Are SCC/Amey out of control?

Its a complex problem and the two sides are arguing about different things but trees have become the common ground.

Amey is out to make a profit... No doubt about that. They are not doing what they do for the benefit of Sheffielders.. They are here to serve their masters and shareholders not us.

Getting rid of 20% of trees (they suggested 50%originally and may come back for that) lowers maintenance costs for them.

All this agreed in a secret Pfi deal so that it can't be scrutinised and the con revealed.

The tree supporters rightly recognise the value of trees but in the face of not being able to scrutinise the Pfi contract they have to forward their own case in their own terms. There is no openness about what is being done with our... All of our money... That's just not right.

The real issue is the Pfi deal being secret and a private Corp making a stack of cash for shareholders, tax evaders etc etc

If it was open it could be criticised on fair terms and the trees dealt with in a sensible manner.... Most cities prize their trees and work around them. The contract, as far is known, offers many ways to do this but it is expensive for Amey to do so... So ooo they would rather not..... I suspect the contract signed by the council said something along the lines of.. Rationalisation of existing street tree stock (reduce to manageable budget level of xxx) which is a free license to fell as much as you wish... Truth is we just don't know..

On another note , when planted at the same density as trees in local woods the 6000 felled street trees would cover an area equivalent of the entirety of woolley woods and roe woods combined or one third of all of Ecclesall woods... I don't think many would accept felling on that scale let alone for mindless profiteering

 

On another note , when planted at the same density as trees in local woods the 6000 felled street trees would cover an area equivalent of the entirety of woolley woods and roe woods combined or one third of all of Ecclesall woods... I don't think many would accept felling on that scale let alone for mindless profiteering

Ecclesall Wood covers 350 acres

https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods/wood/?woodId=25254&woodName=ecclesall-wood

so a third of that is 117 acres, so that would be 51 trees to an acre.

One acre is 4840 square yards, so each tree would have about 95 square yards.

Doesn't sound anything like the density of trees in woodlands.

95 square yards is <10 yards by 10 yards... That's really not a very big space.

Ecclesall Wood covers 350 acres

 

https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods/wood/?woodId=25254&woodName=ecclesall-wood

 

so a third of that is 117 acres, so that would be 51 trees to an acre.

 

One acre is 4840 square yards, so each tree would have about 95 square yards.

 

Doesn't sound anything like the density of trees in woodlands.

Yes it does....I had ecclesall woods down as 120 Hectares.

If you plant 6000 trees across 40 hectares thats 150 trees per hectare or....about one tree every 8metres which is about right if you walk round ecclesall woods--in fact alot of it is much more open than that.

OK so my estimate for ecclesall wood of 120 hectares is low...if it really is 350 acres thats 140 hectares.......

Ill rework that then and say 28.57% of ecclesall woods.

Tree planting density is well documented...the 1 tree per 95sqm equates to about the centre of every trunk about every nine paces (yards)---thats quite dense for a mature open woodland where trees have good canopy cover....its completely reasonable---

Tree planting density is well documented...the 1 tree per 95sqm equates to about the centre of every trunk about every nine paces (yards)---thats quite dense for a mature open woodland where trees have good canopy cover....its completely reasonable---

If tree palnting density is well documented a link or two would be useful.

Googling tree planting density, both these give (a couple of the first results) give a planting density of 3m x 3m.

http://www.woodlands.co.uk/blog/woodland-activities/tree-planting/#

How densely should you plant?

The minimum density for grant-aided planting is 3m x 3m (for broadleaf), but 2m x 2m is considered better by some as the canopy will close sooner and there are more trees from which to select at thinning stage. 3m x 3m means that the trees are planted in rows that are three metres apart and in each row the spacing is 3 metres between trees.

https://www.nationalforest.org/document/creatingwoodland/create_farm.pdf

■ 3 m x 3 m

This spacing is acceptable for small woods and in cases where the prime objective is to createoodland. This equates to 1,100 trees per hectare.

(page 15 - tree spacing)

---------- Post added 18-12-2017 at 19:05 ----------

95 square yards is <10 yards by 10 yards... That's really not a very big space.

It's certainly a lot bigger than the space between the trees on the bank opposite our house - and they've been there long before we moved in nearly 30 years ago.

If tree palnting density is well documented a link or two would be useful.

 

Googling tree planting density, both these give (a couple of the first results) give a planting density of 3m x 3m.

 

http://www.woodlands.co.uk/blog/woodland-activities/tree-planting/#

 

How densely should you plant?

 

The minimum density for grant-aided planting is 3m x 3m (for broadleaf), but 2m x 2m is considered better by some as the canopy will close sooner and there are more trees from which to select at thinning stage. 3m x 3m means that the trees are planted in rows that are three metres apart and in each row the spacing is 3 metres between trees.

 

https://www.nationalforest.org/document/creatingwoodland/create_farm.pdf

 

■ 3 m x 3 m

This spacing is acceptable for small woods and in cases where the prime objective is to createoodland. This equates to 1,100 trees per hectare.

 

(page 15 - tree spacing)

Two things here

First these are planting rates-----you expect die off and thinning out over time to give a density of 1 every 5m but this is mainly for commercial timber production---forrestry NOT woodland.

Save yourself time googling and worrying about the maths---go for a walk in Ecclesall woods with a tape measure--should sort things out

Two things here

 

First these are planting rates-----you expect die off and thinning out over time to give a density of 1 every 5m but this is mainly for commercial timber production---forrestry NOT woodland.

You specifically said planting density - and the 3m x 3m talked about in the national forest document is "for small woods and in cases where the prime objective is to create accessible community woodland. This equates to 1,100 trees per hectare.". Accessible community woodland doesn't sound like commercial timber production to me.

Are these trees in Ecclesall Wood really 10 yards apart?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3377009,-1.5152313,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXM4KVmTKHFt8PKzOzPIArQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

It’s irrelevant anyway.

You specifically said planting density - and the 3m x 3m talked about in the national forest document is "for small woods and in cases where the prime objective is to create accessible community woodland. This equates to 1,100 trees per hectare.". Accessible community woodland doesn't sound like commercial timber production to me.

 

Are these trees in Ecclesall Wood really 10 yards apart?

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3377009,-1.5152313,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXM4KVmTKHFt8PKzOzPIArQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

That's planting density... Not what the woodland ends up like...

Anyway, you're probably right.. Best chop em all down if it makes you happy

That's planting density... Not what the woodland ends up like...

Anyway, you're probably right.. Best chop em all down if it makes you happy

Who's saying chop them all down?

Couple of more nice pics of Ecclesall Wood showing trees a lot less than 10 yards apart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesall_Woods#/media/File:Ecclesall_Woods_Sheffield_2.jpg

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186364-d213516-i181592105-Ecclesall_Woods-Sheffield_South_Yorkshire_England.html

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by tonk

 

That's planting density... Not what the woodland ends up like...

Anyway, you're probably right.. Best chop em all down if it makes you happy

 

Who's saying chop them all down?

 

 

Couple of more nice pics of Ecclesall Wood showing trees a lot less than 10 yards apart.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccles...heffield_2.jpg

 

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Locati...e_England.html

Not sure if you're being serious. If so, could someone explain averages please?

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android