Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Robin-H]

Remember - it's no way misleading that sometimes stag put "save our tree" on a tree that they don't necessarily disagree should be felled but they may do.

 

Also that they could sit on the panel that decided the trees future but don't because there's no point.

 

Also that if the council removes a tree it's because Amey are profiteering but if the council replaces a tree it's a PR exercise.

 

Keep with the program please.

 

You realise that most of the things you've stated aren't actually happening, and isn't what people have said? Do you read the replies or just assume what is being said based on what your own opinions are?

 

The ITP do not decide the future of Sheffield's Street Trees as you erroneously claim. That has been stated very very clearly. It is not the advertised purpose, and not the outcome. If they did, of course STAG would want to be part of it. They do not, again for the reasons that have been very clearly explained on here.

 

Nobody has stated that just replacing trees is a PR exercise. The fact that the number of replacements specifically on Rustling road was a greater ratio than any other street in Sheffield, and that street also happens to be at the centre of most of the media articles, suggest that in that case it was an attempt by the council to gain more positive press. If not, why is it that on every other street is the replacement one to one?

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2017 at 20:43 ----------

 

Cycled up Rustlings Road tonight as usual, the new trees look quite nice, and appropriate for the location. Not sure of the species, anybody know?

 

I believe they are a type of Linden, possibly Tilia cordata ‘Rancho (the little leafed Linden)

 

http://www.vdberk.co.uk/public/site/uploads/bomenboek/slide/til012j-1-slide.jpg

[bazjea]

You realise that most of the things you've stated aren't actually happening, and isn't what people have said? Do you read the replies or just assume what is being said based on what your own opinions are?

 

The ITP do not decide the future of Sheffield's Street Trees as you erroneously claim. That has been stated very very clearly. It is not the advertised purpose, and not the outcome. If they did, of course STAG would want to be part of it. They do not, again for the reasons that have been very clearly explained on here. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

 

Nobody has stated that just replacing trees is a PR exercise. The fact that the number of replacements specifically on Rustling road was a greater ratio than any other street in Sheffield, and that street also happens to be at the centre of most of the media articles, suggest that in that case it was an attempt by the council to gain more positive press. If not, why is it that on every other street is the replacement one to one?

 

Quote from post on forum in 2014

 

According to the notice boards on the side of Penistone Rd by the entrance

to Owlerton Stadium. 39 trees will be chopped down,and over 100 will be planted to

replace them.

 

Unless you have evidence that the above did not happen,your quote below is not true

Quote

"If not, why is" it that on every other street is the replacement one to one"

Edited March 14, 2017 by bazjea

[Robin-H]

[/u][/i][/b]

 

Quote from post on forum in 2014

 

According to the notice boards on the side of Penistone Rd by the entrance

to Owlerton Stadium. 39 trees will be chopped down,and over 100 will be planted to

replace them.

 

Unless you have evidence that the above did not happen,your quote below is not true

Quote

"If not, why is" it that on every other street is the replacement one to one"

 

Are those trees being removed by AMEY as part of the Street's Ahead programme, or part of a specific area or road improvement? They aren't on the Sheffield Tree Felling map.

 

It clearly says in the Street's Ahead 5 Year Management Strategy that trees will be replaced on a one to one basis.

 

"All trees removed will be replaced on a one for one basis the following planting season (November to March)." End of the first paragraph in Section 3.1.

 

There is not a single street in the phase 10 felling (which I have been most informed about) where the number of trees planned to be planted exceeds the number of trees being felled.

[bazjea]

Are those trees being removed by AMEY as part of the Street's Ahead programme, or part of a specific area or road improvement? They aren't on the Sheffield Tree Felling map.

 

It clearly says in the Street's Ahead 5 Year Management Strategy that trees will be replaced on a one to one basis.

 

"All trees removed will be replaced on a one for one basis the following planting season (November to March)." End of the first paragraph in Section 3.1.

 

There is not a single street in the phase 10 felling (which I have been most informed about) where the number of trees planned to be planted exceeds the number of trees being felled.

 

This happened in 2014/15 when alterations were made to Penistone Rd

As far as i am aware this work was carried out by AMEY. The board

with the details on is long gone.

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/number-of-trees-will-double-on-busy-sheffield-road-1-6657294

Edited March 14, 2017 by bazjea

[Robin-H]

This happened in 2014/15 when alterations were made to Penistone Rd

As far as i am aware this work was carried out by AMEY. The board

with the details on is long gone.

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/number-of-trees-will-double-on-busy-sheffield-road-1-6657294

 

Right, so that wasn't tree replacement work that was done by AMEY, but part of a £5 million plan to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow, with the trees being felled because the central reservation was being changed.

 

The number of trees was increased as part of a plan to make the area greener and reduce pollution, as they were also building a new cycle lane.

[Longcol]

You are the right, the figures I quoted were from a study about mature trees in general, and did not initially make a distinction between broadleaf and evergreen.

 

A 10-25% reduction for each tree is still significant. Indeed, any reduction, no matter how small, will help to reduce flooding.

 

But that isn't the reduction we get on our streets - as I pointed out it's significantly less as we don't have 100% canopy cover.

 

Flooding is not a common event - it tends to happen in exceptional circumstances - only a tiny percentage of rainfall events lead to flooding - why the Woodland Trust etc appear to call interception of all rainfall "flood risk alleviation" or similar I don't know - I suppose calling it anything that didn't include "flooding" wouldn't get anything like the attention.

[Flexo]

If you want to discuss flooding and trees....

 

Like many councils, SCC requires the use of "Sustainable Urban Drainage Solutions" when a landholder seeks planning permission to pave over some land. This usually means that the paving will allow water to pass through it into the ground so it doesn't run off and cause flash flooding downhill and downstream.

 

It is regrettable that SCC lacked the foresight to apply the same standard to areas of paving that are being re-done.

 

"Pervious" or "porous" paving is inexpensive (much less so than dealing with floods!) and allows water through. Trees get much easier access to water so have to send their roots less far and are much less inclined to push upwards to get condensation from the underside of a sealed surface.

 

Given how recently we had the floods - and the presumably massive cost of dealing with them - it's a pity that this opportunity has been squandered.

[Cyclone]

Remember - it's no way misleading that sometimes stag put "save our tree" on a tree that they don't necessarily disagree should be felled but they may do.

 

Also that they could sit on the panel that decided the trees future but don't because there's no point.

Are you just deliberately lying now?

The ITP does NOT in any way decide the tree's futures. So far Amey and the council have ignored pretty much every recommendation by the ITP, as you know, because we've told you that multiple times.

 

Also that if the council removes a tree it's because Amey are profiteering but if the council replaces a tree it's a PR exercise.

They replace the trees because they are contractually obliged to. They remove them in the first place because it saves them money to do so.

 

Can you think of some other reason that Amey are removing trees against the recommendations of the ITP?

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2017 at 21:56 ----------

 

Any evidence for that claim?

 

Have you tried using your brain and thinking about it?

 

We have actually done some basic maths to prove it, but you could work it out for yourself if you try really hard.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2017 at 21:59 ----------

 

This thread has descended into farce. A small number of people who for some unfathomable reason want to defend Amey have had to abandon all pretence at logic and critical thinking to keep repeating the same (already clearly answered) questions.

 

Amey can't, the council can't and none of the posters defending their behaviour can advance an explanation for why the trees are being cut down, nor can they deny that it coincidentally reduces the ongoing cost to Amey.

[Bargepole23]

Are you just deliberately lying now?

The ITP does NOT in any way decide the tree's futures. So far Amey and the council have ignored pretty much every recommendation by the ITP, as you know, because we've told you that multiple times.

They replace the trees because they are contractually obliged to. They remove them in the first place because it saves them money to do so.

 

Can you think of some other reason that Amey are removing trees against the recommendations of the ITP?

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2017 at 21:56 ----------

 

 

Have you tried using your brain and thinking about it?

 

We have actually done some basic maths to prove it, but you could work it out for yourself if you try really hard.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2017 at 21:59 ----------

 

This thread has descended into farce. A small number of people who for some unfathomable reason want to defend Amey have had to abandon all pretence at logic and critical thinking to keep repeating the same (already clearly answered) questions.

 

Amey can't, the council can't and none of the posters defending their behaviour can advance an explanation for why the trees are being cut down, nor can they deny that it coincidentally reduces the ongoing cost to Amey.

 

You've used some basic maths to determine that it's cheaper to remove a tree than to maintain it. How many hours of labour did you estimate Amey would spend maintaining a large tree? How many hours and material costs for a new tree?

[Robin-H]

You've used some basic maths to determine that it's cheaper to remove a tree than to maintain it. How many hours of labour did you estimate Amey would spend maintaining a large tree? How many hours and material costs for a new tree?

 

Minimising future maintenance costs is also one of the 'stated goals' in the introduction of the Street's Ahead 5 Year Tree Management Strategy (page 3), so it doesn't really need any maths - the fact that this is an aim isn't secret.