Reply to Bryan Lodge

You're certainly getting better at writing apologies '“ practice makes perfect '“ but still no commitment to stopping the felling '“ we were told they were felling 27,000 then, during the injunction it was 5,000 (under Streets Ahead) now it's 6,000 '“ we are not stupid we know the target is still 27,000 under whatever scheme or title that massacre is allocated to.

All this against a background of only 1 per cent per year (360) needing to be felled and replaced as part of normal tree management.

I think we can take it now that it’s just as many as they can take – to make money under Amey’s right to salvage; which is seeing not only valuable mature trees but heritage gas lamps, coping stones, drainage covers and street furniture disappearing regardless of cost to the city, replaced with low-quality short-life items that are just not good enough for the status of the city, or the whole environment, while simultaneously increasing Amey’s profit by making resurfacing quicker without tree roots to work around.

You are supposed to work for the benefit of the city not a global corporation – I understand you may not fully understand the implications of what you are allowing on your “watch” – but when you don’t understand something and you have £2.2 billion to spend, it isn’t a great idea to take advice from people who are making money, under a 25-year monopoly, from the work they are advising you require.

Time to hold your hands up – admit you got the whole contract wrong and start again with an amended contract that stops the city being ripped off the way it has been since 2012.

And by the way – yes – any contract can be amended.

Dave

by email