Tree campaign in Sheffield in 2016 (continuation thread)

[megalithic 10]

The only agenda I have is one of decent roads and paths for our kids and generations to come.

As for the majority of protesters all I see is people worried their houses may become devalued, others just have nothing better to do. Some would label it selfishness.

You decide.

[Robin-H 11]

The only agenda I have is one of decent roads and paths for our kids and generations to come.

As for the majority of protesters all I see is people worried their houses may become devalued, others just have nothing better to do. Some would label it selfishness.

You decide.

 

And you are welcome to your opinion, just like I am welcome to mine

[mort 10]

The finger pointing can cease now. Keep it civil please

[megalithic 10]

I only wished to show I can hold a civilised discussion on the subject if afforded the same respect.

All opinions are valid. Its the way you convey them that determines the response.

[Longcol 604]

An interesting quote - especially with the picture alongside - and the pictures at the top of page 3.

 

"Pruning and removal to prevent or stop damage : Pruning trees can

significantly reduce the risk of future damage occurring and can stop existing damage, but it has to be severe and it has to be repeated on a regular basis. Tree removal can be an effective solution, provided that heave will not be an issue, and that the trees are not a valuable visual amenity. There is not normally any benefit in phased removal; if the decision to remove a tree has been made, it should be cut down in one go and as soon as possible."

 

http://www.barrelltreecare.co.uk/pdfs/BTC51-RICS-Complete-040311-LR.pdf

 

Bottom of page 11.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Longcol

[Mindfulness 10]

Tree removal can be an effective solution, provided that heave will not be an issue

 

Amey have conducted no soil analysis and no risk assessment for the likelihood of heave. Furthermore, I understand that residents of Rustlings Road are already in the process of suing Sheffield City Council over movement of their house, caused by the removal of several mature lime trees in its direct vicinity, in previous years.

[Robin-H 11]

An interesting quote - especially with the picture alongside - and the pictures at the top of page 3.

 

"Pruning and removal to prevent or stop damage : Pruning trees can

significantly reduce the risk of future damage occurring and can stop existing damage, but it has to be severe and it has to be repeated on a regular basis. Tree removal can be an effective solution, provided that heave will not be an issue, and that the trees are not a valuable visual amenity. There is not normally any benefit in phased removal; if the decision to remove a tree has been made, it should be cut down in one go and as soon as possible."

 

http://www.barrelltreecare.co.uk/pdfs/BTC51-RICS-Complete-040311-LR.pdf

 

Bottom of page 11.

 

See bold. That is rather too subjective for my liking, as we've seen on this thread time and again what one person considers valuable visual another might not. Who gets to decide? Unless the damage is so severe the only option is felling, surely a more sensible scenario in that case is to repair the pavement with flexi - pave and save the tree. Best of both worlds?

 

And plus, Amey seem to have no idea whether or not heave will be an issue, seeing as they don't know the underlying soil type.

[Eater Sundae 12]

See bold. That is rather too subjective for my liking, as we've seen on this thread time and again what one person considers valuable visual another might not. Who gets to decide? Unless the damage is so severe the only option is felling, surely a more sensible scenario in that case is to repair the pavement with flexi - pave and save the tree. Best of both worlds?

 

And plus, Amey seem to have no idea whether or not heave will be an issue, seeing as they don't know the underlying soil type.

 

Where it can be, yes, but there will still be the cases where flexi-pave will not be appropriate, eg where the vertical offset cannot be accepted, where the footpath is too narrow, or in the case of road damage.

[Robin-H 11]

Where it can be, yes, but there will still be the cases where flexi-pave will not be appropriate, eg where the vertical offset cannot be accepted, where the footpath is too narrow, or in the case of road damage.

 

Then yes fine, if no engineering solution can be found I totally accept that some trees will need to be replaced with new ones nearby or with smaller varieties. I don't think anyone is suggesting every tree must stay at all costs.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Robin-H

[Mindfulness 10]

Cllr Fox has been saying since May 2015, that 'Felling trees is ALWAYS the last resort". Yet it has become patently obvious that felling is the first and ONLY choice with ANY tree-related difficulty. Primarily so that Amey can run a planing machine from one end of the street to the other, despite this being in violation of NJUG regs and BS 5837. There IS no sensible strategy for saving street trees and Cllr Fox has been lying or is simply acting like a simpleton. Highway trees have never been factored into the Amey contract and if you look for the word 'tree' it is nowhere to be found in the redacted copy. Strange that.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Mindfulness

[Robin-H 11]

I must say I do think it is shameful of Councillor Fox and Julie Dore to have not replied to my email, or other people I know who have written to them. I appreciate they might have been busy, but I have not even received an acknowledgment that my email was received.

 

And they've nominated themselves for an award in communication!? Hah!

[megalithic 10]

I understand the contract is to replace "like for like". Who's to pay for this costly flexi pave?