Trees being chopped right now on Crawford Road!

[Hairyloon 10]

We can only take the poster's word for it. 20 years seems to be a heck of a long time to go without any maintenance being done.

Piffle. Oak trees can live 1000 years if not longer Yew trees twice that, and they are not the longest lived species by a long chalk.

We have a tree in our back garden that we have to cut back every couple of years to keep it in check, and stop it overhanging the neighbour's yard.

And that is entirely a matter of preference between you and your neighbour.

I'm finding it quite distasteful how uncharitable some of these comments are.

Dismissing people's experiences and telling them they should move house, when all they want is a bit of pruning every now and then is a touch unfeeling .

It is exactly the same as moving to the country and complaining about the cockerel crowing. I have no sympathy whatsoever, nor with most forms of NIMBY.

If they upset you so much, then see about getting them pruned yourself: if what you want is reasonable, then I'm sure the council won't mind.

[Olive 10]

Piffle. Oak trees can live 1000 years if not longer Yew trees twice that, and they are not the longest lived species by a long chalk.

 

And that is entirely a matter of preference between you and your neighbour.

I'm finding it quite distasteful how uncharitable some of these comments are.

It is exactly the same as moving to the country and complaining about the cockerel crowing. I have no sympathy whatsoever, nor with most forms of NIMBY.

If they upset you so much, then see about getting them pruned yourself: if what you want is reasonable, then I'm sure the council won't mind.

 

Wow, you're really showing your true colours now. I happen to like my neighbours. I want them to be able to enjoy their garden, to be able to grow some plants if they want, and sit out side in the sun if they want. My tree, my responsibility.

 

Incidentally, you do realise there are other species apart from oak out there don't you?

 

Not sure there's a lot of point in dabating with you if you lack empathy altogether. But one last go.

 

Here's an example. My neighbour. In his 80s, a widower, lived in the house since the late 1960s. Raised his family there, lost his wife there. A very houseproud man and a lovely neighbour. He's utterly fed up with the trees outside the house. He says when they first live there they used to get looked after. But this hasn't happened since the '80s. Now all summer long he's living in the dark. Half the time he's putting the heating on since the tree's blocking much of the thermal heat from getting in. I supposed he should just pack up and move, and he's brought this on himself has he?

 

I've been asking the council for about 8 years to do some cutting back. At first they refused point blank. Then I offered to get it done myself, to which they got really shirty and said I wasn't alllowed to do that. I pointed out that it's absolutley allowed to cut back anything overhanging your property. They conceded this point but then started threatening litigation if we in any way caused any damage, or used the trunk of the tree to get access to cut down any branches. So we've given up on that idea.

 

So yeah, you have a great point actually. Don't ever buy a house with a tree anywhere near it. Even if it's a sappling. Even though any reasonable person would think the landowner would do a reasonable amount of maintenance. I wouldn't have much sympathy for someone who bought a house 10ft away from a fast-eroding coastline, but I think expecting a small amount of tree maintenance is entirely appropriate, especially when people's property is impacted. Same with roads, streetlights, etc.

 

 

Thanks for your understanding!

 

---------- Post added 15-07-2017 at 10:28 ----------

 

I think most people agree with you . the blame lies squarely at the councils feet

 

I hope so Hackney Lad. I'm a tree lover, believe it or not. I just wish that people could see that there isn't a one size fits all solution to this issue. It upsets me that people have genuine problems with SOME (not all) of the trees that are in line to be felled, and these people are just been trampled on by people who aren't sharing their experience.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Olive

[Hairyloon 10]

Here's an example. My neighbour. In his 80s, a widower, lived in the house since the late 1960s. Raised his family there, lost his wife there. A very houseproud man and a lovely neighbour. He's utterly fed up with the trees outside the house. He says when they first live there they used to get looked after. But this hasn't happened since the '80s...

 

You see now, you are presenting evidence for a lack of maintenance. Prior to this, all I have seen is whinging about leaves on the lawn and suchlike things.

 

I've been asking the council for about 8 years to do some cutting back. At first they refused point blank. Then I offered to get it done myself, to which they got really shirty and said I wasn't alllowed to do that. I pointed out that it's absolutley allowed to cut back anything overhanging your property. They conceded this point but then started threatening litigation if we in any way caused any damage, or used the trunk of the tree to get access to cut down any branches. So we've given up on that idea.

 

And that is a thoroughly unreasonable attitude.

Did you talk to your councillor? Make a formal complaint? Escalate it to the LGO?

[1978 14]

The issue of pruning is a serious one, and if our trees had been better maintained by pollarding and the like on a fairly regular basis many of them might have remained appropriate to their position. As it is many treees are far too big and grow across roads and residents' gardens.

 

I walked down a tree lined road in another town earlier in the year and wondered what had happened to the trees. They had bare trunks with no branches after being pollarded. I'm sure that avenue will soon recover and gardens will get light, and vehicles won't be hitting overhanging branches.

 

A flowering cherry tree opposite our house was reported as needing pruning about 15 years ago because it was brushing against our neighbours' bedroom windows and branches had been snapped of by passing vehicles. It went within days, apparently diseased, although it's rate of growth suggested otherwise! The replacement provided for our payment of about £150 is now looking like a tree, rather than the sapling that was first planted.

 

Maybe we should question whether we should be planting so many potentially big trees in close proximity to roads and houses. Capability Brown was laying out country estates where there was ample room for growth.

 

Walking down Holborn in London last week I couldn't help noticing large roadside trees which seemed to be faring much better, clear of vehicles and buildings. Around the bases seems to be a surface that looks like tarmac, but feels like rubber matting.

 

Now the Sheffield Amey contract is approaching the end of the 5 year first period we seem to have a lot of contentious trees to be felled. I for one will be glad when it's completed and we can get back to a resemblance of normal street maintenance; to include better and regular tree surgery as appropriate.

[Olive 10]

You see now, you are presenting evidence for a lack of maintenance. Prior to this, all I have seen is whinging about leaves on the lawn and suchlike things.

 

 

 

And that is a thoroughly unreasonable attitude.

Did you talk to your councillor? Make a formal complaint? Escalate it to the LGO?

 

Happy to oblige. I hope my example illustrates that it's not always so cut and dried.

 

I've had protracted dealings with the Streets Ahead people. Perhaps I should have contacted our councillor. Apart from the overhanging branches, we also had to have our perimeter retaining wall rebuilt because of root damage. They sent out a team to dig up the pavement to ascertain the cause of the problem. Quel surprise, it was the tree roots (which a quick glance at the surrounding pavement could have confirmed). Luckily (or unluckily) they compensated us for part of the not inconsiderable build cost. This was back in 2013, a long while after we'd first brought the problems to their attention.

 

Regarding the trees being cut be cut back, we were informed it would be done as part of the 2015 maintenance programme, which never happened. I guess it all got rolled into the current programme. In the meanwhile the roots have raised the pavement to the extent I can't use the drive without taking my car exhaust off!

 

I actually called Streets Ahead a couple of weeks ago so see what was happening. They've finished resurfacing our road and pavements. All apart from the bits where the trees are going to be replaced. They said they'd tried to do the replacement work but couldn't because of protestors.

 

Now, here's where you and I probably agree that there's underhand doings going on, because to my knowledge, there's not been a sniff of protest on our road. None of the neighbours have seen anything and we voted in favour of replacing these trees and we just want it all finished now. So either the contractors are telling porkies to the council, or the council are fibbing through their teeth to me. Or maybe nobody's lieing and some travelling protestors materialised out of thin air.

 

Either way, it's all wearing a bit thin, and being told that there's no problem, or we should suck it up and move house isn't helpful.

 

As you can probably tell, my nerves are somewhat frayed after after so many years, and seeing a glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel, only for it disappear again.

[Hairyloon 10]

Happy to oblige. I hope my example illustrates that it's not always so cut and dried.

 

In situations such as these, I judge on the evidence that is presented. As it was, it was cut and dried.

 

Now, here's where you and I probably agree that there's underhand doings going on...

I'll fall short of agreeing, but I won't argue: simply I do not have enough information to make a valid judgment.

My policy is to not blame conspiracy when the issue can be explained by incompetence, and I'm certain that you'll agree that incompetence is something the council has no shortage of.

 

As you can probably tell, my nerves are somewhat frayed after after so many years, and seeing a glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel, only for it disappear again.

 

As I have mentioned before (but not on this thread), my best suggestion is to organise a public vote of no confidence in the council: this thing with the trees is just the tip of an iceberg...

[Olive 10]

 

 

I'll fall short of agreeing, but I won't argue: simply I do not have enough information to make a valid judgment.

My policy is to not blame conspiracy when the issue can be explained by incompetence, and I'm certain that you'll agree that incompetence is something the council has no shortage of.

 

 

It was tongue in cheek, maybe a bit off the mark. It's clear they were just trying to fobb me off. I'm not suggesting Elvis is alive and working for Amey!

 

---------- Post added 15-07-2017 at 23:24 ----------

 

 

 

As I have mentioned before (but not on this thread), my best suggestion is to organise a public vote of no confidence in the council: this thing with the trees is just the tip of an iceberg...

 

You've not understood me at all. As hacked off as I am at being fobbed off by Streets Ahead, I'm even more hacked off at the dogmatic approach from other sides that's given them an excuse to not carry out the work they said they'd do.

[Guest makapaka]

The amey hate in Sheffield is crazy.

 

Nothing's really changed and the streets are improved.

 

Stop moaning.

[Hairyloon 10]

I'm not suggesting Elvis is alive and working for Amey!

 

I should hope not. It is supposed to be kept secret.

 

You've not understood me at all. As hacked off as I am at being fobbed off by Streets Ahead, I'm even more hacked off at the dogmatic approach from other sides that's given them an excuse to not carry out the work they said they'd do.

 

I don't know what you think I don't understand: it is all part and parcel of the same basic problem: fundamental failures by the council.

 

---------- Post added 16-07-2017 at 00:12 ----------

 

I walked down a tree lined road in another town earlier in the year and wondered what had happened to the trees. They had bare trunks with no branches after being pollarded.

 

That is what pollarding actually means. Traditionally it was done to maximise production of small diameter timber, whether for fuel or whatever.

The basic problem that we have here is that the council (and most of you lot) are viewing the trees as a problem rather than a product.

[Olive 10]

I should hope not. It is supposed to be kept secret.

 

 

Oh heck. Me and my big gob!

 

---------- Post added 16-07-2017 at 09:00 ----------

 

 

I don't know what you think I don't understand: it is all part and parcel of the same basic problem: fundamental failures by the council.

 

 

The bit where I said I was more annoyed at the people stopping them getting on with it, when some of the repalcement work is desperately needed, and wanted.

[Hairyloon 10]

The bit where I said I was more annoyed at the people stopping them getting on with it, when some of the repalcement work is desperately needed, and wanted.

 

And you think that has nothing to do with the council entirely failing to properly consult with people or make the case for their proposed course of action?

Edited July 16, 2017 by Hairyloon

[Olive 10]

And you think that has nothing to do with the council entirely failing to properly consult with people or make the case for their proposed course of action?

 

To some extent, but if only it was that linear. As has been demonstrated on the Forum time and time again, there are some who won't be happy if any trees at all are felled. Reasoning is nigh on impossible. They just won't believe that people's lives and properties are adversely affected by some of the trees. Just look back through the various threads. Yes, the council have used bullying tactics, and that's deplorable. But so is the bullying from the other side.