Contribute to this website

EXTRACTS FROM GUIDANCE ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL TREE SAFETY GROUP (NTSG)

NTSG guidance: “…seeks to put forward a credible and defendable approach to tree risk management.”
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 12)

“The pressures on tree owners to follow a risk-averse approach have never been greater. Publishing a tree strategy which clearly indicates how these management decisions are taken and by whom allows a local authority to temper a risk-averse outlook. As the House of Lords Select Committee on Economics has put it:

‘…the most important thing government can do is to ensure that its own policy decisions are SOUNDLY BASED ON AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND NOT UNDULY INFLUENCED BY TRANSITORY OR EXAGGERATED OPINIONS, whether formed by the media or vested interests.’ ”
(The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 25)

Source:
The National Tree Safety Group, 2011. Common Sense Risk Management of Trees: Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers. Forestry Commission Stock Code: FCMS024 ed. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/publications.nsf/searchpub/?SearchVie...(FCMS024)&SearchOrder=4&SearchMax=0&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchThesaurus=TRUE

EXTRACTS FROM THE MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT

“Sound policy and management interventions can often reverse ecosystem degradation and enhance the contributions of ecosystems to human well-being…”
(Alcamo, et al., 2003, p. 1).

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) has provided a conceptual and methodological approach that:

“…should provide a suitable basis for governments, the private sector, and civil society to factor considerations of ecosystems and ecosystem services into their own planning and actions”
(Alcamo, et al., 2003, p. 1).

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

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

ONLINE RESOURCES

http://www.itreetools.org/resources/reports.php

http://www.itreetools.org/news/articles.php

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/mediafile/100631140/pg-wt-300615-residen...

http://www.tdag.org.uk/uploads/4/2/8/0/4280686/no_trees_no_future.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/eng-casefortrees.pdf/$FILE/eng-casefortrees.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/CCST_Social_Report_March2010.pdf/$file/CCST_Social_Report_March2010.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCRN008.pdf/$FILE/FCRN008.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/london-practice

UNDERSTANDING URBAN FORESTRY:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forest-Policies-Social-England-Forests/dp/140208...

THE STAR: UNPUBLISHED

"ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION VS SUSTAINABILITY"

"In recent weeks, Cllrs N.BOND; A.MURPHY; G.SMITH, and MP L.HAIGH, (ALL LABOUR), have been distributing letters and leaflets, trying to reassure citizens that the loss of up to 18,000 mature highway trees (50% of the total highway tree population, according to Cllr BRAMALL: Deputy Leader of the Council), over a 5yr period, to 2018 (according to the Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation, following an interview in 2012 with STEVE ROBINSON: SCC Head of Highway Maintainance), is nothing in the grand scheme of things, as the Council estimate that Sheffield has 2m trees, stating that thousands are planted in woodlands. Together with the policy of planting one tree for each tree felled, DAVID CAULFIELD (SCC Director of Development Services) the Council, and Amey – the PFI contractor for the £2.2bn Streets Ahead (SA) project - believe this constitutes a “sustainable programme of replacement”, as:

'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 that if a programme of sustainable replacement did not commence, then a catastrophic decline in tree numbers would occur.'
(Streets Ahead, 2015).

JEREMY WILLIS (Amey’s Operations Manager: self-styled “arboricultural specialist”) stated (SA Ref: 101002267244):

'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.'

These comments indicate that, over the course of the 25yr PFI, 27,000 mature highway trees face the axe. Many are likely to be associated with “pavement ridging” or disruption of kerb alignment, and therefore classified, by Amey, as “DISCRIMINATORY” or “DAMAGING”. By current SA criteria, such trees are a priority for felling before 2018.

Mr ROBINSON stated, at the inaugural meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum, on 23rd July, 2015:

'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...'

'Our next priority is to… deal with the DAMAGING trees – those trees that are damaging kerbs, pavements and drains. …So, we’re now looking to deal with DISCRIMINATORY trees…'

The UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) defines sustainable management. Sheffield Tree Action Groups (STAG) have e-mailed Mr WILLIS, stating:

'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.'

Or, as SORT have stated in an e-mail to Mr CAULFIELD:

'The current five-year city-wide felling programme will drastically reduce canopy cover along highways. This will have a significant negative impact on the provision and maintenance of benefits afforded by highway trees, as the range, magnitude and value of benefits is TOTALLY dependent on the shape size and distribution of canopy cover at street, neighbourhood and city-wide levels.'"

The above letter landed in my inbox this week. It was sent to THE STAR newspaper on Monday 30th November, 2015.For some reason, THE STAR has refused to publish the letter. A shame, really, as the detail is spot on, and the points that campaigners have made are valid.

WHEN AMEY FELL ALL YOUR STREET TREES...

THIS IS WHAT YOUR STREET WILL LOOK LIKE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0ww1r4VYI

These healthy, mature trees were classed as "Damaging" and/or "Discriminatory", because of mild pavement "ridging" or minor kerb dislodgement. Alternative highway engineering specifications for footway construction could have been used to overcome all perceived problems and enable the safe, long-term retention of these valuable healthy trees: a key component of the urban forest (as defined by The UK Forestry Standard) and a significant, valuable component of green infrastructure. Unfortunately, the £2.2bn doesn't stretch to employing registered or chartered arboricultural consultants to work with competent highway engineers to draught alternative specifications. Besides, it is easier to resurface pavements without trees, as machinery can be used to do the job really quickly without having to work around roots by hand, as required by National Joint Utility Group guidance and British Standard 5837.

National Joint Utilities Group, 2007. Volume 4: NJUG Guidelines For The Planning, Installation And Maintenance Of Utility Apparatus In Proximity To Trees (Issue 2). [Online] Available at: http://www.njug.org.uk/publications/
[Accessed 20 March 2014].

National Joint Utilities Group, 2007. Volume 4: NJUG Guidelines For The Planning, Installation And Maintenance Of Utility Apparatus In Proximity To Trees (Issue 2) – Operatives Handbook. [Online] Available at: http://www.njug.org.uk/publications/
[Accessed 20 March 2014].

The British Standards Institution, 2012. British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations". London: BSI Standards Ltd.
http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030213642

FREE BOOKS AND PAPERS:

Dr Mark Johnston's Contributions to Arboriculture and Urban Forestry

GET WISE! USE THIS FABULOUS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE TO DEVELOP INFORMED OPINIONS:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Johnston8/publications

Mark Johnston is a Chartered Arboriculturist.

“Dr Mark Johnston MBE is at the forefront of urban forestry and has been instrumental in developing it from a concept to an accepted tree management term in Britain and Ireland. […]

He…became the first person to gain a PhD through the route of arboricultural education. […]

In 2007 he was awarded an MBE for his contribution to the development of urban forestry in Britain and Northern Ireland. In 2009 Mark was the first British person to receive the International Award of Merit from the International Society of Arboriculture for his career in developing urban forestry, including his work on Trees in Towns II. […]

Over the last 30 years urban forestry has developed from a buzzword that
people considered an Americanism to a term which has been accepted into
the mainstream as a name for modern urban tree management.”
(Ryan, 2011)

“Dr Mark Johnston has been award the Alex Shigo Award for Excellence in Arboricultural Education for 2013. The prestigious award was presented to Mark at the ISA’s Annual Conference, Trees & People – Growing Stronger through Diversity, in Toronto. Mark is the first UK recipient of a prestigious award from the ISA. The top international accolade is in recognition for his work in enhancing the quality and professionalism of arboriculture through education. ISA President Terrence Flanagan said, ‘Dr Johnston has worked as a contractor, consultant, tree officer, and college professor…’ ”
(Arboricultural Association, 2013)

Dr Mark Johnston is also a leading figure in the Trees and Design Action Group (TDAG).

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

In a letter to a lead SORT campaigner, dated 23rd March 2015, David Wain - leader of SCC’s Environmental Maintenance Technical Team (within the Highways Maintenance Division: also an “expert” on Cllr Fox's Highway Tree Advisory Forum panel - stated:

" 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.”

REFERENCES:

Arboricultural Association, 2013. 2013 Alex L. Shigo Award for Excellence in Arboricultural Education: Dr Mark Johnston. [Online]
Available at: http://www.trees.org.uk/aa/news/2013-Alex-L-Shigo-Award-for-Excellence-i...
[Accessed 6 June 2013].

Ryan, J., 2011. Profiles in Arboriculture: Mark Johnston. Essential Arb, pp. 8-10.

RARE BUTTERFLY OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE FACES DESTRUCTION AT THE HANDS OF AMEY

THE GUARDIAN REPORTED:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/11/butterfly-white-lette...

It is a shame that the city-wide felling programme that aims to fell 66.7% of Sheffield’s mature highway trees within a five year period - half the highway tree population (18,000 mature trees) - wasn’t mentioned, or the fact that the city - “England’s third largest metropolitan authority” (Sheffield City Council, 2007, p. 1) - does not even have a tree strategy to guide and inform decisions.

A tree strategy, like many other Councils have, but better, would help ensure that appropriate, adequate, balanced assessments are used to guide and inform decisions, and thereby increase the likelihood that acts and omissions will be reasonable, proportionate, defendable, based on sound evidence, and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, whether formed by the media, lobby groups or vested interests.

Really, given that the Streets Ahead project is a highway maintenance programme - a twenty-five year PFI contract - costing £2.2bn, using up to £1.2bn of Government funds (from the Department for Transport), it would have been rational, prudent and reasonable to have a tree strategy in place prior to the start of the contract, to ensure that assets are valued and managed in a responsible, sustainable manner, even if for no other reasons.

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/search-result.html?queryStr=third+largest+m...

FELLING HALTED FOR THREE MONTHS BY THE HIGH COURT

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3439673/Chainsaw-massacre-Reside...

To discover more about the case for the retention of Sheffield's mature trees, please see the SORT letter dated 29th January 2016 that was e-mailed to Cllr Fox (CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT) on 29th January 2016, by Sheffield Tree Action Groups (STAG), acting on behalf of SORT.

You can access it at the following links:
http://www.savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/resources-and-links/

https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/street-trees-lett...

The letter also formed part of the Nether Edge petition hand-out that was DISTRIBUTED TO EVERY COUNCILLOR by SCC’s John Turner (Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources) - on 1st February, 2016, at 3:17pm - to encourage informed “debate” at the meeting of full Council, on 3rd February, 2016, about tree population management. In reality, there was no debate. As usual, just a series of speeches and the usual political point scoring.

As you may have heard, the High Court have since issued an injunction to halt the felling of street trees throughout the city:

"The Defendant (i.e. SCC) and the Interested Party (i.e. Amey) shall not, whether by themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise, fell any street tree in the City of Sheffield under the Sheffield Streets Ahead Project unless an appropriately qualified independent arboricultural expert has produced a written report stating that the tree presents an immediate danger to the public and must be felled."

Both the Council & Amey claim to comply with best practice and good practice, respectively. All campaigners want is for it to be applied, supervised, audited and enforced, with evidence of such steps having been taken.

Since there doesn’t appear to be any opposition to the relevance of and necessity to apply good practice, I think campaigners need to be getting forceful in insisting that it be applied, supervised, audited and enforced. If it had been, most of the trees currently scheduled for felling would be safely retained, instead. They say there are no other reasonably practicable “solutions”, but alternative highway engineering specifications for footway, kerb & drain construction have not been commissioned or draughted for consideration, and balanced risk assessments (including valuation, cost:benefit analyses and adequate hazard assessment) are not done. Instead, they have sought and relied upon the OPINION of citizens. That does not constitute a responsible approach to asset management, nor does it comply with current arboricultural and urban forestry good practice guidance and recommendations, including UKRLG guidance. Campaigners need to really pick up on this & run with it. Remember, Streets Ahead claim compliance with UKRLG guidance; BS 5837; BS 3998; NJUG guidance and TDAG recommendations. So, HOLD THEM TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR ACTS AND OMISSIONS!

Please note that although felling has been halted, pruning (crown “removal”) has not and nor has resurfacing. It is likely that Streets Ahead (Amey) will push on with resurfacing using current methods (use of a planing machine within NJUG protection zone: a radius from the tree trunk equal to 4x stem circumference - measured at 1.5m above ground), contrary to NJUG guidance & BS5837 recommendations. HAVE YOUR CAMERA READY!

Once roots of mature highway trees are severely damaged by such machinery (& trenching machinery - diggers), the predicted “CATASTROPHIC DECLINE” in the number of highway trees* is reasonably foreseeable and there is likely to be reasonably strong justification for felling. The prediction of catastrophic decline in tree numbers

*Predicted by the Deputy Leader of the Council (Cllr Leigh Bramall), David Caulfield (SCC Director of Development Services with responsibility for all aspects of highway tree management and practice) and the Streets Ahead team (Amey): SEE APPENDIX 9 of the letter (page 201).

75% of Sheffield's street trees (27,000 trees) are mature. Mature trees are particularly vulnerable following damage (like elderly people). Mature trees are the ones associated with kerb and footway DAMAGE, which is why most are being felled. However, many are scheduled for felling because Amey predict their roots will be severely damaged during resurfacing works. If they complied with good practice, in most instances (possibly all) that would not be the case.

Alternative highway engineering specifications for footway (pavement) kerb and drain construction would enable safe long-term retention of mature trees - a valuable community asset and key component of green infrastructure. A mature lime tree like those on Rustlings Rd, with at least 40yrs of remaining estimated safe useful life expectancy is likely to have a value of @65,000, once structural value and a range of ecosystem service benefits afforded to the environment and communities have been accounted for. See pages 118-120 & the references on pages 125-139 in the aforementioned SORT letter. There is a SORT of Index section at the end of the document. ;)

REMEMBER, THE STREETS AHEAD PROJECT IS A FULLY FUNDED PFI PROJECT: A £2.2 BILLION CITY-WIDE PROJECT. UP TO £1.2 BILLION COMES FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT (TAXPAYERS): SEE APPENDIX 3 (page163) of the letter.

Here are some links:

http://www.hortweek.com/three-month-reprieve-sheffields-street-trees/arb...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/08/drone-fighting-eagl...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/high-court-pauses-sheffield-tree-felling-f...

BBC BREAKFAST

Dave Dillner (Sheffield Tree Action Groups) has just appeared on TV, on Rustlings Road! :)

SUMMARY:

Footway ridging and kerb disruption is being categorised as damaging and dangerous, with ridging also classed as DISCRIMINATORY (hindering access & mobility). However, alternative highway engineering construction specifications can address all these problems and avoid felling. Many trees are being felled because Amey predict they will be severely damaged during resurfacing works. Compliance with National Joint Utility Group Guidance & British Standard 5837 would avoid such damage.

This is a fully funded £2.2bn city-wide project that threatens 75% of highway trees: 27,000 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES. They have up to £1.2bn from the Department for Transport – TAXPAYERS MONEY! There can be no excuse for non-compliance with arboricultural and urban forestry good practice!

Currently, there are no balanced risk assessments – valuation of benefits and cost:benefit analyses NEEDED.

In a communication dated 7th July, 2015, the Department for Transport stated (see Appendix 3 of the recent SORT letter, dated 29th January, 2016):

“Local highway authorities, in your case Sheffield City Council, have a duty under Section 41 of the HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 to maintain the highways network in their area. THE ACT DOES NOT SET OUT SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF MAINTENANCE, as IT IS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY TO ASSESS which parts of its network are in need of repair and WHAT STANDARDS SHOULD BE APPLIED, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances. Central Government has no powers to override local decisions in these matters.”

Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) gave a presentation at the second Streets Ahead Highway Tree Advisory Forum meeting, on 2nd September, 2015. He stated:

“We are replacing about 70% of the City’s footways over the first FIVE YEARS. We have a duty to consider equalities. Now, in the past, existing TRIP HAZARDS have been left, and the Council has a defence under the Highways Act - SECTION 58 DEFENCE UNDER THE HIGHWAYS ACT – OF NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO DEAL WITH ALL THOSE DEFECTS.

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)

The Government has agreed to adopt and apply the precautionary principle in its agreement to Agenda 21at the Earth Summit meeting at Rio, in 1992, which states:

“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.' (Principle 15)".

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

HOW TO GET 66.7% OF MATURE HIGHWAY TREES FELLED: THE SHEFFIELD STANDARD

1) Avoid adopting a tree strategy, to avoid commitment to good practice, transparency, auditing and accountability.

2) Don’t admit to not having a strategy to guide and inform decisions: make something up, if you must (the public shan’t know the difference).

3) Avoid providing information to the public, particularly detailed information.

4) If you have insufficient resources blame your predecessors.

5) If you have neglected to do appropriate, adequate assessments, don’t admit it: just say something that sounds technical and the public will shut up.

6) If you forgot to draught specifications for working around mature trees, want to speed up resurfacing operations, or just want to cut maintenance costs, consider using an excuse to fell:
a) The machinery we use – diggers and planning machines will damage roots so severely that they are likely to become diseased and trees will become dangerous.

b) There are no other highway engineering specifications that could be used.

c) There are millions of other trees, “stop whinging”.

d) Make out that planting another tree somewhere in the neighbourhood will adequately compensate for the annual loss of @£1,500 of ecosystem services that the mature tree would have provided to the neighbourhood & Communities.

e) Find space to plant a woodland and make out that compensates for loss of highway tree cover and associated ecosystem service benefits.

f) Find a piece of research that you can spin to your advantage: preferably something that’s not easily accessible or freely available. Whatever you do, don’t reference it.

7) Hype up fear of harm, damage and liability: provided you haven’t educated the public, they’ll fall for this one hook, line & sinker – guaranteed. Plus it helps you appear as responsible and it distracts media attention while citizens argue amongst themselves.

8) Whatever you do, don’t draw public attention to national good practice guidance or recommendations: you don’t want them insisting on compliance or holding you to account.

9) Whatever you do, do not mention the range and value of ecosystem service benefits that mature trees afford to the environment and communities, or the replacement value of individual mature trees.

10) Be sure to highlight all potential negatives of having trees. In particular, focus on disease and hazards. The public often can’t recognise these and don’t know how to assess them: they’ll believe whatever you say.

11) Avoid providing any detail of organisation structure, to avoid awkward questions and accountability.

12) Don’t give out contact details for managers or officers. In particular, do not provide an address.

13) Convert all enquiries to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. You can claim this is a common, appropriate and efficient way of handling enquiries. As a bonus, the FOI Act provides a range of excuses that can be used to refuse access to information: use the time and cost excuses – they are most useful.

14) If you have no choice but to respond, provide as little information as possible and/or provide alternative information: pretend you have interpreted the question differently.

15) To avoid responsibility and accountability, hire a contractor to provide “Customer Services” and channel all enquiries via them.

16) To avoid consulting with the public, set up a forum or tree panel. You can rig these to find in your favour by:
a) not consulting with stakeholders;

b) not having a constitution for them to amend, accept, or reject;

c) ensuring that panellists do not have an adequate combination of appropriate education, knowledge, training and experience relevant to the matters being approached, and adequate understanding of the requirements of the particular task/s being approached;

d) ignoring information that doesn’t support your previous or intended acts and omissions;

e) only responding to questions you approve of: you can avoid providing answers and you don’t have to provide detail (just fob them off like a politician would).

17) If you have a forum or tree panel, you can then dismiss all those enquiries that you convert to FOI requests on the basis that the issue has been: “otherwise subjected to some form of independent scrutiny.”

18) Have a PFI contract. That way, you can avoid providing information on the basis that it is commercially sensitive.

19) If citizens oppose your city-wide felling programme, set them against other citizens. You can do this in various ways:
a) claim that damage to pavements impedes access and mobility so not felling represents a form of discrimination against those with disabilities;

b) find disabled people to support this assertion;

c) use the media to support this assertion: conflict makes good headlines & sells;

d) stir up division between more affluent areas and less affluent areas: fell the less affluent areas first, as they are less likely to have the resources to oppose felling: time, money, access to information and opportunity.

20) Use a felling questionnaire to gauge how many households on a street where felling is scheduled to take place are in favour of felling. You can skew this to your advantage by:

a) ensuring that you do not provide information about the range of benefits that trees afford to the environment and communities – particularly those that enhance health and well-being;

b) restricting the window of opportunity for responses to be submitted;

c) not providing any information on exactly how the content of completed questionnaires will be used;

d) ensuring that the questionnaire is only in one language;

e) asking for personal information: if the citizen refuses to supply it, you can dismiss their submission on the basis that it incomplete;

f) accidentally forget to mention the deadline for submission, then claim it has passed.

21) Even if you are the greenest city in Europe, make out that you have insufficient canopy cover for the city’s collective tree and woodland cover to be classed as an urban forest: this way, you can wiggle out of the requirement to comply with the UK Forestry Standard and it’s really annoying definition of sustainable forestry. If anyone mentions The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) AGREED GLOBAL DEFINITION OF FOREST, just ignore it.

22) If anyone mentions European legislation, such as EU Directive 2001/42/EC, which annoyingly requires use of the Precautionary Principle that the Government adopted at Rio in 1992, just ignore it: citizens are unlikely to be willing to go to court, so just call their bluff.

23) If anyone mentions the guidance of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) on the relevance and application of the Precautionary Principle, just ignore it. After all, who's going to enforce compliance with such guidance?

SORT LETTER TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ANYTHING TO DO WITH TREE MANAGEMENT, THE LETTER IS A “MUST READ” DOCUMENT

The letter can be accessed in PDF format at the following links:

http://www.savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SORT-LET...

https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/street-trees-lett...

The letter is dated 29th January 2016. It was e-mailed to Cllr Fox (CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT) on 29th January 2016, by Sheffield Tree Action Groups (STAG), acting on behalf of SORT.

The letter also formed part of the Nether Edge petition hand-out that was distributed to every Councillor by SCC’s John Turner (Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources) – on 1st February, 2016, at 3:17pm – to encourage informed “debate” at the meeting of full Council, on 3rd February, 2016, about tree population management. In reality, there was no debate. As usual, just a series of speeches and the usual political point scoring.

SORT LETTER / NETHER EDGE PETITION HAND-OUT

When the recent SORT letter was e-mailed to the CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT) Cllr Fox on 29th January, 2016 (at 1:35pm), carbon copies were also sent to the following:

julie.dore@sheffield.gov.uk
Leader of Labour Council);

leigh.brammall@sheffield.gov.uk
(Deputy Leader of the Labour Council: the man that says that the Amey PFI contract allows up to 50% of highway trees can be felled [66.7% of mature highway trees]);

john.mothersole@sheffield.gov.uk
(Chief Executive of Sheffield City Council);

Simon.green@sheffield.gov.uk
(Executive Director of SCC’s Place Management Team);

david.caulfield@sheffield.gov.uk
(SCC Director of Development Services: “with overall responsibility for highway trees”*, since Steve Robinson was relieved of his duties, in disgrace);

steve.robinson@sheffield.gov.uk
(the disgraced* SCC Head of Highway Maintenance);

Dave.Aspinall@sheffield.gov.uk
(SCC Woodlands Manager in the Countryside and Environment department: the man charged, by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, with draughting a tree strategy for the city. Since the inaugural meeting of Cllr Fox’s Highway Tree Advisory Forum, on 23rd July, 2015, Mr Aspinall has had over SIX MONTHS working on the strategy. However, key stakeholder representatives, such as SORT, STAG and the Wildlife Trust have yet to be consulted and no detail of any progress has been publicised).

*Beardmore, E., 2015. LISTEN: Sheffield Council ‘sorry’ after highways chief’s views on tree felling recorded. [Online] Available at: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/listen-sheffield-council-sorry-after-highw... [Accessed 26 October 2015].

*Beardmore, E., 2015. TREES: New council chief to lead Sheffield felling confirmed after secret recording apology. [Online] Available at: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/trees-new-council-chief-to-lead-sheffield-... [Accessed 22 October 2015].

27,000 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES FACE THE AXE

There are 27,000 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES that account for 75% of the population of street trees. Many of those, if not most, are being classed as DAMAGING, DISCRIMINATORY AND DANGEROUS for associated damage to kerbs and footways (pavements).

The Deputy leader of the Council – Leigh Bramall – has recently mentioned (on 3rd February, 2016, at the meeting of full Council) that only 5,000 trees are being felled. However, when questioned as to why he believed that (on twitter – 4th Feb*) he said:

“coz only trees that fall under '6 ds' are replaced”.

Also, Amey have scheduled many of these trees for felling on the basis that their planning machine and digging machinery will cause such severe damage to mature trees that they will decay and structural integrity will be compromised. Compliance with the current good practice guidance and recommendations that they claim to comply with, but don’t (such as National Joint Utilities Group Guidance and British Standard 5837: 2012), would ensure that such damage did not occur and would enable mature highway trees to be safely retained, long term, without unacceptable compromise to structural integrity.

Recently, Cllr Terry Fox, Streets Ahead, Steve Robinson (SCC HEAD OF HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE) and David Wain (leader of SCC’s Environmental Maintenance Technical Team within the Highways Maintenance Division: also an “expert” on the HTAF panel) have all refused to the request:

“ please provide full work contact details for the Sheffield City Council Officers/personnel most directly responsible for:

a) MONITORING highway works in close proximity to trees;

b) ON SITE SUPERVISION of highway works in close proximity to trees;

c) AUDITING of highway works in close proximity to trees;

d) ENFORCEMENT of compliance with current good practice guidance and recommendations for highway works in close proximity to trees.”

In December, the Streets Ahead team claimed to be: “looking at IMPROVING OUR PROCESSES AND BUILDING ON INDUSTRY GOOD PRACTISE.”

In the Rustlings Road Response PDF document (July, 2015**), Streets Ahead stated:

“...all works will be supervised by a qualified arboriculturalist [sic] 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”.

Sheffield’s neighbourhoods face serious, irreversible environmental degradation by the loss of so many mature highway trees. Cllr Bramall – Deputy Leader of the Council - has stated at two meetings of full Council that the Amey contract permits the felling of 18,000 mature highway trees – half the population of highway trees. In December 2012, The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation interviewed SCCs Head of Highway maintenance - Steve Robinson - and reported that 18,000 highway trees will be felled before 2018.***

The Streets Ahead project is a 2.2bn, fully funded, city-wide felling programme, with up to £1.2bn of taxpayers money from the Government's Department for Transport. Highway trees are a significant component of the urban forest and all tree populations within the urban forest must be managed in a sustainable manner, as required by The UK forestry Standard. This requires the stewardship and use of the highway tree population in a way and at a rate that maintains its potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions. These are wholly dependent on the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover, which provides a range of valuable ecosystem service benefits to neighbourhoods and communities. The benefits are not confined to political wards/constituencies, but are afforded to the whole city – the wind does not choose where it blows, nor the rain choose where it falls.

In a communication dated 7th July, 2015, the Department for Transport stated:

“Local highway authorities, in your case Sheffield City Council, have a duty under Section 41 of the HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 to maintain the highways network in their area. THE ACT DOES NOT SET OUT SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF MAINTENANCE, as IT IS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY TO ASSESS which parts of its network are in need of repair and WHAT STANDARDS SHOULD BE APPLIED, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances. Central Government has no powers to override local decisions in these matters.”

Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) gave a presentation at the second Streets Ahead Highway Tree Advisory Forum meeting, on 2nd September, 2015. He stated:

“We are replacing about 70% of the City’s footways over the first FIVE YEARS. We have a duty to consider equalities. Now, in the past, existing TRIP HAZARDS have been left, and the Council has a defence under the Highways Act - SECTION 58 DEFENCE UNDER THE HIGHWAYS ACT – OF NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO DEAL WITH ALL THOSE DEFECTS.”

On 23rd July, 2015, at the inaugural meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum (HTAF), Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) commented:

“So, just because a tree is diseased doesn’t mean to say that that tree needs to be replaced. It is the type of disease, the effect that disease will have on the tree’s life, err, whether it turns out to be dangerous, so on and so forth, and those judgements are made by tree people. …In terms of damaging, yes, again, there is a degree of judgement and, erm, and, you know, if something can be done, IF AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION CAN BE APPLIED, THEN IT WILL BE APPLIED. Err, there was a lots of comment made earlier on about whether a tree is removed as a last resort; and a tree is removed as a LAST resort.”

Jeremy Willis (Amey Operations Manager and self-styled "arboricultural specialist"), stated (Ref: 101002253550), on 14/10/2015:

“At Streets Ahead we are extremely proud of our green city and in order to maintain this it is our policy to retain healthy trees WHEREVER POSSIBLE. We will only remove trees as an ABSOLUTE last resort.”

For further information, see the SORT letter to Cllr Fox, dated 29th January, in the Resources section of the Save Sheffield Trees.org website.
http://www.savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SORT-LET...
or:
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/street-trees-lett...

* https://twitter.com/SaveSheffTrees/status/695253114400739328

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

*** The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation, 2012. Transportation Professional. [Online] Available at: http://www.ciht.org.uk/download.cfm/docid/EAFEC96C-F341-455B-B811F1C627A... [Accessed 15 October 2015].

AMEY BLUNDER

At the start of the week, on 15th February, 2016, the following letter arrived in my inbox. The author has given permission for me to post it here, in its entirety, for your benefit. The same day, it was also sent as a letter to THE STAR newspaper, but they have clearly chosen not to publish it.

Dear Editor of The Star

AMEY STREET LIGHTING NIGHTMARE

On 29th January, Amey came knocking to request a car be moved so a hole could be dug for a street light, within 90cm of the trunk of my 25yo tree. I was instructed to contact Streets Ahead Customer Services (SACS: provided by Amey) if I wanted my objections to be considered and that regardless, a hole WOULD be dug in 3 days’ time. I did. Our house is at the end of a dead-end street that has never had lighting in the 45yrs (approx) that the street has existed.

Amey started as they meant to carry on: heavy handed, ignorant, incompetent, reckless and negligent. Four days later, and the day after telling two of my local Councillors David Wain and Steve Robinson (SCC Environmental Technical Officer & SCC Head of Highway Maintenance, respectively: “experts” on the Highway Tree Advisory Forum panel) that a complaint investigation was underway, Amey excavated a hole. Two days AFTER works started, I received an e-mail to say the investigation had been completed and the light would be positioned where planned. No explanation or reasoning was provided, even though requested. On 8th Feb, they stuck a lighting column in the hole.

Amey claimed to have investigated my objections, requests and suggestions. All were TOTALLY ignored. One objection was that the light would be just over 8m metres from our bedroom windows (as high as our roof), so would represent a nuisance. Mr Houston – Amey Street Lighting Supervisor – “guaranteed” that a “back-plate” (shield) would be fitted. It was not, even though Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) had also repeatedly assured us that one would be. Mr H said if the light was too bright, brightness could be adjusted and the unit could be tilted to direct light away from the home. He claimed that he had given his phone number to my neighbour and that if there were any problems all we had to do was call him. He claimed he wasn’t like other Amey supervisors that don’t care or respond to problems. Mr H said he couldn’t put the light elsewhere as he had to follow a plan that his boss had given him. He insisted that it was company policy not to give out contact details for any Amey department, so I couldn’t contact his boss. Mr Houston insisted he wasn’t prepared to discuss any of my suggestions or objections with his boss and that he would stick to the plan.

Another objection was that not only did positioning a light so close to my tree represent non-compliance with industry good practice, but excavation so close to the tree, particularly with digging machinery and without an arboricultural supervision, would be likely to cause serious damage to roots of my tree (private property) that could, as Amey have repeatedly stated, result in decay and compromise structural integrity, therefore causing increased risk of danger to people and property and increased exposure to liability. It is precisely this kind of reckless damage that is likely to bring about the “catastrophic decline” in the number of highway trees that Cllr Bramall and Streets Ahead have predicted, because 27,000 of highway trees are mature and particularly vulnerable to negligent acts and omissions that arise as a result of non-compliance with current good practice: such as that detailed in letters from Save Our Roadside Trees campaigners (SORT), addressed to Cllr Fox, available in the “Resources” section at the savesheffieldtrees.org.uk website.

On 11th Feb, Amey excavated a deep hole, fit for a coffin, within 33cm of the trunk of my tree, extending past it in both directions, using a digging machine. The hole remained open, with roots exposed, until 15th Feb, when they connected the light to an electricity cable. As they did the work, lights in our home flickered and our boiler (just months old) was damaged and stopped working, as did the electric ignition on our cooker. When we asked our neighbour for Mr Houston’s phone number, we discovered that what Mr H had actually provided was the SACS number – NOT HIS! It often takes SACS a month to respond to enquiries, when they bother.

We (including elderly with cancer) are now stuck in a cold house, without hot water or the chance of a good night’s sleep. Cllr Fox, Mr Wain and Mr Robinson have all refused to provide contact details for the SCC people most directly responsible for the supervision, monitoring and enforcement of standards for highway works in close proximity to trees. Furthermore, all have neglected to fulfil the requirements of the Ảrhus Convention; to:

“make appropriate practical and/or other provisions for the public to participate during the preparation of plans and programmes relating to the environment, within a transparent and fair framework, having provided the necessary information to the public.”

No doubt our experience matches that of many thousands of Sheffield people. What is the Council doing to ensure that its acts and omissions are adequate and appropriate to fulfil their duties and responsibilities?

Mr P. Isthoff

Upper Don Valley.

SHEFFIELD's GREEN COMMITMENT:

FINAL REPORT OF THE SHEFFIELD GREEN COMMISSION

On 25th June, 2015, a copy of the SORT hand-out was submitted to the SCC Green Commission as “evidence” for consideration by the Commission. An amended version was submitted, on 29th of June, 2015. On 30th June, 2015, acting “for the Green Commission team”, Heather Stewart (SCC Project Officer: Capital Delivery Service department) confirmed acceptance of the document (a PDF) as “evidence”.

The document submitted became the hand-out published in support of the Save Our Rustlings Trees (SORT) campaign (now known as Save Our Roadside Trees), which was distributed to EVERY COUNCILLOR on 26th JUNE, 2015, by the Sheffield City Council (SCC) Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources department, prior to the meeting of full Council, in Sheffield Town Hall, on 1st July, 2015 (when the SORT petition was presented). You can access a copy of the hand out at:

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

The SORT hand-out was later worked on and submitted to the Cabinet Member for Environment and transport (Cllr Terry Fox) as a letter, dated 14th July, 2015, by SORT. You can access a copy ("The SORT letter") at:

http://www.savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/resources-and-links/

______________________________________________________________

An e-mail received today...

From: Stewart Heather [mailto:Heather.Stewart@sheffield.gov.uk]
Sent: 24 February 2016 18:14
To: McIntyre Duncan
Subject: FW: Sheffield Green Commitment - Final report of the Sheffield Green Commission

Dear Colleague,

We are delighted to be sending you “Sheffield’s Green Commitment”, the final report of the Sheffield Green Commission as attached. Many, many thanks for all your contributions to the evidence-giving process. If you would like to respond as an individual or on behalf of your organisation we are running a public consultation through Sheffield City Council’s online portal “Citizen Space”, which can be accessed from the Council’s homepage at www.sheffield.gov.uk from Friday 26th February.

Kind Regards,

Heather Stewart, for the Green Commission Team

Project Officer - Capital Delivery Service

Sheffield City Council, Zone 1, Level 3, East Wing, Moorfoot, Sheffield S1 4PL

Tel: 0114 2037139
Email: heather.stewart@sheffield.gov.uk
Web: www.sheffield.gov.uk

GREEN COMMISSION REPORT

The Council’s final report (attached above) detailing the Council’s commitment to the management of Sheffield’s green infrastructure will be published on Friday (it was supposed to be a strategy. It is not).

QUOTES FROM THE REPORT:

“Sheffield has an enviable
reputation as one of the
greenest and most wooded
cities in Europe. Sheffield has…
more than 2 million trees, and
greater woodland cover than any
other city in Britain (over 10%).”
(p.19)

“Why relevant to Sheffield?
Sheffield is regarded as the
greenest and most wooded
city in Britain with more than
1/3 of the city in the Peak
District National Park. There
is more woodland cover than
any other city in Britain (over
10%) and more than 2 million
trees.”
(p.35)

“Triple bottom line:

Economic: Green space contributes to economic success
by providing high quality urban environments to live, work
and play in. The Crown Estate’s £1.5 billion investment in an
ecology masterplan for the West End of London demonstrates
that World Cities recognise the economic asset of quality urban
green space. The £30m cost of the 2007 floods to Sheffield
creates the business case for investment in flood resilience
through green and blue infrastructure.

Health/Social: Green and Blue infrastructure can reduce
emissions and improve air quality; contribute to sustainable
urban cooling and heatwave mitigation; improve physical health
including reducing body mass index and obesity; improve
mental wellbeing; increase longevity; reduce isolation, reduce
health inequalities and increase social cohesion.

Environmental: Green and Blue Infrastructure provides
ecosystems services for cities: flood resilience, climate
adaptation (sustainable urban cooling/reduction of urban heat
island effect); air quality mitigation and increasing biodiversity;
CO2 sequestration.”
(p.35)

The three components of this “Triple bottom line” are represented by a Venn diagram. Guess what label is attached to the centre of the diagram, where all three circles overlap: “SUSTAINABLE”!

TREE STRATEGY

The following letter landed in my inbox on 22nd February, 2016. The author has kindly granted permission to post it here, adding that it was sent to The Star newspaper the same day.

SHEFFIELD'S 1ST TREE STRATEGY

Over 15,000 citizens have signed the SORT petition. They are upset that as many as 27,000 healthy, mature street trees – 75% of the highway tree population -could be felled by Amey. At two meetings of full Council, Deputy Leader of the Council – Cllr Leigh Bramall - has confirmed that the Amey contract permits 50% of highway trees to be felled. When SCCs Head of Highway Maintenance – Steve Robinson (panel “expert” at the now discontinued Highway Tree Advisory Forum) was interviewed in 2012 by The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation, they reported that Amey will fell 18,000 street trees (50%) before 2018.

There is now good reason to believe this is the case. To date, since May, 2015, SORT have been requesting to see the range of alternative highway engineering construction specifications that are considered prior to felling, as evidence that felling is a last resort, as Councillors and the Streets Ahead team have repeatedly asserted. None have been made available – requests have been ignored. On 19th February, Sheffield’s Labour Party stated: “Alternative engineering solutions are not affordable… We have just had to save another £50m from our budget as a result of Government cuts… With this scale of cuts such additional costs are not affordable.”

At the meeting of full Council, on 3rd February, 2016, Cllr Bramall claimed that Amey would only fell 5,000 highway trees. The same day, the Council Tweeted that 14% of trees would be felled. When Cllr Bramall was asked why he believed this to be the case, he Tweeted: “coz only trees that fall under ‘6 ds’ are replaced”. What is disturbing and getting citizens so upset is that many of Sheffield’s 27,000 mature highway trees, if not most, are being classed as DAMAGING, DISCRIMINATORY or DANGEROUS for associated damage to kerbs and footways (pavements).

Having read the recent 141 page SORT letter to Cllr Fox (available online, in the Resources section of Save Sheffield Trees.org.uk website), it is very clear that Amey have scheduled many of these trees for felling on the basis that their planing machine and digging machinery will cause such severe damage to trees that they will become DANGEROUS, as decay is expected to follow and it is thought structural integrity will be compromised. The SORT letter indicates that compliance with current good practice guidance and recommendations, which the Streets Ahead team claim to comply with (such as National Joint Utilities Group Guidance and British Standard 5837: 2012), would ensure that such damage is avoided and would enable mature highway trees to be safely retained, long term, without unacceptable compromise to structural integrity.

Over six months ago, on 23rd July, the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox) promised that work on draughting a tree strategy for the city would start immediately. On 2nd September, he announced that a “blue-print” for, and “a draft” of, the strategy would be presented to the public in November 2015. Until last Tuesday, we have not heard anything more about it, as there has not been a meeting of the Highway Tree Advisory Forum since 2nd September, 2015. On Tuesday, The Star reported: “members of the public will be able to view the draft strategy” and that Coun Sioned-Mair Richards (SCC cabinet member for neighbourhoods), said: “…we’re organising the event in order to share our plans. Highway trees are part of this strategy…” Of particular interest was the invitation for the public to “have their say and help to plan the future of trees in Sheffield.”

At last, the public get to influence strategy that will guide and inform policy, plans, decisions and practice, and help ensure that future decisions are soundly based on available evidence and NOT unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, such as those formed by vested interests. If this is a genuine consultation opportunity, hopefully SORT & STAG will be successful in making sure that the strategy makes provision for adequate, appropriate assessments, undertaken by competent people, so as to help avoid future disputes, help ensure that acts and omissions are prudent, rational, proportionate and defendable, and that the decision making process is truly open, honest, transparent, consistent and auditable. Also, I hope it includes a framework and guidance for monitoring, on site supervision and auditing of highway works in close proximity to trees, and for enforcement of compliance with current good practice guidance and recommendations.

However, I wouldn’t put it past the Council to say, on the day, that they don’t actually have a blue-print or draught yet, or, based on their form to date, that highway trees will not be part of the strategy, or that the sub-strategy for highway trees will be draughted at a later date. I notice that Cllr Richards appears to have been particularly sneaky in her choice of words. Her announcement appears to purposely avoid any commitment that would confirm the strategy event will enable the public get to “have a say” specifically about the draught sub-strategy for highway trees. Personally, I doubt there will be any opportunity whatsoever for the public to positively affect change. The Council have blind faith in Amey and oppose any attempt that seeks information that could enable meaningful scrutiny of their acts and omissions.

Yours sincerely,

A citizen that cares about the quality of the environment, health, well-being, and the prudent, rational, sustainable utilization of Sheffield’s valuable urban forest resource.

THE STAR ATTACK

Hi Folks,

Recently, there has been a report of AVG Protection software detecting a constant "Trojan horse" (called Exploit SWF_c) attack that is repeated immediately every time the attack is prevented. If you use The Star website, you need to be aware of this. Detail about the malware is provided (by AVG) below.

EXPLOIT SWF_C

• Rank this week: Nº 85
• Websites affected: 145
• Users affected: 1,000,000 - 5,000,000
• Affected Operating Systems: All Windows OS

EXPLOIT SWF_C SUMMARY

Exploit SWF_c is a malicious application that allows hackers to remotely access you computer system letting them modify files, steal personal information and install more unwanted software. These kinds of threats, called Trojan horse, must be sent to you by someone or carried by another program. They may also arrive thanks to unwanted downloads on infected websites or installed with online games or other internet-driven applications. Most Trojan horses can be detected and removed by AVG.

Source:
http://www.avgthreatlabs.com/gb-en/virus-and-malware-information/info/ex...

27,000 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES (75% of the highway tree population) FACE SERIOUS, IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE THROUGH AMEY's NON-COMPLIANCE WITH GOOD PRACTICE AND THE GROSS INADEQUACY OF SUPERVISION & ENFORCEMENT BY THE COUNCIL.

Amey have been using such damage (caused by digging and planning machinery) as a reason to justify felling healthy, structurally sound, mature highway trees.

At the meeting of full Council on 3rd February, 2016, the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (CLLR TERRY FOX: Labour) stated that THE COUNCIL HAS NOT BUDGETED FOR ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS for footway (pavement), edging (kerbs) and drain construction. Furthermore, the council “resolved” to commit:

“to be open and transparent with the Sheffield public in ensuring ALL OUR INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.”

THE AMEY STREETS AHEAD PROJECT IS A £2.2BN FULLY FUNDED, CITY-WIDE "TRANSFORMATIONAL PROJECT" THAT HAS NOT BUDGETED TO RETAIN MATURE HIGHWAY TREES: A VALUABLE COMMUNITY ASSET, significant component of green infrastructure, and a key component of Sheffield’s urban forest.

Serious, catastrophic decline in the number of mature highway trees, as a result of felling, is resulting in significant, serious, city-wide environmental degradation, with significant negative impact on the range, magnitude and value of a range of benefits afforded by trees to communities and neighbourhoods, including those that affect health & wellbeing (see references in the SORT petition:

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

THE AMEY & SCC APPROACH TO TREE POPULATION MANAGEMENT IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH AND THE BACK-DATED 5yr PLAN THAT AMEY PUBLISHED ON 2nd February, 2016, IS NOT A STRATEGY.

Anybody interested in developing informed opinions on these matters is strongly advised to see the two letters addressed to Cllr Terry Fox (Cabinet Member For Environment & Transport), sent by SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES campaigners.

OPENNESS & TRANSPARENCY: GETTING ANSWERS

IT TAKES 8 MONTHS, WITH AN INTERNAL REVIEW AND AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW TO GET A RESPONSE FROM THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM (SCC & AMEY) THAT INCLUDES ANSWERS!

On 19th February, 2016, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) completed a review (Case Reference Number FS50596905) of a Freedom of Information request (FOI/422) that had been submitted to Sheffield City Council on 6th July, 2015. The FOI request was:

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

The ICO review stated:

“The council also liaised with the relevant staff, at the request of the ICO, and confirmed that “they have been unable to locate any relevant information through email/file searches and consideration of manual records”.

“Assessment of suitability/lack of suitability for engineering solutions is made during a “WALK AND BUILD” process by Amey… The team carrying out this “walk and build” hold detailed DISCUSSIONS at site level, considering and debating any and all potential engineering solutions which may be utilised to retain each specific tree… however THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION IS NOT RECORDED.”

IN SEARCH OF TRUTH

The “engineering solutions” are those that were presented to the public (see pages 265-266 of the recent SORT letter*) at the second meeting of Cllr Fox’s bi-monthly Streets Ahead Highway Trees Advisory Forum (HTAF), on 2nd September, 2015, by Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance). They were previously dismissed as “B0110CKS”, at the Streets Ahead Roadshow event held in Heeley, Sheffield (on 17th November, 2015), by the Streets Ahead PFI Operations Director (Darren Butt: the man responsible for ALL aspects of highway MAINTENANCE, employed by PFI contractor AMEY). Oddly enough, the same list of “engineering options” is given in THE BACK-DATED 5yr PLAN that Amey published on 2nd February, 2016, in response to the SORT letter addressed to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport (Cllr Fox), dated 29th January, 2016* (also distributed to every Councillor as the Nether Edge petition hand-out, which was distributed to every Councillor, by SCC’s John Turner (Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources), on 1st February, 2016, at 3:17pm).

At the Heeley Roadshow event, Mr Butt said he is aware that many of the 36,000 highway trees are classed as “mature or over-mature (75%, according to Streets Ahead; SCC: Website & David Caulfield; Amey: Jeremy Willis) and that they are likely to be causing “pavement ridging” or disturbing kerb alignment. He said that if trees caused uneven pavements that was unacceptable. When questioned further, he added 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. Mr Butt said that Amey have their own alternative highway engineering specifications, which Streets Ahead use.

CLEARLY, THE PUBLIC HAVE BEEN WILFULLY MISLED, REPEATEDLY, BY THE COUNCIL AND THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM – FELLING IS CLEARLY NOT A LAST RESORT! FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT IT IS A LAST RESORT.

*https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/street-trees-3-month-ban-all-...

TREE RETENTION: SPECIFICATIONS, LIES & ACCESS TO INFORMATION

"...EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR for Place Simon Green said: '...WE WILL of course CONTINUE TO assess our trees and REPLACE THOSE THAT ARE DANGEROUS.'" (1)

Since at least May, 2015, the Council have used every opportunity to state that DAMAGE to footways (pavements) & edging (kerbs) represents a DANGER to motorists & pedestrians. This kind of damage is associated with mature highway trees. 75% OF HIGHWAY TREES ARE MATURE (27,000). The Amey PFI contract permits up to 18,000 to be felled in the 5 year period (Core Investment Period) to 2018.

To 23rd March, 2016, 3, 670 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED. On 3rd Feb, 2016, the Council tweeted that 14% of trees would be felled (2). The same day, Cllr Bramall (DEPUTY LEADER of the Council) was asked why he did not believe many trees would be felled. He tweeted: "coz only trees that fall under '6 ds' are replaced" (3).

On 23rd JULY, 2015, at the inaugural meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum (HTAF), Steve Robinson (SCC Head Of Highway Maintenance) commented:

"So, just because a tree is diseased doesn't mean to say that that tree needs to be replaced. …IF AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION CAN BE APPLIED, THEN IT WILL BE APPLIED. Err, there was a lots of comment made earlier on about whether a tree is removed as a last resort; and a tree is removed as a LAST RESORT."

"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."

On 19th FEBRUARY, 2016, the Information Commissioner completed an investigation (case reference number FS50596905) in response to a previous freedom of information request response issued by Sheffield City Council (request reference: FOI/ 422). It revealed that, 3yrs IN TO A £2.2bn CITY-WIDE PROJECT, NEITHER AMEY OR THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM HAVE EVER COMMISSIONED OR DRAUGHTED ANY ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS for footway (pavement), edging (kerb) or drain construction that could enable the safe long-term retention of mature highway trees, without unacceptable compromise to tree health or structural integrity.

The Information Commissioner response stated:

"Assessment of suitability/lack of suitability for engineering solutions is made during a “walk and build” process by Amey. This is a joint inspection between a highway engineer and an arboricultural surveyor.

The team carrying out this “walk and build” hold detailed discussions at site level, considering and debating any and all potential engineering solutions which may be utilised to retain each specific tree, considering the council’s legislative requirements… however, THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION IS NOT RECORDED. The Commissioner considers that in this case, NO FURTHER INFORMATION IS HELD BEYOND THE LIST OF 25 OPTIONS, provided in response to your initial request… THE COUNCIL HAS NOW CONFIRMED TO YOU THAT NO INFORMATION IS HELD within the scope of your request "(4 & 5).