Contribute to this website

PHYTOPHTHORA OUTBREAK: PLANT DESTROYER ALERT

This year, my family noted that there have been noticing a significant scarcity of bilberries (Vaccinium myrtillus) about. They tell me that usual sites have some plants in flower, some with bilberries and some with neither. They say this has been the case for months and that the berries that are about are much smaller than usual.

Until a couple of weeks ago, when I set out on a walk from Bolsterstone, I thought that perhaps the bilberry crop was just a little late and everyone was over exaggerating the problem. That was until I walked along Wind Hill Knoll (grid ref: SK 244 978), after exiting Millstones Wood & crossing the Western end of Long Lane. What I found was shocking to me – symptoms of Phytophthora infection on every bilberry plant in sight! Perhaps the birds hadn’t been particularly greedy this year!

Phytophthora sp. are fungus-like organisms - Heterokonts (AKA Stramenopiles). They are microscopic organisms that are most closely related to algae. One particular species caused the Irish potato famine that killed thousands of Irish and forced many to leave their country to live elsewhere.

Previously, back in about 2009, I read research papers predicting how Phytophthora sp. could, in theory, devastate miles of bilberry-covered land, potentially change the face of our countryside and restrict the plant species we can grow commercially.

Today, while out walking from the A635 (grid ref: SE 054 062) to Soldier’s Lump, on Black Hill, all about the hill, ALL bilberry plants have symptoms of Phytophthora infection. The blotched leaves are a total give away. However, what confirmed my suspected diagnosis were Rhododendron bushes near the road displaying the same foliar symptoms. BTW, While out at Longshaw, about a year ago, I saw Rhododendrons there with symptoms of Phytophthora infection - on the bushes beside the path that runs down from the café to the pond.

It would be interesting to have a confirmed diagnosis of exactly which species of Phytophthora are causing the damage to our bilberries and to know whether or not anyone else has noticed. I guess we can all kiss goodbye to the kind of bilberry harvest that our families have enjoyed for generations, for the reasonably foreseeable future, at any rate. 

Extracts from:
Review of Joint Inter-Departmental Emergency Programme to Contain and Eradicate Phytophthora ramorum and Phytophthora kernoviae in Great Britain.

http://www.relu.ac.uk/research/Animal%20and%20Plant%20Disease/Review%20o...(3).pdf

By Isobel Tomlinson, Tom Harwood, Clive Potter, Jon Knight.
Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, South Kensington
Corresponding author: Email i.tomlinson@imperial.ac.uk
October 2009

“3.35 Failure to engage with conservation organisations
The habitats where Pr /Pk has been found in the UK have evolved and increased over time from initially nurseries, to woodland and then to heathland, partly due to a broadening of surveying. Early research indicated that Vaccinium myrtillus was susceptible (see Jones and Sansford [2001a] and Jones, Sansford and Brasier 2003 for concern with Vaccinium spp.) and this generated concern amongst some on the Board because heathland in the UK is a key habitat, and the UK has a large proportion of the world‟s lowland and upland heathland. The potential for Pr/Pk to cause a major conservation issue for the UK was recognised. However, it is acknowledged that “we struggled to get the conservation organisations, both the governmental and non-governmental ones, really engaged” (interviewee D, policy maker). Once, Pk had been found on Vaccinium in heathland, Natural England were engaged very quickly, but it is wished that they had been engaged earlier:

“The other weakness was that the Programme Board was not able to get real engagement with the conservation interests during the early years as the problem was seen as a nursery/invasive Rhododendron issue. This only changed (and then very rapidly) once we found infection in Vaccinium in heathland and the potentially severe damaging nature of it became apparent” [survey respondent]

It is understood that before Pk had been found on Vaccinnium, the theoretical risk identified through scientific research was not given priority over more pressing, current issues. This raises issues for the communication of risk and broader risk management issues. Action is required in response to potential threats (as in the initial surveys) rather than realised threats in order to avoid reactive rather than proactive policy.

It is understood that the finding of Pk on heathland contributed to the decision to fund the new programme. The Board composition needs to reflect this, and it has been stated that the new Board will deal with this by including, for example, Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales. However, the lack of engagement with other non-governmental conservation, environmental and rural interest organisations is of concern and it is recommended that more work is done to involve them with Pr/Pk (and plant biosecurity issues more broadly).

The success or otherwise of the management board has been down to some extent by the individuals involved and the level of commitment and ability to work together they have demonstrated. This is something that should be kept in mind for the future.”

The Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) Advice, 2012:
http://fera.co.uk/plantClinic/documents/factsheets/phytophthoraBilberryS...

ADVISORY INFORMATION:
Phytophthora ramorum and Phytophthora kernoviae are quarantine diseases and Defra needs to be notified of any findings so action can be taken against them.

If you suspect that such a pest or disease is present, you should report it immediately to your local Plant Health and Seeds Inspector (contact details below).

If you discover any plants showing the symptoms illustrated in this leaflet:
_ Make a note of the location
_ Take a photograph if possible
_ Don’t touch the plant or take a cutting
_ Use the contact information below

Telephone: 01904 465625
Email: planthealth.info@fera.gsi.gov.uk

Links:
http://fera.co.uk/plantClinic/documents/plantClinicNews/phytophthoraSpec...

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/phytophthoraprotocol30april2010onandoffsi...$FILE/phytophthoraprotocol30april2010onandoffsite.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pramorum

OAK: ECOLOGY

BBC Four: Thursday 1 October 2015

"In this 90-minute film for BBC Four, entomologist George McGavin studies one of the great icons of the British countryside - the oak tree.

Throughout the year-long study George investigates the surprisingly sophisticated biology of the 400 year-old oak, learns how it has adapted to the ever-changing countryside and discovers how it became such an important part of British culture and history.

Oak Tree: Nature's Greatest Survivor begins with the onset of autumn. George discovers how the tree senses and then prepares itself for the changing of the seasons. He excavates a tree to study the highly complex root system of an oak and finds out why the tree’s incredible ability to adapt to its environment made it the perfect wood for ship-building.

The next chapter of the film is winter. To get a better sense of what the oak must endure during this season, George spends a night in the tree and learns how it almost goes into a state of hibernation - while providing shelter for several species of insects and animals in howling winds and sub-zero temperatures. He then discovers why oak was used to create some of the most remarkable architecture in the medieval world with a visit to Salisbury Cathedral.

As spring begins, George sets up two solar powered cameras to capture the trees' epic transformation throughout the season and discovers how pollen can be used to understand the history of the landscape over the last 12,000 years. He explores the weird world of gall wasps, tiny insects that genetically modify the tree to grow some of the most bizarre structures in the natural world and discovers how ink made from oak galls was used to record much of our history.

In the final season, summer, George looks at the vast web of life that relies on the oak. Scaling the tree, he gathers a collection of insects to investigate under the microscope. He visits the largest collection of whisky in the world to see how the oaks wood gives whisky its unique flavour and looks back two billion years to see how the oak achieves its greatest feat - capturing energy from the sun."

BBC Four: Thursday 1 October 2015

Source: http://www.trees.org.uk/aa/news/Oak-Tree-Nature-s-Greatest-Survivor-403....

SUBSIDENCE / HEAVE

EXTRACTS FROM:

"Guidance Notes for:

Application for Tree Works: Works to Trees Subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO)
and/or

Notification of Proposed Works to Trees in Conservation Areas (CA)
Town and Country Planning Act 1990"

(Planning Portal - Application Type Guidance V3.4.2)

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/1app/guidance/guidance_note-wor...

"You will normally need to contact your local planning authority (LPA) before any work can be carried out on protected trees. The LPA is usually the council to which you pay your Council Tax, but where the tree(s) are in the Broads Authority area or a National Park you should consult the relevant Authority.

Protected trees include those covered by a tree preservation order (TPO) or those which grow in a conservation area. You will need to contact the LPA even if you wish to prune branches overhanging from a neighbour’s protected tree. You should send one copy of the completed form to your LPA.

FOR WORK TO TREES COVERED BY A TPO:

Unless the LPA agree in writing that the tree(s) is of very low amenity value YOU MUST PROVIDE THE INFORMATION DETAILED BELOW WHEN YOUR APPLICATION RELATES TO THE CONDITION OF THE TREE OR DAMAGE THAT IT IS CAUSING.

SUBSIDENCE:

Reports will usually be provided by a structural engineer and/or a chartered surveyor and be supported by technical analysis from other experts e.g. for root and soil analysis. These reports must include the following information:

A description of the property, including a description of the damage and the crack pattern, the date that the damage first occurred/was noted, details of any previous underpinning or building work, the geological strata for the site identified from the geological map

Details of vegetation in the vicinity and its management since discovery of the damage. Include a plan showing the vegetation and affected building

Measurement of the extent and distribution of vertical movement using level monitoring. Where level monitoring is not possible, state why and provide crack-monitoring data. Data provided must be sufficient to show a pattern of movement consistent with the presence of the implicated tree(s)

A profile of a trial/bore hole dug to identify foundation type and depth and soil characteristics

The sub-soil characteristics including soil type (particularly that on which the foundations rest), liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index

The location and identification of roots found. Where identification is inconclusive, DNA testing should be carried out

Proposals and estimated costs of options to repair the damage
In addition, you must include a report from an arboriculturist to support the tree work proposals, including arboricultural options for avoidance or remediation of indirect tree-related damage.

OTHER STRUCTURAL DAMAGE:

Technical evidence in respect of other structural damage (e.g. garden walls, drains, paving, drive surfaces) should be provided by a relevant engineer, building/drainage surveyor or other appropriate expert."

HIGHWAY CHIEF DISCIPLINED!

Steve Robinson, FORMER Head of Highway Maintenance: A disgrace to the civil engineering profession!

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

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

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

As detailed elsewhere on this thread, the current approach to highway tree management does not comply with national guidance or THE UK FORESTRY STANDARD: The governments’ approach to SUSTAINABLE forest management (published by the Forestry Commission) – the standard that defines SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT.

The UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) and its Guidelines:

“APPLY…TO ALL UK FOREST TYPES AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THE COLLECTIVE TREE AND WOODLAND COVER IN URBAN AREAS.”
(Forestry Commission, 2011, p. 4)

They exist to implement forestry policy set by the international community. With reference to the series of Guidelines, the UKFS states:
“In assessing whether the Requirements have reasonably been met, THE OVERALL BALANCE OF BENEFITS OR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.”
(Forestry Commission, 2011, p. 4)

"SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IS ‘THE STEWARDSHIP AND USE
OF FORESTS AND FOREST LANDS IN A WAY, AND AT A RATE, THAT MAINTAINS
their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and
THEIR POTENTIAL TO FULFIL, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE, RELEVANT ECOLOGICAL,
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONS, AT LOCAL, NATIONAL, AND GLOBAL LEVELS,
and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems’.
(MCPFE*, 1993, see Appendix 1)".
(Forestry Commission, 2011, p. 7)

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

Reference:
Forestry Commission (2011). The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/ukfs

Robinson was not demoted because of his incompetent and reckless acts & omissions, but because of political correctness. How ridiculous! THE STAR for further detail:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/listen-sheffield-council-sorry-after-highw...

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: REQUESTS DENIED

FOI Questions Submitted on Friday 7th August, 2015; refused by Mark Knight (Information Management Officer) and Streets Ahead (the Council : Amey partnership) the same day, as “VEXATIOUS” and “MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE”:

Reference – FOI / 608 (Status: REFUSED):

“Under the FOI Act, please provide full detail AND copies of ALL policies, protocols, and methodologies SPECIFIC TO HIGHWAY TREES, that Sheffield City Council use to help ensure that the city’s population of street trees is managed in a sustainable manner, in accordance with The UK Forestry Standard and current arboricultural and urban forestry best practice.”

Reference – FOI / 609 (Status: REFUSED):

“Under the FOI Act, please provide full detail AND copies of all steps and methodologies used by Sheffield City Council to help ensure that tree management and felling decisions are balanced, so as to avoid any disproportionate response by or on behalf of the Council.”

Reference – FOI / 610 (Status: REFUSED):

“Under the FOI Act, please provide FULL detail providing AND explaining the Council’s reasons why a competent arboriculturist (as defined by BS 5837 [2012] & BS 3998 [2010]) is not present ON SITE, at all times, FOR THE DURATION OF ALL WORKS to pavements and kerbs that are likely to affect trees (including excavations such as holes and trenches).”

Contact Mr Knight:
Information Management Officer
Information and Knowledge Management
Business Change & Information Solutions (BCIS)
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield
S1 1UJ

HIGHWAY CHIEF DISCIPLINED!

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/listen-sheffield-council-sorry-after-highw...

There is nothing wrong with what he says in The Star’s audio clip, in my opinion. Highway trees are Council property. It is unlawful to plant or excavate in the highway without permission. I wish Robinson WOULD do his job, and exercise the level of care expected of a reasonably skilled highway engineer in doing so! It is truly shocking that one of the largest cities in the UK has embarked on a city-wide felling & planting programme without a tree strategy to guide and inform decisions, guard against disproportionate activity to control risk, and ensure that policy, management and practice are soundly based on available evidence and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, whether formed by the media or vested interests.

Furthermore, when you consider that up to £1.2 BILLION of taxpayer’s money (from DfT) is being spent on the project, it is truly shocking to discover that valuations of ecosystem services afforded by trees have not been done, there are cost:benefit analyses, no criteria to assess the severity of pavement/kerb damage, no risk assessments for hazards associated with trees, and that no competent arboricultural consultants have been commissioned to work with competent highway engineers to draught alternative highway engineering specifications that could be used to safely retain existing trees long-term, there is a clear case of reckless acts and omissions by Steve Robinson.

As SORT rightly pointed out in their letter to Councillor Fox, dated 14th July 2015, all these things are necessary and recommended by a raft of current industry guidance and recommendations documents: https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/update-on-sheffie...

One lead campaigner contacted Streets Ahead & requested:

“I would like to see the paperwork detailing the legal advice the council has received on the Precautionary Principle please?”

The response was as follows:

“The Council does not wish to release its detailed legal advice on this matter at present, however it is of note that Government summit commitments of this kind (i.e. Rio Earth Summit 1992) are not binding on local authorities unless and until they are incorporated into legislation.”

Clearly, Robinson & the SCC:Amey people (AKA Streets Ahead) lack the necessary education, knowledge, training & experience relevant to the matters to be addressed: they ARE – by definition (BS 5837:2012) – INCOMPETENT insofar as tree management and works in close proximity to trees is concerned.

As if all the problems highlighted were not sufficient to support this assertion, Streets Ahead have been felling mature trees on the basis that they have “outgrown their location” or are causing damage to pavements and kerbs. More recently they have justified felling (e.g. Abbeydale Park Rise) on the basis that the machine that they use to remove tarmac during pavement resurfacing works MAY damage roots, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease and trees subsequently becoming unsafe and dangerous. They have even prescribed felling on the basis that mowers or excavations by Streets Ahead operatives could damage roots and lead to the same consequences.

All this goes against current arboricultural/forestry industry practice guidance & recommendations, not least of all British Standard 5837 (2012).

HIGHWAY CHIEF DISCIPLINED!

On 8th October, The Star newspaper reported:

“Simon Green, the council’s director of place, said:

‘I can confirm that another member of staff will be running the highway trees strand of the Streets Ahead project while we are looking into this matter.’”

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/tree-campaigners-call-for-urgent-action-af...

As I understand it, Mr Green is SCC “Executive Director of Place Management Team”.

Please note that this reported comment does not mean that Steve Robinson will not remain a VERY senior highways decision maker. I suspect he will continue with his usual duties with the ONLY difference being that he will have a different title and will no longer be the public face of the Highways department. Well, that’s the way things usually work. No doubt, from now on, some dumb PR woman will do all the public communication – possibly the same one that can’t spell arboriculturist.

STEVE ROBINSON’S LINKEDIN PROFILE:

"Synopsis":

• "Currently leading the delivery of the £2bn 25 year highway maintenane PFI in Sheffield
11 year track record of success in local and central government work…with an ability to strategically manage client relationships with SENSITIVITY AND POLITICAL SAVVY."

• "Track record of driving innovation and creativity and opportunity identification and development."

SPECIALITIES: Key Skills:
• Highway Maintenance
• Leadership, INNOVATION and CREATIVITY FOCUSED AROUND PEOPLE.

Reference: http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/steve-robinson/45/689/795

TREES? GET LOST!

This is another letter that THE STAR newspaper refused to publish. It arrived in my inbox last Thursday (8th Oct):

"On 6th Oct, The Star reported that Steve Robinson - Head of Highways, & an “expert” on the Highway Trees Advisory Forum (HTAF) panel – had referred to the reasons for tree retention (as opposed to felling) that Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT) campaigners have provided as “nonsense”.

At the Inaugural HTAF meeting, with regard to all decisions on whether or not a street tree should be felled, Mr Robinson commented:

“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.”

If it hadn’t been for the helpful suggestions of SORT campaigners, Mr Robinson would have taken even longer than a month to come up with the list of 20 ideas that Cllr Fox read out at the meeting of full council on 1st July”, and which he asserts represent “engineering solutions” that are always considered prior to taking a decision to fell trees. If it hadn’t been for SORT, Mr Robinson would still been unaware of the guidance and helpful recommendations contained within the UK Roads Liaison Group Code of Practice, British Standard 5837, or National Joint Utilities Group documents. As Freedom of Information (FOI) request responses (Refs: FOI / 493 & FOI / 563) indicate, until the 2nd HTAF meeting, on 2/9/2015, Mr Robinson didn’t even have any assessment criteria to assess the severity of pavement “ridging” damage.

SORT Represent >13,000 people; their reasoning is certainly not “nonsense”. All of it is supported by references to current legislation, policy commitments and current industry best practice. This, along with Robinson’s “solutions”, is available to view online, via Stocksbridge Community Forum (once there, search for “pavement”). With the city-wide Streets Ahead project using up to £1.2 BILLION of taxpayer’s money (from the Department for Transport), it is certainly not unreasonable to expect the Head of Highways to demonstrate the level of care expected of a reasonably skilled member of his profession, in fulfilment of the duty of care that is imposed upon all professionals that have responsibility for giving advice and making decisions (including Amey & Council officers and managers).

SORT Have noticed a disturbing new development. Since May, Streets Ahead (the Council:Amey partnership) have been secretly converting enquiries to FOI requests. As the Information Officer has to then request the information from Streets Ahead anyway, this seems ridiculous. However, by doing this, the Council have the option to refuse information requested under the Freedom of Information Act. This tactic has been used in handling SORT enquiries and is now being used for all enquiries. It would appear that the Council is not interested in involving communities during the preparation of plans and programmes relating to their neighbourhoods and the wider environment, or in having a transparent and fair framework, or in providing information to the public, or in making provision for the public to participate: all of which are required in accordance with Article 7 of the Arhus Convention and national planning policy.

Recently, as was advised on a Tree Replacement Notice secured to one of the trees in her neighbourhood, one lady contacted Streets Ahead with an enquiry about the decision. Her enquiry was secretly converted to an FOI request (FOI / 827). What is particularly disturbing is the response she received, indicating that the Council are unwilling to communicate with anybody that has a tree related enquiry from this point on. The response was as follows:

“As a result of the number and impact of requests received for information related initially to the proposed removal of highway trees on Rustlings Road and subsequent linked requests for information on other highway trees throughout the Council area, we have also decided that future requests will be considered to be vexatious (under Section 14 Freedom of Information Act 2000) and manifestly unreasonable (under Regulation 12(4)(b) Environmental Information Regulations 2004). …”We consider the request to also be exempt under Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act when aggregated to recent similar requests.”

Presumably this means The Star will no longer be able to get answers either? Perhaps citizens should make it clear that they do not wish to have their enquiries secretly converted to FOI requests and then dismissed without consideration?

It has been suggested to the Council that they could at least make commonly requested information available online. Does anyone have any helpful suggestions on how to get answers?

SORT UPDATE: an update from the Save Our Roadside Trees campaign

STAG Plus 'All-out' Elections

"Dear supporters. A federation has been set up under the name Sheffield Trees Action Group (STAG) to act as a hub for people to share and access information submitted by the many tree campaign groups across the city.

The Facebook link is here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/392913244219104/?fref=ts.

"ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL".

There is an 'all-out' council election in May - where everyone's seat is up for grabs - voters get 3 votes instead of the usual one. If people are unhappy with the inertia of the Labour Council and their councillors, over bringing Amey to task for felling healthy trees - or because they have failed, and refuse, to ensure Sheffield’s urban forest (of which highway trees are a major component) is managed in a sustainable way, as defined in “The UK Forestry Standard” - then this would be the time to vote for someone else. Doing so could improve the likelihood of getting a council that will commission alternative highway engineering specifications. That could enable the safe, long-term retention of many, if not most, of the thousands of larger-crowned street trees currently scheduled to be felled before 2018. Alternative highway engineering specifications, draughted by competent highway engineers, working in cooperation with registered/Chartered arboricultural consultants, would help preserve the magnitude and value of the range of ecological, economic and social benefits that street trees provide and which benefit our health and wellbeing.

This is a generational opportunity to get rid of an entrenched, embedded Council that completely ignores the wishes of it's constituents. People can stand up to be elected as councillors themselves - with Trees as the main part of their manifesto. If people would like our highway trees to be managed in a sustainable manner, or if you would like greater openness, honesty and transparency, or if you are fed up with having all enquiries secretly converted to Freedom of Information requests, then subsequently dismissed as “vexatious” and “manifestly unreasonable” under the Freedom of Information Act, voting may be your best opportunity to change things for the better (btw, yes, this IS the way ALL tree related enquiries that relate to the £2.2bn Amey:Council Streets Ahead PFI project are now being handled).

If you would like our council to adopt, implement, supervise and enforce current, widely recognised and widely accepted industry guidance and recommendations, as befits “The most wooded and treed city in Britain” (SCC, 2015), or if you would like to see that officials ensure that their decisions are soundly based on available evidence and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, whether formed by the media or vested interests, voting may be your only opportunity for positive change (you can find out more about these things online, by visiting Stocksbridge Community Forum and following the link to the SORT letter to Cllr Fox, dated 14th July, 2015:

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/streets-ahead-stocksbridge-trees).

As always, thank you everyone for all of your endeavours, wherever you are, for the trees of Sheffield - each of your individual efforts are seen and very much appreciated by the rest of us!

All the best
SORT

The SORT petition is STILL LIVE! With a combined electronic & paper count, the signature total is currently >14,000.

A link to the petition (initially presented at the meeting of full council on 1st July, 2015):
https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-city-council-streetsahead-sheffield-g...

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Request (submitted on Monday 3rd August, 2015: one of a handful that did get a response):

Reference – FOI / 574

“Please provide a copy of the current national highway maintenance standards, guidance and recommendations that the Streets Ahead project claim to be using and working in accordance with; please also provide an online link to these standards.”

Response (received on 7th August 2015, sent by Mark Knight - Information Management Officer):

“Highways maintenance standards and requirements are dictated by a number of pieces of both industry best practice (for example the Well-Maintained Highways Code of Practice for highway maintenance management -

http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/en/UKRLG-and-boards/uk-roads-board/we... )

National Guidance – such as -
https://www.gov.uk/standards-for-highways-online-resources

as well as legislative requirements such as the Highways Act
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66 )

as well as other legal requirements such as the Equalities Act, Health and Safety at Work Act, New Road and Street Works Act and Traffic Management Act – please note that this is not an exhaustive list, however does cover many of the most common documents detailing standards for highway works in England.”

CONTRACT SAYS UP TO 50% OF TREES CAN BE REMOVED

Cllr Leigh Bramall is Deputy Leader of the Labour Council & Cabinet Member for Business, Skills & Development – of “outdoor city” rebranding notoriety.

Taken from a transcript, the following quote is an accurate representation of what Cllr Bramall said at the meeting of full council at Sheffield Town Hall, on 1st July, 2015, during the speeches ("debate") about issues raised by SORT, with reference to the the Council:Amey £2.2bn PFI Streets Ahead project:

"THE CONTRACT SAYS UP TO 50% OF TREES CAN BE REMOVED, ERM, AND ACTUALLY THAT’S 18,000. So far, half way through the programme, 2,000 have been removed”

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/letters-opinion/letters-how-can-an-outdoor...

The forward is by Cllr Leigh Bramall is the guy that justified the SCC spend of >£190,000 on consultants in an attempt to persuade HS2 Ltd to build the proposed station for its high speed rail network closer to the centre of the city, rather than at Meadowhall shopping centre, near the M1. The cost included £6,000 spent on a “Business breakfast consultation event: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-33027791 .

Cllr Bramall justified the expenses by saying the choice of location:

“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” and that it is a
“once in a lifetime opportunity”, the
“implications are massive”
(comments made on BBC Radio Sheffield’s Toby Foster Breakfast Show, on 8/6/2015).

*These should be competent arboricultural consultants (registered / chartered) – defined by BS 5837 (2012) - & competent highway engineers.

At the meeting of full council on 1st July, Cllr Fox (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport & now self appointed Chair of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum) claimed that Europe was watching. That really didn't make much sense as, in terms of urban forest management, and in particular in terms of highway tree management & practice, Sheffield is decades behind on progress made in other European countries. It would appear that Cllr Fox was thinking about the council's involvement in an EU Project: the APACHES "international, collaborative cluster project".

APACHES is an acronym for Attractive Public Areas: Competitiveness, Heritage, Urban Environments and Sustainability. A copy of the EU APACHES final report is available to download:

http://www.apaches.eu/reports/ .

Oddly enough, Cllr Bramall has written the forward to the report. The report does support the retention and planting of highway trees.

A LETTER THE STAR REFUSED TO PUBLISH

At the beginning of the week, the letter below landed in my inbox. It is a response to an article that appeared in The Star on 17th October: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/cycle-network-in-plan-to-make-sheffield-uk...

I understand the letter sent to THE STAR newspaper on Monday 19th October, 2015, but was not published.

THE LETTER:

The 'Outdoor City' 5yr Plan To Axe 18,000 Highway Trees

In Saturday’s The Star, Cllr Leigh Bramall (Deputy Leader of the Labour Council & Cabinet Member for Business, Skills & Development), claimed that Sheffield has only 18,000 highway trees. In fact, there are 36,000! This is the man that, at the meeting of full council on 1st July stated, in reference to the £2.2bn Amey PFI contract (“Streets Ahead”):

"Now, the contract says up to 50 % of trees can be removed, and actually that’s 18,000”.

The December 2012 issue of "Transportation Professional" - a Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation publication stated that Amey will be “REPLACING HALF OF THE CITY’S 36,000 HIGHWAY TREES'.

On 1st July, Cllr Bramall also said:

“Labour’s got a very strong commitment to this agenda…” “Streets Ahead, far from being a problem, is actually crucial in ensuring that the quality of our green spaces remain.”

Cllr Bramall is clearly not familiar with the basic principles of urban forestry – the management of the city-wide tree population. His comments to The Star implied that felling 18,000 highway trees would not have any significant impact on the canopy cover of the urban forest. He implied that losses as a result of felling could be adequately offset by planting in parks and woodlands and that felling half our highway trees would not conflict with his current “Outdoor City” aim: “to promote Sheffield’s outdoor assets to draw in people to work, live and visit”.

Our highway trees soften harsh architectural forms, lift our spirits, and add character to our neighbourhoods. They provide shelter from bad weather and shade and cooling on hot days. They improve the air we breathe by filtering out microscopic particulate matter (pollutants) that cause heart & breathing problems. These are just a few of a range of benefits that are referred to as ecosystem services. These benefit health & well-being & are worth millions of pounds each year. Felling will significantly diminish the magnitude and value of these services.

On 1st July, Cllr Terry Fox (Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport) claimed that the 2006/2007 independent highway tree survey “helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract”. On 23rd July, using the survey as justification for felling, Steve Robinson (Head of Highway Maintenance) said it: “recommended that there was a process of SUSTAINABLE replacement”.

The UK Forestry Standard, published by the Forestry Commission, defines sustainable urban forestry as: “the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and AT A RATE, that MAINTAINS their biodiversity… and their potential to fulfil, NOW and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local…levels.” The standard defines the urban forest by its canopy cover over an area of land. A SUSTAINABLE approach to management requires maintenance of the shape size and distribution of canopy cover in each land-use category. Highways are one such category.

As Amey leave the rural roads & resurface more urban roads, the rate of felling will increase.

THE STAR

THE COUNCIL HAVE CREATED AN ENTIRELY NEW MANAGEMENT POSITION SPECIFICALLY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HIGHWAY TREES.

David Caulfield (the current SCC Director of Regeneration and Development & former Head of Planning) has been appointed to take on all arboricultural/urban forestry aspects of Steve Robinson's (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) duties & responsibilities.

The problem is that Mr Caulfield does not appear to have any QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE OR TRAINING whatsoever in arboriculture or urban forestry!
https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/david-caulfield/36/33b/105

Will things improve? I doubt it.

Tuesday 06 October 2015:

"Sheffield Council has apologised after a highway chief’s views on controversial tree felling across the city were revealed in secret recordings."

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/listen-sheffield-council-sorry-after-highw...

16:31 Thursday 22 October 2015:

"The new council chief who will lead Sheffield’s controversial tree replacement project has been confirmed."

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/trees-new-council-chief-to-lead-sheffield-...

250yr OLD TREES x3 FACE THE AXE!

On LYDGATE LANE, Crosspool, three large ash trees are scheduled to be felled. One is home to a colony of bees that live in the main stem (at the end of Lydgate Hall Crescent). Residents are upset because there are relatively few large street trees in the area and even though the trees have parts with decay, particularly at old wound sites (such as at old pruning sites), they believe the trees could be safely retained, long-term, by adequate mature tree maintenance (pruning). They say the tree at the junction with Marsh Lane could be pollarded. They are right! If felling is genuinely a LAST RESORT, as Cllr Fox, Darren Butt (Amey's Operations Director) and Streets Ahead repeatedly claim, such trees could and should be retained. The "LAST RESORT" policy commitment has been mentioned so many times that it is either just meaningless PR rubbish, or the Council and Amey are just genuinely incompetent.

The two trees mentioned above are to be felled and replaced by one hawthorn tree at each spot. The third tree - between the two (opposite house 303) is to be replaced by a field maple tree (arguably our only native maple, if you disregard sycamore). These replacement trees are all cultivated varieties and are relatively short lived species. They will have relatively small dimensions at maturity (about the size of an apple tree) - "lollipop trees".

These "lollipop" species are being planted as replacements throughout the city on a one-for-one basis. Other relatively short lived species being planted, which have relatively small crowns at maturity, include birch, rowan and crab apple.

The Government's UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) dictates what a sustainable programme of replacement should be. Its principles and guidelines apply to the collective tree and woodland cover of an urban area - the urban forest (defined by the UKFS) -, including all trees in the highway land-use category - highway trees (a key component of the urban forest - and green infrastructure).

The UKFS requires the MAINTENANCE of benefits afforded by trees to the environment and inhabitants. It requires that those benefits should be recognised, accounted for, and that tree populations be managed: "in a way, and at a rate, that maintains... their potential to
fulfil, now and in the future" provision of those benefits. As the range, magnitude and value of these benefits are TOTALLY dependent on the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover, and the urban forest is defined by its canopy cover, replacing long lived species with large crowns for relatively short lived species with relatively small crowns does not MAINTAIN current benefits. In short, such an approach does NOT represent a sustainable approach to highway tree management!

As highway trees, none of the species mentioned here as being planted as replacements are expected to have a safe useful life expectancy of more than 70yrs.

FELLING 250yo ASH TREES

Today, a transcript from a meeting in Crosspool reached my inbox.

Crosspool Forum had an annual general meeting (AGM) last night (7:00pm to 9:00pm. Amey were invited to explain the decision to fell three local landmark heritage trees. The felling of the three 250yo (estimate) trees was the last item on the agenda, so there was little opportunity for discussion about the decision making process or the decisions, so I'm told.

Darren BUTT (Operations Director for Amey) was asked:

"...Why are valuations not done? If they are done, which methods are used for assessment; why they’re not made available; why risk assessments for trees are not done. We know they are not done, because there has been a Freedom of Information request and Streets Ahead have responded saying they do not do risk assessments as part of their survey of trees.”

Mr BUTT's Response ("xxx" represents a word that could not be interpreted):

“In terms of, err, assessment, we do have a number of qualified arborists who work for us. They were previously with the City Council before but came across to Amey at the start of the contract. So, these are the guys that saw the underinvestment of the tree stock over the last 20 years. We have now got the opportunity to bring the impact on our future. They do undertake a thorough tree health survey of those trees prior to the recommendation to the Local Authority. The Authorities, secondary, [sic] do check, in terms of whether they take, prune - any recommendation to be made. But, within Tree xxx replacement, or in any of the remedial works that we change. I can’t remember all the questions that were asked.”

“So, in terms of risk assessment, our arboriculturists do an assessment of the tree; the risk of that tree, and the potential failure throughout that tree. A formal risk assessment is carried out."

Mr Butt was also asked:

“...Why are valuations not part of the risk assessment, along with cost:benefit analyses?".

However, the Chairman of the forum would not permit this question to be answered.

TREES / AMEY / SANDYGATE / CROSSPOOL / TRANSCRIPT

Crosspool Forum AGM, Sheffield

Thursday 29th October 2015 7:00 – 9:00 pm

Words in square brackets may have been misheard.

Claire Tideswell (Streets Ahead Apprise of current highways program):

“The pavements in Sandygate are now 27% complete, and we’re expecting that to run through until the end of January, weather dependent. We’ve brought an extra team in this week that’ll be with us for a while, so we’re hoping to pull forward on that and get that done as soon as we can. WE’VE GOT 102 TREES TO REPLACE in this erm, er. We only actually remove 97; the extras we were asked to take on by the Council, erm, AND 83 OF THOSE ARE ALREADY REPLANTED, and the rest will be replanted in this season, which runs from November through to next March.

In A13 Fulwood, we’re still resurfacing the footways on Fulwood Rd at the moment, and that’ll carry on for another couple of weeks yet. Erm, WE’VE CONCENTRATED ON THE SCHOOL AREAS THIS WEEK, BECAUSE OF THE HALF TERM. Erm, when we get to Ashdale Rd, the rest of the work will be done on nights. So, at the moment, we’re waiting for that to start – probably the middle of November, and that’ll carry on through [downbutton Rd] and up in to, erm, down, erm, Clarkehouse Rd – that, the bottom end of the zone. Then, after that, we’re looking to start the carriageway resurfacing on nights, but that won’t start until next March. Erm, and the next zone we’re looking to start will be the A21: Manchester Rd. At the moment, there’s a possibility we may be looking to start the street lighting before Christmas, but the major works and the footways won’t start at the moment until July and the carriageways will be next September. But, we’ll keep you updated on that and, obviously, we’ll hold a roadshow and things like that, before we start.”

https://www.facebook.com/savesheffieldtrees

https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-city-council-streetsahead-sheffield-g...

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tree_contract_with_amey

250yo ASH - FELLING

A LETTER SENT BY Sheffield Tree Action Groups (STAG) to Jeremy Willis (Operations Manager: Amey), received by Mr Willis on 27th October, 2015, at 12:13am (Where square brackets are used in the penultimate paragraph, they enclose things that were absent from the original communication. They have been added to aid reading):

Dear Mr Willis,

Thankyou for your response to the enquiry referenced 101002267244, dated 19th of October 2015. The response was received on 23rd October.

The public have repeatedly been told by both Councillor Fox (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport & Chair of Highway Tree Advisory Forum), Steve Robinson (Head of Highway Maintenance) and Streets Ahead that felling is a “last resort”, and you claim to only permit it when “absolutely necessary”. In the case of the three large ash trees on Lydgate Lane, between the Junction with Marsh Lane and the junction with Lydgate Hall Crescent, scheduled for felling this week, it is our understanding that these trees can be safely retained long-term, by adopting and implementing an appropriate, adequate programme of mature tree maintenance, in accordance with current arboricultural principles and good practice guidance. Should you wish to learn more, you will find a wealth of useful information in the references provided in the letter that SORT campaigners addressed to Cllr Fox, dated 14th July, 2015.

In Freedom of Information request FOI/423, Streets Ahead has admitted:

“We do not carry out a risk assessment as part of our review of trees.”

This was in response to the request:

“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”.

This FOI response is particularly disgraceful, as Steve Robinson had previously stated, in an e-mail dated 6th July 2015, with regard to the application of guidance published by the National Tree Safety Group:

“I am aware of the need to take a balanced view of risk”.

We are very much aware that there is currently no tree strategy to guide and inform decisions and help ensure that appropriate, adequate, balanced assessments are used to inform decisions, so as to help ensure that decisions are defendable, based on sound evidence, and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, whether formed by the media, lobby groups or vested interests (such as Amey’s business interests). We are concerned that without a tree strategy, with a comprehensive sub-strategy for highway trees, to encourage and direct a responsible, sustainable approach to arboricultural management and practice, adequate steps do not exist to help temper a destructive, risk-averse approach and serious and irreversible environmental degradation at local level – in our neighbourhood!

From 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, we are aware that Streets Ahead do not account for maintainance of ecological, economic and social functions that trees perform, as there is currently no valuation undertaken for any of the range of ecosystem services that the highway tree population afford to the environment and all inhabitants, including us!

Without valuations and cost:benefit analyses to aid balanced risk assessment, and without appropriate, adequate risk assessments to help ensure that acts and omissions are proportionate and represent a sustainable approach, as required by The UK Forestry Standard (UKFS), and as recommended by guidance published by The National Tree Safety Group (NTSG), a responsible, sustainable approach to the stewardship and prudent, rational utilisation of the highway tree resource is not evident. Furthermore, there does not appear to have been any attempt by Streets Ahead to make appropriate practical and/or other provisions for the public to participate within a transparent and fair framework, during the preparation of the tree replacement programme or associated plans.

Information necessary for public participation has been consistently, deliberately and wilfully withheld from the public. Enquiries have been secretly converted by Streets Ahead to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests (e.g. FOI / 248 & FOI / 827), apparently just so that Streets Ahead could have the enquiries dismissed them under the Freedom of Information Act as too costly to process, “vexatious” and “manifestly unreasonable”. Streets Ahead have repeatedly refused to provide information on plans, protocols, assessments, standards and methods used. To date, no evidence has been provided of any steps taken by Streets Ahead to help ensure the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, the protection of human health and the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources.

We are very much aware of the Streets Ahead approach to application of the precautionary principle, as communicated by Streets Ahead to Cllr Nikki Bond, by e-mail, and subsequently forwarded to citizens by Cllr Bond, by e-mail, on 3rd October, 2015:

“…it is of note that Government summit commitments of this kind (i.e. Rio Earth Summit 1992) are not binding on local authorities unless and until they are incorporated into legislation.”

In light of the above comment, we believe it is necessary to remind you of the wording of European Directive 2001/42/EC (legislation):

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

…(1) Article 174 of the Treaty provides that Community policy on the environment is to contribute to, inter alia, the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, the protection of human health and the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources and that it is to be based on the Precautionary principle.

Article 6 of the Treaty provides that environmental protection requirements are to be integrated into the definition of Community policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development."
(European Parliament, Council of the European Union, 2001)

In addition, we think it is important that you are made aware of guidance provided by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) - “the public body that advises the UK Government and devolved administrations on UK-wide and international nature conservation”:

“The Precautionary Principle is one of the key elements for policy decisions concerning environmental protection and management. It is applied in the circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for concern that an activity is, or could, cause harm but where there is uncertainty about the probability of the risk and the degree of harm.”
(Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2007)

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2519

We are very much aware of the fact that Streets Ahead have permission to fell up to half of the population of highway trees (18,000 trees), according to Cllr Bramall (Deputy Leader of the Labour Council & Cabinet Member for Business, Skills & Development: comment made at the meeting of full Council at Sheffield Town Hall, on 1st July, 2015) and the Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (Transportation Professional, December 2012). We are very concerned that there are reports from numerous neighbourhoods throughout the city where 50% or more trees have been felled on individual roads, resulting in serious, severe environmental degradation and loss of amenity, amounting to a catastrophic decline in the number of large and medium crowned trees within the highways land-use category. The felling of so many trees within a five year period, even with a one for one replacement policy, does not comply with the Government’s definition of sustainable urban forestry (as detailed in The UKFS), nor does planting trees in other land-use categories in an attempt to offset /mitigate losses.

Having read the aforementioned SORT publication and references therein, we are of the opinion that the felling of up to 50% of highway trees over a five year period represents an irresponsible, unsustainable approach to urban forest management. The felling of so many mature trees with medium and large crowns over such a short space of time does not accord with current arboricultural or urban forestry good practice guidance and recommendations (such as contained in Trees in Towns 2: a new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management (TT2) and Trees and Design Action Group (TDAG) publications. The felling programme will have significant negative impact on the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover along highways, and, thus, on the range, magnitude and value of associated ecosystem goods and services afforded by trees in the highways land-use category to the environment, communities and ALL living things, representing continuous, irreversible losses over several decades.

We are concerned that, far from being best suited to the highway environment, the choice of species scheduled to be used for replacement will never develop crowns of similar size or shape to those tree species they are intended to replace. Mostly being shorter lived species, the replacement species will have shorter safe useful life expectancy (SULE). It is also reasonably foreseeable that this will result in a streetscape of trees that only have relatively small crowns at maturity (a “lollipop landscape”) and so cannot ever deliver the range or magnitude of valuable functions mentioned in The UKFS definition of sustainability (ecosystem services, including those that benefit health, wellbeing & the economy), in British Standard 8545 (Trees: From Nursery to Independence in the Landscape – Recommendations) and in TDAG and NTSG publications.

Furthermore, in the aforementioned Rustlings Road Response document (dated 8th July, 2015), Streets Ahead commented:

“An independent tree survey carried out in 2006/7 indicated that approximately 75% of Sheffield’s highway tree stock was reaching the end of its natural life, and only around 5% of trees fell into the “young” age grouping.”

“The survey also indicated that around 10,000 highway trees required intervention and that if a programme of sustainable replacement did not commence, then a catastrophic decline in tree numbers would occur.”

A similar statement appears on Sheffield City Council’s webpage for “Roadside Trees”:

“In Sheffield, an independent survey from 2006/07 suggested that around 75% of our roadside trees were approaching the end of their natural life.

In response to this, we obtained funding as part of the Streets Ahead project to enable us to better maintain, and also start to replace our city's roadside tree stock, so we did not lose the whole stock in one go.”

David Wain (SCC Environmental Technical Officer: within the Highways Maintenance Division, responsible for highway trees) stated, in a letter dated 23rd March, 2015:

“A significant proportion of Sheffield’s tree stock is already over mature, and was planted in two key tranches… Sadly both waves of planting are coming to the end of their natural lifespan, so a phased removal and replacement…”

You (Jeremy Willis) have commented, on 23rd October, 2015:

“In 2006/7 we commissioned an independent survey which found that over 75% of our street trees were mature or over mature and if we did not embark on a project where we intervened and replaced such trees we would be left with a situation where a large proportion of our street trees would be lost. “

Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) commented, at the inaugural meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum, 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, 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. …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.”

Cllr Bramall stated, at the meeting of Full Council, in the Town Hall, on 1st July 2015:

“Just before Streets Ahead, we had an independent survey done, erm, assessing all the trees across Sheffield, and it found that 70% were nearing the end of their life and 10,000 needed urgent attention. Now, only 5% have been done. What that means is that if you don’t address that, you actually face a catastrophic decline in the number of trees in 10 or 20 years time. It’s precisely Streets Ahead that’s actually solving that problem. Without that, we would have a major, major issue to face. Now, the contract says up to 50 % of trees can be removed, erm, and actually that’s 18,000.”

Cllr Fox stated, at the meeting of full Council, in the Town Hall, on 1st July 2015:

“We had an independent survey done in 2006-2007 which helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract…”

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

With regard to the 2006/2007 survey, according to Streets Ahead (see the Rustlings Road Response document), it recommended: “a programme of sustainable replacement”. As detailed above, Steve Robinson also said that the survey recommended: “a process of sustainable replacement”. It is clear, from all these comments, that Streets Ahead, and the Council advised by them, believe that the current five year programme to fell and replace up to half the trees in the highways land-use category before 2018 represents a sustainable approach to management of the city-wide highway tree population: a significant component of green infrastructure and a vital, key, component of the urban forest (as defined by The UKFS). We believe it would be prudent for Streets Ahead to remember that the urban forest – the city-wide tree population - is defined by its canopy cover, and that a responsible, sustainable approach to management requires, at least, the maintenance of this cover in each land-use category, including highways, and the range, magnitude and value of benefits (ecosystem services) that it affords to the environment (neighbourhoods) and inhabitants (communities). See The UKFS & TT2.

With up to 50% of highway trees being felled over a five year period and the majority being mature, medium/large-crowned trees, it is clear that the Streets Ahead project is the bringer of catastrophic decline in the number of long-established trees – the very trees that contribute the most in terms of the range, magnitude and value of beneficial, valuable ecosystem services. Such a rate of decline would never occur naturally as a result of aging. We are concerned that the prediction of a catastrophic decline in the number of highway trees, if mass a city-wide programme of mass felling did not occur soon, and Cllr Bramall’s assertion that this would occur over the next ten to twenty years is being used as a convenient and effective cover up tale to hide the losses that can be reasonably expected as a direct consequence of the acts and omissions of Streets Ahead, as a result of failure to comply with current arboricultural and urban forestry good practice guidance and recommendations, as referenced herein and detailed in previous SORT communications. Should you wish to learn more, a SORT hand-out was distributed to every Councillor on 26th June, 2015, by the Sheffield City Council (SCC) Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources department. However, this was superseded by a SORT letter to Cllr Fox dated 14th July, 2015 You can access a copy of both SORT documents online. Mr David Caulfield (Director of Regeneration and Development Services) – was supplied, by SORT, via e-mail, with a copy of the latter on 24th October, 2015. It was reported in The Star newspaper (on 22nd October, 2015) that Simon Green (Executive Director of the Council’s Place Management Team) had announced to The Star that:

“David Caulfield will be leading the trees strand of the Streets Ahead project on an ongoing basis, in the interests of taking this work forward positively in partnership with the residents of Sheffield.”

We are aware that Streets Ahead is unwilling to grant public access to the report that accompanied the aforementioned 2006/7 survey of highway trees. To date, Streets Ahead have failed to grant public access to the survey report, despite repeated requests from the public to have a copy. The report is of particular importance because Cllr Fox claimed it: “helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract…” It allegedly provided the statistics quoted by Streets Ahead and Councillors alike, and which both claim recommended a process/programme of sustainable replacement. In our opinion, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the survey indicated that:

“approximately 75% of Sheffield’s highway tree stock was reaching the end of its natural life”.

We believe that there is highly significant likelihood that what the report really indicated is that 75% of Sheffield’s street trees fall within just one life-stage/age-class category and are of relatively advanced years in comparison to trees in other categories.

The terms mature and over-mature are often used in tree population surveys to categorise trees by life-stage/age-class, with a view to managing the population to achieve a more even distribution of trees between life-stage categories and within each land-use category, throughout the area covered by the urban forest.

Both Streets Ahead and Councillors appear to have implied that there is a significant, positive correlation between the number of trees of relatively advanced years and the number of trees identified as needing treatment. Actually, trees in ALL life-stage/age-class categories require treatment, and those treatments, on the whole, are not because the trees, in whole or in part, by reason of their condition, are “likely to cause danger”, or because risk of harm or damage is imminent, reasonably foreseeable in the near future, or: “of such immediacy and consequence that urgent action is required (NTSG, 2011, p. 52).”

We believe that many of the 10,000 trees identified as requiring “intervention” / “in need of treatment”/ needing “urgent attention” are, in all likelihood, trees currently managed on a pruning cycle, such as the mature Ash at the junction between Lydgate Lane and Marsh Lane; trees that require the annual removal of epicormic shoots, or trees that require other routine maintenance works. In short, just because trees are identified as needing treatment, we do not believe that constitutes sufficient basis to justify felling and the significant losses that brings, with regard to canopy cover and ecosystem services provision provided by trees in the highways land-use category. We not believe that felling should be used to reduce survey, inspection, assessment and maintenance costs, as, in our opinion, that does not represent a responsible, sustainable approach to tree population management, nor does it accord with current good practice guidance and recommendations.

The terms used for categorising trees by life-stage/age-class do not indicate rate of decline, health condition, structural condition, or level of risk or likelihood of harm or damage (whether to the environment or inhabitants). Determination of these things requires detailed, adequate, balanced assessments (including cost:benefit analyses [CBA] and balanced risk assessments), undertaken by competent people (people with adequate education, knowledge, training and experience relevant to the matters being approached and adequate understanding of the requirements of the particular task/s being approached: see BS 3998:2010 and BS 5837:2012), using widely recognized, widely accepted, appropriate, adequate current methods, as explained in the aforementioned SORT documents.

Although trees in more advanced life-stage / age-class categories are indeed nearer to “the end of their natural lifespan” relative to trees in less advanced life-stage / age-class categories, it is ridiculous to claim that they are at or close to the end of their natural life, or that extensive and severe deterioration in health or structural integrity is reasonably foreseeable and imminent, or likely, in the near future. Natural catastrophic, city-wide decline is highly unlikely to occur within the lifetime of anybody currently alive in Sheffield. If, as you indicate, the current Streets Ahead approach to highway tree management and priorities is based on fear that the condition of 75% of the highway tree population is in rapid decline, near the end of its natural life and mature or over-mature, then Streets Ahead do NEED to STOP all tree felling operations that do not include works to trees that represent an IMMEDIATE AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE danger of serious, harm or damage, or in the NEAR FUTURE, at least until competent consultant arboriculturists – preferably Chartered with the Institute of Chartered Foresters, or Registered with the Arboricultural Association – are available to help advise Streets Ahead. We know from Steve Robinson’s words, quoted above, that all highway trees that were categorised as dead, dying or dangerous were felled before August 2015. Clearly, the Ash trees on Lydgate Lane did not and do not fall within these categories.

A number of times now, the Council/Streets Ahead have stated that it is more costly to fell a tree and replant than to maintain an existing, long-established tree. Although there does not appear to have been any cost:benefit analysis to support that assertion, young trees certainly do require treatments. To get established and not only survive but thrive, and remain healthy in the long-term, newly planted street trees will require relatively more, regular, “treatments” for at least five years after planting. Also, where those trees have been planted too close to existing trees; under aerial services; beside utility poles, street lights and signs, and where they are likely to obscure sight-lines at junctions, those trees WILL need transplanting in a more appropriate situation. Streets Ahead appears to have made all these mistakes and have also failed to perform any formative pruning (or aftercare).

We are very much aware that, to date, elsewhere, mature trees have been removed on the basis that they have “outgrown their location” or are causing damage to pavements and kerbs. More recently Streets Ahead have justified felling (e.g. on Abbeydale Park Rise) on the basis that the machine that is used to remove tarmac during pavement resurfacing works may damage roots, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease and trees subsequently becoming unsafe and dangerous. Streets Ahead have even prescribed felling on the basis that mowers or excavations by Streets Ahead operatives could damage roots and lead to the same consequences.

In the Rustlings Road Response document Streets Ahead stated:

“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”

We are also very concerned that Streets Ahead have repeatedly failed – at least on Rustlings Rd and Clarkhouse Rd – to adhere to NJUG guidance and British Standard 5837:2012 (Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations), by using trenching and tarmac lifting machinery within the “Protection Zone”/”Root Protection Zone”, not providing on-site supervision by a competent arboriculturist (as defined by BS 5837) for the duration of excavation and resurfacing works, and by not using a compressed air soil displacement tool (an air-spade), thereby causing serious, avoidable damage to roots and the rooting environment (“soil”). Also, we are aware that Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT) campaigners requested to see the Arboricultural Method Statement used to help ensure trees are not damaged during excavation works - as recommended by BS 5837 - and that their requests were ignored. Three years in to a £2.2bn project, using up to £1.2bn of Government funds (from the Department for Transport), we do not believe that the inadequacies highlighted in this communication are acceptable.

We do not agree with your comment, made in reference to the Ash trees on Lydgate Lane:

“If the trees were left in situ, their structural integrity would become unstable and the trees would become a safety hazard to all road users.”

A range of current arboricultural and urban forestry good practice guidance and recommendations indicate that there are options available to maintain and safely retain the mature Ash trees on Lydgate Lane (see the aforementioned SORT documents, references therein, and the references attached to the SORT online petition: https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-city-council-streetsahead-sheffield-g... ). We request DETAILED inspections, investigations and assessments be done for each of the trees scheduled for felling, to determine the cause, location, type and extent of any decay, and to assess and determine the likely impact on structural integrity of affected plant parts, so as to enable management decisions to be soundly based on available evidence, not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, help demonstrate a prudent and rational approach to stewardship of these highway trees: a significant component of green infrastructure and a vital, key, component of the urban forest. We request that all maintenance options be considered, in light of the range of benefits these trees afford to the locality and the wider city, by way of the range of ecosystem services they provide, not least of all amenity (an “aesthetics” service provision) which, through their beauty and our pleasure of its enjoyment, enriches our lives.

We appreciate that you describe yourself as an “arboricultural specialist”. However, we are very much aware of previous comments to The Star that have been attributed to you particularly in reference to the Melbourne Road veteran Oak that stood in Stocksbridge:

“Jeremy Willis, operations manager for grounds and arboriculture at Amey, said: ‘That tree is a really good example because it looked absolutely perfect – but the truth was it could have fallen at any time.’…Mr Willis said: ‘The danger was that it could have fallen down and we didn’t know when. It could have fallen that day, it could have stood up for another two or three years but once we have identified that risk we can’t just walk away from it.’”
(Beardmore, 2015, p. 8)

In light of your previous comments on tree hazard assessment and risk assessment, we strongly urge that you seek and accept the advice of arboriculturists that have gained relevant, recognised expertise, by way of education, training and experience – in other words, competent arboriculturists, as defined within BS 3998: 2010 and BS 5837: 2012. Based on your comments, acts and omissions to date, in other areas, and in light of the content of documents cited herein and referenced in SORT documents, we are not convinced that you have sufficient knowledge and understanding to make balanced, informed management decisions with regard to mature trees. In light of the content of this communication, we accept your offer to have this matter reviewed by a more senior manager. Please send it for review, immediately.

Although Cllr Fox and Streets Ahead have been keen to justify felling on the basis of damage to kerbs and pavements, we do believe that SORT are correct in their assertion that alternative highway construction specifications could and should be commissioned and draughted to ensure that mature trees can be safely be retained during works to and in close proximity to existing highway trees, for the long-term. We do not believe this is unreasonable, given that the Streets Ahead project is a £2.2bn city-wide highway maintenance project. We find it shocking that SORT campaigners have been requesting to see such alternative specifications since May 2015, as evidence that felling truly is a last resort, and that, to date, it would appear that three years in to the five year programme of scheduled felling, no such alternative specifications exist. Campaigners did expect them to be presented at the second meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum on 2nd September, 2015, but none were presented.

David Wain stated, in a letter dated 23rd March, 2015:

“ http://www.tdag.org.uk is a useful resource for learning more about sustainable and sensible tree design and planting selection, and one of the arboriculturalists working on the Sheffield Streets Ahead project was actually involved in authoring much of the content, so we do agree strongly with the principles outlined within the documentation.”

In compliance with current arboricultural and urban forestry guidance and recommendations, including that contained within TDAG documents, we request and hope that all tree planting and 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 will be stopped. We request that these stoppages remain in place 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.

Cllr Fox and Streets Ahead have also been keen to justify felling on the basis made reference to the Council’s duty under the Equality Act (2010) and the Disability Discrimination Act (2005 [DDA]). However, neither of these Acts demand that the Council take unreasonable steps in fulfilment of their duties. As detailed in the SORT letter to Cllr Fox, dated 14th July, 2015, the DDA actually states:

“It is the duty of the authority to take such steps as it is REASONABLE, IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, for it to have to take in order to prevent the provision, criterion or practice, or feature, having that effect.”

With regard to these Acts of Parliament, and other legislation, and with regard to “damaging, diseased and causing discrimination to pedestrians and other road users (Jeremy Willis, 2015)”, we believe that all that these Acts require is for Council policy and decision makers, including Officers, to demonstrate that their acts and omissions are those of reasonably skilled members of their respective professions and that they have taken such steps as are reasonably practicable given all circumstances of the case (see NTSG guidance and SORT documents for further detail).

It is our opinion that engineering solutions could be used to retain trees deemed to be “damaging” or “discriminatory”, and that alternative highway engineering construction 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).

We believe that if Streets Ahead adopt and ensure that appropriate, adequate assessments (valuations, cost:benefit analyses, hazard and risk assessments, and risk analyses)[,] using current, widely recognised and widely accepted methods, undertaken by competent people [are used], they will ensure adequate fulfilment of the duties put upon them by all relevant Acts of parliament and be able to retain most, if not all[,] trees currently categorised as “damaging” or “discriminatory”.

In short, we believe that Streets Ahead have misunderstood and misrepresented what the aforementioned Acts require. We strongly urge that Streets Ahead review and revise their current approach to all aspects of highway tree management and arboricultural practice, to ensure compliance with current arboricultural and urban forestry good practice, and that until this has been done and there is evidence that it has been done, no felling should take place unless, by reason of their condition, trees are “likely to cause danger”, or because risk of harm or damage is imminent, reasonably foreseeable in the near future, or “of such immediacy and consequence that urgent action is required (NTSG, 2011, p. 52).”

THE 2006 / 2007 TREE SURVEY:

The survey which Cllr Fox claimed, with regard to the Streets Ahead £2.2bn city-wide highway maintenance project:

"...helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract…”.

From: Lawson Linda (CEX)
Sent: 29 September 2015 15:39
To: streetsahead
Subject: Tree Survey

According to your website, a survey of Sheffield Trees was conducted in 2006/2007. Could you please tell me where I might find the resulting survey report?

Thank you in anticipation.

Xxxx
________________________________________________________________________

On 2 Oct 2015 12:10, StreetsAhead <streetsahead@amey.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Xxxx

Thank you for your recent email request for information relating to the independent tree survey undertaken of Sheffield’s highway tree stock during 2006/07

There has been some discussion held within the Authority as to what precisely you mean by a “Resulting Survey Report”, and as such it was deemed best to write and clarify the point in question.

We currently hold a vast amount of information held on around 36,000 individual tree plots recorded on the basis of GPS co-ordinates. To present you with this quantity of information in a way which would be understandable and meaningful would take many hours of work which the Authority would not be able to resource. However, if you were able to clarify exactly what kind of information you are after – or with what aim, we may be able to extract the information and present it to you in a more accessible format.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Customer Services (Amey)

Tel: 0114 273 4567
________________________________________________________________________

Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:26
Subject: Re: Our Ref: 101002236618 - Tree survey (1250176)
From: Xxxx
To: streetsahead@sheffield.gov.uk

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your reply to my query. I requested to know where I would find the report produced by the company who undertook the survey as stated on your website:

"In Sheffield, an independent survey from 2006/07 suggested that around 75% of our roadside trees were approaching the end of their natural life."

I am assuming that the company commissioned to undertake this work did produce a report for SCC, part of which I would expect would include a statistical analysis of the state of the roadside trees and recommendations/conclusions based upon their findings. It is this report I am requesting to see (assuming it exists). Failing that, would like to see the statistical analysis of the tree data and any recommendations/conclusions made. Could I also ask for the name and contact details of the company commissioned to do the survey?

Thank you in anticipation.

Xxxx
________________________________________________________________________

Date: Tuesday 27th October. 13.10
Subject: Our Ref: 101002236618 - Tree survey (1250176)
From: streetsahead <streetsahead@sheffield.gov.uk>
To: Xxxx
CC:

Dear Xxxx,

Thank you for writing back to confirm which format and type of information you were seeking.

In terms of a general summary of the findings of the survey, we can advise as follows:

35,057 trees were surveyed
25,877 trees were classified as mature or over mature
7,487 trees were classified as being semi-mature
1,693 trees were classified as being young trees

28,258 trees were in areas of soft standing (i.e. verges)
10,000 trees were identified as having defects requiring remedial works
25,000 trees were identified as requiring no works at present

8,225 trees had defects which were identified requiring intervention within a 12 month recommended time window
2,000 trees had defects which would require budget allocation to be made to cover the extent of works
1,000 trees were recommended to be felled immediately

1,500 trees were recommended for dead wooding
2,900 trees were recommended for crown lifting
550 trees were recommended for crown reduction

241 were recommended for crown reduction or removal.
296 trees were recommended for a further aerial inspection
458 trees were recommended for further aerial inspection in conjunction with decay detection.

A significant number of jobs were recommended for minor works such as epicormic (lower trunk growth) removal and tree tie and stake removal from young trees.

The tree age class structure was found to be:
- Mature and over mature 74%
- Semi Mature 21%
- Young 5%

The attached graph shows the species mix.

The survey found that the implications of not intervening would be:

1) Mature stock
2) Evenly aged
3) Very few young trees
4) Decline will accelerate
5) Incidence of felling will increase
6) Dramatic change in Sheffield streetscapes

Replanting and replacing was recommended as follows:

- Planting on previously unused verges
- Planting on verges left empty after tree removal
- Mixed genus and species - right tree, right place
- Tree choice to suit all factors
- New trees on highways in new developments

Replacement, NOT removal
- Lose the concept of removal - always replacement
- Costs should include standard rates for replacement of the tree, planting and aftercare

Future survey
- recommended a 3 year rolling survey as a health and safety requirement
- Monitor problem areas
- Analyse population changes
- Aid management direction

I trust this overall summary data will answer the questions you have raised.
Kind Regards

Follow us on twitter @sccstreetsahead

Yours sincerely
Customer Services

RISK /FEAR / LIABILITY / CROSSPOOL / TRANSCRIPT: PART 2

Crosspool Forum AGM, Sheffield

Thursday 29th October 2015 7:00 – 9:00 pm

EXCERPTS FROM A TRANSCRIPT

COUNCILLOR GEOFF SMITH (LABOUR):

“…experts and specialists don’t always agree with each other. In fact, they quite often violently disagree with each other. So, just because an independent person has produced a certain point of view, clearly it has to be looked at, considered and responded to. Just because someone is an independent consultant does not automatically mean they’re right. The Council can’t just go on the basis that anyone that anyone that’s an independent consultant, or anything that it does, err, sends something in.”

“Erm, yeah, I think we do have to get, you know, separate out the safety of trees from the Streets Ahead highway, err, programme. I mean I think as far as safety of trees are concerned, clearly, its, when you are talking about highway trees, and it is important their safety – they’re safe. Now, I suggest, I suspect, whether the Council and Amey err on the side of caution, but, actually, I think that’s the right thing to do on, to err on the side of caution, rather than take a risk. I certainly wouldn’t be urging them not to do that.”

“As far as the highway trees programme is concerned, err, now, the vast majority of people in Sheffield, I would say, actually do want the Streets Ahead programme to go ahead and to go ahead on time and, I think, the problem with trying to get a moratorium on the trees element was that you would actually hold up the whole process for a considerable period of time, would actually probably put it at risk. So, that’s why, you know, the moratorium sounds a very easy thing to say – nice little thing to say – but it would have major consequences for redoing all the roads and pavements within, within Sheffield. As far as the pavements are concerned, erm, the big issue, you know, is about, in a sense, having smooth pavements that don’t cause problems for walking along it, and, now, it may be again that possibly, there are some cases where, perhaps, more action can be taken with particular individual trees, to actually, where they could be preserved and when, perhaps, the initial feeling is that they couldn’t. But, it is actually an important issue that people have smooth, flat pavements to walk on. People who are old and frail, people that are disabled, do need to have pavements that they can walk on safely, err, in a way which people like myself [and] more able-bodied it’s not a problem if the pavement’s in a mess. So, that does have to be taken in to consideration.”

RESIDENT ON THE FORUM PANEL:

“A lady mentioned to me the other day that, err, well, during the summer we had one of the big boughs break off one, err, the middle, the middle tree even come down, and she said if she’d been a couple of seconds earlier she wouldn’t be here because, you know, it was just, err, I think it was a windy day and trees were, erm, full of, err, full of foliage, and it was, err, the boughs, they just couldn’t take it any longer. So, err, even by the damage, you’re hearing it from both sides, people want trees, we’re hearing about people who would or possibly might have got killed, or I don’t know, it’s just a nightmare to sort out.”

ELDERLY FORUM CHAIRMAN:

“I can try to be impartial about things but, if you think about trees, where they [sic] natural place for a tree to grow is in a forest. In a forest they fall down. When they get too old, they fall down naturally. Well, my view is that, when it’s in the highway, and it will fall down naturally, we can’t wait for that to happen, unfortunately. Some point, somewhere has to make a decision whether it’s, err, wants to come down or it wants to stay up and, hopefully – I know they will – they’ll put trees back where they come from, or as nearby to where they are. So, it’s for safety’s sake, that’s what I’ll worry about. If the experts say it’s got to come down and I take their view on it, it will have to come down”

RISK /FEAR / LIABILITY / CROSSPOOL / TRANSCRIPT: PART 3

Crosspool Forum AGM, Sheffield

Thursday 29th October 2015 7:00 – 9:00 pm

EXCERPTS FROM A TRANSCRIPT

The first part of the following exchange (before questions to Cllr Smith) took six minutes and thirty-eight seconds.

Younger Male PANNELIST:
“Shall we just take one more? A quick question on trees from this gentleman who’s had his arm up for quite a while? Make it a quick one please.”

CHAIR:
“Is it relevant?”

RESIDENT X:
“It’s very relevant, yes. Erm, well, I’m just concerned, really, that we’ve been told repeatedly by the Council and by Streets Ahead that felling is a last resort - only when all other options have been considered. Now, those three trees out there could be safely retained, long-term, by pruning. For instance, the one at the end of Marsh Lane, even with the odd defects, the odd cavity – even with some decay here & there –, it could be retained by a cycle of pruning, known as pollarding. It has been done before. There are a few pockets where there is a bit of rot, around the old pruning wounds, but there’s about 8-10 year’s growth on that tree now, and hardly anything, if anything at all, has dropped off it. So, it would be possible to safely retain that tree on a cyclical pruning cycle – perhaps every five years.

Now, with regard to the liability aspect of it, there’s actually national tree safety guidance to guide & inform management decisions when it comes to tree management & liability. All that the Occupier’s Liability Act, Health & Safety Act, the Equality Act, the Disability Discrimination Act; all these Acts.”

INTERRUPTION by CHAIR:
“Can you stick to a question, without going on about this policy, that policy, this Act, that? Just call it a pacific [sic] question to ask the people about those trees.”

RESIDENT X:
"Right."

CHAIR:
“You’ve asked about three questions.”

RESIDENT X:
“OK. I’ve not actually asked, I’ve informed! Just let’s be right on that!”

CHAIR:
“Can you just ask a question what you want to [sic].”

RESIDENT X:
“OK Then, I’d like to ask why are valuations not done? If they are done, which methods are used for assessment; why they’re not made available; why risk assessments for trees are not done. We know they are not done, because there has been a Freedom of Information request and Streets Ahead have responded saying they do not do risk assessments as part of their survey of trees.”

INTERRUPTION by CHAIR:
“Can we answer those questions now?”

RESIDENT X:
“Sure.”

CHAIR:
“Because you’ve been babbling on”.

RESIDENT X:
”Don’t de rude”

CHAIR:
“I’m not being rude”

RESIDENT X:
“You are being rude – you’ve accused me of babbling on! Don’t be rude!”

Councillor GEOFF SMITH (Labour):
“We’ll try and answer your question, OK?”

RESIDENT X:
“Several questions there – yes”.

The CHAIR said something like:
“I don’t know where to start”.

RESIDENT X:
"Risk!"

CHAIR:
“I don’t want any arguments with you.”

RESIDENT X:
“Good! Shh!”

CHAIR:
“Well, just behave yourself.”

DARREN BUTT (Amey’s Operations Director):
“In terms of, err, assessment, we do have a number of qualified arborists who work for us. They were previously with the City Council before but came across to Amey at the start of the contract. So, these are the guys that saw the underinvestment of the tree stock over the last 20 years. We have now got the opportunity to bring the impact on our future. They do undertake a thorough tree health survey of those trees prior to the recommendation to the Local Authority. The Authorities, secondary, [sic] do check, in terms of whether they take, prune - any recommendation to be made. But, within Tree xxx replacement, or in any of the remedial works that we change. I can’t remember all the questions that were asked”

RESIDENT X:
“Risk! Risk assessment!”

CHAIR:
“What have you got that hood on for anyway? It’s not windy or cold in here.”

RESIDENT X:
“Risk assessment!”

CHAIR:
“Why don’t you take your hood off?”

RESIDENT X:
“Risk assessment!”

CHAIR:
“What have you got that hood on for?”

RESIDENT X:
“Risk assessment!”

RESIDENT C:
“Can we hear the answers please?”

CHAIR:
“What risk assessment have you got, wearing a hood in here?”

RESIDENT X:
“Shut up!”

CHAIR:
“I’m not shutting up! It’s our meeting, this. You come here, from out of; from somewhere. I don’t know where you’ve come from. Where do you come from, actually? Where do you live?”

RESIDENT X:
“Just let him answer the question”.

RESIDENT:
“Can we here the answers please?”

RESIDENT X:
“Just let him answer the question”.

DARREN BUTT (Amey’s Operations Director):
“So, in terms of risk assessment, our arboriculturists do an assessment of the tree; the risk of that tree, and the potential failure throughout that tree. A formal risk assessment is carried out."

RESIDENT X:
“So, why are valuations not part of the risk assessment, along with cost:benefit analyses?"

ELDERLY FEMALE RESIDENT:
“Can I say, if we live in Sheffield, we’re all tree-lovers and I was once told the only way to stop a tree getting cut down is actually to physically lie down in front of it, or behind it, but I’m; with all due respect, and I have no fear of guilt in saying that, we’ve done it really thoroughly tonight, and I’m sure the points have got across, and people will take them home. I don’t think there’s anything more that could be said.”

RESIDENT A:
"Can I just ask one more question please? You say replace the trees but, just out of interest, do you replace like for like? How do you go about doing that?"

DARREN BUTT (AMEY’S OPERATIONS DIRECTOR):
"OK, We replace with a single species. Now, it could be another location. So, it’s not likely to be an action in that location. I don’t know what tree species it is, but I can certainly get that for you."

RESIDENT B:
"Erm, I believe that it’s – I’ve seen the report, erm, as to what they are going to be. Two of them are going to be hawthorns and one is going to be an acer. So, small – very small."

CHAIR:
"They’re all small when they start out."

RESIDENT X:
"And short lived: small at maturity and short lived."

RESIDENT C:
"Also, just to point out – there again, it’s not at Crosspool, so shout at me if you like – but Cemetery Avenue, off the Ecclesall Road, which leads up to the cemetery, I think ten trees were taken from there. It might not see any replacement trees on there, and the Council actually do say they don’t necessarily replant trees where they were taken from."

DARREN BUTT (AMEY’S OPERATIONS DIRECTOR):
"They will be replaced. The planting season starts now."

RESIDENT C:
"So, do they dig up the pavement again?"

DARREN BUTT (AMEY’S OPERATIONS DIRECTOR):
"Erm, I don’t believe that’s been resurfaced yet."

RESIDENT C:
"It has."

DARREN BUTT (AMEY’S OPERATIONS DIRECTOR):
"Fine. I don’t know that particular area."

RESIDENT C:
"So they resurface it, then dig it up, apparently?"

DARREN BUTT (AMEY’S OPERATIONS DIRECTOR):
"Well, no. We will cut a tree pit in to the main footway. It’s not a case of digging that up."

RESIDENT X:
"It has to nicely designed: it has to be a designed tree pit to accommodate the tree to maturity and ensure a healthy, long life."

CHAIR:
“Right, thanks very much for your remark. Yeah, we’re coming up to a conclusion, it’s coming up to nine o’clock.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

During the final four minutes of the forum, there was an opportunity for people to ask the Cllr questions. The following exchange took one minute and twenty-one seconds.

CHAIR:
“Any questions for our Councillor?”

RESIDENT X:
“Yes! Will you be taking any steps to make sure that National Tree Safety guidance is used when it comes to assessment of these trees?”

Councillor GEOFF SMITH (Labour):
“I take a close interest in all policy matters on the Council.”

RESIDENT X:
“But what about the National Tree Safety guidance, specifically?”

CHAIR:
“Can you give your name and address and I’m sure he’ll contact you? Can you do that?”

RESIDENT X:
“No.”

CHAIR:
“Well, fair enough then.”

RESIDENT X:
“He doesn’t have to contact me. He can answer here and everybody can benefit from it.”
(There were attempted interruptions from the Chairman throughout the second part of this sentence).

CHAIR:
“No. We’ll move on, because if you’re not prepared to give your name and address, where he can contact you to give you.”

INTERRUPTION by RESIDENT X:
“I thought you didn’t discriminate on any grounds whatsoever!”

CHAIR:
“We’re not discriminating.”

RESIDENT X:
“You are discriminating. You said at the beginning that you didn’t.”

CHAIR:
“Are we moving on?”

RESIDENT X:
“Butt never answered my question about risk.”

CHAIR:
“He’s prepared to answer it, but he doesn’t know your name, for a start.”

RESIDENT X:
“Don’t be stupid, he can answer it anyway.”

FEMALE FORUM PANELLIST:
“‘Scuse me, I think you are being really rude to somebody that works really hard for our community”

RESIDENT X:
“Who?”

FEMALE FORUM PANELLIST:
“You’re not prepared to give your name and address but you are prepared to be really rude, so…”

RESIDENT X:
“He [the Chair] has been extremely rude to me.”

ANGELA (FORUM PANELLIST):
“You are not the only person here. There are a lot of people here with questions. You’re taking up an awful lot of time.”

RESIDENT X:
“Well, they can all benefit from the answers .”

ANGELA (FORUM PANELLIST):
“So, if you don’t mind and you’re not prepared.”

INTERRUPTION by RESIDENT X:
“I do mind!”

ANGELA (FORUM PANELLIST):
“Can we please just finish the meeting now? Thankyou.”

RESIDENT X:
“Finish it then.”

CHAIR:
“Thankyou very much Angela.”

SMITHY WOOD: LAST CHANCE!

The following information was posted at:
https://www.facebook.com/savesheffieldtrees

Anna Pethen

Today at 08:07.(Shared from Ian Cracknell's post in STAG)

Dear all - SMITHY WOOD URGENTLY NEEDS YOUR HELP! Smithy Wood is a designated ancient woodland and Local Wildlife Site within Green Belt in Sheffield - now at risk from a planning application for a motorway service station, hotel, food court and car park. There is now a FINAL opportunity to submit objections to the proposals by FRIDAY 13 NOVEMBER. There are strong grounds to oppose it - but it's going to need as many objections as possible to stand a chance. If you want to help save these woods, it's vital that you submit an objection ASAP - and it's equally important that you only object on planning grounds and refrain from emotional arguments.

Sheffield Wildlife Trust have put together an excellent page of information - http://www.wildsheffield.com/smithywood - that lists all the reasons you should object in detail, so it won't take much time to use the information to make an objection in your own words.

1)
Go to the Council’s planning portal here:

http://publicaccess.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/

You will need to register to make an objection, or log in if you are already registered.

Type or paste the application reference 14/01079/OUT where it says “Enter a keyword, reference number, postcode or single line of an address”

2)
In your own words, briefly explain why you object to the planning application. Then cut and paste one or more of the points from below in ‘Reasons to Object’ e.g. Green Belt, Ecological Network, Ancient Woodland to back up your arguments.

It is critical that you make your objection based on planning grounds for it to be considered. Click “Submit”.

If you’d like email updates on the planning process, make sure you tick the box.

3)
Share this page with concerned friends and relatives and ask them to lodge their objections too.

4)
Raise the issue with your local Councillor. Use the information here to inform them about the different aspect of the issue and ask them their view. This is especially important if they sit on Sheffield City Council's Planning Committee as they will make the decision to refuse or approve the application. Click here to find out if your councillor sits on the planning committee.

5)
There will be a peaceful protest outside Sheffield Town Hall before the start of the Planning Committee meeting Tuesday 19 January. Email mail@wildsheffield.com for further details.

TREES: CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION CONTINUES: 1,000 HIGHWAY TREES FELLED IN 4 MONTHS

On 17th November, 2015 (this Tuesday), at the Amey Roadshow in Heeley, Darren Butt (Operations Director for Amey: “principally responsible for trees…”) announced that 1,000 MORE HIGHWAY TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED IN THE PAST FOUR MONTHS, since the inaugural meeting of Cllr Fox’s Highway Tree Advisory Forum (23rd July, 2015). Mr Butt is aware that many of the 36,000 highway trees classed as “mature or over-mature (75%) are likely to be causing “pavement ridging” or disturbing kerb alignment. He said this is unacceptable but that his arboricultural team had worked with Graeme Symonds’s (Amey’s Core Investment Project Director) highway construction team to develop a range of alternative highway engineering specifications for footway and kerb construction, which the Council have not mentioned or made available to the public.

Six months since Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT) highlighted Amey’s plans to fell thousands of healthy, safe highway trees on the basis that they damage pavements and kerbs, Cllr Leigh Bramall’s (Deputy Leader of the Council: Lab) words from the meeting of full council, on 1st July, 2015, remain a cause for deep concern:

“THE CONTRACT SAYS UP TO 50% OF TREES CAN BE REMOVED, ERM, AND ACTUALLY THAT’S 18,000."

His words echoed those reported in the December 2012 issue of ‘Transportation Professional’ (a Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation publication), when Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) was interviewed. The publication stated that:

“OVER THE FIRST FIVE YEARS of the 25 year Streets Ahead deal…” AMEY will be: “REPLACING HALF OF THE CITY’S 36,000 HIGHWAY TREES”.

This continues until 2018!
_____________________________________________

The above letter was sent to The Star on 18th November, 2015. I received a copy later the same day. I genuinely cannot understand what The Star has against sharing this information with a wider readership. Perhaps it is just a case that they failed to send a reporter to the roadshow?

18,000 TREES FACE THE AXE (50% Of highway trees)!

The 2006/07 highway tree survey (commissioned and paid for by the Council) said 75% of trees are mature (including over mature), according to officials (Streets Ahead; SCC: website & David Caulfield; Amey: Jeremy Willis; also, Cllr Terry Fox: 74%; Cllr Leigh Bramall: 70%). That is 27,000 trees. Many of these will have been subsequently classed as damaging or discriminatory (campaigners haven’t asked how many actually are) by Amey, when they commissioned their own highway tree survey in 2012, as they are associated with pavement ridging and the dislodgement of kerb stones. Furthermore, 10,000 trees require treatments (removal of epicormic shoots, crown reduction, deadwooding, etc) and most of those, if not all, will be mature trees. TO DATE, >3,500 TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED (1,000 SINCE 23RD JULY, 2015). The contract allows 18,000 to be felled. Transportation Professional said this figure applied to the core investment period – the first 5yrs of the Amey PFI contract! So, based on what we know, we can expect 14,500 more trees to be felled before 2018. Beyond that, we just don’t know. However, it is reasonable to assume that Amey will concentrate on phasing out the remainder of 27,000 trees: at least 9,000 mature trees, as Streets Ahead believe these trees are near the end of their life, on the basis that they are mature and require "treatment" of one kind or another.

Cllr Fox stated, at the meeting of full Council, in the Town Hall, on 1st July 2015:

“We had an independent survey done in 2006-2007 which helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract…”

“The survey noted that 74% of our mature tree stock with very few young trees has given this combination the RATE OF DECLINE EVIDENCE BY THE NUMBER OF TREES NEEDING TREATMENT.”

Just to remind you, STEVE ROBINSON (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) COMMENTED, at the inaugural meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum, 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, 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.”

“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…”

UP TO 18,000 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES FACE THE AXE BEFORE 2018! UP TO 27,000 25yrs

On 17th November, 2015, at a Streets Ahead Roadshow event in Heeley, Sheffield, Amey’s Operations Director for the Streets Ahead project – Darren Butt (“…principally responsible for trees, grounds maintenance and just general highway maintenance”) – informed citizens that >3,500 highway trees have been felled. So, over a four month period, since 23rd July 2015*, around 1,000 highway trees were felled.

The rate of felling is expected to increase as woks focus more on more urban areas of the city, where there are more footways and verges with trees. At least another 14,500 mature trees face the axe, according to Cllr Leigh Bramall (Deputy Leader of the Labour Council & Cabinet Member for Business, Skills & Development: Labour), before 2018, according to the December 2012 issue of ‘Transportation Professional’ (a Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation publication), which interviewed Steve Robinson (Sheffield City Council’s Head of Highway Maintenance).

27,000 Highway trees are classed as “mature or over-mature (75%) and Streets Ahead believe this stock is: “reaching the end of its natural life”. Furthermore, Cllr Bramall stated (at the meeting of full Council, in the Town Hall, on 1st July 2015):

“What that means is that if you don’t address that, you actually face a catastrophic decline in the number of trees in 10 or 20 years’ time.”

Many of these 27,000 trees are likely to be associated with “pavement ridging” or disturbing kerb alignment. Trees associated with this kind of damage are classified by Amey and SCC as “DISCRIMINATORY” or “DAMAGING” and therefore identified as a priority for felling.

Steve Robinson commented, at the inaugural meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum, on 23rd July, 2015:

“So, why the 6D’s then? … 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.

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

On 23rd October, in an e-mail (Ref: 101002267244), Jeremy Willis – Streets Ahead Operations Manager (Amey) – stated:

“I think it pertinent to provide you with some background on the Streets Ahead project. In 2006/7 we commissioned an independent survey which found that over 75% of our street trees were mature or over mature and if we did not embark on a project where we intervened and replaced such trees we would be left with a situation where a large proportion of our street trees would be lost. This is why we have intervened with the Streets Ahead project. We began by replacing those trees that were dangerous, dead and dying.”

“WE ARE NOW REPLACING THOSE TREES THAT ARE DAMAGING, DISEASED AND CAUSING DISCRIMINATION to pedestrians and other road users.”

Officials have frequently stated: “Felling is a last resort”. However, citizens have spent six months, since May, 2015, requesting to see the alternative highway engineering specifications for footway and kerb construction that have been considered, as a means of safely retaining mature trees, long term, prior to taking a decision to fell. No such specifications have been made available to the public, or presented to the public.

Previously, Streets Ahead have justified felling (e.g. on Abbeydale Park Rise) on the basis that their tarmac lifting machine may damage roots, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease, and of trees subsequently becoming dangerous. They have even prescribed felling on the basis that mowers or excavations by Streets Ahead operatives could damage roots and lead to the same consequences (e.g. Rustlings Road).

*The date of the inaugural meeting of Cllr Fox’s bi-monthly Highway Trees Advisory Forum (HTAF): Cllr Fox (Labour) is Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport & now self-appointed Chair of HTAF.

https://sheffieldtreemap.wordpress.com/stories/the-melbourne-rd-veteran-...

VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

"London’s eight million trees are worth a staggering £6.1 billion to the capital and contribute £130 million in wider benefits, a new survey has calculated."

"The i-Tree survey, produced by the Mayor of London and The Forestry Commission and sponsored by Unilever, is a recognised method of valuing the benefits that trees provide that people often take for granted. Key services London’s trees provide include:

- storm water alleviation = 3,414,000m3 per annum worth £2.8 Million
- carbon storage = 2,367,000t per annum worth £146.9 Million
- pollution removal = 2241t per annum worth £126.1 Million"

Source: http://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2015/11/london-s-pol...

I-Tree:
http://www.itreetools.org/news/articles.php

SUSTAINABLE TREE POPULATION MANAGEMENT

All voters and decision makers should carefully consider the following words from The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management:

"Sustainable forest management is ‘the stewardship
and use of forests and forest lands IN A WAY, and at a
rate, that MAINTAINS their biodiversity, productivity,
regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to
fulfil, NOW and in the future, relevant ecological,
economic and SOCIAL functions, at LOCAL, national, and
global levels, and that does not cause damage to
other ecosystems’. (MCPFE*, 1993, see Appendix 1)".
(Forestry Commission, 2011, p. 7)

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

“The term forest is used to describe land predominately covered in trees (defined as land under stands of trees with a CANOPY COVER of at least 20%)” (Forestry Commission, 2011, p. 4)

The UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) and its Guidelines:

“apply…to all UK forest types and management systems, INCLUDING THE COLLECTIVE TREE AND WOODLAND COVER IN URBAN AREAS.”
(Forestry Commission, 2011, p. 4)

They exist to implement forestry policy set by the international community. With reference to the series of Guidelines, the UKFS states:

“In assessing whether the Requirements have reasonably been met, the overall balance of benefits or ECOSYSTEM SERVICES will be taken into account.”
(Forestry Commission, 2011, p. 4)

Source: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/ukfs

FELLING, PLANTING & ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

EXTRACTS FROM A LETTER TO DAVID CAULFIELD (SCC DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES & SUBSTITUTE FOR STEVE ROBINSON - SCC HEAD OF HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE - ON CLLR FOX'S "BI-MONTHLY" HIGHWAY TREES ADVISORY FORUM), FROM SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES (SORT), DATED 24TH November, 2015:

"SORT Believe that the current SCC / Amey approach will have a likely, reasonably foreseeable, significant negative impact on the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover along highways, and, thus, on the range, magnitude and value of associated ecosystem goods and services afforded by trees (which is TOTALLY dependent on the aforementioned canopy cover attributes) in the highways land-use category, representing continuous, irreversible losses over several decades."

" BENEFITS & VALUE

All the positive benefits that street trees bring to neighbourhoods and people are known collectively as ecosystem services. The UK Forestry Standard (the governments’ approach to sustainable forest management) requires the local authority (the Council) to maintain these service provisions, as they benefit the environment and people's health and wellbeing. In cities where these services have been valued, they have been found to be worth millions of pounds EACH YEAR!"

" REPLACEMENT

Amey's choice of species, scheduled to be used to replace trees felled, appears to consist mostly of shorter lived species, such as crab apple, pear, field maple, birch, hazel and hawthorn. Such species will have shorter safe useful life expectancy (SULE): @70 – 80 yrs, max. Such species have relatively small crowns at maturity (compared to species such as London plane, sycamore, beech, ash, oak, lime and horse chestnut) and will never develop crowns of similar size or shape to those tree species they are intended to replace.

It is reasonably foreseeable that widespread, frequent use of such species will result in a streetscape of trees that only have relatively small crowns at maturity (a “lollipop landscape”). Such trees cannot ever maintain or deliver the magnitude of valuable benefits that neighbourhoods enjoyed at the start of the 5yr Streets Ahead PFI felling programme, which were and are largely provided by larger crowned, relatively long-lived species (>200yrs)."