Council tree felling...

[onewheeldave]

There was something on the news the other day about the councils refusal to publish this Amey contract despite hundreds of requests under the freedom of information .

 

Not surprising they don't the public to know the details-

 

So, after the Information Commissioner shouted at them, SCC released more of the Streets Ahead contract today.

 

“Any suggestion that 17,500 trees is a target or a requirement is an incorrect interpretation of the contract," - Councillor Bryan Lodge in today's press release.

 

From section 6.38 of schedule 2 of the Streets Ahead contract, released in redacted form today:

 

"The Service Provider shall replace Highway Trees in accordance with the Annual Tree Management Programme at a rate of not less than 200 per year so that 17,500 Highway are replaced by the end of the Term, such replacement to be in accordance with the Highway Tree Replacement Policy, unless Authority Approval has been obtained for deviation from this policy."

 

as it reveals our councillors to be outright liars who have utter contempt for the electorate

[monkey104]

I think it is fair to say that those trees will be cut down come hell or high water.

Just look at the amount of money being thrown at it in terms of policing, private security etc.

I do not want my hard earned tax money being wasted on extra security or police being present

Why not look at other ways of demonstrating that is not going to take our police away from doing the job they should be doing. We have far to few of them unable to cope with the amount of work they already have.

Get them back on the street, let the inevitable happen and protest in other ways.

I daresay there will be the usual comments about they shouldn’t be used as the council bully boys or private security manhandling old folk but that is not the point. Get our police back on the streets.

[onewheeldave]

I think it is fair to say that those trees will be cut down come hell or high water.

 

No, it's not fair to say that. As multiple posters have said, the protesters good work is slowing the cutting rate to 1-3 trees/week. That, combined with growing national pressure on the council to stop what it is doing, which is only going to increase as more and more evidence of the councils corruption and lying over this, is highly likely to lead to those trees not being cut.

 

---------- Post added 10-03-2018 at 10:11 ----------

 

Just look at the amount of money being thrown at it in terms of policing, private security etc.

I do not want my hard earned tax money being wasted on extra security or police being present

So pressure the people responsible to stop allocating unnecessary police to the protests! The protesters don't want that waste either. 30+ police a day are a joke- this is another example of the corruption going on here.

 

---------- Post added 10-03-2018 at 10:14 ----------

 

I daresay there will be the usual comments about they shouldn’t be used as the council bully boys or private security manhandling old folk but that is not the point. Get our police back on the streets.

 

I think you are right- there will be comments about not using police as council bully boys, because they are being used as that.

 

At the rate of 30+ a day, to deal with the 'threat' of peaceful protesting pensioners.

[monkey104]

No, it's not fair to say that. As multiple posters have said, the protesters good work is slowing the cutting rate to 1-3 trees/week. That, combined with growing national pressure on the council to stop what it is doing, which is only going to increase as more and more evidence of the councils corruption and lying over this, is highly likely to lead to those trees not being cut.

 

---------- Post added 10-03-2018 at 10:11 ----------

 

So pressure the people responsible to stop allocating unnecessary police to the protests! The protesters don't want that waste either. 30+ police a day are a joke- this is another example of the corruption going on here.

 

---------- Post added 10-03-2018 at 10:14 ----------

 

 

I think you are right- there will be comments about not using police as council bully boys, because they are being used as that.

 

At the rate of 30+ a day, to deal with the 'threat' of peaceful protesting pensioners.

 

As I said those trees will come down. And I would prefer to have the police policing not stood about watching the inevitable.

[Guest makapaka]

Not surprising they don't the public to know the details-

 

 

 

as it reveals our councillors to be outright liars who have utter contempt for the electorate

 

Doesn’t look good.

[WarPig]

 

I think you are right- there will be comments about not using police as council bully boys, because they are being used as that.

 

The council are carrying out a legal contract, the police are there to allow legal work to be conducted. If protesters enter the safety zone then the police have to be there to allow the work to continue. Everytime the tree fellers have to pack up and leave is another waste of money and resources.

 

But some on here can't seem to understand this. But then I guess its the job of professional protesters to cause disruption whilst bleating on about the unfairness of it all. Extremely hypocritical. I will welcome news of the last tree having being felled.

[The Joker]

Do these clowns ( Dore , Lodge, Mothersole ) believe what they say is true ? . Surely we have at least one professional in the council who checks what they say before they say it and it is published

 

I can’t blame Dore for inheriting this unholy mess*

 

It’s a waste of time playing partisan politics and blaming the Labour or Lib Dum councils for everything that’s wrong with the city but I am happy to blame Mothersole though. It seems every dodgy scheme has his name on it. How do we get rid of him?

 

*Disclaimer: I fancy Julie Dore

[Calahonda]

With a Labour council having double the amount of seats of the combined total of the other parties they are batting on a very easy wicket. I don’t like huge majorities, either locally or nationally, both Thatcher and Blair realised that they could do as they wished, and didn’t they just?

 

Former North East Derbyshire MP Natascha Engel lost her seat to the Tories and then very controversially teamed up with INEOS, was she siding with them prior to losing her seat? Fracking is about as popular as tree destruction, perhaps the next local Sheffield elections will see some changes, after all you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

[Naive]

The council are carrying out a legal contract, the police are there to allow legal work to be conducted. If protesters enter the safety zone then the police have to be there to allow the work to continue. Everytime the tree fellers have to pack up and leave is another waste of money and resources.

 

.

 

The cars on our road regularly get vandalised overnight on a Saturday. Bent wipers, broken wing mirrors etc.

 

Given that this is regular and predictable, would it be reasonable for me to demand a huge police presence on the road, between midnight and four to ensure that the law is upheld properly?

 

Amey are getting disproportionately favourable treatment from SYP. They should have to call the police when a crime is committed and wait for assistance like the rest of us. Then there would be no waste of money, just a private company carrying out a contract and bearing the costs of doing so.

[wrinkly67]

Doesn't this whole debacle with Amey (not just the trees) stem from SCC signing a contract which they simply didn't fully understand? To be honest, I've yet to meet a councillor who can string a sentence together coherently; they certainly wouldn't understand a legal document. And yet they felt themselves important enough to sign the contract "behind closed doors" with no involvement from a scrutiny committee. In the case of Amey, and not too dissimilar in outcome, I've certainly come across developers forcing councils into tight corners with what turn out to be cleverly worded documents. Both parties rely on legal teams - may I suggest that Amey's was "streets ahead" of the councils? This seems to be backed up by SCC refusing to show its contract with Amey in its entirety. For what other reason would they be so secretive? And also that councils up and down the country are terminating their contracts with Amey because they're not living up to expectations. Cumbria state they are "determined to learn and improve" and rather tellingly AFTER "a THOROUGH review of the contract". So they hadn't understood it either? Birmingham are only now realising that they are tied into a contract whereby they pay £2000 every time Amey plants a sapling (as I understand it not as a replacement). They now refer to "poorly negotiated contracts". So they didn't know what they were signing up for either? Given that the contract with Sheffield involved maintenance and replacement of 36,000 trees was it (without the intervention taking place and probably unexpected by Amey) much cheaper to just chop many down and SCC find themselves in no position to stop them? The important difference I see is that whilst other councils are becoming aware, readily admitting the problems and terminating their contracts with Amey, SCC seem hell bent on acting as though all is well. Is this arrogance or stupidity?