Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[taxman 12]

Quote:

"Councillor Bryan Lodge, the city’s cabinet member for the environment, said the majority of people in Sheffield wanted the work carried out. “We respectfully ask that should any protests be organised, that they are done so in a way that does not stop work and therefore cost the city money at a time where we are having to find budgets savings, including from services for vulnerable people,” he said."

 

Did they do a survey as to how many wanted this work done.. no, thought not. I respectfully ask that he resign as its him that's costing money as well and it would also be a good budget saving.

 

Crock of all rubbish anyway. It will not cost the council a single penny to keep the trees, all it will cost is Amey's profits. The contract covered Amey paying for engineering works, the council have already paid them the money so any additional costs are borne by Amey, not the public purse. Lodge is lying when he says there is an added cost to not chopping trees down.

[1978 14]

I agree, and it's worse because the CPS had already decided it was a misapplication of the law the first time around, so trying it again is unforgivable and a waste of public money.

 

The CPS withdrew the action because it wasn't in the public interest - and it wasn't. The point of law was not tested in court. It certainly wasn't the sort of application envisaged when the act was passed, but that doesn't mean it isn't applicable.

[Bob Arctor 11]

The CPS withdrew the action because it wasn't in the public interest - and it wasn't. The point of law was not tested in court. It certainly wasn't the sort of application envisaged when the act was passed, but that doesn't mean it isn't applicable.

 

The Guardian article states it was on the grounds of insufficient evidence, not public interest. Maybe they're wrong about that but if someone is charged with the wrong offence then it would be predictable that there was insufficient evidence of their guilt of that offence.

[Cyclone 10]

Get the council to agree to plant a tree or two (saplings) for each one that has to be pulled up. Also up to a certain size I believe some trees can be lifted and replanted with specialized equipment ? But not mature oak trees etc.

 

This would be missing the point. Amey ARE replacing the trees they remove. However saplings that will take 20 years to mature are of minimal ongoing cost to Amey, hence they wish to cut down as many mature trees as possible. This will totally change the street scene in Sheffield.

[Guest makapaka]

This would be missing the point. Amey ARE replacing the trees they remove. However saplings that will take 20 years to mature are of minimal ongoing cost to Amey, hence they wish to cut down as many mature trees as possible. This will totally change the street scene in Sheffield.

 

For 20 years and then we will have mature trees and no issues on the streets /roads?

 

Maybe if Amey had to factor in the ongoing cost of maintaining the mature trees at tender the project would not have been viable and wouldn't have gone ahead?

[harvey19 541]

This would be missing the point. Amey ARE replacing the trees they remove. However saplings that will take 20 years to mature are of minimal ongoing cost to Amey, hence they wish to cut down as many mature trees as possible. This will totally change the street scene in Sheffield.

 

I have noticed that roadworks are ongoing in Wadsley.

I wonder if trees will be removed there.

[Back9Kev 10]

Perhaps the gritstone kerbing is worth £200 - £250/stone.

 

So if you can remove several hundred metres, that's what, £20,000 worth, easily. Backfill it with £1/kerb concrete kerbing, pay for the labour, concrete, lorries, etc, make £15,000 profit.

 

Having worked in the paving industry for 32 years I can assure you there is not a lucrative market for used materials. The odd bit may end up in peoples gardens but there is now so much imported material it would not be worth the effort

I admire your efforts to bring Amey to account and agree with most of the arguments on here criticising the way they operate. Just not this one

Edited March 3, 2017 by Back9Kev

[Eater Sundae 12]

For 20 years and then we will have mature trees and no issues on the streets /roads?

 

Maybe if Amey had to factor in the ongoing cost of maintaining the mature trees at tender the project would not have been viable and wouldn't have gone ahead?

 

We don't know the figures, but...

 

The cost of removing large trees, plus the remedial work in filling the hole, plus the cost of the replacement tree and preparing it's site, plus the ongoing cost of checking (and repairing if necessary) the temporary supports, plus the cost of watering the new tree (or of replacing it if it fails due to lack of watering) plus the cost of replacing those trees that are listed will not be small. Compare this with the need to occasionally cut back the mature trees.

[Guest makapaka]

We don't know the figures, but...

 

The cost of removing large trees, plus the remedial work in filling the hole, plus the cost of the replacement tree and preparing it's site, plus the ongoing cost of checking (and repairing if necessary) the temporary supports, plus the cost of watering the new tree (or of replacing it if it fails due to lack of watering) plus the cost of replacing those trees that are listed will not be small. Compare this with the need to occasionally cut back the mature trees.

 

But I thought people were arguing that Amey were removing them to make a profit?

[Cyclone 10]

I have noticed that roadworks are ongoing in Wadsley.

I wonder if trees will be removed there.

 

Like everywhere else they've marked an excessive number for removal.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2017 at 10:45 ----------

 

For 20 years and then we will have mature trees and no issues on the streets /roads?

Then Amey won't care because the contract will have finished.

 

Maybe if Amey had to factor in the ongoing cost of maintaining the mature trees at tender the project would not have been viable and wouldn't have gone ahead?

 

It was factored in. The initial tree survey was done and a small of removals was planned in. They have since expanded that to remove about 10 times as many trees.

[Robin-H 11]

But I thought people were arguing that Amey were removing them to make a profit?

 

There is a reason why AMEY are removing healthy trees that are not causing very much damage at all (as the couple of examples I have posted on here show). Thousands of trees are in the same category.

 

The most logical reason is profit. Without being able to see the redacted parts of the contract it is impossible to know for certain, however it seems the most logical reason to me.

 

In Birmingham, AMEY were charging the council £2,000 for every tree that they planted.

 

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/council-contractor-amey-charging-birmingham-1715941

 

It also means that they do not have to pay out for the engineering solutions that might be required in some cases to level to pavement, such as installing flexi-pave or gently ramping over the roots etc. The fact they are not even willing to leave a gap in the kerbstones, which wouldn't cost them anything (which is one of the solutions in the contract) suggests that there is a big incentive for them to remove trees.

 

As Eater has rightly pointed at that, removing large trees isn't exactly cheap, and so one would think that they would be incentivised to keep trees that were not causing substantial damage. They are not doing so - there must be a reason for this.

[Cyclone 10]

We don't know the figures, but...

 

The cost of removing large trees, plus the remedial work in filling the hole, plus the cost of the replacement tree and preparing it's site, plus the ongoing cost of checking (and repairing if necessary) the temporary supports, plus the cost of watering the new tree (or of replacing it if it fails due to lack of watering) plus the cost of replacing those trees that are listed will not be small. Compare this with the need to occasionally cut back the mature trees.

 

 

Yeah, right.

Watering.

Replacing.

 

Trees will be removed, saplings will be planted, nothing will then happen for 20 years, which is 20 years of profit for Amey at the expense of the people of Sheffield.

What other motive are you suggesting for the removal of trees against the advice of the ITP and against the wishes of residents?