Council tree felling...

[Guest makapaka]

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.

.

 

Of course the redevelopment could have been achieved by retaining them - but they thought it would look better with fastigious trees and i agree.

 

So if you are just saying you preferred the other trees than that’s your personal choice but people don’t need to make it into some example of unnecessarily tree felling that’s damaging the environment and increasing flood risk.

 

As I said above you could always offer an argument for not removing a tree - and in some cases it would be justified - but it can’t guide all our town planning in they city centre.

[Albert smith 11]

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.

Previous planners built many worth while buildings and landscapes in our City (Streets in the Sky etc,) also many lovely Georgian and Victorian buildings and Terraces ,They have mostly now disappeared over the last fifty years as the new kids on the block came along and decided that the wrecking ball was the way forward so every thing could be covered in bloody cladding ,take a look around our City it is now Tin and plastic land with more to follow in the so called new retail centre .

Planning my arssse.

[monkey104 10]

I have just read the STAG webpage and have come to the conclusion that, yes there are some very good alternatives to cutting down the trees that would not in the long run be too prohibitive in the long run and maybe some of these alternatives could have been looked at prior to the felling of healthy trees ( if indeed they were healthy).

[Robin-H 11]

.

 

Of course the redevelopment could have been achieved by retaining them - but they thought it would look better with fastigious trees and i agree.

 

So if you are just saying you preferred the other trees than that’s your personal choice but people don’t need to make it into some example of unnecessarily tree felling that’s damaging the environment and increasing flood risk.

 

As I said above you could always offer an argument for not removing a tree - and in some cases it would be justified - but it can’t guide all our town planning in they city centre.

 

Out of interest, have you read the report by the council’s tree officer?

[cgksheff 44]

Out of interest, have you read the report by the council’s tree officer?

 

Mr Gunton is/was a "tree manager".

Does he have any forestry or arboricultural qualifications?

 

His report did require changes to the design of the redevelopment if the trees in the square were to have been retained.

 

The planning officers recommended that the proposed redevelopment design took precedence and the the use of 12 different trees would balance the removal of the 4 specimens that were not part of the original construction.

Edited May 25, 2018 by cgksheff

[Robin-H 11]

Mr Gunton is/was a "tree manager".

Does he have any forestry or arboricultural qualifications?

 

His report did require changes to the design of the redevelopment if the trees in the square were to have been retained.

 

The planning officers recommended that the proposed redevelopment design took precedence and the the use of 12 different trees would balance the removal of the 4 specimens that were not part of the original construction.

 

I'm sorry but I don't know what point you're making.

 

I suspect you are asking for the qualifications for Jerry Gunton as a way of minimising his credence, but that is entirely unfounded. The report, as you know, doesn't list his credentials, but I fail to see the relevance here.

 

Are you claiming that he has made an error because he is unqualified, and the things he put in his report regarding the trees aren't correct?

 

The delegated planning officer doesn't give his name, let alone his qualifications. Is his opinion invalid too? Sheffield planning officers aren't exactly renowned for making good decisions..

[Guest makapaka]

I'm sorry but I don't know what point you're making.

 

I suspect you are asking for the qualifications for Jerry Gunton as a way of minimising his credence, but that is entirely unfounded. The report, as you know, doesn't list his credentials, but I fail to see the relevance here.

 

Are you claiming that he has made an error because he is unqualified, and the things he put in his report regarding the trees aren't correct?

 

The delegated planning officer doesn't give his name, let alone his qualifications. Is his opinion invalid too? Sheffield planning officers aren't exactly renowned for making good decisions..

 

The square will look much better - there will be plenty of trees in it which in years to come will mature like the ones they are replacing- 12 of them no less.

 

Whilst I don’t always agree I accept some of the views on street tree removal - however this sort of objection could have potentially held the redevelopment back unnecessarily.

[Robin-H 11]

The square will look much better - there will be plenty of trees in it which in years to come will mature like the ones they are replacing- 12 of them no less.

 

Whilst I don’t always agree I accept some of the views on street tree removal - however this sort of objection could have potentially held the redevelopment back unnecessarily.

 

For the record, I didn't object.

 

I think the positives of redeveloping the square outweigh the negatives of losing the trees. I would have of course preferred to see both, as they were by no means mutually exclusive, and I believe the council were very short sighted to remove all of them when they were actually rather valuable.

 

However, the replacement trees won't mature 'like the ones they are replacing'. They are an entirely different variety.

[cgksheff 44]

I'm sorry but I don't know what point you're making.

 

I suspect you are asking for the qualifications for Jerry Gunton as a way of minimising his credence, but that is entirely unfounded. The report, as you know, doesn't list his credentials, but I fail to see the relevance here.

 

Are you claiming that he has made an error because he is unqualified, and the things he put in his report regarding the trees aren't correct?

 

The delegated planning officer doesn't give his name, let alone his qualifications. Is his opinion invalid too? Sheffield planning officers aren't exactly renowned for making good decisions..

 

I post to add facts to a discussion.

Mr Gunton is being put forward as a tree specialist of some kind.

His report is one of a council officer and is not being referenced in totality.

 

I am suggesting that it is possible that he is a career council officer that is holding a post that does not require any qualifications or practical experience of the title in the role.

[Robin-H 11]

I post to add facts to a discussion.

Mr Gunton is being put forward as a tree specialist of some kind.

His report is one of a council officer and is not being referenced in totality.

 

I am suggesting that it is possible that he is a career council officer that is holding a post that does not require any qualifications or practical experience of the title in the role.

 

What is the evidence of that?

[hackey lad 3,965]

The square will look much better - there will be plenty of trees in it which in years to come will mature like the ones they are replacing- 12 of them no less.

 

Whilst I don’t always agree I accept some of the views on street tree removal - however this sort of objection could have potentially held the redevelopment back unnecessarily.

 

They will not mature like the ones they replacing , how many times do you have to be told this

[cgksheff 44]

They will not mature like the ones they replacing , how many times do you have to be told this

 

Many of the trees in Sheffield have reached stages of maturity as a result of lack of management.

 

This does not absolve SCC, Amey, Acorn from their duplicity, incompetence and possible corruption alongside the disaster of the PFI contract, but correct management of our street tree population would not have led to the current age class distribution.

 

Narrow pavements do not go well with large stemmed trees.

A rolling replacement programme over the years would have avoided the current crisis.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2018 at 22:11 ----------

 

What is the evidence of that?

 

I know for a fact that other officers do not have practical experience of the specific titles for the roles that they hold.

Hence my questioning of the experience of the officer in question.

His report is being selectively quoted. Much of it is accurate, but you must be careful in taking it as a whole as coming from some kind of expert. I think he does hold some form of arboricultural qualification but it is not clear, hence my questioning.

Edited May 25, 2018 by cgksheff