Jump to content

Latest Tree Felling, Sandford Grove Rd etc .

Recommended Posts

You can interpret it as you wish.

 

But in the walkley bank example

6% were in favour of the tree felling

3% were against the tree felling

91% didn’t bother to reply

 

If you believe that suggests the majority of people were against the felling that’s up to you.

 

I would say most people were indifferent to the issue on that basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you're going to ignore unaddressed, brown envelope delivered without stamp or postmark, because to consider it would result in criticising the council for a deliberate, cynical attempt to have the survey ignored by as many residents as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter which accompanied the survey in the plain brown envelope said that trees would only be felled "as a last resort". That sounds fine so there's no need to return the survey.

 

This turned out not to be true. Some 80% of trees listed for felling do not need felling, and felling these is not a "last resort" - it's the first. The contract has a target to fell 17,500 street trees and penalties if the contractor does not meet their targets, so it incentivises the contractor (Amey) to drum up spurious reasons to fell trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you're going to ignore unaddressed, brown envelope delivered without stamp or postmark, because to consider it would result in criticising the council for a deliberate, cynical attempt to have the survey ignored by as many residents as possible.

 

I’m not ignoring it - I’m saying that citing that’s as an example for 91% of people not responding doesn’t stack up for me.

 

That’s 91% of people in walkley bank that didn’t open a letter delivered to their house?

 

You can speculate on that as you wish.

 

As I’ve said before I’m not suggesting the information demonstrates people are for or against - I’m just citing it as something that might go against your argument that the silent majority is against felling - which you have based on chats with your friends and I have based on the response to the survey.

 

Like in in the two examples above which both have between 10-20% response rate and marginal for and against votes.

 

Now - as it doesn’t reinforce your own view - you are suggesting this survey was flawed because you believe people didn’t open the envelope and have then again just resorted to having a dig at me.

 

The information is there for you and others to form their own view on. It’s up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are ignoring it, you can't bring yourself to criticise the council for deliberately manipulating the survey to minimise responses.

 

You're also ignoring the lies in the survey which may well have lead people to not respond...

 

I'm "suggesting" that the survey was flawed. Are you "denying" it? (Oh, and for what it's worth, the survey responses where they were made were overwhelmingly against, that means that the survey does actually support my point of view).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are ignoring it, you can't bring yourself to criticise the council for deliberately manipulating the survey to minimise responses.

 

You're also ignoring the lies in the survey which may well have lead people to not respond...

 

I'm "suggesting" that the survey was flawed. Are you "denying" it? (Oh, and for what it's worth, the survey responses where they were made were overwhelmingly against, that means that the survey does actually support my point of view).

 

Well not on Walkley Bank they weren't. More people approved than disapproved.

 

Why do I have to disprove or deny an unproven accusation to not be accused of bias?

 

However - to go with your theory that the silent majority opposes the felling in say Walkley Bank - we have to believe 91% of 986 households surveyed in Walkley Bank were tricked into not responding - either by lies contained within a survey or because they didn't bother to open the envelope - and that they would have been against had they not been tricked.

 

We then have to discount the fact that of those people that weren't tricked - more voted to approve the felling than disapprove.

 

You might then say that the people that approved the felling were tricked, but then we also have to question why only 3% disapproved.

 

You said that having spoken to your friends / colleagues this proved the silent majority were against the felling which you seem to think people should just accept as fact.

 

I'm not saying the survey proves anything undoubtedly - it certainly doesn't support a for or against view - it does seem to indicate indifference.

Edited by makapaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are sections of the pavement around some of the trees where the root growth is so pronounced that it has buckled the pavement. I walk down there most days, and I dont rely on Cyclone's silly Google Map images to see what I see.

 

But, hey, he or she has decided it's not an issue so I shall tell them not to worry.

 

Hey I missed this one.

 

Silly images of the street. That's weak isn't it. I put up some evidence and the best you can do is call actual photos of the street in question 'silly'.

I guess we've proven that you were exaggerating weren't you.

Which explains why you went quiet and only makapaka is left arguing about a point (having carefully forgotten the context of it of course).

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2018 at 11:13 ----------

 

That context being (to remind you makapaka) that bendix was claiming the opposite. The silent majority he claimed were in favour of tree removal.

I only claimed the opposite to make it clear how silly the claim is. And I acknowledged that it was anecdotal at the time. See posts 2147 and thereabouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council just annouced they are not going to fell the healthy trees on Western Rd because of Armistice...thats something they have done...though one would like to know they wont change their minds in a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough a year ago SCC said that none of the 23 condemned Western Road trees could be saved because it would cost £300K and would require 5m-long pavement build-outs into road for each tree (along with the loss of 35 parking spaces). Now they've just checked again, and all but 3 trees (the dying ones) can be saved, with only 5 built-outs, and at no cost to SCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oddly enough a year ago SCC said that none of the 23 condemned Western Road trees could be saved because it would cost £300K and would require 5m-long pavement build-outs into road for each tree (along with the loss of 35 parking spaces). Now they've just checked again, and all but 3 trees (the dying ones) can be saved, with only 5 built-outs, and at no cost to SCC.

 

They also stated that the trees could cause the houses to be flooded and become un-insurable. I wonder if this is still the case, or were they just scare tactics to garner support from the residents for the fellings? :suspect:

 

The farce continues! I'm pleased the council back-tracked in this case but it must be frustrating for the residents of streets who have already seemingly needlessly lost their beloved trees.

 

Well done STAG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey I missed this one.

 

Silly images of the street. That's weak isn't it. I put up some evidence and the best you can do is call actual photos of the street in question 'silly'.

I guess we've proven that you were exaggerating weren't you.

Which explains why you went quiet and only makapaka is left arguing about a point (having carefully forgotten the context of it of course).

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2018 at 11:13 ----------

 

That context being (to remind you makapaka) that bendix was claiming the opposite. The silent majority he claimed were in favour of tree removal.

I only claimed the opposite to make it clear how silly the claim is. And I acknowledged that it was anecdotal at the time. See posts 2147 and thereabouts.

 

 

I went quiet because i don't really care about the issue and figure it's not worth expending effort on. :hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Council just annouced they are not going to fell the healthy trees on Western Rd because of Armistice...thats something they have done...though one would like to know they wont change their minds in a few years.

 

Great news! :love:That road is beautiful!

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
×

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.