In reply to Wsdconst:
> Why don't you stop costing me more in council tax and do something useful. Trees do come to the end of there life,get diseased,become unsafe.the numbers you're quoting are made up,how did you come by these when the assessments aren't even complete,guessed and x2 for good measure.the council has a responsibility to make sure they're healthy and safe which costs a lot of money,stop trying to make it cost even more.
Thanks for all the replies. In direct response to the comment above, it is a matter of opinion of what is important and I consider this issue gravely important. My opinion is that the needless felling of thousands of mature trees which have been around perhaps twice the time many of the people making decisions to remove them have, on the basis of poor criteria which do not amount to any kind of sustainable and well considered strategy is simply not good enough. As a tax payer, I expect better from our council.
With regard to your sweeping assumptions about my figures Wsdconst, I'm rather glad you pointed this out since it highlights the lack of transparency that SCC and Amey have adopted on this and also further strengthens my point that there is no strategy in place at all. But as I pointed out above and I quote "unfortunately the figures are vague since the council still haven't given an exact figure", our estimates are based on the following sources of information:
1. We have this taken from the £6Ds presentation£ given by Mr Steve Robinson (-Sheffield City Council£s Head of Highway Maintenance at the time) - at the inaugural meeting of Sheffield City Council£s Highway Tree Advisory Forum, held at Sheffield Town Hall, on 23rd July, 2015 (from an audio recording):
£We had a survey carried out by an independent firm in 2006/2007 that identified that there was 10,000 trees - that£s out of a highway tree stock of 36,000 - that required some type of intervention, and they recommended that there was a process of sustainable replacement."
And,
2. A short excerpt from a transcript of Cllr Leigh Bramall£s words (Deputy Leader of the Labour Council & Cabinet Member for Business, Skills & Development), spoken during the £debate£ about issues raised by SORT, at the meeting of full council on 1st July, 2015:
£Now the contract says up to 50 % of trees can be removed, and actually that£s 18,000. So far, half way through the programme, 2,000 have been removed.£
What we know is that despite that 2,000 figure, is that the felling program has really only just got into gear and the rate of felling is likely to rapidly increase now the next phase of the program kicks in following the Streets Ahead program. Here is a map of all the trees which have been included in the felling schedule by Amey, those in green are planned to be felled, those in red have notices on them and those in grey have already been felled.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=zFcKphOvGxXU.kgM68Zp3X5LU
I accept that trees come to the end of their life and I also accept that some of the trees which have been included in the schedule do need to be felled. The request of the action groups is that the decision making process and the strategy for city wide felling is made available to the public and can therefore be scrutinised. This has been denied and therefore those concerned about this issue have no trust in the SCC and Amey.
The logical conclusion is that the primary concern is the bottom line - profit - which is why I highlighted the fact that Amey is part of Ferrovial and this is a huge company with a 25-year £2billion contract to work on Sheffield City Centres streets. If they cannot be transparent about something as basic as why a 100+ year old tree has been selected for felling, then I have a right and all of you have a right to be deeply concerned!
Post edited at 10:35