Jump to content

Council tree felling...

Recommended Posts

.. and how much money would have not been spent (saved) if SCC had not embarked on this ludicrous path in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No - it was borne from the protests.

 

The event wouldn’t have happened otherwise and Amey wouldnt have incurred costs that were reimbursed by SCC.

 

It’s a prime example of why overly simplifying the “amey pay for costs of protests” is wrong.

 

People might not agree with SCCs actions to mitigate - but it was borne out of the protests in the first place and the simplest way to demonstrate it is that the costs wouldn’t have been incurred at all had it not been for the protestors- the costs wouldn’t exist.

 

No. It was borne out of SCC's incompetence and a badly drawn up PFI contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

without mentioning any specific names, anyone can see who they are. quite a few people are claiming that they know how much SCC or how little SCC have spent or paid out to whoever in relation the the tree destruction in sheffield.

 

i for one am wondering how they justify or explain having acquired this apparent inside knowledge... if they are scc employees.. accountants or solicitors perhaps .... whilst i applaud their willingness to be open i do think they should declare perhaps in a signature to their posts or in either a header or footer that they are in fact council employees so we can each better judge for ourselves how much if any credence to their remarks

 

 

i still hold the personal belief that the imposition of the will of the scc is what the tree destruction is all about. all can learn from it that the scc is quite prepared tro spend as much of your money as they need to in order that their will be imposed upon you despite your protests. i believe the outcome is not important it is them obtaining the outcome they want that is important. those that oppose them and others looking on can see the futility of taking on scc on this and more importantly i believe on future issues.

 

the people of sheffield are in reality financing their own employee ( in this case the scc ) to enable it to impose its own will upon them the employer one can't help but see that something is in need if drastic change.

 

one might be forgiven for thinking that it appears as though the loonies are running the asylum and the asylum is encouraging them

Edited by fill
needed changes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest makapaka
without mentioning any specific names, anyone can see who they are. quite a few people are claiming that they know how much SCC or how little SCC have spent or paid out to whoever in relation the the tree destruction in sheffield.

 

i for one am wondering how they justify or explain having acquired this apparent inside knowledge... if they are scc employees.. accountants or solicitors perhaps .... whilst i applaud their willingness to be open i do think they should declare perhaps in a signature to their posts or in either a header or footer that they are in fact council employees so we can each better judge for ourselves how much if any credence to their remarks

 

 

i still hold the personal belief that the imposition of the will of the scc is what the tree destruction is all about. all can learn from it that the scc is quite prepared tro spend as much of your money as they need to in order that their will be imposed upon you despite your protests. i believe the outcome is not important it is them obtaining the outcome they want that is important. those that oppose them and others looking on can see the futility of taking on scc on this and more importantly i believe on future issues.

 

the people of sheffield are in reality financing their own employee ( in this case the scc ) to enable it to impose its own will upon them the employer one can't help but see that something is in need if drastic change.

 

one might be forgiven for thinking that it appears as though the loonies are running the asylum and the asylum is encouraging them

 

Are you suggesting because Dave has put forward some figures SCC has paid to amey that he is an employee of the council?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
without mentioning any specific names, anyone can see who they are. quite a few people are claiming that they know how much SCC or how little SCC have spent or paid out to whoever in relation the the tree destruction in sheffield.

 

i for one am wondering how they justify or explain having acquired this apparent inside knowledge... if they are scc employees.. accountants or solicitors perhaps .... whilst i applaud their willingness to be open i do think they should declare perhaps in a signature to their posts or in either a header or footer that they are in fact council employees so we can each better judge for ourselves how much if any credence to their remarks

 

 

i still hold the personal belief that the imposition of the will of the scc is what the tree destruction is all about. all can learn from it that the scc is quite prepared tro spend as much of your money as they need to in order that their will be imposed upon you despite your protests. i believe the outcome is not important it is them obtaining the outcome they want that is important. those that oppose them and others looking on can see the futility of taking on scc on this and more importantly i believe on future issues.

 

the people of sheffield are in reality financing their own employee ( in this case the scc ) to enable it to impose its own will upon them the employer one can't help but see that something is in need if drastic change.

 

one might be forgiven for thinking that it appears as though the loonies are running the asylum and the asylum is encouraging them

 

I think all the figures have either been detailed in the media or if not could be found through a FOI request to the council

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you suggesting because Dave has put forward some figures SCC has paid to amey that he is an employee of the council?

 

For some reasons repeating your assertion (previously made on the forum) that you're not a council employee has been deleted. Can't see why, it's definitely not breaching any rules.

Neither is saying that you're a big fan of the council, who thinks that they can do no wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest makapaka
For some reasons repeating your assertion (previously made on the forum) that you're not a council employee has been deleted. Can't see why, it's definitely not breaching any rules.

Neither is saying that you're a big fan of the council, who thinks that they can do no wrong.

 

Weird isn’t it.

 

I’m not a big fan of the council. The accusation that I am - because i don’t agree with some of the people on here on certain subjects - is the worst type of argument.

 

“You don’t agree with me so you must have an agenda”

 

You for one are a better poster than that usually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i for one am wondering how they justify or explain having acquired this apparent inside knowledge...

Personally I get most of my information from publicly available documents, often obtained after the ICO forces SCC to respond to a FOI request; and from discussions on the STAG Facebook pages and reading court documents etc.

 

The ÂŁ416K figure was from a FOI request done by the BBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have environmental campaigners concentrated efforts too much on saving street trees when other battles need to be fought? Over the past 5 years considerable effort, and cost, has been expended on the campaign to save Sheffield street trees from felling as part of the Street's Ahead program. This has been heavily publicised and the debate has been vigorous on both sides.

 

However, have those wishing to protect Sheffield's environment expended too much energy on this campaign at the expense of other problems? There is currently a rapid loss of open playing fields within the city. For example around Norton, former university playing fields on Hemsworth Road are currently being built upon. The former Norton College site, much of which was covered with either green fields and flowering cherry trees, has been replaced by a retail site and car park with no green space whatsoever. The playing fields of the former special school on Matthews Lane have been built upon. Many of these fields were once council owned.

 

However, many of these developments, and the loss of trees upon them has largely gone uncommented and without protest. Why such green publicly accessible sites are developed when there are considerable numbers of brownfield and underused derelict sites around the city remains a mystery. Why does not the council identify underused green areas rather than those the public continues to use?

 

Has too much emphasis been placed on street trees? Trees are the ultimate renewable resource; a felled tree can be replanted, but lost school playing fields are gone forever. Would not increased effort on stopping development of pleasant green sites be more productive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have environmental campaigners concentrated efforts too much on saving street trees when other battles need to be fought? Over the past 5 years considerable effort, and cost, has been expended on the campaign to save Sheffield street trees from felling as part of the Street's Ahead program. This has been heavily publicised and the debate has been vigorous on both sides.

 

However, have those wishing to protect Sheffield's environment expended too much energy on this campaign at the expense of other problems? There is currently a rapid loss of open playing fields within the city. For example around Norton, former university playing fields on Hemsworth Road are currently being built upon. The former Norton College site, much of which was covered with either green fields and flowering cherry trees, has been replaced by a retail site and car park with no green space whatsoever. The playing fields of the former special school on Matthews Lane have been built upon. Many of these fields were once council owned.

 

However, many of these developments, and the loss of trees upon them has largely gone uncommented and without protest. Why such green publicly accessible sites are developed when there are considerable numbers of brownfield and underused derelict sites around the city remains a mystery. Why does not the council identify underused green areas rather than those the public continues to use?

 

Has too much emphasis been placed on street trees? Trees are the ultimate renewable resource; a felled tree can be replanted, but lost school playing fields are gone forever. Would not increased effort on stopping development of pleasant green sites be more productive?

 

Because those trees aren't the ones outside main protagonists houses making their road look pretty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "Those trees" you're actually referring to playing fields are you?

 

The issue of the council selling off green space is a separate one, people can be against two things at once, but you can't expect someone to be passionate about everything. If walkermark thinks that the sale of green spaces is a big problem then why not start a protest group or pressure the council yourself?

Edited by Cyclone

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
Ă—
Ă—
  • 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.