Condemned trees in Sheffield.

[Gardenscape]

If you haven't heard about the the disgusting action Sheffield council have condemned these trees, you can read up about it below. It really does make me sad when I read about this kind of thing happening.

 

Pensioners arrested after stand-off with police over tree cutting in Sheffield - ITV News

[porangi]

Very sad and I don't expect that even in the case of a legitimate felling anything nice/worthy will be made from the timber either.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Gary Prentice]

Some interesting reading here; https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/report_request/trees/independent-tree-panel.html

 

The advisory panel only have the authority to ADVISE the council to consider alternative options rather than felling, but seem to be able to agree to felling. If you scroll down you can read their report on Rustings Rd.

[Gardenscape]

Anyone know the reason for the take downs or is it the council just wasting money again?

[10 Bears]

Having just read the tree reports, as Gary says, the panel only advised, but said that 6 of the 8 should be retained, and 2 removed for fairly sensible reasons, ie dieback/fungal colonisation/wrong place, and heavy lean in to road/vehicle strikes.

 

The video above, albeit a little one sided, gives an interesting account on the nature of the situation, ie that Amey and the council are tied in to a contract, and ultimately, the trees are down because Amey has to honour its contract and the council have to justify the massive investment they have put in.

 

IMO, it is just a tree management tick box exercise so the council is seen to be spending its money wisely.

[Gary Prentice]

Pavement/highway issues, in the main

[10 Bears]

Pavement/highway issues, in the main

 

I thought that was a weak argument TBH. As the report said, all bar 2 could be potentially resolved by engineering works/redesigning pavements.

[Gary Prentice]

Having just read the tree reports, as Gary says, the panel only advised, but said that 6 of the 8 should be retained, and 2 removed for fairly sensible reasons, ie dieback/fungal colonisation/wrong place, and heavy lean in to road/vehicle strikes.

 

The video above, albeit a little one sided, gives an interesting account on the nature of the situation, ie that Amey and the council are tied in to a contract, and ultimately, the trees are down because Amey has to honour its contract and the council have to justify the massive investment they have put in.

 

IMO, it is just a tree management tick box exercise so the council is seen to be spending its money wisely.

 

With an Arb like Andrew Baguley on the panel, it would have been useful to actually identify the fungus species and the impact to the tree. Or is it a case of Fungus=dangerous=fell?

[10 Bears]

I should be clear. Not your weak argument Gary - as potential justification from the council.

[10 Bears]

With an Arb like Andrew Baguley on the panel, it would have been useful to actually identify the fungus species and the impact to the tree. Or is it a case of Fungus=dangerous=fell?

 

Yep, probably!

 

Actually, the report said to retain that tree for as long as possible, then fell later if there is further issues, or that's how I read it.

 

Again, a sensible recommendation just not followed by the council/Amey.