The revamp of the Stocksbridge Community forum website is (almost) complete. It is now possible for you to contribute comments, events, news and much more.
You need to register as a user and then simply type!
Initially, all contributions will be moderated. However, it is possible to become a 'trusted contributor.' Your input will then go live as soon as you have finished typing.
We are holding three workshops in the New Year when this process will be explained and you will be assisted to become a 'trusted contributor. For further details and to book your place, please send an email which includes your contact details.
Gallery
Comments
SHEFFIELD’S FIRST EVER TREE FORUM: 2,563 TREES FELLED ALREADY
ALL DEAD, DYING AND DANGEROUS TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED...ALL 1,200!
Extracts from the “6Ds presentation” given by Mr Steve Robinson - Sheffield City Council’s Head of Highway Maintenance (“responsible for the Streets Ahead Project”) - at the inaugural meeting of Sheffield City Council’s Highway Tree Advisory Forum, held at Sheffield Town Hall, on 23rd JULY, 2015:
“We had a survey carried out by an independent firm in 2006/2007 that identified that there was 10,000 trees - that’s out of a highway tree stock of 36,000 - that required some type of intervention, and they recommended that there was a process of sustainable replacement. 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 also seeks to repair the city’s infrastructure… So, we believe that the Streets Ahead project offers a unique opportunity to manage, maintain and replace trees, and to offer a generational shift to leave a lasting legacy.”
“So, why the 6D’s then? So, the initial priority when the Streets Ahead project started in August 2012 was to deal with the highways trees. So, our underinvestment and underfunding left us with a number of DEAD, DYING AND DANGEROUS TREES. Some of you would be surprised that THERE WERE 1,200 TREES THAT WERE WITHIN THAT CATEGORY. So, AMEY IDENTIFIED THOSE TREES AND ADDRESSED THOSE FIRST. Then, at the same time, a full survey of all the city’s 36,000 trees was carried out, to identify the health of each tree and also to identify the DISEASED trees and the EXTENT of that disease. Our next priority is to improve the condition of our roads and pavements. So, in other words, deal with the DAMAGING trees – those trees that are damaging kerbs, pavements and drains. And then, because the Council is actually improving its footpaths, we are obliged to consider equality. So, we’re now looking to deal with DISCRIMINATORY trees, which is the final 6th D, and those are trees that block the pavements, affecting those people that have mobility issues.
There’s been a lot of comment on how a tree is assessed and whether there are independent people involved. So, the process is this: each tree is assessed by Amey’s highway tree experts. Now, a lot of those tree experts used to work for Sheffield City Council, and they were ‘TUPE’ transferred to Amey, as part of setting up Streets Ahead. So, those Amey tree experts were once upon a time and very recently Sheffield City Council’s highway tree experts. 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.
So, just to give you a summary of where we are today, THERE’S BEEN 2,563 HIGHWAY TREES REMOVED because they met one of the 6Ds and there was no other rectification that we could carry out. Each tree that is taken out is replaced on a one-for-one basis.”
This is interesting, because Cllr Fox (Labour Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, and self-appointed Chair of the Highway trees Advisory Forum) stated, at the meeting of full council on 1st JULY, 2015:
“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.”
“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, we are half way through the Core-Investment Project. As I said, we have done over 300 miles of road; 500 miles of footpaths.” *
Also, A WEEK AFTER CLLR FOX’S COMMENTS, the Rustlings Road Response PDF, prepared by Ms Stephanie Roberts of and for the Streets Ahead Customer Services Fulfilment Team, during the afternoon of 8th JULY, 2015, subsequently distributed to many individual SORT campaigners, directly, via e-mail, stated:
“DURING THE STREETS AHEAD CONTRACT TO DATE WE HAVE PLANTED 2,019 NEW TREES”.
*Please keep in mind that only relatively recently, in the last few months, has Streets Ahead moved in to the city proper, after boosting its KPI statistics doing miles of more rural roads, so there will be a sharp increase in the rate of felling. ;)
FIDDLED
Just to remind everyone, these were Cllr Fox’s Terms of Reference for the Forum:
“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”
Looking at the above, given that the second forum is supposed to be about “engineering solutions” and that the 6Ds were the topic of the first forum, I can’t help but wonder at what stage will “the city wide approach” be the topic of the forum? It is the first item on the list, but it wasn’t mentioned, approached or “discussed” at the first forum meeting.
Really, this forum needs a constitution agreed by representatives of all key stakeholders, as mentioned previously. It also needs to continue through the centuries ahead. So far, I have a feeling that Cllr Fox only intends there to be a total of five forum meetings at inadequate intervals (every two months).
Given that felling is scheduled to take place each week, in many cases for no other reason than that nobody has done an appropriate risk assessment, or bothered to draught alternative highways engineering specifications, holding a forum every two months appears to be nothing more than a shallow PR stunt.
FORUM: LACK OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Just before 11am on the day of the first tree forum (yesterday), an strange e-mail arrived in the inbox of a close associate of mine, from a Labour Councillor, requesting an invitation to participate on the panel of "experts" at the forum. Here is the content of that e-mail, in its entirety:
"Hi
Can you please include Nether Edge Neighbourhood group for update and invite.
Best regards
Cllr Nasima Akther
Nether Edge Ward"
It is hard to believe that Cllr Fox is so secretive even with his own fellow Labour Councillors. Then again, I have no sympathy for Cllr Akther as she chose to vote to do nothing about trees at the meeting of full Council on 1st July.
ROOTS
SHEFFIELD’S FIRST EVER TREE FORUM
Thursday 23rd July, 2015
BUTT: A REAL JAM ROLL!
At the first meeting of the Highway Tree Advisory Forum, DARREN BUTT (Amey’s Operations Director), in reference to potential damage caused during pavement resurfacing stated:
“The majority of tree roots are actually in the upper 60 mil of the surface and therefore removing the top layer will remove and be extremely detrimental to those trees…”
Yes, those were his EXACT words!
He was wrong to say that “The majority of tree roots are actually in the upper 60 mil of the surface”. I suspect that was an honest slip of the tongue (if I’m being generous). Also, removing the paved surface can be done with minimal or no damage to tree roots, provided the work is done in accordance with current best practice guidance and recommendations, particularly that provided by the National Joint Utilities Group and that contained within British Standard 5837 (2012): see the SORT communications for further information.
MACHINERY SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR EXCAVATION (SUCH AS DIGGING TRENCHES OR HOLES) IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO TREES: not within the drip-line of the crown, or a distance from the stem equal to 12x the stem diameter at 1.5m above ground, whichever distance is greater (as per BS 5837 [2012]).
Now, it should be kept in mind, by everyone involved, that the trees everyone is most concerned about are street trees planted in, and in close proximity to, pavements. Roots seek out water and nutrients. These can’t be easily accessed in compacted layers, especially beneath sealed surfaces. A high stone content also physically impedes root growth. Pavements are constructed of compacted layers over a stony base. Generally speaking, tree roots spread out beneath these layers. If they enter these layers, it is likely to be as a result of the roots thickening as they get larger in diameter each year (although that growth will be minimal in long established trees).
By draughting highway engineering specifications that avoid damage to trees, or minimise damage to an acceptable level, and by working in accordance with current best practice guidance and recommendations, it is possible to conduct pavement reconstruction and/or resurfacing works in close proximity to long established trees, and ensure their safe retention for the long term.
Pavements can be reconstructed and pavement level can be raised. However, as we know from the response to FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST – REFERENCE FOI/422 (above), neither Amey or the Council have considered alternative highway engineering specifications. They just opted straight for the easy fix – fell!
What Mr Butt meant to say, I suspect, is that most tree roots are within 60cm of the surface. That is a simple statement of fact that he has used in a specific context so as to mislead the ignorant or uninformed. Newly planted trees, provided they have been well cared for and have been planted in well prepared ground, will have vigorous root growth. They will soon extend beyond the limits of any pavement. As they do so, they branch, and branch again, spreading outward, upward & downward. Most of the roots are less than 2cm in thickness, the bulk are very fine (<3mm thick). These very fine roots are the ones that access water and nutrients; they are near the surface and they are easily damaged. With long established trees, these FINE FEEDER ROOTS ARE FAR FROM THE STEM, so only a very, very, small percentage are likely to be under the pavement, if any! Close to the stem (trunk), there are unlikely to be more than about six roots, if that! THE BULK OF ROOTS IN LONG ESTABLISHED TREES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE STEM!
The information on pages 20 & 21 of the hand-out published in support of the Save Our Rustlings Trees (SORT) campaign, which was distributed to every Councillor on 26th June, 2015 (by the Sheffield City Council Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources department), provides USEFUL COMMENT ON THE PRACTICALITIES OF PROTECTING TREES FROM DAMAGE DURING PAVEMENT RESURFACING.Mr Butt, and all people with an interest in tree retention will benefit from taking a look.
For your benefit, the relevant section of the SORT hand-out is reproduced below:
“According to Cllr Davison’s notes from the meeting on 10th June 2015, with reference to comments made at the meeting, he noted:
'They argued that putting further covering of pathways would damage the roots as it wouldn’t be permeable'.
Actually, permeable surfacing could be used (Trees and Design Action Group, 2014; The British Standards Institution, 2012). However, impermeable surfacing close to the primary stem (trunk) of medium and large crowned trees is not likely to cause damage that would have negative impact on the safe, long-term retention of such trees, provided the following criteria are met:
1) engineering and works specifications are appropriate and adequate;
2) such specifications are in accordance with current arboricultural best practice;
3) adequate on-site supervision by a competent arboriculturist is provided at all times, for the duration of all such works;
4) compliance with all specifications and current arboricultural best practice is enforced.
Engineering and works specifications need to ensure that accidental damage to the roots of trees that could/are to be retained is minimised, so far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure that retained trees remain healthy in the long term, by acting in accordance with current arboricultural best practice when doing any works near trees (Patch & Holding, 2007; National Joint Utilities Group, 2007b; National Joint Utilities Group, 2007a; The British Standards Institution, 2010; The British Standards Institution, 2012; Trees and Design Action Group, 2014).
In BS 5837 (2012), the root area within 'the area equivalent to a circle with a radius 12 times the stem diameter'* is termed the Root Protection Area (RPA). Fine feeder roots occur far beyond the stem, and those under the pavement, many metres from the stem, are not likely to account for more than 20% of the RPA.
20% is the threshold beyond which significant damage is likely to be caused. Provided the aforementioned criteria are met with regard to works close to the primary stem (trunk) of trees, around major “structural” roots, there is not reasonable to suspect that more than 20% of the RPA will be affected in a negative manner.
*This is Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), measured 1.5m from the ground, perpendicular to the axis of the stem. On sloping ground, DBH is measured on the up-slope side of the tree (The British Standards Institution, 2012).
It should be remembered that there are a range of alternative permeable surfacing solutions (The British Standards Institution, 2012; Trees and Design Action Group, 2014) and that not all hard surfacing is tarmac. Alternative surfacing solutions can sustain heavy, frequent and consistent flows of pedestrian traffic on a daily basis!”
AMEY: COWBOY PRACTICE ON RUSTLINGS ROAD
Here is an interesting quote from page 7 of the “Rustlings Road Response” PDF, prepared by Ms Stephanie Roberts of and for the Streets Ahead Customer Services Fulfilment Team, during the afternoon of 8th July 2015:
"Concerns have been raised about the construction process with regards to the retained trees. WE CAN CONFIRM THAT ALL WORKS WILL BE SUPERVISED BY A QUALIFIED ARBORICULTURALIST TO ENSURE NO TREE ROOT DAMAGE OCCURS AS PART OF OUR WORKS. The Streets Ahead team work to National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) regulations and relevant British standards for construction works in the vicinity of trees and will continue to do so, our inspectors regularly monitor this by carrying out site inspections."
Well, a mini-digger machine was digging a trench within 2m of tree stems on Rustlings Rd on 10th July. The operator was not supervised on site for the duration of works by any arboriculturist, let alone a competent one! This does not accord with the guidance and recommendations of NJUG or BS 5837 (2012).
Promises and words of assurance are meaningless and hollow if they are not backed up by action!
SORT PDFs
SORT Communications can be accessed here:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/streets-ahead-stocksbridge-trees
HEALTH & WELL-BEING: ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (AESTHETICS/AMENITY: THE 7th "D": DELIGHT!)
Research from Toronto, Canada
“Results from multiple regressions and multivariate canonical correlation analyses suggest that people who live in neighborhoods with a higher density of trees on their streets report significantly higher health perception and significantly less cardio-metabolic conditions (controlling for socio-economic and demographic factors).
We find that having 10 more trees in a city block, on average, improves health perception in ways comparable to an increase in annual personal income of $10,000 and moving to a neighborhood with $10,000 higher median income or being 7 years younger.
We also find that having 11 more trees in a city block, on average, decreases cardiometabolic conditions in ways comparable to an increase in annual personal income of $20,000 and moving to a neighborhood with $20,000 higher median income or being 1.4 years younger.”
Source:
Kardan, O., Gozdyra, P., Misic, B., Moola, F., Palmer, L. J., Paus, T., & Berman, M. G. (2015). Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Scientific reports, 5.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150709/srep11610/pdf/srep11610.pdf
SORT: UPDATE
Save Our Rustlings Trees Campaigners (SORT) sent Cllr Fox another letter on 14th July, 2015. You can view a PDF version at:
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/updated-report-fr...
The PDF is an amended version of the SORT hand-out (above) that was distributed to every Councillor on 26th June, 2015, by the Sheffield City Council (SCC) Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources department.
This latest SORT communication addresses some of the Comment's that Cllr Fox has made at & following the meeting of full Council at Sheffield Town Hall on 1st July, 2015. It was sent as a letter to Cllr Fox, to persuade him to take ownership of the issues raised therein. It is not a response to the StreetsAhead response (the StreetsAhead response contains many falsehoods and misinterpretations).
Much of the legislation referred to within the SORT communication applies to many circumstances of every-day life, not just tree problems, so all people should find the info' of some use, particularly businesses & landowners.
BTW, Following the meeting of full Council, the SORT acronym now stands for Save Our ROADSIDE Trees. Campaigners are hoping the City Council will draught a tree strategy, in accordance with current arboricultural and urban forestry best practice, and formally adopt it as Council policy. This should help ensure the city-wide tree population – the urban forest – is managed in a responsible & SUSTAINABLE manner, and that the precautionary principle – as agreed at the Rio Earth Summit, and as required by European Directive 2001/42/EC – is applied when the Council lack adequate resources to undertake adequate cost:benefit analyses and balanced assessments, etc.
CLLR FOX’S RESPONSE TO THE SORT COMMUNICATION DATED 14th JULY, 2015
None of the content below has been altered in any way, other than to protect the identity of the SORT representative. The SORT representative has given permission for this information to be shared in this way.
From: Terry.Fox2@sheffield.gov.uk
To: xxxx
CC: David.Wain@sheffield.gov.uk; steve.robinson@sheffield.gov.uk; James.Winters@sheffield.gov.uk; Julie.Dore@sheffield.gov.uk
Subject: Re: Unanswered letter
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:46:06 +0000
Hi xxxx
The answers to your e mail below are the following
The contract appears to allow the Council to monitor the Contractor’s work, attending meetings, carrying out surveys and inspections, calling for trials, etc., and to deal with any breaches of their obligations. May we be assured that the Authority is exercising those powers?
Yes, we can confirm that SCC holds regular meetings with Amey managing contractual performance, as well as carrying out surveys, inspections and calling for trials. We can also confirm that SCC deal robustly with any breaches in obligations on the part of Amey, and that the Authority are exercising these powers.
May we be assured that that measures exist to ensure that qualified arboricultural inspectors are competent arboriculturists, as defined within British Standard 3998 (2010)?
Yes, we can confirm that all arboricultural inspectors are competent arboriculturalists as defined in BS 3998.
may we similarly be assured that they are being independently inspected by appropriately qualified inspectors, and there are measures in place to ensure that qualified inspectors keep abreast of developments in best practice and have relevant and recognised expertise, by way of education, training and experience, through a programme of continued professional development?
Yes, we can confirm that both the Council and Amey have a CPD process in place
Regards Terry
Mobile 07730532175
____________________________________________________________________________________________
EARLIER COMMUNICATIONS REQUESTING A RESPONSE TO THE SORT COMMUNICATION DATED 14th JULY, 2015
On 31 Jul 2015, at 16:55, xxxx wrote:
Hi Terry
Here is the letter again.
I look forward to your prompt reply.
Kind regards
xxxx
________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Terry.Fox2@sheffield.gov.uk
To: xxxx
Subject: Re: Unanswered letter
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:29:52 +0000
Hi xxxx
Many thanks for your e mail, can you expand wether it's a written letter or e mail, as I get a large amount of correspondence on numerous subjects. If it's an e mail could you please resend it to me.
Regards Terry
Mobile 07730532175
________________________________________________________________________________________
On 31 Jul 2015, at 16:17, xxxx wrote:
Dear Councillor Fox
I have still not received a reply to my letter to you of 14th July 2015.
I have had no option but to raise this with Julie Dore and I shall continue to do so, until I have had an adequate response.
Yours sincerely
xxxx (acting on behalf of persons interested, currently numbering 12,000)
HIGHWAY TREE ADVISORY FOROM: NO CONSTITUTION!
Yesterday (7/8/2015), a depressing Freedom of Information response document was released. Some of the detail is reproduced here, in its entirety:
Ref. FOI 606
Request:
Please provide a complete copy of the constitution of the new Highway Tree Advisory Forum.
Response:
You have been previously sent a copy of the Terms of Reference of the Highway Tree Advisory Forum and these were agreed at the first meeting. This is the relevant documentation in respect to your request.
HIGHWAY TREE ADVISORY FORUM: Terms of Reference
“ 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”
___________________________________________________________________________________
The above is an extract from Councillor Fox’s invitation to people that he invited to join his panel of “experts”. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person to have made this content publicly available. Most of the people that attended the Forum will not have been aware of these “terms”.
Furthermore, I did attend the initial forum meeting. The third item on the agenda for that meeting was “Confirm Terms of Reference”. I listened VERY carefully at the forum SPECIFICALLY for this item to be announced, expecting all independent panellists to oppose it. To my surprise, the item was NOT announced. As such, there was NO OPPORTUNITY WHATSOEVER for panellists or others to accept, negotiate or reject the “Terms of Reference”. There was a point where, I recall Cllr Fox parroting words he had communicated to others previously:
“Full Council resolved that I the Cabinet Member would have an Highway Tree Advisory Forum. This Forum is voluntary and has such any attendees have the right to attend or not.
The Highway Advisory Tree Forum, is a body to provide advice to the decision maker.
For me to collate that advice I need the said ToR to structure the Forum.
I reiterate if you feel distressed or distraught about the ToR then you have the right to attend or not.”
So, I guess, by the Council’s reckoning, anybody that didn’t walk out of the forum, accepted the “Terms of Reference”, without actually being told that they were in fact the complete constitution under which the forum would operate, in perpetuity!
I note that the “Terms of Reference” do not include any of the standard provisions that are usually included within a constitution. In particular, there are no provisions to help ensure that the forum operates in such a way that it is not abused or misused, and there are no provisions for review and revision of the constitution, or for procedures for election of a Chairman.
In short, Fox is a TOTAL despot! I’m not exaggerating. The Forum really is whatever HE wants it to be. There is no board to consider “expert” evidence; there are almost no independent “experts” with relevant education, training and experience relevant to the matters being approached (there was only one on the initial forum panel – Prof Nigel Dunnett); there has been no consultation on what the forum is or should be for, or how it should operate, or what items should be discussed. Cllr Fox has consciously decided not to invite any real “experts” on to the panel, such as representative/s from the following:
Trees and Design Action Group.
Arboricultural Association.
Institute of Chartered Foresters.
The National Tree Safety Group.
The Landscape Institute.
The UK Roads Liaison Group.
National Joint Utilities Group.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5287
The Forestry Commission.
Natural England.
I think that the people, including the representatives of key stakeholders, should boycott the forum with a noisy protest until such time as stakeholder representatives, at least, get to help draught a proper constitution & elect their own chairman.
NO FORUM CONSTITUTION
A communication was received from Cllr Fox (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport: Labour) yesterday. It states:
“The forum has been set up to allow a level of engagement with the public that is over and above the statutory meetings and consultations that we are required to do. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTION AS IT IS NOT A FORMAL DECISION MAKING BODY…”
Cllr Fox: MASTER OF DECEIT
BBC RADIO SHEFFIELD
“Coun Terry Fox, cabinet member for environment, said: ‘All options are open…’ ‘We’re not averse to any kind of solutions or options that are reasonable and practicable…’ ‘But we can’t have a conversation about every tree. We have to take a city-wide, balanced and considered view’.”
(The Star, 2015)
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/all-options-are-open-on-sheffield-trees-ch...
Now, compare and contrast those promises against Cllr Fox’s comments on BBC Radio Sheffield, during the Rony Robinson slot, on 31st July, 2015, following the initial tree forum meeting. It would appear that all criticisms of the Council’s acts and omissions, and those of Cllr Fox were and are valid and justified.
(from 11:00 am onward: skip forward to the one hour mark),
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02w44nm
In an e-mail dated 7th July, 2015, Cllr Fox commented:
"...I want the Highway Tree Forum to be set up and be available for every resident to participate in the discussion with experts and other interested parties, to get a say about their neighbourhood.“
TREE FORUM
Highway Tree Advisory Forum: Notes of meeting held on 23rd July, 2015
The minutes of the inaugural forum meeting are now available: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/report_request/plants/trees.html
You should check them. If there is anything you disagree with, it needs to be raised at the next forum meeting. I note that the webpage was "modified" on August 13th, 2015 2:43:44 PM. Presumably just to add the minutes? I note that the minutes document was created by DAVID WAIN, as a Word document, on 13th August 2015 at 2:05 PM.
I notice that Butt's 60mm comment on root distribution has been recorded as 600mm! I wonder what other little gems have been altered? BTW, if, like me, you recorded the meeting, you will have an accurate record of EXACTLY what was said. ;)
Can you spot any lies, spin or omissions?
The minutes quote Cllr Fox as saying:
"Dr. Deepa Shetty and her fellow campaigners have raised their concerns with me at previous meetings in the Town Hall and I have taken this very seriously, including going through every point raised with your local elected members. We are now moving on to a City Wide Tree Strategy."
For me this highlights the heart of the problem. Cllr Fox has NOT gone through EVERY point raised with elected members. Furthermore, rather than employing competent consultants with relevant knowledge, education training and experience, with a detailed understanding of the matters being approached, he has decided to base his decisions on the misinformed/uneducated opinions of his fellow councillors. As none of them are highway engineers or arboriculturists, that is as much use as if he had decided to base his acts and omissions on the opinion of his grandma!
The same can be said of the Highway Tree Advisory Forum: the panel of "experts" mostly consists of Council & Amey representatives and a handful of other people who lack the necessary, relevant expertise - there isn't one arboriculturist amongst them!
FOI DEPARTMENT SAY GET LOST!
On 6th July, 2015, the following Freedom of Information request was submitted (Ref: FOI/422):
“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.”
A response was received on 22nd July, 2015, it did not include any alternative specifications, just a list of ideas:
a “list of options that are considered before any tree across the city is noticed for removal and replacement.”
The list is reproduced elsewhere on this blog: https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/update-on-sheffie...
The purpose of the request was for campaigners to see the evidence that alternative highway engineering specifications were commissioned, draughted and considered, for the safe, long-term retention of existing highway trees. SORT Campaigners have been submitting requests to see these since at least 31st May 2015, when the request was first put in writing, in a letter to David Wain the Council’s chief Environmental Technical Officer: David.Wain@sheffield.gov.uk
Wain is responsible for “overseeing all soft landscaping and arboricultural elements of the Core Investment Phase of the Streets Ahead project.”
However, please note that he now refuses to respond to any communications personally. Furthermore, at the initial meeting of the tree forum, Steve Robinson (Head of Highway Maintenance) – “responsible for the Streets Ahead Project” commented:
“…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.” steve.robinson@sheffield.gov.uk
Because the FOI/422 response failed to address the request in an appropriate manner and supply the information requested, following set protocol, an internal review was requested on 23rd July, 2015 (executed by the same person that issued the response).
The response of the internal review was received on 20th August, 2015. It commented:
“The Council’s response appears to provide a full and comprehensive reply to your initial request. Namely we have provided the options which are available and would have been considered in respect to these trees. ”
Clearly, they didn’t read the request properly! o_0
Furthermore, the request went on to say:
“…AT THE TREE FORUM ON 2ND SEPTEMBER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE FORUM IS TO DISCUSS THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE ENGINEERING OPTIONS, NOT TO DISCUSS THEIR APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUAL TREES.”
The initial FOI/422 response from Streets Ahead stated:
“These engineering solutions will also be discussed by the Highway Tree Advisory Forum on the 2nd September.”
Really, the agenda should have been made absolutely clear at the previous forum meeting, or in a communication issued as an update. The key problem appears to be that Cllr Fox & Streets Ahead are unwilling to communicate in an honest, open and transparent manner, and are unwilling to involve key stakeholders in the organisation and management of the tree forum. THE FORUM REALLY IS A SHAM!
ALL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT Cllr Fox’s INTENTION IS THAT THE FORUM SERVE AS A PLATFORM FOR THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM TO COMMUNICATE THEIR POLICIES (which could be done more effectively online & via newsletters). THE FORUM GENERATES GOOD PR, AS IT GIVES THE OUTWARD APPEARANCE THAT LOCAL COMMUNITIES ARE BEING EDUCATED, CONSULTED AND GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE.
The media are easily fooled, as there are no independent competent arboriculturists on the panel, or people with the combination of relevant education, training and experience – in the field of trees in relation to construction – as is necessary to have sufficient understanding of the requirements of the particular tasks being approached and to EFFECTIVELY CHALLENGE key policy and decision makers. I suspect this is intentional.
Before the initial forum meeting, Cllr Fox & Cllr Dore were alerted to the fact that it would be both prudent & reasonable to have at least one representative from each of the following groups invited to join the panel:
Trees and Design Action Group.
Arboricultural Association.
Institute of Chartered Foresters.
The National Tree Safety Group.
The Landscape Institute.
The UK Roads Liaison Group.
National Joint Utilities Group.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5287
The Forestry Commission.
Natural England.
Both Cllr Fox & Cllr Dore have refused to comment as to whether any of these groups were invited to join the panel and have refused to give reasons as to why they were not invited, if they were not.
Also, remember, there are no independent arboriculturists or highway engineers on the panel and no panel exists to consider information exchanged at the forum (Cllr Fox has total control in every respect).
GET LOST!
On 3rd August, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST FOI / 582 was submitted.
“Please provide copies of all detailed highway engineering specification/s documents that detail the highway engineering specification/s considered for the construction and for the resurfacing of pavements (including kerbs) that have existing, long-established trees, to enable the safe, long-term retention of such trees.
Please also provide the reason/s why each detailed highway engineering specification/s document was rejected and its content deemed to be impracticable for pavements and kerbs on Rustlings Road, Sheffield.”
On 7th August 2015, Mark Knight – Information Management Officer – sent a response. FOI@sheffield.gov.uk
He refused to supply the information, commenting that the “request marries to earlier FOI 422”. He also commented:
“Now that you have been issued with a formal Section 14 refusal under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Council will no longer enter into correspondence with you where you ask for further information related to the removal of trees on Rustlings Road or request linked to this topic until a “reasonable time frame” has elapsed.”
It should be noted that some SORT enquiries addressed to Mr Wain or Streets Ahead have been converted to FOI requests without SORT’s agreement. As the FOI Officer sends everything to Streets Ahead to answer, it would appear that the only reason for converting enquiries to FOI requests was so as to trigger the FOI option to issue a Section 14 refusal under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, effectively meaning that concerned citizens have no way of getting any answers to the questions they have about tree management.
Such acts are not those of an honest, open and transparent Local Authority.
TREE STRATEGY PUBLIC MEETING
The following announcement has been made:
“There will be a meeting at the Heeley Institute on Tuesday 25th August at 7pm.
The purpose of the meeting is to get all the different tree protest groups around the city to unify under one banner with the main aim of getting the council to implement a positive tree strategy at the earliest possible opportunity.”
All with an interest in the management of Sheffield’s urban forest (the city-wide tree population), and those intending to attend would greatly benefit from reading CHAPTER 6 (particularly pages 399 to 412) of the TREES IN TOWNS 2 report, commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and published in 2008, by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
The report aims 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).
To this end, chapter six sets ten targets for Local Authorities to achieve (by 2013):
1. The LA should have at least one specialist tree officer
2. The LA should obtain at least £15,000 in external funding for its tree programme
over the next five years
3. Develop and implement a comprehensive tree strategy
4. Undertake a Best Value Review (BVR) of its tree programme
5. Install a computerised tree management system
6. At least 40% of the LA’s tree maintenance work should be done on a systematic,
regularly scheduled cycle
7. At least 90% of all the LA’s newly planted trees, excluding woodland plantings, should receive systematic post-planting maintenance until they are established
8. Establish a programme within the next five years that will ensure every TPO is
reviewed on a specified cycle
9. Every LA that has a planning function should have a comprehensive
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) document relating to trees and development
10.Every consent to work on protected trees to be monitored regularly and enforcement action taken where necessary
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD A FREE COPY OF THE ENTIRE REPORT, IN PDF FORMAT, VIA THE FOLLOWING LINK (list price: £55!):
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/262857090_Trees_in_Towns_II_A_ne...
Get it for free while you can. ;)
TREES IN TOWNS 2 "KEY RECOMMENDATIONS"
Please note that the above targets are in addition to the ten “Key Recommendations” that SORT highlighted (in the letter to Cllr Fox, dated 14/7/2015) that the report makes to those responsible for commissioning and draughting a tree strategy:
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)
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD A FREE COPY OF THE ENTIRE REPORT, IN PDF FORMAT, VIA THE FOLLOWING LINK (list price: £55!):
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/262857090_Trees_in_Towns_II_A_ne...
Get it for free while you can.
TREE STRATEGY
"Regular monitoring of the strategy’s progress should be undertaken and the whole document REVISED EVERY FIVE YEARS. It should also be adopted as Council policy (see Case Study CS4)."
(Britt, et al., 2008, p. 407)
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/262857090_Trees_in_Towns_II_A_ne...
TREE STRATEGY
"…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)
TREE STRATEGY: A NECESSITY
BRITISH STANDARD 8545:2014
Trees: From Nursery To Independence In The Landscape – Recommendations
EXCERPTS from "Annex A (informative) “Further guidance on policy and strategy”":
“Tree planting and continuing management are rarely without purpose. A tree strategy, usually produced by the local authority and LINKED TO THE WIDER STRATEGY AND POLICY FRAMEWORK, addresses the way in which the established policy objectives will be delivered, taking into account resources, pressures and environmental opportunities and constraints that will affect delivery.”
“…IT GUIDES AND INFORMS DECISIONS relating to the authority’s or other body’s own estates and also on other land over which the authority or other body exercises powers or controls, particularly through planning or other formal management systems.”
“…A strategy is typically PRODUCED FOR A DEFINED PERIOD OF TIME, AND ALLOWS FOR MONITORING AND REVIEW AND FOR MODIFICATION where needed to achieve desired objectives.”
“The management of trees, particularly within urban areas, needs to address potential conflicts with other land uses or activities, or adaptation to changed circumstances. Management and maintenance are therefore essential parts of a tree strategy, and the financial and other resource implications of this need to be addressed.”
“Tree strategies INCORPORATE PROVISION FOR ADEQUATE FINANCIAL AND OTHER RESOURCES TO ENABLE DELIVERY OF REQUIRED LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE over a long-term period or, where possible, in perpetuity. They include reference to the anticipated scope of the management and maintenance inputs needed to deliver the desired objectives.”
“Tree strategies seek TO DEMONSTRATE GOOD VALUE BY INCLUDING, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, DATA ON THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE OF AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT from trees included in a strategy, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ASSOCIATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFITS.”
“Tree strategies primarily focus on the public estate, owned and managed by the local authority producing the strategy. However, around 70% of the urban tree population is owned and managed outside the public arena.
IT IS THE WHOLE TREE POPULATION, BOTH PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY OWNED, WHICH DELIVERS THE BENEFITS associated with TREE COVER and to which new tree planting contributes."
“To maintain a resilient tree population capable of delivering its benefits into the future, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT LINKAGES BETWEEN THE PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY OWNED ESTATES ARE ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED. Tree strategies provide a framework for this to happen and are therefore worthy of consultation before any planned tree planting is converted to action on the ground.”
“The linkages between the publicly and privately owned tree estate are beginning to be recognized through the growing understanding and VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND BENEFITS to which trees make a significant contribution. The i-tree urban forest model, which is being used more extensively in the UK, evaluates both publicly and privately owned trees, assesses their combined benefits and ENABLES COORDINATED POLICY AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT."
TREE STRATEGY PUBLIC MEETING
Well, today, I attended the first hour and twenty minutes of the meeting at Heeley Institute. Other than agreeing that a tree strategy was needed and that people should continue to campaign for one, to have a say in how it is developed and in the nature of its policies and plans, there was no further discussion or debate on the topic. For me, that was a big disappointment, as I had been interested in hearing peoples hopes, opinions, beliefs and reasoning.
Points of organisation and information distribution were discussed, with some positive plans made. There was a lot of whinging about Cllr Fox using the Highway Tree Advisory Forum as nothing more than a platform to present the policies and intentions of Streets Ahead.
It was agreed by those present that a new umbrella group would be established to represent all tree groups throughout the city, that it would be run by a committee and that it would be called Sheffield Tree Action Group (STAG).
A couple of females asked a number of questions which have, in truth, already been answered by Cllr Fox, Steve Robinson or Streets Ahead, either at the meeting of full Council on 1st July, at the inaugural meeting of the tree forum, or in communications with SORT. Oddly enough, they didn't invite answers or ask whether anybody else present had received official answers. I hope those females find this blog. Hopefully, Ian will continue to post the odd SORT documents here and, in that way, information can be shared?
One woman was keen to point out that trees needed to be "maintained" and that much of the felling was because trees had not received adequate maintenance for decades. When challenged, she did concede that this was not a justification for felling. She stated that she was just really wanting to point out that trees had been felled previously and that there had been no subsequent planting at those sites. In short, this is NOT a maintenance issue, but a strategy issue, to be addressed by policies, plans and specifications that deal with sustainability, design, ground preparation and specifications for planting and aftercare.
One man explained that previously he has reported a hanging branch and nobody had come to deal with it for weeks. He cited this as an example of inadequate maintenance. In truth, it is not always possible or reasonably practicable to detect whether there is increased likelihood that a specific plant part will fail. A detailed assessment cannot be undertaken for every tree. Indeed, that is NOT what the law requires: it would not be reasonably practicable to do so! As SORT communications point out:
“…THE DUTY OF CARE IMPOSED ON THE SURVEYOR OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL IS NOT TO GET IT RIGHT EVERY TIME, BUT TO EXERCISE THE CARE OF A ‘REASONABLY SKILLED’ MEMBER OF THAT PROFESSION”
In fact, the case of the hanging branch may not have been a maintenance issue, but an emergency response issue! Prior to the PFI contract, the Council had a 24/7 emergency response team to deal with all such emergencies. It was poorly managed and under resourced, but very efficient, very responsive and very effective.
Even apparently sound plants/plant parts fail occasionally. ;)
To borrow SORT's quotes:
“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...”
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 81)
“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)
Work cited:
The National Tree Safety Group, 2011. Common Sense Risk Management of Trees: Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers. Forestry Commission Stock Code: FCMS024 ed. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/publications.nsf/searchpub/?SearchVie...(FCMS024)&SearchOrder=4&SearchMax=0&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchThesaurus=TRUE
At the Heeley meeting, another female mentioned how trees had been felled on MYRTLE ROAD. She blamed the Council. Actually, I have heard of that incident. After making enquiries, I am convinced that those trees were felled by cowboys, masquerading as council workers (NOT Council workers) – they didn’t even wear protective clothing. The same female also claimed that the Council fell trees to allow space for the construction of driveways, to allow greater light through to buildings and to open up views from buildings. However, with great certainty, I am convinced this is not the case. The Council certainly didn’t prune or fell HIGHWAY TREES for any of those reasons before the PFI contract (mainly because they couldn’t afford to) and, according to the current information on the Council’s website, that is still the case:
“Work we can’t do
We are unable to carry out work where:
◾Trees belong to private properties
◾Falling leaves or fruit are causing an annoyance
◾Falling blossom, sap or bird droppings are causing an annoyance
◾Trees are blocking light or causing shade
◾Trees are obstructing telephone wires (contact your telephone service provider)
◾Trees are obstructing TV or satellite reception
◾We do not remove trees for construction or widening of driveways”
REFERENCE:
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/report_request/plants/trees.html
Of course it is a lie to say they can’t do those things. What they mean is that they are UNWILLING to do those things.
A LETTER THAT "THE STAR" WOULD NOT PUBLISH
The following letter reached my inbox at the start of this week:
LABOUR/AMEY INCOMPETENCE AND THE MISMANAGEMENT OF SHEFFIELD’S URBAN FOREST
Since May, I have been keeping a close eye on The Star’s reporting of what has become the Save Our ROADSIDE Trees (SORT) campaign. With the 2nd meeting of Cllr Fox’s bi-monthly Highway Tree Advisory Forum fast approaching, I feel it necessary to blow a few myths.
Both Cllrs Fox & Price are always keen to mention that 50,000 trees were planted last winter (NOT ON STREETS) and that STREET TREES are “replaced” on a 1:1 basis. In their mind, this constitutes a sustainable approach to tree management that helps “future proof” the tree stock. However, while the two former claims – if true - are praise worthy, they do not constitute adequate measures to offset the losses that result from the city-wide felling of thousands of STREET TREES within the space of a few years, nor does the current approach represent a responsible, sustainable approach to management of the city-wide tree population – the “Urban Forest”. The current programme of felling will significantly alter the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover along highways, with negative impacts on ecosystem services provision.
It has come to my attention that, because Cllr Fox & the Streets Ahead team refused to include answers in many of their responses to SORT questions, SORT submitted a number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to get answers.
Some interesting facts were revealed, indicating that Sheffield’s street trees are NOT being managed in a sustainable manner that complies with current legislation, policies and arboricultural & urban forestry best practice. “Streets Ahead” (SA - the Council:Amey partnership ) DO NOT do/produce:
• a valuation of ANY of the range of ecosystem services afforded by trees to the built environment and all its inhabitants;
• assessment criteria for the assessment of the severity of disruption to pavements;
• protocols to minimise errors during inspection, hazard assessment;
• risk assessments for trees;
• for Rustlings Road (and, presumably, any road), a strategy for tree management for the duration of the PFI contract;
• for Rustlings Road (and, presumably, any road), a management plan for all trees on the road (long established & new/proposed).
Furthermore, through FOI, it was revealed that SA only have one set of HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS which they use for all streets, regardless of whether or not they have existing trees: NO STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMMISSION OR DRAUGHT ALTERNATIVE SPECIFICATIONS that could be used to safely retain long established trees for the long term. This is a disgrace and a truly shocking revelation, when you consider that the PFI contract is worth £2.2 billion (<£1.2bn from the Government).
As SORT have pointed out in their communications, the Council spent £6,000 on a PR “Business breakfast consultation event” & a further >£184,000 on consultancy for draughting alternative proposals for relocation of the proposed HS2 station, on the basis that relocation “has the potential to 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”; that it is a “once in a lifetime opportunity”, and that the “implications are massive”.
All the same arguments apply with regard to urban forest management, in particular the management of street trees – a significant component of green infrastructure and ecosystem services provision. Surely, commissioning registered/chartered arboricultural consultants to work with highway engineers to produce specifications to enable the safe long-term retention of existing trees is not an unreasonable expectation? This could enable the safe retention of many trees that Cllr Fox regards as “discriminatory”: any tree associated with any disturbance to the pavement or kerb.
SORT Have managed to persuade the Council to commission and adopt a tree strategy (hopefully draughted in accordance with current best practice), in fulfilment of its 5yo policy commitment. However, how the strategy is developed and what detailed policies and plans it contains will determine whether or not it is fit for purpose. In any case, it should be reviewed and revised at planned intervals and at other appropriate times, with community involvement at its heart, including public education, consultation and participation, as recommended by the Trees in Towns ll report commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (published in 2008).
I just want to say a big thank you to SORT for sharing their case for tree retention (the letter to Cllr Fox, dated 14th July) on Prof Ian Rotherham’s blog (online) this month. It is packed with sound information and is a true gift to anyone with an interest in tree management. The definition of sustainable forestry, from page 7 of The UK Forestry Standard, is particularly pertinent, as it applies to management of Sheffield’s urban forest, including its population of 36,000 street trees:
"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’.”
SORT Also make a valid point that all that the Disability Discrimination Act and the Equalities Act require of the Local Authority is that it take such steps as are “REASONABLE” in ALL circumstances of the case. As SORT rightly point out, that does require appropriate, balanced assessments by competent people using current, widely recognised and accepted methods, to inform management decisions and help ensure that responses are proportionate and defendable: hopefully, not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, such as those of Cllr Fox.
With regard to the current approach to urban forest management and the management of street trees, I hope the citizens of Sheffield are successful in dragging the current Council kicking & screaming in to the present century! Good luck – you need it!
Yours faithfully,
XXXX
A LETTER THAT "THE GUARDIAN" WOULD NOT PUBLISH
The following letter reached my inbox at the start of this week:
"Re: The Secret of Treeconomics, published in print on 15/8/2015.
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/15/treeconomics-street-trees-...
I enjoyed Treeconomics news item very much. However, I in order to ensure readers have a more balanced view of the current situation in Sheffield, I feel it is necessary to highlight a few points…
When it became apparent that all trees that caused even minor disruption to pavements and kerbs would be felled on the basis that they represented a trip hazard, an active campaign to challenge policy sprung in to action (SORT). Full details can be found online at Prof Ian Rotherham’s Blog (August section). Campaigners demanded a stop to all non-urgent felling until a tree strategy had been draughted in accordance with current best practice and adopted as Council policy. After a month, in response to a >10,000 signature petition, the Labour Council agreed to produce a tree strategy. At this point, the Council claimed that such trees had to be felled, in accordance with the Disability Discrimination Act and the Equalities Act, as they were “discriminatory”: they hinder accessibility and mobility. The Council claimed felling was a reasonable response, as required by the Acts, and that there were no other reasonably practicable solutions. For every tree felled, just ONE is planted. Between August 2012 & July 2015, 2,019 street trees were felled. The felling continues until 2018. FOI request responses have revealed that the Council & Amey have only one set of highway engineering specifications, used for all streets, regardless of whether or not there are existing trees: no alternative specifications have been commissioned or draughted."
ONE WAY TO [POSSIBLY] STOP FELLING
Familiarise yourself with the arguments in SORT communications, particularly the letter to Cllr Fox, dated 14th July, 2015:
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/updated-report-fr...
Remember, at the initial meeting of the tree forum, Steve Robinson (Head of Highway Maintenance) – “responsible for the Streets Ahead Project” commented, with regard to works proposals:
“…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.”
steve.robinson@sheffield.gov.uk
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 http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/streetsahead
Twitter @sccstreetsahead
THE LABOUR SCANDAL: POLITICS & SPIN
Both Cllrs Dore & Fox have claimed that there is some kind of political aspect to the current opposition to the way highway trees are being managed.
I have been observing the SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES (SORT) campaign VERY closely, from the start. With any campaign that aims to change policy, it is NECESSARY to have councillors on board, as they are the ones that decide whether or not policy will be adopted and, ultimately, they hold the purse strings. There needs to be an appropriate and adequate level of resource commitment to achieve anything positive on the ground.
To this end, I note that SORT invited ALL councillors from EVERY political party to support their campaign. Cllr Fox kept promising that there would be a “detailed debate” about highway tree management policies and practice at the meeting of full council on 1st July, 2015.
Prior to the 1st July, a document was prepared and published (on 25th June, 2015) in support of the Save Our Rustlings Trees (SORT) campaign (as it was then known), as a HAND-OUT, IN PREPARATION FOR DEBATE at a meeting of the full Council on Wednesday 1st July, 2015. The intention of the document was to support the case for the safe, long-term retention of street trees and TO HELP ENCOURAGE INFORMED DEBATE, BASED ON EVIDENCE AND SOUND KNOWLEDGE OF CURRENT BEST PRACTICE.
The hand-out was distributed to every Councillor on 26th June, 2015, by the Sheffield City Council (SCC) Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources department.
You will find a copy of it available online, via Stocksbridge Community Forum:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/streets-ahead-stocksbridge-trees
The letter to Cllr Fox, dated 14th July is an amended version, which addresses some of the points he made at the meeting of full Council: when he decided to use the Equality Act & Disability Discrimination Act to justify felling; having decided to shelve the arguments he had previously been using (liability & health & safety). You can access a copy of this letter at the following link:
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/updated-report-fr...
Interestingly, Cllr Fox has since shelved the equality and discrimination arguments that he has been using at every available opportunity since 1st July to justify felling:
“’WE SHOULD BE CLEAR THE TREES ARE NOT BEING REMOVED DUE TO THEM BEING IN THE DISCRIMINATORY CATEGORY, but because they are damaging the road and pavement and also one of them is diseased’”
“’I can reassure everyone trees on Rustlings Road will not be replaced until after THE SECOND FORUM MEETING TO DISCUSS OUR TREE REMOVAL STRATEGY’”
These comments were reported in THE STAR newspaper on August 29th, 2015:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/carnage-fears-as-protesters-fight-felling-...
The SORT hand-out invited ALL councillors to support the campaign and engage in informed debate, to help ensure that Sheffield’s trees – particularly the highway trees – are managed in a responsible, sustainable manner that meets the requirements of current legislation, policies and current arboricultural and urban forestry best practice.
It just so happened that NO Labour Cllrs – NOT A SINGLE ONE – was willing to support the SORT campaign, or debate any of the points raised in SORT communications.
ALL other political parties in Sheffield supported the SORT campaign. The cynic in me knows they only did so for their own political ends, but the pragmatist in me knows that there was no other way and that matters of governance are political by nature – I’ts just the nature of the beast!
Amongst those that have been vocal in helping SORT and that have made sensible comments are Cllr Joe Otten (Lib Dem) & Cllr Sarah-Jayne Smalley (Green Party): the latter making the most sensible comments (although not always accurate).
The support of Cllrs is VITAL if sound policies and plans are to be adopted as Council policy, adequately resourced and implemented!
At NO point during the SORT campaign, which began in May, 2015, have any Labour representatives been willing to supply information requested by SORT or debate ANY of the issues raised in SORT communications.
Furthermore, a communication, dated 31st August, has been issued by from Cllr Fox (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport: Labour), it states:
“The forum has been set up to allow a level of engagement with the public that is over and above the statutory meetings and consultations that we are required to do. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTION AS IT IS NOT A FORMAL DECISION MAKING BODY, it’s a consultative group designed to allow the public to attend and have their say.”
Without a constitution, the forum is likely to be abused and misused, as it has been so far. Further detail is available via the following links:
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/updated-report-fr...
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/streets-ahead-stocksbridge-trees
As an observer of developments, all I have seen from Cllr Julie Dore and her Council is a reluctance to engage in informed debate and a willingness to sow seeds of division between different groups of citizens, not least of all on the basis of socio-economic background and physical ability. I suggest our Council GROW UP and address the issues raised in the SORT hand out issued to each councillor on 26th June, 2015, by SCC Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources department.
TREE FORUM
Please note that when Cllr Fox stated that the forum is for the public to have a say, that is EXACTLY what he means. He is prepared to let you voice your concerns in front of him, if you are lucky enough to have the opportunity. HOWEVER, that DOES NOT mean your concerns will be considered at any level when it comes to draughting policy or shaping practice.
IN SHORT, THE HIGHWAY TREES ADVISORY FORUM IS NOT FOR CONSULTATION, OR PARTICIPATION IN THE SHAPING OR IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY AND PRACTICE.
For further comment, see page 3 of this thread.
PFI FINANCE LIABILITY
There does appear to be an implication that Amey have all responsibility & liability for financial arrangements, with regard to investor funding of the PFI contract. This may explain why Cllr Fox keeps boasting at every available opportunity that ALL liabilities have been passed to Amey.
SEE THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST RESPONSE BELOW:
Reference – FOI / 478
Submitted on Thursday 16/07/2015.
“Under the FOI act, I request to know precisely how the PFI contract with Amey is funded, who is involved and the terms and conditions attached in each case.”
A response was received on Friday 17th July, 2015:
“Before we can begin to process your Freedom of Information Request, we would like to clarify what information you require.
It is not clear what information you are requesting. Can you please clarify exactly what you wish to obtain. You may wish to review the information already made public in respect to the Amey Contract available at the sites:
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/business-economy/contracts/scc/major-contra...
and
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/works/schemes/streetsaheadproject/con...
The latter including payment mechamisms for the contract. Sheffield City Council has a PFI contract to Amey Hallam Highways Ltd for the delivery of a complete highway maintenance service which includes all highway maintenance activities such as street cleaning, winter maintenance, carriageway and footway resurfacing, signal maintenance etc. Payments made by the Council under the contract do not relate to the provision of specific items of work. Instead, a single payment is made for each month of the 25 year term of the Contract. As a result, we do not have a figure for the cost of specific activities.
The Freedom of Information act states that we must respond to a Freedom of Information request within 20 working days, however, the 20 working days do not include any time spent clarifying a request. Therefore, once we have received your clarification, we can continue processing your request within this time frame.
You can provide your clarification by writing to the address above, emailing FOI@sheffield.gov.uk
or by telephoning 0114 2734567 and asking for the Information and Knowledge Management Team.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Resources Business Support”
As per the above request, clarification was provided to the FOI Information and Knowledge Management Team on Fri 17/07/2015, as follows:
“At the meeting of full Council on 1st July 2015, Cllr Fox claimed that any delays to highways re-surfacing works – particularly to pavements – would cause investors to lose confidence and withdraw funding. I would like to know which investors are involved, their contact details, what funding they are providing, and what contractual agreements each investor has made with regard to the provision and withdrawal of goods, services and money, and with regard to contract termination, in relation to the Streets Ahead project.”
Following the above clarification, Mark Knight – Information Management Officer provided “answers” in a communication dated 7th August 2015.
The response was as follows:
“Response: Lloyds Banking Group, KfW, Nord LB and SMBC. The equity providers are Amey Ventures; Aberdeen Asset Management and Equitix. The Council is unable to provide the contact details for these organisations as it is not information we hold. Similarly, the Council is not party to the funding agreements between Amey and its lenders therefore cannot release this information as it is commercially confidential.
All other information relating to the Contract’s termination provisions are available for the public to read at Sheffield City Council – Streets ahead contract”
NO ASSESSMENTS: INFORMATION WITHELD
• The response to a freedom of information request reference – FOI / 423
(“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”) stated:
“We do not carry out a risk assessment as part of our review of trees.”
• The Council have REFUSED to provide the information requested by freedom of information request reference FOI / 575:
“Please provide a copy of the method/s used for cost:benefit analyses when assessing whether or not it is expedient to use engineering specifications to retain long-established trees or whether it is more appropriate to fell them.”
• The response to a freedom of information request reference – FOI / 493 revealed that there are no assessment criteria used for assessment to inform decisions as to whether or not trees that cause pavement ridging should be felled or retained and that no such assessments are done.
• The Council have REFUSED to provide the information requested by freedom of information request reference FOI / 563:
“Please provide [a] full, complete copy and full detail of the assessment method, principles and criteria used to assess the severity, likelihood and associated risks of obstruction to access and mobility on pavements, particularly with regard to surface disturbance associated with tree roots.”
• The Council have REFUSED to provide the information requested by freedom of information request reference – FOI / 576:
“Please provide a copy of the detailed criteria and method/s used to assess whether the number and nature of incidents of slips, trips, falls, injuries and deaths on any pavement in Sheffield has reached a threshold beyond which leaving a pavement in its current condition is considered likely to represent an unacceptable level risk of serious harm to users.”
• The Council have REFUSED to provide the information requested by freedom of information request reference– FOI / 566:
“What steps does the Council take to ensure that they undertake adequate risk assessment of the potential severity and likelihood of heave as a result of tree felling, or subsidence as a result of tree planting, so as to demonstrate that their professionals have acted as reasonably skilled professionals, in compliance with their duty of care?”
• The Council have REFUSED to provide the information requested by freedom of information request reference FOI / 614:
“Please provide a copy of each of the range of specifications used by Amey for highway ground preparation for the planting of street trees in Sheffield.”
• The Council have REFUSED to provide the information requested by freedom of information request reference – FOI / 615:
“Please provide a copy of each of the range of specifications used by Amey for the planting of street trees in Sheffield.”
• The Council have REFUSED to provide the information requested by freedom of information request reference – FOI / 613:
“Cllr Fox (current Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport & Chair of Highway Tree Advisory Forum) has made it clear that he will not comply with requests to put a stop on tree planting and on all tree felling operations that do not include works to trees that represent an immediate and reasonably foreseeable danger of serious harm or damage in the near future until a "Tree Strategy” has been commissioned, draughted in accordance with current arboricultural best practice advice, guidance and recommendations, and has been completed, adopted as Council policy, and is ready for implementation. Under the FOI Act, please state the reasons for Cllr Fox’s refusal to comply with these reasonable requests and please provide full detail of the basis for each reason.”
REFUSED FOI REQUESTS
FOI Requests were REFUSED UNDER PART I – Section 12 [1] and Section 14 – OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (2000):
ACCESS TO INFORMATION HELD BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES – RIGHT TO INFORMATION
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents
12 EXEMPTION WHERE COST OF COMPLIANCE EXCEEDS APPROPRIATE LIMIT.
(1)SECTION 1(1) DOES NOT OBLIGE A PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO COMPLY WITH A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION IF THE AUTHORITY ESTIMATES THAT THE COST OF COMPLYING WITH THE REQUEST WOULD EXCEED THE APPROPRIATE LIMIT.
(2)Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that paragraph alone would exceed the appropriate limit.
(3)In subsections (1) and (2) “the appropriate limit” means such amount as may be prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation to different cases.
(4)The [F1Secretary of State] may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, where two or more requests for information are made to a public authority—
(a) by one person, or
(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.
(5)The [F1Secretary of State] may by regulations make provision for the purposes of this section as to the costs to be estimated and as to the manner in which they are to be estimated.
14 VEXATIOUS OR REPEATED REQUESTS.
(1) SECTION 1(1) DOES NOT OBLIGE A PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO COMPLY WITH A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION IF THE REQUEST IS VEXATIOUS.
(2) WHERE A PUBLIC AUTHORITY HAS PREVIOUSLY COMPLIED WITH A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WHICH WAS MADE BY ANY PERSON, IT IS NOT OBLIGED TO COMPLY WITH A SUBSEQUENT IDENTICAL OR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR REQUEST FROM THAT PERSON UNLESS A REASONABLE INTERVAL HAS ELAPSED BETWEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS REQUEST AND THE MAKING OF THE CURRENT REQUEST.
ALSO REFUSED UNDER THE ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION REGULATIONS (2004) –
regulation 12(4)(b):
PART 3: EXCEPTIONS TO THE DUTY TO DISCLOSE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3391/made
12.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (3) and (9), a public authority may refuse to disclose environmental information requested if—
(a) an exception to disclosure applies under paragraphs (4) or (5); and
(b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
(2) A public authority shall apply a presumption in favour of disclosure.
(3) To the extent that the information requested includes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject, the personal data shall not be disclosed otherwise than in accordance with regulation 13.
(4) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARAGRAPH (1)(A), A PUBLIC AUTHORITY MAY REFUSE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION TO THE EXTENT THAT—
(a) it does not hold that information when an applicant’s request is received;
(b) THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION IS MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE;
(c) the request for information is formulated in too general a manner and the public authority has complied with regulation 9;
(d) the request relates to material which is still in the course of completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data; or
(e) the request involves the disclosure of internal communications.
(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect—
(a) international relations, defence, national security or public safety;
(b) the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature;
(c) intellectual property rights;
(d) the confidentiality of the proceedings of that or any other public authority where such confidentiality is provided by law;
(e) the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest;
(f) the interests of the person who provided the information where that person—
(i) was not under, and could not have been put under, any legal obligation to supply it to that or any other public authority;
(ii) did not supply it in circumstances such that that or any other public authority is entitled apart from these Regulations to disclose it; and
(iii) has not consented to its disclosure; or
(g) the protection of the environment to which the information relates.
(6) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a public authority may respond to a request by neither confirming nor denying whether such information exists and is held by the public authority, whether or not it holds such information, if that confirmation or denial would involve the disclosure of information which would adversely affect any of the interests referred to in paragraph (5)(a) and would not be in the public interest under paragraph (1)(b).
FOI, RISK & LIABILITY
THE STAR SAYS: Answers needed on tree felling evidence as Sheffield row grows
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/the-star-says-answers-needed-on-tree-felli...
THE STAR'S ARTICLE, in its entirety:
"07:30 Saturday 29 August 2015
The Star’s Your Right to Know campaign has revealed many weird and wonderful facts over the years.
Freedom of Information requests made by our reporters have answered questions on everything you can imagine - from what pests have infected Sheffield hospitals to how much consultation on winter gritting cuts in the city cost you.
It is rare for these requests to come back with as little information as the most recent one from Sheffield Council, about highways and trees, following the major row over felling in recent weeks.
The council refused to answer all but one of 11 questions posed because it would take too long and cost too much to go through the records.
Funnily enough, their FOI response was three weeks later than it should have been, so there was certainly plenty of time.
They did answer how many people had complained about falling on Rustlings Road - where the felling controversy has raged most fiercely, so far - and the answer was three. In three years.
They also provided ‘supplementary information’ about how many ‘highway tree related footway’ insurance claims have been made.
But the main reason why reporter Ellen Beardmore submitted the request was to find out how many people with mobility issues - the elderly, mums with prams, the disabled - had complained about being unable to use a road or pavement in Sheffield.
It has been claimed this is the reason why some trees across Sheffield have to come down. Labour councillors have argued access for some is difficult precisely because of bulging tree roots, and the council had to meet its highway obligations, when the issue was debated in the town hall.
The Star wants to cover both sides of every story, and answering this question was the council’s chance to show that there is evidence to back up that claim.
The question went unanswered with the excuse that it would take too much time to review all the records required.
The big question now is that if this information on mobility and access is not already held, how does the council know that access for people with mobility issues is a problem in the first place?
This needs answering, and quickly, as the great tree felling debate and protests continue to grow across the whole city."
2,000 TREES TO FELL BEFORE CHRISTMAS
On 2nd September - the day of Sheffield's second Highway Trees Advisory Forum meeting in Sheffield Town Hall - Look North presented a report by their reporter James Vincent. He broadcast from outside the Town Hall, as Look North were barred from filming the public meeting - the meeting that only a couple of days earlier Cllr Fox - Chair of the Forum - had invited EVERYBODY to attend.
What is particularly revealing (PREVIOUSLY NOT SAID) is claim that:
“36,000 trees we’ve got hear in Sheffield. They’re all being assessed; 2,000 have already been removed; there are another 2,000 TO BE cut down THIS YEAR, so far”
His comment started at the 13min 39s in to the broadcast.
So, 2,000 street trees are to be felled in four months. There are then about 24 months left of the core investment period.
28/4 = 7
2,000 X 7 = 14,000 : The total number of street trees that could be felled between now (early September 2015) and 2018, based on felling being continued at the current rate reported by Look North.
Under normal circumstances, this would be a ridiculous prediction. However, both the Council and Streets Ahead have consistently refused, or purposely avoided, answering questions about the NUMBER of street trees to be felled during the five year core investment period of the 25yr PFI contract and about the NUMBER to be felled during the 20yr maintenance period.
Certainly, in various parts of the city people are claiming that 50% of street trees have been felled on their street, and in some cases the figure is far greater. I have even read one report of a street in Rivelin losing all but one tree, with the roadside verges where the trees once grew now “concreted” over. Certainly, that road that runs past the Holly Bush pub has been totally mullered
To stop all this silly speculation, the Council could just publish all the information that campaigners have requested, making it available for all to see, online.
TREE FORUM: 2nd Meeting
The reason why Look North’s report has any credibility at all is because, to date, whenever the Council have had something to say about trees they have always done it via the local media – NEVER by contacting campaigners or local Councillors before or after to ensure the news actually reaches them and that they understand it. In an ideal world, any announcements would be made and discussed at a forum meeting.
Given our current circumstances in Sheffield – particularly that a felling and planting programme has begun without any strategy to guide and inform – a meeting really needs to be taking place at least once a week.
To me, it appears that a week before the scheduled forum meeting, Cllr Fox decides what will be discussed at the forum; three days before the meeting, he starts to share those ideas. It appears that he intends to pick a different topic for each meeting and then tick it off as having undergone “detailed scrutiny” by a panel of “experts”, with the public having had ample opportunity to “have a say”, as he puts it.
Fox STILL hasn’t defined PRECISELY what that means by “have a say”. One thing is clear, the forum is not a forum for consultation and participation with regard to enabling opportunity for stakeholders to influence decisions that affect policy and management. As a competent arboriculturist, it is obvious to me that the Highway Trees Advisory Forum, without a constitution (draughted and put out to the representatives of key stakeholders for consultation, feedback and amendment, prior to being confirmed and adopted) is nothing more than a TOTAL sham. It just serves as a platform for Streets Ahead (i.e. the Council & Amey) to serve notification, publicise policies and plans, and fulfil PR aims and objectives (Fox gets to appear as if he is taking reasonable steps to consult with stakeholders and do things in a more sensitive and prudent manner).
The media are not probing enough to uncover the truth; they lack the necessary, relevant education, knowledge and training required to detect the distractions and misinformation, or to criticise acts and omissions in any meaningful and valid way. There are no competent arboriculturists on the panel, or independent highway engineers, nor any representatives from professional institutions / associations / groups, such as:
Trees and Design Action Group.
Arboricultural Association.
Institute of Chartered Foresters.
The National Tree Safety Group.
The Landscape Institute.
The UK Roads Liaison Group.
National Joint Utilities Group.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5287
The Forestry Commission.
Natural England.
The official beliefs and opinions of Amey and the Council – to date unsupported by evidence, policy, legislation or best practice – need to be scrutinised by competent professionals with education, knowledge, training and experience relevant to the matters being approached. Citizen groups and voluntary organisations are unlikely to have the necessary expertise, or have the resources to access such expertise.
"The geographical inequalities are well known – areas in the south and west of the city are in the least deprived 20% of the country, whilst OVER 30% OF SHEFFIELD’S POPULATION LIVE IN AREAS THAT FALL WITHIN 20% MOST DEPRIVED IN THE COUNTRY, LARGELY LOCATED IN THE NORTH AND EAST OF THE CITY."
(Sheffield City Council: Development and Regeneration Services, 2014, pp. 1-2).
Source:
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].
THE STAR: THE SORT CAMPAIGN THUS FAR
A very good but very brief summary of the SORT campaign appeared in the letters section of The Star newspaper, on Wednesday 02 September 2015:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/letters-opinion/highway-trees-forum-1-7439...
The only criticism I have of this letter in The Star is that it states:
“When it became apparent that all trees that caused even minor disruption to pavements and kerbs would be felled on the basis that they represented a trip hazard, an active campaign to challenge policy sprang in to action (SORT).”
Actually, the SORT campaign really started when it became apparent that all trees that caused even minor disruption to pavements and kerbs would be felled on the basis that they caused damage. SORT Believed - as they still do - that engineering solutions could be used to retain trees and that alternative highway engineering specifications should be commissioned, draughted and used to safely retain existing trees, long-term (draughted by competent arboricultural consultants - preferably Chartered or approved by the Arboricultural Association - working in cooperation with competent highway engineers). It was after this that Fox & Streets Ahead started using the potential for slips trips and falls as a justification for felling.
Thanks to FOI responses, we now know that no assessment criteria were used to assess the severity of damage (Response Ref: FOI / 493)or to assess hazard and risk of harm or injury (Response Ref: FOI / 423). The only criteria they had was the 6Ds. In reality, this is a list to aid highway tree inspectors, but it has variously been described as a “framework” (by Mr Symonds - Director of Amey, responsible for the improvement works across the city), a “strategy” (by Cllr Fox [Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport & self-appointed Chair of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum] & Cllr Dunn [Chair of Sheffield’s Green Commission – responsible for deciding a 25yr strategy for management of green infrastructure], a maintenance strategy (Streets Ahead), and a “policy” (Cllrs Fox, Dunn & Dore).
Furthermore, a Freedom of Information (FOI) request response (Ref: FOI / 422) has indicated that neither Amey or SCC have more than one highways engineering specification for pavements and kerbs – the standard specification they use for all streets, regardless of whether trees are present or not – and that, to date, no alternative highway engineering specifications to enable tree retention have been commissioned or draughted for consideration.
“STREET WALKS” WITH COUNCILLORS
THESE ARE A GENUINE WASTE OF TIME AND HARMFUL TO THE CAMPAIGN FOR TREE RETENTION AND BETTER TREE MANAGEMENT.
Cllr Fox (current Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport & self-appointed Chair of Highway Tree Advisory Forum) and Cllr Dore (Leader of the Labour Council) have already used such meetings as examples of them having “consulted” with residents in an appropriate and adequate manner. Furthermore, as with the forum, they use such meetings to assert that their proposals have undergone “detailed discussion” and “forensic scrutiny”.
BY PARTICIPATING IN SUCH MEETINGS, YOU REVEAL A POINT OF WEAKNESS IN THE CAMPAIGN ARMOUR, WHICH COUNCILLORS AND STREETS AHEAD WILL ONLY BE TOO HAPPY TO EXPLOIT, FOR THEIR OWN ENDS.
Furthermore, I urge ALL campaigners to avoid any offer of a site meeting that does not include the presence of at least a Streets Ahead arboriculturist AND a highways engineer. Rustlings Rd campaigners fell in to the trap of having a “street walk” without such presence. The result was that it was near impossible to get responses , let alone answers – detailed or not – and, to this day, many requests for information and letters remain ignored.
Please remember, your councillor has no EDUCATION, TRAINING, QUALIFICATIONS OR EXPERIENCE whatsoever in respect of any aspect of tree management or highway engineering. Also, if you have a Labour Councillor, they have taken the decision to vote and act as a block, meaning that they are not receptive to new information and are unwilling to review and revise their current, firmly held opinions.
PLEASE REMEMBER, ALL COUNCILLORS were issued with the hand-out published in support of the Save Our Rustlings Trees (SORT) campaign, which was distributed to every Councillor on 26th June, 2015, by the Sheffield City Council (SCC) Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources department. It was produced in preparation for “debate” at a meeting of the full Council on Wednesday 1st July, 2015. The intention of the document was to support the case for the safe, long-term retention of street trees and to help encourage informed debate, based on evidence and sound knowledge of current best practice (in reality, no debate took place).
You can access a copy of the SORT hand-out (“SORT_Rustlings Road trees June 2015.pdf”) at:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/streets-ahead-stocksbridge-trees
The SORT letter to Cllr Fox, dated 14th July, is an updated version. You can access it at:
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/update-on-sheffie...
It should also be remembered that when a petition is presented at full council, THERE ARE ONLY TWO “COURSES OF ACTION” AVAILABLE TO COUNCILLORS:
1) note and take no action for the reasons put forward in the debate, or
2) refer the petition to either the Cabinet, a Scrutiny Committee, a Cabinet Member or an Executive Director for consideration having regard to the comments made by Members during the course of the debate.
In the case of the SORT petition, ALL Labour councillors (the majority of the council) opted for the first option, even though they had received the SORT hand-out.
IT WAS VERY REVEALING THAT NO ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS WERE PRESENTED OR DISCUSSED AT THE 2ND MEETING OF THE HIGHWAY TREES ADVISORY FORUM ON 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2015.
The option to commission and/or draft, adopt & use alternative, standard, sensitive, flexible (meaning there is room to make adjustments to suit on-site circumstances) highway engineering SPECIFICATION/S (preferably draughted by competent [see BS 5837: 2012], registered/chartered arboricultural consultants and competent highway engineers, working together, in cooperation), to enable the safe long-term retention of existing long-established street trees on street trees was not even on the “list of Streets Ahead Engineering Options”, nor was it even mentioned at the aforementioned forum meeting.
As early as 31st May, 2015, SORT (now SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES) campaigners wrote to council officials stating:
“We request that new, improved, flexible, tree-friendly highway specification/s specifically for pavements (including kerbs) with existing trees are adopted, so as to retain as many larger trees as possible. In our opinion, this would represent a practicable approach to responsible and sustainable management of green infrastructure, with regard to existing, long-established street trees. By making such changes, managers would not be required to ‘engineer solutions for every tree’, as Jeremy Willis, Ops Manager of Amey, had stated would be impracticable on 27.05.15. The new standard specification would need to be draughted in accordance with current arboricultural best practice guidance and recommendations.”
There are no independent, competent arboriculturists on the Highway Trees Advisory Forum panel, or independent highway engineers, nor any representatives from professional institutions / associations / groups.
The official beliefs and opinions of Amey and the Council – to date unsupported by evidence, policy, legislation or best practice – need to be scrutinised by competent professionals with education, knowledge, training and experience relevant to the matters being approached. Citizen groups and voluntary organisations are unlikely to have the necessary expertise, or have the resources to access such expertise.
Alternative highway engineering specifications should have been commissioned and/or draughted and this should have been somewhere near the top of the list of options for consideration, as it is both urgent and necessary. Also, this should have been done prior to or at the start of the contract.
A LETTER THAT "THE STAR" WOULD NOT PUBLISH
The following letter reached my inbox at the start of this week:
THE GREAT SHEFFIELD CHAINSAW MASSACRE: 2012-2018
On 2nd Sept, as the second meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum took place, with reference to the felling of Sheffield’s highway trees, the BBC announced:
“…there are another 2,000 TO BE cut down THIS YEAR, so far.”
No wonder residents are upset! As SORT point out in their >13,000 signature petition, our highway trees are key component of Sheffield’s green infrastructure; a valuable asset that make a significant contribution to our health and well-being, not least of all through their beauty and our pleasure of its enjoyment (amenity value), reducing health problems and associated NHS costs.
In response to MP Louise Haigh’s question about the basis for opposition to the current five year of city-wide felling programme, the basis is set out in the Save our Roadside Trees (SORT) letter addressed to Cllr Fox, dated 14th July, 2015. The basis was and is also detailed in the SORT hand-out that was distributed to every Councillor on 26th June, 2015, by the Council’s Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources department. Ms Haigh received a copy of the latter on 25th June, and again on 1st July, 2015. Both documents are accessible online, via Stocksbridge Community Forum (News section).
Any city-wide felling programme that lacks a strategic, planned, systematic and integrated approach and that fails to involve communities (through a programme that enables education, consultation and participation) is likely to attract criticism from every quarter.
The city-wide felling programme will drastically reduce the number of large-crowned trees along our streets, having significant negative impact on the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover along highways, and on the range, magnitude and value of associated ecosystem goods and services afforded by these trees to the environment, communities and ALL living things.
Sheffield’s urban forest IS defined by its canopy cover, according to the Government’s own policy: The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management. The standard exists to implement forestry policy and forestry principles and criteria set by the international community. It requires “stewardship and use…in a way and at a rate that maintains…their POTENTIAL to fulfil, NOW and in the future, relevant ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC and SOCIAL functions, at local…levels….”
These “functions” are the ecosystem goods and services; they include those that the SORT petition mentioned. Other cities have had these valued and found them to be worth millions of pounds each year. SORT Submitted the following Freedom of information (FOI) request (Ref: FOI / 423) on 06/07/2015:
“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.”
A response was received on 22/7/2015:
“We do not carry out a risk assessment as part of our review of trees.”
SORT also submitted another FOI request (Ref: FOI / 493) on 18/07/2015:
“Under the FOI act, I request to see the assessment criteria and completed assessments that led to the decision to fell trees causing pavement ridging on Rustlings Road.”
A response was received on 7/8/2015:
“The assessment criteria are as set out on the Council’s website.”
At that time all that we could find (as now) is the now infamous 6Ds policy that Cllr Fox claimed, at the meeting of full council on 1/7/2015, was the city’s tree strategy, presented in its entirety.
The Acts of Parliament that the Council quote only place a duty on the Council to that which is reasonable in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES of the case.
SORT Believe that, in fulfilment of this duty, it would be prudent and reasonable for the Council to adopt APPROPRIATE, ADEQUATE, BALANCED ASSESSMENTS TO INFORM DECISIONS and help ensure that they are DEFENDABLE. We believe this would help ensure a sustainable approach and HELP TEMPER A DESTRUCTIVE, RISK-AVERSE APPROACH, provided assessments are undertaken BY COMPETENT PEOPLE using current, widely recognised and accepted, appropriate methods. It would also help ensure that decisions that are based on sound evidence and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, whether formed by the media, lobby groups or vested interests.
SORT Are grateful to all supporters, especially The Star, for helping to highlight the urgent need for a strategic approach to the management of OUR urban forest, for the benefit of ALL and future generations.
SORT
Note: There was an earlier letter that did get published in The Star:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/letters-opinion/no-area-is-safe-from-the-c...
You can listen to MP Louise Haigh's silly comments on Radio Sheffield's Toby Foster Breakfast Show. I believe she appeared on the show broadcast on 2/9/2015.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p001d7tv/broadcasts/2015/09
Correction:
"The Acts of Parliament that the Council quote only place a duty on the Council to that which is reasonable in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES of the case."
This should read:
"The Acts of Parliament that the Council quote only place a duty on the Council to do that which is reasonable given ALL CIRCUMSTANCES of the case.
THE STAR 16/7/2015
It looks like The Star did decide to publish the above letter, after all!
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/letters-opinion/the-great-sheffield-chains...
Also, check this out:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-tree-campaigners-set-up-park-cam...
THE GREAT SHEFFIELD CHAINSAW MASSACRE
– A Response to Louise Haigh MP
A Letter Published in The Star on 16th September 2015
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/the-great-sheffield-chainsaw-massacre-1-74...
This is the unedited version. The bits that The Star edited out appear between square brackets.
*****
“On 2nd Sept, as the second meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum took place, with reference to the felling of Sheffield’s highway trees, the BBC announced: “…there are another 2,000 TO BE cut down THIS YEAR, so far.”
No wonder residents are upset! As SORT point out in their >13,000 signature petition, our highway trees are key component of Sheffield’s green infrastructure; a valuable asset that make a significant contribution to our health and well-being, not least of all through their beauty and our pleasure of its enjoyment (amenity value), reducing health problems and associated NHS costs.
In response to MP Louise Haigh’s question about the basis for opposition to the current five years of city-wide felling programme, the basis is set out in the Save our Roadside Trees (SORT) letter addressed to Cllr Fox, dated 14th July, 2015*. The basis was and is also detailed in the SORT hand-out that was distributed to every Councillor on 26th June, 2015, by the Council’s Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources department. Ms Haigh received a copy of the latter on 25th June, and again on 1st July, 2015. Both documents are accessible online, via Stocksbridge Community Forum (News section).
Any city-wide felling programme that lacks a strategic, planned, systematic and integrated approach and that fails to involve communities [(through a programme that enables education, consultation and participation)] is likely to attract criticism from every quarter.
The city-wide felling programme will drastically reduce the number of large-crowned trees along our streets, having significant negative impact on the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover along highways, and on the range, magnitude and value of associated ecosystem goods and services afforded by these trees [to the environment, communities and ALL living things].
Sheffield’s urban forest IS defined by its canopy cover, according to the Government’s own policy: The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management. The standard exists to implement forestry policy and forestry principles and criteria set by the international community. It requires “stewardship and use…in a way and at a rate that maintains…their POTENTIAL to fulfil, NOW and in the future, relevant ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC and SOCIAL functions, at local…levels….”
These “functions” are the ecosystem goods and services include those that the SORT petition mentioned. Other cities have had these valued and found them to be worth millions of pounds each year.
SORT Submitted the following Freedom of information (FOI) request (Ref: FOI / 423) on 06/07/2015: “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.” A response was received on 22/7/2015: “We do not carry out a risk assessment as part of our review of trees.”
SORT also submitted another FOI request (Ref: FOI / 493) on 18/07/2015: “Under the FOI act, I request to see the assessment criteria and completed assessments that led to the decision to fell trees causing pavement ridging on Rustlings Road.” A response was received on 7/8/2015:
“The assessment criteria are as set out on the Council’s website.”
At that time all that we could find (as now) is the now infamous 6Ds policy that Cllr Fox claimed, at the meeting of full council on 1/7/2015, was the city’s tree strategy, presented in its entirety.
The Acts of Parliament that the Council quote only place a duty on the Council to that which is reasonable, in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES of the case.
SORT Believe that, in fulfilment of this duty, it would be prudent and reasonable for the Council to adopt APPROPRIATE, ADEQUATE, BALANCED ASSESSMENTS TO INFORM DECISIONS and help ensure that they are DEFENDABLE.
We believe this would help ensure a sustainable approach and HELP TEMPER A DESTRUCTIVE, RISK-AVERSE APPROACH, provided assessments are undertaken BY COMPETENT PEOPLE using current, widely recognised and accepted, appropriate methods. It would also help ensure that decisions that are based on sound evidence and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions [, whether formed by the media, lobby groups or vested interests].
SORT Are grateful to all supporters, especially The Star, for helping to highlight the urgent need for a strategic approach to the management of OUR urban forest, for the benefit of ALL and future generations.”
*****
SOURCE:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/305#comment-305
*The SORT letters can be accessed in PDF format at the following link:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/published-after-wait-14-month...
TREES IN TOWNS 2: A NEW SURVEY OF URBAN TREES IN ENGLAND AND THEIR CONDITION AND MANAGEMENT.
NOW AVAILABLE AS A FREE DOWNLOAD IN PDF FORMAT (worth £55), ONLINE, AT:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/262857090_Trees_in_Towns_II_A_ne...
This lengthy, comprehensive report was commissioned, under the Labour government, by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to:
"help shape central and local government policy on urban trees" (Britt, et al., 2008, p. 477) and:
"encourage the LAs [Local Authorities] to develop higher standards of management in order to deliver a more efficient and effective tree programme for their communities" (Britt, et al., 2008, p. 406): the Trees in Towns ll report (TT2).
One of the primary authors was the UK’s leading authority on urban forest management, the Chartered Arboriculturist Dr Johnston MBE.
http://www.forestryjournal.co.uk/newsitefiles/eAweb2010/31MarkJohnston.pdf
The report is particularly relevant to the management of Sheffield's urban forest as it highlights the importance of and necessity for a tree strategy to help guide and inform management decisions and to help ensure a consistent, transparent and defendable approach to tree management - one that has a community strategy at its heart, enabling public engagement through a programme of education, consultation & participation.
http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participatio...
…"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)
“Any increase in funding for the tree programme has to be viewed in the context of its contribution to a range of service areas. This not only requires a strategic approach to budgeting and planning, it also requires recognition that the urban forest has a key contribution to make in achieving a range of strategic policy objectives, for example, in Community Strategic Guidelines (CSG) and neighbourhood and city agendas.”
(Britt, et al., 2008, p. 400)