Save the 12 Trees on Rustlings Road - Please sign Petition

[vincentb 10]

Sorry, I am interested in this, but haven't had time to read everything on this thread and associated articles.

 

Can someone summarise in a sentence or two:

 

Why do the council want to cut these 11/12 trees down?

Why, in a city of 4 million trees, with a promise of replacements being planted, and opposite a park full of trees, are these 11/12 trees so important to people?

 

The council's position is that trees are being felled only where necessary, and all felled trees are being appropriately replaced. The objectors' position is that the highways department / amey don't care about the trees and so they're felling even where not necessary, and the replacement trees are inadequate.

 

Those 11/12 trees were the start of the campaign because they are large and very visible and well-known to lots of people, but the campaign has been extended to the entire felling policy across the city, not just these trees.

[Guest]

Sorry, I am interested in this, but haven't had time to read everything on this thread and associated articles.

 

Can someone summarise in a sentence or two:

 

Why do the council want to cut these 11/12 trees down?

Why, in a city of 4 million trees, with a promise of replacements being planted, and opposite a park full of trees, are these 11/12 trees so important to people?

 

You can't help but get the feeling that AMEY would prefer that most streets were not lined with trees because of the costs and hassle associated with maintaining them.

[Mindfulness 10]

Frank - because Amey are ignoring best practise guidelines and expert opinion, agreed at national and international level, on management of the urban forest. And SCC is not monitoring or enforcing them, as they are meant to. For example, Amey would need to be 'replacing' mature trees at a factor of 60:1, in order to maintain the current level of ecosystem services that large crowned trees provide.

[F. Sidebottom 10]

So has it been deemed that these trees were necessary to be cut down? For what reason? Who made that decision? Why doesn't this conform to 'best practise guidelines and expert opinion, agreed at national and international level'?

[markfor 10]

I have just looked at a SCC document about tree felling and it is frightening how many trees they are to cut down including flowering cherries

 

 

Hello. As promised, here is a petition to save the Trees on Rustlings Road from felling and the evidence for why they are so important for our local community.

 

http://chn.ge/1dtg74B

 

Please sign and share far and wide!

 

---------- Post added 20-10-2015 at 11:37 ----------

 

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/works/schemes/streetsaheadproject/works-schedules/sharrow-vale.html

[Mindfulness 10]

So has it been deemed that these trees were necessary to be cut down? For what reason? Who made that decision? Why doesn't this conform to 'best practise guidelines and expert opinion, agreed at national and international level'?

 

Amey. The reason has changed several times as the campaign has progressed. Amey, backed up by SCC. Because no cost:benefit analysis has been conducted, simply a subjective decision made seemingly, with the flip of a coin.

 

---------- Post added 20-10-2015 at 13:45 ----------

 

I have just looked at a SCC document about tree felling and it is frightening how many trees they are to cut down including flowering cherries

 

We've lost 2000 trees already - at least a similar amount planned by 2018. Amey very secretive about actual numbers!

[F. Sidebottom 10]

Amey. The reason has changed several times as the campaign has progressed. Amey, backed up by SCC. Because no cost:benefit analysis has been conducted, simply a subjective decision made seemingly, with the flip of a coin.

 

---------- Post added 20-10-2015 at 13:45 ----------

 

 

We've lost 2000 trees already - at least a similar amount planned by 2018. Amey very secretive about actual numbers!

 

So what were the reasons? It can't simply be a 'flip of the coin'.

[spudgun 10]

It's probably been said before but I can't be bothered to trawl through all the pages but just get the trees down. They're a nightmare for us runners. The roots are carving the pavements up causing a real tripping hazard. It's not like there's no other trees near is it

[Mindfulness 10]

So what were the reasons? It can't simply be a 'flip of the coin'.

 

Cllr Fox originally said due to 'trip hazard', until FOI requests revealed that NO risk assessments had been carried out (500 runners use the footway every Saturday, no problem - 100s have signed our petition). Then it was 'discriminatory', till we publicised double wheelchairs, side by side next to Delilah and that blind and disabled residents use the footway, again with no problem - and furthermore, ALL of them want to keep the trees. Now, apparently, it is due to 'pavement damage' - which could easily be remedied with alternative highway specifications that allow the safe retention of large crowned trees. Currently Amey are using only one Highway spec, the one they use for ALL streets, regardless of whether trees are present or not! Birmingham have had to sue Amey to tighten up their act wrt tree retention. Now Flexi-pave is being used as a workable solution: http://www.kbiuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Tree-Surround-Case-Study-LOW-RES.pdf

[F. Sidebottom 10]

So it's nothing to do with there being a hazard of collapse onto people, vehicles or property? Or the cost of maintaining them increasing with age?

[Alcoblog 10]

It's probably been said before but I can't be bothered to trawl through all the pages but just get the trees down. They're a nightmare for us runners. The roots are carving the pavements up causing a real tripping hazard. It's not like there's no other trees near is it

 

Yeah … maybe get the countryside levelled off and tarmacked too for Health and Safety reasons!

My brother's a champion fell runner representing Nottingham and he's always tripping over nasty roots and weeds and suchlike. The amount of times he's snapped his legs and spine in half negotiating dangerous obstacles such as trees doesn't bear thinking about.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Alcoblog

[Mindfulness 10]

So it's nothing to do with there being a hazard of collapse onto people, vehicles or property? Or the cost of maintaining them increasing with age?

 

All the trees are healthy, flourishing, just minding their own business - as they have done without issue for the last 100 years! If cost IS an issue, then the precautionary principle should be applied - to prevent further significant environmental degradation, that is permanent and irreversible. Mature trees can NEVER be replaced.