Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Bertie Magoo]

Regarding the survey letter, it states

 

'A 2007 independent survey of street trees found that approximately 75% are considered to be mature or over mature. As a result, a sustainable replacement and management programme is required to prevent a catastrophic decline in street tree numbers in the coming years.'

 

This is deliberately misleading.

 

Firstly the age class, 'mature' and 'over mature' does not represent the safe useful life expectancy remaining for those trees. It means very little in fact. Different species have different life expediencies. Birch maybe 80-100 years whereas Oaks 400+. (granted they would be shorter in an urban environment.)

 

So how have they come to the conclusion that Sheffield's highway trees are at risk of a catastrophic decline??

 

If the council simply removed the trees that had exceeded their safe useful life expectancy, such as those those in the upper end of the 'over mature' category, any truly dangerous trees and any in poor physiological condition.

They would still be nowhere near the 5000+ trees they have felled so far.

 

The catastrophic decline has been caused by the mass felling. It so difficult to establish trees in the modern urban environment, the healthy trees should be maintained as long as possible.

 

Secondly if the council are desperate to use the streets ahead contract to replace god knows how many mature trees. Why try to do it all in 5 years?

In environmental terms that is instantly. Why not do it over the 25 years? That's the really unsustainable part.

 

Oh, and if someone told me it would cost £10,000 pounds to come up with an 'Engineering solution' for a nudged kerb as the council have stated on Rustlings Road. I'd just tell them to remove the kerb at negligible cost and keep a valuable community asset for another 20+ years. There is no legal requirement for a kerb.

[Bargepole23]

Regarding the survey letter, it states

 

'A 2007 independent survey of street trees found that approximately 75% are considered to be mature or over mature. As a result, a sustainable replacement and management programme is required to prevent a catastrophic decline in street tree numbers in the coming years.'

 

This is deliberately misleading.

 

Firstly the age class, 'mature' and 'over mature' does not represent the safe useful life expectancy remaining for those trees. It means very little in fact. Different species have different life expediencies. Birch maybe 80-100 years whereas Oaks 400+. (granted they would be shorter in an urban environment.)

 

So how have they come to the conclusion that Sheffield's highway trees are at risk of a catastrophic decline??

 

If the council simply removed the trees that had exceeded their safe useful life expectancy, such as those those in the upper end of the 'over mature' category, any truly dangerous trees and any in poor physiological condition.

They would still be nowhere near the 5000+ trees they have felled so far.

 

The catastrophic decline has been caused by the mass felling. It so difficult to establish trees in the modern urban environment, the healthy trees should be maintained as long as possible.

 

Secondly if the council are desperate to use the streets ahead contract to replace god knows how many mature trees. Why try to do it all in 5 years?

In environmental terms that is instantly. Why not do it over the 25 years? That's the really unsustainable part.

 

Oh, and if someone told me it would cost £10,000 pounds to come up with an 'Engineering solution' for a nudged kerb as the council have stated on Rustlings Road. I'd just tell them to remove the kerb at negligible cost and keep a valuable community asset for another 20+ years. There is no legal requirement for a kerb.

 

Probably a practical requirement though to prevent the base of a tree bulging into the roadway.

 

Or should I bunny hop it on my bike?

 

Or perhaps swerve around it and get run over?

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2016 at 22:38 ----------

 

Hmmm...

 

... I suppose the muppet they sent out with the clipboard must have kept forgetting how many (s)he'd got up to and was counting the same ones over and over?

 

Turns out the person with the clipboard isn't such a muppet after all. Just a shame that the original poster of this bit of information didn't take the time to check the facts before posting.

[Robin-H]

Probably a practical requirement though to prevent the base of a tree bulging into the roadway.

 

Or should I bunny hop it on my bike?

 

Or perhaps swerve around it and get run over?

 

Which trees that you know of are bulging so far into the road that you would not be able to safely ride a bike?

 

Of the phase 10 felling, only 14 trees are listed as 'discriminatory'. This would be the category of tree that impinged on the safe passage of either the carriageway or the pavement (for people with damaged sight, or people in wheelchairs and mobility scooters, or people cycling or driving on the carriage way). That is around 2%

[Guest makapaka]

Why do people assume that the council and amey are on some hellbent mission to ruin the cities trees and roads?

 

Why would they set out for that?

 

Profitability is what's generally touted - but no one knows the contractual arrangements and are just speculating.

 

The delivery is poor and the rustling road thing was a disgrace but come on - the idea that its all just a profit making scheme is disingenuous and some of the accusations are nigh on accusations of fraud.

 

It would be far more productive for people to focus on individual issues rather than a blanket tarring of the council and amey.

[1978]

Why do people assume that the council and amey are on some hellbent mission to ruin the cities trees and roads?

 

Why would they set out for that?

 

Profitability is what's generally touted - but no one knows the contractual arrangements and are just speculating.

 

The delivery is poor and the rustling road thing was a disgrace but come on - the idea that its all just a profit making scheme is disingenuous and some of the accusations are nigh on accusations of fraud.

 

It would be far more productive for people to focus on individual issues rather than a blanket tarring of the council and amey.

 

We are now 4 years into the programme and most areas have been quite happy to see poorly growing trees removed and replaced. Before Streets Ahead came along if a tree was removed it wasn't normally replaced. That's unless local residents clubbed together and paid about £150 for a new tree. Most didn't seem that much bothered, so the majority weren't replaced. Only those who have lived in a street a long time may appreciate just how many have gone for good.

 

This project is tied in with the road and pavement renewal scheme, which makes sense. Once completed the trees should all be maintained to a higher standard than previously and that's good.

 

Although the scheme is good overall, there have been some very obvious exceptions! Unfortunately, those areas of local difficulty have detracted from the longer term benefits likely to be seen in the decades ahead, city wide.

 

I wish consideration could be made to replacing some of those trees removed over the last 20+ years. Why should Rustlings Road get preference for that when so many others have gone across the city?

[Eater Sundae]

Which trees that you know of are bulging so far into the road that you would not be able to safely ride a bike?

 

Of the phase 10 felling, only 14 trees are listed as 'discriminatory'. This would be the category of tree that impinged on the safe passage of either the carriageway or the pavement (for people with damaged sight, or people in wheelchairs and mobility scooters, or people cycling or driving on the carriage way). That is around 2%

 

The majority of the trees due the chop appear to be because they are "damaging". In most of these cases, the problems appear to be associated with kerbstones being lifted or pushed out. Our Victorian/Edwardian forebears placed unsuitable trees in unsuitable positions, and we are now having to deal with the consequences.

[Robin-H]

The majority of the trees due the chop appear to be because they are "damaging". In most of these cases, the problems appear to be associated with kerbstones being lifted or pushed out. Our Victorian/Edwardian forebears placed unsuitable trees in unsuitable positions, and we are now having to deal with the consequences.

 

It is within the AMEY contract that where trees are causing the kerbstones to get pushed out they they remove the kerbstone by the tree and leave a gap.

 

You might not agree with the method, but it is within the contract, and they aren't doing it. They would rather fell WWI memorial trees (amongst many others) for there being a slightly misaligned kerb stone than just remove the kerb stone.

[Longcol]

You're quite right. I haven't received a letter so was just going off what I was unreliably informed.

 

I do however think that is it rather a obvious tactic to highlight all the other trees which is pretty irrelevant to what the survey is asking. Highlighting the trees in Endcliffe Park, for example, should not be used to minimise the dramatic impact of losing potentially 75% of our street trees.

 

There are far more trees in Endcliffe Park within a few yards of Rustlings Road than "street trees". I can think of many places where there are loads of trees within a few yards of the road that aren't "street trees". What is so precious about "street trees"?

 

What is "dramatic" about losing less than 1% of the trees in Sheffield?

Edited November 29, 2016 by Longcol

[Cyclone]

As a proportion very few houses have a view directly into a park, and not that many roads pass them. What's so unimportant about these trees that they should be removed for no good reason?

 

---------- Post added 29-11-2016 at 08:44 ----------

 

Why do people assume that the council and amey are on some hellbent mission to ruin the cities trees and roads?

 

Why would they set out for that?

 

Profitability is what's generally touted - but no one knows the contractual arrangements and are just speculating.

 

The delivery is poor and the rustling road thing was a disgrace but come on - the idea that its all just a profit making scheme is disingenuous and some of the accusations are nigh on accusations of fraud.

 

It would be far more productive for people to focus on individual issues rather than a blanket tarring of the council and amey.

 

Can you think of a reason other than profit to ignore the independent tree panel recommendations and to arrive at 0500 to remove trees that could have stayed?

 

---------- Post added 29-11-2016 at 08:46 ----------

 

Probably a practical requirement though to prevent the base of a tree bulging into the roadway.

 

Or should I bunny hop it on my bike?

 

Or perhaps swerve around it and get run over?

 

Swerve around it and get run over?

 

Wow. Is it bulging as much as a parked car?

 

Do you get run over everytime you have to pass a parked car?

 

I'm going to hazard a guess that No, is the answer to both questions, so... Do you even ride a bike?

[Hogg]

The dawn raid on Rustlings Road trees is still appearing in the National news:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/28/sheffield-trees-dispute-scenes-putin-russia-nick-clegg-arrests

Let us hope this publicity will encourage the council to listen to the tree experts in future.