Council tree felling...

[Longcol]

It is the street cleaning which swallows up the most of the £2.5 billion.

 

Think about it. Daily, Amey are required to send workers out into the suburbs, especially in the Autumn / Winter months to clear leaf debris from pavements, gutters & drains. Remove the trees, remove the problem, cut the workforce, save the money.

 

I rather fancy resurfacing about 1,000 miles of road, 1,500 miles of footpaths and replacing 50,000 street lights adds up to a sight more than a couple of months a year cleaning up fallen leaves - and given that loads of leaves come from trees not covered by the contract that they won't be chopping down I can't see them saving on the workforce in any big way.

[Cyclone]

I rather fancy resurfacing about 1,000 miles of road, 1,500 miles of footpaths and replacing 50,000 street lights adds up to a sight more than a couple of months a year cleaning up fallen leaves - and given that loads of leaves come from trees not covered by the contract that they won't be chopping down I can't see them saving on the workforce in any big way.

 

The resurfacing happens once though. The ongoing maintenance of those trees would have gone on for another 20 years. Now it won't.

There's clearly a saving to be made by having to 'care' for 6000 saplings rather than 6000 mature trees that need regular coppicing, inspection and maintenance.

[Baron99]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-40962193

 

Sheffield City Council, (a.k.a.Sheffield Council tax payers), are facing paying Amey financial penalties if the remaining tree felling has not been satisfactorily completed by the end of this year. I wonder though are we being taken for a ride on this?

 

I started a thread a couple of weeks ago that tree felling was due to take place on Sandford Grove Rd between 11th - 15th Dec. Well no work took place. No demonstrators showed up, so that couldn't be the reason for the work not talking place & neither could the weather have been a factor as the same time Amey was supposed to be working on Sandford Grove Rd, Amey workers were turning up at 4:30am to fell trees on Abbeydale Park Rise.

 

This is the 3rd time on 2017, (June; Oct & now Dec), that Amey have failed to carry out scheduled work on Sandford Grove Rd & a few surrounding road.

 

I'm starting to wonder if Amey are deliberately delaying work, so as to ensure the financial penalties actually kick in.

[Guest makapaka]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-40962193

 

Sheffield City Council, (a.k.a.Sheffield Council tax payers), are facing paying Amey financial penalties if the remaining tree felling has not been satisfactorily completed by the end of this year. I wonder though are we being taken for a ride on this?

 

I started a thread a couple of weeks ago that tree felling was due to take place on Sandford Grove Rd between 11th - 15th Dec. Well no work took place. No demonstrators showed up, so that couldn't be the reason for the work not talking place & neither could the weather have been a factor as the same time Amey was supposed to be working on Sandford Grove Rd, Amey workers were turning up at 4:30am to fell trees on Abbeydale Park Rise.

 

This is the 3rd time on 2017, (June; Oct & now Dec), that Amey have failed to carry out scheduled work on Sandford Grove Rd & a few surrounding road.

 

I'm starting to wonder if Amey are deliberately delaying work, so as to ensure the financial penalties actually kick in.

 

Penalty clauses in contract law aren’t enforcable - so there won’t be any in the contract between the council and amey.

 

Next unsupported conspiracy?

[dave_the_m]

Penalty clauses in contract law aren’t enforcable - so there won’t be any in the contract between the council and amey.

 

Since Beavis 2015, penalty clauses can certainly be valid if they are "commercially justifiable".

 

Cllr Bryan Lodge has assured protesters that SCC could face millions in penalty charges if the streets aren't all done by 31 Dec. It's also pretty clear by Amey's recent daily deployment of 20+ bouncers at huge cost to themselves, that they're wanting show that they've made every effort to complete on time.

 

We know there's a clause in the contract which says that delays caused by protesters are Amey's responsibility. Since we're not allowed to see 5700 pages out the 7000 page contact, we don't know what stuff is there that Cllr Lodge is worried about, but its generally assumed that Amey will blame any delay on SCC setting up the Independent Tree Panel (whose results Amey/SCC subsequently ignored 80% of the time when they suggested keeping a tree).

[hackey lad]

Penalty clauses in contract law aren’t enforcable - so there won’t be any in the contract between the council and amey.

 

Next unsupported conspiracy?

 

Next unsupported claim ?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Since Beavis 2015, penalty clauses can certainly be valid if they are "commercially justifiable".

Here's the case link: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html&query=(title:(+beavis+))

[dave_the_m]

Here's the case link: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html&query=(title:(+beavis+))

 

That link goes to the Appeal Court ruling. The case eventually got to the Supreme Court:

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html

 

(NB IANAL)

[Guest makapaka]

That relates to car parking fines doesnt it?

 

The contract between Scc and amey won’t have penalty clauses in it.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

The contract between Scc and amey won’t have penalty clauses in it.

It might or it might not. But none of us knows.

Either way, it's not very germane to the tree-felling topic.