Guest makapaka Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 The Independent Tree Panel is not endorsed by most members of STAG for a number of reasons. Firstly, the idea that only certain streets are referred to the Independent Tree Panel is, most members believe, based on flawed logic. Street trees do not belong to the people who happen to be living in those houses when they got the survey, and so it follows that their fate should not lie in their hands. There are cases where trees that are visible, and enjoyed, from houses on a neighbouring or nearby street and these households do not get to voice their opinions, whereas people who could live hundreds of metres away who never even see the tree do get to voice theirs. This, by many people's reckoning, is unfair. In addition, the questionnaire that was sent out to people was somewhat misleading. It stated that trees are only ever removed as a last resort. If this were true, there would be no need for STAG, but it has been demonstrably evident that this is not the case. Secondly, it is the belief of many members of STAG that the ITP is just an appeasement method of the council. They can say that they have consulted (and would therefore be even better from them if they can say they invented a member of STAG onto the panel) but again, it has become evident that the council have no intention of following the recommendations of the panel. On Rustling Road, Cllr Lodge stated that the reason why the recommendations of the ITP could not be taken forward was because it would have cost the council extra money that they do not have. This is untrue. The ITP recommended solutions that were within the contract with AMEY, and it clearly stipulates that these solutions would not have cost the council any additional money. It also states they promise to only fell a tree when none of these solutions could work. That, as proved by the results the ITP, is not the case. ---------- Post added 10-03-2017 at 18:48 ---------- You're telling me this based on what exactly? Genuine question. Is there an example where a similar vote has been called with similar numbers involved, at the behest of civilians. Wouldn't the best place to raise the concerns you highlighted be as members of the panel? It's like being concerned that the school governors are not ensuring the head is performing and then refusing a place on the board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Wouldn't the best place to raise the concerns you highlighted be as members of the panel? It's like being concerned that the school governors are not ensuring the head is performing and then refusing a place on the board? Members of STAG have already arranged (monthly?) meetings with Julie Dore, where they highlight their concerns. This is a more suitable avenue, and one where they feel like they are more likely to get their point across. Having a member of STAG on the ITP allows the council to say 'see, we even let a member be on the panel, that's how much we care about their opinion' (or words to that effect..) This is worthless when the opinion of the ITP is not listened to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Members of STAG have already arranged (monthly?) meetings with Julie Dore, where they highlight their concerns. This is a more suitable avenue, and one where they feel like they are more likely to get their point across. Having a member of STAG on the ITP allows the council to say 'see, we even let a member be on the panel, that's how much we care about their opinion' (or words to that effect..) This is worthless when the opinion of the ITP is not listened to. That's just a cop out as per the example above. Would it not add real weight to the argument for stag to present minuted meeting notes showing their concerns were not listened to, rather than just saying "they wouldn't listen to us anyway"? I'd be all for stag going on that board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 That's just a cop out as per the example above. Would it not add real weight to the argument for stag to present minuted meeting notes showing their concerns were not listened to, rather than just saying "they wouldn't listen to us anyway"? I'd be all for stag going on that board. Where are the minuted meeting notes from the ITP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Where are the minuted meeting notes from the ITP? I meant stag would be able to take them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 I meant stag would be able to take them. But then STAG could also take minutes from meetings that they have with Julie Dore (indeed I would imagine they already do so) so there is no reason why they would have to be part of the ITP to do this. Indeed, meetings with Julie Dore don't have the negative consequences that I have outlined, and can't be construed as tantamount approval of the 'consultation process'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 But then STAG could also take minutes from meetings that they have with Julie Dore (indeed I would imagine they already do so) so there is no reason why they would have to be part of the ITP to do this. Indeed, meetings with Julie Dore don't have the negative consequences that I have outlined, and can't be construed as tantamount approval of the 'consultation process'. Sorry - i fail to see how being part of the panel deciding on felled trees is a bad thing for stag. Similarly- if the discussions with Julie dore are so productive what is the issue. I would imagine both channels would be the most beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Sorry - i fail to see how being part of the panel deciding on felled trees is a bad thing for stag. Similarly- if the discussions with Julie dore are so productive what is the issue. I would imagine both channels would be the most beneficial. Maybe because the findings are ignored, therefore it would be a waste of time and energy and would just provide the council with an opportunity to claim they had consulted. When they hadn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Sorry - i fail to see how being part of the panel deciding on felled trees is a bad thing for stag. Similarly- if the discussions with Julie dore are so productive what is the issue. I would imagine both channels would be the most beneficial. It is bad for the reasons that I have outlined. STAG do not want to legitimise ITP as they feel it is based on flawed consultation and is not a genuine attempt by the council to gain expert knowledge on the necessity of removing trees. Gaining a place on the panel would only act to legitimise them, which STAG do not want to do. Your premise only works of the ITP were really deciding on the future of trees in Sheffield. They are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Some people just don't want to see. I really don't understand why. 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