Robin-H Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 The last picture on the document referenced shows a flooded tree lined road. Oh the irony. Not really, no. Street trees will not prevent all flooding. They will however help to reduce the impact of flooding by minimising the amount of surface run off. Streets with trees obviously can still flood, only the flooding is likely to be worse without them. This has now been stated a number of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexo Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Considered to be disturbing pavements so were completely removed. Maybe necessary, but still a shame. There's the problem. Only 1 in 6 of the trees that are being felled are because they need to be. The other 5 in 6 are felled because it makes Amey's job a bit easier and increases their profits - Amey are paid a fixed amount so they save money if they replace mature trees with ones that won't need any maintenance for 20 years or more. It is shameful and every expert arboriculturalist and tree organisation that has commented has said as much. That's why people are protecting some trees from felling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) Not really, no. Street trees will not prevent all flooding. They will however help to reduce the impact of flooding by minimising the amount of surface run off. Streets with trees obviously can still flood, only the flooding is likely to be worse without them. This has now been stated a number of times. Reduce by how much - if over 24 hours an inch of rain falls on one acre (about 66% the size of a football pitch) that's 22,611 gallons. How much will a tree planted in the footpath or a narrow verge under gloomy skies remove? Edited March 13, 2017 by Longcol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Dr Billings has said that there will be no more arrests using the Trade Union Legislation and that the council must pursue civil remedies. "In summary, South Yorkshire Police will not be arresting anyone in the future using trade union legislation or any other law (e.g. highways legislation) because they accept that all cases brought to the Crown Prosecution Service have been rejected on the grounds that while protestors might be infringing these laws, it is not in the public interest to have them convicted. There are civil remedies open to the council to pursue which do not involve criminal law. South Yorkshire Police were put into direct conflict with peaceful protestors and that potentially could damage public trust and confidence in them. Councillors are now fully aware of this situation and the police response. It is a matter for them to find a way of resolving the issues with residents and protestors." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazjea Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Just been on Look North. Amey are replacing the trees on Rustling Rd today. Apparently they are replacing 6 trees for every one removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Just been on Look North. Amey are replacing the trees on Rustling Rd today. Apparently they are replacing 6 trees for every one removed I don't think that is quite true. They are replacing more than they felled, but not quite that ratio. They felled 7 (and a half, not sure if the half tree still stands..) and are replanting 17. 6 trees for every 1 removed would be 42-48 trees. Why Rustling Road is getting this special treatment I am not entirely sure, other trees across Sheffield are being replaced on a one to one basis. It may be because of the increased media attention and the large petition. It looks good for the council when they can say 'we felled 8, but are replanting 17' like they did in this article.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-38012189 It is a shame other streets are not getting the same treatment.. ---------- Post added 13-03-2017 at 14:44 ---------- Reduce by how much - if over 24 hours an inch of rain falls on one acre (about 66% the size of a football pitch) that's 22,611 gallons. How much will a tree planted in the footpath or a narrow verge under gloomy skies remove? The figures will vary significantly between size or tree, and number of trees, but it nether-the-less remains the case that street trees help to alleviate flooding, which is one of the reasons why planting them is recommended, as stated in the Woodland Trust literature that I linked to. I imagine for street trees the main benefit is rain interception vs water absorption because of the often impermeable road/pavement surfaces reducing the ability to absorb water. Mature trees can intercept 25-35% of rainwater that falls onto their canopy. Streets that have significant mature tree canopy cover, such as Western Road for example, are therefore likely to see a significant decrease in rainwater reaching the ground, thus reducing water run off and flooding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phili Buster Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I don't think that is quite true. They are replacing more than they felled, but not quite that ratio. They felled 7 (and a half, not sure if the half tree still stands..) and are replanting 17. 6 trees for every 1 removed would be 42-48 trees. Why Rustling Road is getting this special treatment I am not entirely sure, other trees across Sheffield are being replaced on a one to one basis. It may be because of the increased media attention and the large petition. It looks good for the council when they can say 'we felled 8, but are replanting 17' like they did in this article.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-38012189 It is a shame other streets are not getting the same treatment.. ---------- Post added 13-03-2017 at 14:44 ---------- The figures will vary significantly between size or tree, and number of trees, but it nether-the-less remains the case that street trees help to alleviate flooding, which is one of the reasons why planting them is recommended, as stated in the Woodland Trust literature that I linked to. I imagine for street trees the main benefit is rain interception vs water absorption because of the often impermeable road/pavement surfaces reducing the ability to absorb water. Mature trees can intercept 25-35% of rainwater that falls onto their canopy. Streets that have significant mature tree canopy cover, such as Western Road for example, are therefore likely to see a significant decrease in rainwater reaching the ground, thus reducing water run off and flooding. Agree with all you state. However, cleaning of gulleys, drains etc. must be carried out on a regular basis, especially at leaf-fall time, to ensure remaining water run off gets away easily in the required direction via designed drains. Otherwise water run off will overwhelm drains in lower laying areas. It is the lack of adequate cleaning of gulleys, drains etc. which has added to flooding problems in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I don't think that is quite true. They are replacing more than they felled, but not quite that ratio. They felled 7 (and a half, not sure if the half tree still stands..) and are replanting 17. 6 trees for every 1 removed would be 42-48 trees. Why Rustling Road is getting this special treatment I am not entirely sure, other trees across Sheffield are being replaced on a one to one basis. It may be because of the increased media attention and the large petition. It looks good for the council when they can say 'we felled 8, but are replanting 17' like they did in this article.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-38012189 It is a shame other streets are not getting the same treatment.. ---------- Post added 13-03-2017 at 14:44 ---------- The figures will vary significantly between size or tree, and number of trees, but it nether-the-less remains the case that street trees help to alleviate flooding, which is one of the reasons why planting them is recommended, as stated in the Woodland Trust literature that I linked to. I imagine for street trees the main benefit is rain interception vs water absorption because of the often impermeable road/pavement surfaces reducing the ability to absorb water. Mature trees can intercept 25-35% of rainwater that falls onto their canopy. Streets that have significant mature tree canopy cover, such as Western Road for example, are therefore likely to see a significant decrease in rainwater reaching the ground, thus reducing water run off and flooding. Planting more than they remove is a good PR ploy. I hope they start doing it generally. For example, Western Road has lost many of its original trees over the years. If they were to reinstate all of those (to get back to the war memorial numbers), this would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Aargh I can't resist! How is planting more a PR trick - surely it's a benefit long term! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Aargh I can't resist! How is planting more a PR trick - surely it's a benefit long term! Of course it's a benefit long term. I didn't say otherwise. But that doesn't stop it also being good PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now