Robin-H

I'm not the OP but anyone can see they were not equating the act of chopping down trees with terrorism - they were merely stating that lots of little things add up to big things, and thereby comparing the mechanism through which chopping down lots individual trees would result in a large overall loss to the process through which terrorism is made up of lots of individual acts. Also, where is your proof that urban trees (not confined to just street trees, but they are obviously included) don't have an effect on tourism? This paper would suggest otherwise.. http://sofew.cfr.msstate.edu/papers/Zheng09.pdf

SULE is the length of time that the arboriculturist assesses an individual tree can be retained with an acceptable level of risk based on the information available at the time of inspection. A tree with large limbs falling off would therefore not being deemed to have an acceptable level of risk and so the SULE length would be measured accordingly.

Great, I'd suggest reading the first one first - it is quite lengthy but it's pretty comprehensive and a lot of it can be skipped to get to the relevant points.

Um that's why I then posted the links to 5 articles specifically about the benefits and importance of STREET TREES... Btw for anyone wishing to get the facts about street trees to better argue their importance then that first link is really good particularly http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/CCST_Social_Report_March2010.pdf/$FILE/CCST_Social_Report_March2010.pdf (copy and paste into address bar) especially as it is authored by the Forestry Commission - a government department.

I'm afraid that all our evidence seems to be falling on deaf ears - some people don't want to change their opinion even in light of evidence.

Ok, how about this then.. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/CCST_Social_Report_March2010.pdf/$FILE/CCST_Social_Report_March2010.pdf or this.. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/15/treeconomics-street-trees-cities-sheffield-itree or this.. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/22_benefits_208084_7.pdf or this.. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Trees-people-and-the-buit-environment_Dandy.pdf/$FILE/Trees-people-and-the-buit-environment_Dandy.pdf or this.. http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/street-trees/street-trees.htm Like I said, the weight of evidence and expert opinion is against you. Cities not only need trees, they need Street Trees. (some links don't become clickable for some reason but just need to copy and pasted into address bar)

Looking out of my window all I can see are street trees - look I can quote personal circumstances too, not particularly sure why that's useful. If you want to argue that street trees aren't that important than fine, but luckily the weight of evidence and expert advice is against you. http://thoughts.arup.com/post/details/180/cities-need-large-trees

This is already been explained. Street trees are the most visible trees within the city and so have the greatest impact on the visual amenity of Sheffield. As I said elsewhere it is completely disingenuous to peddle the 'only 1% of trees' line. We are talking about at least 50% of street trees. This will have a big impact on the character of Sheffield. Also, street trees DO improve house prices - this is well documented. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/plants/trees/11092440/How-much-is-a-tree-worth.html

So are Amey changing their policy in Birmingham in order that large crowned street trees are saved?

Yes I largely agree with what you are saying. (Btw the 75% figure comes from the 2006/2007 survey that suggested that 75% of roadside trees were meeting the end of their natural life, and so I was commenting on the effect that losing 75% of roadside trees would have as worst scenario. However a lot of the argument stems from healthy trees being removed) I don't know about other people but I have never argued that losing these trees would have a great effect regarding the total biomass of trees within Sheffield as a whole, and so would not drastically alter things controlled or mitigated by this - such as overall CO2 sequestration, wildlife habitats etc etc. It will however change the visual amenity of many areas, being the most prominent trees within public areas. Lining roadsides, these trees will also have a greater effect on pollution and the cooling of houses in the summer etc, than say trees in woodlands would, and so in many respects play a greater role. I do agree however that this should be considered on a street by street and tree by tree basis. There are places where the impact would not be as greatly felt, and areas where it will be quite dramatic. What irks me is why this process is not being taken over many many years, say the next 30 years or so. I can only think the reason for this is to save money Take your example of Rusltings Road for instance. Amey plan to remove 11 Lime Trees from this street, which granted is not every tree on the street, but as the trees have medium to large crowns their removal will undoubtedly alter the street. If these trees are meeting the end of their life they will at some point need to be replaced, but why isn't this being spaced out over the next 30 years? If 1 tree was removed every 3 years, the first tree replaced would be nearly 40 years old (the replanted tree is said to be 7 or 8 years old when it is planted) by the time the last tree was removed. Surely this would greatly reduce the impact on individual sites as opposed to removing them all at once.

If you wanted to underestimate the impact this will have in Sheffield them by all means you could group every tree in parks, gardens, woodlands, along river valleys, in the area of the peak district technically within Sheffield etc etc to come to the 2 million tree figure and thus show the 18,000 trees Amey will cut down is a small drop in the ocean. However, I think this is disingenuous. It is the street trees that have the greatest impact on the visual amenity in Sheffield, and greatly add to the character of a large part of Sheffield. Removing 50-75% of these trees will have a huge impact - I don't really understand why that is something that needs to be explained.

Trying to remove them perhaps? I'll be walking down there myself in a minute so I'll take a look. The council confirmed that the matter is currently with the enforcement team. I'm therefore a little surprised that any work is allowed to continue for the time being even if the damage is done. Removing tree stumps would surely be removing evidence.

What a kind offer. I think improved dialogue between people on all sides would greatly reduce levels of misinformation and therefore issues along the way - it is the shame the council do not seem to hold this view. ---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 21:54 ---------- Jesus, why the hell did they do that?

Yes don't get me started on that travesty of a building! The view of the church from inside is nice only because it is the only spot where you can't see that monstrosity of a building from. But yes Sheffield University aren't to blame this time. I believe Fionn Stevenson (the head of the Architecture Department) was at the recent meeting about the Amey Tree felling speaking out in defence of the trees, so that's something at least..

Thanks for that - I looked on Facebook to see if there was any similar uproar to how I was feeling but couldn't find anything, I'm not very FB savvy. Interesting that someone has been told by the council that the felling was unlawful. Whilst I sincerely hope that is true and the developer/contractor who did this is slapped with a hefty fine and is made to replant, I have a hunch that the poster above will be right in that the old clause in the planning application is no longer valid. Something is terribly wrong with the current system if trees that are considered worth saving for their visual amenity by the council (one need only look at the before and after photos on Facebook to see how important they were) have no form of protection what-so-ever. Disgraceful.

Sorry perhaps my summing up of the planning application didn't make things clear. The planning permission did not stipulate that the trees were to remain in order that the land could be used for outdoor seating, indeed it was quite the opposite. The trees were threatened by the creation of the outdoor seating and so the clause was added to make sure they were protected from the development due to their prominence and the fact they improve the visual amenity of the surrounding area. I agree that there are some lovely mature trees up the road, but they don't mitigate the loss of these. Personally I think finding out the why these trees were felled, if it was done lawfully, and whether the situation can be in anyway redressed is I think worthy of a little effort. It doesn't mean the same effort isn't being applied to surviving threatened trees.

Sorry yes I do tend to assume sarcasm where there is sometimes none! Glad we agree.

Yes I see some of the beautiful trees you are talking about now, not that there are that many left on those streets anyway. http://tinyurl.com/o86fl3c Not really sure how they can be 'lifting the gutters' but I'll take your word for it.

Dear me, what a world we live in. Street trees improve property values, reduce pollution, reduce rain water run off and flooding, ameliorate extreme temperatures, absorb carbon dioxide, reduce heating bills, cool houses in summer..

Thanks for sharing this - I will certainly lodge my complaints (on planning grounds) with the council. It is my understanding that this application is partially being considered valid due to the new rules around 'Biodiversity Offsetting', whereby contentious applications can be granted if the developer agrees to recreate nearby what has been lost. How it could be argued that ancient woodland, a finite and irreplaceable natural resource, could be 'recreated' elsewhere is beyond me. Letting this application pass would set a dangerous precedent.

I've found the relevant planning permission for the erection of the seating area and you are correct in that one of the conditions was that no trees would be damaged (uprooted, lopped, felled etc etc) as it was 'In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.' Interesting.

Thanks for that info - it is good to know that I am not alone in being concerned about the impact that this has had. Sounds like development is in mind then if that land has been sold off - it is heavily sloped (easier to see now the trees have gone) so not the easiest of sites to deal with.

Yes you're right - as far as I am aware the trees were not subject to a TPO (although in light of the impact their removal has had I wish that they had been) and they are not within a conservation area, and so the landowner can do what he or she wishes with them - I was just wondering if anyone knew of any reason why they'd want to do this (any future development etc?). The removal of trees within Sheffield is a hot topic at the moment as everyone knows, and so it smacks me as a huge shame that whilst other trees are being fought tooth and nail to preserve, a whole row of trees in a very prominent location can be removed without a similar uproar. I know that legally the owners were perfectly within their rights and the damage has already been done now anyway, but I thought I'd try and find some reason or justification if I could.

Thanks for posting the link - I was unable to do so. However, I can't really tell if you're trying to show that they are indeed not on the pavement or somehow prove that they are on the pavement? As street view shows, they were next to the pavement, but not within it as are the other street trees are that Amey are warring againstm (e.g on Rustlings Road). You can also see that the adjacent pavement wasn't damaged or uplifted because of them. Anyway, does anyone have any proof that this was part of the Amey work? I do not think it was the reasons I suggested (no prior warning etc) but tbh if it was at least I would know they were going to be replanted.

I do yes - did you read my first message? - I said I did not think it was due to the Streets Ahead tree removal scheme due to there not being any signs on the trees prior to removal (which AMEY does do) and the fact they were not on the road but in (what I presume is) private land. If you know anything to the contrary then I'd be interested to hear.