Contribute to this website

GREEN COMMISSION
The Council is currently formulating a 20 year plan for its approach to policies for and management of green infrastructure - which includes the urban forest (the city-wide tree population) and its street trees.

You are invited to fill out a "Call for Evidence" form (a suggestions form) and return it to the Green Commission.

You can access the form at:
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/policy--performance/green...

"Please e-mail your submission to greencommission@sheffield.gov.uk or by post to Green Commission c/o Sheffield Town Hall, Pinstone St, Sheffield, S1 2HH."

Submission period:
"The call for evidence is open until the end of Tuesday 30th June 2015."

SHEFFIELD'S 2nd BLITZ: THE DECIMATION OF EUROPE'S MOST PRECIOUS EMERALD URBAN FOREST

Following on from Lord Framlingham’s speech in the Queen’s Speech Debate (2nd June 2015), you would be forgiven for thinking that the role of the urban forest, as a major component of green infrastructure, would be at the fore in every department of local government with a responsibility for tree management. Not so in Sheffield - the third largest metropolitan authority in England! Labour run Sheffield City Council (SCC) have awarded a 25yr PFI contract, worth £2bn to private sector business Amey. SCC Claim that the PFI contract is the largest PFI contract in the whole of Europe. The contract, commenced in August 2012, consists of “…a five year renovation programme to upgrade the city’s highways infrastructure…”, followed by a twenty year programme of maintenance.

It is often reported that Sheffield is the most tree covered city in all Europe – the emerald jewel of urban Europe! With Amey doing similar work in a number of England’s largest cities, you would expect Amey to have a selection of ICF chartered or AA registered arboricultural consultants to draught sensitive highway engineering specifications to permit the safe retention of as many beautiful, medium and large-crowned street trees as is reasonably possible. Not so in Sheffield! Across the city, citizens have been informed by Amey that all such trees will be felled within the 5yr plan, wherever the pavements are not level or kerb stones have been dislodged. Citizens, understandably, are outraged!

In one part of the city, an active campaign has sprung up, with the support of citizens throughout the city, to oppose felling. The “Save the 12 Trees on Rustlings Road, Sheffield” campaign is demanding new standard, sensitive, engineering solutions be draughted that can then be used for all tree lined streets throughout the city, not just Rustlings Rd. Amey claim that they are not able to, or cannot, draught such specifications and must fell trees to comply with current highways engineering specifications - draughted by Amey.

Campaigners have gathered >8,000 signatures (about half online, via change.org) to petition the Labour council to negotiate a better deal for street trees. However, in a strange turn of events, the Labour Council - at a "closed" meeting on 10th June 2015 - has insisted that citizens draught their own highway engineering specifications, at their own personal expense, and submit them for consideration, if they do not want to lose their beautiful trees. This really is taking Prime Minister David Cameron’s Big Society idea to the extreme! In my opinion, there appears to be a reckless and incompetent approach by both Amey and the Local Authority which, if permitted to set a benchmark for the management of trees in other cities - particularly where Amey are involved, e.g. in Birmingham (the second largest in the UK) - does not bode well for street trees. These trees are the lungs of a city & a major component of both the urban forest and green infrastructure.

Independent, professional arboriculturists and green space professionals have supported the campaign. The former have suggested that Sheffield is likely to see >50% of its larger street trees removed during the initial 5yr period. Many of these trees will be trees with medium and large crowns – the very trees that afford the greatest benefits to the urban environment and its inhabitants. A raft of research indicates that such trees make a vital and significant contribution to the health & well-being (physical & mental) of urban dwellers.

Research presented by Dr Abhishek Tiwary et al. (2009) in the academic journal Environmental Pollution (volume 157, issue 10) presented the results of an “integrated modelling approach” to predict concentrations of pollutants in the air, “both before and after greenspace establishment”. The research indicated that trees reduce health costs, as they help filter pollutants from the air, removing microscopic particulate matter that comes from road traffic, industry and power production, thereby helping reduce morbidity and mortality. Tiwary et al. noted that, nationally, health costs associated with such pollution are “estimated to range between £9.1 and 21.4 billion per annum”, quoting an Air Quality Strategy document published by DEFRA in 2007. They referenced a range of research that indicates such pollution causes alveolar inflammation, respiratory-tract infection (specifically pneumonia), and acute cardiovascular disorders, with the elderly being particularly vulnerable.

Filtration of atmospheric pollutants and aiding flood prevention (as a component of a sustainable urban drainage system) are just a couple of a range of ecosystem services that these trees afford the built environment and its inhabitants. Failure to manage green infrastructure, which includes the urban forest with its street trees, in a responsible and sustainable manner constitutes a failure to accord with principles and criteria of sustainable forest management. These are detailed in international forest policy and in the Forestry Commission’s UK Forestry Standard (2011), which determines how these principles and criteria are to be applied in the UK.

Edinburgh and Torbay have assessed the magnitude and monetary value of the ecosystem goods and services that their urban forests provide, and London is doing likewise. This enables them to make better informed decisions to help ensure responsible and sustainable management of trees, especially when considering the expediency of risk management options, such as felling. Although less well-off Local Authorities, such as Sheffield, may not be in a position to commission such necessary assessments, it is worth remembering the words of Article 174 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which 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.”
 
In “Common Sense Risk Management of Trees: Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers” (2011), the National Tree Safety Group (NTSG) has sought “to put forward a credible and defendable approach to tree risk management.” Its position statement argues that “it is reasonable to include societal value and benefit in the calculation of what is reasonable where a landowner or manager is acting in the public interest.” The NTSG state “Tree owners should take a balanced and proportionate approach to tree management”, and point to guidance from the Health & Safety Executive that states “there is a need to guard against disproportionate activity to control risk that provides diminishing returns on investment in risk reduction.”

Both Amey and Sheffield City Council have stated that “ridging” of the pavement by tree roots represents trip hazard and an unreasonable and intolerable level of risk of harm that justifies tree felling. However, the value of the aforementioned ecosystem goods and services are not being assessed and the situation, in my opinion, should invoke application of the precautionary principle.

Sensitive engineering solutions are possible to achieve harmony between trees and highway engineering construction, but it would appear that Sheffield’s Labour Council does not realise the true value of its green infrastructure. However, over the last three years, it has blown >£190,000, in an attempt to persuade HS2 Ltd to build the proposed station for its high speed rail network closer to the centre of the city, rather than at Meadowhall shopping centre, near the M1. This cost has included £6,000 spent on a “Business breakfast consultation event”, arranged by a PR firm. The Council has justified the expenses by saying the choice of location would “change the face of the city”; that they needed the “best possible people to advise”; that “decisions to be made need to be made on evidence and facts” and that it is a “once in a lifetime opportunity”, the implications are “massive”.

All the same points could be made with regard to the need for chartered or registered arboricultural consultants to inform policies and decisions that affect the urban forest, particularly its street trees, and the health and well-being of the most vulnerable in society. Many citizens of Sheffield lack the time, money or opportunity to launch campaigns to encourage the adoption of sound policies, specifications and practices for the responsible and sustainable management of the urban forest resource. To quote from Sheffield’s “Statement of Community Involvement” (2014), “…over 30% of Sheffield’s population live in areas that fall within 20% most deprived in the country…”.

Research has shown that the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover all significantly affect the magnitude and value of ecosystem goods and services. Widespread removal of trees with medium and large crowns will have significant negative effects for generations (with huge financial losses, amounting to millions of pounds). Perhaps Lord Framlingham was, indeed, justified in his call for the creation of a new ministerial position “…an individual Minister responsible for urban trees.”

A disturbing tree policy has been brought to my attention. One of the trees on Rustlings Rd has been scheduled for removal on the basis that it has decay. It is the tree opposite the end of Ranby Rd. On this basis, any tree with decay at a wound site, or a dead twig or branch will be felled!

This does not accord with current arboricultural best practice, nor has it done so for over 20 yrs! Such an approach does NOT represent a reasonable, balanced and proportionate approach to hazard and risk assessment, analysis and management, as recommended by the National Tree Safety Group (which includes the Institute of Chartered Foresters & the Arboricultural Association) or the Health & Safety Executive.

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/publications.nsf/searchpub/?SearchVie...(FCMS024)&SearchOrder=4&SearchMax=0&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchThesaurus=TRUE

In many cases, trees with die-back or decay can be retained and managed. The presence of decay does not necessarily indicate structural weakness, terminal decline, death or strong likelihood of structural failure, or reasonably foreseeable and likely structural failure in the near future. Arboricultural management options are available for the safe retention of valuable trees which show signs of decay.

Risk of harm or damage should be IMMINENT, or at least REASONABLY FORESEEABLE in the NEAR future to justify intervention such as felling (The National Tree Safety Group, 2011).

“IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO REACT TO TREE DEFECTS AS THOUGH THEY ARE ALL IMMEDIATELY HAZARDOUS. Growth deformities and other defects do not necessarily indicate structural weakness. When noting features that might indicate a likelihood of weakness or collapse, it is important that concern for risk of failure is restricted to events likely in the near future. Trees exhibit a wide range of such features, and the scope for interpreting their significance is complex, particularly when considering the likelihood of non-immediate failure. For example, anomalies in tree growth may indicate internal decay and hollowing; but ANOMALIES IN FORM MAY BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TREE HAVING COMPENSATED FOR THE DECAY, BY MECHANICALLY ADAPTING TO NATURAL PROCESSES.”
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 53)

“Immediate risk of serious harm is a risk of such IMMEDIACY and CONSEQUENCE that URGENT action is required.” (The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 52)

“Eliminating trees to remove all risk is undesirable and DISPROPORTIONATE in the light of all the wide range of benefits they provide.”
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 56)

“With inadequate understanding… unless the risk of harm arising from a hazard is properly taken account of, management can be SERIOUSLY MISINFORMED, potentially leading to costly and unnecessary intervention.”
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 44)

“Very simply, a hazard is something that can cause harm…” “Risk is characterised by reference to potential events and consequences, or a combination of the two. It is often expressed as a combination of an event’s CONSEQUENCES and the LIKELIHOOD of it occurring. In this case, a potential consequence is death or serious injury. The important part of the assessment is the likelihood of either occurring.”
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 20)

“Tree management or the lack of it should not expose people to SIGNIFICANT LIKELIHOOD of death, PERMANENT disability or LIFE-THREATENING injuries. Accidents are on occasions unavoidable. SUCH RISK IS TOLERABLE only in the following conditions:

● the likelihood is extremely low
● the hazards are clear to users
● there are obvious benefits
● further reducing the risks would remove the benefits
● there are no reasonably practicable ways to manage the risks.”
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 26)

Furthermore, in the case of this tree, following requests as to why the tree needed to be felled, an e-mail from Streets Ahead (Amey) was received on 1st May 2015, informing that

“The remaining tree opposite Ranby Road is displaying symptoms consistent with being infected by Armillaria sp (Honey Fungus). As a result the tree will gradually succumb to the infection, weaken and thus pose a safety risk long term.”

In an e-mail dated 15th May, 2015, with regard to scheduled tree felling, Anita Dell (SCC/Amey Communications Officer) stated “…some are affected by diseases such as Armillaria mellea as well as safety issues such as crown dieback and decay.”

Upon close inspection of the tree opposite the end of Randy Rd, campaigners cannot find any symptom of ill health, pathogenic infection, pest infestation, die-back or structural weakness. No toadstools have been spotted and the characteristic white mycelia that usually indicate infection by A.mellea (usually present beneath dead bark) appear to be absent.

With Regard to The Council / Amey Approach to Tree Risk Assessment and Hazard Management Policy…

In a feature that appeared in The Star newspaper (on 29/5/2015), reporter Ellen Beardmore wrote, with reference to the Melbourne Road veteran oak in Stocksbridge, “Jeremy Willis, operations manager for grounds and arboriculture at Amey, said:

‘That tree is a really good example because it looked absolutely perfect – but the truth was it could have fallen at any time….THE DANGER WAS THAT IT COULD HAVE FALLEN DOWN AND WE DIDN’T KNOW WHEN. It could have fallen that day, it could have stood up for another two or three years BUT ONCE WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT RISK WE CAN’T JUST WALK AWAY FROM IT.’”

http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/the-great-tree-felling-de...

Do Amey sound competent to you? Would you trust them with your trees?

DECAY = FELL?

Despite repeated requests by concerned citizens, neither Amey or SCC have provided information to verify that, when assessing trees with decay, the type, extent, probable cause of decay, or actual likely impact on structural integrity are assessed. Many factors need to be considered, not least of all the species of tree and its characteristics. To ensure risk analysis is informed and that risk management is reasonable, balanced and proportionate, such assessments NEED to be made when considering the likelihood and severity of harm or damage.

Limes (such as on Rustlings Rd) are well known for their longevity, strong ability to “compartmentalise” decay, and for their vigorous growth. As stated in guidance of the National Tree Safety Group, trees can compensate for loss of cross-sectional area of stem, thereby maintaining structural integrity.

“…deformities can be a response to internal hollowing or decay, compensating for loss of wood strength and providing mechanical advantage, allowing the tree to adapt to wind and gravitational forces. With inadequate understanding, so-called defects may be erroneously confused with hazards and, furthermore, hazards with risk – so unless the risk of harm arising from a hazard is properly taken account of, management can be seriously misinformed, potentially leading to costly and unnecessary intervention.”
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 44)

“Immediate risk of serious harm is a risk of such immediacy and consequence that urgent action is required.”
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 52)

Felling trees just because they have decay does not accord with best practice and cannot be justified from an arboricultural perspective. No competent arboriculturist would justify it. However, the Highways Act (1980) makes the following provision at section 154:

“(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…”

Please note the key words, in upper case, above. This requires inspection of the likely cause, nature and extent of the problem, and assessment of likely impact on structural integrity: a STRATEGIC APPROACH to hazard & risk assessment and analysis.

For more on online info', see Draft BS8516:
http://www.treeworks.co.uk/downloads/blog/BS_8516_Recommendations_for_tr...

The Council and Amey will claim that it is not reasonably practicable to do a detailed inspection on every tree with decay at a wound site. However, this cannot be used to justify a default policy of felling all such trees. Such an approach does not accord with current arboricultural best practice, nor has it done so for over 20yrs! Such an approach represents an unreasonable, unbalanced, disproportionate response to hazard and risk assessment, analysis and management.

“Good tree safety management does not seek to eliminate risk, but to reduce it to a reasonable level.
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 80)

“People enjoy what they perceive to be “natural” or “unmanaged” environments and value trees that have received minimal or no intervention. People are prepared to accept a degree of risk because of the value of the trees, and the pleasure they derive from visiting or participating in leisure activities in treed environments. Therefore, it is acceptable that tree management does not seek to eliminate all risk of minor and easily-healed injuries.” “…However, it may on occasions be unavoidable that tree management exposes people to the very low risk of serious injury or even death.”
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 81)

"When noting features that might indicate a likelihood of weakness or collapse, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT CONCERN FOR RISK OF FAILURE IS RESTRICTED TO EVENTS LIKELY IN THE NEAR FUTURE."
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 53)

SOURCE (NTSG):
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/publications.nsf/searchpub/?SearchVie...(FCMS024)&SearchOrder=4&SearchMax=0&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchThesaurus=TRUE

This is why education and training are important – It is NECESSARY for all tree and highways inspectors to participate in a programme of continued professional development, to ensure that they exercise the care of ‘reasonably skilled’ members of their respective professions, by ensuring that their acts or omissions are in accordance with current best practice and not reckless or negligent by causing unreasonable harm or damage.

You may wish to note that this Section 154 of the Highways Act (1980) also permits works to trees that obscure lamps – such as those that Amey have pushed up in to every crown they can find – no doubt damaging major roots by not working in accordance with National Joint Utilities Group guidelines: Volume 4: NJUG Guidelines For The Planning, Installation And Maintenance Of Utility Apparatus In Proximity To Trees (Issue 2).
http://www.njug.org.uk/publications/

50,000 TREES!

No doubt you have either heard or read Councillor Fox’s claim that the Council have planted 50,000 trees. I am not aware of the time period over which that was done, but I would like to point out that NONE OF THOSE TREES WERE ON HIGHWAYS – NOT ONE OF THEM IS A STREET TREE!

How do I know? Because that figure comes from the WOODLANDS AND COUNTRYSIDE SECTION (formerly Parks, Woodland & Countryside); NOT THE HIGHWAYS SECTION that operates as a totally separate department and is WHOLLY is responsible for ALL street trees.

Reference: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/tre...

Those 50,000 trees will be saplings planted at <3m spacings, generally as groups of trees, in parks and woodlands. Unless many of those are felled over the next 50 years, they will NEVER develop large crowns like street trees do.

It is good that trees are being planted in parks and woodlands, but to claim that such planting compensates in any way for the extensive, city-wide loss of STREET TREES with medium and large crowns is wholly wrong, factually, and has NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS WHATSOEVER.

The Woodlands and Countryside Section claim that Sheffield is:
“The most wooded and treed city in Britain (10.4% woodland by area)”.

Sheffield has many trees. Collectively, they constitute an urban “forest”, as defined within The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management. Those with responsibility for management of the urban forest have a duty to act in accordance with the principles and criteria of sustainable forest management detailed within the Standard and its “Guidelines”. These exist to implement international legislation and forest principles and criteria. The “Guidelines” detail forestry practice.

The Standard states:
“In assessing whether the Requirements have reasonably been met, the overall balance of benefits or ecosystem services will be taken into account.”

As a sustainable approach to management, the Standard promotes and encourages the maintenance and continuity of canopy cover. The felling of many street trees medium and large crowns within a short period of time (<50yrs) will result in significant loss of cover and is highly likely to have a significant, negative impact on the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover. Subsequently, there will be significant, negative impact on the magnitude and monetary value of ecosystem services afforded by trees (see the references within the Rustlings Rd Petition and references therein) to the built environment and its inhabitants – including YOU & ME!

Medium and large crowned trees contribute the most, in terms of the magnitude and value ecosystem services, particularly those that affect people’s health and wellbeing (see petition references & information online at Stocksbridge Community Forum).

Councillors should consider, carefully, the following words from the Standard:

"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”.

The ecosystem services provided by trees with medium and large crowns are of greatest benefit and particularly valuable. Such trees should be retained whenever reasonably practicable. That requires a reasonable, balanced, proportionate assessment, based on ALL evidence, and where that is absent or deficient, an approach that accords with the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE is required, in accordance with International and European legislation.

TOWN HALL PETITION

Save Our Rustlings Trees (SORT) Campaigners were advised (by SCC Democratic Services) that having presented a petition of >5,000 signatures, they could make two 3 minute speeches in the Town Hall, at the meeting of full Council. In practice, on the day, they were told not to make presentations, but to only ask questions.

If it had been me, I would have asked the following...

Will the Councillors responsible for policy please have regard for the following:

Trees on Rustlings Road are scheduled for felling as part of the PFI Streets Ahead programme: a five year, city-wide renovation programme to upgrade highways infrastructure, to be followed by 20yrs of maintenance.

Many trees have been identified as causing damage to the highway. This includes “ridging” in pavements – associated with root growth, and the dislodgement of kerb stones by buttress roots. These trees are earmarked for removal within the 5yr programme: to be removed before 2018. Such trees have medium and large size crowns and account for a significant proportion of the street tree population. They make the greatest, most significant contributions by way of ecosystem services afforded to the built environment - neighbourhoods - and its inhabitants - people & wildlife.

Felling many of such trees is highly likely to have a significant, negative impact on the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover and, subsequently, on the magnitude and monetary value of ecosystem services afforded by such trees (references in petition & references therein). In other cities around the world, the monetary value of these ecosystem services has been assessed, as it has in a Torbay, Edinburgh, and London. The value of these services amounts to millions of pounds each year! In Sheffield, the value of these ecosystem services has not been assessed. Our long-established street trees are not only a significant component of green infrastructure, but are highly valuable assets that should be managed in a responsible and sustainable manner.

Indeed, Sheffield has many trees. Collectively, they constitute an urban “forest”, as defined within The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management. Those with responsibility for management have a duty to act in accordance with the principles and criteria of sustainable forest management detailed within the Standard and its “Guidelines”. These exist to implement international forest principles and criteria; the “Guidelines” detail forestry practice.

As a sustainable approach, the Standard promotes and encourages the maintenance and continuity of canopy cover. The felling of many street trees medium and large crowns will result in significant loss of cover.

We believe that the majority of these trees could be safely retained. New, appropriate, adequate, sensitive, flexible highways engineering specifications could be draughted, specifically to accommodate the safe, long-term retention of long-established trees on tree-lined streets.

Given the circumstances, we believe the precautionary principle should apply. To quote
Principle 15 of Agenda 21, as agreed and accepted by the Government, in 1992, at the Earth Summit meeting in Rio:

“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.'
Also, to quote from European Directive 2001/42/EC:

"Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community...
…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.”

TOWN HALL PETITION: PART 2

Would the Councillors responsible for policy making please consider the following:

Street trees are a key component of green infrastructure. As a significant component of the city-wide urban forest they should be managed in accordance with The UK Forestry Standard. The Standard exists to encourage a sustainable approach to management. Councillors should consider, carefully, the following words from the Standard:

"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”.

The Standard states “In assessing whether the Requirements have reasonably been met, the overall balance of benefits or ecosystem services will be taken into account.”

Councillors should also remember that the Government has signed up to the UNECE 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.”

We do not feel this has happened.

With regard to public safety, given that engineering solutions are available, and are reasonably practicable, we believe that felling on the basis that “pavement ridging” constitutes a trip hazard that represents an unacceptable level of risk of harm to the public is an unreasonable, unbalanced, disproportionate response.

To quote from guidance of the The National Tree Safety Group:
“Eliminating trees to remove all risk is undesirable and disproportionate in the light of all the wide range of benefits they provide.”

“Good tree safety management does not seek to eliminate risk, but to reduce it to a reasonable level.”

“Non-commercial trees frequently have social and environmental value as well, and are important to human health and wellbeing. The NTSG’s position is that, wherever possible, the presumption should be that such trees be retained and allowed to complete their life cycle with minimal management interventions. Such a reasonable strategy, articulating the benefits of trees, should, in the view of the NTSG, carry as much weight in protecting the tree owner against litigation following an incident as any factory’s reasonable risk management policy.”

Professionals have a Duty of Care imposed on them. This requires them to exercise the care of a ‘reasonably skilled’ member of their profession: they are required to act in accordance with current and relevant legislation and best practice and are liable for any harm or damage caused as a result of failure to do so.

We believe that, in accordance with current best practice, the benefits afforded by street trees should be considered in making a balanced and proportionate assessment of risk. We request that until a "Tree Strategy” has been commissioned and adopted as council policy, there should be no felling of trees that do not represent an immediate and reasonably foreseeable danger of serious harm or damage in the near future.

To quote Cllr Fox’s EXACT words at full Council (1st July, 2015):

“The tree Strategy, Lord Mayor, that at any time – any time – could have been called in by the opposition parties and could have been challenged whenever they were in administration, Lord Mayor. The Sheffield Highway Tree Strategy consists of the six D’s: dangerous; dead, dying, diseased, damaging and discriminatory.”

I know that’s bad English, but those were his exact words. I did wonder why the multitude of Labour Councillors have NEVER called for a tree strategy, given that trees are a major component of green infrastructure, and as long ago as 2008, national guidance 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…”
(Britt, et al., 2008, p. 192)

“A comprehensive tree strategy is the starting point for a modern, planned approach to tree management. That tree strategy must also be integrated and embedded into the LA’s Local Plan and other relevant policies.”
(Britt, et al., 2008, p. 400)

“In many respects, the existence of a relevant strategy document is the most significant indicator of a planned approach to management…”
(Britt, et al., 2008, p. 158)

Now, compare Cllr Fox’s definition of a strategy to the ten “Key Recommendations” from the “Trees in Towns II report, commissioned the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to advise those responsible for commissioning and draughting a tree strategy. One of the primary authors was the UK’s leading authority on urban forest management, the Chartered Arboriculturist Dr Johnston MBE.

They are listed here, in their entirety:

1) The tree strategy should be based on a good knowledge of the existing urban forest and the conditions in which it grows.

2) Try to ensure that the process of strategy preparation has political and community support.

3) The strategy should be linked to other aspects of the urban environment and other relevant strategies.

4) The strategy should cover all aspects of the LA’s tree programme and the urban forest, including both public and privately owned trees and woodlands.

5) Ensure widespread and effective consultation on the draft strategy document.

6) The strategy document should be written in plain English and any technical terms should be explained.

7) The strategy should not just include policies towards trees but also an action plan to ensure implementation.

8) The action plan should include SMART targets, preferably costed.

9) The strategy should be adopted as LA policy.

10) Ensure regular monitoring and review of the strategy.
(Britt, et al., 2008, p. 543)

The aim of the report was 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).

IT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THE FOLLOWING ADVICE:
…”Even the existence of a specific tree strategy does not always imply that this is an appropriate document to drive the LA’s tree programme. How the strategy was developed and what detailed policies and plans it contains will determine this.”
(Britt, et al., 2008, p. 192)

Reference:
Britt, C; Johnston, M; Riding, A; Slater, J; King, H; Gladstone, M; McMillan, S; Mole, A; Allder, C; Ashworth, P; Devine, T; Morgan, C; Martin, J. et al., 2008. Trees in Towns 2: a new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-johnston/trees-in-towns-ii/paperback/produ...

It is clear that Cllr Fox (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport) doesn’t understand what a strategy document is, why a strategy is necessary, or how it should be used.

Just to remind you, here are Cllr Scott's (Labour) comments, made in April 2014, as Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene (Fox's predecessor):

“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.”

…SO DEPRESSING! How can a man with so little competence or nowse have so much responsibility and so little accountability? No wonder people don’t vote.

TRANSCRIPT FROM THE MEETING OF FULL COUNCIL ON 1st July 2015:
Cllr Fox’s Speech (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport – Labour)

Councillor Fox was given five minutes to respond to a three minute speech given by the Save Our Rustlings Trees (SORT) campaign (which actually took 3 minutes and forty-four seconds). Cllr Fox took 12 minutes and eleven seconds to deliver his 5 minute speech.

Where a word was uttered in an unclear manner, it has been omitted from this transcript and replaced by four x marks: “xxxx”.

"Thank you Lord Mayor, I think five minutes is going to be quite a – quite a – challenge to get a lot in today – very, very challenging and very deep subject as I found in the thirty-odd days that I’ve been in the portfolio. First, can I applaud – and I mean that, can I applaud the residents and campaigners for getting a) the names to Council to get this debate, and it has been a long time coming from when I’ve met some of you, err, within the Town Hall, err, Alan and Louise, and, err, Dr Shetty; err, Nikki; I’ve seen Nikki knocking about. It would be remiss of me not to thank Nikki for the, err, cups of tea on Wayland Road, it was much appreciated at the time. And it’s also welcoming, Lord Mayor, that, as decision-makers in this Town Hall, we have our policies and procedures to scrutinise not by only by us in this place but scrutinised by the public, also; and so, why I understand this call to scrutiny, and you’ve heard, today, that my colleagues – Councillor Ben Curran and, err, the fellow Councillors in Walkley have called in to scrutiny about one issue; other politicians could have called this in at any time. It has been to scrutiny three times in the last, since 2012, and it’s also been, err, been a thorough looking at.

Lord Mayor, I’d like to start first of all from where we did actually come from. For generations, Lord Mayor, the people of Sheffield have demanded that this Council do something about the roads and paths of our great city. For generations, they sat in that balcony and raised questions at this Council and demanded that we took some action to bring our highways, footpaths, street-lighting and highway trees to a first class standard for all residents. But doing this hasn’t come without its challenges – the logistics of delivering the largest project in this country, whilst dealing with the balance of keeping the city moving, but also the challenges of taking the residents and citizens of our city along with us. But you’re right, we do – we do – have to abide by the Law, and as the competent highway Authority we have to work in a strict, statutory Laws by the Highway Act; the Equality Act; Health and Safety Act, and many more. But, most of all, Lord Mayor, most of all, we have to work for all citizens in the inclusive mobility around our cities.

We had an independent survey done in 2006-2007 which helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract which, not only did this administration see, but other administrations saw, and they had the opportunity to change the policy at that time, but had been cross-party support, Lord Mayor, which, I understand that the weather is to be warm, but the flip-flops that are going on with the other party is unbelievable, Lord Mayor. Not only can that be seen by the MP who, on one hand, wants to protect the trees at Rustlings Road, but at the other side of the constituency wants a tree out for a driveway putting in.

The survey noted that 74% of our mature tree stock with very few young trees has given this combination the rate of decline evidence by the number of trees needing treatment. Lord Mayor, and David xxxx, thank you for some of that insight that we raised on the street. I have to say that by Forestry Commission, and David Kelly as well, also, we have looked at that and we have looked at the Forestry Commission’s own stance on mature trees versing new trees performance in this area, which is as follows: young trees absorb carbon dioxide quickly while they are growing, but as a tree ages, a steady state is eventually reached. At this point, the amount of carbon absorbed through photosynthesis is equal to that lost through respiration and decay, and if I could, too, agree, I would say that was very much xxxx. Lord Mayor, where are we now? Well my predecessors – Councillor Stock and Councillor Dunn – have overseen a great leap forward in our city and a replacement of over 2,000 highway trees, which have been challenged along the way by residents, by community groups, by Councillors who sit on scrutiny board; we also have a project of good public scrutiny and we have been out and had roadshows. I will come on to that later, Lord Mayor, if I may.

We are about half way through the first five years of the project and today we have removed, as I say, over 2,000 trees and replanted over 2,019 trees. The City Council, in just this year alone, which we manage over 2m trees, Lord Mayor, have planted 50,000 new trees, creating seventeen new woodlands. Lord Mayor, we, like every other citizen in this city, cherish our trees. Since 2012, Lord Mayor, we have re-surfaced over 300 miles and also 500 miles of pavements. We are half way through the five year project and whilst I say we have re-planted over 2,019 trees. Lord Mayor, the decision-making process which we have been looked at to be scrutinised by xxxx be scrutinised by methods but challenged by public, of which I welcome; but I also welcome that within my own family – my brother in-law is up there – welcome Ben! – and I’m sure we’ll carry on having this debate. The process is that Amey make recommendations to Council about which trees, in their expert opinion, should be removed by the highway, and in which categories. The Council will then assess each individual tree for themselves and then make a decision about whether that tree should be felled or not.

Lord Mayor, when we set off on this project, we had cross-party support because we needed to get the roads and paths, as I say, suitable for inclusive mobility. Unfortunately, Lord Mayor, one of the risks of that are that some trees – highway trees – would be vulnerable. Before a tree is even considered for felling, we have twenty – twenty – sensitive engineering options, Lord Mayor, applied throughout. Before a tree is felled, it is checked to see if any wildlife is living there. If we have evidence that birds, bats or any other wildlife, the trees are then further assessed every three to five years to establish the health and condition.

Lord Mayor, sometimes when we plant and plane the tops, we identify that we have root problems or not, is if we have not then we obviously do not take that tree. Taking the tree is the last resort, Lord Mayor. The tree Strategy, Lord Mayor, that at any time – any time – could have been called in by the opposition parties and could have been challenged whenever they were in administration, Lord Mayor. The Sheffield Highway Tree Strategy consists of the six D’s: dangerous; dead, dying, diseased, damaging and discriminatory. To ensure we are able to bring the standard of the city’s roads, pavements, and in some cases we do have to fell the trees. After completion of the Core Investment Programme, Lord Mayor, from 2018, we will also have to continue, as I say, doing inspections. The inspections are done as per Law; as per industry standards, Lord Mayor.

Communications, Lord Mayor, has been raised; I will try and touch on this as quickly as I possibly can, Lord Mayor, and obviously, if I get chance in the other debate, we will probably have a more in-depth debate with Councillor Davison. We provide details to all ward councillors well in advance of the trees being felled as part of our core works. This information includes details of individual trees to be felled in the streets; the reasons for the fell, and what it is to be replaced with. All residents receive, in advance of work, a start leaflet to tell them the works is happening in their area. This also includes information to say the trees will be removed. Meetings are held in community groups, to inform them of the tree felling in their area, to gather views. If requested by the community groups, ward Councillors, interested residents, we hold tree-walks to provide more details and what we will be replaced with. Details of all these trees will be felled and are particular and are available at the roadshows, Lord Mayor. Trees notices are placed on the trees that have been identified to be removed.

By incident, Lord Mayor, if I may, on to Rustlings Road. There are over thirty trees on Rustlings Road. Eleven have been identified to be felled and nineteen have been retained by sensitive engineering solutions. Out of the eleven that have been identified to be felled, three have been noticed, and that once we dig up the pavement, as I say, once we take that planing off, if they can be retained, they will. We’re also planning to an additional nine trees to be that were removed many years ago, that we will replace, so this will increase the trees on Rustlings Road from thirty to thirty-nine, Lord Mayor.

Lord Mayor, we are half way through the Core-Investment Project. As I said, we have done over 300 miles of road; 500 miles of footpaths. Well, obviously, after meeting campaigners and the local residents of Rustlings Road and Wayland and Bowood, I have decided that I did decide to pause the work ‘til we had this debate. I felt it was only right that we had this debate, because as we all know that the trees are a xxxx issue for some people, Lord Mayor, and to here. But let me be clear, Lord Mayor, for the avoidance of doubt, we do not pay a single penny more to Amey, whether they take out a hundred trees or no trees. I have said on numerous occasions that once Amey designate the trees they want to fell, the Council go and do their independent checks. Lord Mayor, any felling of a tree is a last resort.

We, the taxpayers of Sheffield, pay the wages of our tree experts; we train them, we educate them – the skills they develop – because they’re the ones that look – duly look – after our two million trees on behalf of our citizens of Sheffield and having to work within the confines of Law. I also agree that the experts in the field will always have disrefutes, dependent on what they are side they’re on. Lord Mayor, I understand that we have to work within a statutory framework and some independent experts do not. But I am – I am – concerned, Lord Mayor, that this should be – this should be – a good luck story from Sheffield. Other, not only cities in England, in Britain, but in Europe are watching how we manage this, Lord Mayor, and I’ve to do that; we have to take everybody with us. As I say, I believe, Lord Mayor, because this is such a delicate and in-depth debate, I’ve suggested the Council will endorse an Highways Tree Forum, where, as we have already heard, so many big issues need to be talked through and, also, we are we are not – we are not – able to drive, forget the pun. Our policy is still that we want to cross-check them, not only with methods in this place, but with local residents and local conservation groups. Lord Mayor, I’d like to congratulate these, err, campaigners, residents and people who feel very strongly about our city, because without them, Lord Mayor, we would not be able to deliver our projects together. Thank you Lord Mayor."

The next Councillor to speak was introduced by the Mayor, but as the Mayor (Talib Hussain) has a rather thick foreign accent, I couldn’t understand the Councillor’s name. The councillor was introduced as the Shadow Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport. I believe the Councillor was Joe Otten (Lib Dem).

AN ARBORICULTURIST'S RESPONSE TO COUNCILLOR FOX'S SPEECH AT THE MEETING OF FULL COUNCIL ON 1st July 2015

The following communication was brought to my attention about a week after the Council meeting:

Sent to Cllr Fox on 6 Jul 2015

Dear Councillor Fox,

With regard to the comments you made, as Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, during the meeting of full Council on 1st July, 2015, please find my constructive feedback below…

You were right at the meeting of full Council to describe the subject of highway tree management as “very, very challenging and very deep”. Of course, “the thirty-odd days” that you’ve “been in the portfolio” is not sufficient for you to gain any significant level of competence, especially considering that for twelve of those days you were away on annual leave (11th to 23rd June, 2015). By that, I mean you have not had time or opportunity to gain training and experience relevant to the matter being addressed, or to gain an understanding of the requirements of the particular tasks being approached. Without relevant education, training and experience, you will continue to fail in your duty of care to show the level of care expected of a reasonably skilled member of your profession. I strongly advise and urge that you seek helpful advice and assistance from competent professional arboriculturists, with expertise in the field of trees in relation to construction, and also from competent highway engineers. This would help minimise the likelihood of you making reckless or negligent acts or omissions, for which the Council, and possibly you, would be liable.

You acknowledged that you are a decision-maker in the Town Hall. You acknowledged and claimed to welcome that your policies and procedures are scrutinised by both Councillors and the public. In my opinion, as a competent arboriculturist - with much local authority experience, particularly with regard to Sheffield’s highway trees - your scrutiny procedures are inappropriate and inadequate. Scrutiny needs to be done by competent people. By that, I mean those people NEED to have gained relevant education, training and experience, relevant to the matter being addressed and they NEED to have an understanding of the requirements of the particular tasks being approached. This, really, just represents a common-sense approach to scrutiny.

You were right to acknowledge and emphasise that you do have to abide by the Law, as the competent highway Authority. However, it is apparent that you are unaware of the international and European legislation that requires you to apply the Precautionary Principle. It is apparent that that you are unaware of the requirements of the UK Forestry Standard, that also places duties on you and exists to implement international forest principles and criteria, as well as legislation, for the responsible, sustainable management of the urban forest. Furthermore, you do not appear to realise that in fulfilment of your duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act; the Highways Act; the Equalities Act, and the Occupiers’ Liability Acts, what is required is only for you to do that which is REASONABLE, nothing more! That requires BALANCED assessment that considers all the costs and benefits, followed by a PROPORTIONATE response. See the Save Our Rustlings Trees (SORT) hand-out for detail (distributed to every Councillor on 26th June, 2015, by the SCC Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources department).

The “independent survey”, done in 2006-2007, which you said helped inform the Council’s priorities for the formation of the PFI contract with Amey may well have been seen by all administrations and have received cross-party support. However, Councillors are not competent arboriculturists or competent highway engineers. Neglect to employ competent consultants to scrutinise the contract, in order to determine whether it is adequate and fit for purpose, as far as tree management and works to and around trees is concerned, represents a reckless approach to the use of public resources and a case of maladministration.

You stated: “The survey noted that 74% of our mature tree stock with very few young trees has given this combination the rate of decline evidence by the number of trees needing treatment.”

From your comment, it is difficult to ascertain precisely what you were trying to say. Presumably, you were trying to make a point that 74% of Sheffield’s street trees fall within just one age class and are of advanced years. You then appear to have implied a significant positive correlation between that and the number of trees identified as needing treatment. Furthermore, you have assumed that the 74% of trees mentioned are in decline, implying that they have reached the end of their safe and useful life expectancy. Actually, trees require treatment for many reasons and out of those trees requiring treatment, only a very small percentage will require treatment because they are in decline. By decline, I mean they are slowly dying back, as evidenced by signs and symptoms observed over several successive growing seasons (years). When you speak of the rate of decline, the implication is that you have collected data over successive years. It would be prudent of you to publish the data and detail of methods used to collect and analyse it, in order to give your claims credibility, permit review and enable proper, adequate scrutiny.

It is wrong to assume that all or much of the tree stock in the advanced age class has reached the end of its safe and useful life expectancy. From an urban forestry and arboricultural perspective, such an assumption cannot be justified without firm evidence. Trees in the more advanced age classes deliver the most to the environment and its inhabitants (including people), by way of a range of ecosystem services. In cities where these services have been valued, they are worth millions of pounds each year. These are the trees that are of greatest benefit to people’s health (mental and physical) and well-being. The SORT hand-out and the online SORT petition both provided a broad range of references where you can learn more about these things.

I accept your claim that trees in the most advanced age classes will not continue to sequester as much carbon as trees in lesser age classes. However, such trees can be regarded as carbon storage facilities, which can be valued. Also, in addition to carbon storage, they contribute most in terms of magnitude and value of a range of ecosystem services, as previously mentioned. Carbon sequestration is only one such service afforded by trees.

The opposition and frustration that both you and your predecessor – Cllr Dunn – have encountered with residents, community groups, and Councillors who sit on scrutiny board, really results from the absence of a strategic approach to tree management and works to and around trees. An adequate tree strategy, draughted in accordance with current arboricultural and urban forestry advice, guidance and recommendations (see the SORT hand-out for detail) would help ensure a planned, systematic and integrated approach to ALL aspects of management and practice, including public involvement, tree inspection and hazard and risk assessment and management. In short, a tree strategy would help guide and inform management and practice and help ensure a responsible and sustainable approach to management of the urban forest – a key component of green infrastructure. The adoption and adequate implementation of an adequate tree strategy, adopted as Council Policy, would be a strong indicator of accordance with current arboriculture and urban forestry best practice. It would also serve as a powerful marker to indicate you have done all that is reasonably practicable to ensure your acts and omissions are those of a reasonably skilled member, in fulfilment of the duty of care placed upon you by Law.

You claim to have replaced over 2,019 trees. Presumably these are street trees? You claimed that the City Council have planted 50,000 new trees this year, creating seventeen new woodlands. Those 50,000 trees will be saplings planted at <3m spacings, generally as groups of trees, in parks and woodlands. Unless many of those are felled over the next 50 years, they will NEVER develop large crowns like street trees do. Even if they do, they will be no compensation for the city-wide loss of many street trees with medium and large crowns, because, by felling such trees, you significantly alter the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover, which negatively affects the magnitude and value of ecosystem services afforded by trees to the built environment and all its inhabitants (air and water flows do not respect constituency boundaries). Please see the SORT hand-out for further detail.

When the Council set off on this PFI Streets Ahead project, you probably had cross-party support because all councillors had blind faith in those people responsible for the project, trusting that they would act in the manner expected of reasonably skilled professionals, in accordance with the duty of care. The same display of blind faith was evident, again, at the meeting of full Council on 1st July, 2015, when SORT campaigners presented their petition before full Council and ALL Labour Councillors chose to ignore both the petition and campaigners, and did not even bother to look at the 29 page hand-out that campaigners had had carefully and painstakingly prepared for councillors, to inform “debate”. The purpose of the hand-out was to help ensure that comment during debate would be informed & based on fact, as opposed to faith.

You stated that: “Before a tree is even considered for felling, we have twenty - twenty - sensitive engineering options, Lord Mayor, applied throughout.” Later at the meeting you listed twenty things which you believed to be sensitive engineering solutions. Amongst them were: GeoGrid; Root barriers; Growth retardants; Root pruning. The list carried on in that manner. As a competent arboriculturist, I now inform you that none of the twenty items in your list represent an engineering solution for dealing with the re-surfacing of footways (pavements) where roots have raised the existing surface, locally, and have dislodged kerb stones. To give you some idea of what engineering solutions actually are, and which may be of use, the 29 page SORT hand-out provided useful references to inspire your arboriculturists and highway engineers. However, as the SORT hand –out pointed out, GeoGrid is no longer considered fit for purpose around trees by competent arboriculturists (alternatives are available).

You stated that: “Taking the tree is the last resort”. To date, campaigners have repeatedly requested evidence that you have more than one set of highway engineering specifications for footways (pavements) on tree lined streets. You have repeatedly ignored all such requests. There is no evidence that more than one set of engineering specifications exists. If your interpretation of what constitutes an engineering solution is anything to go by, it is reasonable for people to assume that only one set of engineering specifications exist – the same set used regardless of whether or not trees are present. YOU NEED TO ENSURE THAT YOU ARE USING COMPETENT ARBORICULTURISTS AND COMPETENT HIGHWAY ENGINEERS to draught specifications and supervise implementation, and that they are working together. You could always hire competent consultants, as was done with the High Speed 2 relocation proposal.

You stated that “the tree strategy could have been called in by the opposition parties and could have been challenged whenever they were in administration” and in the next breath said “The Sheffield Highway Tree Strategy consists of the six D’s: dangerous; dead, dying, diseased, damaging and discriminatory.”

Your comments highlight your ignorance and lack of understanding of what a tree strategy is, what it is for and how it should be used. The 29 page SORT hand-out provided a range of quotes from current national arboricultural best practice guidance and recommendations to detail precisely what a tree strategy should be. The documents referenced in respect of these quotes, and their content, have the support of the Institute of Chartered Foresters, the Arboricultural Association, the Forestry Commission, and many other bodies that represent the people which you refer to as “experts” (although relatively few members are actually members of the Expert Witness Institute). Many cities have a tree strategy, so you can go online and get an idea of what one could look like. There is no standard template. However, as stated in the SORT hand-out, the ODPM’s Trees in Towns II report gave guidance. By the way, if you provided a definition for each of the “six Ds”, people would be more likely to understand your reasons for assigning a specific treatment, such as pruning or felling.

You stated that: “inspections are done as per Law; as per industry standards”. That may, or may not be so, but there has been no evidence that hazard and risk assessment and analysis are “as per Law; as per industry standards”. The SORT hand-out provides referenced quotes from current best practice documents to help you with this. Please do take the time to read the hand-out in its entirety. Certainly, overall management of Sheffield’s urban forest – the city-wide tree population – is NOT in accordance with current legislation or policy commitments, whether local, national, European or international (see the SORT hand-out for detail). The current approach is not planned (failure to look at what you want and need to achieve), systematic (failure to assess how to do what is required and what is necessary) and integrated (failure to ensure a strategic approach is linked to other strategies and policies and that all stakeholders are involved, by way of education, consultation and participation), as recommended by the ODPM’s Trees in Towns II report (current best practice) and Forestry Commission guidance. An adequate tree strategy, draughted and implemented in accordance with current best practice guidance and recommendations would address all these deficits (see the SORT hand-out for detail); it would support, encourage and help ensure a responsible, sustainable approach to management, and minimise the likelihood of reckless or negligent acts or omissions. Producing literature and holding meetings to tell people what will happen to their neighbourhood does not constitute adequate or proper education and does not represent consultation or participation. To date, you have ignored the views of communities and have complained that they have failed to commission their own competent arboricultural consultants and highway engineers to produce highway engineering specifications for the Council. I am not aware of any Local Authority in the UK that expects so much of its citizens. Even Prime Minister David Cameron would not expect so much! Such work is the DUTY of the Local Authority, not citizens!

You stated “We, the taxpayers of Sheffield, pay the wages of our tree experts; we train them, we educate them - the skills they develop…”. Actually, as a former highway arboriculturist, employed by Sheffield City Council, I have first-hand experience of what actually happens. The Council view arboricultural education as an unaffordable and unnecessary luxury and do not provide any financial support or educational materials for academic study. When I worked for the Council, none of the people in highways management had any formal academic achievement in arboriculture whatsoever. That had been the case for decades! Training was regarded as a luxury and was generally not made available to those who needed it. Managers and supervisors responsible for the supervision of works and enforcement of standards did not meet the definition of “competent”, or “arboriculturist” as defined within the British Standards (3998 & 5837), so skills were sub-standard in many respects, but not all. To date, you have not provided any evidence that things have changed. Indeed, your own definition of a tree strategy and examples of engineering solutions indicates the same problems remain.

You mentioned that the Council’s “tree experts” have “to work within the confines of Law”, then stated: “I also agree that the experts in the field will always have disrefutes, dependent on what they are side they’re on”. One thing that all competent arboriculturists - including Chartered arboriculturists and Arboricultural Consultants registered with the Arboricultural Association - can agree on is that their acts and omissions must, by law, be those of reasonably skilled members of their profession. In practice, this means that to fulfil their duty of care, they are required to ensure that their acts and omissions are in accordance with current legislation and best practice. In summary, whether employed by the Local Authority or within the private sector, all arboriculturists are liable for their acts and omissions and are duty bound to act in accordance with common best practice. Whether the arboriculturist is employed within the public or private sector is irrelevant. By the way, you are bound by the same duty of care. The SORT hand-out largely consisted of a multitude of quotes from various legislation and best practice documents, so blanket dismissal of the whole SORT document cannot be justified and would be both reckless and negligent.

You mentioned that other cities in Europe are watching how you manage the Streets Ahead project. Let me tell you, a number of European countries are decades ahead of us in terms of urban forest management, as they have been practicing and experimenting for decades. You can read all about their achievements in the academic journals referenced in the online SORT petition (and references therein) that was submitted to Council. In comparison, the Streets Ahead approach to tree management is very much retrograde! This is evidenced by acts and omissions on the ground and by your comments and those of arboricultural managers employed by both the Council and Amey. It is apparent and evident that there is a lack of knowledge of current best practice. With regard to tree management, Europe has nothing to learn from Sheffield. Sheffield’s errors are likely to be reported in the international journals. There is so much out there to help you do the right thing that making massive mistakes in this day and age is going to be very difficult to explain to observers, particularly when they realise you have been provided with a copy of the SORT hand-out, given its content.

You have made it clear that you desire to have the support of everyone. You stated:
“Because this is such a delicate and in-depth debate, I’ve suggested the Council will endorse an Highways Tree Forum, where, as we have already heard, so many big issues need to be talked through”

This is not a bad idea, provided people have the opportunity to influence decisions and affect change. If it is just a forum for the Council to serve notification and appear to be involving communities, as opposed to using the forum as a platform for education, consultation and participation, then the forum will represent a spectacular waste of public resources, including money. If you do actually go ahead with the forum idea, I suggest you use it to get feedback on a proposed tree strategy document, if not for the entire urban forest (as guided and recommended by current arboriculture and urban forestry best practice), then for highway trees, as they are currently managed in an irresponsible and unsustainable manner, as evidenced by recent and current acts and omissions (including your comments at full Council, and in the media). See the SORT hand-out for detail.

However, if you still expect citizens find and fund their own consultants to produce the sensitive, flexible highways engineering specifications that they have requested you commission and adopt (to ensure that the Council’s green infrastructure is managed in a responsible and sustainable manner, in compliance with current best practice, national and international policies, commitments and legislation), to quote from the SORT hand-out: “…it is wholly unacceptable and inappropriate…” “Many citizens of Sheffield lack the time, money or opportunity to launch campaigns to encourage the adoption of sound policies, specifications and practices for the responsible and sustainable management of the urban forest resource.”

“…over 30% of Sheffield’s population live in areas that fall within 20% most deprived in the country…”
(Sheffield City Council: Development and Regeneration Services, 2014, pp. 1-2).

I can’t even believe a Labour representative is even suggesting such a thing! Your acts and omissions will hit the poorest in society the hardest!

You mentioned that it was taking over a month for people to get any response from the Council to their enquiries because of cut-backs and staff shortages. However, campaigners have noted that enquiries are not being dealt with in sequence: some enquiries are receiving responses much sooner than enquiries that were submitted over a week, three weeks, or more, earlier. There is no evidence of a consistent and transparent approach.

You mentioned that any delay to the Streets Ahead programme would result in investors losing confidence in the programme and that they would be likely to pull out; meaning roads would not get fixed. However, I’m confident that you could just re-schedule the programme and complete it at a later date. Investors would have no choice to understand, if you explained that it was necessary in fulfilment of your statutory duties. See the SORT hand-out for detail of your duties.

Finally, if you had actually bothered to read the SORT hand-out that was produced to inform the “debate” that was supposed to take place at the meeting of full Council, you could have avoided embarrassing yourself, the Labour party and the Council.

“Better information cannot guarantee improved decisions, but it is a prerequisite for sound decision-making”
(Alcamo, et al., 2003, p. 1).

Yours sincerely,

******

Works Cited:

Alcamo, J., Ash, N., Butler, C. & Callicott, J., 2003. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems And Human Well-being: A Framework For Assessment, London: Island Press.
http://www.unep.org/maweb/en/Framework.aspx

Sheffield City Council: Development and Regeneration Services, 2014. Statement of Community Involvement. [Online] Available at: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-docu...
[Accessed 27 March 2015].

CLLR FOX'S TREE FORUM

Here are extracts from Councillor Fox's invitation to people that he would like to join his panel of "experts"...

Reference: Highway Tree Advisory Forum Meeting

As you may be aware at the Full Council meeting on Wednesday 1 July I promised to set up the Highway Tree Advisory Forum...

The aim of these meetings is to enable a meaningful discussion and to promote a debate about the Councils approach to managing it's highway tree stock. This will be a public meeting and members of the public will be able to ask their questions during the first hour of the meeting.

...Below you will find Terms of Reference for these meetings and the agenda for the first meeting as well as the date for any future meetings.

I do hope you are able to help by bringing your expertise on what is clearly a subject of interest across Sheffield and look forward to hearing who your representative will be.

Kind Regards

Cllr Fox
Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport

Terms of Reference
The purpose of the Tree advisory forum is to offer an opportunity for all the experts in their respective fields to debate issues relating to highway trees. These include:
• The city wide approach and adoption of the 6 ds
• The sensitive engineering solutions that are considered before any trees are noticed for felling
• The Streets Ahead approach to communications
• Replanting species catalogue
• Sharing industry best practice and innovation

These meetings will be held bi-monthly in the Town Hall between 5pm and 7pm.
The meetings will be chaired by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport
Minutes of the meeting will be taken and once agreed by the Chair will be emailed to all those who have attended

Agenda - 23rd July 2015
• Welcome and introductions by the Chair
• Details of how the meeting will be run
• Confirm Terms of Reference
• Public questions (3 minutes to speak) – (1 hour)
• Experts Discussion about the 6 Ds
• Advice offered
• Date of next meeting
• Close

*SHAM TREE FORUM* ...Fetch the hounds!

The content of an e-mail communication to Cllr Fox has been brought to my attention, dated 20 Jul 2015. An edited version is produced below, for your benefit (with the author's permission)...

"...you have sent out a number of invitations to various people, inviting them to be members of a panel of “experts” at the tree forum you have named the “Highway Tree Advisory Forum”. Oddly enough, you failed to organise a panel prior to setting and announcing the date of the first meeting of the forum. This appears to be just one of a number of serious errors. I wish to bring to your attention a few others, just to ensure that you are aware of them:

1) A proposed forum constitution should have been draughted and put out to the representatives of key stakeholders for consultation, feedback and amendment, prior to being confirmed and adopted.

2) The Chair of the forum should be appointed by majority vote, by the representatives of key stakeholders: either you, or the Labour Council have elected yourself.

3) The Chair should not be a person with vested interests or bias with regard to the matters being approached: you are known to have strong vested interests and biased, uninformed opinions, as evidenced by your acts and omissions and those of others whom you have supported and defended, in public.

4) Without an agreed and widely accepted constitution, the forum is extremely vulnerable to abuse and misuse, with significant, strong likelihood of misuse and abuse: there is no indication that an appropriate system with adequate protocols is in place to prevent these serious errors. If you have one, please send me a copy by e-mail.

5) The forum should serve as an arena for the exchange of opinions and ideas between the representatives of key stakeholders: at present, it is set to be a question and response session between citizens and “experts” on the panel, with a discussion between unannounced “experts”: “experts” chosen by the Labour Council, without consultation with or approval of the representatives of key stakeholders.

To quote my previous words to you regarding the idea of a forum:

“This is not a bad idea, provided people have the opportunity to influence decisions and affect change. If it is just a forum for the Council to serve notification and appear to be involving communities, as opposed to using the forum as a platform for education, consultation and participation, then the forum will represent a spectacular waste of public resources, including money.”

Given your track record to date – your acts and omissions, and those of the political party to which you belong - I believe you, as Chair, will abuse the forum and use it as a platform to peddle your own misinformed, misleading rhetoric.

I strongly request that you urgently work to correct the errors I’ve brought to your attention, AND that you postpone the initial meeting of the forum until you have addressed the errors in an appropriate and adequate manner. Also, I wish this communication to be treated as a personal communication to you, as the current Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, and as a list of official complaints.

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxx"

TREE FORUM

As stated in The Star newspaper, those interested in attending the forum were invited to register their desire to attend by e-mailing trees@sheffield.gov.uk (tough if you are not online!)

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/new-avenue-for-sheffield-trees-debate-1-73...

Those that have used the e-mail address receive a response from:

Amanda Preston
PA to Steve Robinson
Head of Highway Maintenance
5th Floor (South)
Howden House
Sheffield
S1 2SH

 Tel +44 (0) 114 2053590
 E-mail Amanda.Preston@sheffield.gov.uk
(Monday to Wednesday)
 Web www.sheffield.gov.uk/streetsahead

Twitter @sccstreetsahead

Amanda has provided the following information, although there does not appear to have been any attempt to publicise it:

"The advisory panel will consist of representatives from the following groups:
o Chair – Terry Fox
o Deputy Chair – Tony Downing
o Councillors from all political parties
o Streets Ahead Technical staff
o Amey arboricultural experts
o Amey highways
o SCC Parks
o Streets Ahead Communications staff
o SCC Conservation / Planning Officer
o Amey ecologist
o SCC legal advisor
o SCC Highway maintenance expert
o Sheffield Bird Study Group
o Wildlife Trust
o Tinsley Tree Project
o Universities
o Access Liaison Group
o Sheffield Royal Society for the Blind
o Mumsnet
o Woodland Trust
o Over 50’s
o SORT
o Reporters from Star Radio Sheffield and Telegraph"

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST:

ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS CONSIDERED TO ENSURE THE SAFE, LONG-TERM RETENTION OF LONG ESTABLISHED STREET TREES DURING PAVEMENT RESURFACING AND KERB REALIGNMENT WORKS

On 6th July, 2015, the following request was submitted to Sheffield City Council:

“Under the FOI act, I request the SPECIFICATIONS for the range of options that were considered and deemed to be impracticable, for the 11 healthy trees due for felling on Rustlings Road.”

SORT Campaigners have been requesting to see such specifications since late May, 2015.

It is evident, from the response (below), that the Streets Ahead team have clearly benefited from the suggestions of SORT campaigners, and have managed to take some inspiration from the documents referenced in SORT communications. The Streets Ahead team have managed to add to the 20 options that Cllr Fox first mentioned at the meeting of full Council on 1st July, 2015. HOWEVER…

THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS FOR PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION/RESURFACING AND KERB REALIGNMENT.

THE FOLLOWING FREEDOM OF INFORMATION RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED:

“From: FOI@sheffield.gov.uk
Subject: Response – Freedom of Information Request – Reference FOI/422
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015

Dear xxxx

Re: Freedom of Information Request – Reference FOI/422

Thank you for your recent request for information regarding Options deemed impracticable for trees due for feeling on Rustlings Road, which we received on 06/07/2015.

Please find below, Sheffield City Council’s response to your request:

Dear xxxx

Please find attached the list of options that are considered before any tree across the city is noticed for removal and replacement. Please note that 3 out of the 11 trees that have been noticed on Rustlings Road will only be felled if once we have excavated the footway we find that none of the solutions attached can be applied. Also note that these solutions are likely to have allowed some of the other 19 trees along Rustlings Road to remain in place.

These engineering solutions will also be discussed by the Highway Tree Advisory Forum on the 2nd September.

Kind Regards

Streets Ahead Team”

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST: REQUEST TO SEE RISK ASSESSMENTS

On 6th July, 2015, the following request was submitted to Sheffield City Council:

“Under the FOI act, I request a copy of the risk assessment for the trees that are proposed to be felled on Rustlings Road please”.

SORT Campaigners have been requesting to have detail of how decisions to fell healthy, structurally sound trees are made, since late May, 2015!

THE FOLLOWING FREEDOM OF INFORMATION RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED:

“From: FOI@sheffield.gov.uk
Subject: Response – Freedom of Information Request – Reference FOI/423
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015
Dear xxxx

Re: Freedom of Information Request – Reference FOI/423

Thank you for your recent request for information regarding Risk Assessments for the trees due to be felled on Rustlings Road, which we received on 06/07/2015.

Please find below, Sheffield City Council’s response to your request:

Dear xxxx

WE DO NOT CARRY OUT A RISK ASSESSMENT as part of our review of trees. We do however undertake an assessment of whether a tree meets any of the criteria for removal as outlined on the Council’s website I.e. Dangerous, Dead, Dying, Diseased, Damaging the road or pavement or Discrimination (causing extreme obstruction to pavements). Please note that 7 of the trees on Rustlings Road are damaging the footway to such an extent that we cannot rectify it using reasonably practical means and 1 further tree is diseased. As we have outlined in previous correspondence to you 3 of the trees may be able to remain in situ but this cannot be confirmed until we have excavated the footway.

Kind Regards,

Streets Ahead Team"

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST:

REQUEST TO SEE THE STRATEGY USED TO GUIDE AND INFORM TREE MANAGEMENT & TO SEE A DETAILED STREET TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN.

On 6th July, 2015, the following request was submitted to Sheffield City Council:

“Under the FOI act, I request a complete detail of the strategy for tree management on Rustlings Rd, for the duration of the PFI contract, and for full and complete detail of the current management plan for all trees on the road (long established & new/proposed).”

Since late May, 2015, SORT campaigners have been requesting to know detail of plans for both the short and long-term management of trees on Rustlings Road. Until now both the Council and Amey have refused to give detail of any strategy or plans and have only provided limited detail of their immediate intentions. Vague language is usually used to avoid divulging information.

THE FOLLOWING FREEDOM OF INFORMATION RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED:

“From: FOI@sheffield.gov.uk
Subject: Response – Freedom of Information Request – Reference FOI/428
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015

Dear xxxx,

Re: Freedom of Information Request – Reference FOI/428

Thank you for your recent request for information relating to Strategy for tree management on Rustlings Road, for the duration of the PFI contract, and the current management plan for trees on the road which we received on 06/07/2015

Please find below, Sheffield City Council’s response to your request:

Dear xxxx,

We would note that as trees are living organisms, it would be impossible to speculate every conceivable required maintenance operation to a mature tree into the future.

We can confirm that all trees will continue to be assessed by competent and qualified arboricultural inspectors for both safety and condition on a regular rolling programme, and any maintenance works identified as being required as part of this survey process will be carried out in a suitable timescale and priority based upon the severity of the issue identified. The maintenance programme is entirely dynamic based on the survey findings, and as such we cannot predict what maintenance challenges we will face. There may also be pavement damage caused by the trees and our approach will depend on the extent of the damage.

Lime trees will typically be trimmed of epicormic (lower trunk) growth on an annual basis in order to keep footways.

Despite our best efforts, it is possible that some trees will reach the end of their life during the next 22 years given the unique stresses and strains of being planted in a hard surface such as the highway environment.

The Council remains bound to its legal obligations outlined in the highways act, and as such, it is pertinent to add that further tree replacement works may be required in the future in order to continue to meet these legal requirements.

Kind Regards,

Streets Ahead Team ”

THE STREETS AHEAD APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT:

NO STRATEGY; NO RISK ASSESSMENT; NO COST:BENEFIT ANALYSIS; NO LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN

So, in short, THERE IS NO STRATEGY to guide and inform tree management decisions on Rustlings Rd. There is nothing to help ensure that there is a planned, systematic, integrated, sustainable approach or to help ensure consistency, transparency, accountability, and help temper a risk-averse approach. THIS DOES NOT ACCORD WITH CURRENT ARBORICULTURAL OR URBAN FORESTRY BEST PRACTICE.

THERE IS NO MANAGEMENT PLAN for all trees on Rustlings Road (long established & new/proposed).

Just for the record, as stated previously, in Freedom of Information Request Reference FOI/423 (above), INSPECTORS DO NOT DO RISK ASSESSMENTS. They identify hazards, but that does not mean that they are appropriately and sufficiently qualified in hazard assessment or risk assessment and risk analysis.

Section 154 of the Highways Act requires assessment of the tree CONDITION AND the LIKELIHOOD of danger, when assessing and considering management options for any tree that is DEAD, DISEASED, DAMAGED or insecurely rooted.

NOTE THAT THE WORD “DYING” DOES NOT APPEAR WITHIN THE ACT.

ADEQUATE assessments that comply with CURRENT best practice, undertaken by COMPETENT ARBORICULTURISTS (people with relevant education, training and experience relevant to the matter being addressed and an understanding of the requirements of the particular task being approached, as defined by British Standard 5837 [2012]), are required to help temper a risk-averse approach and help ensure that assessments are BALANCED, consider ALL CIRCUMSTANCES of the case in hand, and that management response is PROPORTIONATE. This represents a prudent and reasonable, DEFENDABLE approach to tree management.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS

At the foot of every Freedom of Information Request response, the following text appears:

“I hope the information we have provided is of help to your enquiries. If you have any queries about this response, please do not hesitate to contact us.

If you are unhappy with the response you have received in relation to your request, you are entitled to have this reviewed. You can ask for an internal review by either writing to the above address or by emailing FOI@sheffield.gov.uk.

If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of your internal review, you can contact the Information Commissioners Office. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, telephone 0303 123 113, or for further details see their website http://www.ico.gov.uk

Kind Regards,

Resources Business Support
Moorfoot Level 8 West Wing
Sheffield S1 4PL
Tel : 0114 20 53478
E-mail : FOI @sheffield.gov.uk"

THE RELEVANCE TO YOU

Although the above FOI requests relate to Rustlings Road, the Council's acts and omissions with regard to implementation of policy and legislation, and with respect to accordance with and application of current best practice, are likely to be identical in ALL parts of the city, including the street you live on!

SHEFFIELD’S FIRST EVER TREE FORUM
Thursday 23rd July, 2015

LIST OF PANELLISTS:

Cllr Joe Otten (Lib Dem).

Robin Thistle?) (A man representing the Tinsley Tree Project ).

David Aspinall (SCC: Woodlands Manager).

Ms Nicky Rivers (Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust: Living Landscape Development Manager).

Mr (Sample?) (The Woodland Trust: Regional Policy Administration Officer).

James Winters (SCC: Environmental Technical Advisory Team member).*

David Wain (SCC: Environmental Technical Advisory Team member).*

Cllr Sarah Jane Smalley (Green Party).

Mr Steve Robinson (SCC: Head of Highway Maintenance, responsible for the Streets Ahead Project).

Cllr Terry Fox (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport: Labour).

Ms Ann (Cave?) (SCC: Communications).*

Ms Charlie Howell (Amey & SCC: Ecologist).*

Mr Thorpe (Disabled Access Liaison Group).

Ms Porter (?).*

Greg Simons (Director of Amey, responsible for the improvement works across the city).*

Daren Butt (Amey: Operations Director).

Professor Nigel Dunnett (University of sheffield: Urban Horticulture, Park and Landscape specialist).

Louise Wilcockson (Campaigner: Save Our Roadside Trees [SORT]: formerly Save Our Rustlings Trees).

Dr Deepa Shetty (Campaigner: Save Our Roadside Trees [SORT]: formerly Save Our Rustlings Trees).

Ellen Beardmore (The Star & Sheffield Telegraph).*

*These people chose to remain quiet, throughout, if my memory serves me right. Mr Wain was typing away on a laptop for the duration of the meeting.

SHEFFIELD’S FIRST EVER TREE FORUM: THOUGHTS ON THE FIRST MEETING

Thursday 23rd July, 2015

Well, I attended the forum, but only to record exactly what happened and what was said; nothing more. It was all very poorly structured and amateurish.

To my surprise, CLLR FOX (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport: Labour) has promised there will be a tree strategy. If true that is certainly worth celebrating as a milestone on the road toward a planned, systematic and integrated approach to sustainable management of Sheffield’s Urban Forest.

Now, IF the Council did not already have an existing policy commitment to produce such a “Trees & Woodland Strategy” (within the “Sheffield’s Great Outdoors: Green and Open Space Strategy 2010-2030″ document, referred to in SORT communications), I would not have believed a word of Cllr Fox’s promise. In fact, during the meeting Cllr Fox stated, twice, that the provision of a tree strategy was not within his “portfolio”. In other words, it was not his responsibility to commission one and ensure it is adopted as Council policy and that it is properly implemented in accordance with current best practice. Indeed, he claimed that it was CLLR ISOBEL BOWLER’S (Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods: Labour) responsibility as it was her “portfolio”. It is odd that the leader of the Council, CLLR JULIE DORE, has never mentioned that, at ANY point.

Cllr Fox went on to state that, with regard to trees, his “portfolio” only made him responsible for street trees. He said the preparation of a tree strategy would be the responsibility of DAVE ASPINALL, Woodlands Manager in the COUNTRYSIDE AND ENVIRONMENT department (at Meersbrook Park: formerly the “Parks, Woodlands & Countryside” department). Mr Aspinall held aloft a copy of the Council’s “Sheffield’s Great Outdoors: Green and Open Space Strategy 2010-2030″ document and commented that there was indeed a current policy commitment to produce a “Trees & Woodland Strategy”, and that he would prepare one. He pointed out that it was an enormous task, as his department alone has responsibility for a much greater number of trees than the Highways department does. However, he did promise to have one ready for next March (2016).

One heckler pointed out to Cllr Fox that as he is Cabinet Member for Environment responsibility for a tree strategy certainly is within his “portfolio”. Fox responded by saying that in truth, responsibility was shared between “portfolios”.

Just to remind readers, the Agenda for the first forum meeting was as follows:

“Agenda - 23rd July 2015
1) Welcome and introductions by the Chair
2) Details of how the meeting will be run
3) Confirm Terms of Reference
4) Public questions (3 minutes to speak) – (1 hour)
5) Experts Discussion about the 6 Ds
6) Advice offered
7) Date of next meeting
8) Close”

The meeting started late.

The first two items went as well as could be expected.

The Terms of Reference were only confirmed in that CLLR FOX STATED THAT IF ANYBODY WASN’T HAPPY WITH THEM, THEY HAD THE OPTION TO LEAVE OR NOT ATTEND. There was no consultation, discussion or vote about the Terms of Reference, at any level or stage.

On the day, A NEW ITEM APPEARED IN THE AGENDA, between items 4 & 5. It was an 8 minute slot when STEVE ROBINSON (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance, “Responsible for the Streets Ahead project”) gave a presentation. He said:

“…we had a survey carried out by an independent firm in 2006/2007…they recommended that there was a process of sustainable replacement. So, in light of that, the Council, as part of its application to Government for the Streets Ahead project, received funding to manage the City’s highway tree stock…”

It is, perhaps, worth me sharing with you the fact that I have an e-mail from Cllr Jack Scott (then Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene [Labour]), dated 27th August 2014, in which Cllr Scott states:

“At contract commencement in August 2012, Amey commissioned an independent tree inspection company to undertake a full condition survey of all 36,000 highway trees.”

Also, in a letter dated 23rd March, 2015, addressed to a senior SORT campaigner, DAVID WAIN (SCC Environmental Technical Officer) stated:

“The initial asset survey of all 36,000 highway trees was undertaken by ACORN, however Amey are now utilising their own in house staff for both the cyclical safety inspections and also the pre-Streets Ahead works surveys. AMEY CANNOT FELL A TREE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE COUNCIL, and as such ALL REQUESTS FOR TREE FELLING ARE ASSESSED BY qualified tree inspectors from THE COUNCIL’S CLIENT TEAM IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT all requests are legitimate and the WORKS ARE PROPORTIONATE AND REQUIRED.”

According to Mr Robinson, this survey was “To identify the health of each tree and also to identify the diseased trees and the extent of that disease”.

Mr Robinson commented on the process of how trees are assessed. Commenting on what happens after Amey have made their recommendations, he said:

“…those recommendations are then made to the Council tree experts who then independently verify that recommendation. The Council has the final say on any treatment of a tree. Those decisions are made at a corporate level rather than independent – at the individual. SO, THERE IS A DETAILED PROCESS THROUGH WHICH DECISIONS ARE MADE, ULTIMATELY ENDING WITH ME.”

His presentation concentrated on the 6Ds policy. There was no detailed justification or reasoning. Almost everything he said either has appeared in the media or on the Council’s website. It was just a re-hash of what everyone there has already been fobbed off with previously. I use the word almost, because, as mentioned above, he stated that the extent of disease is identified, which is more than has been said previously. However, that does not imply that the nature and significance (to people, property and the tree) of the disease is assessed, nor that it is assessed in accordance with current best practice, by competent arboriculturists (as defined within British Standards 3998 [2010] and 5837 [2012]: see SORT PDFs for detail). Ironically, one of the photographs shown was of the fungus Laetiporus sulphureus (AKA chicken-of-the-woods), on the MELBOURNE RD VETERAN OAK, STOCKSBRIDGE, before Amey felled it last year! It was shown as an example of a disease that justified felling! To me, that just served to highlight the lack of education and knowledge amongst Council & Amey representatives on the panel.

For detailed comment on the significance of decay caused by this fungus, please visit Stocksbridge Community Forum (online): https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/contribute-website

Item four was a waste of time, in my opinion. Random people in the audience put their hand up to be selected to present a question, one after the other. Cllr Fox chose who would get the opportunity to speak. A lady walked around the room with a microphone for most of them. Some “questions” were relevant to the agenda, others not. Some assertions had firm basis, others did not.

One young lady commented that she regularly ran along Rustlings Road with a blind companion (a man) and that her companion had never complained about the pavement or had even had any difficulty with it. She even said that the man had used Rustlings Rd to train his guide dog.

Another lady mentioned that, in France, she has noticed that the French place a rail around particular street trees, some distance from the stem, so that people can’t walk in to the trees or trip on ground disturbed by roots. I thought that was a great practical solution!

One man was particularly knowledgeable about engineering standards for footpaths and read out a whole load of technical stuff that sounded very helpful. Mr Robinson appeared to pay particularly close attention to what this man said; he also looked as though the information was new to him, which was a shock to me!

There was strong protest from the audience when they realised that the first hour was going to be taken up by them asking questions without the panel actually responding to any, let alone providing answers. Cllr Fox attempted to reassure everyone, by saying that there were three people on the panel taking notes, so even if the panel couldn’t remember any of the questions presented to them, when it came to responding in the second hour, they would have the notes to remind them of the detail of the questions asked in the first hour.

In practice, that didn’t work. Perhaps 95% of points raised during questions went unaddressed by the panel. So, in fact, the fears of the audience were justified!

Point five to seven were meant to be addressed in the second hour (the final half of the meeting). In truth, there was no discussion between panellists, or between panellists and the audience. It reminded me very much of the format used at the meeting of full Council on 1st July, when SORT presented their >10,000 signature petition.

The guys most closely and most directly involved with tree management didn’t say a word. Those panellists that did say something took it in turn to present personal opinions. Where these challenged current acts and omissions, there was no response from or discussion, let alone discussion involving those responsible for current acts and omissions. To me, that just reinforced my opinion that there is a distinct lack of transparency and accountability. That, of course, does nothing to foster good relations between the Council & communities.

With time taken up by panellists presenting opinions, there was no time to address the questions asked in the first hour.

Precious little advice was offered to Amey & the Council from the panellists. They all recognised the importance of and necessity for a Tree Strategy to guide and inform decisions. Most, if not all, agreed that the benefits afforded by trees to the built environment and its inhabitants, by way of “ecosystem goods and services” and their value should be taken in to account during assessments. There was particular concern that the filtration of airborne particulate matter (pollution), carbon storage and carbon sequestration were not being accounted for and that the costs to health and well-being were being ignored and not being recognised as serious.

The SORT campaign representatives highlighted the point that the precautionary principle adopted as policy at Rio should be applied in the decision making process, as required by European Directive 2001/42/EC, so as to avoid causing serious harm to people and wildlife and damage to the environment and public property. Neither the Council or Amey responded to criticism that they don’t do valuations of ecosystem goods and services or risk assessments, and that they fail to apply the Precautionary Principle (see the SORT PDFs for a detail).

Ms Wilcockson, of SORT, read out an excerpt from UK ROAD LIAISON GROUP guidance, which appeared to take Steve Robinson by surprise. I thought she made a fair and useful comment. The guidance quoted is reproduced here, in its entirety:

“Extensive root growth from larger trees can cause significant damage to the surface of footways, particularly in urban areas. A RISK ASSESSMENT SHOULD THEREFORE BE UNDERTAKEN WITH SPECIALIST ARBORICULTURAL ADVICE ON THE MOST APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION, if possible to avoid harm to the tree. In these circumstances, it may be difficult for authorities to reconcile their responsibilities for surface regularity, with wider environmental considerations and A REDUCED STANDARD OF REGULARITY MAY BE ACCEPTABLE.”

I note that, to date, SCC & Amey have failed to specify, or provide detail of which National highway standards & guidance they are working to. In this day & age, you would expect all non-sensitive information to be made readily available, at least online!

Darren Butt - Account Director and Operations Manager for Amey - mentioned that ALL his tree officers were previously employed by the Council & were transferred to Amey when the PFI contract started (in August 2012). He claimed that they all have degrees, although he failed to say what in. Personally, with good reason, I believe this last claim is false, based on acts and omissions to date, as well as my personal knowledge of all the circumstances.

Cllr Fox stated that it would be difficult to provide evidence of the competence of employees, as there were data protection issues and it would depend on whether or not individual employees were willing to share personal information publicly.

The man from the Woodland Trust said that although he was not an arboriculturist, his job was to draught, review & revise regional policy. He voiced concern that the Council appear to be acting before having policy in place and commented that there certainly should be a strategy in place and that one is needed. He was particularly concerned about the destruction of Smithy Wood – ancient woodland near Chapletown, beside the M1.

The lady from Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust commented that there was an absence of transparency in how decisions were made. She noted that, at least, the pro formas used for inspections and assessments could and should be made available for the public to see.

Cllr Smalley made a passionate case for greater integration and cooperation at all levels, particularly between Cabinet Members of the Council and also between different Council departments. Indeed, this is actually required by current urban forestry and arboriculture best practice guidance & recommendations contained within:

“Trees in Towns 2: a new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management”: a report published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, in 2008 (see SORT PDFs for detail).

Mr Thorpe kindly offered to walk along Rustlings road with whoever would like him to and give his personal verdict. He has severe visual impairment, so is unable to read words or see much. Cllr Fox said he would accept the offer.

Cllr Fox refused to delay ANY scheduled felling, other than the trees on Rustlings Rd, which he said wouldn’t be touched until after the next forum meeting.

Was anything achieved, other than the commitment to actually carry out the pre-existing policy commitment to produce a tree strategy? The answer, in my opinion, is a firm NO!