Tree devastation in Sheffield

[Bruce_Shark 10]

Hi Bruce. I don't believe we've met. I'm wondering why you're grinding Eater's beef? 'Wooded' as in "(of an area of land) covered with woods or many trees". This covers Sheffield's highways, and it's 36,000 street trees.

 

To point one, grow up.

 

To point 2, if you think 36,000 constitutes more woodland than nearly 2 million, grow up.

 

Yeah, that about covers it.

 

[Lotusflower 10]

Re your item 2. As requested I read and digested your BBC link. It seems that you didn't. The key point I was referring to was the part that read "and provided the trees' canopies did not result in the pollution being trapped at ground level." Are you certain that Sheffield's large streetside trees are not trapping the pollution at ground level? It is clear that you have jumped on the part of the article that suits your agenda. Try reading and digesting the whole article next time.

 

---------- Post added 06-12-2015 at 19:04 ----------

 

 

I've never claimed that felling a great number of street trees would not alter the character of Sheffield. It would alter the character, but not necessarily in a totally negative way.

 

What I have said is that the overall ecological and environmental effects would be minimal, because the street trees are just a small part of the 2 million trees, which continue to play their role in the ecology of Sheffield. So, the biodiversity associated with, say, a Horse Chestnut which is lost from Sheffield's streets, continues with all the other Horse Chestnuts which continue to grow in Sheffield's parks, gardens and woodlands.

 

Yes I'm certain! And furthermore I'll tell you why. I have taken the time and trouble to do research and seek expert opinion. There are no instances of the canyon effect in Sheffield!

So...next time you are accusing someone of not "digesting" a link...just make sure it's not you...AGAIN!

What may be clear to you is not necessarily clear at all.

I do believe you are somewhat hoist by your own petard in this instance.

 

---------- Post added 06-12-2015 at 23:43 ----------

 

I think I'm going to fall asleep, and I've only read this page. I always thought tree huggers were a thing of the kaleidescope past of the sixties.

There's loads of trees being planted all over the place. Just look at the side of the new A1 at Leeming Bar. Thousands of them. Even Andrex and Kleenex plant shed loads of them for every bog roll they produce. If tree devastation bothers you that much, just think how bad it would be if new trees weren't planted. This is modern living.

 

Re my bold above.

 

Which is presumably why you have posted such a vacuous contribution.

[scania 10]

Yes I'm certain! And furthermore I'll tell you why. I have taken the time and trouble to do research and seek expert opinion. There are no instances of the canyon effect in Sheffield!

So...next time you are accusing someone of not "digesting" a link...just make sure it's not you...AGAIN!

What may be clear to you is not necessarily clear at all.

I do believe you are somewhat hoist by your own petard in this instance.

 

---------- Post added 06-12-2015 at 23:43 ----------

 

 

Re my bold above.

 

Which is presumably why you have posted such a vacuous contribution.

 

You presumed correct. Well done. Still think it's a tree hugging exercise.

 

Which is why you posted such an expected response.

Power to the people dude!!

[Lotusflower 10]

You presumed correct. Well done. Still think it's a tree hugging exercise.

 

Which is why you posted such an expected response.

Power to the people dude!!

 

Power to the trolls dude...not!

 

---------- Post added 07-12-2015 at 00:03 ----------

 

You presumed correct. Well done. Still think it's a tree hugging exercise.

 

Which is why you posted such an expected response.

Power to the people dude!!

 

I would like to congratulate you on your educated and well reasoned contributions to this thread.

But I can't!

[Eater Sundae 12]

Yes I'm certain! And furthermore I'll tell you why. I have taken the time and trouble to do research and seek expert opinion. There are no instances of the canyon effect in Sheffield!

So...next time you are accusing someone of not "digesting" a link...just make sure it's not you...AGAIN!

What may be clear to you is not necessarily clear at all.

I do believe you are somewhat hoist by your own petard in this instance.

 

---------- Post added 06-12-2015 at 23:43 ----------

 

 

Re my bold above.

 

Which is presumably why you have posted such a vacuous contribution.

 

So basically you posted a link and asked me to read and digest it. I did and noted that you haven't. Now the link suddenly becomes irrelevant because it refers to the "canyon effect" which doesn't apply to Sheffield.

 

If it's not relevant to Sheffield, why did you link to it in the first place? You are claiming knowledge on the back of your "research". It's becoming clear that you jump on any bit of information which appears to support your agenda, without looking any deeper.

 

OK, you like the big roadside trees in Sheffield. So why not promote them on that basis instead of trying to shoe-horn in irrelevant science that you don't undersand?

 

Edit. I've decided to follow the Swami Dhyan / Mindfulness approach to research, ie put a few words into the Google Search engine and post a link to some possibly supportive website. So here goes...

 

http://theconversation.com/greener-but-not-cleaner-how-trees-can-worsen-urban-air-pollution-44856

 

and an abstract of the paper on which it was based...

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23194646

 

So, are trees at the roadside always of benefit at the street level, or can they sometimes make the situation worse? The jury appears to be out.

 

I come back to my earlier point. Trees at the roadside can make the local area appear more pleasant, and supporting them on that basis is fine. But to extend this to unsubstantiated claims regarding the health benefit of these trees in comparison to other trees in parks and gardens is at best misguided, and at worst disingenuous.

 

Edit again. And another Google search has found this:

 

http://conservationmagazine.org/2013/11/can-roadside-trees-screen-houses-pollution/

 

This shows the benefit of roadside trees. Very heartening. However a closer look

 

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/news-and-events/news/2013/

 

shows that these were small trees in wooden planters, much more similar to a sparse hedge, acting as a filter, than the high canopy associated with many of Sheffield's trees. Maybe the way forward, from a pollution point of view is to move towards smaller trees, or an incentive to people planting hedges. maybe Amey's "saplings" are not so bad after all. Maybe more research is needed.

 

More Edit.

 

And a summary.

 

I like the trees on Sheffield Streets in the areas I know, eg Rustlings Road and areas up and around Nether Green and Fulwood, some of Nether Edge etc. Although, to be fair, I don't always know for certain which roads do and which roads don't have trees in every case until I stop to think about it, and then only the roads I specifically use. But what they provide, where they exist, is a pleasant surrounding for me when I pass through. But in many cases, even if there aren't any roadside trees, there are trees and hedges in front gardens which provide a greening effect, eg much of Osbourne Road. The point is that kerbside trees are just a small part of the overall green-ness of Sheffield. And by "green-ness" I mean both the biodiversity & ecological aspects and the colour green.

 

Also, public roadside areas often have low level bushes as ground cover. These all add to the overall green-ness and pollution control.

 

The loss of a lot of trees from a particular road will have a big impact on the character of that road. This can be very important, and a very good reason to try and find ways to work with SCC (not Amey as they should be acting to the will of SCC) to find a way to retain trees where we can - IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

 

However, I'm not persuaded by some of the other arguments regarding the supposed environmental damage which will result when roadside trees are removed. There are so many other variables in terms of trees dying, being planted (by local government, companies and private individuals), self seeding, storm damage, tree clearance during building etc etc that the effects of streets ahead is limited. In my opinion the scattergun approach of multiple spurious environmental claims only detracts from and dilutes the key issue which is the character of the area.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Eater Sundae

[scania 10]

Power to the trolls dude...not!

 

---------- Post added 07-12-2015 at 00:03 ----------

 

 

I would like to congratulate you on your educated and well reasoned contributions to this thread.

But I can't!

 

You can, go on.......do it!!! It's Christmas!!!!

 

I can see exactly where peoples concerns are with the tree issue, but there are more trees being planted than ever before. A true testament for our generations to come. Now if there were no tree repopulation, then there would be real reason to hug.

But that's not the case.

Man is a consumer, and he will consume everything as he goes, however evolution is teaching him to bloody behave and take responsibility for his consummation, and he is learning that using without replacing is a very bad idea. Sadly though, he is not yet quite up to speed with aesthetics, so sometimes leaves an ugly trail in his wake. But they will grow back, it just won't be in our lifetime.

My tip is to have as many lovely plants in your own space at home, where you spend the most time stationary, and not worry about trees that you may pass by, that's unless you enjoy sitting under one in a built up area, as that my fellow contributor, is tree hugging.

[Mindfulness 10]

I can see exactly where peoples concerns are with the tree issue

 

It is pretty concerning isn't it. A private company being paid to do a substandard job and causing permanent, irreversible environmental degradation to Sheffield's streetscape.

 

but there are more trees being planted than ever before. A true testament for our generations to come

 

This is an incorrect statement. Generations to come are being robbed of their birthright. The rich ecological heritage that Sheffield's streets have enjoyed until 2012, are being wantonly destroyed to profit a private company. There is no planned, integrated, systematic approach to ensure that work is conducted as it should be. We have photographic evidence showing Amey contravening BS5837 and NJUG guidelines, the very guidelines with which they claim to comply.

 

---------- Post added 07-12-2015 at 11:18 ----------

 

I wouldn't bother trying to explain if I were you Mindfulness - I think some people are just trying to be deliberately antagonistic without adding anything to the discussion.

 

If Bruce cared to read the debate that has been going on then they would know all the relevant points regarding this discussion. Some inane and quite frankly facile argument about woodland is not one of them.

 

Hi Robin. Roger that

[Bruce_Shark 10]

...Some inane and quite frankly facile argument about woodland is not one of them.

 

It is highly significant to point out that you are lending false weight to your arguments by over egging the impact of works to less than 36,000 trees, when nearly 2 million remain unaffected.

 

No amount of over-complication of supposed "facts" from myriad conflicting sources will refute this.

 

To contextualise matters further, if 3,500 trees have been felled after 3 years of a 5 year highway investment process, how many do you think will be felled in the next 2 years?

 

Another 32,500 seems somewhat improbable, even if that is only an "up to" figure.

 

From a recent Star article, 31 trees were to be felled on Rivelin Valley Road, leaving over 500 street trees unaffected. If we extrapolate those figures, there will clearly be way less than 36,000 highway trees "facing the chop". But, of course, that doesn't remotely suit your sensationalist agenda, does it?

Edited December 7, 2015 by Bruce_Shark

[Mindfulness 10]

Open letter to Mr Caulfield

 

Given the perspective of Steve Robinson on street trees, we are no longer surprised that we have not received a response to our email of 31st May 2015.

 

Now that there has been a change of personality, SORT (Save Our Roadside Trees) request again, the relaxation of Highway specifications for footways (pavements) and kerbs, to allow the safe, long-term retention of mature trees. SORT believe this would represent a reasonably practicable, common-sense approach that would enable the safe, long-term retention of the 11 trees on Rustlings Road that have been scheduled for felling, due to “pavement ridging”. SORT also believe that the same approach could also be used to safely retain most of the other 26,989 mature highway trees, many of which are healthy and structurally sound but likely to be associated with similar problems and therefore classified by Amey Hallam Highways Ltd (Amey) and Sheffield City Council (SCC) as “damaging” or “discriminatory”.

 

SORT also understand that it is possible to draft alternative highway engineering specifications for footway, edging (kerbs) and drainage construction that would also enable the safe, long-term retention of mature trees. Indeed, on 17th November 2015, at the Amey Roadshow in Heeley, although Darren Butt (Operations Director for Amey) said that “pavement ridging” and disturbance of kerb alignment was unacceptable, he did say that his arboricultural team had worked with Graeme Symonds’s (Amey’s Core Investment Project Director) highway construction team to develop a range of alternative highway engineering specifications for footway and kerb construction, which the Council have not mentioned or made available to the public, and which could enable the safe, long-term retention of mature trees. He was very derogatory about the Council’s twenty-five “Streets Ahead engineering options”, completely dismissing them. If these specifications do exist, they are the ones that SORT have been repeatedly requesting to see since May, 2015. SORT are most disappointed that, to date, all such requests have been totally ignored and that Streets Ahead did not use the opportunity at the second meeting of Cllr Terry Fox’s bi-monthly Highway Tree Advisory Forum, on 2nd September, 2015, to present the alternative highway engineering specifications that Darren Butt now claims Amey do have and use.

 

At the aforementioned Amey Roadshow, Darren Butt announced that 1,000 more highway trees have been felled in the last four months, since the inaugural meeting of Cllr Fox’s Highway Tree Advisory Forum (23rd July, 2015). We are very much aware that, had a tree strategy been in place to guide and inform management decisions, and help ensure that decisions were soundly based on available evidence and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, many of these trees could have been safely retained, long-term.

 

SORT strongly urge that, as a matter of priority, SCC consider the use of Flexi-Pave for footways (pavements), edging (kerbs) and for repairs to the edge of the carriageway, as SORT are reliably informed that Sheffield City Council is already a strategic partner of KBI: the business that supplies Flexi-Pave. SORT also understands that you have personally agreed to a meeting with the KBI MD, Graham Pell, (in your meeting with Alan Robshaw on the 2nd Nov 2015), to discuss such issues.

 

Cllr Leigh Bramall (Deputy Leader of the Council: who is currently attempting to rebrand Sheffield as an “Outdoor City”) has commented (at the meeting of full council, on 1st July, 2015) on the current five year Core Investment Project felling programme: “THE CONTRACT SAYS UP TO 50% OF TREES CAN BE REMOVED, ERM, AND ACTUALLY THAT’S 18,000." His words echoed those reported in the December 2012 issue of Transportation Professional (a Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation publication), when Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) was interviewed. The publication stated that: “OVER THE FIRST FIVE YEARS of the 25 year Streets Ahead deal…” AMEY will be: “REPLACING HALF OF THE CITY’S 36,000 HIGHWAY TREES”.

 

Felling such a large number of healthy, large-crowned trees in a 5 yr period is clearly NOT a sustainable approach to highway tree population management and does not comply with The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management, which applies: “…to all UK forest types and management systems, including the collective tree and woodland cover in urban areas (Forestry Commission, 2011, p. 4).” Sustainable management of urban tree populations (collectively, known as an urban forest), according to The UK Forestry Standard, requires the maintenance of ecological, economic and social functions afforded by trees to the environment and all inhabitants, and the maintenance of the potential of the highway tree population to fulfil these functions, now and in the future, at local, national and global levels. Maintaining these ecological, economic and social functions, provided by a range of ecosystem services afforded by trees = sustainability.

 

SORT believe that the current approach to tree population management by SCC and Amey threatens an immediate, catastrophic decline in the number of large and medium-crowned highway trees, throughout the city, representing serious, severe, city-wide environmental degradation and loss of amenity throughout neighbourhoods in all parts of the city, with likely, reasonably foreseeable, significant negative impacts on the health and wellbeing of citizens. It is clear that the current SCC / Amey approach does not represent a responsible, sustainable approach to the stewardship and prudent, rational utilisation of the highway tree resource: a significant component of green infrastructure and key component of the urban forest. SORT Believe that the current SCC / Amey approach will have a likely, reasonably foreseeable, significant negative impact on the shape, size and distribution of canopy cover along highways, and, thus, on the range, magnitude and value of associated ecosystem goods and services afforded by trees (which is totally dependent on the aforementioned canopy cover attributes) in the highways land-use category, representing continuous, irreversible losses over several decades.

 

In accordance with the guidance and recommendations of Trees in Towns 2: a new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management (a report commissioned by the Labour Government and published by the Department for Communities and Local Government), SORT believe The Outdoor City Strategy, currently being developed by Cllr Bramall, and the Strategy For Low Emission Zones, the Climate Change Strategy, and the Air Quality Action Plan – all currently being developed under Cllr Terry Fox - should be cross-linked and cross-referenced with the Tree Strategy currently being drafted. The loss of up to 50% of highway trees from neighbourhoods - 18,000 trees city-wide – will negatively affect the decisions of citizens to participate outside in windy, wet, snowy, icy or hot weather, and will have significant negative impact on pedestrian comfort and local amenity. The loss of so many trees will reduce the attractiveness of neighbourhoods, expose eyesores, increase run-off of rainwater (and associated flooding), increase heat reflectance from hard surfaces on hot days, result in increased noise pollution (tree crowns act as a buffer, dampening noise - one of the reasons that they are planted along motorways), and result in an increase in premature deaths from respiratory and heart problems associated with airborne pollution (particulate matter). Provided below is a little more detail to help aid decision making.

 

BENEFITS & VALUE

All the positive benefits that street trees bring to neighbourhoods and people are known collectively as ecosystem services. The UK Forestry Standard (the governments’ approach to sustainable forest management) requires the local authority (the Council) to maintain these service provisions, as they benefit the environment and people's health and wellbeing. In cities where these services have been valued, they have been found to be worth millions of pounds EACH YEAR!

 

The current five-year city-wide felling programme will drastically reduce canopy cover along highways. This will have a significant negative impact on the provision and maintenance of benefits afforded by highway trees, as the range, magnitude and value of benefits is TOTALLY dependent on the shape size and distribution of canopy cover at street, neighbourhood and city-wide levels. Indeed, the UKFS defines the urban forest - the city-wide population of trees - by its area of canopy cover throughout the city.

 

POLLUTION

Trees reduce health costs, as they help filter pollutants from the air, removing microscopic particulate matter that comes from road traffic, industry and power production, thereby helping reduce morbidity and mortality (Tiwary, et al., 2009). Tiwary et al. (2009) noted that, nationally, health costs associated with such pollution are “estimated to range between £9.1 and 21.4 billion per annum”, quoting an Air Quality Strategy document published by DEFRA in 2007. They referenced a range of research that indicates such pollution causes alveolar inflammation, respiratory-tract infection (specifically pneumonia), and acute cardiovascular disorders, with the elderly being particularly vulnerable.

 

On 3rd November, 2015, BBC Look North reported that poor air quality in Sheffield is costing £160m/yr. Look North claim that the figure comes from an Air Pollution Report published by Public Health England. They also reported that the Sheffield City Council estimate that poor air quality causes over 500 premature deaths per year in Sheffield.

 

Another report, published by Public Health England, 2014 (PHE-CRCE-010: Estimating local mortality burdens associated with particulate air pollution), estimated the number of annual deaths in Sheffield attributable to particulate pollution to be 269 (for people aged 25 & over).

 

REPLACEMENT

Amey's choice of species, scheduled to be used to replace trees felled, appears to consist mostly of shorter lived species, such as crab apple, pear, field maple, birch, hazel and hawthorn. Such species will have shorter safe useful life expectancy (SULE): @70 – 80 yrs, max. Such species have relatively small crowns at maturity (compared to species such as London plane, sycamore, beech, ash, oak, lime and horse chestnut) and will never develop crowns of similar size or shape to those tree species they are intended to replace.

 

It is reasonably foreseeable that widespread, frequent use of such species will result in a streetscape of trees that only have relatively small crowns at maturity (a “lollipop landscape”). Such trees cannot ever maintain or deliver the magnitude of valuable benefits that neighbourhoods enjoyed at the start of the 5yr Streets Ahead PFI felling programme, which were and are largely provided by larger crowned, relatively long-lived species (>200yrs).

 

SORT are most disappointed there does not appear to have been any attempt by Streets Ahead to make appropriate practical and/or other provisions for the public to participate within a transparent and fair framework, during the preparation of the tree replacement programme or associated plans. SORT understand that the compromises mentioned in this communication are possible, given correspondence with colleagues in Birmingham.

 

This communication is not a freedom of information request.

 

Yours sincerely

SORT (Representing persons interested, currently numbering 14,500)

Edited December 7, 2015 by Mindfulness

[Chez2 10]

Which if you had actually bothered to read a few pages you would realise some of the points we are making.

 

Mature trees absorb more carbon, are a lot more attractive (and harder to vandalise) than saplings, are a natural wind break, reduce noise pollution and actually grow more slowly so should be more manageable, if Amey could be bothered.

 

You also have to consider that when you chop down a tree, you are ultimately releasing all the carbon that makes up that tree.

 

I have dipped in and out of this thread over a period of time but not posted before. This post isn't correct, hence my post now.

 

Trees use carbon dioxide when they photosynthesise but the opposite is true when they use this energy they have generated during respiration. I think you are referring to carbon dioxide not carbon per se.

 

The carbon or carbon dioxide isn't released when the tree is felled. This is only released when the tree/wood decays or is burnt. In geological terms this carbon dioxide capture and release is miniscule and can't be compared to the release from fossil fuels.

 

A hedge or group of small saplings is a better wind break or sound barrier than one or two mature trees. I don't necessarily agree with felling of mature trees but many are unsuitable for the built up areas in which they were planted. Right tree, right place.

[Robin-H 11]

It is highly significant to point out that you are lending false weight to your arguments by over egging the impact of works to less than 36,000 trees, when nearly 2 million remain unaffected.

 

No amount of over-complication of supposed "facts" from myriad conflicting sources will refute this.

 

To contextualise matters further, if 3,500 trees have been felled after 3 years of a 5 year highway investment process, how many do you think will be felled in the next 2 years?

 

Another 32,500 seems somewhat improbable, even if that is only an "up to" figure.

 

From a recent Star article, 31 trees were to be felled on Rivelin Valley Road, leaving over 500 street trees unaffected. If we extrapolate those figures, there will clearly be way less than 36,000 highway trees "facing the chop". But, of course, that doesn't remotely suit your sensationalist agenda, does it?

 

 

Perhaps it hasn't come to your attention but this discussion is about STREET trees. The fact that other trees are unaffected is entirely outside the remit of this discussion and so is therefore, for the last time, irrelevant.

 

I would be acting with the exact same amount of fervour and vehemence if this debate was only about a single street of trees and no other tree in Sheffield was to be affected.

 

My gripe lies with healthy trees being felled for flawed reasoning. This would be true of 1 tree as it is of 18,000.

 

Perhaps you could point me to where I have supposedly promulgated my sensationalist agenda?

[hamatik 10]

Trees use carbon dioxide when they photosynthesise but the opposite is true when they use this energy they have generated during respiration. I think you are referring to carbon dioxide not carbon per se.

 

The carbon or carbon dioxide isn't released when the tree is felled. This is only released when the tree/wood decays or is burnt. In geological terms this carbon dioxide capture and release is miniscule and can't be compared to the release from fossil fuels.

Is it true that saplings, or trees that are still growing, absorb more carbon than mature trees?

 

To be honest I was gutted when they felled the trees on my road, mostly because we had a lot of birds down there who used them (and the odd squirrel). And they just gave the place lots of character. But facts are facts aren't they!