53 ----------

 

You keep talking about variation orders - where did I mention those? Where did I state these exist?

 

You now mention amendments - where did I mention those? Where did I state these exist?

 

The only reason you are attacking me is because you couldn't substantiate your original comments.

Except that I could, and did.

The contract, the delivery date in it. Today's date.

Argument substantiated.

Now you'll go "well, there might be reasons", except as far as we know there aren't. So you demand evidence from me, I provide it, you make up some waffle and fail to provide any evidence for it.

 

Don't forget that SCC lied about the penalty clauses, that's been established. The best defence you could come up with was (if I remember correctly), the councillor isn't a lawyer and must have just got confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest makapaka
The evidence we do have is that they are in breach, as usual you'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, and without any evidence of variation orders or terms that allow them to fail to delivery, you're arguing that they aren't.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2018 at 16:53 ----------

 

Except that I could, and did.

The contract, the delivery date in it. Today's date.

Argument substantiated.

Now you'll go "well, there might be reasons", except as far as we know there aren't. So you demand evidence from me, I provide it, you make up some waffle and fail to provide any evidence for it.

 

Don't forget that SCC lied about the penalty clauses, that's been established. The best defence you could come up with was (if I remember correctly), the councillor isn't a lawyer and must have just got confused.

 

I think thats confusing evidencing the contract end date and evidencing that a party is in material breach that's all.

 

Neither of us know if they are or not. What's wrong with saying that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think thats confusing evidencing the contract end date and evidencing that a party is in material breach that's all.

 

Neither of us know if they are or not. What's wrong with saying that?

 

Have you read the contract yet ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest makapaka
Have you read the contract yet ?

 

I started to have a look on the website today in my lunch hour.

 

I have to be careful saying that cos apparently it makes me a liar.....

 

It’s a big document and as people said - a lot of it has been redacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much of it is relevant to this thread tbh. Amey came and cleared our drains of fallen leaves last week.

 

They came to the door, and asked if we could move our car as they wanted to chop some trees down, before saying "only joking".

 

I thought that was pretty funny - funny enough to offer them a cup of tea.

 

Oh how we laughed.

 

And they did a great job, so they get a thumbs up from me for a job well done and sense of humour intact.

 

Their management, and SCC could learn a lot from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not much of it is relevant to this thread tbh. Amey came and cleared our drains of fallen leaves last week.

 

They came to the door, and asked if we could move our car as they wanted to chop some trees down, before saying "only joking".

 

I thought that was pretty funny - funny enough to offer them a cup of tea.

 

Oh how we laughed.

 

And they did a great job, so they get a thumbs up from me for a job well done and sense of humour intact.

 

Their management, and SCC could learn a lot from them.

 

Ooh! Don’t come on here saying good things about Amey. Haven’t you read the contract? What? Not even in your lunch hour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think thats confusing evidencing the contract end date and evidencing that a party is in material breach that's all.

 

Neither of us know if they are or not. What's wrong with saying that?

 

That's the reality, things might have changed and SCC are keeping it secret.

But based on the evidence we DO have, and we do have some, they are in breach.

And given the apparently woeful lack of understanding amongst the council of the contract I doubt that they'd want to do anything about it, they seem to be entirely in Amey's pocket, the dog being wagged by the tail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not much of it is relevant to this thread tbh. Amey came and cleared our drains of fallen leaves last week.

 

They came to the door, and asked if we could move our car as they wanted to chop some trees down, before saying "only joking".

 

I thought that was pretty funny - funny enough to offer them a cup of tea.

 

Oh how we laughed.

 

And they did a great job, so they get a thumbs up from me for a job well done and sense of humour intact.

 

Their management, and SCC could learn a lot from them.

 

Don't go making hem cups of tea- in six months time two detectives might be at your door asling if you put laxative in it.

 

It's astonishing that that isn't even a joke!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Streets Ahead contract works come under the Construction Design and Management Regulations 2015. This is Statute Legislation breach of which can be a criminal offence.

SCC is the Client and Amey is the Principal Designer and Contractor under the Regulations

The Client's duties are stated in Clause 4;

(1) A client must make suitable arrangements for managing a project, including the allocation of sufficient time and other resources.

(2) Arrangements are suitable if they ensure that-

(a) The construction works can be carried out, so far as is reasonable practical, without risk to the health and safety of any person affected by the project:

(3) A client must ensure that these arrangements are maintained and reviewed throughout the project.

The duties of the Principal Designer and Principal Contractor regarding risk to health and safety of any person affected by the Construction works are the same as the Client’s.

The felling of an healthy tree unnecessarily is damaging to the environment and hence the health ( mental and physical) of persons is detrimentally affected. There are reasonable and practical alternatives to resolving Highway/Tree interface issues without cutting the tree down and these are the Engineering Solutions within the contract. This would seem to be a breach of Clause 4.2 (a) and specific to the actual loss of the tree.

That the reason for the felling is because of cost ( it’s cheaper and more profitable to cut the tree down ) is not a valid reason since the Client must have the resources ( money) to make suitable arrangements for the works ( Engineering Solutions) since these arrangements do not risk the health and safety of persons affected whereas the tree felling does. This would seem to be a breach of Clause 4.1.

Felling of healthy highways trees is opposed for environmental reasons by the persons affected by it so the present tree felling arrangements involve up to 20 security and 30 police to enable the tree to be felled. There have been injuries due to this massing of persons and arrests. SCC has used the word “dangerous” when describing this situation. These arrangements put at risk those persons involved and affected by it. As these arrangement are not reasonable nor practical whereas Engineering Solutions are, there would seem to be a clear breach of Clause 4. 2(a) here.

Clause 3 requires arrangements to be maintained and reviewed. Freedom of Information requests to SCC on Risk Assessments and the application of the Engineering Solutions have not divulged any information that demonstrates that after events at Rustlings Road and Meersbrook Park Road ( to name just two “hotspots” ) the arrangements have been reviewed. That this information is not readily available suggests a breach of Clause 4. 3.

The costly involvement of the Police as a control method within the Risk Assessments for the environmentally damaging tree felling operation instead of the use of the reasonable and practical Engineering Solutions because tree felling is cheaper, raises serious issues in the light of the above probable breaches.

The principle of CDM Regulations is to avoid risk and when one can't they are a bit like insurance. One had better filled in the forms honestly and correctly to demonstrate competence and compliance because in the event of an investigation should a serious incident occur the forms are the evidence that will be prove a case.

Has a serious incident occurred to date? The environmental damage to date seems serious enough. Add to it the events at Rustlings Road and Meersbrook Park Road and stir in Teagate and it looks very serious.

What is needed is an authoritative body to investigate this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the reality, things might have changed and SCC are keeping it secret.

But based on the evidence we DO have, and we do have some, they are in breach.

And given the apparently woeful lack of understanding amongst the council of the contract I doubt that they'd want to do anything about it, they seem to be entirely in Amey's pocket, the dog being wagged by the tail.

looking at this you could be on to something http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=16467 :suspect:

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
Ă—
Ă—
  • 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.