Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Guest makapaka]

Like everywhere else they've marked an excessive number for removal.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2017 at 10:45 ----------

 

Then Amey won't care because the contract will have finished.

 

It was factored in. The initial tree survey was done and a small of removals was planned in. They have since expanded that to remove about 10 times as many trees.

 

Why would Amey care when the contract finished and why would we? We will have mature trees and better roads lighting and paths?

 

It obviously wasn't factored into the costs then - as only a small number of removals were planned.

[Cyclone]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

They have a 25 year contract, we are 5 years in.

 

If they cut down a large number of trees now and replace with saplings that's 20 years of maintenance that isn't necessary for all those trees.

Saplings require little to no maintenance.

 

That's a huge saving for the company.

 

It wasn't factored into the contract, no, so they shouldn't be doing it. It's being done to save them money and is in breach of the contract (to the best we can tell since a lot is redacted).

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2017 at 11:42 ----------

 

 

I thought people believed that they were removing trees to reduce future maintenance costs?

 

Yes, that's exactly the point, it's been well explained already.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2017 at 11:43 ----------

 

Just for clarity, and accuracy. I cannot comment in the case of other roads, but in the case of Rustlings Road the ITP did not advise that the trees be retained. They said they could be, not that they should be.

 

If the ITP say that a tree CAN be retained, then on what basis apart from profit do you believe that Amey are removing them? Do they flip a coin? Do they see which way the wind is blowing?

They were not contracted to arbitrarily remove trees that CAN be retained. Why doesn't this make you angry?

[Guest makapaka]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

They have a 25 year contract, we are 5 years in.

 

If they cut down a large number of trees now and replace with saplings that's 20 years of maintenance that isn't necessary for all those trees.

Saplings require little to no maintenance.

 

That's a huge saving for the company.

 

It wasn't factored into the contract, no, so they shouldn't be doing it. It's being done to save them money and is in breach of the contract (to the best we can tell since a lot is redacted).

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2017 at 11:42 ----------

 

 

Yes, that's exactly the point, it's been well explained already.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2017 at 11:43 ----------

 

 

If the ITP say that a tree CAN be retained, then on what basis apart from profit do you believe that Amey are removing them? Do they flip a coin? Do they see which way the wind is blowing?

They were not contracted to arbitrarily remove trees that CAN be retained. Why doesn't this make you angry?

 

Im not being obtuse - it's just that my understanding is that this was a PFI contract.

 

is this not the case?

[harvey19]

Like everywhere else they've marked an excessive number for removal.[color="Silver

 

Is the one on the corner of Langsett Avenue and Worral Road marked up ?

[Cyclone]

Not sure, haven't been up to the top recently.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2017 at 16:23 ----------

 

Im not being obtuse - it's just that my understanding is that this was a PFI contract.

 

is this not the case?

 

I don't think so, it's not a public infrastructure project, which is what PFIs are.

[Guest makapaka]

Not sure, haven't been up to the top recently.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2017 at 16:23 ----------

 

 

I don't think so, it's not a public infrastructure project, which is what PFIs are.

 

It is a public infrastructure project - its repairing public roads which is pretty much as close to public infrastructure as you can get.

 

I just googled it and there are a number of references to PFI when you type sheffield streets ahead.

[Robin-H]

It is a public infrastructure project - its repairing public roads which is pretty much as close to public infrastructure as you can get.

 

I just googled it and there are a number of references to PFI when you type sheffield streets ahead.

 

Yes I think it is a PFI. I'm not sure why that matters though? I am not particularly au fait with the ins and out of PFI contracts, but is there a reason that in a PFI contract they wouldn't be interested in maximising profits?

[Guest makapaka]

Yes I think it is a PFI. I'm not sure why that matters though? I am not particularly au fait with the ins and out of PFI contracts, but is there a reason that in a PFI contract they wouldn't be interested in maximising profits?

 

I don't know how it's structured but ordinarily an element of funding would be provided by the PFI partner - some if not all. A fee would be agreed for delivery and then maintenance - in this instance removing trees would reduce future maintenance but increase initial outlay.

 

Therefore you would question why they would do more work than required initially.

 

Regardless of the above - as it's a bit speculative in terms of the terms of financing and contract - you would also have to question the viability of the overall scheme if amey were restricted in removal but with the liability for future maintenance. The amount of risk priced in by the contractor might have left it too expensive to allow the scheme to proceed which would have been a shame.

 

Whilst the scheme has certainly raised issues - as any large scale project would - Sheffield has hardly become like a scene from The Lorax has it? And the lighting paths and roads are vastly improved.

 

Plus in 20 years we will have matured trees again.

Edited March 3, 2017 by makapaka

[Cyclone]

I can't find any reference to it being PFI, nor is it the kind of infrastructure project that is normally PFI. PFI (from what I understand) generally means private finance to build something (ie a hospital) and then ongoing payments by government to pay off what is effectively a loan from the private sector (at high interest rates).

 

This contract is an ongoing maintenance contract whereby the council pay Amey to do the maintenance for a fixed length of time.

 

There are no additional costs to removing trees. It's cheaper to remove than it is to actually maintain. And that's just on day 1.

Obviously once removed the tree no longer requires maintenance for the next 20 years.

Removing trees is a profit making operation for Amey that harms the people of Sheffield.

 

Amey should be very specifically restricted from removing trees that don't require removing. They knew the condition of the trees when the contract was formed, they knew that there would be maintenance.

[Longcol]

I can't find any reference to it being PFI, nor is it the kind of infrastructure project that is normally PFI. PFI (from what I understand) generally means private finance to build something (ie a hospital) and then ongoing payments by government to pay off what is effectively a loan from the private sector (at high interest rates).

 

This contract is an ongoing maintenance contract whereby the council pay Amey to do the maintenance for a fixed length of time.

 

 

Here's a reference to it being PFI;

 

http://www.localgov.co.uk/Steel-city-highways-to-be-streets-ahead-under-PFI/26710

 

Upgrading the roads / signage / lighting etc in the first 5 years goes beyond day to day maintenance - more like major repairs.