Council tree felling...

[Robin-H 11]

There’s also this bit to consider;

 

“The contract wisely gives the ratepayer ‘insurance cover’ to ensure we aren’t vulnerable to long term risks as the health and impact of our street trees continue to change over time. If for any reason, such as major disease outbreak, the council has to replace a number of trees it can do so without any extra cost to the Sheffield ratepayer.

 

What's your point exactly?

 

How does that make the statement that 17,500 trees are going to be felled an 'incorrect interpretation?'

[wrinkly67 10]

Oh look, more lies by the Council - there's a surprise.

 

It's in the contract, black and white - 'not less than 200 per year so that 17,500 highway trees are replaced by the end of the term'.

 

How is that an incorrect interpretation exactly?

 

Quite. Councillor Lodge "One of the things people will see is that the contract ALLOWS for the replacement of up to 17,500 highway trees". Pretty clear. Councillor Lodge "Any suggestion that 17,500 trees is a target or a requirement is an incorrect interpretation of the contract". Well, not what he says the contract says and not how Amey are likely to see it. It's quoted that already 6,000 trees have already been "replaced". If SCC are having to pay £2,000 a time (like Birmingham) then I'd say that is very "commercially sensitive" and every incentive for Amey to keep chopping. And with SCC unable to do sod all about it. Amey have got the council over a barrel and, in fairness to the protestors, whether we agree with them or not, without them we would probably have remained unaware. And this is only the tree bit of the contract!

[paula4sheff 10]

Quite. Councillor Lodge "One of the things people will see is that the contract ALLOWS for the replacement of up to 17,500 highway trees". Pretty clear. Councillor Lodge "Any suggestion that 17,500 trees is a target or a requirement is an incorrect interpretation of the contract". Well, not what he says the contract says and not how Amey are likely to see it. It's quoted that already 6,000 trees have already been "replaced". If SCC are having to pay £2,000 a time (like Birmingham) then I'd say that is very "commercially sensitive" and every incentive for Amey to keep chopping. And with SCC unable to do sod all about it. Amey have got the council over a barrel and, in fairness to the protestors, whether we agree with them or not, without them we would probably have remained unaware. And this is only the tree bit of the contract!

 

....and it's only one contract! I dread to think what else is being signed that we are currently unaware of, with other companies.

[abbeyedges 82]

It seems the council are now a little uncomfortable with the Amey contract. It would be in the council's best interests to reveal details of the contract to the public and then allow the Sheffield public the opportunity of reporting to the council any discrepancies that they come across to the council.

 

If everyone works together on this there maybe an opportunity of building up sufficient evidence to terminate the contract.

[wrinkly67 10]

It seems the council are now a little uncomfortable with the Amey contract. It would be in the council's best interests to reveal details of the contract to the public and then allow the Sheffield public the opportunity of reporting to the council any discrepancies that they come across to the council.

 

If everyone works together on this there maybe an opportunity of building up sufficient evidence to terminate the contract.

 

Other councils up and down the country are terminating their contracts with Amey. At least they have the honesty to own up to the fact that those contracts were not worth their salt. Confirms my belief that Amey have a very clever legal team with, no doubt, very clever wording - too clever for SCC. Whilst I see the sentiment in seeking public opinion, we would firstly have to see the whole of the contract and SCC don't even have the openness to let that happen. Why? Because they are now seeing the error of their ways in beginning to see the loopholes that exist in that contract but haven't the guts to admit it. And how much more egg on their faces if laymen were able (and I believe that some could) to point out errors in a document that a so called legal team (at what expense?) have accepted and SCC have signed off. Beggars belief.

[gamezone07 23]

"I think you're missing the point though- all the things you say need attention absolutely do - they're all wrongs. But I think a lot of the people you are criticizing are also on your side with those things and really aren't the enemy. Their reasons for their campaigning are on similar lines to yours- they see an injustice (in this case the trees and the PFI deal) and are fighting it, with the means they have. I think if you looked into some of these people you will find they have also made efforts in other areas and against other things."

 

 

I agree with you to a point, Jarvis, and the middle class of S11/S7 probably do care, say about poverty and inequality, (I know Richard Hawley feels passionately about the deaths as a direct consequence of the welfare reforms) , but it is revealing that the flag they choose to raise and campaign on, is the tree issue, which of course directly affects them. Next week, there will be a protest about Universal Credit in town, i wonder how many of them will attend, or indeed much of the left that disparages the tree protesters.

[paula4sheff 10]

I agree with you to a point, Jarvis, and the middle class of S11/S7 probably do care, say about poverty and inequality, (I know Richard Hawley feels passionately about the deaths as a direct consequence of the welfare reforms) , but it is revealing that the flag they choose to raise and campaign on, is the tree issue, which of course directly affects them. Next week, there will be a protest about Universal Credit in town, i wonder how many of them will attend, or indeed much of the left that disparages the tree protesters.

 

It's probably more just a case of someone organizing the concert asking them though, and it being something they can actually do (i.e. music).

 

They all see how wrong the whole situation is, as I'm sure they do with other things - all of them have been involved with other campaigns, projects and charities in the past in the public eye- not to mention of course what they may say, do or donate to in their private lives.

[abbeyedges 82]

Other councils up and down the country are terminating their contracts with Amey. At least they have the honesty to own up to the fact that those contracts were not worth their salt. Confirms my belief that Amey have a very clever legal team with, no doubt, very clever wording - too clever for SCC. Whilst I see the sentiment in seeking public opinion, we would firstly have to see the whole of the contract and SCC don't even have the openness to let that happen. Why? Because they are now seeing the error of their ways in beginning to see the loopholes that exist in that contract but haven't the guts to admit it. And how much more egg on their faces if laymen were able (and I believe that some could) to point out errors in a document that a so called legal team (at what expense?) have accepted and SCC have signed off. Beggars belief.

 

Thanks for the reply. This is a classic 'divide and rule'. The division is between SCC and the public while Amey is doing the ruling.

 

There are divisions in the Labour party in Sheffield regarding the contract with Amey and the tree protesters now need to view this as an opportunity and create a Plan B in order to achieve their overall goal of removing Amey (rather than trees) from the city's landscape.

 

Now's the time to take a more mature and strategic approach and work with those members of the Labour party to discredit Amey's work in relation to the contract agreement.

 

Continue the protests but raise your game.

[paula4sheff 10]

Thanks for the reply. This is a classic 'divide and rule'. The division is between SCC and the public while Amey is doing the ruling.

 

There are divisions in the Labour party in Sheffield regarding the contract with Amey and the tree protesters now need to view this as an opportunity and create a Plan B in order to achieve their overall goal of removing Amey (rather than trees) from the city's landscape.

 

Now's the time to take a more mature and strategic approach and work with those members of the Labour party to discredit Amey's work in relation to the contract agreement.

 

Continue the protests but raise your game.

 

Absolutely. I think it would also help if the council took the opportunity they've been given to make a bold statement, and say they've made huge mistakes and not told the truth. That's the first step to anything moving forward- but I get the impression that levels of arrogance are currently stopping that happening. I think the root of that arrogance does lie in complacency at how voting will go in May - and I think the more clued up and aware counselors and even MPs are taking note of this, and reacting accordingly.

 

The tide is certainly turning- but the sad thing of course is all the trees that have already been needlessly felled as a result.

[Bruce_Shark 10]

Ah good, the bogey man is back to being Amey, I was starting to get a bit worried there...

 

[paula4sheff 10]

Ah good, the bogey man is back to being Amey, I was starting to get a bit worried there...

 

 

Is it? I was under the impression it was an incredibly shady company AND an incompetent/corrupt council working together?

 

---------- Post added 12-03-2018 at 19:35 ----------

 

Interesting that the stumps are all going now, despite being there for weeks.....after the contract reveals to the public that they should be gone within 5 days!

 

Out of interest- when they take away the stumps, and leave the roots under the pavement- what happens when those roots rot away? Presumably the pavement collapses?

[onewheeldave 22]

Next week, there will be a protest about Universal Credit in town, i wonder how many of them will attend, or indeed much of the left that disparages the tree protesters.

 

Is this to replace the Universal Credit protest that got cancelled due to the snow?

 

I've been looking for the re-scheduled protest but can't find any info- do you have a link you can share?