hackey lad Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 I sure am. I think maybe its a case of 'prevention is cheaper than the cure' for them on alot of the felled trees. Just my opinion, i dont know that for sure ! you've hit the nail clean on the head there with , the prevention is cheaper than the cure comment . its all about amey saving money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bargepole23 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 That isn't hyperbole? The tree roots have raised the pavement so much that you cannot now access your driveway? I know it's hard for you to grasp but some people have genuine problems caused by oversized, inappropriate trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I know it's hard for you to grasp but some people have genuine problems caused by oversized, inappropriate trees. I'm not sure why you need to resort to insults? Perhaps that is your level of debate? As I have repeatedly stated in this thread the removal of trees that are causing significant, unrectifiable damage might be the only appropriate course of action. You can read through my comments and see that I have said that a number of times. Olive's case must be a very extreme example. I have looked at many hundreds of trees across Sheffield that have been or are going to be felled due to pavement damage. A very few might have been causing pavement damage that even the engineering solutions could not have solved, however I have never come across pavement lifting that would have prevented somebody from accessing their drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bargepole23 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I'm not sure why you need to resort to insults? Perhaps that is your level of debate? As I have repeatedly stated in this thread the removal of trees that are causing significant, unrectifiable damage might be the only appropriate course of action. You can read through my comments and see that I have said that a number of times. Olive's case must be a very extreme example. I have looked at many hundreds of trees across Sheffield that have been or are going to be felled due to pavement damage. A very few might have been causing pavement damage that even the engineering solutions could not have solved, however I have never come across pavement lifting that would have prevented somebody from accessing their drive. So says the person accusing Olive of hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 So says the person accusing Olive of hyperbole. I didn't accuse her - I asked her if it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 So says the person accusing Olive of hyperbole. Is "are you engaging in hyperbole?" an insult? Is it an insult even if it's an accusation? ---------- Post added 28-02-2017 at 11:29 ---------- I know it's hard for you to grasp but some people have genuine problems caused by oversized, inappropriate trees. Perhaps it's hard for you to grasp, but that has been understood and acknowledged, the objections are about the removal of trees that aren't causing significant damage and that could be dealt with more appropriately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) Is "are you engaging in hyperbole?" an insult? Is it an insult even if it's an accusation? ---------- Post added 28-02-2017 at 11:29 ---------- Perhaps it's hard for you to grasp, but that has been understood and acknowledged, the objections are about the removal of trees that aren't causing significant damage and that could be dealt with more appropriately. Hey I wasn't offended, and I'm happy to explain. In our case, it's not just the roots and the pavement, the actual trunk of the tree extends over the corner of the driveway, meaning (even if the pavement didn't take your exhaust off) you have a job to get round it and can only approach the drive from a certain angle. It's just got way to big for where it is. Anyway, what I'm scared of, is that (as can be seen from this thread), when there are genuine problems, these are being dismissed. People who I realise are being protective over the environment, for good reasons, risk being thoughtless towards their neighbours at the same time. I'm genuinely worried, that even though this monster tree is earmarked for being taken down, and a replacement planted a few feet further away from the drive, that someone's going to turn up and chain themselves to the tree, thereby consigning me to years more of worry and depleted serotonin levels. Edited February 28, 2017 by Olive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexo Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Anyway, what I'm scared of, is that (as can be seen from this thread), when there are genuine problems, these are being dismissed. People who I realise are being protective over the environment, for good reasons, risk being thoughtless towards their neighbours at the same time. I'm genuinely worried, that even though this monster tree is earmarked for being taken down, and a replacement planted a few feet further away from the drive, that someone's going to turn up and chain themselves to the tree, thereby consigning me to years more of worry and depleted serotonin levels. From what you say there is a reasonably good case for chopping this tree. Someone in Nether Edge surveyed all the trees listed for the chop there and found that actually there was no good sound reason for chopping most of them - there was nothing that a slightly skilled workman could not deal with. That and the Rustlings Road dawn massacre woke people up to the very poor way in which the process is being managed. Members of STAG are interested in saving the healthy trees that have a good life expectancy and have not outgrown their positions to the degree which you describe. As you say there is a strong case for removal, it's not a tree that is likely to need protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Exactly, there's no problem with the removal of trees that are a genuine problem. The problem is with Amey removing as many trees as possible on flimsy pretexts in order to make more profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Exactly, there's no problem with the removal of trees that are a genuine problem. The problem is with Amey removing as many trees as possible on flimsy pretexts in order to make more profit. Yes I agree. I have not come across anybody who thinks that no tree should be removed in any situation, despite people wanting to paint people like that. Unfortunately thousands of trees - with thousands more to come - have been felled for no good reason. The tree survey on which the AMEY contract was based said that at most 1,000 trees might need to be removed. A conservative estimate is we'll lose 10,000 mature trees, although it will probably end up being between 18,000 - 27,000 (a 50-75% figure was mentioned at one of the early Tree Fourms at the Town Hall by Darren Butt, operations manager at AMEY.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now