Ok, so I'm sure there's a "logical" explanation for this but..

Can someone *please* tell me why the heck the "Powers That Be" have decided to cut down _at_least_ SIX (6) mature trees from the Barkers Pool area of the city centre? :(

I'm fully aware that the entire area is to be "redesigned" soon in 2005 and (showing my ignorance) I'm not sure how long the trees in question have been gone already (but I know it's _fairly_ recent) However, I have to say I'm personally bemused and disgusted by the removal of the trees.

I would imagine (and sincerely HOPE!) that the re-landscaping plans include the installation of replacement trees, but I for one can't see the point in removing the previous trees which I recall being perfect for the area anyway..? Surely the construction workers could (on the whole) work around them?

*sigh*

and

*sigh* again.

I should point out that I'm not a "Spider" [corrie] style tree-hugging type - just someone who keeps seeing the "Greener, Safer City" propaganda from the council who's wondering why they've decided to give at least six nice trees from Barkers Pool the [literal] "chop"? :(

Any thoughts from anyone else on this? Apologies if it's old ground on this site, but a newbie(ish) so thought I'd post and let off some steam anyway!

Cheers.

I agree, the trees should have been left (unless they were diseased or something)
I bet they end up planting little saplings to replace them.

For exactly this reason - complaints - the Council does not usually take lightly to removing trees. Contrary to popular opinion, the tree gangs do not enjoy being spat on and abused by incensed members of the public. Also, believe it or not, our Council is fairly enlightened about trees...and no I don't work for them!
<just a minute, why am I standing up for the Council? Never mind, I started so I'll finish...>
I have no idea why the Barkers Pool trees were removed, and maybe they did spend all that money just to be evil tree-hating so-and-so's...or maybe...
Trees that have been damaged by pipe and cable laying/building/paving will appear to be healthy for a few years, though in reality they are dying slowly, and it is best to remove and replace them.
Disease is hard to see in a tree unless it is quite well advanced...what we can't see, as above, someone may well have diagnosed. Diseases kill and spread...the trees must come down
They may have been removed and replaced by species more suitable for urban environments...better able to cope with pollution, less brittle branches that won't drop off and hurt innocent (or even not so innocent) pedestrians.

If you're concerned, try writing or phoning about it to find out why it was done. We do actually have people who specifically deal with trees in the Council. They will also be reminded that they need to make people aware of the reasons behind their decisions.

Cosy:D

Surely they need to make room for the new whizzy urinals which dissappear into the ground during the day. I'd like to say that the trees in Barkers pool have been getting too large for a few years. I haven't been able to take a decent pic of the statue.

And you can hardly complain about the lack of trees in the city, we have more trees than any other city in the uk. Looks like they are going to be installing lots of new trees in the attractive new pavements on Moore Street/Charter row and Arundel gate.

It's all part of plans approved long ago. Old trees out & new trees in.

From:
http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/whats-new/connecting-sheffield/foot-and-bike
The plans for Barkers Pool incorporate:......
An avenue of new mature trees around City Hall allowing old trees of unsuitable species whose roots are seriously undermining the footways to be replaced

From: REPORT TO CABINET 23rd JULY, 2003
http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=9491

2.2 In particular the space does not work well for many events such as the military parades and ill-sited tree planting obscures the frontage of the City Hall.

2.6 The streets which enclose City Hall on its other three sides – Holly St and Balm Green, are of a poor quality, consisting mainly of tarmac except for the stone paved footway around the Hall itself which has been seriously undermined by tree roots and is now seriously hazardous.

3.2 The proposal recommends a simple, classic paving treatment using the same materials as the Heart of the City with new tree planting, lighting and a low key water channel running down the centre line of Barkers Pool, making reference to the historic culvert and public fountain which gave the space its name.

I'm sorry I was thinking about Fitzalan Square, not Barkers pool.

Thanks to all for your interesting and useful replies (so far)

Pleased to hear that I'm not the only one who's noticed the "change" anyway.

I'd forgotten about the crazy urinals idea thingy ... I await the installation of them with interest! I think.

Cheers.