Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Robin-H]

Its also an objection to £10k being slashed from their house prices, but nobody on that road would readily admit that as the reason they are protesting

 

And so why would I be objecting? I don't live on that road. Do you really think I care about the house prices on a road on which I don't even live?

 

Over 7,000 people signed the petition to save the trees on Rustling Road. Do you think they are all signing because they want to preserve the house prices of homes of people they don't even know?

[Phili Buster]

And so why would I be objecting? I don't live on that road. Do you really think I care about the house prices on a road on which I don't even live?

 

Over 7,000 people signed the petition to save the trees on Rustling Road. Do you think they are all signing because they want to preserve the house prices of homes of people they don't even know?

 

 

 

So what's it got to do with you or of those 7000 others who don't live on that road?

 

It's all right for you but do you have a great big tree right outside your property cutting out the light, damaging property foundations, damaging sewer pipes, damaging boundary walls, damaging pathways and depositing loads of leaves into gutters every autumn causing flooding

 

Takes tin hat and retreats to bunker

[Robin-H]

So what's it got to do with you or of those 7000 others who don't live on that road?

 

It's all right for you but do you have a great big tree right outside your property cutting out the light, damaging property foundations, damaging sewer pipes, damaging boundary walls, damaging pathways and depositing loads of leaves into gutters every autumn causing flooding

 

Takes tin hat and retreats to bunker

 

Because, quite obviously, street trees are for the benefit of all people in Sheffield, not just the people who happen to be living on that street at the moment.

 

That is why things like Tree Preservation Orders exist. Trees are routinely protected because of their amenity benefit whether or not the person who owns the tree wants it to be removed it or not.

 

If you don't want a house with a tree outside, don't buy one - and for the record, the trees on Rustling Road weren't damaging the properties at all, so that argument really doesn't work.

[cgksheff]

This has already been discussed on this thread and it's really not an argument at all.

 

For a start, real Christmas Trees are much more environmentally friendly than artificial Christmas Trees in terms of their carbon footprint, and that includes the fact that you would have a new real Christmas Tree every year and keep an artificial one for many years. The facts and figures are provided earlier in the thread. Therefore the more environmentally conscious are more likely to get a real tree.

 

Also, Christmas Trees are grown specifically in order to be cut down, just like any commercial timber. They aren't ever meant to get a chance to be 'mature'. They are also very quick growing (an average 6 foot Christmas Tree is probably only 7/8 years old).

 

Except that the method of recycling is critical to the argument and means that you cannot claim that all real trees are better.

[Phili Buster]

Because, quite obviously, street trees are for the benefit of all people in Sheffield, not just the people who happen to be living on that street at the moment.

 

That is why things like Tree Preservation Orders exist. Trees are routinely protected because of their amenity benefit whether or not the person who owns the tree wants it to be removed it or not.

 

If you don't want a house with a tree outside, don't buy one - and for the record, the trees on Rustling Road weren't damaging the properties at all, so that argument really doesn't work.

 

 

There is a big difference between 'street trees' and most of the, so called, 'street trees' alongside the roads and streets of Sheffield. When first planted these 'street trees' would have been at most 15 feet tall and with perhaps 3-4 inch trunks, not the hulking great 100 foot specimens they are now. They have outgrown their environment. If left and not replaced what do you think is going to happen over the coming years? These trees are not going to get any smaller. Taken to an illogical eventuality, in the future are you proposing a similar situation as the Major Oak near Edwinstowe with these trees being held up with scaffolding?

 

Most of these 'street trees' should be in woods or Sherwood Forest along with your merry men

[Beligerence]

So what's it got to do with you or of those 7000 others who don't live on that road?

 

Bandwagon.

[Robin-H]

Except that the method of recycling is critical to the argument and means that you cannot claim that all real trees are better.

 

The methods of recycling (end of life scenarios) was also in the articles I posted earlier in the thread.

 

For all the end of life scenarios (landfill, incineration, compost) the break‐even number of years to keep an artificial tree is on average 9 years. If the natural tree is incinerated or composted, the natural tree always has a smaller eutrophication potential than the artificial tree.

 

If the natural tree is landfilled, the natural tree always has a smaller global warming potential than the artificial tree for the baseline scenario (2.5 mile one‐way car transport). In other words, there is no break‐even distance for the landfilled natural tree.

 

However, if you buy an artificial tree and keep it for more than 4 years it is better than buying a real tree every year and incinerating it. However I would think that most real trees end up in landfill.

 

---------- Post added 19-01-2017 at 12:22 ----------

 

There is a big difference between 'street trees' and most of the, so called, 'street trees' alongside the roads and streets of Sheffield. When first planted these 'street trees' would have been at most 15 feet tall and with perhaps 3-4 inch trunks, not the hulking great 100 foot specimens they are now. They have outgrown their environment. If left and not replaced what do you think is going to happen over the coming years? These trees are not going to get any smaller. Taken to an illogical eventuality, in the future are you proposing a similar situation as the Major Oak near Edwinstowe with these trees being held up with scaffolding?

 

Most of these 'street trees' should be in woods or Sherwood Forest along with your merry men

 

Yea realise that different species of tree have different final mature heights.

 

They don't continue to grow in height when they are mature just like people don't continue to grow in height when they are mature either.

 

http://earthsky.org/earth/what-makes-a-tree-stop-growing

 

Unless street trees in Sheffield are Quercus robur (they aren't) then they are not going to become like the Major Oak.

 

Trees should be replaced when they become dangerous, diseased or cause damage that can't be rectified by the engineering solutions within the contract with Amey. This is not happening and healthy trees are being replaced that are causing very minimal damage that could easily be rectified.

 

Trees that are actually diseased or dangerous and so should be replaced are often being missed, indeed I have let Amey know about a number of these.

[Eccy Beach]

This has already been discussed on this thread and it's really not an argument at all.

 

For a start, real Christmas Trees are much more environmentally friendly than artificial Christmas Trees in terms of their carbon footprint, and that includes the fact that you would have a new real Christmas Tree every year and keep an artificial one for many years. The facts and figures are provided earlier in the thread. Therefore the more environmentally conscious are more likely to get a real tree.

 

Also, Christmas Trees are grown specifically in order to be cut down, just like any commercial timber. They aren't ever meant to get a chance to be 'mature'. They are also very quick growing (an average 6 foot Christmas Tree is probably only 7/8 years old).

 

So these trees are grown specifically to be cut down you say? Bit like calves put in veal crates or battery chickens? Sounds inhumane to me

[Robin-H]

[/b]

 

So these trees are grown specifically to be cut down you say? Bit like calves put in veal crates or battery chickens? Sounds inhumane to me

 

If you genuinely feel that way then fine, I'm sure some people do. Most people however do not and can see the obvious differences between the cruel treatment of animals and the felling of commercially grown trees, which after all, do not have feelings.

 

I'm not sure why you are equating commercially grown timber with battery hens and veal calves anyway. Free range chickens and cows etc are also 'grown commercially'.

[cgksheff]

Yea realise that different species of tree have different final mature heights.

 

They don't continue to grow in height when they are mature just like people don't continue to grow in height when they are mature either.

 

http://earthsky.org/earth/what-makes-a-tree-stop-growing

 

Unless street trees in Sheffield are Quercus robur (they aren't) then they are not going to become like the Major Oak.

 

Trees should be replaced when they become dangerous, diseased or cause damage that can't be rectified by the engineering solutions within the contract with Amey. This is not happening and healthy trees are being replaced that are causing very minimal damage that could easily be rectified.

 

Trees that are actually diseased or dangerous and so should be replaced are often being missed, indeed I have let Amey know about a number of these.

 

It is also reasonable to factor in the costs of maintenance and management.

Whilst I believe that Amey are incapable of making such decisions, there is an age and size past which any future maintenance and management can escalate.

 

These are costs that should have been part of any street tree management plan (they weren't) and decisions made with the full facts available.

 

I equally doubt that accurate future cost assumptions have been factored into the ongoing management plan.