Jump to content

Council tree felling...

Recommended Posts

I dont think they realise that none of the trees on our streets prevent flooding.

 

Quite the opposite...;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont think they realise that none of the trees on our streets prevent flooding.

 

The street trees help to reduce the chance of flooding. They don't prevent it, it's not a guarantee, but they do reduce the chance of it happening and the severity of it.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2018 at 07:37 ----------

 

Have you seen Fitzalan Square? What wildlife on those trees were you concerned about?

 

Don’t tell me that those 4 trees were preventing flooding and hoarding wildlife.

 

You’re talking like it’s deforestation when it’s just basic town planning with some trees that are probably too big for the size of the square now.

 

You don’t seem to have any sense of perspective.

 

Every tree is of benefit to wildlife. Insects, birds, and so on, they don't count the trees and decide that 4 isn't enough.

And yes, every single tree contributes towards reducing the impact of flooding.

 

I'm sure there's an aphorism about just removing 1 more, because each 1 isn't that important. Until you've removed lots, and suddenly all those minor contributions have been removed and you've lost a major contribution. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The street trees help to reduce the chance of flooding. They don't prevent it, it's not a guarantee, but they do reduce the chance of it happening and the severity of it.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2018 at 07:37 ----------

 

 

Every tree is of benefit to wildlife. Insects, birds, and so on, they don't count the trees and decide that 4 isn't enough.

And yes, every single tree contributes towards reducing the impact of flooding.

 

I'm sure there's an aphorism about just removing 1 more, because each 1 isn't that important. Until you've removed lots, and suddenly all those minor contributions have been removed and you've lost a major contribution. :roll:

 

This is why I would hazard a guess and say lots of people are turned off the tree protesters arguments - there's not proportionality.

 

What next? Complaining about the bushes being cut back around the entrances to underpasses? Heaven forbid we try to reduce crime and make people feel safer using underpasses by removing some grotty bushes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why I would hazard a guess and say lots of people are turned off the tree protesters arguments - there's not proportionality.

 

What next? Complaining about the bushes being cut back around the entrances to underpasses? Heaven forbid we try to reduce crime and make people feel safer using underpasses by removing some grotty bushes!

 

Slippery slope logical fallacy. Nobody is complaining about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The street trees help to reduce the chance of flooding. They don't prevent it, it's not a guarantee, but they do reduce the chance of it happening and the severity of it.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2018 at 07:37 ----------

 

 

Every tree is of benefit to wildlife. Insects, birds, and so on, they don't count the trees and decide that 4 isn't enough.

And yes, every single tree contributes towards reducing the impact of flooding.

 

I'm sure there's an aphorism about just removing 1 more, because each 1 isn't that important. Until you've removed lots, and suddenly all those minor contributions have been removed and you've lost a major contribution. :roll:

 

Not really. The roots are under tarmac. When water hits the tarmac it runs off in to the drains (if they haven’t been damaged by the roots).

As we are all aware, ‘root heave’ is the situation caused by roots pushing up through the tarmac in search of moisture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The street trees help to reduce the chance of flooding. They don't prevent it, it's not a guarantee, but they do reduce the chance of it happening and the severity of it.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2018 at 07:37 ----------

 

 

Every tree is of benefit to wildlife. Insects, birds, and so on, they don't count the trees and decide that 4 isn't enough.

And yes, every single tree contributes towards reducing the impact of flooding.

 

I'm sure there's an aphorism about just removing 1 more, because each 1 isn't that important. Until you've removed lots, and suddenly all those minor contributions have been removed and you've lost a major contribution. :roll:

 

Totally out of context - they planted 4 trees in a square 30 years ago - they were saplings and now they are said to be in early maturity.

 

They want to redevelop the square now and don’t want huge trees there so they’ve come up with a scheme to remove these trees. These trees weren’t planted to harbour wildlife or reduce flooding - if they’d wanted that they would never have built a paved square in the first place.

 

30 years on the square looks tired and dark and grim - so they come up with a scheme that isn’t designed to reduce flooding or harbour wildlife again - but is just to look prettier.

 

They remove the old trees and plant some new ones - which will look nice and will grow and mature over the next 30 years and a few pigeons might live in them.

 

Yes I know you can say “just one more” etc but you have to look at it in context. Unless of course the cities town planning is to be designed around the very scheme that the redevelopment is intended to improve - just because the previous planners decided to put 4 trees there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally out of context - they planted 4 trees in a square 30 years ago - they were saplings and now they are said to be in early maturity.

 

They want to redevelop the square now and don’t want huge trees there so they’ve come up with a scheme to remove these trees. These trees weren’t planted to harbour wildlife or reduce flooding - if they’d wanted that they would never have built a paved square in the first place.

 

30 years on the square looks tired and dark and grim - so they come up with a scheme that isn’t designed to reduce flooding or harbour wildlife again - but is just to look prettier.

 

They remove the old trees and plant some new ones - which will look nice and will grow and mature over the next 30 years and a few pigeons might live in them.

 

Yes I know you can say “just one more” etc but you have to look at it in context. Unless of course the cities town planning is to be designed around the very scheme that the redevelopment is intended to improve - just because the previous planners decided to put 4 trees there.

 

Not just more trees going in, but some grassed area also, which will help to reduce peak rates of run off and so help (in a very small way admittedly) reduce the risk of flooding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally out of context - they planted 4 trees in a square 30 years ago - they were saplings and now they are said to be in early maturity.

 

They want to redevelop the square now and don’t want huge trees there so they’ve come up with a scheme to remove these trees. These trees weren’t planted to harbour wildlife or reduce flooding - if they’d wanted that they would never have built a paved square in the first place.

 

30 years on the square looks tired and dark and grim - so they come up with a scheme that isn’t designed to reduce flooding or harbour wildlife again - but is just to look prettier.

 

They remove the old trees and plant some new ones - which will look nice and will grow and mature over the next 30 years and a few pigeons might live in them.

 

Yes I know you can say “just one more” etc but you have to look at it in context. Unless of course the cities town planning is to be designed around the very scheme that the redevelopment is intended to improve - just because the previous planners decided to put 4 trees there.

 

Trees don't have to be planned to reduce flooding, they just do it.

Remove them and they stop doing it.

 

You'll remember that we've had quite a few incidences of flooding in Sheffield recently, this is one action that in a small way contributes to the chance of that happening again or being slightly worse next time.

No amount of "it's just 4 trees" or "they weren't planted for that reason" will alter that.

 

You continue to ignore the fact that a very different type of tree is to be planted to replace them, won't reach maturity for several decades and even then will be inferior in most ways to those being removed.

 

I do wonder if the council came along and burned down your house, if you'd find some way to be okay with it. It's just 1 house, 1 family, it was useful for roasting marshmallows, or something.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2018 at 12:47 ----------

 

Not really. The roots are under tarmac. When water hits the tarmac it runs off in to the drains (if they haven’t been damaged by the roots).

As we are all aware, ‘root heave’ is the situation caused by roots pushing up through the tarmac in search of moisture.

 

No, you've not understood how trees help.

Firstly, those roots under the tarmac are drawing moisture out of the ground, if they weren't then the trees would be dead.

Secondly the canopy causes a delay in the rain getting to the ground, which is a bigger contribution than the moisture the trees can draw up.

 

There was no root heave present from these trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, when you try so hard to prove someone else wrong and yourself right, there is something missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you identify what it is, or are you being deliberately vague?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trees don't have to be planned to reduce flooding, they just do it.

Remove them and they stop doing it.

 

You'll remember that we've had quite a few incidences of flooding in Sheffield recently, this is one action that in a small way contributes to the chance of that happening again or being slightly worse next time.

No amount of "it's just 4 trees" or "they weren't planted for that reason" will alter that.

 

You continue to ignore the fact that a very different type of tree is to be planted to replace them, won't reach maturity for several decades and even then will be inferior in most ways to those being removed.

 

I do wonder if the council came along and burned down your house, if you'd find some way to be okay with it. It's just 1 house, 1 family, it was useful for roasting marshmallows, or something.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2018 at 12:47 ----------

 

 

No, you've not understood how trees help.

Firstly, those roots under the tarmac are drawing moisture out of the ground, if they weren't then the trees would be dead.

Secondly the canopy causes a delay in the rain getting to the ground, which is a bigger contribution than the moisture the trees can draw up.

 

There was no root heave present from these trees.

 

So by your logic no amount of redevelopment can be undertaken in the city which results in a tree being removed? Even if the trees are replaced in greater numbers (by inferior trees whatever that means).

 

Is that now where you’ve got to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So by your logic no amount of redevelopment can be undertaken in the city which results in a tree being removed? Even if the trees are replaced in greater numbers (by inferior trees whatever that means).

 

No one is arguing that. Some people (myself included) think that the redevelopment of the site could have been achieved whilst retaining the existing trees. Note that the four existing

trees all lie within the proposed paved area in the new plan, and could have been retained, along with some additional planting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.