Council tree felling...

[Guest makapaka]

What are you on about? Amey are contracted to bear the costs of any delays caused by protesters, and as far as I'm aware, Amey have not claimed any money from SCC for such delays. SCC have spent £416K on legal fees related to the protests and associated injunction, of which the high court has ordered protesters to pay SCC approx £60K.

 

What is the £700k for?

 

And the £416k on legal fees related to protests you mention?

Edited September 4, 2018 by makapaka

[dave_the_m]

What is the £700k for?

SCC decided to institute the "Independent" Tree Panel as a sop to protesters. Felling was halted while questionaires were sent to households in affected streets, and if 50% voted yes, the tree panel would review all trees scheduled for felling. During this pause, Amey were allegedly unable to carry out the works they had sceduled with subcontractors like Tarmac, so the £700K was compensation to Amey from SCC for the losses they had caused by pausing.The pause being caused by SCC rather than by protesters.

And the £416k on legal fees related to protests you mention?

1.5 years ago STAG applied unsuccessfully to the High Court for a judicial review, then SCC successfully applied to the High Court for an injunction, and a year later, for an extension. Then on 3 occasions SCC have applied to the High Court for committal proceedings against protesters they claimed had breached the injunction.

 

The total legal bill for SCC for all that High Court activity is £416K, Set against that is around £60K in costs awarded to SCC and against protesters.

 

Bear in mind that the QC which SCC chooses to bus in from London for each of these hearings charges £15K per day.

[Guest makapaka]

SCC decided to institute the "Independent" Tree Panel as a sop to protesters. Felling was halted while questionaires were sent to households in affected streets, and if 50% voted yes, the tree panel would review all trees scheduled for felling. During this pause, Amey were allegedly unable to carry out the works they had sceduled with subcontractors like Tarmac, so the £700K was compensation to Amey from SCC for the losses they had caused by pausing.The pause being caused by SCC rather than by protesters.

 

1.5 years ago STAG applied unsuccessfully to the High Court for a judicial review, then SCC successfully applied to the High Court for an injunction, and a year later, for an extension. Then on 3 occasions SCC have applied to the High Court for committal proceedings against protesters they claimed had breached the injunction.

 

The total legal bill for SCC for all that High Court activity is £416K, Set against that is around £60K in costs awarded to SCC and against protesters.

 

Bear in mind that the QC which SCC chooses to bus in from London for each of these hearings charges £15K per day.

 

So if there had been no protests - would they have spent £1.1m?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

So if there had been no protests - would they have spent £1.1m?

No, Amey would have removed the trees causing the pavement hazards.

[dave_the_m]

So if there had been no protests - would they have spent £1.1m?

Well no, but most of the money they have spent has been as a result of direct choices by SCC - they chose to set up the ITP even though protesters thought it was a pointless waste of time and money; they chose to take out the injunction rather than engaging in any meaningful dialogue; they chose to sue protesters for alleged injunction breaches, even though 3 out of 8 were found not guilty and SCC became liable for their own and those 3's costs. They chose to sue protesters in 3 separate hearings (they wanted more - the judge ordered them to consolidate the cases). They chose to use a ludicrously expensive QC at $15K per day. They chose to prosecute someone for spending 3.5 minutes inside a safety zone reading a poem after felling had already been suspended. They chose to try and get an opposition councillor imprisoned on a case so weak that their own (£15K per day) QC dropped one of the two charges on the morning of the trial, and the judge rejected the other charge without even hearing the defence witnesses.

[Guest makapaka]

Well no, but most of the money they have spent has been as a result of direct choices by SCC - they chose to set up the ITP even though protesters thought it was a pointless waste of time and money; they chose to take out the injunction rather than engaging in any meaningful dialogue; they chose to sue protesters for alleged injunction breaches, even though 3 out of 8 were found not guilty and SCC became liable for their own and those 3's costs. They chose to sue protesters in 3 separate hearings (they wanted more - the judge ordered them to consolidate the cases). They chose to use a ludicrously expensive QC at $15K per day. They chose to prosecute someone for spending 3.5 minutes inside a safety zone reading a poem after felling had already been suspended. They chose to try and get an opposition councillor imprisoned on a case so weak that their own (£15K per day) QC dropped one of the two charges on the morning of the trial, and the judge rejected the other charge without even hearing the defence witnesses.

 

Well whatever - youre still arguing how the council could have mitigated costs you accept they would never have incurred in the first place had it not been for the protests.

 

A few posts ago you were saying no costs had been incurred and asking me what I was on about.

[dave_the_m]

A few posts ago you were saying no costs had been incurred and asking me what I was on about.

No, Bryan Lodge had claimed that SCC would have to pay Amey costs due to the actions of the protesters. I was pointing out that as far as I'm aware, no such costs have been claimed or paid to Amey, in contrast to the £700K which SCC have had to pay Amey due to their own delay in selling up the ITP.

 

Or to put it another way, Bryan Lodge said that SCC was forced to take out the injunction because if the protesters kept delaying fellings, SCC would have to pay Amey a 7 figure sum in compensation. This appears not to have been true.

[Guest makapaka]

No, Bryan Lodge had claimed that SCC would have to pay Amey costs due to the actions of the protesters. I was pointing out that as far as I'm aware, no such costs have been claimed or paid to Amey, in contrast to the £700K which SCC have had to pay Amey due to their own delay in selling up the ITP.

 

Or to put it another way, Bryan Lodge said that SCC was forced to take out the injunction because if the protesters kept delaying fellings, SCC would have to pay Amey a 7 figure sum in compensation. This appears not to have been true.

 

That’s another contradiction - it doesn’t matter how you dress it up the council has paid money to amey as a consequence of the protests.

 

The council didn’t get up one day and say - given that we have no issues regarding protestors let’s spend £700k did they?

[Cyclone]

The council haven't paid Amey anything due to the protests, certainly not compensation.

The council HAVE had to pay for an entirely separate delay of their own creation.

There's no contradiction there, two different things.

[Guest makapaka]

The council haven't paid Amey anything due to the protests, certainly not compensation.

The council HAVE had to pay for an entirely separate delay of their own creation.

There's no contradiction there, two different things.

 

No - it was borne from the protests.

 

The event wouldn’t have happened otherwise and Amey wouldnt have incurred costs that were reimbursed by SCC.

 

It’s a prime example of why overly simplifying the “amey pay for costs of protests” is wrong.

 

People might not agree with SCCs actions to mitigate - but it was borne out of the protests in the first place and the simplest way to demonstrate it is that the costs wouldn’t have been incurred at all had it not been for the protestors- the costs wouldn’t exist.