Council tree felling...

[lottiecass 17]

Since the start of 2018, they've been averaging about 1-2 trees per week. This week they managed 3 in total. This is with up to 3 felling crews, plus barrier teams and 20+ security, not to mention 30+ police. (There were 8 police vans on Abbeydale Park Rise today, plus a CCTV van). Today in total they managed to fell a single cherry tree which they had already partially felled on a previous occasion. The other two trees from this week were also previously partially felled. There is an exceeedingly realistic prospect of them not achieving 200 this year.

Dave,you don't seem to understand that one gang of three men felled three trees in one day at wisewood,gone shred and stumps ground out.Sheffield is a big place and protests are rare compared to how many trees have been removed without any protest,so amey will keep to the target.Theres plenty tree men in s35 alone,so more subbies wont be a problem,it seems cost isn't a worry for amey.The actual contract needs looking at by an independent body that is for sure.

Edited March 10, 2018 by lottiecass
addition

[Bruce_Shark 10]

Doesn't this whole debacle with Amey (not just the trees) stem from SCC signing a contract which they simply didn't fully understand? To be honest, I've yet to meet a councillor who can string a sentence together coherently; they certainly wouldn't understand a legal document. And yet they felt themselves important enough to sign the contract "behind closed doors" with no involvement from a scrutiny committee. In the case of Amey, and not too dissimilar in outcome, I've certainly come across developers forcing councils into tight corners with what turn out to be cleverly worded documents. Both parties rely on legal teams - may I suggest that Amey's was "streets ahead" of the councils? This seems to be backed up by SCC refusing to show its contract with Amey in its entirety. For what other reason would they be so secretive? And also that councils up and down the country are terminating their contracts with Amey because they're not living up to expectations. Cumbria state they are "determined to learn and improve" and rather tellingly AFTER "a THOROUGH review of the contract". So they hadn't understood it either? Birmingham are only now realising that they are tied into a contract whereby they pay £2000 every time Amey plants a sapling (as I understand it not as a replacement). They now refer to "poorly negotiated contracts". So they didn't know what they were signing up for either? Given that the contract with Sheffield involved maintenance and replacement of 36,000 trees was it (without the intervention taking place and probably unexpected by Amey) much cheaper to just chop many down and SCC find themselves in no position to stop them? The important difference I see is that whilst other councils are becoming aware, readily admitting the problems and terminating their contracts with Amey, SCC seem hell bent on acting as though all is well. Is this arrogance or stupidity?

 

Oh do keep up!

 

The current STAG tack is that SCC wrote 17500 (200 per year) as a target, into the contract.

 

I'm not sure you're supposed to be blaming the "greedy corporation" any more.

 

The current tag line is nasty council/police.

 

(It'll probably change back by Monday though).

[Cyclone 10]

How is this a 'tack'?

From section 6.38 of schedule 2 of the Streets Ahead contract, released in redacted form today:

 

"The Service Provider shall replace Highway Trees in accordance with the Annual Tree Management Programme at a rate of not less than 200 per year so that 17,500 Highway are replaced by the end of the Term, such replacement to be in accordance with the Highway Tree Replacement Policy, unless Authority Approval has been obtained for deviation from this policy."

 

---------- Post added 11-03-2018 at 12:36 ----------

 

The council are carrying out a legal contract, the police are there to allow legal work to be conducted. If protesters enter the safety zone then the police have to be there to allow the work to continue. Everytime the tree fellers have to pack up and leave is another waste of money and resources.

 

But some on here can't seem to understand this. But then I guess its the job of professional protesters to cause disruption whilst bleating on about the unfairness of it all. Extremely hypocritical. I will welcome news of the last tree having being felled.

 

The police are there to maintain the peace.

The council aren't carrying out anything, Amey are, and the contract is the source of the entire dispute.

The police have no remit to enforce safety zones for tree removal, it's not a criminal offence to enter one.

 

They should though be charging people for assault when it occurs, although at the moment it appears that they aren't.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Cyclone

[onewheeldave 22]

New video of police bullying at Abbeydale Park Rise- an unnecessarily violent arrest

 

 

---------- Post added 11-03-2018 at 14:23 ----------

 

There's a change.org petition here-

 

https://www.change.org/p/12097432/u/22491489?utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_campaign=276569&sfmc_tk=gy7fzUBgEyYXH1J3nTUehhZgUJBLb253g%2fbqREjEPdjJH1gjhk767sU9enBu6glC&j=276569&sfmc_sub=162272368&l=32_HTML&u=50102163&mid=7259882&jb=6

 

"TRUE SCALE OF SHEFFIELD TREE KILLINGS REVEALED. 17,500 STREET TREES COULD GO."

 

For those criticising STAG and/or the protesters, be aware that it is soley down to them that we know about the councils withholding of vital contract information. Allegedly, according to the council, it was withholding info due to it being 'commercially sensitive', which is clearly a lie when it regards the number of trees specified to be cut down in a contract.

 

SCC also resisted revealing that info as long as it possibly could- luckily STAG pushed it up to the level of the Information Commissioner who ordered SCC to reveal the figures (at yet more cost to the public purse).

 

It's not just about trees- it's about fighting an arrogant and corrupt council.

 

Incidently, the target of 17,500 trees is almost half of Sheffields street trees! Many of them mature and healthy trees. The replacements are not mature trees, but saplings

 

From https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/our-region/south-yorkshire/sheffield/sheffield-council-forced-to-reveal-target-to-remove-17-500-street-trees-under-pfi-deal-1-9056942

 

Information has been published following a year-long battle by campaigners for non-commercially sensitive parts of the 25-year contract with private company Amey to put placed in the public domain. The council has previously insisted in Freedom of Information responses that there was no target for tree removal but the new information has come to light after the Information Commissioner ordered the publication of the previously-redacted sections of the contract. The council had claimed it intended to publish the information at a future date but last month the Commissioner warned the authority it could face legal action unless it published the information within 35 days. One passage of the newly-published information states: “The service provider [Amey] shall replace highway trees in accordance with the annual tree management programme at a rate of not less than 200 per year so that 17,500 highway trees are replaced by the end of the term, such replacement to be in accordance with the Highway Tree Replacement Policy, unless authority [sheffield Council] approval has been obtained for deviation from this policy.”

Edited March 11, 2018 by onewheeldave

[dave_the_m 61]

SCC also resisted revealing that info as long as it possibly could- luckily STAG pushed it up to the level of the Information Commissioner who ordered SCC to reveal the figures (at yet more cost to the public purse).

Note also that there are still large chunks of the contract which they are illegally withholding. Not just redacted sections, but entire Schedule documents withheld. In particular, they're still withholding the entirety of Schedule 30, "Commercially Sensitive Information". This is the document which contains the agreed list between SCC and Amey as to which parts of the contact should be withheld as being "commercially sensitive". So it's not possible even to check whether SCC have released all the parts that they and Amey themselves had formerly agreed could be released.

 

This is an insane level of obfuscation and withholding by a supposedly publicly accountable body.

[Bruce_Shark 10]

How is this a 'tack'?

From section 6.38 of schedule 2 of the Streets Ahead contract, released in redacted form today:

 

"The Service Provider shall replace Highway Trees in accordance with the Annual Tree Management Programme at a rate of not less than 200 per year so that 17,500 Highway are replaced by the end of the Term, such replacement to be in accordance with the Highway Tree Replacement Policy, unless Authority Approval has been obtained for deviation from this policy."

 

Because STAGs previous course was to blame "nasty amey", even though Justice Males said:

 

"Although the defendants have made a number of sweeping allegations about the conduct of the council and Amey, for example that healthy trees are being felled because Amey is exercising improper influence over the council with a view to illegitimate profiteering, I have found that allegation to be detached from reality in light of the evidence before me."

 

So, have you/they decided who the bogey man is today, and will it have changed tomorrow?

 

[Cyclone 10]

Are you criticising them for updating an opinion as more evidence becomes available?

[Guest makapaka]

Are you criticising them for updating an opinion as more evidence becomes available?

 

I think they are highlighting the point that the judge discounted the views expressed by a large number of posters on here.

[redfox 10]

I think they are highlighting the point that the judge discounted the views expressed by a large number of posters on here.

 

 

Stephen Males looks at SF ?

 

I think not.

[Guest makapaka]

Stephen Males looks at SF ?

 

I think not.

 

Not the posts obviously- but the views represented by some of the posts.

[The Joker 10]

Stephen Males looks at SF ?

 

I think not.

 

why wouldn’t he ?

 

I post on here, and I’m something of a local celebrity

[monkey104 10]

New video of police bullying at Abbeydale Park Rise- an unnecessarily violent arrest

 

 

---------- Post added 11-03-2018 at 14:23 ----------

 

There's a change.org petition here-

 

https://www.change.org/p/12097432/u/22491489?utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_campaign=276569&sfmc_tk=gy7fzUBgEyYXH1J3nTUehhZgUJBLb253g%2fbqREjEPdjJH1gjhk767sU9enBu6glC&j=276569&sfmc_sub=162272368&l=32_HTML&u=50102163&mid=7259882&jb=6

 

"TRUE SCALE OF SHEFFIELD TREE KILLINGS REVEALED. 17,500 STREET TREES COULD GO."

 

For those criticising STAG and/or the protesters, be aware that it is soley down to them that we know about the councils withholding of vital contract information. Allegedly, according to the council, it was withholding info due to it being 'commercially sensitive', which is clearly a lie when it regards the number of trees specified to be cut down in a contract.

 

SCC also resisted revealing that info as long as it possibly could- luckily STAG pushed it up to the level of the Information Commissioner who ordered SCC to reveal the figures (at yet more cost to the public purse).

 

It's not just about trees- it's about fighting an arrogant and corrupt council.

 

Incidently, the target of 17,500 trees is almost half of Sheffields street trees! Many of them mature and healthy trees. The replacements are not mature trees, but saplings

 

From https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/our-region/south-yorkshire/sheffield/sheffield-council-forced-to-reveal-target-to-remove-17-500-street-trees-under-pfi-deal-1-9056942

 

Unnecessary violent arrest! I’ve seen more violence in a kindergarten. You must live in a very sheltered world.

See the video camera that the specially trained police spotter is using? That is recording evidence including the arrest. Do you believe any officer making arrest knowing he is being evidentially filmed would use any force that is not justified, proportionate or necessary ?