Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Mouserat 10]

All residents on affected streets are sent an invitation to participate in a survey and Independent Tree Panels are only set up if more than 50% of the respondents disagree with the proposals. If there is a silent majority out there in favour of felling the trees, they should take this opportunity to make their opinion heard from the comfort of their own home.

 

In other words, Independent Tree Panels are only set up when those most affected by the trees involved object to their felling - the residents who have to walk past them, park underneath them, drive past them or whose property is most at risk from damage. Independent Tree Panels don't only consider whether a tree should be removed because it is dying or diseased - they also consider damage.

 

And yes, people are directly affected by these trees. Study after study has highlighted that trees improve mental health (http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/10/the-pretty-much-totally-complete-health-case-for-urban-nature/411331/). And trees are a cost-effective way of addressing air pollution (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37813709) when the government is facing pressure to deal with particulate emissions urgently (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/21/high-court-ministers-deadline-air-quality-pollution-plan) and Sheffield breaches air quality guidelines (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27323198). Trees also slow run-off, helping to tackle the sort of flooding we saw on Sheffield's roads last night (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/community-tree-planting-helps-flood-scheme--2). It is simply not accurate to say that urban trees don't affect us.

 

So yes, the people protesting this are those directly affected by this. They are people concerned with the health and well-being of city residents. No-one is in favour of preventing the felling of dead or diseased trees, or trees that are causing damage that cannot be remedied (although cutting down trees often causes more damage to property than it fixes). No-one had to shout to make their opinion heard on this, or tie ribbons around trees - if residents wanted their street trees felled, all they had to do was complete a survey.

 

And using obscure legislation, for a purpose for which it was not intended, to arrest people making a peaceful protest is a dangerous precedent to set.

[Robin-H 11]

Nice use of "vast majority".

 

57% of residents were definitely against the felling. 5.5% against. The remainder, 37.5%, didn't care enough either way/were unable to respond.

 

I thought you would try to make a point of that. That is why I was careful to write that is was a vast majority of the households that responded. Indeed I think we can both agree that 91% is a vast majority?

 

We cannot judge why the other households did not respond to the survey. They might not care about the trees being felled. They might have been on holiday for the short time the survey was open. They might have thrown away the survey and so lost their unique code.

 

But that is how surveys and votes work. We take into account the opinions of those who respond, we do not use the non response of those who didn't as a method to somehow weaken or invalidate to opinion of those who did.

[megalithic 10]

It's the residents who have objected the most strongly.

 

Quite simply because they thought the felling of the trees would affect house prices! And please don't tell me that isn't true, I've personally heard 2 of the residents say this themselves, one even asking who would compensate them!

[Eater Sundae 12]

All residents on affected streets are sent an invitation to participate in a survey and Independent Tree Panels are only set up if more than 50% of the respondents disagree with the proposals. If there is a silent majority out there in favour of felling the trees, they should take this opportunity to make their opinion heard from the comfort of their own home.

 

In other words, Independent Tree Panels are only set up when those most affected by the trees involved object to their felling - the residents who have to walk past them, park underneath them, drive past them or whose property is most at risk from damage. Independent Tree Panels don't only consider whether a tree should be removed because it is dying or diseased - they also consider damage.

 

And yes, people are directly affected by these trees. Study after study has highlighted that trees improve mental health (http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/10/the-pretty-much-totally-complete-health-case-for-urban-nature/411331/). And trees are a cost-effective way of addressing air pollution (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37813709) when the government is facing pressure to deal with particulate emissions urgently (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/21/high-court-ministers-deadline-air-quality-pollution-plan) and Sheffield breaches air quality guidelines (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27323198). Trees also slow run-off, helping to tackle the sort of flooding we saw on Sheffield's roads last night (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/community-tree-planting-helps-flood-scheme--2). It is simply not accurate to say that urban trees don't affect us.

 

So yes, the people protesting this are those directly affected by this. They are people concerned with the health and well-being of city residents. No-one is in favour of preventing the felling of dead or diseased trees, or trees that are causing damage that cannot be remedied (although cutting down trees often causes more damage to property than it fixes). No-one had to shout to make their opinion heard on this, or tie ribbons around trees - if residents wanted their street trees felled, all they had to do was complete a survey.

 

And using obscure legislation, for a purpose for which it was not intended, to arrest people making a peaceful protest is a dangerous precedent to set.

 

We have a pollution problem

 

Trees are very beneficial, for lots of reasons.

 

However, these trees do not need to be at the side of the road. They can just as well be in nearby private gardens, or in parks. In fact, trees in parks can be grown to a full size, thus maximising their benefits. Street trees can only be allowed to fully develop if the space available to them is adequate, which it rarely is in Sheffield, particularly in the case of trees planted on fairly narrow pavements.

 

In many cases, the people who planted the streetside trees, often over 100 years ago, did not allow enough space for the tree to fully grow.

 

We should work towards planting more trees where we can, to maximise our tree stock. But there is no need to beat ourselves up about the loss of individual street trees.

[Robin-H 11]

Quite simply because they thought the felling of the trees would affect house prices! And please don't tell me that isn't true, I've personally heard 2 of the residents say this themselves, one even asking who would compensate them!

 

Please stop spreading these baseless accusations that this is somehow a class matter. Some people might be worried about house prices, most aren't.

 

Why do you think I would be concerned about the house prices of people who live on Rustling Road?

[Mouserat 10]

This is not about a few individual street trees being removed - it is about unknown numbers, possibly the majority of them being removed. Many of our parks are already sustaining large numbers of trees and I'm not sure how many more trees could be planted without compromising other uses of the parks. If there is any issue with street trees damaging property, surely there is more of an issue with trees being planted in private gardens.

 

And tree location is important - particularly when it comes to dealing with run-off and particulate emission absorption. Trees need to be in the impacted areas (and areas such as Ecclesall Road and Broomhill, with a high density of slow-moving traffic are particularly problematic when it comes to air pollution).

 

The Independent Tree Panels did take account of damage and disruption to the pavement - it recommended the removal of one healthy Rustlings Road tree because of the danger it posed to traffic, and several reports recommend felling trees that are too disruptive to the pavement or damaging local property. But still, they urge the council to consider viable alternatives to felling for tree after tree. As often as not, the issue is not that there is insufficient space for the tree where it is planted but that there have been years of insufficient maintenance of tree and pavement, and now the cheapest short-term option is to remove the tree. Street trees are being replanted - but by the time they are large enough to cause the same problems, Amey's contract will have expired.

[megalithic 10]

Please stop spreading these baseless accusations that this is somehow a class matter. Some people might be worried about house prices, most aren't.

 

Why do you think I would be concerned about the house prices of people who live on Rustling Road?

 

Baseless only in the way that you're in denial. These are words from the house owners own mouths, but you brush it off if you like, probably suits your agenda better.

[Robin-H 11]

Baseless only in the way that you're in denial. These are words from the house owners own mouths, but you brush it off if you like, probably suits your agenda better.

 

I'm sorry but a couple of anecdotes doesn't mean that the only reason people were complaining was because of house prices. You didn't answer my question of why you think I would be interested in the house prices of houses on Rustling Road?

 

Using anecdotes in this manner, as I am sure you are well aware, is a well known logical fallacy. You can read about it here..

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

 

If your point is that a couple of people on Rustling Road only cared about the trees because of the perceived decrease in their house price now they are removed, then fine, you can make that point. We have no evidence other than your own word, but fair enough, that might be true.

 

If your point is that most residents objected strongly because, and I quote 'they thought the felling of the trees would affect house prices' then your claim is entirely spurious and cannot be made based on a couple of anecdotes.

 

I myself I have spoken to many residents on Rustling Road who have said to me that even if retaining the trees meant their house price went down by 20 or 30% they would rather that than lose the tree. You see how anecdotes are pretty useless?

[megalithic 10]

I'm sorry but a couple of anecdotes doesn't mean that the only reason people were complaining was because of house prices. You didn't answer my question of why you think I would be interested in the house prices of houses on Rustling Road?

 

Using anecdotes in this manner, as I am sure you are well aware, is a well known logical fallacy. You can read about it here..

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

 

If your point is that a couple of people on Rustling Road only cared about the trees because of the perceived decrease in their house price now they are removed, then fine, you can make that point. We have no evidence other than your own word, but fair enough, that might be true.

 

If your point is that most residents objected strongly because, and I quote 'they thought the felling of the trees would affect house prices' then your claim is entirely spurious and cannot be made based on a couple of anecdotes.

 

I myself I have spoken to many residents on Rustling Road who have said to me that even if retaining the trees meant their house price went down by 20 or 30% they would rather that than lose the tree. You see how anecdotes are pretty useless?

 

"Anecdotes" lol.

Ok Robin you stay in denial.

[Robin-H 11]

"Anecdotes" lol.

Ok Robin you stay in denial.

 

Go on? What would you call them if not anecdotes?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

[megalithic 10]

Well as it was said to me (when they were pretending to camp in the park) I'd call it the truth. It matters not one jot if you believe me btw, the trees are down and a job well done.

My only concern now is you lot will move on to other areas that aren't your business and keep people such as the lady on the previous page in deep misery with your misguided protesting.

[Robin-H 11]

Well as it was said to me (when they were pretending to camp in the park) I'd call it the truth. It matters not one jot if you believe me btw, the trees are down and a job well done.

 

Then you do not understand what an anecdote is. Where have I, or any of the links I have posted, said that anecdotes are not truthful? I have not.

 

Indeed, I said that if the point you are making was that a couple of residents of Rustling Road where only worried about house prices that might well be true.

 

Using your anecdote to extrapolate that this is the only reason, and applies to the majority of the residents on Rustling Road, is what I had issue with as that is a well known logical fallacy.