Tree campaign in Sheffield in 2016 (continuation thread)

[manwithaview 10]

Is there a link to the 'open letter'?

 

really disapointed to see Sheffield Trades Council endorsing the tree fellers.

[Lotusflower 10]

Is there a link to the 'open letter'?

 

really disapointed to see Sheffield Trades Council endorsing the tree fellers.

 

Copied and pasted without comment from me.

 

 

Letter defends Sheffield Council and slams ‘lack of perspective’ of tree campaigners

Trees under threat from Sheffield City Council in Rivelin Valley Road in the city

Picture Dean Atkins

Trees under threat from Sheffield City Council in Rivelin Valley Road in the city Picture Dean Atkins

11:05Friday 19 February 2016

15

HAVE YOUR SAY

Trade union leaders and academics have defended Sheffield Council’s tree felling programme and suggested campaigners are more worried about property prices than the environment.

 

A letter signed by representatives of several unions and a number of university lecturers and researchers accuses campaigners, including Nick Clegg, of an ‘astonishing lack of perspective’ and ‘navel-gazing’.

 

ADVERTISING

 

 

But campaigners have hit back, calling the letter ‘wholly misleading and unjust’ and saying they are fighting for the ‘health and well-being of Sheffielders now and in the future’ rather than profit-making.

 

 

The tree felling programme was stopped last week after the High Court granted a three-month injunction.

 

The letter, signed by 17 people including president of Sheffield Trades Union Council Bob Jeffery and president of the University of Sheffield Students Union Christy McMorrow, said the city council did not ‘hate the environment’.

 

Is said: “Sheffield has an estimated two million trees within its borders, giving it a strong claim to be the greenest city in Europe. The council is proposing felling and replacing 14 per cent of the 36,000 street trees, or 5,000 in total. After this process is complete, Sheffield will still have a strong claim to be the greenest city in Europe.”

 

The letter said the council was felling trees because professional tradespeople had deemed them to be in danger of falling down, damaging pavements and potentially hampering the mobility of the elderly and disabled.

 

It added: “It is difficult to escape the conclusion that opposition to the tree felling has as much to do with the protection of house prices in the leafy suburbs as it does with environmental protection.”

 

 

And the letter called for perspective on the issue. It said: “We also want to contrast this issue with what we would see as some of the more pressing concerns facing the city of Sheffield at this time.

 

“The city has been badly hit by economic recession and ongoing government austerity that has seen £350 million slashed from the council’s budget. Many residents have been rendered destitute by a toxic cocktail of the bedroom tax, benefits sanctions and cruel and perverse medical assessments that have seen the terminally ill deemed fit for work. Air pollution deaths are estimated to stand at around 500 per year, overwhelmingly concentrated in Tinsley and the northeast of the city, and yet this had provoked no outcry from the residents of Dore and Totley.

 

“Emblematic of the astonishing lack of perspective and navel-gazing of those who would seek to make tree felling the defining issue of the moment is a certain Nick Clegg MP, who has recently gone on the record as stating that the council policy is a ‘national scandal’. This from the man who has the lowest attendance record of any Member of Parliament since the 2015 election, a man who has indebted an entire generation of students and has consistently shown to be no friend of the Sheffield ‘common people’.

 

“So please, while we are open to sensible debate about whether trees actually need to be removed and replaced, can we ask the people of Sheffield for a little more perspective on the issues facing our city.”

 

 

The letter is signed by the following, all in a ‘personal capacity’:

 

Bob Jeffery, president of Sheffield Trades Union Council; James Bangert, president of Sheffield College Students Union; Christy McMorrow, president of University of Sheffield Students Union; Abdul Galil Shaif Alshaibi, Sheffield Yemeni Community Association; Muna Abdi, doctoral researcher, University of Sheffield; Martin Mayer, secretary of Sheffield Trades Council; Andrew Yeardley, secretary of Unite bus drivers branch; Dave Smith, chairman of Unite bus drivers branch; Zahira Naz, Labour candidate for Darnall Ward; Sohail Mumtaz, Sheffield Muslim Community Forum; Jonathan Marsden, community organiser and Richmond resident; Cheryl Robertson, community worker, Drop the Knife; Simon Murch, branch secretary, National Union of Teachers; Daragh O’Neil, treasurer of Sheffield People’s Assembly; Peter Davies, GMB regional organiser; and Jonathan Dean, senior lecturer, Sheffield Hallam University.

 

But Save Our Roadside Trees campaigner Louise Wilcockson hit back at the letter. She said: “As a mixed heritage person, originally from Broomhall and from a single parent family, I find the statements in this letter to be wholly misleading and unjust. Over 15,000 people have so far signed the Save Our Rustlings Trees petition showing that this is far more than a neighbourhood situation.”

 

She added: “We are thinking of the health and well-being of Sheffielders now and in the future - and not short-term goals of convenience and profit making - only to have a costly health bills and other lasting consequences caused by the loss of our highway trees.

 

“We also object to the myth being perpetuated by Labour supporters and some of the Labour councillor that there is one choice - safety or the retention of our highway trees. They are not mutually exclusive - both are possible with good management.

 

 

“This is a £2.2bn PFI contract into which alternative specifications and other options should already have been factored. No one is suggesting the council should beg from Peter to pay Paul.”

 

Louise said campaigners were still waiting for the council to publish a breakdown of the ‘bizarre’ £26m figure given for potentially retaining Sheffield’s roadside trees, and for the council to ‘explain to the people of Sheffield how it is even possible that 200 trees will each cost up to £100,000.’

 

“It beggars belief and is arguably bad management on their part or exaggerated figures,” she said.

 

Deputy leader of the city council Lib Dem group Coun Penny Baker also responded in an open letter to council leader Julie Dore, claiming the letter was a political move by Labour. She said: “To label the tree campaigners as middle class people who only care about their house prices is wildly inaccurate and inflammatory. The tree campaign is fuelled by a variety of causes, concerns about not just street scenes, but air pollution, Sheffield’s heritage and more recently it has become a cause symbolic of a lack of democracy in this city and the way your council treats the opinions and feelings of the people they are elected to represent.

 

“I am appalled, along with many others, at the indifference and contempt the signatories of the letter appear to show for public opinion. Despite a barrage of complaints and petitions, including but not exclusive to a petition with 15,000 signatures from the Rustlings Road area, another with 6,000 signatures from Nether Edge and numerous individuals letters and fundraisers. Although this may have started in the so called ‘leafy suburbs’, the issue is now far more widespread than that.”

 

Cabinet member for environment and transport at Sheffield Council Terry Fox welcomed the letter. He said: “I’m pleased to see some perspective. We all want to keep Sheffield green, and we need to pull together as a city to do the best we can for our trees. We’ll work closely with communities to get this situation sorted out as quickly as possible.”

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/letter-defends-sheffield-council-and-slams-lack-of-perspective-of-tree-campaigners-1-7739862#ixzz41wa22ZLK

[Robin-H 11]

Copied and pasted without comment from me.

 

 

Letter defends Sheffield Council and slams ‘lack of perspective’ of tree campaigners

Trees under threat from Sheffield City Council in Rivelin Valley Road in the city

Picture Dean Atkins

Trees under threat from Sheffield City Council in Rivelin Valley Road in the city Picture Dean Atkins

11:05Friday 19 February 2016

15

HAVE YOUR SAY

Trade union leaders and academics have defended Sheffield Council’s tree felling programme and suggested campaigners are more worried about property prices than the environment.

 

A letter signed by representatives of several unions and a number of university lecturers and researchers accuses campaigners, including Nick Clegg, of an ‘astonishing lack of perspective’ and ‘navel-gazing’.

 

ADVERTISING

 

 

But campaigners have hit back, calling the letter ‘wholly misleading and unjust’ and saying they are fighting for the ‘health and well-being of Sheffielders now and in the future’ rather than profit-making.

 

 

The tree felling programme was stopped last week after the High Court granted a three-month injunction.

 

The letter, signed by 17 people including president of Sheffield Trades Union Council Bob Jeffery and president of the University of Sheffield Students Union Christy McMorrow, said the city council did not ‘hate the environment’.

 

Is said: “Sheffield has an estimated two million trees within its borders, giving it a strong claim to be the greenest city in Europe. The council is proposing felling and replacing 14 per cent of the 36,000 street trees, or 5,000 in total. After this process is complete, Sheffield will still have a strong claim to be the greenest city in Europe.”

 

The letter said the council was felling trees because professional tradespeople had deemed them to be in danger of falling down, damaging pavements and potentially hampering the mobility of the elderly and disabled.

 

It added: “It is difficult to escape the conclusion that opposition to the tree felling has as much to do with the protection of house prices in the leafy suburbs as it does with environmental protection.”

 

 

And the letter called for perspective on the issue. It said: “We also want to contrast this issue with what we would see as some of the more pressing concerns facing the city of Sheffield at this time.

 

“The city has been badly hit by economic recession and ongoing government austerity that has seen £350 million slashed from the council’s budget. Many residents have been rendered destitute by a toxic cocktail of the bedroom tax, benefits sanctions and cruel and perverse medical assessments that have seen the terminally ill deemed fit for work. Air pollution deaths are estimated to stand at around 500 per year, overwhelmingly concentrated in Tinsley and the northeast of the city, and yet this had provoked no outcry from the residents of Dore and Totley.

 

“Emblematic of the astonishing lack of perspective and navel-gazing of those who would seek to make tree felling the defining issue of the moment is a certain Nick Clegg MP, who has recently gone on the record as stating that the council policy is a ‘national scandal’. This from the man who has the lowest attendance record of any Member of Parliament since the 2015 election, a man who has indebted an entire generation of students and has consistently shown to be no friend of the Sheffield ‘common people’.

 

“So please, while we are open to sensible debate about whether trees actually need to be removed and replaced, can we ask the people of Sheffield for a little more perspective on the issues facing our city.”

 

 

The letter is signed by the following, all in a ‘personal capacity’:

 

Bob Jeffery, president of Sheffield Trades Union Council; James Bangert, president of Sheffield College Students Union; Christy McMorrow, president of University of Sheffield Students Union; Abdul Galil Shaif Alshaibi, Sheffield Yemeni Community Association; Muna Abdi, doctoral researcher, University of Sheffield; Martin Mayer, secretary of Sheffield Trades Council; Andrew Yeardley, secretary of Unite bus drivers branch; Dave Smith, chairman of Unite bus drivers branch; Zahira Naz, Labour candidate for Darnall Ward; Sohail Mumtaz, Sheffield Muslim Community Forum; Jonathan Marsden, community organiser and Richmond resident; Cheryl Robertson, community worker, Drop the Knife; Simon Murch, branch secretary, National Union of Teachers; Daragh O’Neil, treasurer of Sheffield People’s Assembly; Peter Davies, GMB regional organiser; and Jonathan Dean, senior lecturer, Sheffield Hallam University.

 

But Save Our Roadside Trees campaigner Louise Wilcockson hit back at the letter. She said: “As a mixed heritage person, originally from Broomhall and from a single parent family, I find the statements in this letter to be wholly misleading and unjust. Over 15,000 people have so far signed the Save Our Rustlings Trees petition showing that this is far more than a neighbourhood situation.”

 

She added: “We are thinking of the health and well-being of Sheffielders now and in the future - and not short-term goals of convenience and profit making - only to have a costly health bills and other lasting consequences caused by the loss of our highway trees.

 

“We also object to the myth being perpetuated by Labour supporters and some of the Labour councillor that there is one choice - safety or the retention of our highway trees. They are not mutually exclusive - both are possible with good management.

 

 

“This is a £2.2bn PFI contract into which alternative specifications and other options should already have been factored. No one is suggesting the council should beg from Peter to pay Paul.”

 

Louise said campaigners were still waiting for the council to publish a breakdown of the ‘bizarre’ £26m figure given for potentially retaining Sheffield’s roadside trees, and for the council to ‘explain to the people of Sheffield how it is even possible that 200 trees will each cost up to £100,000.’

 

“It beggars belief and is arguably bad management on their part or exaggerated figures,” she said.

 

Deputy leader of the city council Lib Dem group Coun Penny Baker also responded in an open letter to council leader Julie Dore, claiming the letter was a political move by Labour. She said: “To label the tree campaigners as middle class people who only care about their house prices is wildly inaccurate and inflammatory. The tree campaign is fuelled by a variety of causes, concerns about not just street scenes, but air pollution, Sheffield’s heritage and more recently it has become a cause symbolic of a lack of democracy in this city and the way your council treats the opinions and feelings of the people they are elected to represent.

 

“I am appalled, along with many others, at the indifference and contempt the signatories of the letter appear to show for public opinion. Despite a barrage of complaints and petitions, including but not exclusive to a petition with 15,000 signatures from the Rustlings Road area, another with 6,000 signatures from Nether Edge and numerous individuals letters and fundraisers. Although this may have started in the so called ‘leafy suburbs’, the issue is now far more widespread than that.”

 

Cabinet member for environment and transport at Sheffield Council Terry Fox welcomed the letter. He said: “I’m pleased to see some perspective. We all want to keep Sheffield green, and we need to pull together as a city to do the best we can for our trees. We’ll work closely with communities to get this situation sorted out as quickly as possible.”

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/letter-defends-sheffield-council-and-slams-lack-of-perspective-of-tree-campaigners-1-7739862#ixzz41wa22ZLK

 

Why are the signatures of 17 people, signing in their personal capacity, worth more than the signatures of thousands of people signing up to petitions?

[Solomon1 10]

“Our street tree maintenance programme is designed to protect and enhance the city’s trees for future generations. We have a clear strategy for achieving this and ensuring that Sheffield remains the greenest city in Britain.”

 

SCC so confident in it's lies!!

 

Or perhaps they don’t realise they’re lying?

 

Or maybe they just don’t care what the truth is!! :mad:

[Granma 10]

"a man who has indebted an entire generation of students ".

 

Unusual (!) use of verb.

 

Granma.

[Jonny5 10]

Why are the signatures of 17 people, signing in their personal capacity, worth more than the signatures of thousands of people signing up to petitions?

Personal capacity really does need quotation marks around it. Let's face it it's just a load of the council's buddies being called in for a favour.

 

What's with the inverse snobbery tone as well with bringing house prices into it? Typical SCC class war dirty tricks.

Are the trees falling down or not because if they are then bringing them down will surely aid house prices. They cant even keep up with their own lies.

[Longcol 598]

Why are the signatures of 17 people, signing in their personal capacity, worth more than the signatures of thousands of people signing up to petitions?

 

Should the people who signed the petition have a bigger day than the many more thousands who elected the councillors last May?

[Robin-H 11]

Should the people who signed the petition have a bigger day than the many more thousands who elected the councillors last May?

 

The problem is that the fact they are signing in their 'personal capacity' is not going to be obvious the casual reader. The fact that they have listed the organisations or unions that they are members of makes it seem like the signatories are representing the views of those organisations, which they are not.

 

For example, Christy McMorrow, the head of the Students' Union at Sheffield University, does not represented the views of the University, but only his own. It is not surprising that a self confessed hard left activist and Labour supporter would add his name to a letter that spent quite a lot of time complaining about Nick Clegg, and his role in increasing tuitions fees - why on earth that is remotely relevant I'm not sure..

[Mindfulness 10]

The Council & Amey claim to comply with best practice and good practice respectively. All campaigners want is for it to be applied, supervised, audited and enforced, with evidence of such steps having been taken. Who is responsible for monitoring, supervision and auditing Amey works? Highway trees are a valuable community asset. Mature limes like those on Rustlings Road are likely to be valued at @£65,000 each when replacement value and ecosystem services are accounted for (CAVAT and i-Tree valuations). Poorly trained Amey staff should NOT be allowed to cause ANY further damage to the roots and trunks of these valuable trees, using a mechanical planer inappropriately in the RPA.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2016 at 23:54 ----------

 

SCC’s Streets Ahead and Amey often imply that the people of Sheffield have to choose between safety and retaining our healthy, mature and structurally-sound highway trees. They do not – both are possible and a 2.2 billion contract should have factored for both. What we are asking for is reasonable.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2016 at 23:56 ----------

 

Residual risks should not be exaggerated to reduce survey, inspection, assessment and maintenance costs, or to accommodate the use of planing and digging machines to speed up lighting and resurfacing works. Trenching and tarmac lifting/grinding machinery should not be used within a radius from the tree trunk equal to 4x stem circumference - measured at 1.5m above ground: the NJUG “Protection Zone”.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2016 at 23:59 ----------

 

The SORT campaign is for responsible urban forest management, with particular focus on sustainable highway tree population management. It is also raising issues around local governance, accountability and democracy.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 02:50 ----------

 

http://www.savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SORT-LETTER-TO-THE-CABINET-MEMBER-FOR-ENVIRONMENT-AND-TRANSPORT_29th-January-2016_v1_v51_Corrected_a.pdf

[Longcol 598]

The Council & Amey claim to comply with best practice and good practice respectively. All campaigners want is for it to be applied, supervised, audited and enforced, with evidence of such steps having been taken. Who is responsible for monitoring, supervision and auditing Amey works? Highway trees are a valuable community asset. Mature limes like those on Rustlings Road are likely to be valued at @£65,000 each when replacement value and ecosystem services are accounted for (CAVAT and i-Tree valuations).

 

A month ago you valued 8 trees on Rustlings Road as £156k for all of them - with just one tree having a "potential" CAVAT valuation of £68k - about £20k each.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11289964&postcount=305

 

Now they are worth £65k each.

 

These valuations would appear to be a moveable feast - an explanation would be useful.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Longcol

[Mindfulness 10]

Hi Longcol. Thank you for your question and the opportunity for clarification. Previous valuation was CAVAT. i-Tree estimation has now been added in, for the ecosystem services of large canopy highway trees. CAVAT is structural value only.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2016 at 13:43 ----------

 

This figure does NOT take into account valuation of ecosystem services and an i-Tree valuation would be needed for that. The figure of £156,835 is therefore a conservative estimate for these 8 trees

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2016 at 04:29 ----------

 

SCC's farcical '5 Year Tree Management Strategy', cobbled together as an after thought after 10 months of expert questioning from the SORT campaign - is NOT a tree strategy. Just to be clear on this. A tree strategy is a planned, systematic, INTEGRATED approach to tree management, based on current industry guidelines. Here are some ACTUAL tree strategies:

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2016 at 04:29 ----------

 

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/environment-and-planning/planning/heritage-and-design/Documents/Tree-Strat-Part-1-Complete.pdf

 

“Trees and woodlands are an essential part of London’s character and identity. They help to breathe life into the capital, providing a welcome respite from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. They tell us of the seasons, and bring us into contact with nature. They remind us that where London now stands, a vast and ancient forest once existed. They provide shade on hot days, help to relieve us from stress and help clean our polluted air. Trees and woodlands are good for Londoners, good for visitors to London, and good for business in London”

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2016 at 04:33 ----------

 

http:// http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/Published/C00000138/M00000205/AI00004242/$item24app2TreeWoodlandStrategy.docA.ps.pdf

 

"For many years residents and visitors alike to Brighton and Hove have enjoyed the investment that our forefathers made in the area. Principally, our Victorian and Edwardian forebears were great tree planters but would not have lived to see the full fruits of their investment. We have had this privilege and as guardians of the treescape are duty bound to pass on this resource to future generations in at least as good a condition as we inherited it and, if possible, better"

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2016 at 01:47 ----------

 

Sheffield's Secret Shame: https://dub125.mail.live.com/mail/ViewOfficePreview.aspx?messageid=mgsN53JV3Z5RGRsWw75afbLw2&folderid=flinbox&attindex=0&cp=-1&attdepth=0&n=49152245

Edited March 8, 2016 by Mindfulness

[Hesther 10]

A fellow forummer has alerted me to this article:

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/letter-defends-sheffield-council-and-slams-lack-of-perspective-of-tree-campaigners-1-7739862#ixzz41wa22ZLK

 

It is very interesting to read that:

 

"The letter said the council was felling trees because professional tradespeople had deemed them to be in danger of falling down, damaging pavement and potentially hampering the mobility of the elderly and disabled."

 

This in bold is of particular interest to me, as I wrote to Amey and the council and gave this exact reason, amongst several other equally valid reasons why a tree near me should be felled and they said that that this was not something they could take in to account!

 

It seems the council/Amey make it up as they go along!

 

As for telling the people of Dore and Totley that they are only concerned with house prices and should be caring more for the people dying from pollution in Tinsley! Maybe the COUNCIL should start caring about our air pollution and stop importing rubbish from everywhere else to be burnt at Bernard Road incinerator, pushing God knows what in to the air, and bringing washed up whales from Skegness to rot in our landfills and heaven knows what else they are bringing in from other towns and cities. And forcing all traffic on to main roads where it just sits for hours, not moving, with engines running, causing tons of pollution for the inhabitants of Sheffield, instead of letting the traffic move freely on lesser used roads, OUR COUNCIL have made Sheffield the dustbin of England. To accuse other people of not caring about pollution is absolutely disgusting!

 

---------- Post added 12-03-2016 at 17:31 ----------

 

Should the people who signed the petition have a bigger day than the many more thousands who elected the councillors last May?

 

It seems our councillors have short memories.

 

Sheffielders care passionately about their environment - including those who want certain trees felled, and those who don't.

 

Remember the Graves Park fiasco that cost Labour control of the council?

 

If I remember correctly, a certain Terry Fox lost his seat over that one!

 

The fact is whether people want to fell particular trees or keep them - Amey and SCC have put a lot of people's backs up with how they have gone about the tree work.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Hesther