Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Robin-H]

I think you are referring to parish councils (confirmed by the fact you refer to councillors): a parish without a council is still a parish and can hold a parish meeting. If you are not clear where the parishes lie, perhaps go talk to the church: they probably have some old maps.

 

Quite right: it needs six.

 

But of course you would rather argue with me than give it a go take the argument to the council: if it turns out I am right it would take away your grounds for protest and we wouldn't want that would we?

 

The Local Government Act 1972 refers to parish councils , not archaic church parishes. It frequently mentions Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen.

 

Please can you provide the relevant source that states that anybody in the country, regardless of where they live, can call a parish meeting even if the 'parish' in which they live is a now a non existent legacy of the church parish system.

[Hairyloon]

The Local Government Act 1972 refers to parish councils , not archaic church parishes. It frequently mentions Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen.

Yes it does. Then it goes on to mention parish meetings for where there is no council.

Please can you provide the relevant source that states that anybody in the country, regardless of where they live, can call a parish meeting even if the 'parish' in which they live is a now a non existent legacy of the church parish system.

I have provided the source: you need to provide a persuasive legal argument as to why they should not be able to do so.

Though if I was in your place, I'd call the poll and leave the council to make that case: they can only win it by being seen to be standing opposed to democracy.

[Robin-H]

Yes it does. Then it goes on to mention parish meetings for where there is no council.

 

I think you may still be confusing church parishes and civil parishes.

 

The legislation that you have provided a link to refers to civil parishes, not church parishes.

 

The majority of Sheffield is not split into civil parishes, and so the rights in that legislation do not apply.

[Hairyloon]

The legislation that you have provided a link to refers to civil parishes, not church parishes.

We may assume that it was intended for civil parishes, but it does not explicitly refer to them (or if it does, then please reference the paragraph) it is silent on the point and thus it should be applicable to any kind of parish.

 

In any case, think it through.

You have the right to establish a parish and set up a parish council.

If you choose to exert that right, then you have considerable freedom to decide on the parish boundaries.

If that is true then why can you not establish a parish without a parish council?

 

There are only two answers:

1) That the parties concerned are scared that they won't win, and

2) That the council is sufficiently autocratic and arrogant to resist a proper democratic process. If that is true, then it needs to be exposed.

[Cyclone]

Perhaps you should set up a Parish to prove your point and we'll all apologise at that point and immediately call for a poll.

[Flexo]

Well that's quite something! Attempt to reorganise the constitutional arrangements of the city and then force some kind of local referendum in a way that appears to have never been attempted before and is based on very dubious (at best) legalities.

 

Once the several years of effort of doing that are complete, Amey's "investment period" of cutting down trees will already be over.

 

Well done!

[Robin-H]

We may assume that it was intended for civil parishes, but it does not explicitly refer to them (or if it does, then please reference the paragraph) it is silent on the point and thus it should be applicable to any kind of parish.

 

In any case, think it through.

You have the right to establish a parish and set up a parish council.

If you choose to exert that right, then you have considerable freedom to decide on the parish boundaries.

If that is true then why can you not establish a parish without a parish council?

 

There are only two answers:

1) That the parties concerned are scared that they won't win, and

2) That the council is sufficiently autocratic and arrogant to resist a proper democratic process. If that is true, then it needs to be exposed.

 

Archaic church parishes, of the type that you have referred ('talk to your church, look at old maps etc) do not form part of the Government's Local Authority area designations.

 

A civil parish is the lowest tier of local government, and is what the Local Government Act 1972 refers to. It does not need to differentiate between civil parishes and old church parishes because as it is a local government act the type of parish it means is clear. It would be like a report on the UK sausage market mentioning 'Wall's' and somebody trying to argue that as they didn't specifically say Wall's sausages then they could have been referring to Wall's ice cream, even tho that would make no sense in the context of the report at all.

 

The report is about Local Government. Old Church parishes do not form part of Local Government.

[Bargepole23]

From observation it takes a small team less than half a day to remove a tree and plant a sapling. The cost of the sapling is negligible.

 

Regular maintenance for 20 years on the tree might take only an hour each time for a team of 2 (more likely to take 1/2 day still though), so very quickly the labour costs are more for maintenance. Not to mention that in the current state the immediate maintenance will take as long as the removal.

So the cost saving is approximately 20 years of maintenance for a mature tree versus the cost of a sapling.

 

---------- Post added 15-03-2017 at 08:32 ----------

 

 

This

 

 

 

 

You've been told that the ITP is routinely ignored, so you've either failed to comprehend that, or the statement is a lie.

 

---------- Post added 15-03-2017 at 08:33 ----------

 

 

You haven't advanced an opinion, you just keep repeating already answered questions and misrepresenting the facts in an apparent defence of the removal of healthy trees for corporate profit.

 

To keep the existing tree, I'm going to estimate 4 maintenance periods in 20 years, each taking 1 hour, each with 2 people. That's 8 man hours.

 

I'm going to use your estimate of half a day for a small team (2 people) to remove a tree and plant a sapling. That's 8 man hours.

 

The cost of the sapling isn't negligible, there will be overheads etc to cover.

 

There may be maintenance on the sapling in early years to ensure its survival, and in later years for pruning, all at a cost.

 

My estimates "prove" that it costs less to keep a tree, than to replace, and have about as much validity as your "proof".

 

As an aside, I think Rustlings Road looks more attractive and open with a mix of existing and new trees, now the new trees have been planted.

[Cyclone]

So you'd only do maintenance on a mature tree once every 5 years... That's why they're in the current state.

 

Obviously this is speculation, but I'm expecting zero maintenance on saplings. If they die, tough, if they're vandalised, tough. We'll see, maybe I'm being overly harsh.

 

Lets assume for a minute that you're correct. Can you explain why they're removing trees that shouldn't be removed then?

[Eccy Beach]

The fact that you used deliberately misleading and incorrect wording is why I challenged it. It's only confusing if you deliberately use confusing words.

Save our trees is clearly plural.

Agreed, I see little point to those, I simply don't click on them.

I didn't say it was an offence.

It's just a little convenient that a new account comes along, posts just on 1 topic, and makes a point of strawmanning an argument about 'being in bed' with the corporation involved.

For example?

Perhaps you should have a look at the thread about the roads that are already deteriorating despite having just recently been relaid.

Fortunately it's still Amey on the hook to do the repairs.

 

Interestingly I live in one of the areas apparently affected but our road seems ok so far and haven't noticed deterioration on main road as reported, but if that is the case glad they have to fix it.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on the ribbon campaign.

 

Re: referendum on trees - whilst that's a little over the top as I understand it the council/Amey have done local consultation with residents but according to some forum members STAG has decided their opinion is more important than the residents and prevented work taking place?

 

Would it be safe to assume that if the residents of Sheffield were canvassed regarding the tree issue that STAG would continue to protest and disrupt work if the vote went against them?