Are SCC/Amey out of control?

[newcomer01]

Finally the last two pages have been worth looking at .The removal of emotion ,trolling and generally bad mouthing of people with a genuine concern.I have always been politically motivated but without the in depth knowledge of the ins and outs of removing a council. But a council turning against its own is bang out of order.A council being naive enough to give carte blanche authority to a company to maintain a city for a vast amount of cash and to then allow such destruction.This is not down to politics.it is down to the lack of accountability.I am sure that a decent legal person would be able to confirm the validity of the contract between SCC and Amey.As yet I have not seen any comment on here about the validity about these so called diseased trees though I may have missed it. I am sure that if there were enough people on SF felt strong enough make a financial statement ,I for one would make a donation if it meant an end to this fiasco.

[dave_the_m]

Some basic facts about the tree felling program. Amey have cut down nearly 6000 trees, which is 1 in 6 street trees. At the start of the project they were talking about only felling 1000. The majority of these are, by the council's own account, healthy trees: they are mainly being felled because they are allegedly damaging the pavement or kerb. However, the Amey contract includes a raft of already-paid-for engineering solutions that should have covered the majority of these cases and kept the trees - such as half-width kerbs and flexi-paving. The council claim these solutions have been used, but have never been able to produce a single example.

 

They claimed flexi-paving had saved 143 trees, but after a 2-year battle over a Freedom of Information request, where the Information Commissioner's Office eventually threatened to take them to court, the council finally released information showing that flexi-paving had been used exactly zero times. Needless to say the response was deliberately misleading, listing 29 examples of flexi-paving use, but none of these were for mature trees on the Streets Ahead contact.

 

Basically most information from the council about the tree felling is either withheld, is deliberately misleading, or is an outright lie. If the council were in the right, they wouldn't need to misinform the people of Sheffield at every turn.

[Longcol]

Finally the last two pages have been worth looking at .The removal of emotion ,trolling and generally bad mouthing of people with a genuine concern.I have always been politically motivated but without the in depth knowledge of the ins and outs of removing a council. But a council turning against its own is bang out of order.A council being naive enough to give carte blanche authority to a company to maintain a city for a vast amount of cash and to then allow such destruction.This is not down to politics.it is down to the lack of accountability.I am sure that a decent legal person would be able to confirm the validity of the contract between SCC and Amey.As yet I have not seen any comment on here about the validity about these so called diseased trees though I may have missed it. I am sure that if there were enough people on SF felt strong enough make a financial statement ,I for one would make a donation if it meant an end to this fiasco.

 

The validity of the contract was challenged in court last year by STAG after a fundraising campaign.

 

They lost - and so did two subsequent appeals.

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/dillner-v-scc-judgment.pdf

[Cyclone]

The contract is valid, but badly put together and massively in favour of Amey.

The councillors responsible should be sacked for a failure of due diligence and incompetence.

[newcomer01]

Thanks Cyclone/ Longcol for the information.I have had a look at some of the judgement and to my limited knowledge it looked like SCC just abandoned anything to do with any decision making on roads or trees,and even lacking any get out clause or anything to do with quality of completed work. It may be in there but I did not see it. I think that it remains that SCC must request the best buy out clause or even to reduce the time of the contract.But either way it looks to my that Amey are here to stay,and Cyclones comment of SCC lacking due diligence and basic incompetence seems valid. It seems to me that SCC have made poor decisions and will escape with impunity.If there was any conscience from them ,they would put cash aside to employ the best to get them out of this contract .

[cytine]

Thanks Cyclone/ Longcol for the information.I have had a look at some of the judgement and to my limited knowledge it looked like SCC just abandoned anything to do with any decision making on roads or trees,and even lacking any get out clause or anything to do with quality of completed work. It may be in there but I did not see it. I think that it remains that SCC must request the best buy out clause or even to reduce the time of the contract.But either way it looks to my that Amey are here to stay,and Cyclones comment of SCC lacking due diligence and basic incompetence seems valid. It seems to me that SCC have made poor decisions and will escape with impunity.If there was any conscience from them ,they would put cash aside to employ the best to get them out of this contract .

 

Good idea about getting out of the contract sadly SCC don't have a conscience, nothing will change because our arrogant council will NEVER admit they got it wrong.

[Cyclone]

Unless Amey commit some serious kind of breach I don't think there's any getting out of the contract.

However we can get out of this council. Elections will be along, and the populace can make their feelings clear at the ballot box.

[Guest makapaka]

The validity of the contract was challenged in court last year by STAG after a fundraising campaign.

 

They lost - and so did two subsequent appeals.

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/dillner-v-scc-judgment.pdf

 

Isn’t that report about the validity of the consultation rather than the contract?

[cytine]

Unless Amey commit some serious kind of breach I don't think there's any getting out of the contract.

However we can get out of this council. Elections will be along, and the populace can make their feelings clear at the ballot box.

 

Sadly Cyclone, they won't make their feelings known. They will still vote them back in.

[newcomer01]

I think that it is no longer of just voting ,the problems that seem to arise is the lack of accountability.No matter who is voted for ,invariably some people seem to have hidden agendas when voted in, they set their hours of work ,decide their job description,make major decisions without being open and honest in fact undemocratic, seem to be safe in their job till the next vote .By which time their salary has already been decided, and super pensions set in place,and expenses unchallenged ( possibly).Perhaps there is someone on here who could suggest how to challenge accountability ,salary,pension prior to the next election.To be honest I have no idea .