Contribute to this website

The revamp of the Stocksbridge Community forum website is (almost) complete. It is now possible for you to contribute comments, events, news and much more. 

You need to register as a user and then simply type! 

Initially, all contributions will be moderated. However, it is possible to become a 'trusted contributor.' Your input will then go live as soon as you have finished typing. 

We are holding three workshops in the New Year when this process will be explained and you will be assisted to become a 'trusted contributor. For further details and to book your place, please send an email which includes your contact details. 



Technotronic's picture


Technotronic's picture

There is a reference missing from the SORT letter (v51). It is Smith (2013), quoted on page 28.

The reference is quite an important one:

Smith, J., 2013. The Barriers and Drivers to Planting and Retaining Urban Trees. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 19 March 2013].

Technotronic's picture


The above link no longer works. This should:

Technotronic's picture

Tiwary, A., Sinnett, D., Peachey, C., Chalabi, Z., Vardoulakis, S., Fletcher, T., Leonardi, G., Grundy, C., Azapagic, A. And Hutchings, T. R. (2009).
An integrated tool to assess the role of new planting in PM10 capture and the human health benefits: A case study in London. Environmental Pollution 157(10), 2645-2653.,5&cluster=141...


“Sources of PM10 (particles with a diameter of less than 10 X 10-6 m) within urban areas of the UK include road traffic, industry and power production. Results from numerous longitudinal investigations of human respiratory and other diseases show consistent statistical associations between human exposure to outdoor levels of PM10 and adverse health impacts. Health effects range from alveolar inflammation and respiratory-tract infection (specifically pneumonia) to acute cardiovascular disorders. These often lead to substantially increased morbidity and mortality, in particular among elderly individuals. The adverse health effects of high ambient PM10 concentrations have resulted in the introduction of air quality standards which are designed to be protective of human health.”

“…When considered in an economic context, the health costs incurred by PM10 pollution in the UK have been estimated to range between £9.1 and 21.4 billion per annum.”

Technotronic's picture

With regard to this research, Sarajev (n.d.) noted “One study of the East London Green Grid (a proposed network of interlinked, multi-purpose and high quality open spaces) estimated that the establishment of 5.5% greenspace (a quarter of this provided by trees) across a single 10 km by 10 km square could avert two deaths and two hospital admissions per year”

Saraev, V., n.d. Health benefits of street trees. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 12 March 2015].

Technotronic's picture


People have noticed newly planted trees dying around the city. In all likelihood that is due to poor plant selection, transportation and planting specification, followed by inadequate aftercare (vandalism could also be added to the list). All such problems (with the exception of vandalism: the "Trees in Towns 2" report has suggestions to minimise vandalism) could be largely avoided by ensuring that such tasks are undertaken in accordance with

British Standard 8545:2014 "Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape – Recommendations".

Well, I've found a link to the standard - in its entirety! It usually costs £218, so DOWNLOAD IT NOW, while it is available in PDF format as a FREE download (no doubt it will get yoinked off the internet shortly):

As stated in one of my previous posts (above) “This British Standard gives recommendations for transplanting young trees successfully from the nursery, through to achieving their eventual independence in the landscape.

This British Standard applies to trees where a distinct crown has been prepared in the nursery. It does not apply to whips*, transplants* and seedlings, or to other woody material.

NOTE Although this standard does not give specific recommendations for other woody material, its provisions can be applied to such material, e.g. to shrubs."

* These are plants that are less than 125cm in height from ground level and are as defined by BS 3936-1:1992 Nursery stock — Part 1: Specification for trees and shrubs.

Excerpts from 8545:2014 (page 1):

"It has been a widely recognized fact that a significant proportion of newly
planted trees fail to survive to maturity. The Trees in towns II report
commissioned by the Department of Communities and Local Government
highlighted that as much as 25% of all planting undertaken in the public
sector actually fails. Although there has not been any comparable survey
undertaken in the private sector, anecdotal evidence indicates that the
failure rates are similar."

"It is difficult to pinpoint the reason why the failure rate of new planting is so
high, but one contributory factor is the present disjointed approach to
production and planting. This standard seeks to define all the parts of the
process as a continuous and joined-up sequence, rather than isolated parts
that have no tangible connections."

"An important objective of this standard is to assist practitioners in making
balanced and informed tree planting decisions. Ideally, all newly planted trees
need to be able to grow with vigour appropriate to the species and situation, in
good health, and with minimal nuisance to achieve the desired planting objectives".

Readers should also note that there is a standard for the specification of topsoil, too: BS 3882:2007 "Specification for topsoil and requirements for use"

By the way, people, Amey should be using these standards. If they are not, you should be asking why not. Although British Standard 8545 is only a few months old, any competent arboriculturist (as previously defined) will have had knowledge of everything contained in this standard long before the idea of having such a standard was even first conceived... I'm talking decades before, as much of the content has been known or been best practice for many years.

Also, around the city centre and along the major roads through the city, you will have noticed advanced nursery stock (sizeable rootballed trees) used for planting. Those planting schemes cost thousands of pounds, yet a number of trees have died or are in poor health. That is because specifications and management have been inadequate. For such schemes, including Sheffield's new "arboretum", landscape architects are usually used to draught the specifications. They are certainly NOT competent arboriculturists.

If you are interested in city planting, you should also take a look at the following document (which I have also previously mentioned), as should Amey (although I understand they were involved in draughting this document), as it represents current best practice:

“Trees in Hard Landscapes: A Guide for Delivery” is freely available to download:

The document clarifies the benefits of planting and deals with the practicalities of preparing for planting trees in the built environment. The document was produced and published (last year: 2014) by the Trees and Design Action Group:

"The Trees and Design Action Group
(TDAG) is a pioneering group
of individuals, professionals and
organisations from both the public
and the private sectors who have come
together to increase awareness of the
role of trees in the built environment
throughout the United Kingdom."

Technotronic's picture


The Woodland Trust's magazine - "Wood Wise" - Spring 2014 issue is now available as a free PDF for download. This season's publication is all about ancient and veteran trees:

Where there is any conflict in guidance or recommendations with that of other publications previously listed (above), the content in this issue of the magazine should be disregarded.

Technotronic's picture

"Wood Wise" - Spring 2014 issue is now available as a free PDF for download: this issue looks at the importance of irreplaceable landscapes, using trees as historical evidence, balancing natural and cultural heritage during restoration projects, and conflicts between trees and archaeology.

Technotronic's picture

Oops! That previous post is about the Winter 2015 issue of "Wood Wise", NOT the Spring 2014 issue. ;)

Technotronic's picture


Planning Practice Guidance Suite:

Somewhere in there must be the code of practice on the need for consultation and publicity to be undertaken on a non-statutory basis by planning authorities in relation to development by statutory undertakers, formerly within Appendix B to Department of the Environment Circular 9/95.

Technotronic's picture


British Standard 8545:2014 Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape – Recommendations...

Excerpts from "Annex A (informative) “Further guidance on policy and strategy”":

“Tree planting and continuing management are rarely without purpose.
A tree strategy, usually produced by the local authority and linked to
the wider strategy and policy framework, addresses the way in which the
established policy objectives will be delivered, taking into account resources,
pressures and environmental opportunities and constraints that will affect delivery.”

“…It guides and informs decisions relating to the authority’s or other body’s own estates and also on other land over which the authority or other body exercises powers or controls, particularly through planning or other formal management systems.”

“…A strategy is typically produced for a defined period of time, and allows for
monitoring and review and for modification where needed to achieve desired

“The management of trees, particularly within urban areas, needs to address
potential conflicts with other land uses or activities, or adaptation to changed
circumstances. Management and maintenance are therefore essential parts of a
tree strategy, and the financial and other resource implications of this need to
be addressed.”

“Tree strategies incorporate provision for adequate financial and other resources to enable
delivery of required levels of management and maintenance over a long-term period or, where possible, in perpetuity. They include reference to the anticipated scope of the management and maintenance inputs needed to deliver the desired objectives.”

“Tree strategies seek to demonstrate good value by including, as far as possible, data on the estimated economic value of and return on investment from trees included in a strategy, with particular reference to ecosystem services and associated direct and indirect benefits.”

“Tree strategies primarily focus on the public estate, owned and managed by the
local authority producing the strategy. However, around 70% of the urban tree
population is owned and managed outside the public arena. It is the whole tree
population, both publicly and privately owned, which delivers the benefits
associated with tree cover and to which new tree planting contributes."

“To maintain a resilient tree population capable of delivering its benefits into the
future, it is important that linkages between the publicly and privately owned
estates are established and maintained. Tree strategies provide a framework for
this to happen and are therefore worthy of consultation before any planned
tree planting is converted to action on the ground.”

“The linkages between the publicly and privately owned tree estate are
beginning to be recognized through the growing understanding and valuation
of ecosystem services and benefits to which trees make a significant
contribution. The i-tree urban forest model, which is being used more
extensively in the UK, evaluates both publicly and privately owned trees, assesses
their combined benefits and enables coordinated policy and strategy

When Cllr Scott was questioned, last summer (2014) about what he was doing to ensure that such a tree strategy document would be produced and "adopted" as a "supplementary planning guidance document" within the Local Development Framework, it was apparent that he was not even aware of Sheffield Council’s “Sheffield’s Great Outdoors: Green and Open Space Strategy 2010-2030″ document, in which the Council committed to producing a “Trees & Woodland Strategy”, which, in all but name, should constitute a Tree Strategy. He commented

“We do not presently have a strategy solely for trees. My view is that this wouldn’t be very helpful given they are an intrinsic part of the broader environment and ecology. However, I am confident that we have adopted very good practice in this area.”. “…In my view, current documents are sufficient.”

I thought I'd just remind you of Cllr Scott's uninformed opinion (above) on the importance of and necessity for a tree strategy, since he has had plenty of opportunity to get one draughted and adopted. Remember, he made these comments as Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene. This was after multiple attempts to educate him as to the importance of and necessity for a tree strategy had been made. He probably didn't even to look at the documents presented to him - there is no evidence that he did, given his comments.

Reference (you will find this blog to be of particular interest):

Technotronic's picture


Extracts from the Forestry Commission, 2011. The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.

"Since the 1992 summit*1, the international community has
continued to make progress in developing and co-ordinating
international forest policy, notably in defining the principles
and criteria of sustainable forest management. The UK
FORESTRY STANDARD (UKFS) determines how these criteria are
applied in the UK."

"Sustainable forest management is

‘the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in
a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity,
productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their
potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant
ecological, economic and social functions, at local,
national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to
other ecosystems’. (MCPFE*2, 1993, see Appendix 1)"

*1: the UN Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio ‘Earth Summit’): Agenda 21 set out a worldwide programme for sustainable development – a concept defined by the Brundtland Commission in its 1987 report "Our Common Future":

Sustainable development is

"development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs".

*2: A pan-European governmental process called the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe MCPFE), set up in 1990, now known as "FOREST EUROPE".

UK Woodland Assurance Standard certification - promoted by the Forestry Commission - is accepted as evidence of compliance with the UK Forestry Standard and relevant EU Directives (which, by the way, must be adhered to by applicants to the Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme).

Technotronic's picture


Examples of Tree Strategy documents that have been "adopted" as supplementary planning guidance by the councils for whom they were prepared (other cities have them too):


Technotronic's picture

An extract from the "Trees in Towns 2:a new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management" report (2008),
commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to "help shape central and local government policy on urban trees" (Britt, et al., 2008, p. 477) and "encourage the LAs [Local Authorities] to develop higher standards of management in order to deliver a more efficient and effective tree programme for their communities" (Britt, et al., 2008, p. 406).

“Although concerns about public safety will always restrict the numbers of mature and overmature trees along roads and highways, policies for routine removal of all large trees during the early phases of maturity and their replacement with smaller, ‘safer’ alternatives should be challenged.

The importance of mature and ancient trees in urban areas is undeniable and local authorities responsible for their management must balance public safety against their responsibilities for protecting and enhancing the environment. Decisions should be based on reasonable and realistic risk assessments, with the initial presumption being for protection of the tree, rather than removal.”

(Britt, Johnston, et al., 2008, pp. 89-90)

Technotronic's picture

"As many impartial decisions are taken on public assets with regard to their value,
retention or replacement, LAs must approach the retention or replacement of trees with
the same open-minded approach. This is why the difference between LAs proactive or
reactive policies on tree removals must be stated and presented as the proof needed to
move forward in this area."

(Britt, Johnston, et al., 2008, p. 230)

Technotronic's picture


EXTRACTS: From Alcamo, J., Ash, N., Butler, C. & Callicott, J., et al., (2009). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment, London: Island Press.

“Human well-being and progress toward sustainable development are vitally dependent upon improving the management of Earth’s ecosystems to ensure their conservation and sustainable use. But while demands for ecosystem services such as food and clean water are growing, human actions are at the same time diminishing the capability of many ecosystems to meet these demands. SOUND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT INTERVENTIONS CAN OFTEN REVERSE ECOSYSTEM DEGRADATION AND ENHANCE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ECOSYSTEMS TO HUMAN WELL-BEING, but knowing when and how to intervene requires substantial understanding of both the ecological and the social systems involved. BETTER INFORMATION CANNOT GUARANTEE IMPROVED DECISIONS, BUT IT IS A PREREQUISITE FOR SOUND DECISION-MAKING”.

…“The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) will help provide the knowledge base for improved decisions and will build capacity for analyzing and supplying this information. This document presents the conceptual and methodological approach that the MA will use to assess options that can enhance the contribution of ecosystems to human well-being. This same approach SHOULD PROVIDE A SUITABLE BASIS FOR GOVERNMENTS, THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND CIVIL SOCIETY TO FACTOR CONSIDERATIONS OF ECOSYSTEMS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES INTO THEIR OWN PLANNING AND ACTIONS”.
(Alcamo, et al., 2009, p. 1)

You may also find the MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT (published June 2011) of interest. You can download individual chapters of the report and access the latest news via the following link:

(Chapter 10 "Urban" is of particular relevance with regard to recognition and acknowledgement of the value of street trees; see Chapter 8, too: "Woodlands").

Technotronic's picture

Oops, the year of publication for Alcamo et al was 2003, NOT 2009. Sorry.

Alcamo, J., Ash, N., Butler, C. & Callicott, J., et al., (2003). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment, London: Island Press.

Technotronic's picture


Technotronic's picture


Technotronic's picture

An extract from "Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services", published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA):

"Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets

At the NAGOYA UN BIODIVERSITY SUMMIT in October 2010, 192 countries and the European Union agreed to
an ambitious conservation plan to protect global biodiversity. This new ‘Strategic Plan’ provides a flexible
framework for all 193 Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity to drive action on biodiversity by
all Parties. It established a new global vision for biodiversity – a world of “living in harmony with nature”

• ‘By 2050, biodiversity is VALUED, conserved, restored and wisely used, MAINTAINING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.’
Parties also agreed a shorter term ambition to:

• ‘ TAKE EFFECTIVE AND URGENT ACTION to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to ensure that by 2020
ecosystems are resilient and continue to provide essential services, thereby securing the planet‘s variety
of life, and contributing to human wellbeing, and poverty eradication..‘

To deliver this ambition, Parties agreed on a set of strategic goals and targets (THE ‘AICHI’ TARGETS) to drive
action on biodiversity. These are set out in Annex B."

Technotronic's picture

Deepa: C U Mon. ;)

Technotronic's picture

Sorry you couldn't make it. Good luck. I'm no longer at the forum.

Technotronic's picture

BTW, The above is not a reference to this forum. ;)

Technotronic's picture


5-6 June, Westonbirt Arboretum, Gloucestershire.

Organisers - the Arboricultural Association - promise the following attractions:

•Discounted entrance to the Westonbirt National Arboretum (£4.50)
•New arena style demonstrations from show sponsor, STIHL
•Discounted entry to the Show for the Friends of Westonbirt and arboretum visitors
•New family attractions – recreational tree climbing, axe racing, throw bag competitions
•New catering and camping facilities

Continuing from previous years, further attractions will be:
•3ATC Climbing Competition
•Hands-on demonstrations
•Ancient Tree Forum
•New kit, services and products from all the main arboricultural suppliers

Adult – £9.00
Student/un-waged – £4.50
(MUST show SU card or UB40)

Children under 14 – FREE
Two-day ticket at the gate – £13.50
(Friday and Saturday)

Group ticket rate – £4.50 per person
(Ten or more – ONLY with advance booking before 4 May 2015)

Camping, BBQ and live band – Friday night
(At the Holford Arms, just 2 miles down the road. £5.00 per person for ARB Show visitors on Friday night ONLY. Contact 01454 238669,/b> to book your pitch)

This event is primarily organised for those involved in tree work, but is open to all. Many people take their families. There are stalls selling clothing, tools and equipment. You usually see competitions such as climbing; rip saw; chainsaw carving & various axe disciplines. In addition, there are usually woodland crafts demonstrations, such as basket weaving, green wood turning and whittling.

Technotronic's picture



Technotronic's picture


Action for Woods and Trees

Just a quick reminder: this event starts this Friday afternoon (15th May), with lectures on Saturday 16th May. The event will be at St Mary's Community Centre, Bramall Lane, Sheffield.

See the "News" section for further details.

Technotronic's picture


Just a quick reminder to everyone, there is already a well established method for citizens to make a positive contribution and bring about change for the better; it involves the establishment of local Tree Warden Groups. In the UK, this is usually done through the Tree Council (“the UK’s lead charity for trees”). However, in theory, a Tree Warden does not have to be affiliated to any organisation, nor set up or belong to a group.

Sheffield must be the only large city in the UK without a single tree warden in any area of the city!
Why not become a voluntary Tree Warden? As such, you may help in the following ways (& possibly others too, depending on how cooperative the local authority is):

identify trees worthy of protection;

identify hazards, pests and diseases;

help with plant selection, planting and establishment;

protect and care for trees in your local neighbourhood by helping the local authority to monitor tree works, so as to ensure compliance with policies and best practice guidance and recommendations (including British Standards 8545 (2014), 5837 (2012) & 3998 (2010)).

Here is a little introduction to the Tree Council's Tree Warden scheme, from the The Ancient Tree Hunt website:

“The Tree Warden Scheme is a national initiative to enable people to play an active role in conserving and enhancing their local trees and woods. The scheme was founded by the Tree Council in September 1990.”

“Tree Wardens are volunteers, appointed by parish councils and community organisations, who gather information about their local trees, get involved in local tree matters and encourage local practical projects – such as the Ancient Tree Hunt.”

“The Tree Council has worked with Local Authorities to set up Tree Warden Networks throughout the UK. There are currently over 7,000 Tree Wardens.”

The Tree Council provide the following contact details for the Tree Warden Coordinator for South Yorkshire (based in Sheffield):

Contact: Fran Hill
Telephone: 0114 273 5030

Certainly, a few years back there wasn’t even a coordinator, so I guess this is a relatively new appointment. Fran was Countryside Manager in the Planning Division of the Directorate of Planning at the Town Hall (I’m not sure whether or not that is still the case). Fran is currently listed as one of the contacts for the Sheffield Landscape Trust.

The “Sheffield Landscape Trust is a partnership between Sheffield City Council Countryside Planning, Sheffield Countryside Conservation Trust, North Sheffield Conservation Group, Steel Valley Project and Shire Brook Valley Conservation Group (see separate entries). They work with local communities and schools to improve the environment for people and wildlife. They develop new footpaths, cycle routes and green wildlife corridor links between communities and the wider countryside.”

“The trust provides volunteering opportunities at Wood Lane Countryside Centre (see separate entry) and carries out environmental education, arts activities and skills training for volunteers. ”

Wood Lane Countryside Centre,
Wood Lane,
S6 5HE.

Disabled Access Details: Wheelchair Accessible; Wheelchair Accessible Toilet;
Further Access Details: Lift to 1st floor rooms
Days and Times: Monday-Friday 8am-6pm


I’m sure that there use to be a Tree Warden “tool kit” available via the Tree Council’s website for all to access without registering.
Things appear to have changed. However, it is easy to find information online. The freely available publications on the Tree Council’s website are a bit naff anyway. Although you can pay for their better stuff, and support their mission in doing so, there is a wealth of freely available high quality educational material elsewhere online. See the next post.

Technotronic's picture

News has just reached me that Fran Hill is no longer the Tree Warden Coordinator for South Yorkshire, although Fran was listed as such by the Tree Council as recently as 16/3/2015. The organisers of the "ACTION FOR WOODS AND TREES" event (which takes place today and tomorrow) hope to appoint a new coordinator, or at least put a Tree Warden Group or two together.

Technotronic's picture


The only real action to “protect” and care for trees, and influence arboricultural management decisions that was suggested during those parts of the event that I attended (the free parts - not the lectures that took place yesterday morning) took the form of an invitation to all people with an interest in such things to complete an "AfWT Day Tree Pledge Sheet" (Action for Woods & Trees), with a view to forming a network of like-minded people that could organise and take action. The hope is that people will be willing to become a tree warden, whether that be for just their own street, block, or an entire neighbourhood.

There was no guidance or recommendation as to what a pledge is expected to be, or should be, or how it would be used. I guess that is of little importance, anyway. You can download a "AfWT Day Tree Pledge Sheet" and find out more on Professor Ian Rotherham’s* blog (see this month’s post “Take the Pledge for Sheffield’s Trees”), using the following link:

* Ian works at Sheffield Hallam University and is the guy that has a column ("Wild side") in Sheffield's newspaper "The Star".

Technotronic's picture


For any local authority (LA) with severe resource limitations, community involvement could and should constitute an important and necessary component of any solution that aims to help ensure the LA can meet its policy commitments and statutory duties, particularly with regard to the Section 197 duty (see the initial posting). However, for community involvement to have any meaningful and significant positive impact, in this respect, it is necessary for Tree Wardens to have received some basic education and training, otherwise any resource commitment by, or financial “gain” to the LA is lost as a result of incompetence. Therein lies the problem; most LA managers are unwilling to make the necessary initial resource commitments, not least because they lack any previous education, knowledge, training or experience of working with the voluntary sector (i.e. community involvement).

The initiation and development of local Tree Warden groups is one of the suggestions supported by the authors of the “Trees in Towns 2″ report commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government, published back in 2008. Although some provision of initial education and training is essential, it is certainly nowhere near as costly to an LA as employing professionals to do the work – work which is required by law.

Some benefits to an LA of partnership with a Tree Warden group are detailed below…

1) As a charitable body or community group, independent of the Local Authority (but working in partnership with it), a Tree Warden group can attract funding from sources not available to the LA, which could be used to fund education and training.

2) Trained and competent voluntary Tree Wardens (approved by the LA, or some other competent authority with recognised expertise in arboriculture) can recognise poor/good quality workmanship and are not barred from making such recommendations or criticism as they see fit, unlike LAs.

3) The recommendations or criticism of trained and competent voluntary Tree Wardens will incentivise contractors to raise their standards, as they will not want themselves or their businesses to be identified with sub-standard works.

4) The LA cannot be held responsible for the opinions or decisions of an independent charitable body or community group, so cannot justifiably be accused of conferring unfair business advantage on one business over another.

5) A Tree Warden scheme could attract funding for its own website and online forum, where high definition digital photographs of completed works to and around trees, as examples of good and bad practice, could be displayed. This would enable both contractors and those wishing to commission works to or around trees to identify best practice and avoid sub-standard (harmful) works.*

6) A Tree Warden group would be a vital component in the development and implementation of any LA Tree Strategy (which includes helping ensure LAs meet their statutory duties).

7 ) A Tree Warden group would encourage greater public appreciation of trees and the range of ecosystem services they afford, thereby reducing the likelihood of harm to trees.

The above list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of benefits, but it does serve to highlight many of the ways in which a Tree Warden group can be useful to a LA. Any volunteers need to be aware of these benefits, as the LA may not be. Any LA that is not aware of such benefits may dismiss any suggestion of involvement with a voluntary Tree Warden group, just out of ignorance.

*Perhaps, the LA could set aside web-space? Digital images could be sorted in to folders for each of the different tree work operations that are most commonly specified, authorised and commissioned (see BS 3998). Sub folders could be used for further categorisation. For each image, the date of works, date of photography and the business name of the contractor/s that undertook the work should be provided. Ideally, the address of the works should also be provided, for verification purposes (for viewing, this could be replaced by a reference code, with the address then held on a secure registry by the LA or Tree Warden group). Such images should not be deleted over time, but archived. The inclusion of such details gives viewers the option to notice whether contractors have improved over time or not (further statistical analyses could also be provided). Contractors could be encouraged to donate their own images, but they would need verification. In my opinion, the collection of images is, perhaps, best left to approved Tree Wardens.

Technotronic's picture


With regard to getting involved, it is strongly recommended that those interested in being involved view the publication by Elmendorf (2008 ), using the link previously provided, as well as the following publication:

Arnstein, S. R., (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), p. 216-224.

According to Dr Johnston MBE - one of the main authors of the Trees in Towns 2 report - it was his intention that Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation should be at the core of any LA tree strategy document: he simplified the stages on the ladder to: 1) Education; 2) Consultation; 3) Participation.

Technotronic's picture

Deepa, if you are at tomorrow's event, bring your letter and carry the mustard/wear something in your hair (like a twig/flower) so I recognise you. ;) I guess the talk about setting up a tree warden group will be tomorrow?

Technotronic's picture

Deepa: I may post a response to your letter here, rather than e-mail, as the info' may benefit others. ;)

Technotronic's picture

ACTION FOR WOODS AND TREES: Initial impressions after attending both days, but not the formal lectures on the second day (Saturday)

On both occasions, the audience appeared to consist largely (perhaps >2/3) of professional academics (there to give presentations in order to publicise their individual research projects and gain support), their students (many from overseas), and a small number of representatives of community projects, there to share their experience. There appeared to be relatively few “normal” everyday people that attended just to find out more about trees and discover how they could make a difference.

Without any representative from Amey, or any Local Authority representative responsible for the draughting or supervision of Amey’s contract, and without any representative from the Local Authority Planning department, those wishing to discover ways in which they could participate in the decision making process for and during implementation of Amey’s contract were left without any answers.

The works to street trees and the ways in which citizens could influence decisions about such works were not addressed. However, the head of the Local Authority Parks Woodlands & Countryside department – which has nothing to do with Amey, or the management of highway trees - did attend. He advised that Amey’s plan was to tackle the city in a “pepper-pot” manner (do patches here and there, completing their tasks that way) rather than complete works in one area, then move on to an adjacent area. He said that whenever Amey is carrying out works in an area, Amey appoint an Area Warden for that area, to liaise with citizens and address their concerns; he said that if residents were unhappy about tree works or scheduled felling, then it was up to the citizens to present a strong enough case to persuade Amey to tackle the work in an alternative way. He assured all present that he would do his best to ensure that contact details for Amey are made available to the public, so that citizens can contact knowledgeable staff that are able to answer questions and address concerns.

The main thrust of the event (excluding the formal lectures on Saturday morning, for which a small fee was payable) appeared to concentrate almost exclusively on the identification, acknowledgement and importance of ancient trees and woodlands and their features, with particular emphasis on recognition of their “cultural heritage" and value. Most, if not all, of the research opportunities presented related to this rather specialist area of study and care. The campaign to get ancient trees recognised and protected as “scheduled” green monuments was mentioned (currently, there is no such form of “protection”). It should be noted that cultural heritage is just one of a multitude of values that should be considered during tree or woodland valuation – whether that be amenity value or monetary value. Some students presented proposals to create a green corridor around the whole city, centred on and running the full length of a ring road that would be user friendly for all users of the highway.

It was nice to see the head of the Local Authority Parks Woodlands & Countryside department made an effort to engage with people, but the cynic in me thinks that his presence was just a ploy by the Local Authority to distract people from thoughts and questions about the Amey contract. The Parks Woodlands & Countryside department is the most competent and customer friendly face of Local Authority tree care in Sheffield – they generally do things right and well, and have extensive experience of working with communities, as opposed to the Highways or Planning departments, of which the same cannot be said (which also happens to be why they fail to engage with communities in an adequate and appropriate manner – they lack the experience and knowhow, and, no doubt, lack the resources too).

The head of the Parks Woodlands & Countryside department mentioned that his department has planted 50,000 trees and has massive problems with Muntjac deer (damaging trees and preventing natural regeneration), dog fouling (particularly linked to an increase in the number of professional dog walkers) and fly tipping in woodlands (I think he said the latter cost the department £15,000 last year).

During those parts of the event that I attended, international, national and local policies, commitments and legislation went largely unmentioned - most were not mentioned. Given that legislation and international agreements drive policy, which drives practice, I felt that leaving such key points unmentioned was unforgivable. It is by considering these commitments and duties that the correct level of necessary resource commitment can be determined and it is against these commitments and duties that stakeholders can be held accountable for their acts and omissions. Ideally, these commitments and duties would be highlighted in a Tree Strategy document.

Technotronic's picture


It is probably worth mentioning that the second day (Saturday) of the event also coincided with two other major community events in Sheffield town centre: the march against austerity and cuts (with the Green Party’s Natalie Bennett) and the “One Sheffield Many Cultures Festival”. The latter started at noon, commenced by the Lord Mayor, and involved nine high schools, so I’m told. Perhaps it would have been better to have the Action for Woods & Trees event over a weekend and when other major events were not scheduled. However, I'm not sure that the venue could have accommodated many more people inside.

Technotronic's picture

TREE PLANTING: Toward Better Ways of Accommodating Trees in the Built Environment

Sweden at the cutting edge of innovation...

See the "Planting Beds in the City of Stockholm Handbook"(2009):;_ylu=X3oDMTE0MmJ...

If the above link doesn't work, copy and paste "2009_100322 GH_HB STHLM - Engelsk version" in to a search engine, such as "Yahoo".

Also, see the following presentation: "The Stockholm Solution - Ten Years of Experience of Urban Tree Planning and Management Combined with Local Storm Water Management":

Technotronic's picture


Between 8:54 pm and 9:00pm, on 2/6/2015, Lord Flamlingham (Conservative) highlighted the importance of trees in the urban landscape, and the important role of the Woodland Trust and the Trees & Design Action Group (TDAG) in championing the planting and care of trees. Furthermore, he highlighted the importance of a range of ecosystem goods and services that urban trees provide. He highlighted the importance of i-Tree software, mentioning that it was being used in London, for valuation of those goods and services, and called for the creation of a new ministerial position: “MINISTER FOR TREES”!!!

Technotronic's picture


Lord Framlingham Conservative 8:54 pm, 2nd June 2015

My Lords, I want to speak about a subject that is not specifically mentioned in the Queen’s Speech but is very relevant to large parts of it: trees, particularly urban trees.

Trees give us their grace and beauty. They improve our air quality, particularly in inner cities, by taking in our carbon dioxide and giving us back their oxygen. They give us shelter and shade, act as barriers to noise and dust, resist flooding, cool our cities and even help to calm traffic. In short, they massively improve the quality of our lives. Whether in building new housing developments, large or small, giving Battersea power station a new lease of life, or massive projects such as HS2 and the huge environmental impact that they are bound to have, it is vital that protecting existing trees and the careful selection, planting and establishment of new ones is given the highest possible priority.

In all this, the Government will not be short of advice and pressure. The Woodland Trust is determined not just to plant new woodlands but to protect old and particularly ancient woodlands from threats posed by schemes such as HS2. The Trees and Design Action Group, TDAG, is a charity embracing a host of organisations and companies interested and qualified in the planting and care of trees in the urban landscape. The Natural Capital Committee advises the Government on large-scale projects and the national macroeconomic benefits derived from trees. The Arboricultural Association has in its members a wealth of knowledge about the practical aspects of planting and caring for trees and is often the first to spot the signs of disease. The Forestry Commission has now to wear many more hats than that of pure forestry. Just a few days ago, at a London tree awards ceremony, I heard an excellent presentation by its director, Ian Gambles, on the London i-Tree eco project. Time does not permit me to elaborate, but this is the largest tree survey of its kind in the world and is expected to have a transformational impact on how London’s urban forest is recognised and managed.

This brings me to the question of which Minister has responsibility for urban trees. In answer to a Parliamentary Question that I put down earlier this year I was told that:

“No single Government department is responsible for the planting of trees in the urban environment”.

I believe that the time has come to draw all these threads together and consider having an individual Minister responsible for urban trees.

I want to say a word about biosecurity and quarantine, as was touched on briefly by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. The ravages of Dutch elm disease, imported on logs from Canada in the 1960s, robbed us of all our great elm trees. Ash dieback is now threatening to have the same terrible effect, with diseased imported trees again involved and no remedy in sight except the depressing policy of “managed decline”. We have other problems of foreign origin threatening our native trees, such as the oak processionary moth. A disease of plane trees is now rampant in France. I invite you to imagine London, its streets, squares and parks, without its London plane trees. Box blight, of South American origin, is causing the ripping apart of some of our most famous gardens and has now been found in our woodlands. In southern Italy, a bacterial disease that hails from the Americas is sweeping through thousands of acres of olives.

Modern trading in and transporting of plants has made the threat to our trees frightening. There are two things that we can and must do. First, we must grow more of what we can grow. Secondly, and more importantly, we must put in place with the utmost urgency a strict quarantine regime that will prevent plants being imported and immediately sold, scattered and planted all over the country. In answer to another Parliamentary Question that I put down last July I was told by Defra that the number of plants, bare root and container, imported into the UK in 2012-13 was 2.5 million. By 2013-14—that is the planting season—this had risen to 3 million, an increase of half a million trees and plants. Unlike our European neighbours, where most of our imported trees come from, we are an island, with all the biosecurity advantages that that gives us. We should use them to the full. I acknowledge that there are some existing rules and regulations, but they are far from watertight. We must have a sensible quarantine system in place without delay. We do not have to devise it from scratch: some nurseries are already implementing their own. Allied to this, we must have rigidly enforced traceability so that any infected plants can rapidly be tracked down and destroyed.

I acknowledge that the nation’s tree budget is not in the same league as defence, the NHS or education, but it must be substantial and it must be enough. It seems inevitable that, as our country grows, growth now is everything: we must build, build, build. But if we want to keep the heart of our country for future generations and keep the hearts of our towns and cities, we must have the wisdom, the foresight and the funding to plant, plant, plant: to plant our trees and, having planted, care for them.


Technotronic's picture

(A Vital Component of Green Infrastructure)

A letter to Lord Framlingham (edited):

3rd June 2015

Dear Lord Framlingham,

I very much liked your speech in the Queen's Speech Debate,…
…as you are such a strong advocate of a responsible and sustainable, planned, systematic and integrated approach to arboriculture and urban forestry, I wish to take this opportunity to invite you to sign the petition to "save " trees from felling in Sheffield (on Rustlings Rd). This may seem like a rather inconsequential matter, given that the trees are highway trees and the Highways Act (1980) does permit the Highways Authority - in this case the Local Authority (LA)- to take such action as they believe to be necessary. However, in this respect, our street trees are vulnerable to unnecessary removal as a result of inappropriate policies, works specifications, practices and on-site supervision and enforcement.

Your speech highlighted the value of a range of ecosystem goods and services that trees afford to the built environment and its inhabitants. In Sheffield, these goods and services have not been valued using any recognised and accepted methodology, such as i-Tree. Sheffield is England’s third largest metropolitan authority, yet the Local Authority has failed to "adopt" a tree strategy as Council policy, as was recommended in the Trees in Towns II report (2008), commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister - the Government department responsible for the urban environment and sustainable development of England’s towns and cities.

The Trees in Towns II report was intended to "help shape central and local government policy on urban trees" and "encourage the LAs to develop higher standards of management in order to deliver a more efficient and effective tree programme for their communities". To this end, the report advised "Those LAs that have not got an existing tree strategy and are not in the process of developing one, need to make this an immediate priority...", stating "...the existence of a relevant [tree] strategy document is the most significant indicator of a planned approach to management..." and that “A comprehensive tree strategy is the starting point for a modern, planned approach to tree management." Sheffield City Council have failed to "adopt" such a tree strategy, and despite requests from the public to see, at least, a strategy for street trees, one has yet to be made available to them. It would appear that no strategy of any kind for trees has been commissioned or produced, least of all "adopted" as Council policy.

Without, at least, a strategy for street trees (integrated and embedded into the LA’s Local Plan and other relevant policies, as recommended by the aforementioned report), to temper a risk-averse outlook and guide and inform decisions, with "policies that allow decision making to be transparent and consistent” (with clear indication of how these management decisions are taken and by whom), and which allows for the monitoring, review and modification of policies and practice/s, a planned, systematic and integrated approach for the sustainable management of the Sheffield's publicly owned tree stock is not evident. Furthermore, it leaves Sheffield's publicly owned tree stock vulnerable to harm or destruction as a result of negligent or reckless acts or omissions. These can include the adoption and implementation of inappropriate, inadequate, harmful or damaging policies, works specifications and practices: ones which may not be subject to review and revision at appropriate intervals, with community involvement (as appears to be the case in Sheffield). The Trees in Towns II report made it clear that the community should be involved in any strategy and stated "...regular monitoring of the strategy’s progress should be undertaken and the whole document revised every five years."

In 2012, the private sector business "Amey" was awarded a 25 year LA PFI contract, worth £2.2 bn. The Local Authority claim this to be the largest PFI contract in Europe. The contract with Sheffield City Council is to provide highway maintenance throughout the city. That includes maintenance of the tree population along highways (~36,000 street trees). Currently, Amey are working to an LA highways engineering specification that - according to Amey's Account Director and Operations Manager (Mr Darren Butt) - requires any tree causing disruption to the pavement (including minor disruption) or kerb to be removed. …I can say with high certainty that the majority of Sheffield's large-crowned street trees are causing such damage.

…I fear that Sheffield's publicly owned tree stock is not being managed in a responsible and sustainable manner, and that there is clear and present danger of unnecessary, significant, city-wide damage and destruction to this vital component of green infrastructure within the urban forest. The loss of so many large-crowned trees significantly diminishes the value and magnitude of benefits afforded by trees to the built environment and its inhabitants, by way of ecosystem goods and services.

Irreversible damage is imminent, with felling on Rustlings Rd scheduled to take place on 8th June, 2015. It would be very much appreciated by the 1,388 citizens of Sheffield that have signed the petition (to date) to "Save the 12 Trees on Rustlings Road, Sheffield" if you would kindly add your name to the online petition, too, using one of the following links:

News update:

The Trees in Towns II report:

Technotronic's picture

Lord Framlingham didn’t waste any time in responding to the above request. A hand written response was received today (5th June 2015), dated 4th June 2015. Lord Framlingham has sent a note to every M.P. in Sheffield to make sure they understand the importance of this petition.

Really, there is a principle at stake here, which is much greater than “saving” a few trees on Rustlings Rd. A city deserves policies, specifications and practices that promote, accommodate and enhance green infrastructure and ensure that it is managed in a responsible and SUSTAINABLE way, as required by international policy commitments, European and national legislation, a range of national and local policies, and a range of current arboricultural best practice guidance and recommendations (mentioned previously). That requires the adoption of a tree strategy, as recommended in the aforementioned Trees in Towns II report.

Technotronic's picture

"Chartered arboriculturist Adam Winson
spoke out as the campaign to save 12 trees on Rustlings Road, which runs alongside Endcliffe Park, rages on with them due to be removed this week. ...But Mr Winson, whose company has worked with Amey on tree management in the past, said new policies meant trees moving kerbs out of line, or those considered as having ‘outgrown their location’ will be felled. He added: “Under this new criteria, up to half of Sheffield’s street trees could face the chop; a potential chainsaw massacre."

He's not the only one to have said that either! ;)

From my slightly more informed position, I would put the figure higher than 50% for trees with crowns of medium and large size. These are the very trees which provide the most benefit to the environment and its inhabitants. The council should be looking to retain as many of these trees as is reasonably practicable to do so, in accordance with the UK Forestry Standard. There should be a "continuous cover " approach to urban forest management. The size, shape and distribution of canopy cover, at street, neighbourhood and city-wide levels has significant impact on the magnitude and value of ecosystem goods and services to the built environment and its inhabitants. Those of you that require proof of this are advised to consult the references provided in on this forum, and references therein.

It is worth remembering that the UK Government has a European commitment toward responsible management of the environment, based on the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE!

See European directive 2001/42/EC, available online as a free PDF document:

Technotronic's picture


From "DIRECTIVE 2001/42/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 June 2001: on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment"

"Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular Article 175(1) thereof,...

...(1) Article 174 of the Treaty provides that Community
policy on the environment is to contribute to, inter alia,
the preservation, protection and improvement of the
quality of the environment, the protection of human
health and the prudent and rational utilisation of natural
resources and that it is to be based on the precautionary
principle. Article 6 of the Treaty provides that environmental
protection requirements are to be integrated into
the definition of Community policies and activities, in
particular with a view to promoting sustainable development."

Technotronic's picture


“Taking action now to avoid possible environmental damage when the scientific evidence is inconclusive yet the potential damage could be great.”


Technotronic's picture


"The Precautionary Principle and Approach

1. Introduction

The Precautionary Principle is one of the key elements for policy decisions concerning environmental protection and management. It is applied in the circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for concern that an activity is, or could, cause harm but where there is uncertainty about the probability of the risk and the degree of harm.

The Precautionary Principle has been endorsed internationally on many occasions. At the Earth Summit meeting at Rio in 1992, World leaders agreed Agenda 21, which advocated the widespread application of the Precautionary Principle in the following terms:

'In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.' (Principle 15)"

Accessed 16/6/2015

Technotronic's picture



On the initial page of this thread, I set out the relevant sections of the Highways Act, as regard trees. For clarity, they are reproduced again, below:

SECTION 41 of the Highways Act 1980, henceforth referred to as “the Act”, places a duty on highway authorities to maintain the highway. It is interesting to note that Barrister Charles Mynors (arguably the foremost authority on Law with regard to trees in England) noted in his book, The Law of Trees, Forests and Hedgerows (2002), that failure to inspect and maintain highway trees, or remove defective ones, is “not likely” to constitute a neglect of this duty.

With regard to trees “planted” (as opposed to naturally arisen) or “laid out” in the verge, SECTION 96 of the Act states that no tree will be allowed to remain, “in such a situation as to hinder the reasonable use of the highway by any person entitled to use it, or so as to be a nuisance or injurious to the owner or occupier of premises adjacent to the highway”. Although most trees have potential to cause injury or damage, a thorough assessment of tree condition is required to inform any risk assessment and determine what action is necessary to reduce the likelihood of injury or damage to an acceptable level, if any.

SECTION 130 of the Act states:
“…it is the duty of a council who are a highway authority to prevent, as far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of—
(a) the highways for which they are the highway authority, and
(b) any highway for which they are not the highway authority, if, in their opinion, the stopping up or obstruction of that highway would be prejudicial to the interests of their area”.

“141 Restriction on planting of trees etc. in or near carriageway.
(1) Subject to sections 64 and 96 above and section 142 below, no tree or shrub shall be planted in a made-up carriageway, or within 15 feet from the centre of a made-up carriageway.
(2) If a tree or shrub is planted in contravention of this section the highway authority for the highway or, in the case of a highway maintainable by reason of tenure, enclosure or prescription, the person liable to maintain the highway, may by notice given either to the owner or to the occupier of the land in which the tree or shrub is planted require him to remove it within 21 days from the date of service of the notice.

(3) If a person fails to comply with a notice under subsection (2) above he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1 level 1 on the standard scale] and if the offence is continued after conviction he is guilty of a further offence and liable to a fine not exceeding 50p for each day on which the offence is so continued."
F1 = Words substituted by virtue of Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1), s. 46

SECTION 150 of the Act places a duty on the highway authority to remove obstructions from the highway. Only one of the trees on Rustlings Rd can reasonably be classed as an obstruction (at the upstream end of the road, on the left, near the last house), as the main stem actually leans out over that part of the part of the road used by vehicles. There are engineering solutions to pavement damage and kerb displacement that could permit the safe retention of many existing trees.

SECTION 154 of the Act makes the following provisions:

“(1) Where a hedge, tree or shrub overhangs a highway or any other road or footpath to which the public has access so as to endanger or obstruct the passage of vehicles or pedestrians, or obstructs or interferes with the view of drivers of vehicles or the light from a public lamp, or overhangs a highway so as to endanger or obstruct the passage of horse-riders, a competent authority may, by notice either to the owner of the hedge, tree or shrub or to the occupier of the land on which it is growing, require him within 14 days from the date of service of the notice so to lop or cut it as to remove the cause of the danger, obstruction or interference”.

“(2) Where it appears to a competent authority for any highway, or for any other road or footpath to which the public has access—
(a) that any hedge, tree or shrub is dead, diseased, damaged or insecurely rooted, and
(b) that by reason of its condition it, or part of it, is likely to cause danger by falling on the highway, road or footpath, the authority may, by notice either to the owner of the hedge, tree or shrub or to the occupier of the land on which it is situated, require him within 14 days from the date of service of the notice so to cut or fell it as to remove the likelihood of danger”.
“…Subject to any order made on appeal, if a person on whom a notice is served under subsection (1) or (2) above fails to comply with it within the period specified in those subsections, the authority who served the notice may carry out the work required by the notice and recover the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing from the person in default”.

On a final note, taxpayers may rightly question whether it is appropriate and in the public interest to have the same private contractor inspecting trees and making recommendations for works as well as draughting specifications for works and undertaking the works. There is clearly a conflict of interest in such a scenario and it is clearly sensible, with regard to trees maintained at public expense, for inspections and recommendations to be undertaken by a party independent of that responsible for undertaking recommended works, particularly where the primary objective of one or more parties is to maximise financial reward.


The Highways Act, as well as other Acts of parliament and various statutory instruments, can be viewed free of charge, online, at:

Technotronic's picture


Again, these have been mentioned on the previous page, but, given the media interest in Council/Amey acts/omissions with regard to management/mismanagement of the street tree resource (a vital component of green infrastructure and a major component of the urban forest), it is worth highlighting these duties again.


See European directive 2001/42/EC, available online as a free PDF document:

Local Authorities (LA's) have a duty to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in exercising their functions, under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006 (DEFRA 2007). The duty under NERC also applies to ALL STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS (including those responsible for highways), and the same duty is placed on government ministers, by section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (DEFRA 2007).

DEFRA (2007) Guidance for Local Authorities on Implementing the Biodiversity Duty


Department for Communities and Local Government, 2008. Planning Policy Statement 12: Creating Strong Safe and Prosperous Communities Through Local Spatial Planning. London: TSO (The Stationery Office).
Available as a free PDF document at:

“The UK government has signed up to the UNECE Convention on Access to
Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters (the Ảrhus Convention). Article 7 states:”
“Each Party shall make appropriate practical and/or other provisions for the public
to participate during the preparation of plans and programmes relating to the
environment, within a transparent and fair framework, having provided the
necessary information to the public.”

Technotronic's picture


"The UN Convention on Biological diversity
describes the ecosystem approach as

‘a strategy for the integrated management
of land, water and living resources that
in an equitable way’.

The ecosystem approach,
adopted by the Convention in 2000,

(Forestry Commission, 2011, p. 8).

Work cited:
Forestry Commission, 2011. The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.

Technotronic's picture

"Ecosystem services can be thought of as the link between ecosystems and human well-being.
They describe the processes by which natural ecosystems
provide resources (used actively or passively) that
sustain and benefit people.

separated these services into four categories:

PROVISIONING services, for example food and water;
REGULATING services, for example pest and disease control;
CULTURAL services, for example spiritual and recreational benefits; and
SUPPORTING services, for example soil formation and primary production,
that maintain the conditions for life on Earth."

(Forestry Commission, 2011, p. 9).

Work cited:
Forestry Commission, 2011. The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.

For further information on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, see page 1 of this thread.

Also, see Corvalan, C., Hales, S., & McMichael, A.J., 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: health synthesis. World health organization.

Technotronic's picture


For the first time in my life, today (20/6/2015) I made the effort to meet with two of the three Councillors (both UKIP) that represent the ward in which I reside, as they both hold a surgery at the same time, in the same room, that runs for just over an hour (no prize for guessing why I showed up - to ask them to support the Rustlings Rd campaign, of course!):

Councillor Jack Clarkson and
Councillor Keith Davis.

Unfortunately, neither Clarkson or Davis bothered to show up, send representatives, or let anyone know they would not be able/weren't going to attend! After waiting 20minutes, I got the librarian (in the library where the surgeries were due to take place) to phone Clarkson & ask him to show up. He didn't respond. Nobody came. It took me 20 minutes by car to get there!!!!!!

Democracy SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope those guys are not being paid!

If they are, we should demand a refund!

If Amey continue to implement their policy of removing all trees that cause "ridging" of the pavement, or dislodge kerb stones, then Sheffield WILL lose well over 50% of its street trees. These trees are the ones with medium and large size crowns - the very trees that provide millions of pounds worth of "ecosystem services" each year, as evidenced by the Forestry Commission's assessment of these services in Edinburgh, Torbay & London, using i-Tree software, as well as a raft of similar research abroad.

Unfortunately, Amey's contract permits them to draught their own highways engineering specifications, so rather than draught sensitive highways engineering specifications to accommodate the retention of trees on streets with mature stock, it is cheaper - FOR THEM - to remove the trees, without regard for ecosystem services or the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE. The latter was agreed by Article 21 at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 (principle 15) and agreed as Article 174 in the Treaty establishing the European Community.

One of the ecosystem services these large trees provide is filtering pollutants from the air. According to DEFRA, these pollutants cause heart & breathing problems - particularly amongst the elderly - that cost the National Health Service £9.1 - £21.4 BILLION PER YEAR!!!!!!!!
Large trees are most effective in provision of this service, and most efficient at interception of rainfall, reducing surface run-off of rainwater, & subsequent flooding.

Climate change predictions identify that we can expect greater frequency of flash flooding, with floods of greater magnitude. This is NOT a good time to be stripping away green infrastructure.