Jump to content

Council tree felling...

Recommended Posts

They a VERY DIFFERENT type of tree. Are you being disingenuous?

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2018 at 22:28 ----------

 

 

I've no idea how you've made such 'logical' leaps based on the statements I made.

Are you still persisting in the believe that all types of tree are identical? :roll:

 

What type of tree will be planted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They a VERY DIFFERENT type of tree. Are you being disingenuous?

 

Hes doing what he always does , trying to be clever but failing miserably :loopy: Its been said many times on here about the type of tree that will be planted but he seems to ignore it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The square will look much better - there will be plenty of trees in it which in years to come will mature like the ones they are replacing- 12 of them no less.

 

Whilst I don’t always agree I accept some of the views on street tree removal - however this sort of objection could have potentially held the redevelopment back unnecessarily.

 

 

Which views on street tree removal do you accept?

You have spent months and months (on overtime) arguing the toss on the subject - claiming to have inside knowledge and when challenged cried that you didn't and never claimed that you did - spending a lunch hour I seem to recall looking at the contract, lord knows for whose benefit - and the same heavily redacted one we could all see.

 

Council employee of the year !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest makapaka
Which views on street tree removal do you accept?

You have spent months and months (on overtime) arguing the toss on the subject - claiming to have inside knowledge and when challenged cried that you didn't and never claimed that you did - spending a lunch hour I seem to recall looking at the contract, lord knows for whose benefit - and the same heavily redacted one we could all see.

 

Council employee of the year !

 

No you made all that up about claiming inside knowledge.

 

I’m just pleased that fitzalan square is going to get sorted out because it’s tired, dark and dingey.

 

4 trees are getting chopped down and they’re going to plant some more to replace them and the whole square will look a lot better.

 

You carry on with your conspiracy theories me old.

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2018 at 23:52 ----------

 

Hes doing what he always does , trying to be clever but failing miserably :loopy: Its been said many times on here about the type of tree that will be planted but he seems to ignore it

 

Of course it a different tree - so what? You wouldn’t have given it a seconds thought if they’d done this redevelopment 10 years ago.

 

What do you think about the peace gardens? A good few trees came out when they did that redevelopment- did you put a complaint in at the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What type of tree will be planted?

 

Perhaps you could just read back a few posts. And yes, I'm aware that we don't know the exact species, we do know that the type though, as do you. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you could just read back a few posts. And yes, I'm aware that we don't know the exact species, we do know that the type though, as do you. :roll:

 

I asked a serious question. I'd looked at the planning document on the council website and seen that they had said fastigiate, but I'd not seen anything else. A line of trees each having a tall, thin shape seems to me, on the face of it, a good idea, as they could provide screening, as well as needing minimal future maintenance as they generally grow upwards, not outwards.

 

An important point of any planting, IMO, is the correct choice of tree. Anyone can see that if fastigiate trees had been chosen for the central reservation of Hanover Way instead of the trees that are there, they wouldn't have overhung a major carriageway at lowish level and require regular pruning just to let large vehicles use a major urban road.

 

In the case of Fitzalan Square, several people have been dismissive of the trees being chosen. I presumed that this must have been because they knew the actual type of tree. However, if it is based solely on the fact that the trees are of a fastigiate type, it looks more like a wish to criticize the Council just on principal.

 

Just for the ill informed, fastigiate trees can include such as 3ft high dwarf conifers such as you might see in a plant pot or rockery. Equally, they can include 100 ft plus Leylandii. Hence my question. Maybe this is an appropriate place to put a "roll eyes" emoji.

 

There is probably a case for further questioning the designers and developers to determine the actual tree to be used, to allow an informed view, or criticise them if they are not prepared to say what they will plant.

 

However, criticising the choice of tree as being inadequate without even knowing the choice of tree is frankly ridiculous, and looks like prejudices leaking out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No you made all that up about claiming inside knowledge.

 

I’m just pleased that fitzalan square is going to get sorted out because it’s tired, dark and dingey.

 

4 trees are getting chopped down and they’re going to plant some more to replace them and the whole square will look a lot better.

 

You carry on with your conspiracy theories me old.

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2018 at 23:52 ----------

 

 

Of course it a different tree - so what? You wouldn’t have given it a seconds thought if they’d done this redevelopment 10 years ago.

 

What do you think about the peace gardens? A good few trees came out when they did that redevelopment- did you put a complaint in at the time?

 

 

 

 

No - you got called out and fell flat on your face - I don't have theories I just read your blind repetitive defence of the council - whatever anyone said you defended - claiming to know what was in the contract when you plainly did not and had no more access to it than anyone else.

 

I made nothing up - the evidence is there for all to see -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't see anything factually wrong with his report - just your assertion that in Fitzalan Square we had "large canopied mature trees".

 

Other have suggested that 'most' of his report was correct. I was wondering what the incorrect parts were.

 

I disagree that it was wrong to state that the trees in Fitzalan Sq were mature or large canopied. Yes, they were in early maturity, but that still means that they were mature, just like if you are in early adulthood you are still an adult.

 

I don't believe that there is a sudden size where a canopy of a tree is defined as 'large' and so this will always be subjective. Of course more mature London Planes will have more sizeable canopies, such as the one in the photo you linked to, however that of course doesn't mean that every one smaller is automatically a small canopy.

 

I consider the trees to have had sizeable canopies - indeed they were some of the largest remaining trees in Sheffield City Centre (which is also stated in the tree report). The replacement fastigiate trees will be significantly smaller, having almost no canopy at all (think of the ones outside the Light cinema).

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2018 at 12:26 ----------

 

I asked a serious question. I'd looked at the planning document on the council website and seen that they had said fastigiate, but I'd not seen anything else. A line of trees each having a tall, thin shape seems to me, on the face of it, a good idea, as they could provide screening, as well as needing minimal future maintenance as they generally grow upwards, not outwards.

 

An important point of any planting, IMO, is the correct choice of tree. Anyone can see that if fastigiate trees had been chosen for the central reservation of Hanover Way instead of the trees that are there, they wouldn't have overhung a major carriageway at lowish level and require regular pruning just to let large vehicles use a major urban road.

 

In the case of Fitzalan Square, several people have been dismissive of the trees being chosen. I presumed that this must have been because they knew the actual type of tree. However, if it is based solely on the fact that the trees are of a fastigiate type, it looks more like a wish to criticize the Council just on principal.

 

Just for the ill informed, fastigiate trees can include such as 3ft high dwarf conifers such as you might see in a plant pot or rockery. Equally, they can include 100 ft plus Leylandii. Hence my question. Maybe this is an appropriate place to put a "roll eyes" emoji.

 

There is probably a case for further questioning the designers and developers to determine the actual tree to be used, to allow an informed view, or criticise them if they are not prepared to say what they will plant.

 

However, criticising the choice of tree as being inadequate without even knowing the choice of tree is frankly ridiculous, and looks like prejudices leaking out.

 

I don't agree at all. People are criticising the type of tree precisely because of the specific shape that type of tree grows into. It doesn't matter if it was a 100ft Leylandii or a 3ft high draft conifer, it is the lack of canopy which is being criticised.

 

As it happens, we can have a pretty good idea of exactly what the replacement trees will look like, as the planning report references the other fastigiate trees planted in Sheffield public realm in the city centre, so we only have to look at those.

Edited by Robin-H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other have suggested that 'most' of his report was correct. I was wondering what the incorrect parts were.

 

I disagree that it was wrong to state that the trees in Fitzalan Sq were mature or large canopied. Yes, they were in early maturity, but that still means that they were mature, just like if you are in early adulthood you are still an adult.

 

I don't believe that there is a sudden size where a canopy of a tree is defined as 'large' and so this will always be subjective. Of course more mature London Planes will have more sizeable canopies, such as the one in the photo you linked to, however that of course doesn't mean that every one smaller is automatically a small canopy.

 

 

According to this, https://www.arborday.org/trees/treeguide/TreeDetail.cfm?ItemID=904 a mature London Plane is between 75ft and 100ft tall with a spread of 80ft.

 

According to the SCC report https://planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/files/A54E2212C1B69F1EA55BE63BB3D3E145/pdf/17_04081_RG3-TREE_CONDITION_SURVEY_FITZALAN_SQUARE-1153346.pdf the trees in Fitzalan Square are 14m high (46ft) with a spread of 12m (39ft) - so less than half the size of a mature tree.

 

Using your human analogy, early maturity here is more early adolescence compared to a full grown adult in their prime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to this, https://www.arborday.org/trees/treeguide/TreeDetail.cfm?ItemID=904 a mature London Plane is between 75ft and 100ft tall with a spread of 80ft.

 

According to the SCC report https://planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/files/A54E2212C1B69F1EA55BE63BB3D3E145/pdf/17_04081_RG3-TREE_CONDITION_SURVEY_FITZALAN_SQUARE-1153346.pdf the trees in Fitzalan Square are 14m high (46ft) with a spread of 12m (39ft) - so less than half the size of a mature tree.

 

Using your human analogy, early maturity here is more early adolescence compared to a full grown adult in their prime.

 

Half the diameter of a full size tree equates to one quarter of the area. And along with half the height and it becomes more like one eighth of the effective leaf area.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2018 at 15:07 ----------

 

According to this, https://www.arborday.org/trees/treeguide/TreeDetail.cfm?ItemID=904 a mature London Plane is between 75ft and 100ft tall with a spread of 80ft.

 

According to the SCC report https://planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/files/A54E2212C1B69F1EA55BE63BB3D3E145/pdf/17_04081_RG3-TREE_CONDITION_SURVEY_FITZALAN_SQUARE-1153346.pdf the trees in Fitzalan Square are 14m high (46ft) with a spread of 12m (39ft) - so less than half the size of a mature tree.

 

Using your human analogy, early maturity here is more early adolescence compared to a full grown adult in their prime.

 

Other have suggested that 'most' of his report was correct. I was wondering what the incorrect parts were.

 

I disagree that it was wrong to state that the trees in Fitzalan Sq were mature or large canopied. Yes, they were in early maturity, but that still means that they were mature, just like if you are in early adulthood you are still an adult.

 

I don't believe that there is a sudden size where a canopy of a tree is defined as 'large' and so this will always be subjective. Of course more mature London Planes will have more sizeable canopies, such as the one in the photo you linked to, however that of course doesn't mean that every one smaller is automatically a small canopy.

 

I consider the trees to have had sizeable canopies - indeed they were some of the largest remaining trees in Sheffield City Centre (which is also stated in the tree report). The replacement fastigiate trees will be significantly smaller, having almost no canopy at all (think of the ones outside the Light cinema).

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2018 at 12:26 ----------

 

 

I don't agree at all. People are criticising the type of tree precisely because of the specific shape that type of tree grows into. It doesn't matter if it was a 100ft Leylandii or a 3ft high draft conifer, it is the lack of canopy which is being criticised.

 

As it happens, we can have a pretty good idea of exactly what the replacement trees will look like, as the planning report references the other fastigiate trees planted in Sheffield public realm in the city centre, so we only have to look at those.

 

I think that’s a reasonable view to have a preference for broader canopy trees, but it is just a personal, subjective preference. This thread is littered with claims that the replacements will increase risk of flooding, reduce biodiversity, remove habitat for birds and bats etc. Until we know what the replacements will be, it is not possible to objectively comment. (Edit: And even then I doubt there are many, or possibly even any, who are able to relate any particular tree with its likely associated bugs, bacteria, fungi, birds etc to definitively state whether the changes are environmentally good or bad). Until the trees are known, such claims are unfounded. Hence my assertion that such claims, made as facts, are more about having a dig at the council than about the real situation. It is a political slur, Masquerading as concern for the environment.

Edited by Eater Sundae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest makapaka
No - you got called out and fell flat on your face - I don't have theories I just read your blind repetitive defence of the council - whatever anyone said you defended - claiming to know what was in the contract when you plainly did not and had no more access to it than anyone else.

 

I made nothing up - the evidence is there for all to see -

 

It’s really not - if I remember rightly I said I would look at the contract and you made up that was me saying I had access to it - when I was just saying I would look on the website.

 

You don’t have to agree with my points but I’ve never lied on here - I’ve no cause to.

 

You seem to have some agenda to make me out to be something I’m not - that’s your problem not mine. Have you even put an opinion on the point in discussion or just attacked me again - I lose track.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2018 at 16:04 ----------

 

Half the diameter of a full size tree equates to one quarter of the area. And along with half the height and it becomes more like one eighth of the effective leaf area.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2018 at 15:07 ----------

 

 

 

 

I think that’s a reasonable view to have a preference for broader canopy trees, but it is just a personal, subjective preference. This thread is littered with claims that the replacements will increase risk of flooding, reduce biodiversity, remove habitat for birds and bats etc. Until we know what the replacements will be, it is not possible to objectively comment. (Edit: And even then I doubt there are many, or possibly even any, who are able to relate any particular tree with its likely associated bugs, bacteria, fungi, birds etc to definitively state whether the changes are environmentally good or bad). Until the trees are known, such claims are unfounded. Hence my assertion that such claims, made as facts, are more about having a dig at the council than about the real situation. It is a political slur, Masquerading as concern for the environment.

 

Totally agree - I only wish I could have put it as eloquently myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not eloquently put when you investigate and realise that it's just flimflam is it.

We do have a good idea what the trees will be and all the claims are in fact correct aren't they.

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.