Contribute to this website

THE STAR

The letter below arrived in my inbox on Tuesday 27th September, 2016. The author has given permission for me to share it here. I have used upper case to emphasise a few key points. To date, The Star have not published the letter:

"DECEIT

In a letter dated 13th September, 2016, addressed to Nick Clegg MP, the Chief Executive of Sheffield City Council - John Mothersole – informed:

'A draft Trees and Woodlands Strategy will be available in September 2016.' It went on to say that there will be: 'further opportunities for the public to comment on the draft strategy'.

IN FACT, TO DATE, CITIZENS HAVE NOT HAD ANY OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON A DRAFT TREE STRATEGY. Mr Mothersole asserts that the tree strategy 'drop-in' event, held at the Town Hall, on 26th FEBRUARY, 2016, marked the start of a public consultation process. At the event, I spoke to Mr Gunton: SCC’s Tree Officer. With David Aspinall (SCC’s Woodlands Manager), he is responsible for drafting the tree strategy. Mr Gunton informed that WORK ON A DRAFT STRATEGY HAD NOT BEGUN and that all Officers – including him - were under strict instructions not to discuss HIGHWAY TREES.

THE AMEY PFI CONTRACT PERMITS THE FELLING OF 50% OF THE HIGHWAY TREES: 67.7% OF MATURE HIGHWAY TREES. Mature trees account for 73.8% of the highway tree population: 25,877 trees. They are the trees most susceptible to ill health and weakness as a result of damage resulting from non-compliance with good practice, including inappropriate use of machinery when undertaking works in close proximity to trees.

An ADEQUATE tree strategy is the most appropriate way to ensure a planned, systematic, integrated approach to tree population management & arboricultural practice. It would help ensure that acts and omissions are fair, PROPORTIONATE, defendable, AUDITABLE, BASED ON SOUND EVIDENCE, AND NOT UNDULY INFLUENCED BY TRANSITORY OR EXAGGERATED OPINIONS, whether formed by the media or vested interests. Action on drafting a tree strategy was first promised on 23rd July, 2015, at the first of the two meetings of the “bi-monthly” Highway Tree Advisory Forum.

Mr Mothersole asserts that the 'drop-in' event was an opportunity for the public to comment on the “Streets Ahead 5 Year Tree Management Strategy…as part of the annual review process of that 5 year strategy”. DON’T MISS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT! THE DOCUMENT IS NOT A STRATEGY; there are numerous omissions and errors; it does not bear any of the hallmarks of a strategy. The document lacks detail and does not include adequate steps to ensure an adequately planned, systematic, integrated approach to tree population management and arboricultural practice, such as is necessary to implement the range of current, good practice guidance, recommendations and policy commitments (international, national & local) that apply.

In my opinion, it is apparent that neither Amey or SCC have ever had a tree strategy and that the 5yr document was cobbled together over the four day period between Cllr Fox’s receipt of the 378 page letter from SORT, dated 29th January, 2016 and the presentation of the Nether Edge petition (over 6,295 signatures) to the Council, on 3rd February, 2016, following distribution of the SORT letter to every Councillor in the city, on 1st February.

IT IS NOW OVER 14 MONTHS SINCE MR ASPINALL AND MR GUNTON WERE TASKED WITH DRAFTING A TREE STRATEGY, by the previous Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox), on 23rd July, 2015, at the first of the two meetings of the “bi-monthly” Highway Tree Advisory Forum that has occurred to date. THEN, CITIZENS WERE TOLD WORK ON IT WOULD COMMENCE IMMEDIATELY. SINCE THEN, THE PUBLICATION DEADLINE HAS BEEN MISSED AND EXTENDED BY SEVERAL MONTHS ON FOUR OCCASIONS. Oddly, just thirteen days after Mr Mothersole stated that a draft tree strategy would be ready before the end of September, Cllr Bryan Lodge informed that publication could be delayed until the end of 2016.

For a £2.2bn city-wide project, I would hope for & expect a greater level of care from SCC & Amey.

D.Long (BSc Hons Arb)"

.....

Previously, I had received an earlier version of this letter, from the same author. It was dated 21st September, 2016. It contained the following comments, omitted from the above letter:

"On 5th April, 2014, I e-mailed Cllr Jack Scott (Lab) – then Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene - and asked:

'Will you be urging the Council to formally adopt a city wide Tree Strategy…?'

Cllr Scott responded that day:

'We do not presently have a strategy solely for trees. My view is tat [sic] this wouldn't be very helpful...'

On 1st July, 2015, at the Meeting of full Council, when Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT) presented their petition (over 10,000 signatures), Cllr Fox (Lab), as Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, stated:

'The Sheffield Highway Tree Strategy consists of the six D’s: dangerous; dead, dying, diseased, damaging and discriminatory.'

Cllrs Dore (Leader of SCC) & Dunn (Cllr Fox’s predecessor) agreed, reasserting that the 6Ds is the Council’s tree strategy."

.....

In the earlier version of the letter, the above comments appeared immediately above the paragraph that starts with: "In my opinion...".

Clearly, it would appear that with Sheffield City Council, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Our Councillors do appear to be rather ignorant and misinformed when it comes to matters of tree population management and arboricultural/urban forestry practice.

SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH

The letter below arrived in my inbox on 21st September 2016. The author sent it to the Sheffield Telegraph newspaper the same day. It was published in Sheffield Telegraph on 29th September, 2016. The Editor of the newspaper cut a number of key points out of the letter prior to publication. The author has given permission for me to share the original letter, below. To indicate which parts the Editor removed, those parts appear in UPPER CASE.

*****

"In a letter dated 13th September, 2016, addressed to Nick Clegg MP, the Chief Executive of Sheffield City Council - John Mothersole – informed:

“A draft Trees and Woodlands Strategy will be available in September 2016.” It went on to say that there will be: “further opportunities for the public to comment on the draft strategy”.

Mothersole asserts that the tree strategy “drop-in” event, held at the Town Hall, on 26th February, 2016, marked the start of a public consultation process. At the event, I spoke to Mr Gunton: SCC’s Tree Officer. With David Aspinall (SCC’s Woodlands Manager), he is responsible for drafting the tree strategy. Mr Gunton informed that work on a draft strategy had not begun AND THAT ALL OFFICERS – INCLUDING HIM - WERE UNDER STRICT INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO DISCUSS HIGHWAY TREES.

The Amey PFI contract permits the felling of 50% of the highway trees: 67.7% of mature highway trees. Mature trees account for 73.8% of the highway tree population: 25,877 trees. They are the trees most susceptible to ill health and weakness as a result of damage resulting from non-compliance with good practice, INCLUDING INAPPROPRIATE USE OF MACHINERY WHEN UNDERTAKING WORKS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO TREES.

An adequate tree strategy is the most appropriate way to ensure a planned, systematic, integrated approach to tree population management & arboricultural practice. It would help ensure that acts and omissions are fair, proportionate, defendable, auditable, BASED ON SOUND EVIDENCE, AND NOT UNDULY INFLUENCED BY TRANSITORY OR EXAGGERATED OPINIONS, WHETHER FORMED BY THE MEDIA OR VESTED INTERESTS. Action on drafting a tree strategy was first promised on 23rd July, 2015, at the first of the two meetings of the “bi-monthly” Highway Tree Advisory Forum.

Mr Mothersole asserts that the “drop-in” event was an opportunity for the public to comment on the “Streets Ahead 5 Year Tree Management Strategy…as part of the annual review process of that 5 year strategy”. THE DOCUMENT HAS NUMEROUS OMISSIONS AND ERRORS. Don’t miss your opportunity to comment!

D.Long (BSc Hons Arb), Sheffield."

Source:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/660#comment-660

TREE STRATEGY CONSULTATION

Yesterday (30th September, 2016), Sheffield City Council published a draught tree Strategy. You have until the end of November to submit feedback on it. Hopefully, there will be subsequent revisions and draughts before it is formally submitted to the Council for adoption. As it is, it grossly inadequate. Another last minute rush job? Undue influence by Councillors, SCC Executives, &/or Amey?

To discover more, follow the link below. This is your opportunity to influence policy & practice. DO NOT MISS IT!

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/published-after-wait-14-month...

SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES (SORT) have released a very important news update (on 8th November, 2016). See it here:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/673#comment-673

With regard to the £2.2bn, city-wide Amey PFI “Streets Ahead” 25yr highway maintenance project, if you have a question, complaint, or request for information, particularly if you require TIMELY INTERVENTION to stop damaging / harmful acts, you need to contact the Council’s Highways PFI Client Team. See the SORT update for further detail.

TREE FELLING : THE RUSTLINGS ROAD MASSACRE

ON THURSDAY, 17th NOVEMBER, 8 TREES ON RUSTLINGS ROAD WERE FELLED (7 HEALTHY & STRUCTURALLY SOUND)
TWO PENSIONERS WERE ARRESTED.

***
SHEFFIELD LIVE
“Harrassment of councillor’s family condemned by tree campaigners”
http://web.sheffieldlive.org/harrassment-of-councillors-family-condemned...

***
BBC RADIO 4
“PM: Eddie Mair with interviews, context and analysis.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08296js

***
BBC RADIO 2
“JEREMY VINE: Freebies and Cryogenics: Paddy discusses the arrest of two women for protesting against the removal of trees…”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b081npn7

***
RADIO SHEFFIELD
“Toby Foster at Breakfast: Tree felling: The Cabinet Member for the Environment at Sheffield City Council discusses tree feeling.”

***
ITP PETITION
“Sheffield Independent Tree Panel, please resign now to reject your sham role”
https://www.change.org/p/members-of-the-sheffield-independent-tree-panel...

***
ITV
“Several arrested over Sheffield tree-felling protest”
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2016-11-17/several-arrested-over-sheffi...

***
BBC
“Dawn tree felling in Sheffield sparks outrage”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-38012189

***
“Sheffield trees felled to 'save £50,000 repair cost'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-38024846

***
EXPRESS
“Three people arrested in tree felling protest after residents woken at 2am to move cars”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/733303/Tree-felling-protest-residents-w...

***
TELEGRAPH
Two women in their 70s arrested in dawn stand-off with 'sneaky' council tree fellers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/17/two-women-in-their-70s-arrest...

***
DAILY MAIL
“Arrested pensioners defiant after protest over tree-felling 'dawn raid'”
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3945076/Pensioners-arrested-...

***
THE GUARDIAN
A dawn raid, dissenters silenced: is this a war on trees?”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/21/dawn-raid-war-on-t...

***
THE SUN
“GRANNIES IN THE NICK Two OAPs arrested after coming to blows with council workers over secret tree-cutting plans”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2208611/two-oaps-arrested-after-coming-to-...

***
THE STAR
“VIDEO: Protesters arrested as Sheffield tree fellers start cutting down trees in 'middle of the night'”
Read more at:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/video-protesters-arrested-as-sheffield-tre...

***
THE STAR
“Police 'advice' led to early morning tree felling in Sheffield”
Read more at: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/police-advice-led-to-early-morning-tree-fe...

***
THE STAR
“Arrested Sheffield pensioners vow to continue tree protests”
Read more at:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/arrested-sheffield-pensioners-vow-to-conti...

***
THE STAR
“TREE-FELLING- all you need to know about the 'anti-terrorist operation' against Sheffield protestors”
Read more at:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/tree-felling-all-you-need-to-know-about-th...

***
SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH
“Sheffield pensioner arrested in tree felling protest 'wanted to make a stand'”
Read more at:
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/sheffield-pensioner-arrested-in...

***
SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH
“UPDATE: Three arrested in tree felling protest on Sheffield street”
Read more at:
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/update-three-arrested-in-tree-f...

***
SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH
“Sheffield MP demands answers over early hours tree felling”
Read more at:
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/sheffield-mp-demands-answers-ov...

***

PREVIOUSLY…

THE STAR
“Police called to protesters fighting against tree felling in Sheffield”
Read more at:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/police-called-to-protesters-fighting-again...

***
THE STAR
“Sheffield tree protesters arrested”
Read more at:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-tree-protesters-arrested-1-8214614

***
THE STAR
“Sheffield tree protesters released from police custody”
Read more at:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-tree-protesters-released-from-po...

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

SCC & AMEY: IGNORANCE

The Council and Amey have been ignoring people for well over a year: since at least May, 2015! (follow the link):

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/save-our-trees-have-your-say-1-7292659

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

*****

FOR THE LATEST, SEE:

"SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES (SORT) NEWS UPDATE": https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/673#comment-673
&
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/published-after-wait-14-month...

Also, see:
THE LATEST GUIDANCE FROM THE UNITED NATIONS (UN):

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Salbitano, F; Borelli, S; Conigliaro, M; Chen, Y, 2016. FAO Forestry Paper 178:
Guidelines on urban and peri-urban forestry. (2016)
Available at:
http://www.fao.org/forestry/news/92439/en/

FELLING: SCC/AMEY INCOMPETENCE AND DECEIT

***

A LETTER TO THE STAR

At the start of the week, on Tuesday 22nd November, 2016, the following letter arrived in my inbox. The author has given permission for me to post it here, in its entirety, for your benefit.

***

'Following the 5:00am raid on 17th November 2016, to fell healthy, structurally sound, mature street trees on Rustlings Road, households on streets in many parts of the city have received a letter from Sheffield City Council (SCC) inviting a household representative to complete an online survey to indicate whether or not the household agrees to tree felling proposals for their street. The letter presents a number of assertions, each of which are intended to foster support for felling. In this letter, I will briefly tackle the matter of sustainable management, with the intention of enabling households to develop a more informed opinion.

THE COLLECTIVE TREE AND WOODLAND COVER OF THE CITY REPRESENTS AN URBAN FOREST, as defined by “The UK Forestry Standard: The governments' approach to sustainable forest management” (UKFS) and the UNITED NATIONS (FAO Forestry Paper 178). The latter clearly states that STREET TREES ARE PART OF THE URBAN FOREST. It states: “URBAN FORESTS ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE”. The UKFS defines a sustainable approach as:

“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..”

THE URBAN FOREST IS DEFINED BY AREA OF CANOPY COVER and trees outside woodland contribute the most to that, as they have larger crowns. According to SCC guesstimates, trees outside woodland account for about 56% of Sheffield’s trees. THE MAGNITUDE AND VALUE OF ECO-SYSTEM SERVICE BENEFITS (e.g. grams of nitrogen dioxide captured per year*) that trees afford to the environment and communities, associated with functions (e.g. filtration of airborne pollutants), IS DEPENDENT ON THE SHAPE SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CANOPY COVER. This is why the felling of so many thousands of healthy, structurally sound, mature trees is so controversial. MASS FELLING DIMINISHES CANOPY COVER. It does not maintain it. I have met with SCC’s CABINET MEMBER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (Cllr BRYAN LODGE) and Amey’s Operations Director (Darren Butt: responsible for all highway maintenance until 2037). Neither recognise nor accept that STREET TREES ARE PART OF SHEFFIELD’S URBAN FOREST. This is why they have wrongly set their own definition of sustainable tree population management: “one-for-one replacement”. It takes no account of the impact of proposals on canopy cover. According to the Chairman of the Arboricultural Association (Keith Sacre: Chartered Arboriculturist), 60 TREES WOULD NEED TO BE PLANTED TO REPLACE THE LEAVES LOST BY FELLING JUST ONE MATURE LONDON PLANE TREE. Furthermore, neither SCC nor Amey (the contractor for the £2.2bn, city-wide highway maintenance project) have valued Sheffield’s highway trees, or any of the range of benefits they afford to neighbourhoods and communities. THE MEAN CAPITAL ASSET VALUE FOR AMENITY TREES (CAVAT) FOR THE EIGHT TREES FELLED ON RUSTLINGS ROAD WAS £19,933, as assessed by the inventor of the nationally recognised and accepted CAVAT method: Mr Christopher Neilan (Landscape Officer & Arboriculturist).

When I met Cllr Lodge, on 1st August, 2016, and complained about the APPARENT DISREGARD FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE, BY THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM (SCC & AMEY), when undertaking works in close proximity to highway trees, and an apparent absence of adequate supervision, monitoring, auditing and enforcement, Cllr LODGE responded:

“We’re having to shave back on where we’re monitoring. So, the money for the maintenance side is in there, but the monitoring – the client management side – is not part of that, and that’s where we’re having to make funding cuts… THE MONEY THAT WE NEED TO MONITOR THAT CONTRACT IS NOT THERE, because we try to make savings and…where people have left, we haven’t replaced. We’ve done vacancy management, so WE HAVEN’T GOT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THAT CLIENT MANAGEMENT TEAM WHICH WE OUGHT TO HAVE.”

Cllr LODGE INFORMED THAT SCC HAD FINED AMEY OVER £2m DURING 2015, for neglect to meet agreed standards. He added that SCC were “just in the process of taking some action against Amey”, for the same reason. If felling is genuinely a “last resort”, all but one of the trees felled on Rustlings Road should have been retained. Cllr LODGE LED ME TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE £2m COULD BE USED TO RETAIN TREES ON RUSTLINGS ROAD, SPECIFICALLY. In October 2015, Amey’s Operations Manager (JEREMY WILLIS: responsible for highway trees), stated:

“Firstly, I would like to stress that we are not removing any trees unless it is absolutely necessary.
…there is no financial gain for Amey to remove trees. In fact the opposite is true, as IT IS MORE COSTLY TO FELL AND REPLACE A TREE THAN MAINTAIN IT IN THE CURRENT POSITION.”

THE TREES ON RUSTLINGS ROAD WERE FELLED BECAUSE, LIKE MOST MATURE HIGHWAY TREES IN SHEFFIELD, THEY WERE ASSOCIATED WITH DAMAGE TO THE FOOTWAY AND KERB. With regard to such damage, at the second (most recent) meeting of the “bi-monthly” Highway Tree Advisory Forum (2nd Sept, 2015), SCC’s Head of Highway Maintenance (STEVE ROBINSON) promised: “…if an engineering solution can be applied, then it will be applied. …a tree is removed as a last resort”. He added: “THE COUNCIL HAS A DEFENCE UNDER THE HIGHWAYS ACT - SECTION 58 DEFENCE UNDER THE HIGHWAYS ACT – OF NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO DEAL WITH ALL THOSE DEFECTS.”

Previously, I have criticised SCC and Amey: “BOTH AMEY AND SCC HAVE NEGLECTED TO COMMISSION OR DRAUGHT ANY ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR USE AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO FELLING”. This is supported by the conclusions of an investigation by the Information Commissioner, published in February 2016. On 5th October, 2016, SCC’s DIRECTOR OF PLACE (SIMON GREEN: responsible for HIGHWAYS and PLANNING) responded: “The Council has not needed to commission any alternative engineering solutions”. On 1st August, 2016, Cllr LODGE INFORMED ME THAT USE OF ALTERNATIVE SPECIFICATIONS WOULD REPRESENT A “DEVIATION” FROM THE AMEY CONTRACT AND THAT THEIR USE HAD NOT BEEN BUDGETED FOR. He asserted that the use of such specifications was unaffordable and therefore not a reasonably practicable option. THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE RANGE OF “NATIONAL BEST PRACTICE” THAT SCC & AMEY CLAIM TO COMPLY WITH AND AIM TO “BUILD ON”.

In December 2015, communicating on behalf of Mr Green, SCC’s Director of Development Services stated: “I can advise that the scope of the UKFS and Guidelines does not extend to the management of individual trees (arboriculture)”. In October 2016, the South Yorkshire Forest Partnership (SYFP: the partnership responsible for the South Yorkshire Community Forest) finally closed, when SCC withdrew support. The FYFP Director (Johanna Mawson) commented:

“Also for SYFP ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES HAS BEEN THE LACK OF ANY STRATEGIC WORKING CONTEXT FROM WITHIN COUNCIL, IN OUR CASE THE PLACE DIRECTORATE, AND SPECIFICALLY IN RESPECT TO THE KEY CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND PROJECTS. …There is also no committed resource for the Green Commission and no delivery strategy in place. All capacity for developing environmental sustainability for Sheffield has been eroded at an alarming rate”.

SCC’s Green Commission was a group set up “to recommend how to make the city sustainable” and develop a twenty-year plan for SCC’s approach to policies for and management of green infrastructure (Cllr Lodge is co-Chair). A final report was published in February 2016; it includes a Venn diagram that presents economic, health/social and environmental benefits as a “triple bottom line”, with SUSTAINABILITY at the core.

The UK Government has existing international and European commitments to apply the precautionary principle:

“WHERE THERE ARE THREATS OF SERIOUS OR IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE, LACK OF FULL SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY SHALL NOT BE USED AS A REASON FOR POSTPONING COST-EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO PREVENT ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION."

To quote the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (“the public body that advises the UK Government and devolved administrations”):

“THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IS ONE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS FOR POLICY DECISIONS CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT. IT IS APPLIED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR CONCERN THAT AN ACTIVITY IS, OR COULD, CAUSE HARM BUT WHERE THERE IS UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE PROBABILITY OF THE RISK AND THE DEGREE OF HARM.”

However, in September 2015, the STREETS AHEAD team asserted:
“Government summit commitments of this kind (i.e. Rio Earth Summit 1992) are not binding on local authorities unless and until they are incorporated into legislation.”

In December 2015, COMMUNICATING ON BEHALF OF MR GREEN, this opinion was supported by SCC’s Director of Development Services. He stated:
“agreements in EU conventions are not binding upon Local Authorities unless written into statute.”

The Director was responding to the following criticism:
“The Council have failed to comply with both the Arhus Convention and European Directive 2001/42/EC”.

THE DIRECTIVE REQUIRES APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.

UNLESS THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE ATTITUDE OF DECISION-MAKERS, SHEFFIELD STANDS TO LOSE ALMOST ALL ITS 25,877 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES as a result of disregard for current good practice when undertaking works in close proximity to trees. Firm Government guidance and adequate legislation is urgently required and long overdue.

* NO2: a pollutant associated with road transport, resulting in increased heart and respiratory problems, and increased mortality rates.

D.Long (BSc Hons Arb), Sheffield.'

ARBORICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REBUKE SCC & AMEY

“THE ARBORICULTURAL ASSOCIATION COMMENT ON THE HANDLING OF THE FELLING OF TREES ON RUSTLINGS ROAD AND THE COUNCIL'S TREE MANAGEMENT POLICY.”

“Street Trees in Rustlings Road, Sheffield

Last Updated: 24/11/2016

The Council have a legal responsibility to remove trees which are in a seriously diseased or dangerous condition. The removal of trees which are not dangerous but are merely seen to be “damaging” (to the pavement or nearby walls) or “discriminatory” (causing alleged obstruction to people with visual or physical impairments) has to be questioned. WE WOULD HOPE THAT ALL ALTERNATIVES TO REMOVAL WOULD HAVE BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED AND EXPLAINED TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS BEFORE ANY ACTION WAS TAKEN.

FURTHERMORE, WE REITERATE THE IMPORTANCE OF COUNCILS, LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ANYONE WITH TREES UNDER THEIR STEWARDSHIP TO STRIVE FOR AND ADVOCATE THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF TREES, as well as highlighting the need for clear lines of communication and collaboration between all relevant parties before such crucial decisions are made.”

SOURCE:
http://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/News/Street-Trees-in-Rustlings-Road,-S...

*****

“Speaking at the Arboricultural Association National Amenity Conference, Lord de Mauley, PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND SCIENCE has recognised the Association as the representative body for the tree care profession and ‘THE VOICE OF ARBORICULTURE’.”
(Arboricultural Association, 2014)

*****

PREVIOUSLY…

“…we are unable to comment on Sheffield in any specific way, but… WE ARE …CONCERNED AT THE LEVEL OF UNNECESSARY TREE LOSS THAT MAY RESULT FROM OVER-ZEALOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF HIGHWAY MANAGEMENT STANDARDS.

The AA position on trees in streets closely reflects the very strong research evidence and government guidance that trees MUST be properly and fairly accounted for in the urban management decision-making process.

THE RECENT LONDON I-TREE PROJECT VALUED LONDON’S STREET TREES AT £6 BILLION and identifies and quantifies the wider benefits they bring (eco system services) in respect of storm water alleviation, carbon storage and pollution removal. This report clearly demonstrates that in the light of the benefits that trees bring, THERE CAN BE NO CREDIBLE CASE TO ADOPT AN AUTOMATIC PRESUMPTION TO REMOVE TREES CAUSING LOW LEVELS OF DAMAGE TO INFRASTRUCTURE.

…the Arboricultural Association would urge all managers involved in this sphere to appreciate the importance of trees in streets, and particularly their beneficial effects on human wellbeing and health, flood buffering and their ability to make urban environments more pleasant places to live and work. WE ACTIVELY ADVOCATE THAT when tree removal is being considered, in addition to the maintenance costs associated with the presence of street trees, the BENEFITS ARE ALSO PROPERLY FACTORED INTO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. THIS PARTICULARLY APPLIES TO INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE, WHERE THE HIGHWAYS GUIDANCE CLEARLY IMPLIES THAT A FLEXIBLE AND BALANCED ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED.”
(Barrell, 2016a)

*****

“The Arboricultural Association has in its members a wealth of knowledge about the practical aspects of planting and caring for trees…”
(Framlingham, 2015)

*****

“ABOUT US:

AS THE LEADING VOICE ON ALL MATTERS ARBORICULTURAL IN THE UK, the AA provides a home and membership for all those employed within the sector; championing the SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT of trees in places where people live work and play – FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY.

We provide the standards, training, support and recognition that put our members - in the UK and overseas - at the peak of their profession.”

Source:
http://www.trees.org.uk/About-Us

*****

REFERENCES:

(FROM THE SORT LETTER dated 29th January, 2016:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/SORT%20L... )

***
Arboricultural Association, 2014. Defra recognizes Arboricultural Association as the ‘Voice of Arboriculture’. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.trees.org.uk/aa/news/Defra-recognizes-Arboricultural-Associat... [Accessed 25 September 2014].

***
Barrell, 2016a. Jeremy Barrell comments on the Sheffield Street Trees issue. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/News/Jeremy-Barrell-comments-on-the-Sh... [Accessed 18 January 2016].

***
Framlingham, M., 2015. Queen’s Speech — Debate (4th Day) – in the House of Lords at 3:24 pm on 2nd June 2015: House of Lords Debate (c381). [Online]
Available at:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2015-06-02a.298.8&s=speaker%3A10... [Accessed 4 June 2015].

FELLING: SCC/AMEY INCOMPETENCE AND DECEIT

***

A LETTER TO THE STAR, SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH, YORKSHIRE POST & THE GUARDIAN

At the start of the week, on Tuesday 29th November, 2016, the following letter arrived in my inbox. The author has given permission for me to post it here, in its entirety, for your benefit.

***

"Dear Editor,

When Sheffield’s £2.2bn “Streets Ahead” highway maintenance PFI project began, in 2012, mature trees accounted for 73.8% of all highway trees in the city. Most are associated with damage to footways and kerbs and, consequently, scheduled for felling. Prior to the project, Sheffield City Council (SCC) relied on section 58 of the Highways Act as a defence for not undertaking works, due to insufficient funding.

The Department for Transport (DfT) has informed that The Highways Act does not set out specific standards for maintenance, stating:

“it is for each individual local highway authority to assess which parts of its network are in need of repair and what standards should be applied, BASED UPON THEIR LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND CIRCUMSTANCES.”

“THE UK FORESTRY STANDARD: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management” defines and requires the sustainable management of street trees, as part of the urban forest. Last month, the United Nations also officially recognised street trees as such and added: “URBAN FORESTS ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE” (FAO Forestry Paper 178).

In February 2016, the Information Commissioner informed that both SCC and Amey had neglected to commission or draught any alternative highway engineering specifications for consideration for use when undertaking works in close proximity to trees. This discredits the oft stated project/policy commitment: “removal of any highway tree is always the last resort”. This gross omission is contrary to the range of national good practice that the Streets Ahead team claim to comply with and aim to “build on”, such as British Standard 5837:2012 and UK ROAD LIAISON GROUP GUIDANCE. The latter states:

“Although ensuring the safety of footways for users will be a priority, in some cases the presence of roadside trees may complicate the provision of footway surface regularity. THE RADICAL TREATMENT OR COMPLETE TREE REMOVAL NECESSARY TO ENSURE SURFACE REGULARITY MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE OR DESIRABLE AND REDUCED LEVELS OF SURFACE REGULARITY MAY BE A MORE ACCEPTABLE OUTCOME.”

TREES AND ASSOCIATED BENEFITS CAN AND SHOULD BE VALUED AND RETAINED. Perhaps the £2m plus that SCC fined Amey last year could be used to this end?

D.Long (BSc Hons Arb), Sheffield."

SHEFFIELD’S FIRST TREE STRATEGY (THE DRAUGHT VERSION)

A STATEMENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD

******

“STATEMENT ON SHEFFIELD’S TREES FROM STAFF AT THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE

In November of 2016, Sheffield City Council undertook a consultation process for its draft Trees and Woodlands Strategy 2016-2030. Staff in the DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE made responses to specific points within the strategy, and to the strategy overall. These were all collated into a single, collective Department of Landscape entry into the consultation. In this blog entry, which is SUBMITTED AND ENDORSED BY THE SIGNATORIES BELOW (comprising ALL THE ACADEMIC AND TEACHING STAFF IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE), we are publishing the accompanying statement to that submission.

We welcome Sheffield City Council’s consultation process for the Trees and Woodlands Strategy 2016-2030. THE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF THE URBAN FOREST IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TOPIC, WITH HUGELY SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE.

As a Department comprised OF RESEARCHERS AND EDUCATORS AND PRACTITIONERS IN LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPE PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT, we would like to contribute in a constructive way to the HOLISTIC AND PROGRESSIVE development of a comprehensive urban tree management strategy, ESPECIALLY in the light of the on-going felling of urban street trees under the Streets Ahead Five Year Tree Management Strategy.

WE STRONGLY BELIEVE IN THE CONCEPT OF AN URBAN FOREST and we fully support initiatives such as The Outdoor City that fundamentally depend on Sheffield’s richly treed urban environment.

***** THE EXTENT OF SHEFFIELD’S URBAN FOREST IS IMPRESSIVE. IN MANY WAYS, IT IS THE PREMIER EXAMPLE OF AN URBAN FOREST IN THE UK.*****

This is the result of forward-looking city plans from the early 20th Century that anticipate the modern concept of ‘GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE’, and from intensive street tree planting from the middle of the 19th Century to the middle of the 20th Century. This has resulted in an unrivalled legacy to current and future generations.

***** THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS RESOURCE, AND ITS ON-GOING VALUE, DEPENDS ON COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES.*****

The Sheffield Trees and Woodlands Strategy 2016-2030 offers a unique opportunity to demonstrate innovation in how the city measures and values the benefits of its trees, that go well beyond short-term economic considerations.

***** OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABLE, INTEGRATIVE, URBAN TREE MANAGEMENT THAT ACTIVELY ADDRESS THE CONTRIBUTION THAT TREES MAKE TO THE CULTURAL AND ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE CITY MUST BE SEIZED.*****

On-going research in the Department supports the valuable contribution that trees and woodland can make to human health and well-being, cooling the city, attenuating flood waters and providing habitats for a wide range of flora and fauna. Student design and planning projects throughout all student cohorts in the Department serve as testing grounds for innovative uses for trees across a wide range of real sites in the city. And PhD and Masters theses explore the extent and breadth of ECOSYSTEM BENEFITS that trees bring to the city, and to the tangible and intangible cultural benefits. This research shows that Sheffield residents VALUE STREET TREES highly.

More tellingly, the felling of STREET TREES as part of the on-going Streets Ahead Tree Management Plan has provoked strong and passionate responses from the public. The current management approach to the removal of street trees has resulted in public animosity and potentially high legal and administrative costs brought about by these legal challenges, Freedom of Information costs, and the decision to employ security at the Rustlings Road site.

We believe that a stronger urban tree strategy for Sheffield can be developed organically with the good will of Sheffield residents when it is accompanied by a WELL-ROUNDED AND OPEN ASSESSMENT OF THE BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF URBAN TREES AND SUPPORTED BY THE LATEST RESEARCH IN URBAN FORESTRY AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE.

WE CAN ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHEFFIELD’S URBAN FOREST THROUGH research and teaching projects, conferences, innovative case studies, the development of tree-planting prototypes and MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS PARTICULARLY SUITED TO SHEFFIELD. We hope that our collective contribution will help CREATE A WELL-INFORMED AND MORE TRANSPARENT DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FOR SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL, with specific reference to the draft Trees and Woodlands Strategy 2016-2030 and the Streets Ahead Tree Five Year Management Strategy.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM THE COUNCIL in response to our comments and are happy to elaborate on further points.

Mel Burton, Ross Cameron, Andy Clayden, Catherine Dee, Nicola Dempsey, NIGEL DUNNETT, Kamni Gill, James Hitchmough, Anna Jorgensen, Eckart Lange, Sally O’Halloran, Laurence Pattacini, Clare Rishbeth, Olaf Schroth, Kevin Thwaites, Thom White, Helen Woolley, JAN WOUDSTRA”

Source:

Sheffield Landscape BLOG. December 21, 2016.

https://sola-blog.com/2016/12/21/statement-on-sheffields-trees-from-staf...
 

STAG TREE CONFERENCE THIS SATURDAY 21st January 2017: Details Below

From 11:00am to 3:00pm this Saturday (21st January 2017), at St Mary's church, Bramall Lane (in town) there will be a series of presentations about how policy, management and practice affect Sheffield’s trees, with particular focus on the Sheffield city Council/Amey approach to the stewardship and care of Sheffield’s street trees (the trees planted by the roadside, usually in grass verges or surrounded by tarmac). St Mary’s the big church at the roundabout on the dual carriageway, at the end of the moor, on the opposite side of the dual carriageway to the Decathlon shop.

*****

ENTRY FEE PAYABLE AT THE DOOR: £5 Waged-£3 Concessions. (Refreshments included)
You can reserve a place by using the following Facebook link and clicking on "Going":

https://www.facebook.com/events/336824983383331/

Alternatively, you could e-mail Sheffield Tree Action Groups , or just turn up & hope for the best.

E-mail: sheffieldtreesactiongroup@yahoo.co.uk

*****

A couple of internationally respected arboriculturists (tree "experts") will be key speakers - Jeremy Barrel (leading Arboricultural Consultant and Expert Witness) and Russell Horsey (former Deputy Director of The Institute of Chartered Foresters: from 2012 until more recently). Sheffield's very own Professor Ian Rotherham will also be speaking - an ecologist of international renown for his specialism in surveying ancient woodland (Sheffield probably has more ancient woodland than any other city in the UK).

***
BARRELL:

http://www.barrelltreecare.co.uk/people/jeremy-barrell.php

On The One Show (BBC): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b085dtsv

http://www.hortweek.com/barrell-criticises-sheffields-shocking-street-tr...

http://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/News/AA-Registered-Consultant-Jeremy-B...

http://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/News/Jeremy-Barrell-comments-on-the-Sh...

***
HORSEY:

“Russell… has over 12 years experience as a practicing urban forester within local government and voluntary sectors, having been highly successful in pushing the trees agenda at Bristol City Council. Russell is a graduate of the Universities of Brighton (UK) and Toronto (Canada), gaining a Masters in Forestry Conservation with a specialism in Urban Forest Management in the latter. Russell’s strong combination of education and experience allow him to bring a unique and successful approach to arboriculture and urban forestry management.”
Source: www.ciht.org.uk/download.cfm/docid/45D7C604-B5C1-4E1D-BDCD47B9B5934F13

http://www.sustainablecitiescollective.com/deeproot/1137551/inspiring-ne...

http://www.hortweek.com/bristol-takes-strategic-approach-urban-tree-mana...

***
ROTHERHAM:

https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/the-big-street-tr...

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/mediafile/100416910/j-wt-270114-wood-wis...

http://www4.shu.ac.uk/mediacentre/professor-ian-rotherham

***
OTHER SPEAKERS INCLUDE:

NICK SANDFORD

Woodland Trust Regional Policy Administration Officer & "expert" on Sheffield's "bi monthly" Streets Ahead Highway Trees Advisory Forum.
The Woodland trust is a charity that buys woodland for the public to enjoy and campaigns to protect ancient woodland. It also produces policy guidance and recommendations for use by those with responsibility for trees. Recently, it was responsible for the Tree of the Year competition that was shown on TV, featuring STAG & Sheffield’s Chelsea Rd Huntingdon Elm:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/tree-of-the-year-with-ardal-ohanlon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbY99mMfI4

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk

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

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/Trees%20...

***
ROB McBRIDE:

Rod travels around the UK & Europe discovering the whereabouts of ancient trees and others of special significance. He campaigns for responsible, sustainable tree care. Widely known as the Treehunter, he is a regular contributor to BBC Countryfile.

http://www.treehunter.co.uk/
http://thetreehunter.tumblr.com/post/155431247219/matt-baker-bbc-the-one...

***
DAVID GARLOVSKY:

David is an ecologist and was one of the original participants in Sheffield's first tree action group - Save Our Rustlings Trees, now known as Save Our Roadside Trees. He will be talking about how Streetlights affect human and wildlife circadian rhythms, road safety and our view of our night sky.

***
CHARLOTTE MARKEY:
Charlotte is also a planner and will be talking about the future of integrated management of Sheffield's Green & Blue infrastructure (including its urban forest - the collective tree & woodland cover of the city) in Sheffield.

***
BEATRICE GREENFIELD:

Beatrice represents Friends of the Earth. She was a Green Commissioner on Sheffield City Council's Green Commission* and was involved with Sheffield Climate Alliance.

*See:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/622#comment-622

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/321#comment-321

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/325#comment-325

*****
Other stuff of interest:

https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/invitation-to-a-m...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3WUFpRP4I&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yGkzHJ2Kbw&feature=c4-overview&list=UUK...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoSCWEVRvng&feature=c4-overview&list=UUK...

A LETTER THE STAR REFUSED TO PUBLISH

WW1 MEMORIAL TREES

The letter below arrived in my inbox on Tuesday 3rd March, 2017. It was sent to The Star newspaper the same day. The author has given permission for me to share it here. To date, The Star have not published it.

*****

“Amey and Sheffield City Council (SCC) have informed residents of Western Rd (Crookes) that investigation work will take place between 6th & 10th March 2017, to help determine whether or not any of the 25 ideas that SCC have listed as ‘solutions’ would be reasonably practicable to use to retain the trees. Like most healthy, mature street trees scheduled for felling by the Streets Ahead team (SA), with scores of years of safe useful life expectancy ahead of them, the Western Rd WW1 memorial trees are scheduled for felling because of their association with damage – primarily to footways and kerbs. Trees could be safely retained long term, by use of adequate, alternative highway engineering specifications for construction and repair.

In October 2015, when such investigations were scheduled for Rustlings Road, the team responsible for the £2.2bn Streets Ahead Highway maintenance project, and SCC’s Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox), made the following invitation to SORT:

‘You are welcome to provide your own representation and SCRUTINY of the excavation area should SORT have any interested parties with the appropriate technical knowledge or background wishing to attend.’

SORT accepted the invitation and invited me to ‘scrutinise’ at site on the day of works. What I witnessed was shocking and amounted to nothing more than a PR stunt. Amey’s senior engineer - NICK HETHERINGTON (former SCC) - was present on site, supervised excavation close to three trees, and undertook the ‘investigations’. His recommendations are those presented to SCC. The process was: 1) to identify three trees associated with the worst footway ‘ridging’ damage; 2) excavate one small pit (@60x60sq) by each tree, through the worst ridge; 3) lay a spirit level across the hole and use a ruler to measure the depth from the spirit level down to the root. That was the totality of the investigation*. This method could not and would not provide any useful information. It is the kind of practice that is more befitting of a rogue trader than a competent professional. No excavations were undertaken prior to felling any of the other 8 trees that were felled on Rustlings Road in November 2016. Mr HETHERINGTON was uncooperative. Each question I asked of him was met with the response: ‘I’m not here today to answer questions’. However, when SORT asked ‘how much depth was needed for the mechanical planer’ (the machine used to grind away tarmac), he informed that 150 mm depth was necessary to lay 20 to 60 mm of tarmac.

In 2007, mature trees (25,877 trees) accounted for 73.8% of the entire population of Sheffield’s street trees. They are the ones most susceptible to ill health and compromised structural integrity as a result of damage caused by use of mowers, strimmers, and machinery used in close proximity to trees during lighting and resurfacing works, such as diggers and planing machines. The prospect of such damage has been used by the SA team to justify the felling of 1000s of healthy, structurally sound, mature highway trees: valuable trees which could otherwise be safely retained, long-term through compliance with current good practice guidance and recommendations (TDAG; BS5837 & NJUG).

Current UK ROAD LIAISON GROUP GUIDANCE, commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT), states:

‘Although ensuring the safety of footways for users will be a priority, in some cases the presence of roadside trees may complicate the provision of footway surface regularity. THE RADICAL TREATMENT OR COMPLETE TREE REMOVAL NECESSARY TO ENSURE SURFACE REGULARITY MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE OR DESIRABLE AND REDUCED LEVELS OF SURFACE REGULARITY MAY BE A MORE ACCEPTABLE OUTCOME.’

Unless SCC & Amey (the contractor for the PFI project) review and revise their opinions, policies and plans, and adjust their acts and omissions to incorporate and implement current good practice, SHEFFIELD STANDS TO LOSE MOST/ALL OF ITS MATURE STREET TREES DURING THE AMEY PFI CONTRACT. Let’s hope Western Rd is not just another PR stunt!

D.Long (BSc Hons Arb)”

* Since sending the letter, the author has added the following:

“In addition to the footway excavations, the kerb stone nearest the stem of each of the three trees was removed and the level and ruler used in similar fashion.”

National shaming: news from a weekly trade magazine (Horticulture Week):

“TREES FOR CITIES PULLS OUT OF SHEFFIELD OVER STREETS AHEAD CONCERNS

8 March 2017, by Gavin McEwan

ENVIRONMENTAL CHARITY TREES FOR CITIES HAS SAID IT WILL NO LONGER WORK WITH SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL due to its controversial street tree replacement policy.

In a statement released on Monday (6 March), it said:

"It is with deep regret that whilst these practices continue TREES FOR CITIES is unable to develop further projects on council land. For the sake of the city’s trees, inhabitants and wildlife, ***** WE IMPLORE THE DECISION-MAKERS in the City Council, Amey and local politicians to URGENTLY SEEK AN ACCEPTABLE RESOLUTION ***** to this situation."

TREES FOR CITIES has worked to plant trees in Sheffield for ten years, creating urban woodlands and community orchards and running projects in schools, during which it has planted over 25,000 trees - during which time "we have always received great support" from the city, it said.

THE CHARITY ADDED THAT IT "BELIEVES THERE TO BE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT A NUMBER OF HEALTHY MATURE TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED WHERE OTHER OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE" in the city.

The council's cabinet member for the environment Bryan LODGE, has regularly defended the tree felling programme carried out as part of the Streets Ahead programme set up to repair Sheffield's infrastructure.

LODGE said in response: ‘We understand that Tree for Cities is a member-led organisation and it appears that some of its members are tree protesters who may have influenced the charity with incorrect information regarding our street tree programme.’

He added: ‘In the next few weeks we will meet with Trees for Cities to update them on our tree replacement programme.’
Reponding to Bryan Lodge's statement,

TREES FOR CITIES CHIEF EXECUTIVE DAVID ELLIOTT SAID

‘TREES FOR CITIES DOES NOT HAVE MEMBERS OTHER THAN ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND SO CANNOT IN ANY WAY BE INFLUENCED BY A FORMAL MEMBER BASE’.”

*****

COMMENT FROM DAVID ELLIOTT:

“TREES FOR CITIES DOES NOT HAVE MEMBERS OTHER THAN ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND SO CANNOT IN ANY WAY BE INFLUENCED BY A FORMAL MEMBER BASE.

Trees for Cities’ decision was not ‘influenced by tree protesters using incorrect information’. OUR DECISION WAS BASED ON A REVIEW OF A WIDE RANGE OF INDEPENDENT EXPERT ASSESSMENTS AND OPINIONS, and we purposely had minimal contact with advocacy groups in order to avoid potential accusations of partiality.

This review came to the conclusion that THERE IS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT A NUMBER OF HEALTHY MATURE TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED WHERE OTHER OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE.

Therefore, THE PRINCIPLE OF FELLING AS A ‘LAST RESORT’ HAS NOT BEEN ADHERED TO, resulting in the decision and position that Trees for Cities has taken on this matter.”

Source:

http://www.hortweek.com/trees-cities-pulls-sheffield-streets-ahead-conce...
Accessed 12th March 2017

*****

LEARN MORE:

Trees for Cities, 2005. Trees Matter! Bringing lasting benefits to people in towns. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.treesforcities.org/benefits-urban-trees/

NEWS FROM THE STAR (A SHEFFIELD NEWSPAPER):

“SHEFFIELD TREE PROTESTERS WILL 'NO LONGER FACE ARREST'
Read more at:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-tree-protesters-will-no-longer-f...

“Tree protesters 'influenced charity with incorrect information', claims Sheffield councillor”:
Read more at:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/tree-protesters-influenced-charity-with-in...

“Sheffield Council in war of words with eco charity over tree-felling”
Read more at:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/our-towns-and-cities/sheffield/sheffield-counci...

WHERE DO OUR SLAIN STREET TREES END UP?

BIOMASS!

On 16th December 2016, a Freedom of Information Request – Reference FOI/3067 – received a response from Sheffield City Council. The request asked for information regarding the use of wood felled under the Streets Ahead project. The response informed:

“TREES REMOVED ARE GENERALLY USED IN THE BIOMASS INDUSTRY.”

The money helps Amey recoup costs. Amey is the contractor acting as “service provider” on the £2.2bn city-wide “Streets Ahead” highway maintenance project. Sheffield City Council (SCC) borrows money (expensive loans from banks) to pay them £64 million each year of the 25yr contract. Amey cut corners and don’t comply with industry good practice, in order to optimise profits, safe in the knowledge that Sheffield City Council neglected to budget for adequate on-site supervision, monitoring, auditing and enforcement. To boot, there is no incentive for Amey to care, as they get a fixed fee and can charge whatever they like for anything extra. In addition, Sheffield City Council rely heavily on Amey “self-monitoring” their own work (like a student marking their own work).

*****

Below are a few questions that have been asked on this topic, and the responses received.

• On 30th April 2014, Cllr JACK SCOTT (then SCC Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene: Labour) was asked the following question, after the Melbourne Rd Oak had been felled in Stocksbridge:

“What has become of the timber and cord wood (branch wood)?

In an e-mail dated 13/2/2014, Amey made the following statement:

‘…However, due to public reaction, and the prominent nature of the tree and its associated amenity value, further investigation has been arranged i.e. Picus tomography. The results of which will enable our Arboriculture Asset Management team to evaluate more accurately the extent of decay and, possibly, offer an alternative management option.’”

*****

• Cllr SCOTT responded four months later, on 27th August 2014:

“A significant amount of timber was utilised to create a bench and sculpture in conjunction with children from local schools. The remaining timber will be in Olive Grove depot and is likely to be RECYCLED INTO THE BIOMASS INDUSTRY.”

Source:
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/not-a-good-time-t...

*****

ON 1st JULY 2015 when the Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT) group – the first Sheffield Tree Action Group - presented their petition (4,693 signatures online plus an additional >5,307 on paper)* at the meeting of full Council, held in Sheffield Town Hall, a number of questions were asked. Some of those and the responses received are provided here (taken from a transcript of an audio recording of the meeting):

• Mrs Helen MCILROY asked:

“WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE TIMBER FROM THESE MATURE TREES? IS IT BEING SOLD? What happens to that?”

• Mr Nigel SLACK asked:

“Question 3: Can Council confirm that e-mail enquiries sent to Cabinet Members on 17th June should have received full responses by now? One on particular is relevant to the petition and upcoming debate on the tree policy in the city and I will, therefore, ask whether a response to that e-mail, which I’ve copied in to my questions, can be provided today, either now or as part of the debate.”

The official minutes of the Council meeting, authored and published by SCC**, state:

“Mr Slack had asked a question about ensuring that wood which was removed was sold on behalf of the Council, rather than being sent to BIOMASS.”

*****

• As Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Cllr Terry FOX (Labour) responded to both:

“As regarding part of yours comment regarding the timber. Obviously, after our last conversation, I looked in to this. WE HAVE GOT TIMBER THAT GOES TO BIOMASS; we have got timber that goes to furniture construction sites. But, obviously, THE MAJORITY OF TREES THAT ARE COMING OUT ARE OF DECAY. They have high particle concentration in them, so, obviously, just part because where they are. So, depending that they are not all only as dying as the streets as what some construction firms love. Obviously, local artists and local schools will want them. They will be supplied as well.”

*****

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

** 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://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/documents/s19532/Council%20Minutes%201...

Questions about trees are on pages 8 & 9 of the PDF; the Council's response can be found on pages 9-16.

*****

On 4th JANUARY 2017, when the Western Rd Sheffield Tree Action Group presented their petition at the meeting of full Council, held in Sheffield Town Hall, a number of questions were asked. Some of those and the responses received are provided here (taken from a transcript of an audio recording of the meeting):

• Mr Nigel SLACK asked:

“Question 2: In response to a question in full council on 1st July 2015, regarding the disposal of trees felled under the Streets Ahead contract with Amey, THE RESPONSE FROM THE PREVIOUS CABINET MEMBER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT COMMUNICATED THAT FELLED TREES WERE SENT FOR BIOMASS USE, as the wood was often decayed. That seems, now, to be somewhat inaccurate. None of the trees removed on Rustlings Road, for instance, were decayed. A brief review of the ITP - that’s the Independent Tree Panel – REPORTS SUGGESTS THAT MOST TREES REMOVED ARE NOT DECAYED. WHO was responsible for this inaccurate answer to my original question? And, to follow up on that, WHO RECEIVES THE INCOME FROM FELLED TREES SENT FOR BIOMASS? Cash-strapped Council, or prophet focussed Amey?”

*****

• As Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Cllr BRYAN LODGE (Labour) responded:

“I think Cllr Fox did answer accurately, err, in that MOST OF THE TIMBER FROM STREET TREES DOES GO TO THE BIOMASS MARKET, err, and material from a lot of the trees is not grown in of a high quality. Err, Some timber is provided to other markets. It is also provided to community groups on request, err, and there are examples of this. There is a school - I can’t remember where it is – where they asked for a tree that had been taken down. There was, err given to them. Amey moved in there and it’s been carved in to a bench, at Stocksbridge I think it is. I can’t remember where the school is. So, you know, it is provided to community groups and schools, and things like that, when people do request it. Err, I DON’T THINK THERE WAS ANY INDICATION IN THE RESPONSE FROM, FROM, CLLR FOX THAT EVERY TREE FELLED WAS DECAYED. Err, and, you know, you can look through the answers. It’s a bit hard to understand how you can draw that assumption from the answer that’s in there.

Err, the costs of the income from the trees replacement is included in the overall price that, err, is negotiated as a part of the contract with Amey. So, the cost of replacing trees in there; the costs of removing trees and disposing of the trees is in there. SO, ANY DECISIONS ON WHETHER A TREE IS REPLACED IS MADE BY THE COUNCIL, so it’s not really a consideration of Amey’s as to whether it’s a profitable exercise whether to take trees down to sell the timber, but ANYTHING THAT DOES COME FROM THE SALE OF THE TIMBER GOES BACK IN TO THE CONTRACT. So, ultimately, is delivering a cheaper price on the contract with Sheffield City Council.”

*****

Perhaps people should ask for the names and contact details of the businesses that are using the arisings (trunk & branch wood, and wood-chip) from street trees felled as part of the Streets Ahead project (over 4,246 mature street trees between August 2012 & 30th December 2016*), and for detail of income raised, and other cost savings made, as a result of sales to each of these? Does Veolia get biomass for free in return for reduced energy costs/free energy? Does Amey or SCC have a contract to supply the power station at Blackburn Meadows (Sheffield)?

* see Freedom of Information Request – Reference FOI/3308:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tree_felling_numbers?nocache=inco...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/appeal-to-stop-tree-felling-scheme-in-shef...

*****

Finally, in another spectacular piece of spin, on 4th April 2017, in the fifth year of its city-wide street tree felling programme, Sheffield City Council decided to announce to the public where their healthy, mature, structurally sound, beloved street trees are ending up, once felled. A piece was published by The Star - a local newspaper :

“Ever wondered where the timber goes from Sheffield's thousands of felled trees? Here's where”:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/ever-wondered-where-the-timber-goes-from-s...

*****

Blackburn Meadows:

https://www.eonenergy.com/About-eon/our-company/generation/our-current-p...

https://pressreleases.eon-uk.com/blogs/eonukpressreleases/archive/2014/0...

“NO EXTRA COST” IDEAS TO RETAIN MATURE STREET TREES

With £1.2bn coming from the Department for Transport, it could be argued that there is "no cost" to the Sheffield taxpayer when it comes to tree maintenance or the use of alternative highway engineering SPECIFICATIONS to enable the safe long-term retention of mature street trees.

“STEVE ROBINSON [SCC’s HEAD OF HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE] gave a presentation about each of these options at the second HTAF meeting, on 2nd September, 2015. He stated:

“THE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS ARE ONLY APPLICABLE TO THOSE TREES THAT ARE CATEGORISED AS DAMAGING.
[…]
THE ENGINEERING AND TREE-BASED SOLUTIONS COME AT NO EXTRA COST TO THE COUNCIL. SO, THE TAX-PAYER DOES NOT PAY IF AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION OR A TREE-BASED SOLUTION CAN BE APPLIED, and the reason for that is that the Streets Ahead project is a highway maintenance project that engineering and tree-based solutions are highway maintenance solutions."

Source: Page 47 of the SORT Letter dated 29th January 2016 (distributed to every Councillor in the City):

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/SORT%20L...
 
The “options” referred to by Steve Robinson are nothing more than a LIST of ideas. The list is provided on page 13 of the following PDF document:

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/6Ds_SCC%...

“STREETS AHEAD ENGINEERING OPTIONS

• SENSITIVE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS

1. Installation of THINNER PROFILE KERBS
2. EXCAVATION OF FOOTWAYS for physical root examination prior to an ultimate decision being made on removal
3. RAMPING / RE-PROFILING of footway levels over roots (within acceptable deviation levels).

4. FLEXIBLE PAVING/ SURFACING SOLUTION
5. REMOVAL OF DISPLACED KERBS LEAVING A GAP IN THE CHANNEL

• TREE BASED OPTIONS

6. Root pruning
7. Root Shaving
8. Root Barriers and Root guidance panels

9. EXCAVATION beneath the roots damaging the footway
10. Tree Growth Retardant
11. CREATION OF LARGER TREE PITS around existing trees

12. Heavy tree CROWN REDUCTION / POLLARDING to stunt tree growth.
13. Retain dead, dying, dangerous and diseased highway trees for their habitat value”

Although the Council and Amey like to present this list of ideas as alternative HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS, they are clearly not, as it is just a list. Follow the link provided (for the list of options) to discover the truth. Please remember that FlexiPave and similar products bond well and knit in with tarmac. They can be moulded to shape on site and be used for footways, kerbs and to provide an edge to the actual carriageway. As they are permeable, they contribute to sustainable drainage systems and help minimise the likelihood of surface water run-off and flooding.

The Information Commissioner has confirmed that over three years in to a £2.2bn city-wide project that threatens the health, structural integrity and longevity of 73.8% of the street tree population (25,877 mature trees), NO ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS HAVE EVER BEEN COMMISSIONED OR DRAUGHTED BY Sheffield City Council or Amey.

The Council wilfully lie, deceive and misinform the public*, to cover for and distract attention from their reckless and negligent acts and omissions.

Thankfully, the spotlight of international media is on them, so they should now be more incentivised to be less selfish, dishonest and deceitful and start being open, honest, transparent and accountable.

There is a policy commitment from 3rd February 2016, which has been TOTALLY IGNORED by SCC to date:

"TO BEING OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WITH THE SHEFFIELD PUBLIC ENSURING ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN."

Source:

THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE ON 3rd FEBRUARY, 2016 – when the Nether Edge tree action group presented their 6,295 plus signature petition - 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.

* http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/your-say/leaves-rustling-ever-louder-1-832...
 

FOR SCF

FLEXI®-PAVE - SCC / AMEY IGNORANCE & DECEIT
*****

On 6th APRIL 2017 The Star newspaper reported:

“Green, Lib Dem and UKIP councillors walked out of the full council meeting yesterday afternoon in support of Nether Edge councillor Alison Teal after she was expelled from the chamber due to 'defamatory' comments.

Ms Teal had said Labour cabinet member Coun Bryan Lodge has 'misled' the public over the city's controversial tree felling programme.

Ms Teal was arrested during a protest over tree felling back in February on Chippinghouse Road. She was initially charged but had the case dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The council's chief executive, John Mothersole*, ruled that a Green councillor's comments were 'defamatory' but Ms Teal 'refused to withdraw them'.
[…]
Ms Teal told The Star:
"I was a bit shook up by it but I was speaking the truth. These are the facts as I see them.

‘If they want to expel me for that then so be it.

‘All I did was stand up for my constituents who feel they have been misled. I gave the example of flexi-pave where Cllr. Lodge previously admitted he was wrong.’”

Source:

“'It's something you'd see on a school playground' - Sheffield Council leader criticises opposition for mass walk out”:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/it-s-something-you-d-see-on-a-school-playg...

* “Top salaries for Sheffield Council bosses revealed in new report”:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/top-salaries-for-sheffield-council-bosses-...

Also, see:

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/617#comment-617
&
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/710#comment-710
&
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/6Ds_SCC%...
&
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/RUSTLING...
&
“SHEFFIELD TREE PROTESTERS WILL 'NO LONGER FACE ARREST':

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-tree-protesters-will-no-longer-f...

FLEXI®-PAVE - SCC / AMEY IGNORANCE & DECEIT

*****
What follows below is a catalogue of all that led to Ms Teal asserting that the SCC Cabinet Member for the Environment (Cllr Bryan Lodge: Labour) had wilfully misled citizens about the use of Flexi®-Pave by the Streets Ahead team (the SCC & Amey team responsible for the £2.2bn, 25yr, city-wide highway maintenance PFI project) to retain mature street trees. Flexi®-Pave is a product that can be used as an alternative to tarmac when resurfacing footways. It can also be used as an edge to the carriageway and be moulded to make bespoke kerb stones of any shape.

• 29th OCTOBER, 2015.

"On 29th October, 2015, SORT MET WITH GRAHAM PELL: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KBI UK Ltd (the maker and supplier of Flexi®-Pave). He informed us that he had NEVER been contacted by SCC Highways department or Amey about using Flexi®-Pave on highways in Sheffield, although he did say that other SCC departments have occasionally used it. Mr Pell stated that KBI UK Ltd had never been invited by SCC or Amey to provide materials or services for the Streets Ahead project."

Source:
Pages 99 & 365 of the SORT letter (dated 29th January, 2016): http://bit.ly/2dGxO01

****
• 2nd NOVEMBER, 2015.

"On 2nd November, 2015 David Caulfield [SCC Director of Development Services: with overall responsibility for highway trees] personally agreed to a meeting with Mr Pell (see Appendix 28). However, to date, we are not aware that this has taken place. MR PELL HAS OFFERED TO MEET WITH SCC ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS about the possibility of using Flexi®-Pave on highways, AND APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TOTALLY IGNORED (see Appendix 32).”

Source:
Pages 99 & 365 of the SORT letter (dated 29th January, 2016): http://bit.ly/2dGxO01

****
• 28th DECEMBER, 2015.

On Monday, December 28th, 2015, in the Sheffield Star, Councillor Terry Fox was stated as saying **** "SOLUTIONS PUT FORWARD BY CAMPAIGNERS WERE ALREADY USED INCLUDING FLEXI PAVING which has on 143 occasions retained trees." ****
Source:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/clr_fox_tree_retention_solutions#...

****
• 8th JANUARY, 2016.

Information provided by David Caulfield [SCC Director of Development Services: with overall responsibility for highway trees], via Cllr Nikki Bond (Labour), in an e-mail dated 8th January, 2016, (see Appendix 22) which stated:

“Having reviewed the situation I discovered that in fact **** FLEXIBLE PAVING IS NOW ROUTINELY USED ACROSS THE CITY AS A TREE RETENTION OPTION – IT WAS USED 142 TIMES IN 2015.****( I CAN CONFIRM THAT KBM, THE COMPANY WHICH CAMPAIGN GROUPS HAVE HAD CONTACT AND DISCUSSIONS WITH REGARDING FLEXIBLE PAVING, were Amey's previous national supplier for Flexi Pave for the first half of the Core Investment Period, and as such THEY HAVE SUPPLIED AMEY WITH BOTH MATERIALS AND SERVICES ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS FOR STREETS AHEAD WORKS AROUND HIGHWAY TREES HERE IN SHEFFIELD.”

This response was to the question:
“Has anyone been in touch with the MD of Flexi-Pave?”

Mr Caulfield continued:

“In line with numerous contractual commitments, we ask Amey wherever possible to endeavour to use Sheffield based businesses in their supply chain to procure their materials and services for the Streets Ahead project. As such during year 3 of the project [August 2014 – August 2015], *** AMEY CHANGED THEIR SUPPLY CHAIN AGREEMENTS FROM KBM TO A LOCAL BUSINESS FOR SUPPLY OF THE SAME SERVICES ***, with the new contractor being a Sheffield based company specialising in this kind of work. KBM REMAIN ON THE OFFICIAL SUPPLIERS LIST FOR SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL TO UTILISE AS A SUPPLIER, but as we as an Authority do not procure any materials for Streets Ahead their key accounts now would be with parks or housing, but not Streets Ahead.”

Source:
Page 313 of the SORT letter (dated 29th January, 2016): http://bit.ly/2dGxO01

****
• 8th FEBRUARY, 2016.

A response from SCC to Freedom of Information Request – Reference FOI/1305

**** “WE CAN CONFIRM THAT FLEXI PAVING IS FREQUENTLY USED AS A PART OF THE SPECIFIC STREETS AHEAD HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME. **** However, we do not hold a record of the locations of the sites where its use has led to a tree being retained.
[…]

FLEXI PAVE IS ONE OF THE TREATMENTS *** USED ON THE STREETS AHEAD PROJECT *** and
is paid for as part of the monthly unitary payment made by the Authority
for the delivery of a complete highway maintenance service”

Source:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/clr_fox_tree_retention_solutions#...

****
• 18th JANUARY, 2016.

A response from SCC to Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI / 1259
(The request was sent on 4th January 2016)

**** “WE HAVE NO INFORMATION RELATING TO FLEXI-PAVING BEING USED TO RETAIN TREES ON 143 OCCASIONS ALTHOUGH WE CAN CONFIRM THAT THE CURRENT PERMEABLE PAVING PRODUCT IN USE ON THE STREETS AHEAD PROJECT AROUND TREES IS ‘FLEXI PAVE’”.****

Source:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/clr_fox_tree_retention_solutions#...

Also, see:

“What flexible paving?”:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/your-say/what-flexible-paving-1-7703470

****
• 29th JUNE 2016.

On 1st June, an internal review requested for FOI requests 1259 and 1813, and further FOI requests, was requested. The review was undertaken by the same SCC Information Management Officer that had provided the responses to the requests. He (Mark Knight) stated:

“As I am sure you are aware Sheffield City Council has a PFI contract with Amey Hallam Highways Ltd for the delivery of a complete highway maintenance service which includes Highways Trees. As a result it will be **** AMEY THAT COMPLETE ANY ASSOCIATED WORKS OR THEIR OWN SUBCONTRACTORS. THE MATERIAL THAT ***WILL BE USED ON ALL 143 PRESCRIBED SITES***, IF DEEMED SUITABLE FOR THIS SOLUTION, WILL BE FLEXI PAVE TM.****
[…]

****IT APPEARS THAT SOME COMMENTARY HAS NOT BEEN ACCURATE, IN TERMS OF THE LANGUAGE USED, BUT PLEASE BE ASSURED THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN THE COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC…” ****

****
• 13th JULY 2016.

The Star reported:

“Today the council’s cabinet member for the environment BRYAN LODGE SAID THE 143 FIGURE RELATED TO SITES THAT HAD BEEN ASSESSED, BUT WHERE WORK HAD NOT YET BEEN DONE IN MANY CASES *** ‘BECAUSE OF THE DELAYS AND COURT PROCEEDINGS *** we have faced over the past few months’.
[…]

Coun Lodge added:
‘We have always said and will keep reiterating that THE REPLACEMENT OF ANY STREET TREE IS A LAST RESORT.’”

Source:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-tree-campaigners-question-counci...

****
Comments on use of Flexi®-Pave, made by Councillor Bryan LODGE, as the Sheffield City Council CABINET MEMBER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, at the meeting of full Council, in Sheffield Town Hall

• 7th DECEMBER, 2016.

“Mr Carr, err, talked about Flexi®-Pave, err, and use of Flexi®-Pave. Actually, I’ve done a lot of, I’ve done lots of looking at it, I think, with, err, Mr Dillner and Mr Mosley last week, and they asked me a question: how many trees have got Flexi®-Pave and has it been used. *** I CAN CONFIRM NOW, IT HAS BEEN USED ON/OR IN TREE PITS. IT HAS BEEN USED ON TREE PITS BEFORE *** – the sort of thing it was developed for, err, that was in there. Now however you look at these things – I’ve been looking around and trying to find out, and I can see where trees around buttresses on trees where they are coming out, and it sort of upped a root, affecting things there. I can’t find any examples of when trees where roots are backed up on that sort of [interruption: heckling]. So, ***I HAVE INSTRUCTED OFFICERS TO GET IN TOUCH WITH PEOPLE FROM FLEXI®-PAVE, to talk about having a rethink with Flexi®-Pave.”***

*****
Comments on use of Flexi®-Pave, made by Councillor Bryan LODGE, as the Sheffield City Council CABINET MEMBER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, at the meeting of full Council, in Sheffield Town Hall:

• 1st FEBRUARY, 2017.

These comments have been transcribed from an audio recording of the meeting.

“Mr Carr asked about Flexi®-Pave and WHETHER I HAVE MET WITH PEOPLE FROM FLEXI®-PAVE YET. Unfortunately, I’ve not had the opportunity to meet with them yet. We are trying to. I’m just trying to talk to the gentleman. We’ve not managed to, *** WE’VE NOT MANAGED TO ARRANGE A MEETING YET,*** with diaries to fit things in, but I know some dates have been put forward and I’m looking forward to meeting them as soon as possible. [cough] Err, excuse me. I, I am aware of the product Flexi®-Pave, which is a trade brand, a trademarked, or branded, product. I am aware of its uses in other areas. I, I need assurances that it is suitable to use to covering the deflection on pavements where the roots are, err, protruding through the pavement levels and things like that, first and foremost. Err, so I’ve looked at that, I’ve read things up on – on – err, he has said. I’ve looked at things. I’ve looked at various other similar products in there. Err, I’ve looked at things there but, as I say, I’ve not had a meeting with them yet. *** Err, ONCE I’VE HAD THE MEETING, I’M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THE OUTCOME OF THAT MEETING, ERR, WITH ANYBODY WHO IS INTERESTED in there,*** and I’ll put that information out there to people, when I’ve met with them, AND I’LL LET PEOPLE KNOW, ERR, THE OUTCOME OF THE MEETING.”

Interruption:
“How will you do that?”

Cllr Lodge continued:

“Err, well, I will put the information out there. If people want to ask me questions in here, I’m sure opposition Councillors that get the opportunity to ask questions; people can write in; I can put something out in to the, err, as a press release to The Star. I’d rather be talking to people than relying on press releases, but *** I’M HAPPY TO DISCUSS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS CONTRACT IF PEOPLE ASK ME *** and I meet with people on a regular basis.”

“The question regarding the use of Flexi®-Pave, err; Flexi®-Pave is a trade name. Yes, I understand it’s a trade name and I know there’s been questions about it being used. Flexible paving, err, i-is a sort of terminology that is used around, err, trees and pavements.

*** And, FLEXI®-PAVE AS A – AS A –PRODUCT HAS NOT BEEN USED ON THE STREETS AHEAD CONTRACT. *** I think that’s quite clear in there.

Flexible paving solutions have been used because flexible paving actually includes the use of asphalt, so flexible paving solutions have been used there, err, but FLEXI®-PAVE ITSELF HAS NOT BEEN USED YET.”

• 7th APRIL 2017

FLEXI®-PAVE - SCC / AMEY IGNORANCE & DECEIT

*****
From: Xxxx
Sent: 07 April 2017 12:56
To: FOI
Subject: Cllr Lodge and the promised meeting

Cllr Lodge and the promised meeting

Dear FoI Team

I am sorry to bother you with this – but Cllr Lodge has declined to answer.

At the full Council meeting on 7th December, he stated that he would be instructing Officers to contact representatives of Flexi™-Pave to discuss its potential use for circumstances pertaining to the retention of mature street trees where roots had caused footways to ramp.

I wish to know; 1) if this took place; 2) what was the outcome,

To save us all a lot of wasted time, the following may help.

1) There is only one firm that produces the patented and trade-marked flexible paving product known as Flexi™-Pave – and that is KBI UK Ltd. I know this is known by Cllr Lodge and his Officers (and Amey) from meetings, press statements, and FOI responses. I have also confirmed this with him personally and given him the relevant information and contact details.

Therefore a response that might suggest he has met with another supplier confirms that this has not happened as promised.

2) However, if he did meet with KBI UK Ltd, then we know that he would have been told that it can be used for precisely the purpose that he queried. He has been directly provided with copies of KBI UK Ltd‘s ‘Case Studies’ and other material showing its efficacy in exactly these circumstances. He also knows that their Managing Director met with members of SORT and declared that all the healthy trees on Rustlings Road could be saved with this product – while also creating a safe and compliant finished surface that would, in addition yield many other benefits for the Council. Furthermore, he knows that Amey themselves have publicly endorsed this product for this very use, allowing KBI UK Ltd to quote them in their advertising literature thus:

“We’ve been working for over 18 months now alongside KBI UK to install tree pits on behalf of Birmingham City Council. Our latest project has seen us use KBL Flexi™-Pave to replace full pavements that had been damaged by root intrusion from established trees. We are pleased with the performance of the material and see it as a great option for new and replacement tree surrounds”

– and that it has also been endorsed by dozens of other Councils across the country.

He has also been advised that the Council’s previous ‘paving’ supplier confirmed that they have not provided anything matching Flexi™-Pave – and while suggesting one might describe any tarmac material as ‘flexible’ compared to concrete, their own material (as supplied for the tree pits on the Moor and incorrectly stated to the Full Council meeting on 7th December as Flexi™-Pave) is not suitable for footways or for any expansion of a tree in a pit (those on the Moor relying on sacrificial concentric concrete edgings).

Thank you for your cooperation.

Yours faithfully

Xxxx

• 20th APRIL 2017

FLEXI®-PAVE - SCC / AMEY IGNORANCE & DECEIT

*****
THE SCC RESPONSE TO FOI REQUEST FOI /36

(To aid interpretation, inverted commas have been inserted around the quote of the original request. Also, square brackets have been inserted to identify the response to each of the questions the Information Officer chose to respond to).

*****
From: "FOI" <FOI@sheffield.gov.uk>
To: Xxxx
Sent: Thursday, 20 April, 2017 11:51:30 AM
Subject: Response – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI /36
Re – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI /36

Dear Xxxx,

Thank you for your recent request for information relating to Details of Council meeting with KBI UK Ltd regarding Flexi™-Pave which we received on 07/04/2017.

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

“At the full Council meeting on 7th December, he stated that he would be instructing Officers to contact representatives of Flexi™-Pave to discuss its potential use for circumstances pertaining to the retention of mature street trees where roots had caused footways to ramp.
I wish to know;

1) if this took place; [We can confirm no such meeting with a supplier of flexible paving materials has taken place. The meeting is still in the process of being arranged.]

2) what was the outcome”, [No information held.]

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

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

If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of your internal review, you can contact the Information Commissioners Office. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, telephone 0303 123 1113, or for further details see their website www.ico.org.uk

Kind Regards,

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

COMMERCIAL FORESTRY OPERATIONS

Plantation along the Trans Pennine Trail, between Oughtibridge and Deepcar is currently being thinned. The trees felled are mainly larch & pine - some are about fifty-two years old. Produce appears to be sawlogs, pulpwood & slats (for fencing). The operation is mechanised, with a bucket used to move stones and fill holes. All felling is done by a harvester machine. Very interesting. The work is being done by Tilhill (the contractor) for the Forestry Commission (Central District Office). The main track that runs parallel with the railway is closed while works take place (24th July 2017 to 24th September 2017). Much of the stretch between Oughtibridge & Ewden valley/Wharncliffe Lodge is actually outside Sheffield, within Barnsley Metropolitan Borough.

This past few weeks, a couple of buzzards have been flying about, screeching, over the area below the track, downstream of the factory site that is upstream of Oughtibridge. The birds have been seen flying as far as Oughtibridge Lane. Locals do not recall seeing these birds previously, although such birds have been seen on the opposite side of the valley. Has a nest been disturbed / destroyed?

SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL / AMEY: DECEIT & MISINFORMATION

A LETTER TO SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH

“The £2.2 billion, city-wide, 25yr Amey PFI contract for highway maintenance (the Streets Ahead project) permits the felling of 67.7% of MATURE highway trees – half the population of Sheffield’s 35,057 highway trees. Non-compliance with good practice could result in the felling of many more.

At a meeting of full Council, on 1st July, 2015, the Deputy Leader of the Council (Cllr Leigh BRAMALL) 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.’

The Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox) added:
‘The survey noted that 74% of our mature tree stock with very few young trees has given this combination the rate of decline evidence by the number of trees needing treatment.’

Commenting on the survey, Cllr Fox added: it “helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract” (the Amey PFI ).

At a later meeting of full Council, on 3rd February, 2016, Cllr BRAMALL stated:

‘In 2006/7 an independent survey assessed the city's highway tree stock. This survey found that over 75% of the city's 36,000 trees were nearing the end of their natural life and only 5% of the trees were classed as being in the 'young' age group.’

(Cllr BRAMALL also stated: “We have 36,000 highway trees on the street. The contract states that up to 50% can be replaced.”)

These exact words later appeared in a document that SCC presented to the High Court of Justice (during R [Dillner] v Sheffield CC and Amey Hallam Highways Ltd), under the heading: “Streets Ahead Approach to decision making regarding highway tree removal and replacement”.

The survey referred to is ‘Sheffield City Highways Tree Survey 2006 – 2007’. It was undertaken by Elliott Consultancy Ltd. I contacted Mr Elliott to enquire about the findings of the survey and to request a copy of the report: SORT had been requesting these from the Streets Ahead team for almost twelve months. Mr Elliott responded: “A formal report was not requested nor provided.” He added:

‘IF THERE WAS EVER ANY REQUEST FOR A FORMAL REPORT THEN WE WERE NOT AWARE OF IT - OUR ROLE WAS TO SURVEY THE STREET TREE STOCK AND PROVIDE THAT DATA TO THE ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY… THAT REALLY WAS OUR COMPLETE REMIT - NEITHER FORMAL MANAGEMENT OR A STRATEGIC ROLE.” He added: “I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PFI BID OR WITH ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT SURVEYS, MANAGEMENT, OR STRATEGIC DISCUSSIONS’.

Last week, Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT) released a news update. It has caused a stir! SORT used a direct quote from Mr Elliott’s response to me:

‘DID I TELL THEM THEY NEEDED TO REMOVE HALF OF THEIR TREE STOCK? NO.

DID I TELL THEM THAT 70% OF THE TREES WERE NEARING THE END OF THEIR LIFE? NO […]

DID I EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE 10,000 BITS OF TREE WORK WERE 'URGENT'? NO –

(you have seen the pp and IT WAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED THAT 25,000 TREES NEEDED NO WORK, and of that 10,000 almost half were routine crown-lifting operations, another quarter being deadwooding operations, and others including the whole gamut of routine works etc. (I DID SUGGEST TO THEM THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF HUNDRED TREES THAT COULD BE RETAINED BUT THEIR CONDITION WAS SUCH THAT THEY MAY MERIT REPLACEMENT - THIS WAS THE ONLY PRE-EMPTIVE FELLING ISSUE THAT I RECALL MENTIONING).’

A copy of the ‘pp’ (PowerPoint slide show), mentioned above, can be accessed online, at Stocksbridge Community Forum (news). THERE APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN WILFUL ATTEMPTS BY SCC AND THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC AND THE HIGH COURT. Trust in the Council and in its credibility is at an all-time low. Openness honesty and transparency is long overdue. WHEN WILL THE COUNCIL BEGIN TO HONOUR THE POLICY COMMITMENT IT MADE ON 3RD FEBRUARY, 2016: ‘TO BEING OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WITH THE SHEFFIELD PUBLIC ENSURING ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN’?

D.Long (Arboriculturist & Urban Forester), Sheffield.”

Source:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/683#comment-683

*****

NOTES:

When commenting on the survey, Cllr Fox's exact words (on 1st July 2015) were:

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

Source:

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/177#comment-177

The "Sheffield City Highways Tree Survey 2006 – 2007" PowerPoint presentation ("pp") that Elliott referred to can be accessed using this links:

https://savesheffieldtreesorguk.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/elliott_scc_...

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/Elliott_...

LETTER

The following letter has just arrived in my inbox, dated 6th December 2017. The author has kindly granted permission for me to share it here and has informed that it has been sent to the following newspapers:

THE STAR, Sheffield Telegraph, The Yorkshire Post & The Guardian.

Notation and references have been added to support the content.

*****

"HOW TO RETAIN MEMORIAL TREES

On 20th September 2017, The Star - a Sheffield newspaper - reported on the potential cost of retaining street trees [1]. An extortionate estimate of cost to retain trees was provided. Steve Robinson (then SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) was quoted:

"That's not a result of a detailed design. We would have to spend some money to do a detailed design."

Commenting on the possibility of tree retention, in a report dated 27th November 2017, Philip Beecroft – recently appointed SCC Head of Highway Maintenance – asserted:

“Undertaking this work…would require prioritisation of the potential tree works against other pressing council priorities such as social care.” [2]

Of course, instead, Sheffield City Council (SCC) could use some of the £2 million plus that they have fined Amey for sub-standard works [3]. After all, SCC never whinge when it comes to dipping in to that multi-million pound pot to needlessly squander funds on household felling surveys, a sham “Independent” Tree Panel, surveillance of citizen tree groups, PR, smear, campaigns of misrepresentation, or court cases. All of which have been unnecessary, avoidable and represent malpractice [4] – a reckless use of public resources. Even so, only a relatively small fraction of the fine money has been used on such things, leaving plenty to enable the retention of mature street trees and ensure the SCC Highways PFI Client Team - responsible for monitoring and enforcing standards for the £2.2bn “Streets Ahead” highway maintenance project - is adequately resourced [5].

Amey is the service provider for the £2.2bn “Streets Ahead” highway maintenance project. In 2015, commenting on Amey’s contractual commitments, as SCC Cabinet Member For Environment, Recycling And Streetscene, Cllr Jayne Dunn informed:

“Under the contract they have to fulfil any promise” [6].

As I understand it, a contract is legally binding. In response to a 140 page letter from the Save Our Roadside Trees Group, dated 29th January 2016 (distributed to every Councillor in the city) [4], on 2nd February 2016, Amey released a “commercially sensitive” contract document [7]. Quote:

“The removal of street trees will only be considered as a last resort where there are no other reasonably practicable management options available. […] As part of our commitment to only removing a street tree as a last resort, whenever a tree is found to be either damaging or disciminatory, we consider a list of engineering solutions to establish whether any of these can be employed to retain the tree in situ.”

On 2nd September, 2015, at the second (most recent) meeting of the “bi-monthly” Highway Tree Advisory Forum, Steve Robinson – Beecroft’s predecessor - publicly presented a list of 25 ideas - “engineering solutions” - that could be used to retain mature street trees when resurfacing. The list included: EXCAVATION; “FLEXIBLE PAVING/SURFACING SOLUTION”; RAMPING/RE-PROFILING; USE OF THINNER KERBS; REMOVAL OF DISPLACED KERBS; PRUNING (including pollarding); “creation of LARGER TREE PITS” [7]. He informed:

“THE ENGINEERING AND TREE-BASED SOLUTIONS COME AT NO EXTRA COST TO THE COUNCIL. SO, THE TAX-PAYER DOES NOT PAY if an engineering solution or a tree-based solution can be applied, and the reason for that is that the Streets Ahead project is a highway maintenance project and engineering and tree-based solutions are highway maintenance solutions." [8]

Should works be unaffordable, Mr Robinson informed: “The Council has a defence under the Highways Act - Section 58 defence under the Highways Act – of not having sufficient funding to deal with all those defects.”[9]

There are a number of “strategic goals” listed within the contract document, such as:

“MAXIMISE potential CANOPY COVER through… good arboricultural management”
“Establish a SUSTAINABLE tree stock through… appropriate management.”
“Improve compatibility with environment through HOLISTIC HIGHWAY DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT.”
“Improve function of highway trees through INNOVATIVE DESIGN strategy.”

On numerous occasions, the Council and Amey have asserted that they work to British Standard 5837. The standard states [10]:

“ROOT SYSTEMS, stems and canopies, with allowance for future movement and growth, NEED to be taken into account in all projects…

Where tree retention or planting is proposed…

THE OBJECTIVE SHOULD BE to achieve a harmonious relationship between trees and structures that can be sustained…
(from page 1 of BS5837)

A PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH TOWARDS TREE PROTECTION SHOULD BE ADOPTED…

[…] Details of DESIGN PROPOSALS should be developed in conjunction with the project ARBORICULTURIST and, where required, input from a SUITABLY QUALIFIED engineer.”
(from page 23 of BS5837)

Time for SCC to enforce contractual commitments [6 & 7] and for SCC & Amey to start implementing current good practice [5].

D.Long (BSc Hons Arb), Sheffield."

Source:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/837#comment-837

*****
NOTES & REFERENCES

*****

1)
“Saving Sheffield's war memorial trees 'could cost £350,000'”:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/saving-sheffield-s-war-memorial-trees-coul...

2)
See Paul Billington’s* report (“War Memorial Trees”) to the SCC Cabinet, authored by Philip Beecroft (the newly appointed Head of Highway Maintenance), dated 27th November 2017:
http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/documents/s29127/War%20Memorial%20Tree...

Also see:
“War memorial trees in Sheffield 'would cost £500,000 to save':
https://www.thestar.co.uk/our-towns-and-cities/sheffield/war-memorial-tr...

*Paul Billington is SCC’s Director of Development Services – the substitute for David Caulfield (resigned). Mr Billington is responsible for all aspects of the £2.2bn, city-wide, Streets Ahead highway maintenance project that affect trees.

3)
See previous letters submitted to Johnson publishing Ltd which were never printed:

Sustainability_FELLING_Rustlings Rd (aka: “FELLING: SCC/AMEY INCOMPETENCE AND DECEIT”, dated 22nd November, 2016):
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/698#comment-698

“A LETTER TO THE SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH” (dated 23rd November, 2016)
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/714#comment-714

“COUNCIL INCOMPETENCE” (dated 19th December, 2016):
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/728#comment-728

“COST OF SUSTAINABILITY” (dated 29th September 2017):
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/822#comment-822

In addition to the above, listen to the attached audio clip, named: “Cllr Lodge - SCC Cabinet Member For Environment And Streetscene - 1st August 2016_Amey_Streets Ahead_PFI_Fines_160801_002_4_2”

4)
See the SORT letter, dated 29th January, 2016, distributed by SCC to EVERY councillor in the city, as the Nether Edge petition hand-out. It can be accessed using the following link: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/SORT%20L...

5)
Listen to the attached audio clips, named as follows:
“4_Cllr Lodge_1st August 2016_PFI_Client Team_160801_002_4_2”

“Amey_Roadshow_Sharrow_Nether Edge_14th Sept_2016_Enquiries_PFI_Client Team_160914_003_7”

6)
An e-mail from Cllr Jayne Dunn to a lead participant within the Save Our Roadside Trees Sheffield Tree Action Group. It can be viewed using this link:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/787#comment-787

7)
See the Amey PFI contract document for tree management that was made public on 2nd February 2016 (the day before the Nether Edge Sheffield Tree Action Group presented their 6,295 plus signature petition at a meeting of Sheffield City Council). It was released in response to a letter from the Save Our Roadside trees Sheffield Tree Action Group, addressed to Sheffield City Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox), dated 29th January 2016 [4]:

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/SCC_Shef...

Also see:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/6Ds_SCC%...

8)
See D.Long’s previous letter: “The Battle For Sustainable Stewardship of Sheffield's Street Trees” ( https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/810#comment-810 ).

Also listen to the attached audio clip, from the second meeting of the “bi-monthly” Streets Ahead Highway Tree Advisory Forum, held on 2nd September 2015:

“HTAF 2_2nd_September_2015_Steve_Robinson - SCC Head of Highway Maintenance_NO EXTRA COST SOLUTIONS_150902_001_2_3_2” (transcribed on page 47 of the SORT letter [4, above]).

Please note that to date (6th December 2017) there has not been a third meeting, despite the SCC website continuing to assert:

“Anyone who cares about the trees on Sheffield’s streets can come along to the Highway Tree Advisory Forum meeting.

The forum has been set up to give people an opportunity to hear from a variety of experts from various fields from across the city to debate how highway trees should be managed.”

Source:
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/roads-pavements/managing-street-trees....
(web-page last updated on 2nd November 2017 at 10:39AM)

9)
Listen to the attached audio clip, from the second meeting of the “bi-monthly” Streets Ahead Highway Tree Advisory Forum, held on 2nd September 2015:

“HTAF 2_2nd_September_2015_Steve_Robinson - SCC Head of Highway Maintenance_Section 58 Defence - Insufficient Funding_150902_001_2_3_2” (transcribed on page 45 of the SORT letter [4, above]).

10)
Reference: The British Standards Institution, 2012. British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations". London: BSI Standards Ltd.

LETTER

On 13th December 2017, the following letter was sent to various newspapers:
SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH, THE STAR & The Yorkshire Post.

The author has kindly granted permission for me to share it here. The author has advised that two versions of the letter were submitted to the editors. The second version was shorter, by the omission of the paragraph that is enclosed between square brackets, below.

*****
STREET TREES & HIGHWAY RESURFACING

Dear Editor,

In Sheffield Telegraph (7/12/2017), an anonymous person – I’ll name Willis, for convenience - responded to an earlier letter. Willis criticised the contributor for suggesting that roots of STREET TREES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH DAMAGE TO FOOTWAYS AND KERBS could be pruned or sculpted, by contractors working on the £2.2bn “Streets Ahead” highway maintenance project, as suitable alternatives to felling.

Most mature street trees are associated with such damage and are routinely listed for felling by the contractor delivering the project – Amey - & Sheffield City Council (SCC). The city-wide felling of healthy, structurally sound, mature street trees has attracted international media attention and universal condemnation from many green-space professionals, including eminent academics and arboriculturists. Willis asserted that roots would react to wounding by adding greater incremental growth than usual (reaction wood) and that would result in damage to hard surfaces.

With oblique reference to research published in 1998*, Willis asserted that the Forestry commission had undertaken an investigation in Sheffield to explore “the difficulty of repairing and resurfacing streets without causing root damage.” In fact, the research referred to was an investigation of the distribution and thickness of tree roots associated with footway damage. THE INVESTIGATION ONLY LOOKED AT FIVE TREES – all ‘Kanzan’ cherries, like those on Abbeydale Park Rise. However, THE RESEARCH DID NOT INVESTIGATE OR COMPARE METHODS OR TECHNIQUES FOR WORKING ON OR AROUND ROOTS, OR FOR “REPAIRING AND RESURFACING STREETS”.

It is reasonably practicable to undertake excavation & construction in close proximity to trees without causing significant root damage, by ensuring acts and omissions represent current good practice, as detailed in the petition hand-outs that the Save Our Roadside Trees group (SORT) have distributed to Amey, SCC Officers, and every Councillor in the city. These are available for all to see, at the Stocksbridge Community Forum website. ROOT GROWTH AND DISTRIBUTION IS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BY PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE “SOIL” IN WHICH THE PLANTS GROW. This point was highlighted by the research. It indicates the NECESSITY TO ENSURE THERE IS ADEQUATE SITE PREPARATION PRIOR TO PLANTING, SO AS TO HELP AVOID FUTURE DAMAGE TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. If planting street trees, just digging a hole slightly bigger than the root ball and back-filling it cannot achieve this and is not a sustainable approach, particularly if one aim is to optimise the provision of benefits afforded by trees.

[SEVEN OF THE EIGHT TREES FELLED in the pre-dawn raid on Rustlings Road, a year ago, were felled because of minor disturbance to footways and kerbs. NINETEEN OF THE TWENTY-THREE WW1 MEMORIAL TREES on Western Rd that are to be felled are schedulled for felling for the same reasons. Prior to the £2.2bn Streets Ahead PFI, mature trees accounted for 73.8% of Sheffield’s street trees. SCC say the contract permits the felling of 67.7% of mature street trees. Most are associated with damage to footways and kerbs. Their loss is resulting in significant, instant depletion of street CANOPY COVER, and loss in the magnitude of valuable ecological, economic and social benefits it provides to communities and neighbourhoods, with direct, negative impact on their HEALTH & WELL-BEING. Sadly, such BENEFITS HAVE NOT BEEN VALUED OR ACCOUNTED FOR BY SCC OR AMEY, NOR WAS THEIR LOSS, contrary to existing policy commitments, contractual commitments, and a range of current good practice guidance and recommendations that they claim to use.]

It must be noted that since 1998, A RANGE OF GOOD PRACTICE GUIDANCE HAS BECOME AVAILABLE TO AID THOSE UNDERTAKING WORKS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO TREES AND HELP ENABLE THE SAFE LONG-TERM RETENTION OF MATURE TREES. New products have emerged and are now widely used elsewhere, throughout the UK & overseas. They include resin-bonded aggregates and Flexi®-Pave – an alternative to Asphalt. The key benefit of Flexi®-Pave is that it flexes as plant parts thicken, whereas asphalt cracks and requires additional maintenance. Interestingly, the SCC Head of Highway Maintenance has stated:

“THE ENGINEERING AND TREE-BASED SOLUTIONS COME AT NO EXTRA COST TO THE COUNCIL. So, the tax-payer does not pay if an engineering solution or a tree-based solution can be applied”

“IF AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION CAN BE APPLIED, THEN IT WILL BE APPLIED. …a tree is removed as a LAST resort”.

He also informed that the “solutions” are a list of ideas and that they include: EXCAVATION; “FLEXIBLE PAVING/SURFACING SOLUTION”; RAMPING / RE-PROFILING; USE OF THINNER KERBS; REMOVAL OF DISPLACED KERBS; PRUNING (INCLUDING POLLARDING); “CREATION OF LARGER TREE PITS”.

When I met Cllr LODGE (SCC’s Cabinet member for Environment And Streetscene), on 1st August, 2016, he informed:

“THE MONEY THAT WE NEED TO MONITOR THAT CONTRACT IS NOT THERE, because we try to make savings and… WE HAVEN’T GOT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THAT CLIENT MANAGEMENT TEAM WHICH WE OUGHT TO HAVE.”

However, he also informed that SCC HAD FINED AMEY OVER £2 MILLION in 2015, for sub-standard works and were: “just in the process of taking some action against Amey” for the same reason. Really, SCC could and should enforce compliance with existing good practice and contractual commitments.

Yours faithfully,

D.Long (BSc Hons Arb. Former Highways)

* Reference:

Nicoll, B.C. and Armstrong, A., 1998. Development of Prunus root systems in a city street: Pavement damage and root architecture. Arboricultural Journal, 22(3), pp.259-270.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03071375.1998.9747209

Source:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/838#comment-838

A LETTER TO THE STAR (published)
Dated 24th July 2016

"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 (21st July, 2016), 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. IT IS WHY TREES CAN RECEIVE MULTIPLE WOUNDS WHEN PRUNED, ATTACKED BY HERBIVORES, OTHERWISE DAMAGED, AND REMAIN STRONG, HEALTHY AND SAFE. Trees 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.

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. An air-spade can be used to excavate around roots and avoid wounding.

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."

Source:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/617#comment-617

MASS FELLING – ENQUIRIES – MALADMINISTRATION – INCOMPETENCE - DECEIT

SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCE THE FELLING OF 17,500 STREET TREES

Two weeks ago, on 9th March 2018, in response to a demand by the Information Commissioner, Sheffield City Council (SCC) released a redacted version of the £2.2bn PFI highway maintenance contract for the Streets Ahead project. It reveals that SCC have set a target for the contractor (Amey) to fell 200 trees per year with a total of 17,500 to be felled over a 25yr period (67.6% of mature street trees).

See:

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/our-region/south-yorkshire/sheffield/she...

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/roads-pavements/streets-ahead/streets-...

Although THE CONTRACT PERMITS THE CONTRACTOR TO REQUEST THAT FEWER TREES BE FELLED, AND IT PERMITS THE COUNCIL TO GRANT THAT PERMISSION. However, to quote the Council, as reported in The Yorkshire Post (newspaper):

“The spokeswoman said: […] IF, at the end of the contract, a smaller number has been replaced, A FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENT WILL BE MADE.

[...]
The council has now confirmed to The Yorkshire Post that NO FORMAL AGREEMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO CHANGE THE CONTRACT and a spokeswoman said THERE IS NO INTENTION TO do on the grounds that the current wording 'provides financial cover should it prove necessary to replace that many'".

SOURCE:
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/sheffield-council-confirms-contract...

As the contractor will receive a reduced payment if 17,500 street trees are not felled, and AS THE CONTRACTOR MAKES GREATER PROFIT BY FELLING MATURE TREES, THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR THE CONTRACTOR NOT TO FELL SO MANY. To make matters worse, SCC rely heavily on the contractor monitoring, auditing and reporting on their own work. See:

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

******

The contractor is also tasked with handling and investigating all enquiries and complaints about their own work, on behalf of SCC:

From Sheffield Tree Action Groups (STAG) Facebook (posted by Cathie Rainbow, on 12th March 2018):

Interesting ! I put in official complaint to Sheffield Council re trees and got response ! Is this normal for Sheffield Council to pass my details to the person I am in fact complaing about ?
I asked if response was from SCC and got this reply.

*****

"Thank you for your email dated 2 March 2018.

I can confirm that I AM AN AMEY EMPLOYEE.

For your information, I can confirm that AMEY HAS DESIGNATED POWERS TO RESPOND ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL ON ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO STREETS AHEAD WORKS, INCLUDING THE HANDLING AND INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS.

All complaints are handled in accordance with the Council’s Customer Complaints procedure and the Council retains an oversight of all Streets Ahead complaints handled, including this one. I can confirm, therefore, that the Council is aware of your complaint and has reviewed this response prior to it being sent to you.

As previously advised, at this stage you do have the right to ask for your complaint to be reviewed by a more senior manager.

To request this please contact me via streetsahead@sheffield.gov.uk or by telephone on (0114) 273 4567, giving details of why you are not satisfied and what further action you want to be taken.

Kind regards

Jeremy WILLIS

Operations Manager
Customer Services (AMEY)

Tel: 0114 273 4567
Email: streetsahead@sheffield.gov.uk "

LEGAL - AMEY – INCOMPETENCE - MISREPRESENTATION - DECEIT

Just three months after Amey had begun a city-wide programme of environmental degradation in Sheffield, the Scottish parliament tells them to sling their hook. See this online content, published by andywduncan, on December 5th, 2012, in “Contract”.

“AMEY AG LIMITED V. THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS, 27 NOVEMBER 2012 –
PROCUREMENT, ROADS SERVICES CONTRACTS

Outer House case in which the Scottish Ministers sought an interim order bringing to an end a prohibition under regulation 47(10) of the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006. The prohibition prevented the Ministers from entering contracts relating to the provision of services in relation to trunk roads.
In November 2010, the MINISTERS (acting through Transport Scotland) ADVERTISED TWO CONTRACTS FOR THE MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OF TRUNK ROADS. After adopting the competitive dialogue procedure the Ministers invited tenders. AMEY AND THREE OTHER OPERATORS SUBMITTED TENDERS. However, the Ministers wrote to Amey advising that they considered Amey’s tender to be abnormally low. They stated that this presented them with unacceptable financial, operational and reputational risks in fulfilling their statutory duties. They considered that AMEY HAD MANIPULATED THE PRICES AND RATES and explained their concerns in some detail. Correspondence followed in which AMEY ARGUED THAT IT HAD TAKEN A “HOLISTIC APPROACH TO THE TENDER” and provided price and other information. However, the Ministers rejected Amey’s bid concluding that the offer: (a) carried significant unacceptable risks; (b) was neither economically viable nor sustainable; and (c) was not genuine.”
Noting that Courts function was limited reviewing the Ministers’ decision solely to see whether or not there is a manifest error and/or whether the process was in some way unfair, LORD HODGE SAW NO LEGAL BASIS ON WHICH AMEY COULD CHALLENGE THE MINISTER’S CONCLUSION THAT ITS OFFER (A) CARRIED UNACCEPTABLE RISKS FOR THEM AND (B) WAS NEITHER ECONOMICALLY VIABLE OR SUSTAINABLE.

However, if by concluding that the offer was not genuine, the Scottish Ministers were suggesting that the offer was a sham that was more problematic. Lord Hodge though did not consider that that was what was meant. The bids were assessed on the “Comparative Cost of Tender” which was a figure based on prices and rates entered by the tenderers. Lord Hodge interpreted the use of the word “genuine” as referring to the way in which Amey chose to present its offer, noting that the prices and rates Amey provided bore little relationship to the turnover that Amey expected from the contract.

HOWEVER, EVEN THE MINISTERS’ USE OF THE TERM ‘GENUINE’ HAD BEEN INCORRECT, THAT WOULD NOT HAVE UNDERMINED THEIR CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE RISK, ECONOMIC VIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE BID.

[…]
Lord Hodge granted the Scottish Ministers’ motion and lifted the prohibition preventing Transport Scotland entering the proposed contracts with other contractors.”

SOURCE:
http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=972

JUDGEMENT:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=ac9a86a6-8980...

ALL NEWS DELETED - 22nd March 2018

If anyone is wondering, many of the links to other SCF comments no longer work, that is because ALL NEWS ITEMS POSTED SINCE 2014 HAVE BEEN DELETED, along with all associated comments and documents. There are local elections soon, and incompetence, maladministration, secrecy and deceit by Sheffield City Council have made any discussion of green infrastructure - including Sheffield's urban forest and its various tree populations - highly controversial.

Content was deleted by Robert Smith - SCF moderator. When I complained, his response was:

"The site is not currently being managed. However I did remove a number of old news items."
[...]

"Unfortunately the deleted items cannot be restored once they are deleted."

Now, when I attempt to contribute content, the following message is displayed:

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 1073741824 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 78 bytes) in /home/stocksbridge/sites/default/includes/ajax.inc on line 624

TREES, DAMAGE, “DISCRIMINATION” & MEDIA BIAS

The letter below - "The Battle For Sustainable Stewardship of Sheffield's Street Trees" - arrived in my inbox on 2nd August 2017. The author sent it to the SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH the same day. […] a similar version was sent to the YORKSHIRE POST on 1st August 2017. […] the NEWSPAPERS HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO PUBLISH THE LETTER. Notation and references have been added to support the content.

*****
THE BATTLE FOR SUSTAINABLE STEWARDSHIP OF SHEFFIELD'S STREET TREES

Dear Editor,

In my opinion, significant omissions from recent media coverage of the legal dispute between Sheffield City Council and Sheffield Tree Action Groups have led to misleading reports. Various news sources reported that dead, dying, diseased and dangerous street trees are being felled in Sheffield [1&5]. However, that accounts for just four of the “6Ds” criteria that SCC & Amey Hallam Highways Ltd use to justify felling street trees [2]. The other two “Ds” – DAMAGING and DISCRIMINATORY - were NOT mentioned, yet they are the criteria most used by SCC and Amey to justify felling [7&9], and the most controversial [4].

Amey is the service provider for the £2.2bn “Streets Ahead” highway maintenance project. Prior to this 25yr contract, in 2007, Elliott Consultancy Ltd surveyed Sheffield’s entire street tree population. The consultant reported that 73.8% of Sheffield’s street trees were mature (25,877 trees) [3]. Most are associated with damage to footways and kerbs. The Deputy Leader of SCC has twice confirmed that the contract permits the felling of 67.7% of mature street trees [4]. On 28th July 2017, BBC Look North informed that around 5,400 have been felled [5].

On 23rd July, 2015, Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) informed:

“So, our underinvestment and underfunding left us with a number of dead, dying and dangerous trees. …there were 1,200 trees that were within that category. So, AMEY IDENTIFIED THOSE TREES AND ADDRESSED THOSE FIRST. […] Our next priority is to improve the condition of our roads and pavements. So, in other words, deal with the DAMAGING trees… So, we’re now looking to deal with DISCRIMINATORY trees.[6] …IF AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION CAN BE APPLIED, THEN IT WILL BE APPLIED. …a tree is removed as a LAST resort.”[4&7]

Since 2015, the Information commissioner [8] and John Mothersole (SCC Chief Executive) [9] have confirmed that no alternative highway engineering specifications have been commissioned or drafted for consideration for use as an alternative to felling. Instead, SCC & Amey have a list of 25 ideas [8 & 9].

Yours sincerely,

D.Long (BSc Hons Arb)

AMEY’S LEGAL OBLIGATION
(An e-mail to a leading SORT participant)

From: Dunn Jayne (LAB CLLR) <Jayne.Dunn@sheffield.gov.uk>
Sent: 10 May 2015 08:58
To: Xxxx
Subject: RE: Complaint - Rustlings Road proposed Tree Felling

Dear Xxxx

If you could forward me the email or the letter that we sent to you in regard of the walkabout for the tree removal, I would be grateful.

**** UNDER THE CONTRACT THEY HAVE TO FULFIL ANY PROMISE, **** I myself have arranged as a local councillor numerous walkabouts and never found it a problem. These are usually organised by the Amey Steward and the local councillors, if the local councillors have emailed to do this then it will be easy to find.

Kind Regards

Jayne

*****

Please remember that Cllr Jayne Dunn (Labour) was Scc Cabinet Member For Environment, Recycling And Streetscene when she made the above comment. See

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/updated-sheffield-council-cabinet-member-j...

*****
Also see:

“LETTER: From SCCs Chief Executive - OVER 4yrs IN TO A £2.2 bn PROJECT & NO ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS DRAFTED”:

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/LETTER%2...

THE COUNCIL’S BROKEN COMMITMENTS TO RETAIN MATURE HIGHWAY TREES

(INCLUDING LINKS TO SCC RESPONSES TO PETITION HAND-OUTS)

***
"In a letter dated 18th November, 2015 (see Appendix 7), David CAULFIELD (Director of Development Services: with overall responsibility for highway trees) stated:

'…REMOVAL OF ANY HIGHWAY TREE IS ALWAYS THE LAST RESORT…'

***
In an e-mail dated 17th December, 2015 (see Appendix 7), Mr CAULFIELD stated:

'Clearly IF A SITE SPECIFIC OR BESPOKE SOLUTION CAN BE IDENTIFIED by either the Council or Amey's arboricultural surveyors or highway engineers WHICH CAN BE APPLIED WITH REASONABLE PRACTICABILITY TO RETAIN A TREE THEN WE WOULD LOOK TO DO SO. …We like to think that as THE UK'S LARGEST HIGHWAYS PFI PROJECT…' "
(From page 44)

***
Steve ROBINSON gave a presentation at the second HTAF meeting, on 2nd September, 2015. He stated:

“We are replacing about 70% of the City’s footways over the first five years. We have a duty to consider equalities. Now, in the past, existing TRIP HAZARDS have been left, and THE COUNCIL HAS A DEFENCE UNDER THE HIGHWAYS ACT - SECTION 58 DEFENCE UNDER THE HIGHWAYS ACT – of not having sufficient funding to deal with all those defects. IT NOW CAN’T HAVE THAT DEFENCE BECAUSE IT HAS FUNDING OF £2.2BN ON THE PFI PROJECT. So we must take in to account the consideration of the Equalities [sic] Act.
(From page 45)

***
In an e-mail (Ref: 101002355831) dated 16th December, 2015 (see Appendix 11), Jeremy WILLIS (Amey) stated:

“Unlike many other large UK cities, Sheffield is in a unique position and HAS THE FUNDING through the Streets Ahead project to upgrade its roads, pavements, street lights and streetscene. This also includes BETTER MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT of the street trees.”
ONE OF THE AIMS OF THE STREETS AHEAD PROJECT IS TO RETAIN HEALTHY TREES WHEREVER POSSIBLE…

A NEW TREE CAN NEVER REPLACE A MATURE SPECIMEN…
Please be assured that we are COMMITTED TO RETAINING, MAINTAINING and investing in the city’s tree stock for future generations”
(From page 103)

***
In a communication dated 7th July, 2015, the DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT stated (see Appendix 3):

“Local highway authorities, in your case Sheffield City Council, have a duty under Section 41 of the HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 to maintain the highways network in their area. THE ACT DOES NOT SET OUT SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF MAINTENANCE, as IT IS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY TO ASSESS which parts of its network are in need of repair and WHAT STANDARDS SHOULD BE APPLIED, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances. Central Government has no powers to override local decisions in these matters.”
(From page 46)
On 23rd July, 2015, at the inaugural meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum, Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) commented:

“The other three Ds - Diseased, Damaging and Discriminatory – there is a degree or, erm, of judgement to be taken on it. That word was used earlier. So, JUST BECAUSE A TREE IS DISEASED DOESN’T MEAN TO SAY THAT THAT TREE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. It is the type of disease, the effect that disease will have on the tree’s life, err, whether it turns out to be dangerous, so on and so forth, and those judgements are made by tree people.

Erm, THOSE TREE PEOPLE MAKE NO ACCOUNT OF PROFIT OR COST, so those factors do not come in to play. These are tree people who used to work for the Council. They have the same mind-set, now that THEY HAVE THEIR BUDGET TO LOOK AFTER THEIR TREES.

In terms of damaging, yes, again, there is a degree of judgement and, erm, and, you know, if something can be done, IF AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION CAN BE APPLIED, THEN IT WILL BE APPLIED. Err, there was a lots [sic] of comment made earlier on about whether a tree is removed as a last resort; and a tree is removed as a LAST resort.”
(From pages 42 & 43)

***
In addition…

On 23rd October, 2015, THE STAR reported:

“Cllr Terry FOX, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, said:

‘We have always said that WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE TO RETAIN A TREE, THIS IS WHAT WE WILL WORK HARD TO DO… we are serious about that commitment.’”

***
On 20th June, 2016, THE STAR reported:

“Coun Bryan LODGE, cabinet member for environment, said:

‘IF WE CAN USE PRACTICABLE AND AFFORDABLE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO RETAIN TREES, THEN WE WILL LOOK TO DO THAT.’”

Source:
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/axe-might-stop-for-12-city-trees-1-7973228

*****

The above quotes come from the SORT Letter To The Cabinet Member For Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox), dated 29th January, 2016. The SORT letter highlighted gross incompetence, recklessness and maladministration, and was highly critical of SCC and the Streets Ahead team. The letter was DISTRIBUTED TO EVERY COUNCILLOR in the city, as a petition hand-out, by SCC’s John Turner (Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources), on 1st February, 2016, to encourage informed “debate” at the meeting of full Council, on 3rd February, 2016. That was when the Nether Edge Sheffield Tree Action Group would present their petition (of over 6,295 signatures): in favour of a STRATEGIC APPROACH TO HELP ENSURE VALUABLE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS ARE MANAGED SUSTAINABLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT, NATIONALLY RECOGNISED, WIDELY ACCEPTED, GOOD PRACTICE GUIDANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

The SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016 (ignored by the SCC Cabinet member for Environment & Transport - Cllr Terry Fox) - can be accessed using the following link (References are on pages 125 to 139):

http://bit.ly/2dGxO01

THE SCC RESPONSE TO THE SORT LETTER, provided by the SCC Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene (Cllr Bryan LODGE: Cllr Fox’s successor), can be found here:

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/522#comment-522

***
On 8th July, 2015, the Streets Ahead Customer Services Fulfilment Team (Sheffield City Council and Amey) issued a PDF document - “Rustlings Road Response”*. It informed:

“ IF A MATURE TREE CAN BENEFIT FROM A BETTER MAINTENANCE REGIME and pruning and would thrive in its current location, then THIS WOULD BE RETAINED, EVEN IF IT HAS A SHORT LIFESPAN OF 5 YEARS.”

* https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/SCC_Rust...

The “Rustlings Road Response” PDF document was prepared by Ms Stephanie Roberts of and for the Streets Ahead Customer Services Fulfilment Team, during the afternoon of 8th July, 2015.

It was a response to a 29 page petition hand-out that was DISTRIBUTED TO EVERY COUNCILLOR IN SHEFFIELD, by SCC's John Turner (the Council’s Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources department), on 26th June, 2015. The hand-out was to encourage informed “debate” at the meeting of full Council held on 1st July 2015. That was when the Save Our Rustlings Trees group (since known as Save Our Roadside Trees) - SHEFFIELD’S FIRST TREE GROUP - would present their petition (4,693 signatures online & over 5,307 on paper): in favour of a STRATEGIC APPROACH TO HELP ENSURE VALUABLE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS ARE MANAGED SUSTAINABLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT, NATIONALLY RECOGNISED, WIDELY ACCEPTED, GOOD PRACTICE GUIDANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

The original SORT petition hand-out document was 27 pages. Prior to distribution SORT made amendments and added two more pages. The above link provided above takes you to the amended document, as it was prior to the addition of the two pages. In particular, note the recommendations on page 19.

THE SCC RESPONSE TO THE SORT PETITION HAND-OUT, provided by the SCC Cabinet member for Environment & Transport - Cllr Terry FOX – can be accessed using this link:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/241#comment-241

***
On 2nd February 2016, Amey & SCC published a back-dated 5yr document*, which they said had been kept from the public as it was a “commercially sensitive” contract document. It informed:

“Given the RISK associated with managing trees with neglected historical pollards… POLLARDS WILL BE MANAGED ON A SHORT-TERM CYCLICAL PROGRAMME OF NO MORE THAN 3 YEARS to minimise the impact on tree health and ensure highway safety.”

* https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/SCC_Shef...

The document was quickly cobble together by Amey and PUBLISHED IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER FROM THE SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES GROUP (SORT: Sheffield's first Sheffield Tree Action Group), dated 29th January, 2016.

All content on arboricultural / urban forestry matters contained within the petition hand-outs mentioned here, including works cited and referenced, is technically accurate, correct and currently valid. This has been verified by a competent, professional arboriculturist.