Tree devastation in Sheffield

[Eater Sundae 12]

Absolutely. SCC have singularly failed on this.

 

 

 

Because they are not acting in accordance with current legislation, policy commitments and – most importantly - current British Standards and arboricultural and urban forestry sector good practice guidance and recommendations.

 

 

On this we agree. There needs to be an end to the fear-mongering and wilful/negligent damage and destruction, and the commencement of policy/management decisions and practice soundly based on available evidence and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, whether formed by the media or vested interests.

 

Re bib.

 

They are required to act within the law, and to meet the requirements as set down in their contract. "Good practice guidelines" are just that, guidelines. They are not part of legislation. What you've quoted does not justify your criticism of Amey. Criticise SCC for not requiring such guidelines to be followed (or for not enforcing them if they did form part of Amey's contract), but it does not justify criticism of Amey. I don't see why you think it is OK to continue bad mouthing Amey without any justification.

[Lotusflower 10]

Hello old friend

 

How's thaa doin?

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 20:21 ----------

 

THis is MINT!

 

I'm all reight me owd!

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2015 at 15:54 ----------

 

Re bib.

 

Re my bold above.

 

They are required to act within the law, and to meet the requirements as set down in their contract. "Good practice guidelines" are just that, guidelines. They are not part of legislation. What you've quoted does not justify your criticism of Amey. Criticise SCC for not requiring such guidelines to be followed (or for not enforcing them if they did form part of Amey's contract), but it does not justify criticism of Amey. I don't see why you think it is OK to continue bad mouthing Amey without any justification.

 

I will part give you an answer here. Nothing to do with trees either this time.

 

Amey have been, and continue to, work on pavement upgrading in ways which breach Health and Safety Legislation. I have photographic evidence to prove what I have just said!

Furthermore I have sent my evidence in the form of an official complaint addressed to John Mothersole and cc'd in Julie Dore, Terry Fox and the Operations Director at Amey. I did that some weeks ago. I received an acknowledgment from Mothersole's secretary who said it would be looked into. As for the rest of them not even an acknowledgment! Nice to know we are being "listened to." (A meaningless phrase trotted out ad nauseum in light of my experience)

Not only is my complaint unanswered to date but as recently as this last couple of days I have video evidence of the practices I complained of continuing.

 

Now...I know my posts on here are monitored and what I have said I take full responsibility for. If SCC or Amey want to sue me they damn well better be able to refute my allegations.

 

So...what say you now? Justified?

[Mindfulness 10]

Re bib.

 

They are required to act within the law, and to meet the requirements as set down in their contract. "Good practice guidelines" are just that, guidelines. They are not part of legislation. What you've quoted does not justify your criticism of Amey. Criticise SCC for not requiring such guidelines to be followed (or for not enforcing them if they did form part of Amey's contract), but it does not justify criticism of Amey. I don't see why you think it is OK to continue bad mouthing Amey without any justification.

 

As a taxpayer, I do not believe that an irresponsible, unsustainable approach to highway tree management and management of the urban forest is acceptable. Highway trees are a public asset. It does appear evident, from their acts and omissions, that both the Council and Amey are failing to ensure that their acts and omissions are sufficient to provide the level of care expected of reasonably skilled professionals, in fulfilment of the duty of care imposed upon them by legislation. In practice, evidence of provision of an adequate level of care does indeed require compliance with current legislation, British Standards, arboricultural and urban forestry sector good practice guidance and recommendations. Policy commitments usually exist to implement legislation, so of course, those should also be complied with. The public are frequently told at every available opportunity, by officials that “felling is a last resort” and that the Council take their legal duties “very seriously”. If that were true, there would be no question as to whether or not compliance with current legislation, British Standards, arboricultural and urban forestry sector good practice guidance and recommendations, and policy commitments, was necessary, as it clearly is, as any reasonably skilled, competent arboriculturist (as defined by the British Standards)/urban forestry professional would tell you. See EU Directive 2001/42/EC and The UK Forestry Standard.

[onewheeldave 22]

I'm all reight me owd!

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2015 at 15:54 ----------

 

 

I will part give you an answer here. Nothing to do with trees either this time.

 

Amey have been, and continue to, work on pavement upgrading in ways which breach Health and Safety Legislation. I have photographic evidence to prove what I have just said!

Furthermore I have sent my evidence in the form of an official complaint addressed to John Mothersole and cc'd in Julie Dore, Terry Fox and the Operations Director at Amey. I did that some weeks ago. I received an acknowledgment from Mothersole's secretary who said it would be looked into. As for the rest of them not even an acknowledgment! Nice to know we are being "listened to." (A meaningless phrase trotted out ad nauseum in light of my experience)

Not only is my complaint unanswered to date but as recently as this last couple of days I have video evidence of the practices I complained of continuing.

 

Now...I know my posts on here are monitored and what I have said I take full responsibility for. If SCC or Amey want to sue me they damn well better be able to refute my allegations.

 

So...what say you now? Justified?

 

I'm wondering if putting your video and photo evidence of Amey breaching H&S regs up on youtube/twitter might be more productive?

 

You seem to be on the ball so I'm sure you're aware that the "official complaint route" is generally a fob-off tactic, whereas I believe several councils and dodgy operators have been much more inclined to take such evidence seriously when it's plastered across social media and being commented upon by thousands, than they did when it was sedately making it's way to the bin, via their 'official complaints route'

[Lotusflower 10]

I'm wondering if putting your video and photo evidence of Amey breaching H&S regs up on youtube/twitter might be more productive?

 

You seem to be on the ball so I'm sure you're aware that the "official complaint route" is generally a fob-off tactic, whereas I believe several councils and dodgy operators have been much more inclined to take such evidence seriously when it's plastered across social media and being commented upon by thousands, than they did when it was sedately making it's way to the bin, via their 'official complaints route'

 

They won't be filing it under "bin" when they hear back from the Health & Safety Executive.

There's a bulging file at the moment that is filling to overload.

Imagine it as a wall of water building up behind a weakening dam wall and watch as the dam wall shatters and a tsunami is released.

Let's see them ignore campaigners after that!

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2015 at 19:55 ----------

 

They won't be filing it under "bin" when they hear back from the Health & Safety Executive.

There's a bulging file at the moment that is filling to overload.

Imagine it as a wall of water building up behind a weakening dam wall and watch as the dam wall shatters and a tsunami is released.

Let's see them ignore campaigners after that!

 

No one from SCC or Amey will be able to level accusations of the campaign being "unreasonable."

We have given them every chance to display transparency, alas, all to no avail!

[onewheeldave 22]

They won't be filing it under "bin" when they hear back from the Health & Safety Executive.

There's a bulging file at the moment that is filling to overload.

Imagine it as a wall of water building up behind a weakening dam wall and watch as the dam wall shatters and a tsunami is released.

Let's see them ignore campaigners after that!

 

Best of luck with it

 

Much as I join you in hoping it does go that way, don't you wonder if banging it up on social media might be worth doing in conjunction with the above though.

 

It might come to nothing, in which case you've lost nothing, but, we've all seen what can happen when stuff does take off and go viral.

 

Admitedly a lot of that stuff is trash but, you're isn't. Yours is about established organisations who are blatantly breaking rules and health and safety, about to embark on killing lots more healthy trees- you've got it on video: it could be on Youtube being seen by thousands+ you've nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

 

Stick it up, I'll rip it and start looking for local community/activist group facebook pages to put it on. Then they do the same, before you know it, it's everywhere.

Edited November 20, 2015 by onewheeldave

[Mindfulness 10]

A reminder of what SORT and STAG are campaigning for:

 

1. A halt to the felling of healthy trees, until an acceptable tree strategy is in place, based on current industry guidelines.

2. SUSTAINABLE management of our urban forest. The planned felling of at least 18,000 highway trees is NOT sustainable management and will have a significant, negative, effect on the size, shape and distribution of canopy cover. This will in turn have a significant, negative effect, on ecosystem services and also people's health and well-being.

3. REASONABLE and proportionate action. Felling healthy trees for mild pavement ridging and kerb displacement is unacceptable.

4. Valuation of the ecosystem services that large crowned highway trees provide. Where this has been conducted, the monetary value of these services, amounts to millions of pounds each year.

5. Risk assessments and cost:benefit analyses, using widely recognised methodology. These should be conducted by independent, competent people who do not stand to gain by the outcome of their decisions. Currently no appropriate risk assessments have been conducted, despite 'risk' being repeatedly used in the press, as a reason to fell healthy trees. You are more likely to be injured by a wheelie bin, than you are by a tree!

6. Relaxed specifications for pavements around trees, to allow the safe retention of large-crowned highway trees. This is already happening in Birmingham, where they have met with the same difficulties as Sheffield. They are widely using Flexi-Pave as an alternative to tarmac. The costing is comparable and there is no maintainence required, which has money-saving implications in the longterm. Currently only one set of Highway specifications is being used, the ones that Amey have drawn up themselves, and which do not account for trees on tree-lined streets!

 

Furthermore the terms 'mature' and 'overmature' are commercial forestry terms, to denote the time when growth slows and it becomes commercially viable to fell. It is inappropriate to use these terms in relation to highway trees, as they do not indicate their safe useful life expectancy (SULE).

Edited November 21, 2015 by Mindfulness

[Eater Sundae 12]

I'm wondering if putting your video and photo evidence of Amey breaching H&S regs up on youtube/twitter might be more productive?

 

You seem to be on the ball so I'm sure you're aware that the "official complaint route" is generally a fob-off tactic, whereas I believe several councils and dodgy operators have been much more inclined to take such evidence seriously when it's plastered across social media and being commented upon by thousands, than they did when it was sedately making it's way to the bin, via their 'official complaints route'

 

If someone witnesses a breach of health and safety legislation, then the obvious people to report it to are the Health and safety Executive. They are the people who can, and DO act.

[Longcol 598]

A reminder of what SORT and STAG are campaigning for:

 

1. A halt to the felling of healthy trees, until an acceptable tree strategy is in place, based on current industry guidelines.

2. SUSTAINABLE management of our urban forest. The planned felling of at least 18,000 highway trees is NOT sustainable management and will have a significant, negative, effect on the size, shape and distribution of canopy cover. This will in turn have a significant, negative effect, on ecosystem services and also people's health and well-being.

3. REASONABLE and proportionate action. Felling healthy trees for mild pavement ridging and kerb displacement is unacceptable.

4. Valuation of the ecosystem services that large crowned highway trees provide. Where this has been conducted, the monetary value of these services, amounts to millions of pounds each year.

 

I'd like to see some actual reasoning behind some of those statements - for example how will the replacement of less than 1% of the cities trees have a significant negative effect on peoples health and well being.

 

How is the monetary value amounting to "millions of pounds per year" calculated?

[Lotusflower 10]

If someone witnesses a breach of health and safety legislation, then the obvious people to report it to are the Health and safety Executive. They are the people who can, and DO act.

 

I've been waiting for an acknowledgement for a little over three weeks now.

I'll keep you posted.

 

---------- Post added 21-11-2015 at 21:49 ----------

 

I'd like to see some actual reasoning behind some of those statements - for example how will the replacement of less than 1% of the cities trees have a significant negative effect on peoples health and well being.

 

How is the monetary value amounting to "millions of pounds per year" calculated?

 

This information has already been given elsewhere on this thread and others!

 

We are talking about STREET TREES here. Up to 50% of them as it happens!

[Mindfulness 10]

I'd like to see some actual reasoning behind some of those statements - for example how will the replacement of less than 1% of the cities trees have a significant negative effect on peoples health and well being

 

That 1% amounts to 18,000 large canopy Highway Trees.

 

How is the monetary value amounting to "millions of pounds per year" calculated?

 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCRN008.pdf/$FILE/FCRN008.pdf

[Longcol 598]

[quote=Swami Dhyan;11218173

We are talking about STREET TREES here. Up to 50% of them as it happens!

 

The post by Mindfulness I was responding to talked about the "management of our urban forest". Street Trees are a small sub-set of the urban forest to the best of my knowledge - in the context of Sheffield we are talking about replacement of under 1% of the urban forest aren't we?

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 01:25 ----------

 

 

 

 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCRN008.pdf/$FILE/FCRN008.pdf

 

The first sentence in that link starts with "street trees and urban woodlands"

 

Context counts for everything in a city with 2 million trees.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Longcol