Tree devastation in Sheffield

[Mindfulness 10]

As an aside, because SCC were lying in the press about this yesterday aswell. Roads are made of compressed materials and tree roots cannot grow in them. SORT's arboricultural expert has never seen any road damage by roots - so why is SCC trying to blame trees for this aswell? There are the same pot holes on roads without trees, as there are with trees, . This is a wear and tear issue, poor repairs, weathering and the roads not being made for the type and volume of traffic that we have today.

 

Yes we want our roads repaired. No we do not want SCC to keep lying about the fact that they are in a poor state because of age and inappropriate materials for purpose.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2015 at 12:33 ----------

 

You will find that these people don't care about the plus side of large canopy mature trees,they only care about the leaves,sap dropping on the car etc.

 

Usually due to ignorance and lack of education on this topic.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Mindfulness

[Longcol 602]

The loss of the overall tree canopy cover represents a catastrophic nightmare in terms of the loss of the benefits large crowned trees provide.

 

How does the replacement of less than 1% of the cities trees amount to a "catastrophic nightmare".

 

Most cities have less trees than Sheffield - reports of catastrophic nightmares appear to be zero and their populations totally unaffected.

[Mindfulness 10]

Meanwhile in Bristol....

 

"Given that there has been considerable discussion on the subject of

compensation for the loss of trees during development in the past year or two

I thought that I'd introduce the policy at Bristol City Council.

 

Planning consent often rides on a decision based on the benefits of a

proposed scheme. Often there are several benefits of a scheme that outweigh

the potential impact on tree cover in the local area. Where a council doesn’t

have a strong policy regarding new planting and compensation the issue of

tree replacement is often poorly addressed or completely ignored. This could

lead to a gradual erosion of tree canopy cover from urban areas. During the

past five years at Bristol City Council there have been several developments

where there has been difficulty in reaching an agreement on a suitable sum

for compensation for tree loss and found that the systems of tree valuation

currently available are difficult to use in these situations. These

experiences led the council to develop a bespoke system for compensation for

the loss of trees from development sites. It’s taken several years to develop

this system and it has now been accepted as planning policy by

the council. The full policy can be downloaded here:

http://tinyurl.com/75c55fb.

The system works in tandem with BS5837 guidance and so trees that are of

value are retained and protected during development works. It’s a system that

has been devised to ensure that trees are adequately considered in the

planning process rather than a convenient option for developers to pay money

to get rid of trees. Proper use of the system should ensure that trees are

considered on all developments. It should encourage developers to plant

suitable numbers of replacement trees on site and in appropriate locations

but where this is not possible it provides a mechanism where replacement

trees can be planted in a near-by location. In this way the green

infrastructure of the city can be maintained hand in hand with urban

development.

 

This fixed number replacement system is a non-expert system designed

specifically for reaching an acceptable degree of compensation for the loss

of trees as a result of new development. The numbers of replacement trees

that it requires developers to plant are generated from a table based on the

principle of more value given to larger trees. When setting our criteria we

had and aim to develop a system that would replace canopy cover of the tree

that is lost within 5-10 years whilst generating a level of compensation that

is fair and realistic outcome for tree replacements in a planning context.

The final system requires a maximum of 8 trees to replace any tree lost as a

result of development. It’s not possible to scientifically assert that up to

eight trees is the right number of trees butwe consider that the system that

we have developed is fair and workable in the context of tree compensation on

development sites.

 

The financial sum generated by the system is derived from the cost of Bristol

City Council planting and maintaining young trees. The developer is welcome

to plant the required number of trees if they think that they can do it

cheaper (in reality this would be them opening up a tree pit and planting the

tree to the spec and then the council taking the 15-year maintenance money).

It does not have to be seen as a no-option tax because the developer is

primarily responsible for compensating for the loss.

 

The advantages of this fixed number replacement system include the following:

1. It encourages trees to be protected on development sites.

2. It ensures that trees lost as a result of development are adequately

replaced on site or near the development site in all situations.

3. Every development that impacts trees is likely to produce the

information required to reach a value for compensation as a matter of routine

(a measurement of the trunk diameter for the trees affected).

4. It’s quick and doesn’t require the costs of employing experts.

5. No specific training is necessary to use this system beyond the

ability to identify if a tree has less than 10 years useful life expectancy.

6. It’s a system that is understood by most arboriculturists,

developers, and planning officers which is a great strength in the context of

planning application negotiations.

7. It conforms to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010)

and developers can clearly understand how many trees will be planted for the

money that they pay.

 

The methodology used to calculate the number of new trees to be planted is

limited because of its simplicity. An obvious drawback is that the approach

doesn’t consider the amenity value of the original tree, i.e. its size and

location. There’s also a risk of pre-emptive felling before a planning

application but this risk should be quite small because asignificant

proportion of the city is protected by conservation area designations (30%).

If trees were felled it would be possible for stumps to be measured and these

measurements used to work out how many new trees need to be planted. I also

expect that all arboriculturists with integrity would advise their clients to

follow the policy.

 

The Bristol Tree Forum has been a major driving force behind the development

of this policy because it has brought tree issues to the attention of local

politicians (in addition to direct consultation with the arboricultural

team). This is an example of how involving the local community in tree

management decisions can bring tangible benefits for tree managers.

 

The council has an account that is specifically for contributions made by

developers for tree planting made under Section 106 agreements or Unilateral

Undertakings. This ensures that any money received is spent only on tree

planting and establishment. TreeBristol is a campaign that aims to plant a

new generation of trees in Bristol. It is a council-led scheme that is

supported by local communities and other partners. Since the launch of

TreeBristol in 2005, the council has planted over 2,500 trees and this has

allowed the council to develop a team with the capability to manage

good-quality tree planting and maintenance. The fact that Bristol has

dedicated tree planting officers and a fund specifically for tree planting

has allowed this policy to work.

 

I think that this approach is a great step forward for the consideration of

trees in the UK planning system. I’m not suggesting that all councils should

use this method but if you are an arboricultural officer, and you feel at

times that trees are overlooked in planning decisions, then I encourage you

to look at what Bristol City Council have done and consider developing your

own system for compensation"

[Lotusflower 10]

How does the replacement of less than 1% of the cities trees amount to a "catastrophic nightmare".

 

Most cities have less trees than Sheffield - reports of catastrophic nightmares appear to be zero and their populations totally unaffected.

 

Have a listen to the experts. Feel free to disagree with them too.

 

 

 

Scroll through the march to the speakers outside the Town Hall.

[Longcol 602]

Have a listen to the experts. Feel free to disagree with them too.

 

 

 

Scroll through the march to the speakers outside the Town Hall.

 

Well I read Ian Rotherham's piece that mindfulness linked to upthread and thought it clutching at straws - preventing flooding (tosh), cooling effect (only in the direct shade though surely) - and then going on to talk about poor areas - citing Bannerdale Road!

 

I don't think he was even right about the affect on house prices

 

So anyone - how does replacing under 1% of the trees equal a "catastrophic nightmare".

Edited November 15, 2015 by Longcol

[Robin-H 11]

Well I read Ian Rotherham's piece that mindfulness linked to upthread and thought it clutching at straws - preventing flooding (tosh), cooling effect (only in the direct shade though surely) - and then going on to talk about poor areas - citing Bannerdale Road!

 

I don't think he was even right about the affect on house prices

 

So anyone - how does replacing under 1% of the trees equal a "catastrophic nightmare".

 

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

[Lotusflower 10]

Well I read Ian Rotherham's piece that mindfulness linked to upthread and thought it clutching at straws - preventing flooding (tosh), cooling effect (only in the direct shade though surely) - and then going on to talk about poor areas - citing Bannerdale Road!

 

I don't think he was even right about the affect on house prices

 

So anyone - how does replacing under 1% of the trees equal a "catastrophic nightmare".

 

In the age of information ignorance is a choice. Just saying!

[Longcol 602]

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.

 

Are street trees the most visible? Looking out my window now I can see several dozen trees - none are street trees. Similar at work. Look at Sheffield from any vantage point and you'll see hundreds of trees - very few are street trees. The main visual amenity comes from non-street trees. The reality is that less than 1% of Sheffield trees are being replaced and the impact on most Sheffielders would appear to be minimal.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2015 at 14:26 ----------

 

In the age of information ignorance is a choice. Just saying!

 

Yes - I agree Ian Rotherham's piece appeared largely based on ignorance - I mean fancy banging on about the effect on poor areas and citing Bannerdale Road

Edited November 15, 2015 by Longcol

[lottiecass 17]

As an aside, because SCC were lying in the press about this yesterday aswell. Roads are made of compressed materials and tree roots cannot grow in them. SORT's arboricultural expert has never seen any road damage by roots - so why is SCC trying to blame trees for this aswell? There are the same pot holes on roads without trees, as there are with trees, . This is a wear and tear issue, poor repairs, weathering and the roads not being made for the type and volume of traffic that we have today.

 

Yes we want our roads repaired. No we do not want SCC to keep lying about the fact that they are in a poor state because of age and inappropriate materials for purpose.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2015 at 12:33 ----------

 

 

Usually due to ignorance and lack of education on this topic.

Not ignorance,its an uncaring attitude towards the tree plus the councils standard reply of "if its not dangerous we will not touch it and the budget will not cover the cost.

[Robin-H 11]

Are street trees the most visible? Looking out my window now I can see several dozen trees - none are street trees. Similar at work. Look at Sheffield from any vantage point and you'll see hundreds of trees - very few are street trees. The main visual amenity comes from non-street trees. The reality is that less than 1% of Sheffield trees are being replaced and the impact on most Sheffielders would appear to be minimal.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2015 at 14:26 ----------

 

 

Yes - I agree Ian Rotherham's piece appeared largely based on ignorance - I mean fancy banging on about the effect on poor areas and citing Bannerdale Road

 

 

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

[Longcol 602]

 

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

 

That's about all trees in cities though - not just street trees - the tree lined canals of Amsterdam - London squares - New York parks. The vast majority of trees in cities aren't street trees. I walk to work every day from Walkley and see hundreds of trees in gardens and parks but only a handful of street trees.

 

I agree cities need trees - but as we are only talking of replacing under 1% of the trees I fail to see how it can be classed as some kind of catastrophic nightmare.

[Lotusflower 10]

Are street trees the most visible? Looking out my window now I can see several dozen trees - none are street trees. Similar at work. Look at Sheffield from any vantage point and you'll see hundreds of trees - very few are street trees. The main visual amenity comes from non-street trees. The reality is that less than 1% of Sheffield trees are being replaced and the impact on most Sheffielders would appear to be minimal.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2015 at 14:26 ----------

 

 

Yes - I agree Ian Rotherham's piece appeared largely based on ignorance - I mean fancy banging on about the effect on poor areas and citing Bannerdale Road

 

Re my bold above.

 

Do you work for Amey perchance? This is the type of misleading nonsense they peddle on a regular basis.

 

Since it is apparent that whatever is said and whoever says it (no matter how highly qualified they are) you persevere in believing you are right and they are wrong I may have to stop trying to debate with you.

I am clearly out of my depth in the presence of such a fountain of knowledge.