Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Cyclone]

I sometimes get the feeling that they claim to be in favour of cutting down tree's just to be different to the majority feeling that it's a bad thing.

 

---------- Post added 23-02-2017 at 11:22 ----------

 

these trees are coming down for the correct reasons,live with it they will be gone shortly, the quicker the better ,

And been replaced with more trees what's the problem ? we all like to see trees

But when they become a danger and a problem to people's homes they have to go ,if they was outside your home you huggers would be the first to moan and want them removing

 

I have a tree outside my home, and I'm keen that it not be removed.

 

So, basically, you're wrong.

 

---------- Post added 23-02-2017 at 11:23 ----------

 

Maybe grasping at branches !

 

You're still unable to actually explain why you think this then?

[Robin-H]

It is planned that many of the trees on my road will be felled and replaced. The trees are not dead, dying or dangerous, they are not causing a problem to my home or anybody else's home on the road.

 

But some of them are causing a problem that either the roots or the very lower part of the trunk extends slightly beyond the line of the kerb. Maybe by two inches. And the contract between Amey and the Council says (to quote the Account Director at Streets Ahead/ Amey) 'we are required to provide a continuous kerb line'. So the trees that are healthy and have a long life expectancy, that local residents are fighting to retain and even the resident whose house it is right outside (like me) want to retain...the council and amey want to fell a tree that is around 150 year old, which has a long life expectancy because the roots stick out an inch or two across the line of the kerb.

 

It barely seems credible does it. It might have seemed that tree huggers were fighting to keep trees that were dead, dying or dangerous. But actually, those trees have already been taken down because there was a genuine emergency about taking down those trees. Obviously, if the Council knew about such trees, and didn't have them taken down, and they fell and caused damage to property or god forbid to people, well, the compensation claim would be astronomical. But they've already dealt with those, the contract (and the Council) are very clear about that.

 

But the trees that are being felled now? There's nothing wrong with the tree itself. It just gets in the way of a contract that the council has with amey. It literally doesn't make sense, the contractors doing the road repairs could just work around the trees. The trees have been there for (on my road) for around 150 years. And that's why the campaign to prevent tree felling has in excess of 6,000 supports across the city. Not having a continuous kerb line just isn't a top priority. Retaining mature, healthy trees is. I just don't know why you don't support the campaign too.

 

That quote from the Account Director at Streets Ahead regarding 'we are required to provide a continuous kerb line' is worrying.

 

The engineering solutions in the contract clearly stipulates that there should be a gap in the kerbstones if that means a tree could be saved (it is number 5 of the engineering solutions in section 3.2 of the 5 Year Management Strategy) so something doesn't add up there. I would press them on that..

[Cyclone]

 

Can you clarify what you mean by majority? The majority of Sheffield residents, or the majority of residents on individual streets?

 

I mean that I think a majority of people are against the removal of trees for the benefit of a private company.

 

And that some posters take the opposing view simply to have an argument.

[mort]

I will remind you once again to keep it civil. If you are going to start calling people tree huggers and other names then you can expect your accounts to be suspended.

[Phili Buster]

If this is your level of argument (a completely facile and nonsensical point that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand) then you clearly don't have an understanding of the points of the discussion.

 

Explain, how does storm damage relate to the deliberate feeling of healthy trees?

 

So sorry that I attempted what I hoped was a funny post to release some of the anger, tensions and bad feelings within this thread.

 

Obviously it was not appreciated by yourself for which I apologise.

 

However, in my opinion, the basic problem with the majority of roadside trees within Sheffield, whether healthy or not, is the lack of adequate pruning and maintenance over many, many years resulting in overgrown trees which are vastly out of place alongside highways and requiring to be removed.

 

I am sorry if this is contrary to your opinion but at least felled trees are to be replaced, all be it, with smaller younger trees.

[Robin-H]

So sorry that I attempted what I hoped was a funny post to release some of the anger, tensions and bad feelings within this thread.

 

Obviously it was not appreciated by yourself for which I apologise.

 

However, in my opinion, the basic problem with the majority of roadside trees within Sheffield, whether healthy or not, is the lack of adequate pruning and maintenance over many, many years resulting in overgrown trees which are vastly out of place alongside highways and requiring to be removed.

 

I am sorry if this is contrary to your opinion but at least felled trees are to be replaced, all be it, with smaller younger trees.

 

I agree that there has been a lack of maintenance of roadside trees for many years, which has caused some to become problematic.

 

I disagree that the solution however should be the removal of those trees. It is of course cheaper in the short term to remove any large tree now and replace them with standards, however that does not remove the issue of maintenance in the long term. These newly planted trees (depending on species) will require maintenance in the future (after the AMEY contract has expired).

 

As the council is being charged for every new tree planted (in Birmingham AMEY were charing the council £2000 for every standard they planted, the figure for Sheffield is part of the contract that has been redacted) then it would be much more cost effective to prune, pollard, raise the crown etc etc of the trees as they are now.

 

Independent arboriculturalists have said that this would be entirely possible. Indeed, the residents of Western Road paid themselves for an arboriculturalist to come out and do work on a tree which was then signed off by AMEY and they agreed the tree was no longer an issue. That tree is now again on the list to be felled.

 

It may cost AMEY more money as they would be liable for maintenance they will not be in the current contract, but the contract should have been in the best interests of the residents of Sheffield, not a private company.

 

As Julie Dore has admitted she has not even read the contract, I do not have faith that the best deal was arranged.

[Phili Buster]

I agree that there has been a lack of maintenance of roadside trees for many years, which has caused some to become problematic.

 

I disagree that the solution however should be the removal of those trees. It is of course cheaper in the short term to remove any large tree now and replace them with standards, however that does not remove the issue of maintenance in the long term. These newly planted trees (depending on species) will require maintenance in the future (after the AMEY contract has expired).

 

As the council is being charged for every new tree planted (in Birmingham AMEY were charing the council £2000 for every standard they planted, the figure for Sheffield is part of the contract that has been redacted) then it would be much more cost effective to prune, pollard, raise the crown etc etc of the trees as they are now.

 

Independent arboriculturalists have said that this would be entirely possible. Indeed, the residents of Western Road paid themselves for an arboriculturalist to come out and do work on a tree which was then signed off by AMEY and they agreed the tree was no longer an issue. That tree is now again on the list to be felled.

 

It may cost AMEY more money as they would be liable for maintenance they will not be in the current contract, but the contract should have been in the best interests of the residents of Sheffield, not a private company.

 

As Julie Dore has admitted she has not even read the contract, I do not have faith that the best deal was arranged.

 

 

That (my bold) is absolutely amazing, I don't know how to really answer that other than WHAT!!! Especially when reading some of the figures and details quoted by yourself. To admit to not having read the contract does raise a few questions on the oversight of this and possibly other contracts.

 

With respect to maintenance of the trees, it is to be hoped that current and future maintenance, of retained 'older' trees and new plantings, will be much, much better than historically otherwise similar protests and arguments will result in the future.

[lien1]

I mean that I think a majority of people are against the removal of trees for the benefit of a private company.

 

And that some posters take the opposing view simply to have an argument.

 

Hi cyclone I see in a post you made a while ago saying you have used oak flooring trees have been chopped down to make your floor big oak trees:huh:

[Robin-H]

Hi cyclone I see in a post you made a while ago saying you have used oak flooring trees have been chopped down to make your floor big oak trees:huh:

 

Are you suggesting that oak flooring comes from amenity street trees?

 

Or do you think maybe that oak flooring comes from forestry certified commercial timber sources?

[lien1]

But it's still a tree a big oak tree been felled for profit providing 4 people oxygen

For life