Tree devastation in Sheffield

[Robin-H 11]

how can you compare trees being cut down to terrorism, are you for real or what. I would like to see you stood outside town hall shouting that and see the reaction, u would be hiding up a tree

 

I know people can focus on more than one thing at once, never said otherwise

 

don't think u can say amey are causing deforestation do u, chopping trees down on residential roads, they aren't clearing a rain forest

 

chopping trees down doesn't affect tourism, don't know where you got that one from. tourists visit museums, historical buildings, theatres etc, not trees unless Sherwood forest or somewhere like that.

 

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

[gazza c 10]

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

 

the topic is about trees being chopped down on streets, thats what people are moaning about. name me a street in sheffield whos trees on that street attracts tourists to visit that street, answers on a postcard.

 

 

amey arent going into parks and woodlands and chopping trees down, but we arent talking about those trees its trees on streets that is causing people to complain

[Robin-H 11]

the topic is about trees being chopped down on streets, thats what people are moaning about. name me a street in sheffield whos trees on that street attracts tourists to visit that street, answers on a postcard.

 

 

amey arent going into parks and woodlands and chopping trees down, but we arent talking about those trees its trees on streets that is causing people to complain

 

I'm guessing you didn't read that article I posted.

 

Personally I don't think that tourism is a particularly important aspect of why street trees need to be retained - there is already a HUGE amount of data and research that clearly states why street trees are important that their effect on tourism is quite down the list.

 

However, your insistence that they have NO effect on tourism is not held up by any evidence. Street trees add the beautification of cities - beautification is a major reason why people choose certain cities to visit.

 

Of course people don't visit Sheffield to look at particular street trees, what an absurd suggestion, but they quite blatantly add to the general character of the city.

[AlexAtkin 10]

Exactly my point Robin-H.

 

Its all the little things that add up, but some people seem to be completely oblivious to the way small things have a big impact.

 

A more direct example is how only a few people were objecting to the tree strategy at first. Now look how many people protested.

[Longcol 597]

Exactly my point Robin-H.

 

Its all the little things that add up, but some people seem to be completely oblivious to the way small things have a big impact.

 

A more direct example is how only a few people were objecting to the tree strategy at first. Now look how many people protested.

 

To get things in perspective in terms of SF;

 

This thread is still behind the number of views for the Krispy Kreme Donut thread and still behind one of the many barmy "chemtrails" threads in terms of number of replies - and miles behind haircutting / hairdressing megathread for both.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Longcol

[Alcoblog 10]

To get things in perspective in terms of SF;

 

This thread is still behind the number of views for the Krispy Kreme Donut thread and still behind one of the many barmy "chemtrails" threads in terms of number of replies - and miles behind haircutting / hairdressing megathread for both.

 

Sickeningly more worryingly, it's just reached over half as long as this thread!

[AlexAtkin 10]

Thread length is pretty meaningless.

 

The cycling threads would be huge by now but they always get deleted by the mods for causing them too much of a headache with complaints.

[Eater Sundae 12]

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

 

A key word in the linked article is "planning". In talking about the need to plant large trees, the article also talks about correct planning. This will include the specific type of tree as well as where it is sited (including how much space is allocated for it), and how it is supported. Existing large roadside trees were not necessarily planted in line with current thinking.

 

---------- Post added 16-11-2015 at 08:21 ----------

 

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.

 

I've just read a couple of articles by the creator of SULE (sorry can't post links at present). Although it seems to be aimed primarily at development of land with trees (to determine a hierarchy of tree life to decide which can be removed and which should be retained), it looks like it can be used to determine a long term replacement strategy - ie which to replace this year, which to replace in 10 years time etc, to provide for a long term strategy without the need to replace a lot all at once.

 

But, of course, if SULE were to identify 18,000 of Sheffield's roadside trees having a safe life of only 5 years, then Amey would be justified in what they are doing.

 

I don't know (or can't remember) if any methodology was quoted as having been used to identify the number of roadside trees in need of replacement. Maybe it was this, or some other method. I recall an old page on the Sheffield.gov website saying how many trees had been identified (supposedly before the Amey Streets ahead contract was put in place), but I don't think it actually said how. That page went a few months ago.

[Robin-H 11]

A key word in the linked article is "planning". In talking about the need to plant large trees, the article also talks about correct planning. This will include the specific type of tree as well as where it is sited (including how much space is allocated for it), and how it is supported. Existing large roadside trees were not necessarily planted in line with current thinking.

 

---------- Post added 16-11-2015 at 08:21 ----------

 

 

I've just read a couple of articles by the creator of SULE (sorry can't post links at present). Although it seems to be aimed primarily at development of land with trees (to determine a hierarchy of tree life to decide which can be removed and which should be retained), it looks like it can be used to determine a long term replacement strategy - ie which to replace this year, which to replace in 10 years time etc, to provide for a long term strategy without the need to replace a lot all at once.

 

But, of course, if SULE were to identify 18,000 of Sheffield's roadside trees having a safe life of only 5 years, then Amey would be justified in what they are doing.

 

I don't know (or can't remember) if any methodology was quoted as having been used to identify the number of roadside trees in need of replacement. Maybe it was this, or some other method. I recall an old page on the Sheffield.gov website saying how many trees had been identified (supposedly before the Amey Streets ahead contract was put in place), but I don't think it actually said how. That page went a few months ago.

 

I just wrote a lengthy reply to this but it got lost annoyingly!

 

Yes they are both important points to be raised, and I think this is partly the reason why people are feeling very let down by Amey are their current practice.

 

Firstly, yes, there needs to be proper planning and thought involved in this process, something we have not currently seen. The ARUP article states..

 

'Part of the problem is the myth that big trees cause issues like subsidence and structural damage. This might have been true in the past, but modern horticultural techniques mean that with careful planning it is easily possible to plant large species trees in a well-prepared urban environment without problems'

 

Yes, a small number of Sheffield's street trees will have been placed in an unsuitable location and grown to such a size that they are now causing damage that cannot be rectified, mitigated, or minimised by any method. However, I believe this is only the case in a very very small number of situations - the vast majority of trees being assessed as needing to be removed by Amey could be saved if they were using modern horticultural techniques and technologies.

 

Another problem is that Amey is replacing large crowned trees with small lollipop species. It therefore does not matter if you wait 100 years, the species means it will never grow into what was there before, and the village like character of many parts of Sheffield will be lost forever.

 

The article states that large trees are not only needed and important in urban areas, but can easily be accommodated with proper modern methods. Amey's method of chopping down large crowned trees and replacing them with high failure rate lollipop trees is not very modern, and not in line with recommended practice.

 

Secondly, regarding SULE. Attempts have been made to try and discover the method by with Amey are assessing trees through Freedom of Information Requests. However this has been denied, and future requests regarding Street trees by anyone are now deemed to be 'vexatious' and will not be dealt with.

 

This is not the open and honest dialogue one would expect from the council.

 

The phrase 'reaching the end of their natural life' is meaningless without knowing exactly under what criteria the trees are being assessed. We are being denied knowing how, which obviously sends alarm bells ringing and increases antagonism.

 

It is therefore a general feeling that a vast number of these trees could easily be saved, and more appropriate replacements planted where necessary.

[feederfil 10]

Hooray tree outside my house has been cut down. Now I can get garden wall rebuilt that roots have caused a massive split. I can cut front lawn without tree shoots being there. I can park my car without being covered in bird c##p.

[Eater Sundae 12]

I just wrote a lengthy reply to this but it got lost annoyingly!

 

Yes they are both important points to be raised, and I think this is partly the reason why people are feeling very let down by Amey are their current practice.

 

Firstly, yes, there needs to be proper planning and thought involved in this process, something we have not currently seen. The ARUP article states..

 

'Part of the problem is the myth that big trees cause issues like subsidence and structural damage. This might have been true in the past, but modern horticultural techniques mean that with careful planning it is easily possible to plant large species trees in a well-prepared urban environment without problems'

 

Yes, a small number of Sheffield's street trees will have been placed in an unsuitable location and grown to such a size that they are now causing damage that cannot be rectified, mitigated, or minimised by any method. However, I believe this is only the case in a very very small number of situations - the vast majority of trees being assessed as needing to be removed by Amey could be saved if they were using modern horticultural techniques and technologies.

 

Another problem is that Amey is replacing large crowned trees with small lollipop species. It therefore does not matter if you wait 100 years, the species means it will never grow into what was there before, and the village like character of many parts of Sheffield will be lost forever.

 

The article states that large trees are not only needed and important in urban areas, but can easily be accommodated with proper modern methods. Amey's method of chopping down large crowned trees and replacing them with high failure rate lollipop trees is not very modern, and not in line with recommended practice.

 

Secondly, regarding SULE. Attempts have been made to try and discover the method by with Amey are assessing trees through Freedom of Information Requests. However this has been denied, and future requests regarding Street trees by anyone are now deemed to be 'vexatious' and will not be dealt with.

 

This is not the open and honest dialogue one would expect from the council.

 

The phrase 'reaching the end of their natural life' is meaningless without knowing exactly under what criteria the trees are being assessed. We are being denied knowing how, which obviously sends alarm bells ringing and increases antagonism.

 

It is therefore a general feeling that a vast number of these trees could easily be saved, and more appropriate replacements planted where necessary.

 

While I agree and accept that the small decorative trees are not a substitute for bigger trees in terms of their overall benefit, I don't think that necessarily means that the existing large trees are now appropriate. We don't know the thinking and expectations when the existing trees were planted. The people making the decisions at the time could never have foreseen the current street scene, in terms of number of vehicles, demand for parking, increased (driveway) paving of front gardens etc. We do not even know if they had ever stopped to think how large the trees will grow. also, one man's "pleasant amenity providing summer shade for my otherwise hot living room" is another man's "source of a sticky residue on my car and underfoot, which also blocks out light and warmth from my house".

 

We should be looking to increase the number of large trees, but maybe we could design suitable places to put them, which is not necessarily in the current positions at the side of the road (and I certainly think there is a case for not having them right on the corner at road junctions where they reduce visibility and safety for both pedestrians and vehicle users). In my opinion, the suitability of the type of current trees and their positions should be added into the mix when deciding the future of existing trees. I particularly think that Lime trees have particular disadvantages when used close to roads, both in terms of the sticky residue, but also their habit of sometimes sprouting from the base.

 

I think my ideal solution would be a move towards smaller decorative trees at the roadside, but with additional larger trees sited nearby - and an overall increase in trees. I think SCC / Amey missed a trick here. There was the opportunity to plant a lot more trees, in areas away from the roads, eg some parks and local grassed areas. These would be able to prosper fairly naturally, with little or no future maintenance, while showing green credentials. If they'd have said "for every roadside tree we remove, we will plant a tree (which may be smaller but we consider to be appropriate to the site) nearby, plus an extra 2 broadleaf large growing trees in local park areas to protect the general environment".

 

However, we are where we are in terms of the SCC / Amey Streets Ahead contract, and can only make the best of what we have.

 

As an aside, does anyone know if there is some sort of ombudsman system to enable a challenge of the decision to regard FOI requests as being vexatious? If there isn't, then there ought to be, otherwise it's an easy get out for organisations who want to obstruct the FOI system.

[Robin-H 11]

While I agree and accept that the small decorative trees are not a substitute for bigger trees in terms of their overall benefit, I don't think that necessarily means that the existing large trees are now appropriate. We don't know the thinking and expectations when the existing trees were planted. The people making the decisions at the time could never have foreseen the current street scene, in terms of number of vehicles, demand for parking, increased (driveway) paving of front gardens etc. We do not even know if they had ever stopped to think how large the trees will grow. also, one man's "pleasant amenity providing summer shade for my otherwise hot living room" is another man's "source of a sticky residue on my car and underfoot, which also blocks out light and warmth from my house".

 

We should be looking to increase the number of large trees, but maybe we could design suitable places to put them, which is not necessarily in the current positions at the side of the road (and I certainly think there is a case for not having them right on the corner at road junctions where they reduce visibility and safety for both pedestrians and vehicle users). In my opinion, the suitability of the type of current trees and their positions should be added into the mix when deciding the future of existing trees. I particularly think that Lime trees have particular disadvantages when used close to roads, both in terms of the sticky residue, but also their habit of sometimes sprouting from the base.

 

I think my ideal solution would be a move towards smaller decorative trees at the roadside, but with additional larger trees sited nearby - and an overall increase in trees. I think SCC / Amey missed a trick here. There was the opportunity to plant a lot more trees, in areas away from the roads, eg some parks and local grassed areas. These would be able to prosper fairly naturally, with little or no future maintenance, while showing green credentials. If they'd have said "for every roadside tree we remove, we will plant a tree (which may be smaller but we consider to be appropriate to the site) nearby, plus an extra 2 broadleaf large growing trees in local park areas to protect the general environment".

 

However, we are where we are in terms of the SCC / Amey Streets Ahead contract, and can only make the best of what we have.

 

As an aside, does anyone know if there is some sort of ombudsman system to enable a challenge of the decision to regard FOI requests as being vexatious? If there isn't, then there ought to be, otherwise it's an easy get out for organisations who want to obstruct the FOI system.

 

There is indeed an ombudsmen system to challenge decisions regarding FOI requests - I believe it is called the Information Commissioner's Office. There is also a quite lengthy report that clarifies what the process should be and whether a challenge is likely to be upheld.

 

I don't know if the person who put in the original request is following this up with the Ombudsman, but I would be in this case. I looked into the report and it clearly states the proper procedure was not followed for a number of reasons.

 

Another request was denied because they claimed it would be too expensive to fulfil the request, however the council should offer advice how to alter the request in order that it could be carried out more cheaply - they did not do this.

 

And although I would certainly prefer your suggestion over the current practice, with Amey charging £2000 for every tree they plant in Birmingham, (http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/council-contractor-amey-charging-birmingham-1715941) any extra planting would not be accepted by the council. If anything, this incentivises the current inappropriate practice.

 

Given the option of spending money on flexible paving etc in order to save a large tree or cutting down said tree and replacing with a sapling and then charing the council £2000 for the job, I know what a profit hungry company would choose. This however is not in the public interest.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Robin-H