Sheffield Forum
Your message here

Latest Tree Felling, Sandford Grove Rd etc .

Home > Sheffield > Sheffield News & Discussions

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
16-04-2018, 13:11   #1461
nikki-red
Pyjama addict
nikki-red's Avatar
 
Moderator
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Left off Last Laugh Lane...
Total Posts: 54,030
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.
_______
“It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry.” - Joe Moore
  Reply With Quote
16-04-2018, 16:50   #1462
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 70,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by makapaka View Post
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 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by makapaka View Post
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.
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
16-04-2018, 17:19   #1463
makapaka
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Total Posts: 3,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post
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?
  Reply With Quote
16-04-2018, 23:17   #1464
hackey lad
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2011
Total Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by makapaka View Post
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 ?
  Reply With Quote
16-04-2018, 23:28   #1465
makapaka
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Total Posts: 3,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by hackey lad View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
17-04-2018, 00:10   #1466
Phanerothyme
Psychenaut
Phanerothyme's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: The Here And Now
Total Posts: 16,615
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.
_______
SWYgeW91IGNvdWxkIGhlYXIsIGF0IGV2ZXJ5IGpvbHQsIHRoZS BibG9vZA0KQ29tZSBnYXJnbGluZyBmcm9tIHRoZSBmcm90aC1j b3JydXB0ZWQgbHVuZ3MsDQpPYnNjZW5lIGFzIGNhbmNlciwgYm l0dGVyIGFzIHRoZSBjdWQNCk9mIHZpbGUsIGluY3VyYWJsZSBz b3JlcyBvbiBpbm5vY2VudCB0b25ndWVzLOKAlA==
  Reply With Quote
17-04-2018, 06:51   #1467
monkey104
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2010
Total Posts: 3,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanerothyme View Post
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?
  Reply With Quote
17-04-2018, 07:30   #1468
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 70,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by makapaka View Post
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.
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
17-04-2018, 11:18   #1469
paula4sheff
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2016
Total Posts: 1,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanerothyme View Post
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!
  Reply With Quote
17-04-2018, 19:22   #1470
Hidrisc
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2017
Total Posts: 3
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.
  Reply With Quote
17-04-2018, 21:55   #1471
ricgem2002
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Rotherham
Total Posts: 8,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post
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
  Reply With Quote
17-04-2018, 22:13   #1472
hackey lad
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2011
Total Posts: 3,793
Report in the Star online that the Council are refusing to have a meeting with STAG for now . Council basically saying it would interfere with local elections . Are they running scared ?
  Reply With Quote
18-04-2018, 05:51   #1473
Baron99
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2017
Total Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by hackey lad View Post
Report in the Star online that the Council are refusing to have a meeting with STAG for now . Council basically saying it would interfere with local elections . Are they running scared ?
Presumably with only 2 weeks to the local elections SCC, councillors, council officers have entered into a state of 'Purdah'.

It's a recognisable process in both national & local government in the run up to elections.

But SCC could still.be running scared?
  Reply With Quote
18-04-2018, 09:01   #1474
EmmaJones76
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2017
Total Posts: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron99 View Post
Presumably with only 2 weeks to the local elections SCC, councillors, council officers have entered into a state of 'Purdah'.

It's a recognisable process in both national & local government in the run up to elections.
We can't have facts cluttering up a sensible debate now.
  Reply With Quote
18-04-2018, 09:07   #1475
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 70,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricgem2002 View Post
looking at this you could be on to something http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=16467
Clearly there is some disagreement amongst the council, with Bryan Lodge still carrying the torch for Amey.
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
18-04-2018, 10:38   #1476
wrinkly67
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Total Posts: 408
I stand by what I said ages ago, that this whole debacle is because of a cleverly worded contract in favour of Amey which the Council's legal team did not have the ability to see through.
I said then that the contract would have been handled and signed off by legal teams rather than councillors (who for the most part would not have understood a legal contract) and this would seem to be endorsed by:
"believes that the Streets Ahead contract should be fully disclosed......to enable all councillors and members of the public to see what has been signed up on their behalf". (SCC meeting 7th Feb).

So those councillors didn't have a clue.
That they are now saying (same meeting) "that council admin should work towards achieving greater flexibility, timeliness, cost effectiveness and improve safety whilst achieving better value for money from the Streets Ahead contract" is somewhat shutting the stable door when the horse has bolted. All the above should have been a necessary part of and included in the contract. Why should SCC think they have any right to start altering that contract because its now proving not what they thought? It doesn't work like that.
All boils down to Amey having a better legal team than SCC.
  Reply With Quote
18-04-2018, 10:57   #1477
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 70,869
I get the impression that most councillors have not been allowed to actually see the contract, which is really weird.
The original motion did go on to say that they should be looking for legal reasons to terminate the contract.
Bryan Lodge proposed an amendment which entirely changed the motion to be one in support of Amey though.
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
18-04-2018, 11:20   #1478
alchresearch
Registered User
alchresearch's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: Southport
Total Posts: 30,371
Send a message via Yahoo to alchresearch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post
The original motion did go on to say that they should be looking for legal reasons to terminate the contract.
There are a number of councils all across the UK terminating their Amey contracts early, so hopefully this will help SCC have the guts and backing to do the same.
_______
Peugeot & Citroen Diagnostics Specialist. PM for details.
  Reply With Quote
18-04-2018, 12:23   #1479
Hidrisc
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2017
Total Posts: 3
It's not really the civil contract that matters here since there is Statute Legislation, the CDM Regulations 2015 which overides all construction activity and requires Client and Contractor to put public health and safety, which the tree felling is detrimental to, first and foremost in all decisions.
  Reply With Quote
18-04-2018, 13:15   #1480
Longcol
Registered User
Longcol's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Wherever people say I am that's where I'm not.
Total Posts: 14,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hidrisc View Post
It's not really the civil contract that matters here since there is Statute Legislation, the CDM Regulations 2015 which overides all construction activity and requires Client and Contractor to put public health and safety, which the tree felling is detrimental to, first and foremost in all decisions.
I think your interpretation of health and safety is far wider than that intended by the CDM regulations.

AFAIK when Dave Dillner (on behalf of STAG) took SCC to court in 2016, environmental grounds were one of the challenges ie lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment in line with EU regs. This failed.
_______
Helping people escape from Rovvrum since 1991.
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:26.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2017 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2018