Jump to content

Council tree felling...

Recommended Posts

If the ATMP says something other than 17500 then the contract becomes a paradox and impossible to comply with, they cannot possibly cut down trees to agree with two different numbers.

This is not uncommon in poorly written contracts, I've even seen it in pretty decent contracts too. In this case what is written in the annual management plan would possibly take precedence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may be right - but we haven’t seen all of the contract and the council and justice males maintain that the final decision lies with the council so they may have “wiggle room” they intended to utilise.

 

I think I've worked out what your issue is- you place such stock in authority figures that your default position is that they're always correct, always honest, always right.

 

Justice Males, just like the council, can get things wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry , Jared Omara Mp ( yes him, hes finally appeared ) is on the case , joining other local Mps in calling for tree felling to be halted and for talks to happen . These local Mps are really running scared now . Wonder what it could be ? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok - one last thing and then I’ll sign off;

 

I explained earlier about my views on the penalties comments - you made a reasonable reply at the time but have now gone after me again for some reason.

 

It’s not unusual to find ambiguities in contracts - it’s also not unusual to put something in that provides a maximum liability with the ability to manage that down. That may not be the case here as I’ve said above - but it’s possible.

 

I’m not going to get in to a discussion on what constitutes a lie - Brian lodge may have lied - he may have got something wrong - there is a difference as you know.

 

That really is it for me. Let see what comes of the whole charade.

 

 

Tell me , What job do you hold with the council ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not uncommon in poorly written contracts, I've even seen it in pretty decent contracts too. In this case what is written in the annual management plan would possibly take precedence.

 

At the moment we have no evidence to suggest that's the case though. We do have evidence that the contract says 17,500 trees in an unequivocal, target like form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contract requires at least 17,500 trees to be felled. The council say that all fellings must be agreed by them. From answers at council meetings, if the council does not agree to a felling then it costs them money. They say they don't have money. Therefore they always agree to fellings that Amey propose.

 

Amey have to meet this 17,500 target and therefore they propose lots of fellings. They find spurious reasons to fell so that they can give the appearance of meeting a policy about only felling "as a last resort".

 

And that's how we have this situation where they fell because there is a slightly uplifted kerbstone or a crack in decades-old pavement. They pretend that dealing with those things is impossible unless they fell the tree. Other councils would just send a couple of guys out to deal with it in a morning.

 

And that's the problem with PFI contracts. The supplier is incentivised to play silly games like this and common sense is abandoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The S7/S11 benefit gig is on soon, 'Get Off our Tree' well sold out and all, fair enough, but i can't help thinking why these celebs did nothing when the Bedroom Tax came in which affected the most vulnerable in Sheffield..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heard it on the jeremy vine show on radio2 today i think they even had a band playing there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 plod in attendance at Sackville Road today to oversee the cutting down of one tree. This is despite the pavement and road ALREADY HAVING BEEN RESURFACED.

 

Next time they bleat about lack of manpower to deal with real crime they can eff off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HECK!

 

It's not like the trees matter They probably shouldn't have been planted by the roadsides anyway! but in hindsight now they are damaging things.

 

So simply chop them all down, plant some new ones in their place.... then have the same time/energy/resource wasting FIASCO in 30 years time eh?

 

Or maybe...

 

Chop them down and then re-plant trees in areas where trees will be left alone, forests, woods, cops's or even tracts of waste land where they won't attack the infrastructure.

 

To be fair, at the time the trees were planted with the best of intentions, however now they are a menace in more ways than one.

 

Things change... get used to it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HECK!

 

It's not like the trees matter They probably shouldn't have been planted by the roadsides anyway! but in hindsight now they are damaging things.

 

So simply chop them all down, plant some new ones in their place.... then have the same time/energy/resource wasting FIASCO in 30 years time eh?

 

Or maybe...

 

Chop them down and then re-plant trees in areas where trees will be left alone, forests, woods, cops's or even tracts of waste land where they won't attack the infrastructure.

 

To be fair, at the time the trees were planted with the best of intentions, however now they are a menace in more ways than one.

 

Things change... get used to it!

 

So you think all inner city and roadside trees should be cut down? Sad..and a little bit pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HECK!

 

It's not like the trees matter They probably shouldn't have been planted by the roadsides anyway! but in hindsight now they are damaging things.

 

So simply chop them all down, plant some new ones in their place.... then have the same time/energy/resource wasting FIASCO in 30 years time eh?

 

Or maybe...

 

Chop them down and then re-plant trees in areas where trees will be left alone, forests, woods, cops's or even tracts of waste land where they won't attack the infrastructure.

 

To be fair, at the time the trees were planted with the best of intentions, however now they are a menace in more ways than one.

 

Things change... get used to it!

 

How very dare you! I imagine there are a multitude of tree huggers frothing over their Muesli and wishing you a wart on your left toe.

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.