Contribute to this website

HIGHWAY TREES: MINUTES FROM COUNCIL MEETINGS

This week (6th April, 2016), the Council published the minutes of the meeting of full Council that took place on 3rd February, 2016. Hopefully you will find the minutes attached to this posting. However, if not, they can be accessed – as all minutes from meetings of full Council – at:

http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=154&M...

It is under the sub-heading “Minutes of Previous Council Meetings”.

Questions about trees are on pages 6 & 7 of the PDF; a redacted version of the petition, followed by the Council’s response, can be found on pages 18 to 24. The document is of interest because the meeting on the 3rd February, 2016 is the meeting at which 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.”

It was at this meeting that the Leader of the Council (Cllr Julie Dore: Labour) stated that the Council was entitled to treat any question they receive as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request and then send it to the Information Management Officer to be dealt with. This was revealed in response to a question asked at the meeting by a citizen: Mr Brighton. The Information Management officer (Mark Knight) has since confirmed that Cllr Dore was right. See the FOI correspondence for FOI reference: FOI/1599. In particular, see the letter from the SCC Information Management Officer dated 3rd March, 2016 (relating to FOI reference FOI/1601):

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

It was at this meeting that the Nether Edge petition was presented before the Council, by Mrs Carly Mountain. It was similar to Dr Deepa Shetty’s SORT petition that was presented before full Council on 1st July, 2015, by Mr Alan Robshaw and Ms Louise Wilcockson. Both called for a city-wide halt to the felling of highway trees:

“a stop on tree planting and on all tree felling operations that do not include works to trees that represent an immediate and reasonably foreseeable danger of serious harm or damage in the near future, until a tree Strategy has been commissioned, completed, adopted as Council policy and is adequately resourced and ready for implementation.”
(from page 6 of the SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016).

Another reason why the meeting was so important is because it was the meeting at which the Council chose not to answer any questions asked by citizens at the meeting, from the public gallery, about highway trees. The council resolved to continue as planned with the city-wide felling programme for mature highway trees, under the Streets Ahead project and to take no further action in response to the petition.

To quote from page 181 of the SORT letter, dated 29th January, 2016:

“NOTE: 5,000 Signatures were necessary to trigger a ‘debate’ at the meeting of full Council. The Council was only allowed to vote for one of two options, as protocol dictated:

‘1) note and take no action for the reasons put forward in the debate, or

2) refer the petition to either the Cabinet, a Scrutiny Committee, a Cabinet Member or an Executive Director for consideration having regard to the comments made by Members during the course of the debate.’

In the case of the SORT petition, ALL 59 LABOUR COUNCILLORS (70% OF THE ENTIRE COUNCIL) OPTED FOR THE FIRST OPTION **, even though they had received the 29 page SORT hand-out*. However, even if the second option had been chosen, the scrutiny committee is only made up of councillors, not people with an adequate combination of education, knowledge, training and experience relevant to the particular matters raised, and with an adequate understanding of the requirements of the tasks involved.

*A shorter version (Save Our Rustlings Trees, 2015a) can be accessed via the following link:

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

** http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/still-room-for-compromise-over-sheffield-t...

The same was true in the case of the Nether Edge petition.

***** FORTUNATELY, THERE ARE ELECTIONS ON 5th MAY, 2016, SO WE ALL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE FAIRNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF LABOUR COUNCILLORS, IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM DOING JUST AS THEY PLEASE REGARDLESS OF PUBLIC OPINION *****

VOTE FOR A DIFFERENT PARTY, INCREASE FAIRNESS & IMPROVE DEMOCRACY. WITH LABOUR COUNCILLORS FORMING A MAJORITY OF 70% OF THE COUNCIL, THE LABOUR COUNCIL HAS AVOIDED OPENNESS, HONESTY, TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. NOW IS THE TIME TO VOTE STRATEGICALLY TO IMPROVE THE LOT OF ALL CITIZENS.

It was the aforementioned decisions that resulted in Mr David Dillner (founder & co-Chair of Sheffield Tree Action Groups: STAG) taking a case to the High Court, in London. This is what led to the injunction that placed a city-wide three month ban on the felling of highway trees. As I understand it, Mr Dillner’s case primarily argues that there has not been adequate “consultation” about works under the Streets Ahead project that affect highway trees, prior to works being undertaken. There appears to be a secondary argument that an adequate Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has not been undertaken prior to commencement of the £2.2bn project and its city-wide felling programme that permits the felling of up to 18,000 mature highway trees before 2018 - 50% of the highway tree population – during the Core Investment Period (CIP: the five year period to 2018, during which all highway resurfacing & lighting works are being done).

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-council-files-high-court-defence...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/updated-sheffield-tree-felling-can-legally...

Both the aforementioned petitions were redacted by the Council, so do not appear in any Council publication in their entirety. To quote from page 181 of the SORT letter, dated 29th January, 2016:

“Furthermore, at the meeting of full Council, a “Public Document Pack” was offered to all who attended (Sheffield City Council, 2015d, pp. 4-5). It was a hand-out that claimed to present the SORT petition (as detailed in this appendix) in its entirety. However, the Council had failed to include the references and the notation within the text that referred to them.

The references validated the case presented – THEY WERE VITAL AND INTEGRAL TO THE PETITION. The Council’s decision to omit them may have stifled interest, skewed “debate” and voting, and have been severely damaging. THE REFERENCES PROVIDED A SOUND EVIDENCE BASE, IN SUPPORT OF ASSERTIONS MADE WITHIN THE TEXT. The references include peer reviewed research and widely recognised and accepted current best practice.”

You can still view both petitions, in their entirety, using the following links:

SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES (SORT):

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

NETHER EDGE:

https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-city-council-amey-councillor-fox-stre...

Even though these petitions have now been presented to Council, and largely ignored, they are STILL WORTH SIGNING, as growing numbers indicate continued, growing and widespread support for a responsible, SUSTAINABLE, STRATEGIC (planned, systematic & integrated) approach to tree population management, with greater accountability, openness, honesty and transparency. In practice, that should include an adequate COMMUNITY STRATEGY with a rolling programme for continued public education, consultation and participation.

Both petitions prepared hand-outs that were DISTRIBUTED TO EVERY COUNCILLOR by SCC’s John Turner (Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources), prior to the meetings. The Nether Edge hand-out included the SORT letter to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport (Cllr Fox), dated 29th January 2016. The intention, apparently, had been to encourage informed “debate” between Councillors at the meetings.

A link to the SORT hand-out is provided above. The SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016 can be found using these links:

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

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

The SORT letters provide a detailed account of all that has happened between May 2015 and February, 2016.

THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE ON 1st JULY 2015 can be accessed at the following link, under the sub-heading “Minutes of Previous Council Meeting”:

http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=154&M...

Questions about trees are on pages 8 & 9 of the PDF; a redacted version of the petition, followed by the Council’s response, can be found on pages 9 to 16.

It was in response to the SORT petition that the Council to fulfil the Council’s five-year-old policy commitment - within “Sheffield’s Great Outdoors: Green and Open Space Strategy 2010-2030″ policy document - to initiate, develop, adopt and implement a tree strategy - a “Trees & Woodland Strategy” - as Council policy. It was also in response to the SORT petition that the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport (Cllr Terry Fox) set up a “bi-monthly” Highway Tree Advisory Forum (HTAF), to which he appointed himself Chair.

To quote from page 12 of the minutes from the meeting of full Council on 1st July, 2015:
“COUNCILLOR FOX SUGGESTED THAT A HIGHWAY TREE FORUM WAS ESTABLISHED SO THAT
people including residents, lobby groups and specialist groups could have
discussions and THE COUNCIL WAS ABLE TO CONSULT PEOPLE ABOUT POLICY.”

To quote from page 14 of the minutes from the meeting of full Council on 1st July, 2015:

“Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, responded to matters which were raised during the debate and stated that the various issues raised would be looked at in more detail. He proposed that a Tree Forum was established to help DISCUSS and CONSULT with people in relation to highways trees.”

In response to the Nether Edge petition hand-out that Amey cobbled together a management plan (of sorts) for highway trees. It is not a strategy, but they included the word “strategy” in the title. Even though the document is a strategy IN NAME ONLY, having it enabled the Council to claim they had a “strategy” for highway trees on the day the Nether Edge petition was presented (the day after publication). Presumably the document was quickly cobbled together so that the Streets Ahead team and Councillors didn’t appear to look utterly incompetent in light of the content of the petition hand-out. If that was the case, it is fair to say their tactic well and truly failed. If the Streets Ahead project was not a £2.2bn city-wide project, but a theoretical 1st year college assignment, it wouldn’t be quite so appalling.

However, there can be no escaping the fact that in an e-mail, dated 5th APRIL, 2014, Cllr Jack Scott (as CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT, RECYCLING AND STREETSCENE [LABOUR]: one of Cllr Fox’s predecessors) stated:

“WE DO NOT PRESENTLY HAVE A STRATEGY SOLELY FOR TREES. My view is that this wouldn’t be very helpful given they are an intrinsic part of the broader environment and ecology. However, I am confident that we have adopted very good practice in this area.”. “…In my view, current documents are sufficient.”

Source: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/contribute-website?page=1

On 19th February, 2016, Sheffield’s Labour Party stated:

“We are open and transparent with the Sheffield public ensuring ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE and in the public domain”.

To date, such assertions lack evidence. There has not been any indication of positive change. In fact, the Freedom of Information Act (mentioned above) is being used to withhold information, such as access to the 2006/2007 highway tree survey report that the Council claim to use to form policy and the Streets Ahead contract, and contact details necessary for reporting damage to highway trees, by contractors and vandals, DIRECTLY to Council Officers.

Worst of all, on 7th August, 2015, SORT received a “REFUSAL NOTICE” from the SCC Information Management Officer. You can find it on pages 252-258 of the SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016 (the Nether Edge petition hand-out). It indicated that events such as Amey’s “street walks”; the HTAF meeting, or “Cllr Fox’s Independent Tree Panel” can be used as an excuse to avoid providing information requested.

Quotes from the “Refusal Notice”, used as reason for withholding information requested:

“Futile requests

The Information Commissioner’s guidance notes:

‘THE ISSUE at hand individually affects the requester and HAS ALREADY BEEN CONCLUSIVELY RESOLVED by the authority OR SUBJECTED TO SOME FORM OF INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.’ ”

“Unreasonable persistence

The Information Commissioner’s guidance notes:

‘The requester is attempting to reopen an issue which has already been COMPREHENSIVELY ADDRESSED by the public authority, or otherwise subjected to some form of INDEPENDENT SCRUTINY.’”

As if that wasn’t bad enough, bearing in mind Cllr Dore’s comments at full Council and the content of the FOI/1599 correspondence associated with FOI/1601, the “Refusal Notice” also stated: “REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO FOI REQUESTS LEADING TO ADDITIONAL STAFF TIME”. Time and cost were, and continue to be, used as reasons to withhold information.

***** FORTUNATELY, THERE ARE ELECTIONS ON 5th MAY, 2016, SO WE ALL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE FAIRNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF LABOUR COUNCILLORS, IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM DOING JUST AS THEY PLEASE REGARDLESS OF PUBLIC OPINION *****

VOTE FOR A DIFFERENT PARTY, INCREASE FAIRNESS & IMPROVE DEMOCRACY. WITH LABOUR COUNCILLORS FORMING A MAJORITY OF 70% OF THE COUNCIL, THE LABOUR COUNCIL HAS AVOIDED OPENNESS, HONESTY, TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. NOW IS THE TIME TO VOTE STRATEGICALLY TO IMPROVE THE LOT OF ALL CITIZENS, AND HELP MINIMISE THE LIKELIHOOD OF UNNECESSARY ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND IRREVERSIBLE LOSS OF VALUABLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICE BENEFITS THAT MAINTAIN AND PROMOTE HEALTH & WELL-BEING.

HIGHWAY TREES: HTAF & STRATEGY

It is now OVER EIGHT MONTHS since the first HTAF meeting (23rd July, 2015) at which citizens were assured by Cllr Fox and David Aspinall (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) that work on the tree strategy would start immediately. The latest HTAF meeting took place on 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2015. A third was scheduled to take place in November. Cllr Fox cancelled the November meeting without letting anyone know – not even the “experts” that he invited to be on the forum panel. The same happened again in January and March 2016. To date, nobody – not even the forum “experts” - know what Cllr Fox has planned with regard to the “bi-monthly” forum. A communication from Mr Aspinall, dated 9th December, 2015 stated that THE FORUM IS “LED BY THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM” (Amey: that explains why none of the matters raised by campaigners have been discussed or debated at the forum). Citizens had been led to believe a third HTAF meeting would happen in mid-March, 2016. It did not.

On 23rd July, 2015 (the day of the first HTAF meeting), The Star newspaper reported:

“The meeting at the town hall debated Sheffield’s approach to managing highway trees and its ‘six Ds’ policy: which is about removing trees which are dangerous, dead, dying, diseased, damaging the road or pavement, or causing an OBSTRUCTION to those with sight impairment or in a wheelchair - CLASSED AS ‘DISCRIMINATION’.”

“DAVE ASPINALL, woodland manager at the council, said: ‘We will liaise with Amey and incorporate highway trees. WE ARE DOING A SCOPING OF THE DOCUMENT IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND WILL BE CONSULTING WITH THE PUBLIC AND AIMING FOR THE END OF MARCH FOR COMPLETION.’ ”

Source: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/sheffield-trees-new-highway-tree-str...

On 2nd September, 2015, at the second HTAF meeting (possibly the final one, as there have been no others since), Cllr Fox stated:

“…WE ARE WORKING WITH OUR TREE STRATEGY; we are working that; that will come to our next forum, and we will have a working part of that forum to have an input in to that. Erm, we will work through that, how that will be coming, because IN NOVEMBER, obviously, it’s the planting season as well, I think it’s only right that we have that discussion a) about the species we are planting, and b) the, err, tree strategy; so we will get to that. …Just to clarify, we’re not having the climate change discussion at the forum; what I’ve said - AT THE NEXT FORUM IS WE’LL BRING THE BLUE-PRINT that Dave Aspinall, and for those people that were at the first, is now tasked, AND WE WILL BRING A DRAFT, so that we can all comment on the city tree [sic].”

On Wednesday 4th November, 2015, The Star newspaper reported:

“Coun Fox said the draft tree strategy would be put to the next highway tree forum later this month.”

Source: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/trees-new-independent-panel-to-look-at-she...

In a letter dated 18th NOVEMBER, 2015, David Caulfield (Director of Development Services: with overall responsibility for highway trees) stated:

“I can confirm that the DEVELOPMENT OF A TREE AND WOODLAND STRATEGY IS UNDERWAY and progressing. THERE WILL BE A CONSULTATION PROCESS which is currently scheduled TO BEGIN AROUND THE END OF MARCH 2016…”

In an e-mail dated 8th JANUARY, 2016, David Caulfield stated:

“Consultation on the SCC Tree Strategy will begin in February with a view to PUBLISHING IN MAY”

[…]

“THE NEXT MEETING OF THE TREE FORUM WILL PROBABLY BE IN MID MARCH AFTER THE CONSULTATION AND WILL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE OUTCOMES OF THE CONSULTATION.”

Until 16th February, 2016, there was no further news about the tree strategy. On 16th February, The Star newspaper reported:

“The council has been working on a framework for a new Trees and Woodland Strategy, which will set out how it looks after all 2.2m trees in the city.

[…]

A full-day event will be held at the Town Hall on Friday, February 26 and
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO VIEW THE DRAFT STRATEGY and speak to members of staff between 10am and 7pm.

[…]

Coun Sioned-Mair Richards, cabinet member for neighbourhoods at Sheffield City Council, said: “We know that the issue of trees is very important to communities across our city, which is why we’re organising the event in order to share our plans. Highway trees are part of this strategy and will be informed by the recently-released Streets Ahead ‘5 year Tree Management Strategy.’ ”

Source:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/trees-new-tree-strategy-to-be-revealed-to-...

To date, no detail of a “consultation process” has been revealed. In reality, A THIRD HTAF MEETING HAS NOT BEEN HELD. A “drop-in” event was held at the Town Hall, on 26th February, 2016. No information was made available about the event prior to the event, other than the date, time & place. The public were invited to put suggestions on sticky notes and attach them to large sheets of paper. OFFICIALS PRESENT AT THE EVENT INFORMED THAT THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN STRICT INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO DISCUSS HIGHWAY TREES.

In fact, at the drop-in event, there was no “blue-print” or draught strategy to comment on. All there was was a draught “framework” that SCC intended to use to help form a draught strategy. In reality, this was a list of headings and sub-headings. In some cases, there was a mention of what could go under those headings. For highway trees, it appeared that the Council intend to adopt the Amey management plan as the sub-strategy for highway trees, as is, without any opportunity for stakeholder (public) consultation. Indeed, in a communication dated 14th March, 2016, DAVID ASPINALL stated:

“…the Streets Ahead 5 year highway tree management plan will directly inform and shape the highway trees part of the trees and woodlands strategy, that's how we see it.”

This WAS NOT made clear in the documentation provided at the “drop-in” event. It is VERY DEPRESSING, because it indicates that THE PUBLIC WILL CONTINUE TO BE BARRED FROM HAVING ANY INFLUENCE ANY ASPECT OF STRATEGY, POLICY AND DECISION-MAKING THAT AFFECTS HIGHWAY TREES. Furthermore, the Council’s decision to adopt the Amey management plan as a sub-strategy to inform the city-wide tree strategy is evidence of a TOTAL absence of understanding of what a tree strategy is, what should be in it and how and why it should be used. As all this was clearly set out in the aforementioned SORT communications, it is also evidence that SORT communications have been totally ignored by Councillors and Council officials, including David Aspinall. Indeed, it is now April 2016 and SORT HAVE STILL NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE LETTER TO CLLR FOX DATED 29TH JANUARY, 2016. In fact, Cllr Fox has been requesting that citizens provide evidence of inappropriate use of machinery in close proximity to trees and of non-compliance with good practice by contractors doing highway works in close proximity to trees. Again, this is further evidence that Cllr Fox has not even read the SORT letter that was addressed to him and subsequently distributed to every Councillor in the city.

In short, THE COUNCIL & AMEY HAVE FAILED TO TAKE ANY POSITIVE STEPS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS ANY OF THE MATTERS RAISED in the SORT letters to Cllr Fox and, in most cases, the majority of matters raised have been and continue to be TOTALLY IGNORED, with no indication of any hope for positive change or meaningful discussion and community involvement.

TREES: STRATEGY; INFORMATION & THE ITP

It cannot be stressed strongly enough that any citizen campaigning or hoping for positive change with regard to gaining a responsible, SUSTAINABLE approach to tree population management, with greater openness, transparency and accountability (one that complies with current good practice guidance, including nationally recognised and accepted standards), should be reading the SORT letters, and references therein, then feeding in suggestions to the Council Woodland Managers tasked with draughting the strategy:

1) David Aspinall (Woodlands Manager): Dave.Aspinall@sheffield.gov.uk

2) Jerry Gunton (Woodlands Manager): Jerry.Gunton@sheffield.gov.uk

C0NTACT DETAILS:

Countryside and Environment,
Place,
Meersbrook Park,
Brook Road,
Sheffield,
S8 9FL.

TEL: 0114 2053787
Mobile: 07966 372022

Helping shape the city tree strategy (the “tree & woodland strategy”), in particular the sub-strategy for highway trees and the sub-strategy for community involvement. Really, this should be and NEEDS to be a top priority for ALL citizens that care about trees and the impacts their loss will have on the range, magnitude and value of valuable, ecosystem services that benefit communities (people) and neighbourhoods (the environment). The Strategy really is THE easiest, quickest, best, most appropriate way of getting positive, lasting change. In accordance with current good practice, the strategy should be reviewed and revised from time to time. It should:

“contain detailed policies and plans that are revised every five years (Britt, et al., 2008, p. 407; Van Wassenaer, et al., 2012), and at appropriate intervals, as necessary, to reflect changes in legislation, policies and current arboricultural and urban forestry “industry” guidance and recommendations”.

(from page 6 of the SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016)

See SORT communications for further detail:

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

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

If highway trees are scheduled for felling on your street and you don’t agree, e-mail the Independent Tree Panel, and Cllr Fox. Send them links to, or copies of the SORT letters, dated 14th July, 2015 & 29th January, 2016. Ask that the letters be considered as evidence in favour of the long term retention of mature highway trees through the use of the nationally recognised, widely accepted standards and good practice guidance and recommendations detailed and referenced therein.

Unless the High Court judge rules otherwise, SCC will only permit the residents that live on a street where felling is scheduled to present evidence to the independent tree panel (ITP). It should be noted that all the panel does is ADVISE Cllr Fox. Their advice is NOT binding. Cllr Fox appears to have set up the ITP as a means of refusing any further requests for information related to tree management (see the previous posting and pages 252-258 of the SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016 [the Nether Edge petition hand-out]). It also provides good PR as he is passing it off as “consultation” with the public.

However, there are widely recognised and accepted hallmarks to an appropriate, adequate consultation process and they are absent from The Council’s Felling Questionnaire Survey and the ITP process. These hallmarks are hinted at in the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the ARHUS CONVENTION). They are detailed by the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and are also found in works referenced in the SORT communications. In particular see the following:

Forest Research: Social Research Group: Ambrose-Oji, B; Tabbush, P; Frost, B; Carter, C; Fielding, K, 2011. Public engagement in forestry: a toolbox for public engagement in forest and woodland planning. [Online] Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-5xmds8

Arnstein, S. R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. [Online] Available at: http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participatio...

http://geog.sdsu.edu/People/Pages/jankowski/public_html/web780/Arnstein_...

Also, for something extra, see:

Elmendorf, W., 2008. The importance of trees and nature in community: a review of the relative literature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2008, Volume 34, p. 152–156.
Available at: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&

TIME TO VOTE

***** FORTUNATELY, THERE ARE ELECTIONS ON 5th MAY, 2016, SO WE ALL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE FAIRNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF LABOUR COUNCILLORS, IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM DOING JUST AS THEY PLEASE REGARDLESS OF PUBLIC OPINION *****

VOTE FOR A DIFFERENT PARTY, INCREASE FAIRNESS & IMPROVE DEMOCRACY. WITH LABOUR COUNCILLORS FORMING A MAJORITY OF 70% OF THE COUNCIL, THE LABOUR COUNCIL HAS AVOIDED OPENNESS, HONESTY, TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. NOW IS THE TIME TO VOTE STRATEGICALLY TO IMPROVE THE LOT OF ALL CITIZENS, AND HELP MINIMISE THE LIKELIHOOD OF UNNECESSARY ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND IRREVERSIBLE LOSS OF VALUABLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICE BENEFITS THAT MAINTAIN AND PROMOTE HEALTH & WELL-BEING.

URBAN FORESTRY

Useful Link:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/BEEH-A6LMEZ

URBAN FORESTRY:

"Urban forestry looks at urban green space from an integrative perspective, considering individual green space elements as part of an integral whole. It includes a focus on urban green space comprised of tree stands AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL TREES and it is multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary in approach."

Source:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/urbanforestryandsociety

ELECTIONEERING

On 20th April, 2016, Sheffield Telegraph published a letter from the Green Party:

http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/letter-put-people-before-profit...

The letter provoked the following response (which I strongly agree with):

"Positive change is needed, but I doubt any of the current parties have the spine to make it happen, including the Green Party. They all must have known that the 2006/2007 highway tree survey report advised that the Council initiate, develop, adopt and implement a tree strategy. They certainly knew of the Council's policy commitment within "Sheffield's Great Outdoors: Green and Open Space Strategy 2010-2030″ document, to produce a "Trees & Woodland Strategy" (a tree strategy). They also knew that the Streets Ahead contract permitted Amey to fell up to half the population of highway trees (18,000 mature trees) in the period 2012 to 2018. Furthermore, they also knew that 75% of the highway trees were mature and that the Labour party were so dim as to believe that meant they were near the end of their life. In short, The Green Party knew that there was strong likelihood that the Labour Council and Amey would attempt to fell around 75% of the highway tree stock (27,000 mature trees) and yet they made no effort whatsoever to hold the Council to account or educate the public. THANK GOD FOR SORT! If SORT were a political party, I'd vote for them!

Seriously, why has it taken a citizen group to educate the people of Sheffield?

Note to ALL councillors: GROW A SPINE!"

HIGHWAY TREES: THE LEGAL BATTLE CONTINUES

Last week, on 27th April, 2016, a high court judge ruled that Sheffield’s Streets Ahead project could continue, without amendment to policy, strategy, management or practice [1]. The city-wide felling of Sheffield’s mature highway trees is therefore legally allowed to continue, without constraint.

At the start of the Streets Ahead project, in August 2012, Sheffield’s mature highway trees numbered 27,000 and accounted for 75% of the tree population in the highways land use category [2].

ALL DEAD, DYING and DANGEROUS highway trees WERE FELLED BEFORE AUGUST 2015.

At the inaugural meeting of the “bi monthly” Highway Trees Advisory Forum (which has not met since 2nd September, 2015), on 23rd July, 2015, Steve Robinson (SCC HEAD OF HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE) commented,:

“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.” [2]

To 5th February, 2016, when the High Court prevented the unnecessary felling of highway trees [3], 3,670 mature highway trees felled so far as part of the £2.2bn, city-wide, “transformational” Streets Ahead "improvement" project that claims to deliver BETTER management [2].
Thanks to an investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office (case FS50596905, dealing with FOI 422), we now know that even though the Streets Ahead project is over three years in to a five year programme of highway resurfacing, lighting and felling, neither Amey or the Streets Ahead team have ever commissioned or draughted any ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOOTWAY (PAVEMENTS), 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 [4]. This is shocking, as most of the mature highway trees are likely to be associated with some level of DAMAGE to footways or edging.

During the initial five year period of the project – the Core Investment Programme - about 70% of the City’s footways will be resurfaced: 1,435 miles. By December 2015, approximately 790 miles had been done [2]. Citizens have noted that until May last year, Amey concentrated on roads on the outskirts of the city where there were fewer parked cars, less street furniture, fewer residential properties, and very few trees in footways or in close proximity to the carriageway. This enabled them to hit Key Performance Indicator "milestones" relatively quickly and achieve bonus payments [2]. It meant they could claim to have done an impressive mileage of resurfacing and provided great PR opportunities.

This is a good point to highlight the content from an interview with SCC Head of Highway Maintenance (Steve Robinson), reported in Transportation Professional, in 2011 [5]:

“Under the Streets Ahead contract Amey is paid a fixed fee by the council but has 753 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TO HIT, some measured monthly, some annually. If the KPIs are missed there are penalties in the form of “service deductions”, ie Amey doesn’t get part of its fee. “We only pay for what we get,” Mr Robinson says.

There are also milestones THE ACHIEVEMENT OF WHICH GENERATES A NEW TRANCHE OF FEE from the council. And if new works are accrued into the project THERE IS A MECHANISM TO CHANGE THE SCOPE OF WORK.”

Now they are in the city proper, in densely populated residential areas, where there are many problems, including highway trees, it will not be so easy to hit KPI targets and there WILL be greater incidence of conflict. Therefore, A MASSIVE STEP CHANGE IN THE RATE OF FELLING CAN BE EXPECTED and that is, indeed, what we have seen. The numbers felled since July 2015 evidence that this IS the case.

Both the Council and Amey claim to comply with “best practice”. However, the Streets Ahead team have justified felling healthy, mature highway trees that are structurally sound, 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 [2].

However, if Amey really did comply with guidance of the National Joint Utilities Group (which they claim to comply with, but do not), trenching and tarmac lifting machinery would NOT be used within a radius from the tree trunk equal to 4x stem circumference - measured at 1.5m above ground (the NJUG “Protection Zone”) [6]. Alternatively, if they complied with British Standard 5837: 2012 (which they claim to comply with, but do not), then MACHINERY WOULD NOT BE USED FOR EXCAVATION (SUCH AS DIGGING TRENCHES OR HOLES) IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO TREES: not within the drip-line of the crown, or a distance from the stem equal to 12x the stem diameter at 1.5m above ground, whichever distance is greater [7].

CONTENT OF THE LATEST JUDGEMENT STATES:

“Stephen George Eccleston, who is Assistant Director of Legal Services for SCC, gave
evidence explaining the governance at SCC. Inevitably, part of it included accounts of
the legal framework.

The evidence of Mr Eccleston is that THE FULL COUNCIL HAS NO POWER TO DECIDE THAT FELLING SHOULD CEASE, NOR HOW THE PROGRAMME OF WORKS TO HIGHWAYS SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT.

He points out also that as the work is being done under a contract, a change in the contract to require the cessation of tree felling would have costly consequences.

The risk for highway claims currently falls on Amey under the contract. IF TASKS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE PROPER REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE COULD NOT BE UNDERTAKEN, THEN THE RISKS WOULD BE PASSED BACK ON TO THE COUNCIL, WITH SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR ITS BUDGET.

Mr Eccleston contends that THE FULL COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE POWER TO REFER A MATTER TO THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, OR IT CAN REFER THE MATTER TO THE CABINET OR TO THE MEMBER OF THE CABINET CONCERNED.” [1]

It should be noted that, as SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES (SORT) campaigners have always, rightly, pointed out:

ALL STATUTORY DUTIES CAN BE ADEQUATELY FULFILLED, AND MATURE TREES SAFELY RETAINED, LONG-TERM, BY HAVING APPROPRIATE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS, AND BY COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT ARBORICULTURAL GOOD PRACTICE. [8 & 2]

Mr Eccleston’s comment that: “THE FULL COUNCIL HAS NO POWER TO DECIDE…HOW THE PROGRAMME OF WORKS TO HIGHWAYS SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT” [1] appears to contradict Steve Robinson’s previous comment:

“And if new works are accrued into the project THERE IS A MECHANISM TO CHANGE THE SCOPE OF WORK.” [5]

However, it is of the utmost importance to remember Mr Eccleston’s assertion that:

“THE FULL COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE POWER TO REFER A MATTER TO THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, OR IT CAN REFER THE MATTER TO THE CABINET OR TO THE MEMBER OF THE CABINET CONCERNED.” [1]

At the most recent “bi-monthly” Highway Tree Advisory Forum meeting (HTAF), on 2nd September, 2015, the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport – Cllr Terry Fox (self-appointed Chair of the “bi-monthly”) stated that the Council was not prepared to make any amendment to the Amey PFI contract for the Streets Ahead project because:

“We’ve got a Core Investment Period that we’re going through. Yes, there is a CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION. Of course there is; we’ve entered in to a contractual obligation; an obligation that says that they are [sic] PAYMENTS made, each monthly, and we, err, run through that, err, contract. We also have the contract and a [sic] agreement with DfT that we have to, err, adhere to, to inform them; because, obviously, they are the BACKERS of, of part of this. We’ve got the MONEY LENDERS and the – the, the, the, the, the, the - PARTNERS in, in the, err, CONTRACTORS to deal with.”

Prior to that, in an e-mail dated 28th August, 2015 [2], Cllr Julie Dore (Leader of the Labour Council) informed that Cllr Fox had advised her about the request for a moratorium on felling. She quoted Cllr Fox, as follows:

“The request for a moratorium in the works will have a major impact on the scheme especially with the risk to zonal works and confidence from the lenders.

THE KEY POINTS OF THE MORATORIUM:

• This has to be by agreement with lenders – which we are extremely unlikely to get - and if we did it would take 12 months stalling the whole of the 'Streets Ahead' programme.

• Sign off is required from DfT and Treasury

• During this process we are legally bound to maintain payment within the contract, with costs to the council that in the current Government public spending cuts are virtually impossible to find

• We would need to obtain insurance at major cost

• The moratorium would affect all core works – footways, lighting and carriageways

• The approach to lenders, DfT and Treasury would put at risk the financing of the project”. [2]

Commenting on Cllr Fox’s decision not to have a moratorium on felling (prior to the High Court injunction [3]), the Streets Ahead team stated:

“I want to be clear that FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS HAVE NO BEARING ON THIS PARTICULAR DECISION, for the reasons Councillor Fox outlined in the last tree forum.”

It is worth remembering the words of Graeme Symonds (Amey’s Core Investment Programme Director, responsible for all lighting and resurfacing works during the Core Investment Programme of the Streets Ahead project: also an “expert” on the HTAF on panel):

“If there was a moratorium, it would. If Terry came to me and said: ‘don’t fell any more trees, err, until, erm, for, for a month’, or whatever, the knock-on effect of that on the rest of the service that we’re delivering and the residents.”

Those words were spoken at the second HTAF meeting, before the injunction. Rather unsurprisingly, the assertions made by Amey’s CIP Director did not prove to be valid. It is worth noting that on 9th December, 2015, citizens were told that the HTAF meetings are “LED BY THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM”. That helps explain why there has not been a third meeting.

However, regardless of all this comment about lenders and financing, the Council had been meeting with lenders to refinance the Streets Ahead project, for other reasons, so it would appear that the Amey PFI contract for the Streets Ahead project can be amended and that neither that or refinancing is not as problematic as the Council and Amey have made out [9].

The campaign for SUSTAINABLE tree population management, ADEQUATE, BALANCED ASSESSMENTS, and EVIDENCE-BASED policy and decision making - in compliance with current arboricultural and urban forestry good practice - continues [10].

Please feel free to get involved and help shape policy and decision making that affects your city, including your neighbourhood and your health & wellbeing [2].

References:

1) http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-tree-campaigners-lose-legal-batt...

Dillner, R (On the Application Of) v Sheffield City Council [2016] EWHC 945 (Admin) (27 April 2016):
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/dillner-v-scc-ju...
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/945.html

2) SORT LETTER TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT (dated 29th January, 2016).

The letter also formed part of the Nether Edge petition hand-out that was DISTRIBUTED TO EVERY COUNCILLOR in the city, 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/full_work_contact_details_for_sc?...

5) 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].

6) National Joint Utilities Group, 2007a. 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, 2007b. 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].

7) The British Standards Institution, 2012. British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations". London: BSI Standards Ltd.

8) "SORT Letter To The Cabinet Member For Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox), dated 14th July, 2015" - accessible via the following links:

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

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

Much of the content of the letter was used by SORT as a petition hand-out. You can access a shortened version of it here:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/streets-ahead-stocksbridge-trees

The hand-out was distributed, via e-mail, by Sheffield City Council’s “Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources” department, to EVERY COUNCILLOR in the city, prior to the meeting of full council that took place on 1st July, 2015.

9) http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=123&M...

Scroll down to item 8: a Cabinet Report - “Streets Ahead – Refinance” - dated 11th November, 2015, authored by Jayne Clarke and Steve Robinson (the latter is SCC Head of Highway Maintenance & an “expert” on the HTAF on panel).

Also:
“Sheffield Streets Ahead roads deal to be refinanced to save up to £14 million”: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-streets-ahead-roads-deal-to-be-r...

10) http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-campaigner-plans-to-appeal-high-...

https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/sheffield-trees/

LEARNING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE

There is much more to this than was presented in Court. In many ways, Mr Dillner's legal team failed to maximise their opportunities. The Save Our Roadside Trees group (SORT: formerly Save Our Rustlings Trees) – the first of the Sheffield Tree Action Groups (STAG) – had previously published detailed documents (the SORT letters) that provided arguments, supported by sound reasoning and detail of current good practice (including the “best practice” that the Council claim to comply with, but do not) – that could and should have been used in court. Unfortunately, everything was a bit rushed, so the legal team didn’t have time to read through the SORT documents prior to forming a case. Arguably, that was their biggest mistake, in my opinion.

Prior to the court case, two petitions had been presented before the council by different groups:

SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES (SORT):
https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-city-council-streetsahead-sheffield-g...

NETHER EDGE:
https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-city-council-amey-councillor-fox-stre...

There are two key SORT letters: the first is dated 14th July, 2015; the second is dated 3rd February, 2016. Both were addressed to the City’s Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox). Much of the content of the former was used by SORT as a petition hand-out. The latter was used as the Nether Edge petition hand-out. Local Authority protocol permits a hand-out to be distributed to every Councillor in the city, prior to a meeting of full Council at which a petition is to be presented (in just two three minute slots). The Local Authority is responsible for distribution. The SORT & Nether Edge hand-outs were distributed via e-mail, by Sheffield City Council’s “Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources” department, to EVERY Councillor in the city.

You can access the SORT letters (the hand-outs) using the following links:

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

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

It is STRONGLY advised that anybody else in the UK deciding to take their Local Authority to court read BOTH documents before making a case (especially the legal people).

THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE ON 1st JULY 2015 can be accessed at the following link, under the sub-heading “Minutes of Previous Council Meeting”:

http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=154&M...

Questions about trees are on pages 8 & 9 of the PDF; a redacted version of the petition, followed by the Council’s response, can be found on pages 9 to 16.

THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE ON 3rd FEBRUARY, 2016 can be accessed at the following link, under the sub-heading “Minutes of Previous Council Meetings”:

http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=154&M...

Questions about trees are on pages 6 & 7 of the PDF. A redacted version of the petition, followed by the Council’s response, can be found on pages 18 to 24.

“At the conclusion of the debate it was moved by Councillor Terry Fox, seconded by Councillor Julie Dore, that this Council:-
[…]
d) COMMITS TO BEING OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WITH THE SHEFFIELD PUBLIC ENSURING ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.”

Citizens have yet to see Sheffield City Council make any attempt to honour that commitment. To date, there has been no change.

It was at this meeting (3rd February) that the Leader of the Council (Cllr Julie Dore: Labour) stated that the Council was entitled to treat any question they receive as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request and then send it to the Information Management Officer to be dealt with (under Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act [2000]). See:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/full_work_contact_details_for_sc#...

Good luck to Mr Dillner (a man that truly deserves an OBE for services to the community) and everyone that campaigns for ADEQUATE, BALANCED ASSESSMENTS; SUSTAINABLE tree population management, and EVIDENCE-BASED policy and decision making.

Many thanks to Dr Deepa Shetty (SORT); Ms Louise Wilcockson (SORT) & Mrs Carly Mountain (Nether Edge). Also, many thanks to all those that have helped, and those who are now continuing the campaign. 

TREES: SORT & STAG IN NEWS & VIDEO

Some local news coverage of the Sheffield citizen campaign for responsible tree population management: the call for a tree strategy to guide and inform policy & decision making (including video of lead SORT campaigners)...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/residents-outrage-over-tree-felling-decisi...

(Darren Butt - Amey's Operations Director for the city-wide £2.2bn "transformational" Streets Ahead highway maintenance PFI project - is the man in the suit).

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/everyone-s-trees-are-under-threat-sheffiel...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-residents-stage-vigil-to-stop-tr...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/video-what-happened-to-us-keeping-it-green...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/row-over-sheffield-tree-felling-set-to-ram...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-tree-campaigners-lose-legal-batt...

SHEFFIELD’S PFI DEBT NIGHTMARE

Sheffield City Council is BORROWING up to £1 BILLION to complete the city-wide Streets Ahead highway maintenance project. The interest on loans is racking up each day. According to the Council, despite Sheffield being the third largest metropolitan authority in England [1], and a 7.7% increase [2] in the human population (to 552,698 [3]) in the decade to 2011 ("in-migration” being the biggest driver of population growth [4]), the city has been "in economic decline since the late 1980s" [5]: “over 30% of Sheffield’s population live in areas that fall within 20% most deprived in the country” [6]. The Centre for Cities - the first port of call for UK and international decision makers seeking to understand and improve UK cities' economic performance - has described the city as: "classed as having 'a low-wage, high-welfare' economy” [7].

The cost of the Streets Ahead project is ridiculous, even before you factor in the cost of losing valuable community assets (up to 27,000 healthy, structurally sound mature highway trees; most with many decades of useful life remaining) and the range of valuable ecosystem service benefits that they afford to neighbourhoods and communities each year.

To get some idea of just how difficult it is for Sheffield to pay off debt, read this (published in 2011):

"The World Student Games which took place in Sheffield 20 YEARS AGO ran up an overall debt of £658 MILLION.

Sheffield Council, which funded the 1991 games, has revealed it will continue to repay £25 MILLION A YEAR until the debt is paid off in 2024 despite having to make savings of £80m this year." [8]

It is a real shame that the city is now known for its world class incompetence in management of green infrastructure and its sloppy approach to the stewardship & care of its urban forest - possibly now the most severely damaged and mismanaged urban forest in Europe, and possibly the developed world, thanks to the acts and omissions of Amey & the Labour Council.

REFERENCES:

1)
Sheffield City Council, 2007. Sheffield Profile. Sheffield Key Facts. [Online]
Available at:
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/search-result.html?queryStr=third+largest+m... [Accessed 10 January 2016].

2)
Sheffield First Partnership, 2013. State of Sheffield 2013. [Online]
Available at: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/search-result.html?queryStr=third+largest+m... [Accessed 3 May 2016].

3)
Sheffield City Council, 2014. 2011 Census: key statistics. [Online]
Available at: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/sheffield-profile/populat... [Accessed 29 April 2014].

4)
Sheffield City Council: Performance and Research, 2015. Sheffield population estimates: Sheffield's Population 2014. [Online]
Available at: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/sheffield-profile/populat... [Accessed 10 January 2016].

5)
Dillner, R (On the Application Of) v Sheffield City Council [2016] EWHC 945 (Admin) (27 April 2016)

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/dillner-v-scc-ju...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-industrial-works-to-be-demolishe...

6)
Sheffield City Council: Development and Regeneration Services, 2014. Statement of Community Involvement. [Online]
Available at:
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-docu... [Accessed 27 March 2015].

7)
Hobson, D., 2016. Sheffield is a low-wage high-welfare economy says new report. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-is-a-low-wage-high-welfare-econo... [Accessed 25 January 2016].

Centre for Cities, 2016. About. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.centreforcities.org/about/ [Accessed 25 January 2016].

8)
BBC News, 2011. Sheffield's World Student Games £658m debt 'disaster'. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-14134973

******* URGENT: SHEFFIELD GREEN COMMISSION *******

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO COMPLETE THE ONLINE SURVEY, &/OR E-MAIL FEEDBACK TO THE GREEN COMMISSION:

https://sheffield.citizenspace.com/place-business-strategy/sheffield-gre...

The public are invited to comment on a “final report” that was published on 26th February, 2016. The Green Commission are going to integrate the feedback received and form A 20yr STRATEGY TO GUIDE AND INFORM POLICY AND DECISIONS THAT AFFECT GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (SUCH AS HIGHWAY TREES).

You can find inspiration in the SORT letters to Cllr Fox and in the references cited therein. You can access them via the following links:
http://www.savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/resources-and-links/

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

OVERVIEW
Sheffield Green Commission – an independent commission made up of 14 individuals from business, industry, the public sector and both Sheffield universities and chaired by Cabinet Member Councillor Jayne Dunn - was tasked with hearing and reviewing written and verbal evidence from a wide range of expert witnesses and using this evidence to make recommendations for securing Sheffield’s environmental, social and economic future.

The final report of the Sheffield Green Commission, “Sheffield’s Green Commitment”, has now been published and we are inviting citywide stakeholders to respond to this report, help develop it further, and set their own FIRM TARGETS to make this into a DELIVERABLE, MEASURABLE, programme of change over the next 15-20 years.

THE COUNCIL WILL DEVELOP A CITY-WIDE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY having allowed time for different sector responses arising from the consultation.

CONTACT
greencommission@sheffield.gov.uk

KEY DATES
Status: Open
Runs from 25 Feb 2016
to
6 MAY 2016

Please note that an early version of the SORT petition hand-out (subsequently distributed to every Councillor in the city: since superseded by the SORT letter to Cllr Fox, dated 14th July, 2015) was submitted to the SCC Green Commission as "evidence" for consideration by the Commission. An amended version was submitted, on 29th of June, 2015. You can access a copy via the following link:

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

AS IT IS, THE FINAL REPORT REALLY DOES NOT GIVE ANY DETAIL ABOUT BENEFITS AFFORDED BY TREES TO COMMUNITIES & THE ENVIRONMENT, OR INDICATE WHAT STEPS ARE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE URBAN FOREST RESOURCE IS MANAGED IN A SUSTAINABLE MANNER. THERE IS NO DETAIL.

******* YOU ONLY HAVE UNTIL SATURDAY MORNING TO RESPOND. THIS IS URGENT! *******

Previous detail can be found here: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/contribute-website?page=2

THE STAR

The letter below arrived in my inbox on Tuesday 3rd May, 2016. The author has given permission for me to share it here. To date, The Star have not published it:

With elections on 5th May, now is a good time to take stock of progress on the tree front, especially as SORT will be one year old this month.

The SORT campaign began when residents asked to see what other alternative highway engineering specifications had been considered for pavement and kerb construction, prior to any decision to fell healthy, structurally sound, mature trees (scheduled for felling on the basis that they are associated with damage to pavements and kerbs). Both SCC & Amey have always asserted that felling is a “last resort”. SORT are aware that mature highway trees are valuable community assets that provide a range of valuable ecosystem services to neighbourhoods and communities. They knew that mature trees were of great benefit to health, well-being and quality of the environment, so they asked whether these benefits were accounted for by cost:benefit analyses and in balanced risk assessments, prior to making a decision to fell.

Both SCC & Amey did their best to avoid answering, and turned the focus to liability, accessibility & mobility. Ironically, all statutory duties can be adequately fulfilled, and mature trees safely retained, long-term, by having appropriate highway engineering specifications, and by compliance with current arboricultural good practice.

Eventually, answers emerged. On 8/7/2015, the Streets Ahead team clarified that monetary valuations are not done. On 22/7/2015, FOI 423 revealed that no risk assessments are done for hazards associated with trees. FOI responses (449 & 489) also indicated that risk analyses are not done, as the data necessary is not collected.

On 6/7/2015 request FOI 422 was made:
“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 17/2/2016, the SCC Information Management Officer stated:
“The Council… note specifically that the options considered instead of felling each of these individuals trees is not (and would not be) recorded, therefore there is no information held in respect to your initial request.”

The Information Commissioner investigated the original response and, on 19/2/2016, informed:
"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… the decision making process and rationale for the decision is not recorded.”

The Case Officer stated:
“…the Council has now confirmed to you that no information is held within the scope of your request.”

Flexible paving could be used to retain trees. On 14/3/2016, in the FOI 1259 response, SCC claimed: “We can confirm that our contractor Amey did use the brand “Flexi-pave” provided by the supplier KBI at the start of the contract”. However, on 29/10/2015, SORT met the Managing Director of KBI UK Ltd. He informed that he had never been contacted by SCC Highways department or Amey about using Flexi®-Pave on highways in Sheffield.

Even though Streets Ahead is a £2.2 billion, city-wide, “transformational” highway maintenance project that will change the face of the city, at a meeting of full Council, on 3/2/2016, the Council revealed that they neglected to budget to retain mature highway trees, so cannot afford to do so, even though 75% (27,000) are mature.

Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act is being used to convert legitimate general enquiries to FOI requests. Under the Act, they are then dismissed as “vexatious” or “futile”, or on the basis of “unreasonable persistence”.

Vote well this Thursday amigos!

THE STAR

The letter below arrived in my inbox on Thursday 5th May, 2016. The author has given permission for me to share it here. It was published in today's paper: The Star...

Dear Editor of The Star,

Young trees are a joy to everyone. However, a report commissioned by the Government (Trees in Towns 2) revealed that: “25% of all planting undertaken in the public sector actually fails”. That happens for a multitude of reasons, including: poor ground preparation, inadequate protection, soil compaction & inadequate maintenance. It is likely that each tree Amey plants costs over £100. Some trees are associated with minor damage to infrastructure or boundary walls. Repair or reconstruction represent reasonably practicable alternatives to felling, in many circumstances. Damage is usually due to “soil” displacement as roots thicken each year.

75% of Sheffield’s highway trees (27,000 trees) were mature when Amey came along. By definition, they are at a stage of life where their parts do not thicken as much as those of younger trees and will gradually thicken less each year. The good news is that not all trees associated with damage need to be felled. As the Department for Transport has stated (in a letter to SORT):

“…the Highways Act 1980… does not set out specific standards of maintenance, as it is for each individual local highway authority to assess… what standards should be applied, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances.”

In addition, the Roads Liaison Group guidance that the Council claim to comply with states:

“In England, since 2008, there are no statutory indicators for the condition of footways.”

After 7 months, the Information Commissioner has revealed that neither the Council or Amey have commissioned or drafted alternative highway engineering specifications for consideration as a means to retain healthy, structurally sound, mature highway trees, rather than fell them. It has taken the Council >8 months to reveal that the £2.2bn Streets Ahead highway maintenance project has not budgeted for using such specifications to retain trees. The Council claims felling is “always a last resort”. Evidently, it is not.

Citizens campaigning for a strategic approach to enable sustainable management of the urban forest (which includes highway trees) have correctly recognised that highway trees are valuable community assets (a mature lime likely to be worth ~£19,500) that provide a range of valuable, ecosystem service benefits to the environment and communities. Correctly, citizens note that these benefits are provided each year, and, generally, increase with each year of remaining safe useful life expectancy. Benefits include improvement of environmental quality, air quality, health & well-being, and savings for the NHS. The monetary value of benefits afforded by a mature tree is likely to be well in excess of £1,000 per year (excluding amenity value: likely to be worth ~£5,000).

I have downloaded & read the SORT letters to Cllr Fox (Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport) that are available online at saveSheffieldtrees.org.uk. I am pleased to confirm that the reasoning therein is sound, and that the works cited therein do represent current good practice guidance and recommendations. In particular, I was pleased to see that citizens have noticed that sustainable management is not about maintaining numbers, but most importantly, it is about maintaining canopy cover and, ideally, increasing numbers in all parts of the city, throughout the city.

Sheffield Tree Action Groups seek an approach to policy and management that recognises the monetary value of benefits; ensures that assessments are balanced, undertaken by competent people and that that acts and omissions are proportionate, defendable, “soundly based on available evidence, and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions”. Compliance with current good practice would help ensure this, and help temper a destructive, risk-averse approach to tree management.

Link:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/your-say/young-trees-are-a-joy-1-7913085

OAK APPLE DAY

It’s Oak Apple Day tomorrow (29th May)! No doubt the Queen will have a little celebration. 

Marren & Mabey (2010) state:

“Oak Apple Day is still celebrated here and there, notably at Castleton in Derbyshire, where the Garland King rides through the streets swathed in greenery and a fresh branch of oak is affixed to the church tower.”

When younger, I saw many of these galls on Wadsley Common. The galls are caused by the little gall wasp Biorhiza pallida. The galls are round & lumpy.

http://www.bookbutler.com/compare?isbn=9780701181802

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

TREES & DEMOCRACY:

UN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND DECISION MAKING

Empowering people to participate in decisions that can affect their environment and health is of key importance to UNECE. To this end, the present publication consists of two separate, but closely linked sets of recommendations (published on 14th December, 2015):

(i)
Maastricht Recommendations on PROMOTING EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS: prepared under the Aarhus Convention and

(ii)
GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: prepared under the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention).

Both documents can be accessed via this link:
http://www.unece.org/info/media/news/environment/2016/two-publications-i...

THE FORWARD:

"In many countries across the world active environmental citizenship is flourishing. Citizens are
increasingly aware of their RIGHT TO HAVE A SAY ON THE ENVIRONMENT THEY LIVE IN AND TO DEMAND PARTICIPATION IN DECISIONS that may affect their own and their children’s lives.

However, environmental democracy is not a given. Its increasing importance is a response to the implementation of numerous projects in the past that have had a significant impact on the environment and the livelihoods of people. These projects were pursued over the objections of the public and, in particular, those of vulnerable groups, such as children and women, rural communities and the poor.

At the forefront of the push towards greater environmental democracy are the CONVENTION
ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS — or Aarhus Convention — and the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.

THESE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES WERE CRAFTED TO SERVE PEOPLE’S INTERESTS AND TO EMPOWER THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT THEIR LIVES.

Based on the principle of the right to a healthy and favourable environment and the notions of SUSTAINABLE development and environmental democracy, these treaties put in place mechanisms to realize these ideals in practice.

THE TWO INSTRUMENTS DETAIL PROCEDURES TO ENABLE THE PUBLIC TO BE INFORMED ABOUT AND PARTICIPATE EFFECTIVELY IN DECISIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THEIR LIVES.

While negotiated in the framework of UNECE, both instruments are open to accession by non-UNECE States. They promote universal principles, and there is increasing interest in them both within the region and globally.

The Recommendations on Public Participation developed under THESE TREATIES AIM TO ASSIST POLICYMAKERS, LEGISLATORS AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THEIR DAILY WORK OF ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN DECISION–MAKING PROCESSES. They provide helpful guidance for engaging all interested stakeholders, so as to improve decision-making, planning and the implementation of policies and programmes at all levels.

In addition, the Recommendations will contribute to Government efforts to tackle poverty and inequality by ensuring that all persons, including the poorest segments of society and rural communities, are given the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect them and, as a result, to benefit from the income generated from economic activities.

At the Rio+20 Conference THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RECOGNIZED THAT GOOD GOVERNANCE AND A TRULY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY REQUIRE THE EFFECTIVE INVOLVEMENT OF THE PUBLIC, BE IT AS VOTERS, CONSUMERS OR SHAREHOLDERS.

I am therefore convinced that these Recommendations will also help to pursue a people-centred post-2015 development agenda and SUSTAINABLE development goals."

Christian Friis Bach

Executive Secretary
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) was set up in 1947 by UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC and SOCIAL COUNCIL (ECOSOC)*. It is one of five regional commissions of the United Nations. UNECE's major aim is to promote pan-European economic integration.**

* https://www.un.org/ecosoc/
** http://www.unece.org/mission.html

AIR POLLUTION COSTS SHEFFIELD £160 MILLION AND 500 LIVES PER YEAR

The quotes below come from pages 108 to 110 of the SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES (SORT) Letter that was addressed to The Cabinet Member For Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox), dated 29th January, 2016". The letter, in its entirety, also formed part of Nether Edge petition “hand-out” that was DISTRIBUTED TO EVERY COUNCILLOR by SCC’s John Turner (Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources) - prior to the meeting of full Council on 3rd February, 2016, in Sheffield’s Town Hall.

The SORT letter can be accessed via either of these links:

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

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

On 24th April, 2013, the BBC reported further comment:

“Councillor Jack Scott, who has responsibility for the environment in the city, said:
‘WE KNOW THAT AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS BADLY ON SHEFFIELD PEOPLE'S HEALTH AND THE ECONOMY AND CONTRIBUTES TO CLIMATE CHANGE.

‘EACH YEAR, THE IMPACT OF AIR QUALITY ON HEALTH COSTS THE SHEFFIELD ECONOMY £160M AND RESULTS IN UP TO 500 EARLY DEATHS.’

‘WE KNOW ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THIS IS TRAFFIC.’

‘We know in theory the amount of harmful gases vehicles produce as told to us by manufacturers - but we have never tested the levels throughout the city.’ "
(BBC News, 2013)

"OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT such as buses, trams and coaches HAS DECLINED.

DATA FROM SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL also shows that ROAD TRAFFIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 50% OF NITROGEN DIOXIDE EMISSIONS on Sheffield, while 35% comes from industrial sources.

FOR PARTICULATE MATTER PM10, 45% of emissions come from industrial sources while ROAD TRAFFIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 40%.”
(AirQualityNews.com, 2013)

On 23rd November, 2015, The Star reported:

“Earlier this year analysis before Sheffield Council’s health and wellbeing board said there was a ‘strong correlation’ between hospital admissions for circulatory and heart diseases and average levels of pollution.

ROAD TRANSPORT IS THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO SHEFFIELD’S NITROGEN DIOXIDE EMISSIONS,
the city is missing its EU air quality targets and is not likely to be below the legal limit until 2020.”
(Beardmore, 2015y)

“…it has been reported that the tree population of Greater London “removes” 698 tons of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) each year: a service with a monetary value of £54,954,727.00 per year (Treeconomics, 2015a)”.

“299 tons of PM10 are “removed” from the air, each year, by trees in Greater London. The study concluded that this service had a monetary value worth tens of millions of pounds EACH YEAR: £63,268,423.00 (Treeconomics, 2015a, p. 34).”

If you would like to test NO2 levels where you live, you can apply for a free air quality monitoring kit, using this link:

https://www.foe.co.uk/act/sign-air-monitoring-kit#.V1CrrTf6utc.twitter

“Air pollution is the biggest cause of early deaths in the UK after smoking. Often it's invisible, so you aren't even aware that you're breathing it in.

We're developing a kit you can use to monitor, avoid, and improve polluted air where you live.
Would you like to be the first to hear about it when it’s ready? Sign up...”

THE STAR

The letter below arrived in my inbox on 20th May, 2016. The author sent it to The Star newspaper the same day. However, they refused to publish it. The author has given permission for me to share it here, below:

Amey, the PFI contractor for the £2.2bn Streets Ahead Highway maintenance project, has permission to fell 50% of Sheffield’s mature highway trees (18,000 trees). Sheffield Tree Action Groups have noted that the acts and omissions of Sheffield City Council (SCC) and the Streets Ahead team (SA) do not comply with current good practice. The appointment of Cllr Bryan Lodge as the new Cabinet Member for Environment should be an opportunity for positive change, but he has stated that felling will continue according to schedule. A conservative estimate, provided by SA, is that 100 mature highway trees per month will be felled. Most will be felled for one or more of the following reasons: kerb damage; footway damage; severe damage is expected when Amey use a planing machine on the footway (inappropriately).

Cllr Lodge has offered to meet citizens, individually, and has stated that the felling survey questionnaire and Independent Tree Panel (ITP), set up by his predecessor (Cllr Fox), will continue. Between December 2015 and 13th May 2016, the ITP & questionnaire cost the Council £40,954.86. As Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT) has correctly pointed out, these things are entirely inappropriate and inadequate for addressing the matters that they have raised: use for that purpose certainly does not comply with current good practice.

The survey and ITP will not address any of the matters raised by SORT, nor can they help ensure that policy & decision making is soundly based on available evidence and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions. Money could and should be used to commission competent arboricultural and highway engineering consultants to draught alternative highway engineering specifications, as SORT have repeatedly advised for over ten months. Their use would allow the Council to fulfil all duties imposed upon it by legislation and enable the safe long-term retention of many mature trees. The legislation only requires that the Council do that which is reasonable and proportionate. Compliance with current good practice, including a strategic approach to policy and decision making, with balanced assessments, undertaken by competent people, is the best way to achieve that.

Previously, Amey and the Council have stated that, whatever they do, they will be criticised and that independent professionals are not bound by the same legislation, so there will always be a difference of opinion about what should happen. That is used as a reason to continue with a “business as usual” approach.

With the exception of the Highways Act, all arboricultural professionals are bound by the same legislation. Current good practice guidance and recommendations, as detailed in the range of documents that SORT have quoted from and referenced in their letters, exist to help ensure that legal duties are fulfilled and that acts and omissions are adequate, balanced, proportionate and defendable.

In the 2006/2007 independent survey report for highway trees, Elliott Consultancy Ltd advised the Council to have a tree strategy to guide and inform policy and decision makers. Had the Council bothered to honour its six year old policy commitment to have a tree strategy, it could have avoided being taken advantage of by PFI contractors and would have been able to evidence compliance with the range of current good practice they claim to comply with and aim to “build on”.

It is time the Council did something more than just hear what people have to say. It is time they listened and put in place adequate steps to help ensure that their acts and omissions do comply with current, nationally recognised, widely accepted good practice.

Cllr Lodge can start by honouring the Council’s commitment (as of 3rd February 2016) to be:

“…open and transparent with the Sheffield public ensuring all relevant information is available in the public domain.”

I look forward to seeing a response to the SORT letter (dated 29th January 2016).

D.Long (Arboriculturist & Urban Forester)

THE STAR: DRAUGHT TREE STRATEGY 7 MONTHS OVERDUE!

The letter below arrived in my inbox on 15th June, 2016. The author sent it to The Star newspaper the same day. However, they refused to publish it. The author has given permission for me to share it here, below (I have highlighted sections in upper case to emphasise key information):

NOW 7 MONTHS LATE, A DRAUGHT OF TREE STRATEGY WAS DUE TO BE COMPLETE AND BE READY FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION LAST MONTH (MAY). Sheffield’s first tree strategy was promised by the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport, on 1st July, 2015, in response to a 10,000 signature petition by Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT) group, and in fulfilment of an existing policy commitment from 2010.

A tree strategy is the most appropriate way to ensure that valuable community assets are managed in a responsible, sustainable manner that accords with current good practice guidance and recommendations, in fulfilment of a range of policy commitments and legal duties. It is the best way to help ensure that assessments used to decide whether or not to fell a tree are balanced and undertaken by competent people. It would also help ensure that acts and omissions are proportionate, auditable, and defendable: “SOUNDLY BASED ON AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, AND NOT UNDULY INFLUENCED BY TRANSITORY OR EXAGGERATED OPINIONS”. It is the most appropriate way for the Council to fulfil its commitment (made on 3rd Feb 2016, in response to the 6,295 plus signature petition presented by Nether Edge tree action group):

“to being OPEN and TRANSPARENT with the Sheffield public ensuring all relevant information is available in the public domain.”

Jeremy GUNTON (SCC Woodland Manager) is one of the two men that was tasked with draughting the tree strategy, by Cllr Fox, at the first meeting of the "bi-monthly" HIGHWAY TREE ADVISORY FORUM (HTAF), in JULY, 2015. Citizens were told it would be ready for the third HTAF meeting, scheduled for November, 2015. The meeting was postponed and the Council announced that it would be in March. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANOTHER MEETING SINCE THE 2ND OF SEPTEMBER, 2015, possibly because the HTAF was secretly led by the Streets Ahead team (the PFI contractor, Amey).

AT THE TREE STRATEGY “DROP-IN” EVENT, ON 26TH FEBRUARY, Mr Gunton informed that even though he had already had seven months to draught the strategy, work had not begun on the draught. Previously, on numerous occasions, the Council had claimed to be working on it. At the event, OFFICERS INFORMED THAT THEY WERE UNDER STRICT INSTRUCTION NOT TO DISCUSS HIGHWAY TREES. TO DATE, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON A DRAUGHT.

THE 2006/2007 HIGHWAY TREE SURVEY that the Council commissioned Elliott Consultancy Ltd to undertake ONLY RECOMMENDED 1,000 TREES FOR FELLING, with an additional 241 to be crown reduced or to be considered for felling.

The Survey stated that Sheffield has 35,057 highway trees and that 25, 877 are mature, adding:
“THERE ARE 25,000 TREES REQUIRING NO WORK AT PRESENT”.

THE SURVEY REPORT ALSO ADVISED THAT THE COUNCIL HAVE A TREE STRATEGY and specified that it be:

“1) A FORMAL DOCUMENT;
2) RATIFIED BY THE COUNCIL;
3) DETAILING POLICIES;

4) DETAILING BEST PRACTISE;
5) DETAILING PROCEDURES;
6) OUTLINING THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES”.

This is the independent highway tree survey that the SCC Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport said: “HELPS US INFORM OUR PRIORITIES FOR THE FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT…”. It is the survey that the Council claim recommended: “a process of sustainable replacement”. To quote SCC’s Head of Highway Maintenance (at the first HTAF meeting):

“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.”

The SCC website adds that this funding was:

“to enable us to better maintain, and also start to replace our city's roadside tree stock.”

There has not been any news of progress on the draught tree strategy on the Council’s website (nor any response to the 140 page SORT letter dated 29th January, representing the concerns of over 15,000 petitioners). WHERE IS OUR TREE STRATEGY?

GET LOST! THE COUNCIL DON’T CARE!

Unfortunately, we have a very backward Labour Council that takes its advice on tree management from a private company with vested interests (Amey).

IT HAS TAKEN OVER 4 MONTHS FOR THE COUNCIL TO RESPOND TO THE THE 140 PAGE LETTER (with 238 pages of appendices) from the Save Our Roadside Trees group (SORT), dated 29th January.

The letter was addressed to Cllr Fox (the previous Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport: Cllr Lodge’s predecessor) and formed part of the Nether Edge petition hand-out (distributed to every Councillor in the city by the Council). A response from Cllr Lodge was received by SORT, today. Here is the Council’s formal response to the 140 page letter, in its entirety:

“From: Bryan.Lodge@sheffield.gov.uk
To: SORT
Subject: Re: Response to SORT letter?
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:19:14 +0000

xxx,
I have read your submission and noted the contents and your concerns.

NO FURTHER RESPONSE WILL BE FORTHCOMING AS I FEEL THE POINTS WERE COVERED IN THE DECISION NOTICE FROM THE RECENT COURT CASE.

Regards,
CLLR BRYAN LODGE

CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT”

Nothing could sum up the Council’s backward, reckless, negligent approach to tree population management better than this response.

For those of you that are interested, the SORT LETTERS can be accessed via these links:

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

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

Detail of Mr Dillner’s personal case in the High Court (London), can be found via these links:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/945.html

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/dillner-v-scc-ju...

THE STAR

The letter below arrived in my inbox on 24th June, 2016. The author sent it to The Star newspaper the same day. However, it remains unpublished. The author has given permission for me to share it here (below). I have used upper case to emphasise key points.

The letter is important, because it highlights how the Council and Amey (the team for the £2.2bn, city-wide Streets Ahead PFI project) have been wilfully misleading the public in to believing that the city-wide felling programme for highway trees is being done in a sustainable way (1:1 replacement and planting in places other than highways). The letter makes a strong argument that this is not the case.

"MANAGEMENT BY NUMBERS

Apparently, every time the Council or Amey have something to say about the £2.2bn, city-wide, Streets Ahead highway maintenance PFI project, they mention the NUMBER of trees in the city and the NUMBER of trees planted. They then state that felling thousands of healthy, structurally sound, mature highway trees is justified on the basis that one tree is planted for every tree felled, claiming that the work is necessary to avoid catastrophic losses over a short time period in the future – for the benefit of future generations.

If you have not read the letters that the Save Our Roadside Trees citizen action group have published
(see: http://www.savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/resources-and-links/ or
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/street-trees-3-month-ban-all-... ),
you probably believe the Council’s reasoning to be fair and their acts and omissions to be justified. In both cases, you would be wrong.

Managing a tree population for the benefit of communities (present or future) requires a responsible approach that has SUSTAINABILITY as a primary aim. “The UK Forestry Standard (UKFS): The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management” defines what a SUSTAINABLE approach must be. The standard applies to:

“all UK forest types and management systems, INCLUDING THE COLLECTIVE TREE AND WOODLAND COVER IN URBAN AREAS.” It defines the term “forest” as “land under stands of trees with a canopy cover of at least 20%”.

Until 3rd February, 2016, the Council & Amey had always stated that there are over 2 million trees in the city. As of 3rd Feb, a figure of 4m has been repeatedly quoted. This is important because, previously, the Council claimed that the UKFS did not apply to the highway tree population. However, the Council have previously claimed that Sheffield is “10.4% woodland by area”.

Jeremy Gunton is the Council’s Tree Officer; one of two men responsible for drafting the long awaited, much delayed first tree strategy for the city – now 8 months overdue. He explained to me that the figures were “just estimates”. He informed that the 4m figure includes 2.2m trees managed by the Council, with the remainder being an estimate of the NUMBER of trees in private ownership.

TREES OUTSIDE WOODLAND – SUCH AS HIGHWAY TREES - HAVE CONSIDERABLY LARGER CROWNS THAN TREES IN WOODLAND, SO THEY CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TO CANOPY COVER.

In light of the 10.4% claim, assuming it is reasonably accurate, it is reasonable to assume that THE CITY’S CANOPY COVER IS LIKELY TO BE OVER 30%. That means that Sheffield certainly does have an “urban forest” and that the highway tree population is a key component of the urban forest. The UKFS and its guidelines do apply to all tree populations within the urban forest and the UKFS requires that they be managed SUSTAINABLY, through:

‘the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands
in a way, and at a rate, that MAINTAINS… their
potential to fulfil, NOW and in the future,
relevant ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONS,
at local, national, and global levels..”

These functions are fulfilled through the provision of a range of valuable ecosystem service benefits that canopy cover affords to the environment (neighbourhoods) and communities (including people). THE RANGE, MAGNITUDE AND VALUE OF THESE BENEFITS IS DEPENDENT ON THE SHAPE, SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CANOPY COVER. The Streets Ahead plan, to fell up to half the population of highway trees (17,528 mature trees), will have REASONABLY FORESEEABLE, HIGHLY LIKELY, SIGNIFICANT, NEGATIVE IMPACTS. It is not a sustainable approach. Contrary to a range of current good practice guidance and recommendations, the Streets Ahead team has neglected to account for these benefits in cost:benefit analyses and risk assessments. Let’s hope they see sense before we experience further serious degradation in the quality of our environment. MANAGEMENT BY TREE NUMBERS IS INAPPROPRIATE AND CONTRARY TO CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE.

D.Long (BSc Hons Arb)"

INCOMPETENCE

LABOUR LEADER GIVES ADVICE

“But speaking tonight at a Westminster event* attended by the families of fallen service personnel in Iraq, MR CORBYN SAID:

‘POLITICIANS AND POLITICAL PARTIES CAN ONLY GROW STRONGER BY ACKNOWLEDGING WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG AND BY FACING UP TO THEIR MISTAKES.’ ”

*At Church House, Westminster,

Source:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/686956/Chilcot-report-Jeremy-Corb...

Watch the video (for proof):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-chilcot-repo...

TREE STRATEGY: NO PROGRESS

A recent letter from SORT appears below. It was sent to Simon Green* and David Caulfield** on 11th July, 2016.

*SCC’s Executive Director for the “Place” portfolio, which includes responsibility for the £2.2bn, city-wide, Streets Ahead highway maintenance project.

**SCC's Director Of Development Services, with overall responsibility for highway trees (as I understand it, Mr Caulfield resigned from SCC early last month).

From: Save Our Roadside Trees
Sent: 11 July 2016 20:12
To: Green Simon
Subject: An Acceptable Sub-Strategy for Highway Trees‏ V2
Importance: High

Dear Mr Green

Hope you are well.

The DRAFT tree strategy has been delayed several times already. It is now over seven months late, as it was promised – by Jeremy Gunton and Cllr Fox, at the second meeting of the “bi-monthly” Highway Tree Advisory Forum (HTAF) - to be ready in time for presentation at the next HTAF meeting. The third HTAF meeting was scheduled to happen in NOVEMBER 2015, but was postponed, indefinitely (without the Council or the Streets Ahead team informing anyone), and a new date has yet to be announced.

It is now OVER ELEVEN MONTHS since the council were tasked with drafting a tree strategy, by the previous Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox), at the first HTAF meeting, on 23rd JULY, 2015. At that meeting, it was promised that work would begin on it straight away and that it would be ready for MARCH 2016. Months passed. All the while, the Council promised that the tree strategy was being worked on. We were promised that the DRAFT TREE STRATEGY would be presented at the “drop-in” event that took place at the Town Hall on 26th February, 2016. In fact, there was NO DRAFT STRATEGY to comment on. To make matters worse, Mr Gunton informed that work on a draft had not begun and that all Officers – including him - were under strict instructions not to discuss HIGHWAY TREES.

In short, to date, there has not been any opportunity for citizens to comment on a draft strategy. Nor has the Council made any effort, whatsoever, to educate the public about the purpose of and necessity for a tree strategy. No attempt has been made to educate the public, or point them toward information where they can find out more, so that they (we) will be better able to offer meaningful, valuable, informed comment when consultations begin. We were promised that there would be an opportunity for consultation on a draft strategy. To date, that has NOT happened.

FOR SEVEN MONTHS, THE COUNCIL NEGLECTED TO EVEN BEGIN WORK ON A DRAFT TREE STRATEGY AND WILFULLY MISLEAD AND LIED TO CITIZENS. In light of this, and given that we are now told that we cannot expect to see even a DRAFT tree strategy until OCTOBER 2016, it is reasonable that an explanation for the delay should be provided.

On 22nd APRIL, 2016, in a communication to one citizen, it was stated:

“The strategy won't be drafted until EARLY JUNE at the earliest and an online questionnaire will be available after that probably in LATE JUNE.

It will be online and promoted on our website and social media. The format will be like survey monkey but we haven't designed it yet. Yes there will be lots of space to put your comments down!!”

You see, a pattern has emerged: every time the Council reaches a deadline, it postpones the deadline by several more months. All the while, the £ 2.2bn, city-wide Streets Ahead, 25yr highway maintenance PFI presses on with its 5yr Core Investment Period resurfacing and lighting works, without a tree strategy to guide and inform policy and decisions.

A SUB-STRATEGY FOR HIGHWAY TREES IS URGENTLY NEEDED, to:

a) Help temper a risk-averse approach; help ensure that acts and omissions are based on sound evidence;

b) Help ensure that appropriate, adequate, BALANCED assessments are undertaken by competent people, using nationally recognised, widely accepted methods and techniques;

c) Help ensure that acts and omissions are PROPORTIONATE, defendable, and auditable;

d) Help ensure that acts and omissions are not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions;

e) Help ensure that adequate steps exist to ensure that there is adequate on-site supervision, monitoring and auditing of highway works (particularly those in close proximity to trees, and to trees), and

f) Adequate enforcement of compliance with current good practice and policy commitments;

g) Help foster, encourage and ensure a planned, SYSTEMATIC, INTEGRATED, SUSTAINABLE* approach to the management and care of Sheffield’s URBAN FOREST and the tree populations within various land-use categories that represent its component parts.

*As defined by The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management.

The above list is not intended to be comprehensive. For greater detail, please see the SORT letters that you have received previously. They can also be accessed via the following link:

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

In three weeks, it will be a year since SCC were tasked with producing a tree strategy in time for March, 2016.

As SORT pointed out at the meeting of full council, on 1st July, 2016, there is a current commitment, by SCC, within the “Sheffield’s Great Outdoors: Green and Open Space Strategy 2010-2030″ policy document (on page 15), to produce a “Trees & Woodland Strategy”. This was acknowledged at the first HTAF meeting: presumably in an attempt to get those present to believe that SCC were genuinely committed to ensuring that it would fulfil its promise to have a tree strategy ready for March 2016?

Remember, as late as 9th December, 2015, SORT was informed (via e-mail):

“The draft Trees and Woodlands strategy will hopefully be ready for comment in MARCH next year.”

Trust in the Council and in its credibility is at an all-time low. Openness honesty and transparency is long overdue. THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE ON 3rd FEBRUARY, 2016 are available online. Here is an extract:

“At the conclusion of the debate it was moved by Councillor Terry Fox, seconded by Councillor Julie Dore, that this Council:-
[…]
d) COMMITS TO BEING OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WITH THE SHEFFIELD PUBLIC ENSURING ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.”

Citizens have yet to see Sheffield City Council make any attempt to honour that commitment. To date, there has been no change. Please note that we are now aware that THE 2006/2007 HIGHWAY TREE SURVEY that the Council commissioned Elliott Consultancy Ltd to undertake ONLY RECOMMENDED 1,000 TREES FOR FELLING, with an additional 241 to be crown reduced or to be considered for felling. The Survey stated that Sheffield has 35,057 highway trees and that 25, 877 are mature, and stated: “THERE ARE 25,000 TREES REQUIRING NO WORK AT PRESENT”. This is the independent highway tree survey that the previous SCC Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox) said:

“HELPS US INFORM OUR PRIORITIES FOR THE FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT…”

He was referring to the Amey PFI Streets Ahead project.

Amey are now felling our healthy, structurally sound, mature highway trees. Most could be safely retained, long-term, through compliance with current good practice (TDAG guidance; BS 5837 [2012]; NJUG guidance & UKRLG guidance), as they are healthy and structurally sound. However, compliance with good practice is not adequately enforced (assuming someone is actually attempting to monitor and enforce) and we have learnt – as a result of a lengthy investigation by the Information Commissioner (case reference: FS50596905), completed on 19th FEBRUARY, 2016 – that neither the Council or the Streets Ahead team have commissioned or drafted any alternative highway engineering SPECIFICATIONS for footway, edging and drain construction, for consideration as a means of safely retaining mature highway trees, long term, prior to taking a decision to fell. Such specifications would be required to evidence compliance with current good practice and help show that felling genuinely is the “last resort” that the Streets Ahead team and Councillors claim it is. Over three and a half years in to a £2.2bn city-wide highway maintenance project that permits the felling of 50% of highway trees, this is reckless and wholly unacceptable.

Please provide a well-reasoned, detailed explanation of why publication of a draft tree strategy has been repeatedly delayed AND please explain why it will take another month or three to complete. Please supply evidence to support each of your assertions. Please also provide a full, complete, current version of the draft strategy as it is now, at the current stage of development.

I look forward to a timely, detailed response.

Yours sincerely,

Save Our Roadside Trees (Representing persons interested, currently numbering 16,000)

THE STAR

The letter below arrived in my inbox on Sunday 24th July, 2016. The author sent it to The Star newspaper the same day. However, it remains unpublished. The author has given permission for me to share it here (below).

"Over several months, the Council have repeatedly, falsely claimed to have used Flexi®-Pave to retain healthy, structurally sound, mature highway trees. Flexi®-Pave is a product that can be used when resurfacing footways, as an alternative to tarmac. The key benefit is that when tree parts thicken – as they do each year – the product flexes rather than cracks, unlike tarmac. For this reason, it has been widely used elsewhere in other cities, to retain mature highway trees. A letter appeared in last Thursday’s Sheffield Telegraph, written by someone claiming to be an “independent arboriculturist”. I believe he is a sub-contractor on the city-wide, £2.2bn Streets Ahead highway maintenance project, working for the main contractor: Amey.

I was shocked and appalled by the implication that the slightest wound on a tree would be likely to result in “rapid decline” of the tree. For a tree, its bark is like skin; the wood is like flesh. Just like an animal, if wounded, in theory, the organism can become infected and a disease could result that could lead to death. However, like animals, plants have evolved ways of resisting infection and limiting its spread. They have also evolved ways of compensating for any decay, by reducing crown size and, through incremental growth, adding layers of biomechanically optimised wood, known as reaction wood. This strengthens affected regions and can compensate for cross-sectional loss; it is what enables plant parts to have a safety factor greater than that of most mammal bones. It is why you see many trees with large wounds or cavities (great for wildlife) and yet they remain perfectly healthy and their parts do not fail. It is why trees can receive multiple wounds when pruned, attacked by herbivores, otherwise damaged, and remain strong, healthy and safe.

Most people involved with tree care in Sheffield do not fulfil the British Standard requirements necessary to qualify as competent arboriculturists. An arboriculturist is defined (by BS 5837) as: “person who has, through relevant education, training and experience, gained expertise in the field of trees in relation to construction”. Only a small handful of people in Sheffield meet these criteria. An education and training deficit leads to misunderstanding and inappropriate comments, as well as bad policy and bad decisions that are not soundly based on available evidence, but: “unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, whether formed by the media or vested interests.”

Provided Streets Ahead contractors comply with the current, widely accepted, nationally recognised good practice guidance and recommendations that they claim to comply with and aim to “build on” (e.g. BS5837 and guidance published by the National Joint Utilities Group and Trees & Design Action Group), there is no reason why mature highway trees cannot be safely retained, long-term, by use of products like Flexi®-Pave. Provided resurfacing works are adequately supervised on site by competent arboriculturists, and compliance with current good practice is specified, and adequately supervised & enforced, there is no “gamble” with public resources.

The Council & Amey repeatedly state that felling is a “last resort” and that they are willing to consider all other options to retain mature highway trees. However, on 19/2/2016, the Information Commissioner completed an investigation (Case Ref: FS50596905) which revealed that, over 3yrs in to the £2.2bn city-wide Streets Ahead project, neither Amey or the Council had ever commissioned or draughted any alternative highway engineering specifications for footway, edging (kerb) or drain construction for consideration as an alternative to felling, as a means to enable the safe long-term retention of valuable mature highway trees, and the range of valuable ecosystem service benefits they afford to the environment and communities each year. This revelation confirmed that felling is certainly not the “last resort” and that the Streets Ahead team have a long way to go before they can rightfully claim to comply with current good practice.

D.Long (BSc Hons Arb), Sheffield.

THE STAR

The letter below arrived in my inbox today (31st August, 2016). The author has given permission for me to share it here.

"Are our elected representatives worthy of trust and of responsibility? Evidence indicates not.

In June, 2015, the Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT) Sheffield Tree Action Group gathered 10,000 signatures calling for the Council to take reasonable steps to ensure that Amey retain healthy mature highway trees and safeguard against unnecessary avoidable damage during works in close proximity to them.

SORT produced a 29 page petition hand-out that was distributed to every Councillor prior to “debate” at full council in 1st July, 2015. SORT highlighted the need for the Council to honour its policy commitment (now 6yrs old) to have a tree strategy, noting that a report from 2008 (Trees in Towns 2), commissioned by the government, advised:

"Those LAs that have not got an existing tree strategy and are not in the process of developing one, need to make this an immediate priority..."

The 2nd September marks a year since the most recent meeting of the “bi-monthly” Highway Tree Advisory Forum (HTAF). At the first meeting, Cllr Fox (then Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport) promised that a tree strategy would be ready for March 2016. On 2nd September, he said it would be ready for November 2015. On 26th February, 2016, one of the two men draughting the strategy - Jerry Gunton (SCC’s Parks and Countryside Tree Manager) - revealed that work on a draught had not begun. On April 22nd, 2016, the other man – David Aspinall (SCC’s Woodlands Manager) - informed that a draught would be ready for public comment in June. In July, he then informed it would not be ready until “early autumn”, 2016.

In a 140 page letter to Cllr Fox, dated 29th January, 2016, SORT highlighted many serious, catastrophic errors in tree population management and practice. Every Councillor received a copy. Until 16th June, when the new Cabinet Member for Environment (Cllr Bryan Lodge) responded, there had been no response. He dismissed the entire content of the letter and stated:

“I have read your submission and noted the contents and your concerns. No further response will be forthcoming…”

On 23rd July, 2015, at the first HTAF, Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) stated:

“…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.”

“…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.”

“In terms of damaging, …if something can be done, IF AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION CAN BE APPLIED, THEN IT WILL BE APPLIED.”

It took intervention by the Information Commissioner to reveal that, over three and a half years in to a £2.2bn, city-wide, highway maintenance project, neither the Council or Amey have commissioned or drafted any alternative highway engineering SPECIFICATIONS for consideration as a means to retain trees. Felling is certainly not the “last resort” that the Council and Amey claim it is.

The recent High Court case revealed that the “Sheffield City Highways Tree Survey 2006 – 2007”, undertaken by Elliott Consultancy Ltd, recommended that SCC adopt a tree strategy. It also stated that Sheffield has 35,057 highway trees and that there are: “25,000 highway trees requiring no work at present”. It recommended 1,000 trees for felling, with an additional 241 to be crown reduced or to be considered for felling. This is the survey that Cllr Fox stated: “helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract”.

Amey are felling trees associated with damage to footways and kerbs. To date, they have felled over 3,800 mature highway trees. The contract permits the felling of 50% of highway trees. Without compliance with current good practice, we stand to lose around 67.7% of MATURE highway trees.

D.Long (BSc Hons Arb)"

HIGHWAY TREES

SCC DECEIT & INCOMPETENCE: HOW SCC & AMEY FOOLED THE PUBLIC

Part 1 / 6

Recently, a High Court case was concluded: R (Dillner) v Sheffield CC and Amey Hallam Highways Ltd. A Sheffield man, called David Dillner, took Sheffield City Council to court over the £2.2bn, city-wide Amey PFI highway maintenance project (“Streets Ahead”).

On 28th July, 2015, The Star reported:

“Campaigner Dave Dillner and other residents have fought to stop Sheffield Council’s ‘Streets Ahead’ scheme run by contractor Amey, which has seen more than 3,000 trees cut down and replaced since work began in 2012.

Dave, of Heeley Bank Road, Heeley, took his fight to London’s Appeal Court, where lawyers challenged a previous review of the scheme, which was rejected by the High Court in May.

They argued no environmental impact assessment had been carried out and also said Sheffield residents had a right to be consulted properly about the scheme – and were not.

But his appeal was rejected by LORD JUSTICE LEWISON, WHO SAID IT WAS ‘TOO LATE’ TO RAISE THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ARGUMENT WHEN THE PROJECT HAS BEEN ONGOING SINCE 2012 and the need for it could not apply to individual trees.”

Source:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-tree-felling-campaigners-lose-la...

SORT argue that, in line with the current range of “industry” good practice, most of which Sheffield City Council and Amey claim to comply with and aim to “build on”, the highway tree population should be managed as such, as a key component of the urban forest (defined by the UK Forestry Standard: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/383#comment-383 ) and a significant component of green infrastructure [8]:

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gitaskforcereport.hyperlin...

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/2890-Forest_Report_Pages.pdf/$FILE/2890-Forest_Report_Pages.pdf

From what I gather, Mr Dillner’s legal team argued that an adequate environmental impact assessment (EIA) of some sort had not been undertaken prior to, or at any stage of, the Streets Ahead project, so Sheffield City Council and Amey had neglected to account for the impact of proposed felling (up to half the highway tree population, of which mature trees represent 73.8% of the population) on canopy cover (shape, size and distribution) and the range, magnitude and value of the range of valuable, beneficial ecosystem services afforded by canopy cover to neighbourhoods and communities, many of which positively affect health and wellbeing. SCC & Amey had also neglected to account for the value of benefits afforded by trees in cost:benefit analyses and BALANCED risk assessments. I believe Mr Dillner’s legal team also argued that there had not been adequate community involvement (the timely provision of all necessary information to the public, and timely, adequate consultation).

At paragraph 221 of the judgement, Mr Justice Gilbart stated:

“There has been no good reason shown why the objections to the programme could not have been made in 2012 or in every subsequent year.”

Source:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/945.html

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/dillner-v-scc-ju...

According to the Council, despite Sheffield being the third largest metropolitan authority in England [1], and a 7.7% increase [2]in the human population (to 552,698 [3]) in the decade to 2011 ("in-migration” being the biggest driver of population growth [4]), the city has been "in economic decline since the late 1980s" [5]: “over 30% of Sheffield’s population live in areas that fall within 20% most deprived in the country” [6]. The Centre for Cities (the first port of call for UK and international decision makers seeking to understand and improve UK cities' economic performance) has described the city as: "classed as having 'a low-wage, high-welfare' economy” [7].

Many people lack the time, money and opportunity to be struggling to gain access to information and to go to court.

This 6 part commentary sets out why it was not reasonable for Judge Gilbart to assume that one or more citizens of Sheffield could or should have presented objections to the court sooner than February, 2016.

Continued...
 

HIGHWAY TREES

SCC DECEIT & INCOMPETENCE: HOW SCC & AMEY FOOLED THE PUBLIC

Part 2 / 6

To date, Amey have felled over 10% of highway trees: over 3,800 [12]. The contract permits the felling of 50% of highway trees. Without compliance with current good practice, we stand to lose around 67.7% of MATURE highway trees: about 15% of which have been felled. The negative impacts are obvious and significant.

On 15th February, 2013, The Star reported:

“Steve Robinson, head of highway maintenance at the council, which is working with contractor Amey on the project, said:

‘Overall there are 36,000 highway trees and there are 1,250 across the city which we are taking out and replacing.’”

Source:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/biggest-ever-scheme-to-improve-sheffield-s...

***********************

On 16th April, 2013, The Star reported:

“Highways officials have revealed 1,250 trees deemed to be ‘diseased or dying’ are to be felled on streets across Sheffield. And HUNDREDS more trees could also be felled where they are deemed to be damaging road surfaces or ‘causing a hazard’ such as when roots break through the pavement surface.
[…]

The total number of healthy trees to be chopped down has not yet been decided.
[…]

Sheffield Council said some healthy trees which caused a hazard to blind people, or pushchair or wheelchair users, could be removed.The council said it would not replace trees where planting a new tree would be cheaper than pruning the existing species.”

Read more at: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-council-all-set-to-axe-1-250-roa...

***********************

On 18th January, 2014, The Star reported:

“Figures obtained by The Star under the Freedom of Information Act reveal THE COUNCIL IS WORKING TO FELL 1,200 TREES FROM A STOCK OF 36,000 BY MARCH.

Streets Ahead contractor Amey has already pulled down 750 highway trees – some 100 years old – which they claim are dead, dying, diseased, dangerous or damaging structures since August 2012.
[…]

A SHEFFIELD COUNCIL SPOKESMAN said:

‘THERE ARE IN THE REGION OF 1,200 TREES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS DEAD, DANGEROUS, DISEASED OR DAMAGING structures and those trees are spread across the city.’ ”

Source:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/1-200-sheffield-trees-facing-the-chop-1-63...

************************

From the SORT letter addressed to Cllr Fox, dated 29th January, 2016 (Appendix 11; page 210) [8]:

“At the meeting of full Council, on 1st July, 2015 (when SORT presented the >10,000 signature petition), in your speech as Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, you said:

‘Mayor, where are we now? Well my predecessors – Councillor Stock and Councillor Dunn – have overseen a great leap forward in our city and a replacement of over 2,000 highway trees… and today we have removed, as I say, over 2,000 trees and replanted over 2,019 trees.’”

(Remember, the policy is “one-for-one replacement”: one tree planted for each tree felled)

***********************

Continued…

HIGHWAY TREES

SCC DECEIT & INCOMPETENCE: HOW SCC & AMEY FOOLED THE PUBLIC

Part 3 / 6

In MAY 2015, an Action For Woods And Trees (AFWAT) event was held at St Mary’s church in town, organised by Professor Ian Rotherham (the same day that schools marched in support of multiculturalism). It was at this event that citizen’s learnt, from SCC’s David Aspinall, of Amey’s “pepper-pot” approach to Streets Ahead works: rather than completing all highway works in one area, then starting in an adjacent area and progressing across the city in that way, Amey were starting works in various, separate, distant parts of the city at different times.

The “pepper-pot” approach, together with a range of other factors, ensured that it would be near impossible for citizens to recognise & understand the scale of felling, other works, and the likely impact of scheduled works on the highway tree population and streets in their neighbourhood.

See:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/117#comment-117

http://www.ukeconet.org/action-for-woods-and-trees-1.html

*********************

At two separate meetings of full Council, the Deputy Leader of the Council - Cllr Leigh Bramall (Labour) - stated that Amey has permission to fell 50% of highway trees (17, 528 mature trees). This has never been reported by local media. For most, if not all citizens [9], the first meeting – on 1st July, 2015 – was the first time they learnt of the true potential scale of highway tree felling by Amey.

********************

On 1st July 2015 [10], at the meeting of Full Council (in Sheffield’s Town Hall), Cllr Leigh Bramall (Deputy Leader of Sheffield City Council) stated:

“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, THE CONTRACT SAYS UP TO 50% OF TREES CAN BE REMOVED, erm, and actually that’s 18,000.”

On 3rd February, 2016 [11], at the meeting of Full Council (in Sheffield’s Town Hall), Cllr Leigh Bramall (Deputy Leader of Sheffield City Council) stated:

“Actually, we have 4m trees in the city. Now, we have 36,000 highway trees on the street. THE CONTRACT STATES THAT UP TO 50% CAN BE REPLACED.”

******************

On 23rd July, 2015, at the first HTAF, Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) stated [8]:

“…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.”

“…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.”

“In terms of damaging, …if something can be done, IF AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION CAN BE APPLIED, THEN IT WILL BE APPLIED.”

“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.”

It took intervention by the Information Commissioner investigation (case ref: FS50596905) to reveal that, OVER THREE AND A HALF YEARS IN TO A £2.2BN, CITY-WIDE, HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE PROJECT, NEITHER THE COUNCIL OR AMEY HAVE COMMISSIONED OR DRAFTED ANY ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AS A MEANS TO RETAIN TREES.

See: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/435#comment-435

Felling is certainly not the “last resort” that the Council and Amey claim it is.

Continued…

HIGHWAY TREES

SCC DECEIT & INCOMPETENCE: HOW SCC & AMEY FOOLED THE PUBLIC

Part 4 / 6

The recent High Court case (R (Dillner) v Sheffield CC and Amey Hallam Highways Ltd [Exhibit DC1]) revealed that the “Sheffield City Highways Tree Survey 2006 – 2007”, undertaken by Elliott Consultancy Ltd, recommended that SCC adopt a tree strategy. It also stated that Sheffield has 35,057 highway trees and that there are: “25,000 HIGHWAY TREES REQUIRING NO WORK AT PRESENT”. It recommended 1,000 TREES FOR FELLING, with an additional 241 to be crown reduced or to be considered for felling. This is the survey that Cllr Fox stated: “helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract”.

Amey are felling trees associated with damage to footways and kerbs. To date, Amey have felled over 10% of highway trees: over 3,800 [12]. The contract permits the felling of 50% of highway trees. Without compliance with current good practice, we stand to lose around 67.7% of MATURE highway trees: about 15% of which have been felled. The negative impacts are obvious and significant.

As late as OCTOBER, 2015, Cllr Leigh Bramall (Deputy Leader of the Labour Council & Cabinet Member for Business, Skills & Development) was telling The Star that Amey had only felled 2,000 highway trees. See:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/cycle-network-in-plan-to-make-sheffield-uk... .

Also, see pages 208-210 of the SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016.

From the aforementioned information, it is clear that when the trees on Rustlings Road first had notification of felling attached to them, in April, 2015, they were amongst the first batch of the healthy, structurally sound, mature highway trees that Amey planned to fell.

We now know that one of Amey’s primary reasons for felling is their non-compliance with the range of current good practice that they claim to comply with and aim to build on (British Standard 5837 & National Joint Utilities Group guidance): specifically, but not exclusively, their USE OF MOWERS, STRIMMERS AND MACHINERY USED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO TREES DURING RESURFACING WORKS, SUCH AS DIGGERS AND THE PLANING MACHINES (for example, see pages 40-41, 107, 315-318 & 220-235 of the SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016 [8]).

Healthy, structurally sound, valuable, mature highway trees are felled on the basis that damage caused will be of such severity that that tree health and structural integrity will be compromised to such extent that the only reasonable option is to fell the trees. No consideration, whatsoever, is given to the impact on the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover, so no consideration is given to maintenance of the range, magnitude and value of beneficial ecosystem services that canopy cover affords to neighbourhoods and communities, contrary to the requirements of “THE UK FORESTRY STANDARD (UKFS): THE GOVERNMENTS’ APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT”.

Continued… 

HIGHWAY TREES

SCC DECEIT & INCOMPETENCE: HOW SCC & AMEY FOOLED THE PUBLIC

Part 5 / 6

THE UKFS DEFINES WHAT A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH MUST BE. THE STANDARD APPLIES TO:

“ALL UK FOREST TYPES AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THE COLLECTIVE TREE AND WOODLAND COVER IN URBAN AREAS.”

THE UKFS DEFINES THE TERM “FOREST” AS “LAND UNDER STANDS OF TREES WITH A CANOPY COVER OF AT LEAST 20%”.

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

In summary, by any standard, the current approach to tree population management and works in close proximity to trees, by Sheffield City Council and Amey, appears to be reckless and sub-standard.

THERE HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE A DISTINCT ABSENCE OF OPENNESS, HONESTY AND TRANSPARENCY ABOUT THE TRUE SCALE OF PROPOSED FELLING [13].

SCC & Amey appear to have wilfully withheld information from the public that would have revealed the true scale of proposed felling. Indeed, the information provided has been and continues to be contradictory and misleading.

Notes & references provided below…

LEARNING RESOURCES

As a result of the national and international media attention that SHEFFIELD TREE ACTION GROUPS have attracted, highlighting mismanagement of the £2.2bn city-wide Streets Ahead highway maintenance Amey PFI contract, and its significant, devastating negative impact on a key component of Sheffiield’s urban forest – 25, 877 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES (73.8% of the council’s highway tree population: a significant component of green infrastructure) - there is a new national thirst for reliable information on arboricultural matters.

“THE ARBORICULTURAL ASSOCIATION is pleased to announce that, following discussions with the trustees of the former Tree Advice Trust, the intellectual property relating to the Arboriculture Research Notes, Information Notes, and Practice Advice Notes will be made freely available on the Association’s website.

The information thus made available was believed to be accurate at the time it was produced by the Trust…

The Association will from time to time be reviewing how the material can most appropriately be updated and further disseminated.”

“THE WORK OF THE TREE ADVICE TRUST 1983 TO 2013

THE ARBORICULTURAL ADVISORY AND INFORMATION SERVICE was originally established in 1976 with government FUNDING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (and its successors) and was based at the Forestry Commission’s Research Station at Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham.

In 1983, the service was placed UNDER THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TREE ADVICE TRUST, independent charity, and charged with being largely self financing. The Trust adopted the following objectives:

•Collection and dissemination of arboricultural information
•Establishment of systems and opportunities to provide such information
•Identification and attraction of finances for projects and research
•Influence the quality of available arboricultural information
•Establishment, PROMOTION OF INFORMATION TO RAISE ARBORICULTURAL STANDARDS
•Promotion of good arboricultural practice”

SOURCE:
http://www.trees.org.uk/Help-Advice/Tree-Advice-Trust-Legacy

The resources now made FREELY AVAILABLE for download (in PDF format), are listed below.