Unbelievable

[WesD]

Again maintaining the trees is multiple pay days over the next 25 years. By taking them out it’s a 1 time pay day. 

 

I highly doubt its ameys idea to remove the trees, it is more likely the council are acting on a survey, drawn up a plan and sent a tender of works out. Amey won the Tender and are merely trying to work. 

 

I don’t know about the trees in question specifically but could they be near their end of lifespan? 

 

It would be interesting to see local reaction if one fails and causes serious damage? 

 

In a perfect world we would leave every tree to do as it pleases and replant in stages so our trees are at varied ages and stages but in a fast paced ever expanding world this just doesn’t happen. 

 

I suppose an option could be that residents of Sheffield who would like to retain the trees in question could all agree to have their council tax increased to specifically pay for future maintenance of the trees they so wish to keep???

[Aicchalmers]

33 minutes ago, WesD said:

Again maintaining the trees is multiple pay days over the next 25 years. By taking them out it’s a 1 time pay day. 

 

That's pretty much the whole issue - they haven't just tendered for the individual works, they've been handed the entire contract for streets maintenance for a fixed price in a PFI-style contract over the 25 year period. Their own surveyors, their own decisions and teams. Someone along the line has figured out it's cheaper to take down the trees now rather than paying for all the associated costs like leaf sweeping, pruning, maintenance. So the impetus is in the opposite direction for them to do everything as cheaply as possible, rather than look after the trees for the long term.

[WesD]

2 minutes ago, Aicchalmers said:

That's pretty much the whole issue - they haven't just tendered for the individual works, they've been handed the entire contract for streets maintenance for a fixed price in a PFI-style contract over the 25 year period. Their own surveyors, their own decisions and teams. Someone along the line has figured out it's cheaper to take down the trees now rather than paying for all the associated costs like leaf sweeping, pruning, maintenance. So the impetus is in the opposite direction for them to do everything as cheaply as possible, rather than look after the trees for the long term.

Fair enough but I highly doubt the contract says they can remove all of the trees though without council consent. Still the blame shouldn’t lie with Amey it’s who’s given them the go ahead. 

 

Another shortcut for Amey would be to shut roads to cars so they don’t have to maintain them at all and reallocate their use as widened footpaths so residents can avoid falling over buttress roots and raised tarmac. 

 

 

[Richard 1234]

Has anyone actually seen the contracts that have been signed?

[Aicchalmers]

6 minutes ago, Richard 1234 said:

Has anyone actually seen the contracts that have been signed?

Again, the whole issue is it's 'commercial confidentiality' so nobody knows quite what the agreement is, the only versions released have been heavily redacted.

Just have a quick look below, it's all there to read about.

https://savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/key-facts/

https://savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/the-streets-ahead-pfi-contract/

https://savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/the-six-ds/

Edited November 28, 2017 by Aicchalmers

[WesD]

Amey seem to be good at getting these types of contracts jeez. 

 

From those links it seems common place that Amey are crap and have contracts terminated, it may be worth leaving them too it. Enough rope to .......

[Richard 1234]

That's pretty much the whole issue - they haven't just tendered for the individual works, they've been handed the entire contract for streets maintenance for a fixed price in a PFI-style contract over the 25 year period. Their own surveyors, their own decisions and teams. Someone along the line has figured out it's cheaper to take down the trees now rather than paying for all the associated costs like leaf sweeping, pruning, maintenance. So the impetus is in the opposite direction for them to do everything as cheaply as possible, rather than look after the trees for the long term.

I’m against trees being chopped down for no reason.
But how could the council put its own surveyors on it and still call it a PFI. If they wanted total control they could take it back in house and it makes me wonder why they don’t as they would have total control of what trees were cut and how much it would cost. The only reason I can see that it’s not done in house is cost.
So it must be cheaper to have a business run it, unless I’m miles out in my assumptions

[Khriss]

It puts the liability on the 'contractor' not the 'council'  as we have seen that work oh so well with the prison service and the NHS ...... K

 

(  And military procurement )

[Gary Prentice]

15 hours ago, sean said:

Amey have the contract for all services including roads, pavements and trees. They have their own Tree inspectors who identify ‘problem’ trees which are causing ‘damage’  to pavements, kerbs and roads. The council appointed an independant Tree Panel who on numerous occasions have looked at condemned trees and said they should be retained only to have the decision overturned by the very council that appointed them.  Obviously it is far quicker and cheaper to resurface if the teees aren’t there.  Alternative engineering solutions as put forward by independent bodies are being ignored. Because of  course it also eats into the profits. It’s a total mess and utter madness Mick. 

I'm pretty sure that the engineering solutions that the panel look to, have one problem. They're not actually written into the contract, so yet more funding has to be found.

 

So it becomes a bit pointless, receive enough objections for felling on a particular street, the spec goes to the 'tree panel'. The panel decide there's an alternative to removal , there is no funds and it's outside of the PFI 

[Gary Prentice]

13 hours ago, WesD said:

replant in stages so our trees are at varied ages and stages but in a fast paced ever expanding world this just doesn’t happen. 

The whole debacle is largely due to SCC not doing this, cutting tree budgets over the last twenty years and now trying to 'catch up' under the PFI and doing loads of work in a short time span. I'm sure it was in one of the AA journals or newsletters, but a fellow called Bill Anderson wrote a very good article to explain this. I'm not sure if he is an ex TO from Sheffield (he's a consultant/contractor now and not personally involved)

 

There are two sides to every story, but the media have been largely biased to STAGS viewpoint - makes a good story!