Bertie Magoo

I don't think root pruning on large trees in a high target area is a good solution. Nor root shaving as the roots produce callous growth in response which can exasperate the issue. Flexi paving and ramping are more sympathetic to the tree, but it depends on how raised the footway is to begin with. There are also issues with water discharge from the footway, it cannot drain onto private property.

Whilst i'm not defending Amey's justifications for felling on this road in any way... If there are now only around 60 trees of the 100 or so planted for each pupil that died, why is it suddenly a national scandal now? Why has there been no uproar about the other 40 previously, or am I not up to date?

If you follow that google link and then go back to the earliest photo dated 2008, you will see the original yorkstone flags. They have now been replaced by tarmac and it looks far worse

Regarding the survey letter, it states 'A 2007 independent survey of street trees found that approximately 75% are considered to be mature or over mature. As a result, a sustainable replacement and management programme is required to prevent a catastrophic decline in street tree numbers in the coming years.' This is deliberately misleading. Firstly the age class, 'mature' and 'over mature' does not represent the safe useful life expectancy remaining for those trees. It means very little in fact. Different species have different life expediencies. Birch maybe 80-100 years whereas Oaks 400+. (granted they would be shorter in an urban environment.) So how have they come to the conclusion that Sheffield's highway trees are at risk of a catastrophic decline?? If the council simply removed the trees that had exceeded their safe useful life expectancy, such as those those in the upper end of the 'over mature' category, any truly dangerous trees and any in poor physiological condition. They would still be nowhere near the 5000+ trees they have felled so far. The catastrophic decline has been caused by the mass felling. It so difficult to establish trees in the modern urban environment, the healthy trees should be maintained as long as possible. Secondly if the council are desperate to use the streets ahead contract to replace god knows how many mature trees. Why try to do it all in 5 years? In environmental terms that is instantly. Why not do it over the 25 years? That's the really unsustainable part. Oh, and if someone told me it would cost £10,000 pounds to come up with an 'Engineering solution' for a nudged kerb as the council have stated on Rustlings Road. I'd just tell them to remove the kerb at negligible cost and keep a valuable community asset for another 20+ years. There is no legal requirement for a kerb.

My survey letter states 'over 4 million trees on our streets,in our parks and woodlands and in private land and gardens. There are in excess of 36,000 trees on the highway' not that there are 4 million street trees.

Sheffield Council should simply come clean and admit they undervalued the cities trees when the Streets Ahead Contract was drawn up. There are some obvious issues with a large proportion of the highway tree stock, however replacing this many trees over a five year period is folly. I can't believe they had a private company survey the trees stock prior to the contract that found 75% of the tree stock was over mature and they didn't think they should involve an aboriculturist in the drafting process. Amateurs The council need to find a compromise that will allow Amey to make a profit and sheffield retain more mature trees. The current stance smacks of arrogance. Oh, and on more thing. Don't count on the tree strategy being fit for purpose by early next year. It took Lyon several drafts and over 5 years.