Tree devastation in Sheffield

[teeny 10]

some people need to get out more !!

 

I think that's the point she does get out , that's why she can see what's happening !

[Mandem 13]

I quite agree with some of the posters about the trees, ie the damage the roots cause, the leaves blocking drains etc. Why don't the people who are complaining get together and ask the council if they can take over the responsibility for the trees, and look after them, make sure the roots aren't causing damage, clearing the fallen leaves, everything that needs to be done to make sure the trees are safe, including taking insurance out to cover any damage caused by such trees.

People think trees are everlasting but they are not. Sheffield has got thousands of trees, and surely cutting a few down wont make a difference to the air pollution.

[Cyclone 10]

yes but they re really changing the neighbourhoods which were once very leafy and beautiful , they are killing healthy trees , which give us good air and take in our carbon monoxide, they are doing this all over sheffield which is very sad and what a waste of resources !!

 

They're replacing trees which are near to the end of their lifespan and/or not native species and inappropriate for the location they're in (ie damaging pavements and roads).

 

At least from what I understand.

[JayG 10]

Makes sense to remove diseased trees which have become dangerous, and I suppose you can only hope that the tree surgeons always make the correct decisions.

 

Much harder to find any logic or consistency when it comes to removing trees which are said to be causing damage to roads and footpaths though - there are a couple of modest sized trees on Rustlings Road near the bottom of Onslow Road which have the 'Deeds of Death' posted on them - I can see no signs of any lifting of either the road, the pavement, or the nearby park railings, whereas a walk down Crawford Road (S is a roller-coaster experience due to some beautiful, but totally inappropriate trees which were planted many years ago and are now giants.

 

Some have already been removed, but several remain, and very few have been replaced, partly because many residents have removed their front gardens and walls to create off-street parking, thereby preventing re-planting in front of their properties.

[tonk 10]

They're replacing trees which are near to the end of their lifespan and/or not native species and inappropriate for the location they're in (ie damaging pavements and roads).

 

At least from what I understand.

 

This is nonsense. I t is driven by a desire to get rid of trees as there is a cost invovled to maintain and monitor.

 

The idea of a tree outgrowing its location is idiotic doublespeak. A tree is what it is. Next time you go to central london look at the number of huge trees there that are accommodated within the heart of a busy capital.

 

Teh removal of these tress is awful. It was recently shown that tree lined streets are good for health

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places/nature/newsid_8325000/8325848.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7374078.stm

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11889768

 

I hear the council are very upset about it but it is AMEY who are doing it to reduce costs on their contract. I suspect they are also making money on the logs due to the increase in log burners.

 

 

It is a crime and it is an act of violence towards people...from health to crime the effects are clear...

[taxman 12]

I know amey are removing trees but only where there is disease in the tree or where it's causing potential damage to roads etc. in each case they are replaced by a new sapling so there is no net loss in tree numbers.

 

There is a net loss in biomass and biodiversity though. Saplings do not support the same complex ecological relationships that Mature trees do. It takes years for a tree to reach its full potential and this strain of current thinking that it is OK for example to destroy an ancient woodland as long as the same amount of saplings are planted elsewhere is dangerous nonsense.

 

Also the idea that dead and dying trees should automatically be removed is wrongheaded as they also support complex ecosystems.

[stifflersmom 11]

 

The idea of a tree outgrowing its location is idiotic doublespeak.

 

Hardly - it is evidently plain that plenty of trees are removed because they cause damage to roads, pavements, drainage systems and property.

 

If the tree is not causing such issues there is no reason to fell it unless it is diseased.

[teeny 10]

There is a net loss in biomass and biodiversity though. Saplings do not support the same complex ecological relationships that Mature trees do. It takes years for a tree to reach its full potential and this strain of current thinking that it is OK for example to destroy an ancient woodland as long as the same amount of saplings are planted elsewhere is dangerous nonsense.

 

Also the idea that dead and dying trees should automatically be removed is wrongheaded as they also support complex ecosystems.

 

I agree but its very harsh and changing roads forever as the new trees will take years to grow , also they are taking trees which were in full blossom , its just not good to change the environment

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Is there anything anyone can do to stop the tree murdering

'Murder'? Hardly.

[JayG 10]

Also the idea that dead and dying trees should automatically be removed is wrongheaded as they also support complex ecosystems.

 

Of course it's true that decaying organic matter supports complex ecosystems, but I don't think you'd be saying that if a branch from a diseased street tree fell on your head (in fact, I don't think you'd be saying much at all!)

 

What concerns me is that for reasons we can only speculate about, many modest-sized trees causing no visible damage to nearby infrastructure are now being condemned and removed, which I'm fairly certain never used to happen in Sheffield.

[Daven 10]

'Murder'? Hardly.

 

My thoughts exactly.

And I would hazard a guess that Ms Jay doesn't have an old and diseased tree outside her property whose roots are causing major problems to it.

Cutting a few trees down that are doing so can hardly be called 'devastation'.

Using such words as 'devastation', 'horrendous' and 'murder' are usually associated with war zones and other areas of disaster - not tree felling !

Edited May 15, 2015 by Daven

[Mindfulness 10]

This is nonsense. I t is driven by a desire to get rid of trees as there is a cost invovled to maintain and monitor.

 

The idea of a tree outgrowing its location is idiotic doublespeak. A tree is what it is. Next time you go to central london look at the number of huge trees there that are accommodated within the heart of a busy capital.

 

Teh removal of these tress is awful. It was recently shown that tree lined streets are good for health

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places/nature/newsid_8325000/8325848.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7374078.stm

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11889768

 

I hear the council are very upset about it but it is AMEY who are doing it to reduce costs on their contract. I suspect they are also making money on the logs due to the increase in log burners.

 

 

It is a crime and it is an act of violence towards people...from health to crime the effects are clear...

 

Amey does have a hidden agenda to reduce their costs in the longterm - although they are not openly admitting to it. It really is heartbreaking what they have already done and what they are planning to do - with very little involvement with local communities

 

---------- Post added 15-05-2015 at 18:11 ----------

 

'Murder'? Hardly.

 

It is absolutely Tree murder Jeff. I think you are underestimating how strongly we feel for these trees and as a moderator, I would expect a little more sensitivity please. It's like someone from the council coming round to kill your dog

 

---------- Post added 15-05-2015 at 18:12 ----------

 

My thoughts exactly.

And I would hazard a guess that Ms Jay doesn't have an old and diseased tree outside her property whose roots are causing major problems to it.

Cutting a few trees down that are doing so can hardly be called 'devastation'.

Using such words as 'devastation', 'horrendous' and 'murder' are usually associated with war zones and other areas of disaster - not tree felling !

 

2000 trees have already gone Daven. This isn't just 'a few' trees.