Tree devastation in Sheffield

[markfor 10]

I know many roads where pavements are bumpy because of tree roots

Are all these trees to be felled?? I hope not

 

 

roots

Re my bold.

 

Yes, the council does have a legal requirement to maintain the pavements...undeniable!

As for someone tripping costing the council "millions"...I've told you a trillion times...don't exaggerate!

Do you think people tripping on pavements in Sheffield is all down to inappropriate trees? Someone crossing the road and tripping in a pothole? Is that the fault of trees too?

There are many other remedial methods of repairing pavements without recourse to removing healthy mature trees. Other councils all over the country employ such methods!

The trees removed are not always replaced with more appropriate species. Add to this the fact that trees are not always replaced where they were removed from and the whole process smacks of nothing more than the desire to decrease the maintenance bill first and foremost!

[vincentb 10]

The 12 trees on Rustlings Road are perfectly healthy, fit none of the 6 'Ds' that Amey use as an excuse to fell large crowned trees.

 

Have you asked Amey for their assessment on the trees, or asked the council for their independent expert's review of this assessment?

[cgksheff 44]

.......

We are done here!!

 

Perhaps so.

You are the one that chooses to use the word 'arguments' and perhaps that is your objective.

You claim to want 'debate' but only choose to try and belittle.

Perhaps because you are not interested in debate as you may already have made your mind up.

There is limited value in putting the effort in to providing evidence as your earlier post linked to irrelevant research, yet you choose not to acknowledge that fact when it has been pointed out to you.

 

I think Amey are not to be trusted. I know that certain officers and members of the Council are incompetent, but I also think this campaign has weaknesses not least in the blinkered and combative response to comments.

[Lotusflower 10]

Perhaps so.

You are the one that chooses to use the word 'arguments' and perhaps that is your objective.

You claim to want 'debate' but only choose to try and belittle.

Perhaps because you are not interested in debate as you may already have made your mind up.

There is limited value in putting the effort in to providing evidence as your earlier post linked to irrelevant research, yet you choose not to acknowledge that fact when it has been pointed out to you.

 

I think Amey are not to be trusted. I know that certain officers and members of the Council are incompetent, but I also think this campaign has weaknesses not least in the blinkered and combative response to comments.

 

I'm not interested in arguments and if you prefer it please substitute the "argument" word for the "discussion" word.

Neither am I interested in "belittling" you! What would be the point in that?

 

If you would like to point out precisely which parts of my links are "irrelevant" I am more than happy to discuss further...even to the point of being open minded enough to accept that it is entirely possible that I may learn something from you. I say that in all sincerity.

I admit to being a tad confrontational with you in some posts but I feel you have to accept that you have been less than forthcoming in providing your sources, which I have found quite frustrating...almost identical to my experience of dealing with Amey and the council themselves!

[Mindfulness 10]

I know many roads where pavements are bumpy because of tree roots

Are all these trees to be felled??

 

If they cause the pavement to be uneven and kerb misalignment - then yes! Come to the Town Hall tomorrow between 5-7pm to challenge Amey on these arbitrary decisions. Cllr Fox has set up a Tree Forum so that we can 'debate'. I don't hold a huge amount of faith that it will be anything other than a PR stunt - but if we can get enough angry tree people there - might make him review his stance.

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2015 at 20:30 ----------

 

Have you asked Amey for their assessment on the trees

 

Amey have been supremely secretive! Numerous requests for information have been ignored. Finally, after submitting endless freedom of information requests - it transpires that NO risk assessment has been carried out. The decision to fell is based SOLELY on uneven pavements. THAT's IT. They are such an incompetent, useless bunch of idiots - it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

 

or asked the council for their independent expert's review of this assessment?

 

How would we go about doing that at this late stage?

Edited July 22, 2015 by Mindfulness

[Eater Sundae 12]

If they cause the pavement to be uneven and kerb misalignment - then yes! Come to the Town Hall tomorrow between 5-7pm to challenge Amey on these arbitrary decisions. Cllr Fox has set up a Tree Forum so that we can 'debate'. I don't hold a huge amount of faith that it will be anything other than a PR stunt - but if we can get enough angry tree people there - might make him review his stance.

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2015 at 20:30 ----------

 

 

Amey have been supremely secretive! Numerous requests for information have been ignored. Finally, after submitting endless freedom of information requests - it transpires that NO risk assessment has been carried out. The decision to fell is based SOLELY on uneven pavements. THAT's IT. They are such an incompetent, useless bunch of idiots - it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

 

 

 

How would we go about doing that at this late stage?

 

Who are actually making the decisions as to which trees are to be felled? You appear to be saying AMEY are making these decisions, but as I see it, the Sheffield.gov website seems to be saying that SCC had already decided what was to be done even before the contract with AMEY was in place.

[Mindfulness 10]

Who are actually making the decisions as to which trees are to be felled? You appear to be saying AMEY are making these decisions, but as I see it, the Sheffield.gov website seems to be saying that SCC had already decided what was to be done even before the contract with AMEY was in place.

 

Amey have drafted their own highway specifications for streets - regardless of whether there are trees there or not. And are then targetting large crowned trees for felling that don't fit their criteria. Is that the site that was mysteriously updated 10 days ago, on the 13th July? Funny that.

[Eater Sundae 12]

Amey have drafted their own highway specifications for streets - regardless of whether there are trees there or not. And are then targetting large crowned trees for felling that don't fit their criteria. Is that the site that was mysteriously updated 10 days ago, on the 13th July? Funny that.

 

Yes, I've noticed that the information on the SCC website has changed.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

If they cause the pavement to be uneven and kerb misalignment - then yes!

Try the top (flat) bit of Hunter House Road- off Psalter Lane- if you want pavements that are rendered virtually unwalkable because of tree root devastation of the surface/subsurface.

[WalkleyIan 10]

Try the top (flat) bit of Hunter House Road- off Psalter Lane- if you want pavements that are rendered virtually unwalkable because of tree root devastation of the surface/subsurface.

 

There one slap bang on the corner of Spring Hill / Spring Hill Road . Not helped by the fact the road is steep already before the roots pushed the pavement even steeper. When its wet you have to hold onto the tree to get purchase on the pavement. In autumn when it sheds leaves its lethal. Safer to walk in the road

[Mindfulness 10]

Try the top (flat) bit of Hunter House Road- off Psalter Lane- if you want pavements that are rendered virtually unwalkable because of tree root devastation of the surface/subsurface.

 

Personally, I think this is a big fuss about nothing. I happily take responsibility for myself by watching where I walk - just as I would if walking on the beach or in a Park. I feel extremely grateful that such trees exist and that we should do our utmost to retain them wherever practicably possible. To me, this is a no-brainer - given the very many benefits that large crowned trees provide, not least of all to air quality and also to health and well being. All it requires is the WILL FOR RETENTION, rather than the lazy man's approach, which currently seems to be Amey's stance.

 

SORT are requesting SCC to draft new highways engineering specification, to allow the long-term retention of long established street trees, when resurfacing pavements and realigning kerb edges. This should keep me happy, and you happy Jeffrey. After all, we all live in this city together

[Narden Dee 10]

Personally, I think this is a big fuss about nothing. I happily take responsibility for myself by watching where I walk - just as I would if walking on the beach or in a Park. I feel extremely grateful that such trees exist and that we should do our utmost to retain them wherever practicably possible. To me, this is a no-brainer - given the very many benefits that large crowned trees provide, not least of all to air quality and also to health and well being. All it requires is the WILL FOR RETENTION, rather than the lazy man's approach, which currently seems to be Amey's stance.

 

SORT are requesting SCC to draft new highways engineering specification, to allow the long-term retention of long established street trees, when resurfacing pavements and realigning kerb edges. This should keep me happy, and you happy Jeffrey. After all, we all live in this city together

 

Do we not have plenty of these types of trees in the many woods we have around the city?