Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[WarPig]

Shame we can't have a tree without a chainsaw!

 

The ruddy leaves will be back soon, ready to block my light and provide a perch for birds to cack on my car! I cannot wait(!) .... Then the Autumn.... BILLIONS of leaves deposited all over my lawn for ME to deal with whilst my lawn dies ... oh! and the roots lifting my tarmac, those great big arterial cracks which now look like a scene from "Earthquake"....

 

For God's SAKE! Plant trees where they won't bother people in a City! NOT where they cause maximum annoyance to the populace.

 

There are millions of such places, but roadsides/verges isn't one of them!

 

Were the trees already there when you moved into your house? Were the trees part of the appeal of the road you chose to live in, along with the proximity of the things you needed etc? Seems a shame to blame the tees if they were already there before you moved in.

[neeeeeeeeeek]

Shame we can't have a tree without a chainsaw!

 

The ruddy leaves will be back soon, ready to block my light and provide a perch for birds to cack on my car! I cannot wait(!) .... Then the Autumn.... BILLIONS of leaves deposited all over my lawn for ME to deal with whilst my lawn dies ... oh! and the roots lifting my tarmac, those great big arterial cracks which now look like a scene from "Earthquake"....

 

For God's SAKE! Plant trees where they won't bother people in a City! NOT where they cause maximum annoyance to the populace.

 

There are millions of such places, but roadsides/verges isn't one of them!

 

I really feel for you, and your poor car. Just the thought of it, all those leaves, and some of them having the cheek to touch your car. Nature, existing in your presence, getting near your lawn, how awful. I bet when you bought a house in the lovely green and leafy suburb of Totley you never in your worst nightmares expected to come into contact with leaves... and birds, in the trees, it's almost too much to bear..

[Robin-H]

That thought had crossed my mind also, but it does not make logical sense: if you can have a parish without a council, then why do you need a council to set up a parish?

 

I have found none either, but I do not believe that the '97 act covers the relevant point. Though I do confess that I have not read the whole thing.

 

My last point still stands unchallenged though: if we were to ask for a poll, through the process described in the '72 act, then the council would have to give their reasons for refusing it.

From there, we can choose to argue the point, else address it and try again.

 

To address your first point I believe that this may be the case because there will be occasions were parish councils have disbanded in the past and not been replaced.

 

Civil parishes have been an historic part of the governance of the England since the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1866, and we have had elected civil parish councils since the Local Government Act of 1894.

 

That leaves over 100 years in which areas designated as civil parishes could have disbanded the council for whatever reason. It does not mean however that it is possible to create a civil parish without also creating a parish council. Nothing I have read has suggested that that is a possibility, and the only legalisation that covers the creation of civil parishes is the '97 Act, which clearly stipulates that a council will also be created.

 

This is a long winded process, and not something that can be done on a whim, but requires many signatures and ultimately is the decision of the council whether to grant civil parish status.

 

The '72 Act does not describe the process to create a parish. It describes the process of how to hold a parish poll. It says nothing about the creation of a parish. There would be nothing for the council to refuse - it is not possible to hold a parish poll when you do not live in a civil parish.

 

The whole discussion surrounding this is moot anyway. The Localism Act of 2011 allowed areas to create Neighbourhood Plans in a process much more akin to what you are describing, as it needs no previous area designation, only for a steering group to get together, draw the boundary, and apply to the council to be designated as a NP area.

 

Of course this too is a lengthy process, and a NP typically includes many more issues than just one (e.g. trees). However, it would not be able to force the city council to renegotiate a £2.2billion 25 year contract.

[Hairyloon]

Nothing I have read has suggested that that is a possibility, and the only legalisation that covers the creation of civil parishes is the '97 Act, which clearly stipulates that a council will also be created.

Actually it doesn't: it stipulates that they must make a recommendation on that point, but I don't see anything that says they can't recommend that the parish does not have a council.

 

This is a long winded process, and not something that can be done on a whim, but requires many signatures and ultimately is the decision of the council whether to grant civil parish status.

It is only up to the council insofar as the council decides on whether the application meets the requirements: they have no say in what are those requirements nor in what are the facts.

The '72 Act does not describe the process to create a parish. It describes the process of how to hold a parish poll. It says nothing about the creation of a parish. There would be nothing for the council to refuse...

Of course there would: they could refuse to hold the poll.

[Robin-H]

Actually it doesn't: it stipulates that they must make a recommendation on that point, but I don't see anything that says they can't recommend that the parish does not have a council.

 

 

It is only up to the council insofar as the council decides on whether the application meets the requirements: they have no say in what are those requirements nor in what are the facts.

 

Of course there would: they could refuse to hold the poll.

 

Well yes they would refuse because it is not possible to hold a parish poll when you don't live in a parish.

 

It makes asking them completely pointless, it's like me ringing up Google and asking if I could be their next Chief Executive Officer.

 

Do you want me to write to my ward councillor to ask if I can hold a parish poll despite the fact that I don't live in a parish. When I get a reply that says no, I cannot, will that be acceptable proof for you?

 

I really don't know what the point of this discussion is. Even if it was possible, if I did live in a parish say and so was able to hold a parish poll it would prove what exactly?

[1978]

This thread is becoming more splayed by the day.

 

One of the arguments for retaining large street trees was that they draw up water and ease the risk of flooding. Of course in doing so they dry out the land in dry weather and that can cause the ground to crack and shrink. This can impact on nearby foundations and underground facilities.

 

However a news story in The Times suggests that the benefit of more trees to combat floods is over stated, see; http://http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scientists-issue-warning-over-planting-trees-to-stop-floods-5fzx6q7rh?shareToken=f9421169446d4f8316de923c9bb879bb

 

"The benefits of creating natural flood defences by planting trees and creating water meadows may have been overstated and there is little evidence that they protect homes from severe events, a study has found...................Their study found that natural defences “can reduce small floods in very small catchments [areas of land drained by a river] . . . Evidence does not suggest a major effect on the most extreme events. The bigger the flood and catchment, the less the potential to slow or store floodwater.”"

 

Flash floods in hilly areas like Sheffield are inevitable as large quantities of rain will flow down the hills no matter how much is delayed in its fall to the ground by leaves. Take up by dry ground is good when it's a gentle drizzle, not so in a thunder storm.

[Hairyloon]

Well yes they would refuse because it is not possible to hold a parish poll when you don't live in a parish.

You have still not pointed out where in the '72 act where it specifies civil parishes or that it precludes ecclesiastical parishes, which, as we have already established covers everywhere.

Or perhaps we should move on to section V, which discusses community meetings...

 

It makes asking them completely pointless, it's like me ringing up Google and asking if I could be their next Chief Executive Officer.

It is nothing like that at all: you are just being silly.

Do you want me to write to my ward councillor to ask if I can hold a parish poll despite the fact that I don't live in a parish. When I get a reply that says no, I cannot, will that be acceptable proof for you?

Why on earth do you expect your councillor to know?

If anyone, you should write to the electoral services department.

I really don't know what the point of this discussion is. Even if it was possible, if I did live in a parish say and so was able to hold a parish poll it would prove what exactly?

It would prove what is the will of the people, in respect of the question put to them.

[Robin-H]

This thread is becoming more splayed by the day.

 

One of the arguments for retaining large street trees was that they draw up water and ease the risk of flooding. Of course in doing so they dry out the land in dry weather and that can cause the ground to crack and shrink. This can impact on nearby foundations and underground facilities.

 

However a news story in The Times suggests that the benefit of more trees to combat floods is over stated, see; http://http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scientists-issue-warning-over-planting-trees-to-stop-floods-5fzx6q7rh?shareToken=f9421169446d4f8316de923c9bb879bb

 

"The benefits of creating natural flood defences by planting trees and creating water meadows may have been overstated and there is little evidence that they protect homes from severe events, a study has found...................Their study found that natural defences “can reduce small floods in very small catchments [areas of land drained by a river] . . . Evidence does not suggest a major effect on the most extreme events. The bigger the flood and catchment, the less the potential to slow or store floodwater.”"

 

Flash floods in hilly areas like Sheffield are inevitable as large quantities of rain will flow down the hills no matter how much is delayed in its fall to the ground by leaves. Take up by dry ground is good when it's a gentle drizzle, not so in a thunder storm.

 

I believe that that is a different issue. That article is about large scale tree planting near rivers in order to protect homes from severe flooding events, such as in 2007 in Sheffield. Nobody, to my knowledge, has suggested that the plants to street trees will have any noticeable effect on these events. It remains the case however that street trees intercept rain water, thus slightly reducing the local impact of rainfall, and slow the flow of waters in drains etc.

 

As I have previously mentioned, if the only reason for keeping street trees was because of their supposed effect on flooding, which is marginal at best, then I would concede that that was not a legitimate enough reason to keep them.

 

That is not however the case, and removing the flooding argument entirely still does not diminish the other environmental, physical and mental benefits of street trees.

 

I am aware the mental health benefits are subjective, and there have been people on here who have spoken passionately about the mental distress that particular trees have caused them, (although some reasons for which are perhaps more legitimate than others).

 

Those genuine concerns should not be belittled, but equally I have spoken to people for whom street trees bring much joy, in particular a housebound women who is unable to go to parks and has told me that her mental health would suffer greatly if she could no longer see the greenery, the changing of the seasons, the roosting birds etc etc from her window. Who has the more important claim it is not up to me to say, but I would suggest that it should not be the case that healthy trees that are not causing rectifiable damage should be removed, which is currently the case.

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2017 at 01:08 ----------

 

You have still not pointed out where in the '72 act where it specifies civil parishes or that it precludes ecclesiastical parishes, which, as we have already established covers everywhere.

Or perhaps we should move on to section V, which discusses community meetings...

 

 

It is nothing like that at all: you are just being silly.

 

Why on earth do you expect your councillor to know?

If anyone, you should write to the electoral services department.

 

It would prove what is the will of the people, in respect of the question put to them.

 

 

OK then. I will write to the electoral services department and ask if I can hold a parish poll. I don't live in a parish, I may live in an archaic ecclesiastical parish, which does not form part of the governance of England, but I'll see what they say and get back to you..

[Eccy Beach]

As I was walking home last night I passed a tree on Ecclesall Road with two 'Save Me' posters on it - they were 'save me' ones, not 'save some trees' or any other more generic message. Can I assume as it has a ribbon and posters on that it is a tree that is earmarked for felling?

 

Secondly can I be a sure that STAG are against the felling of this tree, or has it just been fly-postered as part of the campaign to draw attention to the whole felling process?

 

For the life of me I can't understand why Stag would not take the time to explain clearly their aims on their website and perhaps post a list of trees they are opposed to the felling of.

 

Surely that would clarify things?

[Hairyloon]

OK then. I will write to the electoral services department and ask if I can hold a parish poll. I don't live in a parish, I may live in an archaic ecclesiastical parish, which does not form part of the governance of England, but I'll see what they say and get back to you..

 

Good stuff, but I think if you phrase your letter like that, then they'll think you are having a laugh. I suggest you find out which parish you live in and ask what are the boundaries for the purpose of calling a poll.

 

But I'm sorry, I don't think the front desk clerk at electoral services is legally trained and unlikely to be experienced in the matter of parish polls. I expect they will look at the legislation and interpret it as best they can, and as such is just as prone to errors: their answer will be no ore definitive than yours.

 

Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see what they say.