Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Cyclone]

We can probably assume that I have read the legislation more times than anyone else: case in point, the number of people that jump to the assumption that it refers to parish councils. Some will stick to that assumption come hell or high water.

 

I've probably spent more time working on legal cases than many here. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, but I think I understand how it works. If you think I have got it wrong then do please say so.

 

I believe the only point we currently have in dispute is as to whether the word "parish" in the Local Government Act 1972 means parish, or does it specifically mean civil parish.

 

Wow, you've read it more often and you've spent more time working on cases.

 

So you've no special expertise in constitutional law at all, is that what you're saying? Are you even legally qualified?

We have said so, and what's more it's a distraction from the point of this thread, why don't you go and start another one.

[Hairyloon]

So you've no special expertise in constitutional law at all, is that what you're saying? Are you even legally qualified?

They are just words. If you have difficulty understanding them, then I'm sure somebody here can help you out.

Or if you can see any flaws or mistakes in the interpretation or reasoning, other than those that have already been discussed, then do please point them out.

We have said so, and what's more it's a distraction from the point of this thread, why don't you go and start another one.

What "so" have you said?

It is not a distraction to the thread, it is potentially an answer to the problem, and indeed many other problems the like of which are endlessly bickered over here.

[Flexo]

I'd heard it was around 6000 it's why I confused the previous post. Would be interesting to know.

 

Amey's contract allows them to fell 50% of 36,000 street trees - so that's 18,000.

 

Amey worked out their costings on the assumption that they would be felling 6,000 trees. They got the contract and surveyed the trees and - lo! - they listed 6,000 trees for felling within the first 5 years of the contract.

 

Those trees tend to be the large ones that have taken 100, 150, or more years to grow. Many would benefit from some careful pruning here and there. Amey can save money (make more profit!) if they simply chop em down and instead plant a twig that will need no maintenance during the remainder of the contract.

 

That's about as much as anyone outside Amey or a secretive part of SCC does know. The contract is shrouded in so much secrecy.

[Guest makapaka]

Amey's contract allows them to fell 50% of 36,000 street trees - so that's 18,000.

 

Amey worked out their costings on the assumption that they would be felling 6,000 trees. They got the contract and surveyed the trees and - lo! - they listed 6,000 trees for felling within the first 5 years of the contract.

 

Those trees tend to be the large ones that have taken 100, 150, or more years to grow. Many would benefit from some careful pruning here and there. Amey can save money (make more profit!) if they simply chop em down and instead plant a twig that will need no maintenance during the remainder of the contract.

 

That's about as much as anyone outside Amey or a secretive part of SCC does know. The contract is shrouded in so much secrecy.

 

I'm sorry but none of that strikes me as that unreasonable to be honest. Not ideal - but not the catastrophe presented.

[Robin-H]

I do appreciate your time on this, thank you.

 

(My bold). That is helpful information, but note that it is a consultation: it is not definitive.

Only the judgment of a court can set a definitive interpretation of a law.

 

The document I linked to was a consultation but the background information contained within that was based upon information in the '72 and other Acts. The fact it was a consultation about changes to those acts does not alter the content of the actual acts. It was just a good document for clearly setting out the issue at hand. The document was from 2014, so I am not sure what the result of the consultation was.

 

Where are you drawing the line between what is appropriate and what isn't?

Consider for example Brexit: is that likely to have any effect on the parish?

Is it not appropriate for the parish to consider the effects of Brexit and how it is going to deal with them?

 

I am not drawing the line, but going by what the document says. It says that the parish poll system has been abused and that polls have been called in the past on issues that could not be altered at all by the parish and therefore there was no point to call a poll. As calling a poll is expensive, then it would do nobody any favours to do so.

 

 

 

I think that it is very much so. And if it is true for Brexit, then it is likely to be true for almost any issue that affects the parish. It is certainly true for decisions on the management of the trees within the parish, but I think we should step away from that and consider the general concept.

 

Although I would like the management of trees in a parish to be a parish issue, it is not so. I grew up in a civil parish, with a parish council and parish meetings. It also happened to be a conservation area and so works to trees needed planning permission. It would not have been possible for the parish council to take decisions regarding those trees against the decisions of my local authority. A parish does not have this power.

 

Take this example, which did happen.

 

There was a prominent tree my village growing up that had a Tree Preservation Order. The people who owned the land on which the tree stood applied to have the tree cut down. The tree survey was undertaken by the people who would have gained financially from cutting down the tree and made dubious claims about the trees health that could not otherwise be substantiated.

 

This matter was raised at a parish meeting, and whilst a poll of the parish was not taken, there was an overriding opinion that the tree should have a second independent arboricultural report done. Of course the parish council could not enforce this as the tree was on private land, but they do have the right to comment on applications, and they stated this in their comments to the local authority council and recommended the application be refused until a further report was done.

 

The local authority council approved the application anyway and the tree was felled.

 

The put it simply, a parish does not have the ability to trump the decisions of the higher authority, such as the City Council or a local authority.

The returning officer of Sheffield City Council would be the one who decides if the question was a legitimate question for the parish to call a poll on.

 

As you earlier requested case law I have found the following.

 

In Bennet. v Chappell (1965 - 3 WLR 829) the Court of Appeal ruled that a parish poll could be denied if the question was 'devoid of practical application'. This was further clarified in Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation v (1) the Returning Officer for the District of North Hertfordshire which stated that the question must be about 'parish affairs'.

 

Now you could argue that local tree management is a matter in which a local community would have legitimate and genuine interest, however it is not an issue over which a parish has any control, as my earlier example showed.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2017 at 11:15 ----------

 

I'm sorry but none of that strikes me as that unreasonable to be honest. Not ideal - but not the catastrophe presented.

 

But the report on which the contract was based, undertaken by Elliott Consultancy Ltd in 2006 and 2007 stated that only 1,000 trees needed to be felled. Whilst this number will have increased slightly over the intervening decade, it would not have increased 6 or 10 fold.

 

Elliot has even commented on the council approach, stating..

 

"Did I tell them they needed to remove half of their tree stock? No. Did I tell them 70% of trees were nearing the end of their life? No […] Did I even suggest that the 10,000 bits of tree work were urgent? No – you have seen the power point and it was clearly explained that 25,000 trees needed no work and of that, 10,000 almost half, were routine crown-lifting operations, another quarter being dead wooding operations, and others including the whole gamut of routine works etc. "

 

Why, if this is the report on which the contract is based (which it is) are the number being felled far far in excess of those that the report said should be?

Edited March 17, 2017 by Robin-H

[Hairyloon]

The document was from 2014, so I am not sure what the result of the consultation was.

I have been able to find none, but I have written to ask.

 

Although I would like the management of trees in a parish to be a parish issue, it is not so. I grew up in a civil parish, with a parish council and parish meetings. It also happened to be a conservation area and so works to trees needed planning permission. It would not have been possible for the parish council to take decisions regarding those trees against the decisions of my local authority. A parish does not have this power.

You are conflating issues and decisions. The fact that something is not their decision does not mean that it is not their issue: they cannot make the decision, but they can apply influence to that decision.

This matter was raised at a parish meeting, and whilst a poll of the parish was not taken, there was an overriding opinion that the tree should have a second independent arboricultural report done. Of course the parish council could not enforce this as the tree was on private land, but they do have the right to comment on applications, and they stated this in their comments to the local authority council and recommended the application be refused until a further report was done.

 

The local authority council approved the application anyway and the tree was felled.

On the face of the evidence the council made a bad decision, they are not here to defend it. Quite possibly they made a wrong decision were they minded to, someone could have applied for an injunction and a judicial review of the council decision.

They did not, so there is no point speculating.

 

Also, there is the very valid point that you didn't hold a poll. It is too easy to manipulate the opinion of a meeting, so a recommendation just from a meeting only carries so much weight: a poll cannot so easily be dismissed. Plus, in that case, the sensible course for the council would have been to agree to the second survey rather than go to the expense of a poll, but you would have needed to make threat of the poll.

As you earlier requested case law I have found the following.

 

In Bennet. v Chappell (1965 - 3 WLR 829) the Court of Appeal ruled that a parish poll could be denied if the question was 'devoid of practical application'. This was further clarified in Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation v (1) the Returning Officer for the District of North Hertfordshire which stated that the question must be about 'parish affairs'.

I can't find Bennet v Chappell, but the other is here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/841.html

 

Now you could argue that local tree management is a matter in which a local community would have legitimate and genuine interest, however it is not an issue over which a parish has any control, as my earlier example showed.

But your earlier example failed to seek the will of the people. This is the whole point.

You cannot argue that the council can ignore the will of the people by using an example that does not look at the will of the people.

[Robin-H]

I have been able to find none, but I have written to ask.

 

 

You are conflating issues and decisions. The fact that something is not their decision does not mean that it is not their issue: they cannot make the decision, but they can apply influence to that decision.

 

On the face of the evidence the council made a bad decision, they are not here to defend it. Quite possibly they made a wrong decision were they minded to, someone could have applied for an injunction and a judicial review of the council decision.

They did not, so there is no point speculating.

 

Also, there is the very valid point that you didn't hold a poll. It is too easy to manipulate the opinion of a meeting, so a recommendation just from a meeting only carries so much weight: a poll cannot so easily be dismissed. Plus, in that case, the sensible course for the council would have been to agree to the second survey rather than go to the expense of a poll, but you would have needed to make threat of the poll.

 

I can't find Bennet v Chappell, but the other is here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/841.html

 

 

But your earlier example failed to seek the will of the people. This is the whole point.

You cannot argue that the council can ignore the will of the people by using an example that does not look at the will of the people.

 

I think it would be worth clarifying my position here because I am being drawn into arguing points about things that I don't feel would ever arise, which is obfuscating the matter.

 

Firstly. People who do not live in a civil parish cannot hold a parish poll. I know we disagree on this, but I have yet to see any evidence that my assertion in this is incorrect.

 

Ecclesiastical parishes and civil parishes are very different things. The 1894 Local Government Act removed all non-ecclesiastical functions from ecclesiastical parishes and developed new civil parishes. This includes holding a parish poll, as that is not an ecclesiastical function.

 

The ecclesiastical parish is now an entirely separate body, usually with entirely different borders to their civil counterparts. Many civil parishes (as in the case of the majority of Sheffield) have faded into obscurity as the area has rapidly changed and been replaced by other local government systems.

 

The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 sets out how to set up a new civil parish. This would be entirely unnecessary if what you claim is correct in that it only takes 6 people to call a meeting and they would suddenly have a civil parish and the rights associated, such as the ability to call a poll.

 

I asked you why the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 would exist in that case and it seemed you were suggesting that it was an attempt to complicate what is actually a very simple matter in order to minimise the public's ability to share their 'democratic voice'. I don't ascribe to this at all, indeed the consultation document I linked to earlier was an attempt to simplify the procedure to call a poll.

 

All other points beyond that are moot (such as the legitimacy of the question) as they would never arise. It does remain however that the results of any poll are advisory. If the council are failing to listen to the advice of the independent tree panel, and have not swayed from their position despite the significant amount of national and international bad press then a small community poll also stating that they do not agree to the planned works (something which is already happening on certain streets anyway) would not make any difference.

[Flexo]

All this stuff about parishes is irrelevant to the trees on Rustlings Road. Perhaps you guys could start your own thread about that.

[Robin-H]

All this stuff about parishes is irrelevant to the trees on Rustlings Road. Perhaps you guys could start your own thread about that.

 

I feel like the issue has reached its conclusion and I am not particularly interested in further discussion about this. The debate stemmed from whether a local 'community' (for want of a better word) could call of parish poll in order to show that there was a weight of opinion against the felling of trees locally, and that this would somehow pressure the council into changing their mind about a 25 year £2.2billion contract.

 

I believe this to not be possible for the many many reasons that I have outlined in this thread and it has become apparent that neither I or Hairyloon is going to sway from our opinions and so further debate on this subject is unnecessary. Hairyloon has stated that it would take a judicial review for them to agree with the fundamental point I am making, and so continuing this debate would be fruitless anyway.

 

As you correctly say, the issue has divulged greatly from the topic of the thread.

[Hairyloon]

Hairyloon has stated that it would take a judicial review for them to agree with the fundamental point I am making...

No, I said it would take a judicial review for me to admit that I am wrong here; that is, on the fact that a poll can be called, not on the question of whether it would make a difference.

and so continuing this debate would be fruitless anyway.

Not entirely: I think we are agreed that we could establish a civil parish and then call a poll, but we have taken it as read that the time and effort required to establish a parish was not worth the trouble and would take too long to help with this issue.

 

And that is probably true, but this kind of issue does crop up fairly often, so perhaps we should give the idea of a local governance review some thought.

That is, I think a question for another thread.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Hairyloon