UKH

Hi,

As a long term UKC user and a Sheffield resident I felt it was important to try and raise the profile amongst this forum of the immediate threat to many of Sheffield's City Centre Trees.

Much of the furore started as some of you might be aware when Amey PLC posted notice of plans to cut down many of the mature trees on Rustling's road bordering Endcliffe Park. But following this, a number of very hard working members of the public have studied hard and unearthed a pretty alarming situation where the City could stand to lose up to 50% of its City Centre trees, of which we understand there are 36,000.

Unfortunately the figures are vague since the council still haven't given the exact figure. They are carrying out the works zonally so not all areas have yet been fully assessed. But what is clear is that the Council and Amey have no clear tree strategy. In two separate meetings with the public at the Town Hall the Council and Amey brought to the table the "6 D's" policy. Essentially this is a policy in the loosest sense of the word and certainly does not amount to a strategy. It states the following:

A Sheffield City Council survey found that 75% of our street trees are reaching the end of their life and should be replaced with smaller ones. Under the “6 Ds” policy, the Council and Amey say that will cut down trees that are:
Dangerous
Dead
Dying
Diseased
Damaging the road or pavement or
Discriminatory (Causing severe obstruction to pavements)

Despite significant public opposition and a number of independent experts questioning the validity of the 6Ds and indeed the SCC and Amey's motives, the removal of the trees continues each day around the city. The Sheffield Tree Action Group is calling for a moratorium and immediate halt in the tree felling process until a clear tree strategy has been documented and presented publicly. Unbelievably, despite repeated requests from hundreds of members of the public the SCC and Amey have refused to provide any additional information or indeed any information about how each tree has been assessed individually.

I personally think it is important to recognise who we are dealing with here and then the gravity of the situation and the threat can be appreciated. Amey PLC is one of a number of companies that are owned by a multinational corporation called Ferrovial which is based in Madrid and as an annual revenue of 8 million Euro. To me, this sets the alarm bells ringing and I personally do not think that a multinational corporation should be making decisions about the trees in Sheffield.

Furthermore, as a climber and a lover of the great outdoors, I'm proud and I know many friends and people who use this forum are proud to call Sheffield their home. Ironically the Sheffield City Council promote the city globally as 'Sheffield: Outdoor City' and many will have recently seen the excellent website which has just been launched to promote this further. But to me, this is a hollow statement and insincere when it adopts the current tree policy in the City.

On the 14th November there will be a 'March to Stop Tree Felling in Sheffield' from the steps of the Sheffield City Hall to the Town Hall. Further information can be found about this event via the facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/events/1536380703319330/

Please come along and show your support and help protect the City and it's green spaces for the generations after us.

Additonally you can engage with the debate further via the Sheffield Tree's Action Groups here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/392913244219104/?fref=ts

Oh and here is what the Highways Chief at the Sheffield City Council had to say about the action groups and trees in Sheffield: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/listen-sheffield-council-sorry-after-highways...

In reply to Milnes:

>



why? and 8 million Euro - chicken feed surely.

In reply to Milnes:

independent experts questioning the validity of the 6Ds ??
whats wrong with the criteria?

Dangerous
Dead
Dying
Diseased
Damaging the road or pavement
Discrimination (Causing severe obstruction to pavements)

In reply to jnymitch:

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/dms/scc/management/corporate-communications/do...

In reply to Milnes:

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.

In reply to Milnes:

Wouldn't fancy me chances if I were a Dacrycarpus dacrydioides

In reply to Milnes:

Prof. Ian Rotherham has a good rep. this from Sheffield Hallam, and have a look at his blog

http://www.shu.ac.uk/stories/index.php/2015/10/28/6-reasons-to-stop-the-she...

In reply to Wsdconst:


You're in Barnsley............aren't you?

In reply to Milnes:

It's a short sighted thing with trees, what fails to happen is a sustained planting and felling program. say a rolling program of 100 years or so

In reply to Name Changed 34:


But if they fall in the forest with no human nearby to hear the sound, no-one gives a f***. (this is my first smiley [smily?] face ever, I'm so proud)

In reply to abseil:
sorry your wrong on that if one falls in a forest all the others can be heard crying
nice smiley thing?

In reply to Timmd:

I am,but I ve got premises in north sheffield (shhhh don't tell anyone or I'll be for the chop)

In reply to Milnes:

So a chance of some free logs round Sheffield then?

In reply to Wsdconst:
Baaaarnsley

In reply to Wsdconst:

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!

In reply to Milnes:

Allowing for your own use of confirmation bias.

Here is mine:

"mature trees which have been around perhaps twice the time many of the people making decisions to remove them have"

So if you had an older person making the call on the 6 D's everything is ok?

In reply to starbug:


No, you miss the point, which is that the trees are very old and the current policy shortsighted of this fact.

In reply to jnymitch:


Does this by any chance include trees which are now considered to obstruct mobility scooters?

In reply to Timmd:

Tarn

In reply to Milnes:

If they are mature trees and the wood is felled correctly, then they should be able to make a profit from this operation, by selling the better wood on for planking etc.. Although some extra costs will be from stopping traffic etc.. A rolling programme of felling and planting, sounds like a fairly balanced plan. Trees don't live for ever, especially many of those planted on road sides, plus when many of the bigger species were planted, they could never have imagine how much building would occur around them now. It's often better to replace with slightly smaller species, or those with less evasive root system.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Im not agreeing or disagreeing that all the works are required

Yes it probably does and wheelchair access, but beside that the pavement is part of the highway and if the tree obstructs it then why not replace it and put the new tree in a more suitable spot.

The original post asked why there was no written explanation for the felling of each tree, the explanation is the 6 D,s. and in my opinion the 6D's are a valid and and sensible criteria. its a ridiculous suggestion to have a written explanation for 10,000 individual trees. if the tree is dead the written explanation is; Dead, Fell, address, and an x on the tree.

What you should ask is was all the survey done by qualified staff or were unqualified partially trained staff used and overseen by a qualified person.

with regard to felling have you put in a Freedom of information request for the felling schedule , if you haven't already

if anyone wants to object then they can apply to ask the council for a tree protection order for the said tree. the council dont afford protection to there own trees as it complicates tree works.

The streets ahead website indicates there are 10,000 trees requiring action and the OP says there is 36,000 trees streetside. the contract is for 25 years which will equate to a rolling replacement of all trees over 75 years. the average life expectancy for a streetside tree is 7-30 years.

The company tasked with the work wont want all the works to be the largest trees as i would expect within the contactual arrangement trees will be graded both on required works and size. they will probably make a loss on the largest tree and pick up extra on the smaller sizes that can be felled and chipped in less than an hour.

In reply to Milnes:

Mum and Dad's road has been subject to this process and TBF they have only removed selected trees (some of which were in a terrible state) and given that they plan to replace/replant I struggle to see the problem. Yes the road has lost some of it's character, but TBH the ugly cars lining the grass verges detract from the aesthetic appeal far more than the lack of trees do.

In reply to Milnes:

As said above, trees out grow their initial placement and need serious chopping back or removal.
The issue is, if a company without any incentive for repeat trade is being paid per tree, who decides if a tree needs removing. If it's the company making money out of it then there is a clear conflict of interest.

My sister has a massive tree outside her house in Sheffield and it could do with some serious cutting back backuse it blocks a lot of light into her property. AFAIK it's only ever had a little trim a few years back after a branch broke in high winds and was dangling over the road.
The issue is that if they call the council to ask for it to be cut back they fear it will be cut down completely, which would dramatically change the character of the road.
I could see this tree falling foul of a few criteria in the 6Ds seeing that it has knackered the pavement, is causing an obstruction, and bits regularly fall off it.
If I had my way I'd climb it and chop it back myself, but it's probably get into a load of trouble with the council for doing so despite the fact it would save them money and improve the area.

In reply to Milnes:

I don't understand this veneration of trees; there are now more trees in our cities and along our roadsides than ever before - one look through a few old photos of familiar places will tell you that. As in the OP, a lot of city centre trees are mature or over-mature and are becoming a danger to the humans who have to walk under them so they need to be taken down and replaced with new trees. What's so wrong about that?

In reply to Rigid Raider:

What's so wrong about that?
I think the real issue is that these trees have been neglected for so long that what would have been an annual loss of a few trees has now built up into a massive tree massacre in some peoples view and people are questioning the motives.

I imagine you could get pretty badly done over if a tree that you are responsible for and have neglected injures someone or damages someone's property

In reply to Rigid Raider:


It is much more nuanced than simply removing dangerous old trees, and it isn't just about liking trees. They have a value beyond their aesthetics, especially in a cityscape. They improve air quality, moderate temperature, and are proven to be beneficial to peoples physical and mental well-being just by being there - I could go on.

You'll find that if you go back before your sepia tinted photos a little there were many more trees than there are now - using a snapshot from the era of The Road to Wigan Pier isn't going to win any arguments over desirable living conditions I'm afraid.

The specific issues with the Councils plans are that their ambiguous criteria for Damaging and Discriminatory trees allow a profit centred contractor carte blanche to remove 3.8% of the cities tree stock (that sounds small but the effects would be huge) to keep costs down later, and only replace on a 1:1 basis. A mature tree can need replacing with up to 60 new ones to get the same canopy coverage and the plans do not account for this at all - it's one of the reasons why you need an overall strategy which they haven't provided.

In reply to danm:



This is the nub of it. It isn't about management of city street trees, which is neccessary and important, it's about using felling as a tool to reduce contractor costs, without giving any thought to a wider sustainable management strategy for the whole urban landscape.

In reply to danm:

The criteria for Damaging and Discriminatory will always be ambiguous, making a decision about whether the pavement is in a acceptable condition is based on factors unrelated to the tree and often contained in other legislation relating to the condition of the highways.

I would guess that sheffield street trees are much like other inner cities with large stocks of over mature trees, keeping all of them in the present will mean future generations will loose them all at once. selective felling of current over mature trees is good practice and ensures a balanced tree population. street trees are always an emotive issue, loved by some and hated by others. sheffield has an estimated total population of 2 million trees in parks woods private gardens and highways. with 36 k of them street side.

The replacement of trees at 1 to 1 is normal, the aim it to have a balanced spread of species and age for future generations. the species list of replacement trees on the streets ahead website are good choices.

In reply to Milnes:

Rather ironically you have completey missed my point with

"No, you miss the point,"

Look up Confirmation bias if you are still confused

In reply to jnymitch:

You make some good points, but you are incorrect about 1:1 ratio being normal. A felled mature London plane tree for example, requires approx. 60 new trees planted to replace it. That's not my opinion btw, but of someone who manages around half the tree stock of London. I agree though that some felling of over mature trees will be needed, and people do get over emotive, but my main points still stand I'm afraid.

In reply to danm:

I wasn't considering the size of the crown, I was saying that it is normal to plant a tree in place of one that is removed, im well aware that a six ft standard has about 8 branches four ft long and a mature plane of 250 years age is a very large tree often in excess of 30 m tall with a considerably large crown. in 20 years of tree work i have never seen a suggestion of replacing one tree with sixty trees.

If you want to plant 60 trees to replace every one felled you will soon be turning the street into a woodland in 30 years time, or you continuously remove the excess unitl you are left with one tree. (a complete waste of money) Also im sure there will be plenty of complaints of leaves falling in the garden and honey dew on the car.

maintaining over mature tree stock is expensive and new plantings of more suitable trees will in 20 years have a crown that is the same size as old poorly pollarded lime trees that are often found in cities

many plane trees planted in the last 30 years should also be removed as the prevalence of anthracnose is very high

the aim is to provide a healthy stock of trees that require less maintenance than the current excess of over mature tree stock which is prevalent in many cities due to the lack of maintenance during the edwardian period. the large avenues of lime are good examples, they were never intended to be large trees, but unfortunately due to 2 wars and the great depression trees got forgotten about

In reply to jnymitch:
Thanks for your replies. Some really good points made throughout, there is no right or wrong - it is opinion. The objective of my post is to raise awareness of an issue which important to me amongst a community in which I reside. Ultimately there are people involved in the action groups who are better informed than myself, so for those interested please visit the facebook group for 'Sheffield Tree's Action Groups' which covers all of what has been discussed here and much more. https://www.facebook.com/groups/392913244219104/?fref=ts

Furthermore there is an excellent article written here by Dr Ian Rotherham of the Sheffield Hallam University, entitled '6 Reasons to stop the 'Sheffield Chainsaw Massacre': http://www.shu.ac.uk/stories/index.php/2015/10/28/6-reasons-to-stop-the-she...




At no point is anyone suggesting that there are no trees that need to be felled in the City. What the action group asserts is that the criteria under which the felling program is being conducted is simply not adequate. In particular the latter two D's - 'Damaging' and 'Discriminatory' categories are very vague and the concern is that this is allowing potentially 'expensive' problem trees to be removed when other solutions might be appropriate.

The feeling is that, and it is something which 'danm' and 'toad' have mentioned above also, this is more about Amey protecting their interests before that of the public, i.e. it is a profit driven project. Which opens up a wider discussion then about what the value of maintaining a mature tree over the remaining 20-years of a 25-year contract is vs removing the tree and planting an smaller alternative - clearly Amey are saving money here. But furthermore what is happening with the wood from the trees after they have been felled.

Both these questions were raised at the meeting at the Town Hall with Councillor Fox and a large panel of experts from Amey, the Council, the University and other independent people including arborists. Unfortunately the meeting was a total mess. It was chaired by Cllr Fox, who set a format whereby there was an hour for questions and answers, and in all his wisdom he requested that all the questions from the public (and there were 50+ people attending) came at once, one after the next. As if this wasn't bad enough, there appeared to be little attempt to take minutes of the meeting so that the questions could be answered after all of them had come in, as a result the vast majority of the questions went unanswered. It was clearly a method of diffusing some very well considered and difficult questions from the public and I believe this is because they simply do not have a strategy or a solid set of criteria on which they are making the decisions.




To answer all three points above, no information has been provided about how the surveys have been done. This is the point. The only documentation provided by the council to date is the 6Ds! There have been Freedom of information requests filed by hundreds of members of the public, the council / streets Ahead/ Amey have reached the stage where they are refusing to answer any more FOI's, deeming them ALL to be "vexatious." Finally, regarding the tree protection orders - the groups have called for a moratorium to halt all tree felling until there is a clear city wide tree strategy in place. Again, it is accepted that there are trees that need to come down, but the strategy must be public and must be open to scrutiny.

As I say, for anyone wanting more information about this please see the Sheffield Tree Action Group.

In reply to the thread:
There is considerable cost in planting and considerable cost in maintenance of tree stock, and it is a balance that has to be spread over the life time of the tree stock in the streets. The incorporation into other essential highway maintenance offers value for money and a sound decision in times of austerity and excessive cuts to many services.

Best Practice Guidelines How to assess the suitability of a site for street tree planting and what to do next (Trees for Cities) : at
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&u...

cost of planting a tree (2009) so a bit out of date but still relavant : at
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-7rrdf3

http://www.treecouncil.org.uk

In reply to gethin_allen:

Presumably the tree was there long before she bought the house, right? If she didn't like it, she could have bought somewhere else.

Reminds me of the famous celebrity gardener Alan Titmarsh who bought a holiday house - and then immediately applied for permission to cut down a tree subject to a preservation order because 'it was blocking his view.' See: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/08/juliahartleybrewer

He must really like plants, mustn't he?

To the OP: I don't live in Sheff any more, but you have my support. If the Council and their commercial partners now feel that they're under scrutiny on the issue, that should help.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

" Presumably the tree was there long before she bought the house, right? "

Yes, but if you read my comment you'd know that the problem is that it hasn't been looked after in the 10 years she's been there.
A big tree will grow a lot in 10 years.
You'd also know that we don't want the tree to be cut down only for it to be cut back.

In reply to gethin_allen:

I did read your entire comment.

What kind of tree is it? Trees have a natural size: you can't just 'chop one back' to half its size.

The only regular 'maintenance' done, for example, on the lime trees planted in parts of Sheffield is very minimal, and amounts to the trimming off of new growth low down; other than that, the trees are left alone to do their thing. In those cases: if you don't like the trees, live elsewhere.

In reply to Milnes:


Not really a march is it? It's about 150m from the City Hall to the Town Hall! If there are enough people then the latecomers will probably already be at the town hall.

On the more important topic though - a lot of the tree work is being done in conjunction with the simultaneous campaign to resurface the roads, replace the lamp posts and sort the pavements. In some cases I can see that trees will certainly need removing in order to 'sort the pavements' however I share the concern of the OP that the way this is being done might mean that the decisions are being made on a what is the cheapest short term option rather than what is best for the city to retain its special character.

Alan

In reply to Rob Parsons:
The tree in question has quite obviously been planted by man and has certainly grown far larger than it was ever intended to grow.

I'm not sure what type of tree it is but , I'm quite sure that it shouldn't be allowed to get into a state where big branches fall off into the road every time it gets a bit windy and it interferes with people's houses, and I'm quite sure you could thin it out substantially and have it survive and be healthy.

Otherwise, would you mind not being so judgmental and holier than thou about a situation that you really don't know very much about. If you want to live under a tree that's fine, enjoy yourself. Not everyone will agree with you and in a country with such a massive housing shortage I don't think we can afford to start abandoning houses to the trees.

In reply to Topic:

A comment that was left on the Sheffield Trees Action Group a short while ago which I thought really gets to the core of this topic:

".... the "central government cuts" ruse no longer holds water - the city is facing 50 million of cuts we are told - but Amey have been handed a contract worth £2.2 Billion an estimated £300 million of that to "maintain" trees NOT Fell healthy heritage road side trees - it's all about profit and it needs to be stopped immediately- these trees have seen a dozen recessions - a lot of them were here through the Great Depression- to fell them simply to make it easier for Amey, a global corporation with its main shareholders in Spain, to make short term profits is disgusting, a betrayal of our fore fathers who planted them for every generation that followed and vandalism of trees whose natural life isn't the 30-40 years the council try to say it is but literally hundreds of years."

I agree with the felling of SOME mature trees, SOME that are struggling with disease, SOME that will facilitate infrastructure works.

If the council were open, transparent and forthcoming with details we would not be in the situation were in.

The problem is the reports are not available for scrutiny, no strategy has been formulated, the council has stopped answering 'freedom of information request', they say one thing and do the other with no regard for the public.

On top of this i picked 10 trees in my area marked for felling because of disease, only one showed signs of decline! the others were perfectly healthy with a few decades of useful life left in them.

Im a qualified arborist and trainee inspector btw.

In reply to gethin_allen:


If it's physically damaging the houses, or in obvious danger of doing so, then get it sorted out. However, your original post says:

"... it could do with some serious cutting back because it blocks a lot of light into her property ..."

which is a different matter.


I obviously know no details about the case. 'Holier than thou'? That's up to you I guess.


You have gone off on a tangent: nobody is saying anything like that, so far as I can see.

However I have no desire to derail this thread, so I'll now drop the subject.

In reply to climbingrick:


If that is literally true, then it's a serious matter and you should report the Council to the Information Commissioner's Office - see https://ico.org.uk/concerns/

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Did you decide to ignore the bit I said about the tree damaging the pavement and that bits regularly fall off it into the road?

And the bit about not actually wanting the tree removed entirely because it would change the character of the area?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Yes its true, they can refuse by stating the request is 'vexatious'.

one of the main request was for the inspection reports to be released, all we got back was a felling list and the reason why it is to be felled. ie one of the 6 d's (the 6d's are not recognized by any other council or industry btw)

But as i said in my last post whats on that list can be far from the truth on the ground anyway.

I believe then more request went in again for the actual individual reports and the qualifications of those that undertook the inspection. this is when the vexatious word started been thrown about.

In reply to climbingrick:


That sounds to me something which could and should be referred to the ICO for an adjudication: a 'persistent' claim shouldn't be dismissed as 'vexatious' simply because it suits the purposes of the responding party.

So, if you think you're being fobbed off, appeal: all it should cost you in this case is some time and effort.

Good luck.

In reply to Rob Parsons:



Thanks for the support Rob!
As a taxpayer and a member of the public, Sheffield or not, you, like me, or Rick, we are all being fobbed off! This is a very public issue.

So if you happen to be in Sheffield city centre this coming Saturday 14th November, around 11am do come and join us for a short walk to the steps of the Town Hall and have a listen first hand to Professor Ian Rotherham and Professor Nigel Dunnett speaking. Ian is an expert on a range of environmental issues. Nigel is an expert on creating healthy cities, through design.