Council tree felling...

[Cyclone]

That isn’t what cyclone asked - they changed their position to that when they realised they were wrong about saying contractors cannot recover damages for delay.

 

No, that WAS my point all along. It was specifically related to the comments that the councillor had made. You misinterpreted it, despite it being quite clear.

[neeeeeeeeeek]

The following is a letter that appears in tonight's Sheffield Star:

 

"In the Star on December 13, Darren Butt of Amey painted a rosy picture of the Streets Ahead tree replacement programme. He says that before this the council could not afford to replace trees after cutting them down, and seems to suggest that Amey is not driven by profit

 

Surely he is not claiming that Amey is replacing the trees for free out of the goodness of its heart. Amey is a commercial company, not a charity or social service, so of course profit is its motive

 

Then, in his letter on December 20, Councillor Peter Price joins in the self-congratulation and sings the praises of Streets Ahead. But, strangely, neither Coun Price nor Darren Butt mention the threatened “catastrophic financial consequences” to the city that Councillor Brian Lodge has referred to, reported in the Star on August 16. Not to mention the doubtful reasons given for some of the tree replacement work being done, and the secrets hidden in the Council’s long-term contract with Amey. Can we have more balance and less self-serving argument please?

 

Paul Heaton

 

Not to mention the full page 'advert' in the Sheffield telegraph the other week from that liar Brian Lodge saying how great the project was going and how everyone was really happy with the progress.

[Guest makapaka]

No, that WAS my point all along. It was specifically related to the comments that the councillor had made. You misinterpreted it, despite it being quite clear.

 

Post #87 (probably others) shows otherwise - you’ve been a bit confused all along.

[Cyclone]

Well, one of us shows a lack of understanding, but then again one of us thought that we hadn't seen any details of the contract...

Your guesses about the councillors comments don't explain them in the slightest.

Why would Amey be able to reclaim damages for IT NOT COMPLETING work it's contractually obliged to do? You appear to be thinking about this backwards. Should Amey be delayed by (for example, the weather), then Amey is in breach of the agreed contract. Yet the councillor says that the council will have to pay Amey... For it's failure to complete.

Does that sound even remotely equitable?

 

Perhaps in the next contract I form, I'll suggest a clause that has a company pay me extra if I fail to deliver the work I'm agreeing to, by the agreed date. I can imagine that they'll jump at the chance.

 

Nope. I quite clearly make reference to the councillors comments in post #87.

Maybe you should read the posts more closely.

 

---------- Post added 29-12-2017 at 16:25 ----------

 

Post #88 on the other hand shows just how confused you were at the time.

[Guest makapaka]

Nope. I quite clearly make reference to the councillors comments in post #87.

Maybe you should read the posts more closely.

 

---------- Post added 29-12-2017 at 16:25 ----------

 

Post #88 on the other hand shows just how confused you were at the time.

 

Your post #87 talks about the contractor recovering damages for late delivery (for weather in that particular post). Either you were unclear in the point you were trying to make) or just confused.

 

If you post comments about the contractors ability to recover damages for late delivery and state that this shouldn’t happen then you are likely to be corrected (as per my post #88.

 

If you were actually saying there shouldn’t be a penalty clause then this was my point in the first place - you actually said there should be a penalty clause and the absence of one was further evidence of the councils incompetence......

 

Robin H post then clarifies that there isn’t a penalty clause anyway..

 

So what exactly is your point on the subject?

[Baron99]

With tree felling now due to take place on Sandford Grove Rd & Gatefield Rd from 8th Jan for a week or so, have noticed & read a notice pinned to one of the trees WARNING both Amey & SCC workers of trespass & oversailing of properties in the area.

 

Oversailing definition: Under English law a landowner owns the airspace above his land (unless it has been expressly excluded from the lease or transfer to him) and it is therefore trespass if a developer or its contractor allows a tower crane jib to swing across land owned by other parties;

 

An adjoining owner can obtain an injunction to prevent such trespass without needing to show that any damage has occurred;

 

The developer and/or its contractor should seek a licence from third parties whose land may be oversailed by a crane, permitting the trespass and setting out the terms of use of the tower crane.

 

Presumably Amey & SCC workers won't be entering properties in the dark early hours to carry out work due to potential prosecution?

 

Might be a busy time for SYP, deciding who is breaking what law, should protesters also be around?

[Bruce_Shark]

...and it is therefore trespass if a developer or its contractor allows a tower crane jib to swing across land owned by other parties;

 

An adjoining owner can obtain an injunction to prevent such trespass without needing to show that any damage has occurred;

 

The developer and/or its contractor should seek a licence from third parties whose land may be oversailed by a crane, permitting the trespass and setting out the terms of use of the tower crane.

 

Presumably Amey & SCC workers won't be entering properties in the dark early hours to carry out work due to potential prosecution?

 

Might be a busy time for SYP, deciding who is breaking what law, should protesters also be around?

 

Are you suggesting they're using tower cranes while felling?

[Baron99]

Are you suggesting they're using tower cranes while felling?

 

No but if you know the roads involved, we're talking large trees, some probably close to 100ft with large canopies, (50ft plus), overhanging gardens, so any workers taking branches down safely might have to cut the overhanging branches down in at least 2 parts, meaning that for the fitst part, the worker & any supporting machinery would be actually over the boundary of a property, even though they are in the air, as stated in the law regarding oversailing.

[cgksheff]

Oversailing can constitute trespass but you can only successfully seek remedy if a loss has been incurred.

 

Have no attempts been made to obtain injunctions to prevent oversailing?

Breaking an injunction would incur charges.

[Baron99]

Oversailing can constitute trespass but you can only successfully seek remedy if a loss has been incurred.

 

Have no attempts been made to obtain injunctions to prevent oversailing?

Breaking an injunction would incur charges.

 

That I wouldn't know. It was just a small poster that I read on one of the trees as I was walking the dog, earlier today. The local residents of Sandford Grove Rd / Gatefield Rd would be the ones taking out injunctions but the fact that the warning is attached to one of trees due to be felled, suggests they might have already done this.