Nether Edge Elm Tree Shortlisted for national award!

White-letter hairstreak

Important message and good news from Paul Selby…..

Hi Ian

Hope you are well. You may or may not have heard about the Sheffield Elm being shortlisted for English Tree of the Year 2016, following my nomination.

See below weblink to the national BBC News article. It also featured on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning, and in the local press again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37405684

I’d really appreciate it if you could vote for the tree yourself, and also spread the word to all your friends, family and contacts. Voting can be done via the following web address, and you have until 9th October to vote!

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods/tree-of-the-year/england/

Thanks in advance for your support

Best wishes

Paul Selby

So…….go ahead and vote and get friends and family to do so as well!

This entry was posted in Latest News. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Nether Edge Elm Tree Shortlisted for national award!

  1. Technotronic says:

    TREE STRATEGY CONSULTATION

    Yesterday (30th September, 2016), Sheffield City Council published a draught tree Strategy. You have until the end of November to submit feedback on it. Hopefully, there will be subsequent revisions and draughts before it is formally submitted to the Council for adoption. As it is, it grossly inadequate. Another last minute rush job? Undue influence by Councillors, SCC Executives, or Amey?

    To discover more, follow the link below. This is your opportunity to influence policy & practice. DO NOT MISS IT!

    *****

    SHEFFIELD TELEGRAPH

    The letter below arrived in my inbox on 21st September 2016. The author sent it to the Sheffield Telegraph newspaper the same day. It was published in Sheffield Telegraph on 29th September, 2016. The Editor of the newspaper cut a number of key points out of the letter prior to publication. The author has given permission for me to share the original letter, below. To indicate which parts the Editor removed, those parts appear in UPPER CASE.

    *****

    “In a letter dated 13th September, 2016, addressed to Nick Clegg MP, the Chief Executive of Sheffield City Council – John Mothersole – informed:

    “A draft Trees and Woodlands Strategy will be available in September 2016.” It went on to say that there will be: “further opportunities for the public to comment on the draft strategy”.

    Mothersole asserts that the tree strategy “drop-in” event, held at the Town Hall, on 26th February, 2016, marked the start of a public consultation process. At the event, I spoke to Mr Gunton: SCC’s Tree Officer. With David Aspinall (SCC’s Woodlands Manager), he is responsible for drafting the tree strategy. Mr Gunton informed that work on a draft strategy had not begun AND THAT ALL OFFICERS – INCLUDING HIM – WERE UNDER STRICT INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO DISCUSS HIGHWAY TREES.

    The Amey PFI contract permits the felling of 50% of the highway trees: 67.7% of mature highway trees. Mature trees account for 73.8% of the highway tree population: 25,877 trees. They are the trees most susceptible to ill health and weakness as a result of damage resulting from non-compliance with good practice, INCLUDING INAPPROPRIATE USE OF MACHINERY WHEN UNDERTAKING WORKS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO TREES.

    An adequate tree strategy is the most appropriate way to ensure a planned, systematic, integrated approach to tree population management & arboricultural practice. It would help ensure that acts and omissions are fair, proportionate, defendable, auditable, BASED ON SOUND EVIDENCE, AND NOT UNDULY INFLUENCED BY TRANSITORY OR EXAGGERATED OPINIONS, WHETHER FORMED BY THE MEDIA OR VESTED INTERESTS. Action on drafting a tree strategy was first promised on 23rd July, 2015, at the first of the two meetings of the “bi-monthly” Highway Tree Advisory Forum.

    Mr Mothersole asserts that the “drop-in” event was an opportunity for the public to comment on the “Streets Ahead 5 Year Tree Management Strategy…as part of the annual review process of that 5 year strategy”. THE DOCUMENT HAS NUMEROUS OMISSIONS AND ERRORS. Don’t miss your opportunity to comment!

    D.Long (BSc Hons Arb), Sheffield.”

    Source:
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/660#comment-660

  2. Technotronic says:

    GOOD PRACTICE

    Good practice guidance and recommendations are listed here:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/627#comment-627

    ***
    Also, see the following posts:

    “EXTRACTS FROM WELL-MAINTAINED HIGHWAYS – CODE OF PRACTICE”:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/630#comment-630

    ***
    “EXTRACTS FROM WELL-LIT HIGHWAYS – TRACKED CHANGES”:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/631#comment-631

    ***
    “EXTRACTS FROM British Standard 5837” (TREES IN RELATION TO DESIGN, DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION – RECOMMENDATIONS):

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/632#comment-632

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/634#comment-634

    ***
    “ROOT PROTECTION”:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/633#comment-633

    ***
    “RISK & LIABILITY”:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/635#comment-635

    The National Tree Safety Group, 2011. Common Sense Risk Management of Trees: Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers.
    Forestry Commission Stock Code: FCMS024

    http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/publications.nsf/searchpub/?SearchView&Query=(FCMS024)&SearchOrder=4&SearchMax=0&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchThesaurus=TRUE

    ***
    The Trees and Design Action Group (TDAG)Recommendations:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/637#comment-637

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/638#comment-638

    ***
    “STRATEGY: FORESTRY COMMISSION ADVICE”:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/639#comment-639

    ***
    “STRATEGY: BRITISH STANDARD 8545”:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/641#comment-641

    ***
    “STRATEGY: ADVICE FROM THE GOVERNMENT’S TREES IN TOWNS 2 REPORT”:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/642#comment-642

    ***
    “STRATEGY: TREES IN TOWNS 2 ‘KEY RECOMMENDATIONS'”:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/642#comment-642

    ***
    “STRATEGY: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT & CONSULTATION”:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/644#comment-644

    ***
    “SUSTAINABLE TREE POPULATION MANAGEMENT”:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/623#comment-623

  3. Technotronic says:

    SHEFFIELD’s FIRST TREE STRATEGY

    A number of documents have now been made available online. They include the “SHEFFIELD CITY HIGHWAYS TREE SURVEY 2006 – 2007”, undertaken by Elliott Consultancy Ltd* and the original draught strategy document that SCC prepared (Lewis, D., Sellwood, N. & Page, M., 2001), ignored and rejected fifteen years back: “SHEFFIELD’S TREE AND WOODLAND STRATEGY: CONSULTATION DOCUMENT”.

    You can access these documents at:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/published-after-wait-14-months-sheffields-first-draught-tree-strategy-available-public-comment

    *****

    * The Elliott survey – commissioned by an asset management company (Chris Britten Ltd contracted by the Council – recommended:recommended that SCC adopt a tree strategy:

    “A FORMAL DOCUMENT;
    RATIFIED BY THE COUNCIL;
    DETAILING POLICIES;

    DETAILING BEST PRACTISE [SIC];
    DETAILING PROCEDURES;
    OUTLINING THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES”

    It also stated that Sheffield has 35,057 highway trees and that there are: “25,000 highway trees requiring no work at present”. It recommended 1,000 trees for felling, plus 241 to be crown-reduced or felled. This is the survey that Cllr Fox (as Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport) stated: “helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract”.

    ***** SHEFFIELD’s 25,877 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES ACCOUNT FOR 73.8% OF THE HIGHWAY TREE POPULATION. *****

    TO DATE, AMEY HAVE FELLED OVER 3,800 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES.

    *****

    On 17th June, 2016, Sheffield News Room – “Sheffield City Council’s Online Media Hub” – reported:

    “TO DATE, UNDER THE STREETS AHEAD CONTRACT WE HAVE REPLACED JUST OVER 3,800 STREET TREES…”

    Source:
    http://www.sheffieldnewsroom.co.uk/tree-injunction-decision/

    On 18th June, 2016, The Star reported:

    Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for the Environment, said:
    […]
    ‘TO DATE, UNDER THE STREETS AHEAD CONTRACT WE HAVE REPLACED JUST OVER 3,800 STREET TREES’ ”

    Source:
    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/appeal-to-stop-tree-felling-scheme-in-sheffield-rejected-by-court-1-7971156

  4. Technotronic says:

    EVENTS & CONSULTATIONS

    Today is your last opportunity to submit feedback on the Streets Ahead project, whether it be about resurfacing, lighting, drainage, trees or the way in which your requests, enquiries and complaints are handled, or the total absence of detailed information at any stage.

    The online survey can be accessed here:

    https://sheffield.citizenspace.com/place-business-strategy/streetsahead/

    On Friday the 7th October (tomorrow), there is a major tree event in Grenoside, with Professor Ian Rotherham and national celebrities:

    http://www.ukeconet.org/action-for-woods-and-trees.html

    Also tomorrow, there is also a Steel Valley Project consultation in Oughtibridge. For detail, see https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news

    Please remember, you only have until the end of October to fill out the FLOOD defences consultation survey questionnaire. You can access it online, here:

    http://floodprotectionsheffield.com/pages/consultation

    In addition, don’t forget that you only have until the end of November to submit feedback on the tree strategy that Sheffield City Council is developing to guide and inform policy and practice for the years ahead. Find out more here:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/published-after-wait-14-months-sheffields-first-draught-tree-strategy-available-public-comment

    • Technotronic says:

      SMITHY WOOD

      Also, if you want to object to the partial destruction of Snithy Wood (designated ancient semi-natural woodland), you need to do so BEFORE TUESDAY 11th October.

      You can e-mail the new case officer – Bob Turner:

      bob.turner@sheffield.gov.uk

      You need to quote the planning application reference:

      14/01079/OUT

      The Planning Committee is supposed to make a decision on Tuesday. However, the meeting could be postponed:

      “LATEST NEWS: the Sheffield City Council planning committee meeting scheduled to consider Smithy Wood is now likely to be on 22nd November 2016.”

      Source:
      http://www.wildsheffield.com/smithywood

      You can find out more here:
      http://www.wildsheffield.com/smithywood/background%20info

    • Technotronic says:

      OUGHTIBRIDGE

      The Steel Valley Project consultation on how best to manage Birkswood Bank in Oughtibridge (beside the primary school) can be accessed here:

      surveymonkey.co.uk/r/ZWL3SFB

      Your feedback will be considered during the development of a management plan (commissioned by Bradfield Parish Council) for the site. There will be no further opportunity to comment on proposals or the management plan.

      On the consultation day, one proposal was to remove “exotic” species. That will certainly include Larch & Sycamore. If they include all species not native to the location, the impact could be devastating.

      Let’s hope common sense wins.

  5. Technotronic says:

    SURVER CLOSES AT MIDNIGHT?

    The online Streets Ahead feedback survey is still open:

    https://sheffield.citizenspace.com/place-business-strategy/streetsahead/

    DON’T MISS YOUR CHANCE TO PUT THINGS RIGHT!

  6. Technotronic says:

    ShhAMEY “CRIMES”

    “Refugee camp company in Australia ‘LIABLE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY’

    Directors and employers of FERROVIAL told they risk prosecution over firm’s role at offshore detention sites”

    Source:
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/25/ferrovial-staff-risk-prosecution-for-managing-australian-detention-camps

    “FERROVIAL IS THE PARENT COMPANY OF AMEY…”

    Source:
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/392913244219104/

    *****************************

    Shhamey… RUINING SHEFFIELD

    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/16-roads-across-sheffield-developed-potholes-after-2billion-resurfacing-1-7994990

    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/historic-cobbles-ripped-out-from-sheffield-street-1-8145711

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/published-after-wait-14-months-sheffields-first-draught-tree-strategy-available-public-comment

    ******************************

    Shhamey… RUINING BIRMINGHAM – BRITAIN’S SECOND BIGGEST CITY:

    “Engineering giant Amey has set aside £55m to cover a row with Birmingham city council over a £2.7bn deal to fix the city’s roads.

    AMEY, OWNED BY SPAIN’S FERROVIAL, won the 25-year deal in 2009.

    The council is embroiled in a High Court row with Amey over contract issues that reportedly stem from problems with pothole repairs. The agreement covers more than 1,500 miles of road.

    Amey’s annual report showed the company has set aside £55m to cover the impact of an ‘unfavourable resolution’ to the court case, and cut its profit forecasts.”

    Source:
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/engineer-amey-digs-55m-hole-5xbvvj8qb

    Also, see:

    http://www.thechamberlainfiles.com/amey-files-compensation-claim-against-council-over-state-of-birminghams-roads/

    http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/local-news/city-dispute-amey-stepped-up-9314998

    http://www.transport-network.co.uk/Birmingham-and-Amey-locked-in-claim-and-counterclaim/11522

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287889/Amey-Council-pay-contractor-2-000-time-plants-single-SAPLING-roads.html

    *******************************

    Shhamey… RUINING HEARTFORDSHIRE:

    HIGH COURT ORDERS AMEY TO RETURN £9.5M TO COUNCIL

    The long-running LEGAL DISPUTE AROSE OVER INFLATION PRICE ADJUSTMENTS FOR WORK RATES on highways work during the term of the contract, which ended in August 2013.

    Amey took on the 10-year highways maintenance contract held by Herefordshire Jarvis Service when it acquired the business in 2007.

    During the contract the council paid out over £204m for services. BUT A DISPUTE OVER CHANGING WORK RATES DESIGNED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT INFLATION OVER THE CONTRACT PERIOD LED TO AN ADJUDICATOR RULING THAT AMEY SHOULD REPAY £9.5M.

    Amey challenged the decision in the High Court and questioned some of the calculations in the adjudication. But the High Court has ruled against the appeal.

    The judge also revealed that during proceeding both parties had themselves made errors in submitting their claims. IN AMEY’S CASE ITS INITIAL CALCULATION ERROR ON ITS CLAIM WAS £35M. The district council’s error was of a smaller scale.

    Balfour Beatty is presently the council’s highways maintenance contractor after THE AMEY CONTRACT WAS NOT RENEWED IN 2013 and was then rebid.

    Written by Aaron Morby
    2 days ago (6th September 2016)

    Source:
    http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2016/10/06/high-court-orders-amey-to-return-9-5m-to-council/

    Also, see:

    http://newsroom.herefordshire.gov.uk/2015/march/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-dispute-with-amey.aspx

    http://www.herefordshirelive.co.uk/culture/news/herefordshire-council-needs-more-in-committed-cash-reserves-to-cover-on-going-legal-costs

  7. Technotronic says:

    NEWS

    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/oct/12/importance-urban-forests-money-grow-trees?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    From the above link:

    THE SHEFFIELD CHAINSAW MASSACRE

    In Sheffield (UK), there is a city-wide felling programme for mature highway trees. In 2007, Sheffield had 35,057 highway trees. Mature trees accounted for 73.8% of the highway tree population.

    In August 2012, a £2.2 billion city-wide highway maintenance project began – the Streets Ahead project. Amey is the PFI contractor responsible for delivering the project. All street lighting is being replaced and about 70% of the City’s footways are being resurfaced over the first five years – the Core Investment Period.

    Previously, an asset management company (Chris Britten Ltd), contracted by the Council, commissioned Elliott Consultancy Ltd to undertake “Sheffield City Highways Tree Survey 2006 – 2007”. [4]

    THE SURVEY RECOMMENDED 1,000 HIGHWAY TREES FOR FELLING, with an additional 241 to be crown reduced or to be considered for felling. The survey declared that there are:

    “25,000 highway trees TREES REQUIRING NO WORK AT PRESENT”.

    Commenting on the £2.2bn Amey PFI contract, the previous Sheffield City Council Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox: Lab) stated (on 1st July, 2015) that this is the independent highway tree survey that [1]:

    “HELPS US INFORM OUR PRIORITIES FOR THE FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT…”

    TO DATE, AMEY HAVE FELLED OVER 3,800 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES [2].

    Sheffield City Council (SCC) say the Amey PFI contract permits 50% of highway trees to be felled, plus any trees classed as dangerous or damaging [3].

    Since at least May, 2015, the Council has used every opportunity to state that DAMAGE to footways (pavements) & edging (kerbs) represents a DANGER to motorists & pedestrians. This kind of damage is associated with mature highway trees.

    On 23rd JULY, 2015, at the inaugural meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum, Steve Robinson (SCC Head Of Highway Maintenance) commented [4]:

    “So, just because a tree is diseased doesn’t mean to say that that tree needs to be replaced. …IF AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION CAN BE APPLIED, THEN IT WILL BE APPLIED. Err, there was a lots of comment made earlier on about whether a tree is removed as a last resort; and a tree is removed as a LAST RESORT.”

    “So, just to give you a summary of where we are today, there’s been 2,563 HIGHWAY TREES REMOVED because they met one of the 6Ds and there was NO OTHER RECTIFICATION that we could carry out.”

    “Our next priority is to improve the condition of our roads and pavements. So, in other words, deal with the DAMAGING trees – those trees that are damaging kerbs, pavements and drains.”

    The Council & Amey repeatedly state that felling is a “last resort” and that they are willing to consider all options to retain mature highway trees.

    On 19th February, 2016, the Information Commissioner completed an investigation (Case Ref: FS50596905) which revealed that,
    OVER 3 YEARS IN TO A £2.2BN CITY-WIDE HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE PROJECT, NEITHER AMEY OR THE COUNCIL HAD EVER COMMISSIONED OR DRAUGHTED ANY ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOOTWAY, EDGING (KERB) OR DRAIN CONSTRUCTION FOR CONSIDERATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO FELLING, as a means to enable the safe long-term retention of valuable mature highway trees, and the range of valuable ecosystem service benefits they afford to the environment and communities each year [5].

    Most trees that Amey now schedule for felling are healthy and structurally sound. The main reasons for felling have been: “due to damage to the pavement or road” [4].

    Many healthy, structurally sound, mature highway trees are scheduled for felling on the basis that the USE OF MOWERS, STRIMMERS AND MACHINERY USED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO TREES DURING RESURFACING WORKS, SUCH AS DIGGERS AND PLANING MACHINES, will cause damage of such severity that that tree health and structural integrity will be compromised to such extent that the only reasonable option is to fell the trees. This appears to be one of Amey’s primary reasons for felling [4].

    BASED ON ACTS & OMISSIONS TO DATE, IT IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS STRONG LIKELIHOOD THAT AMEY WILL FELL AT LEAST 68% OF SHEFFIELD’S MATURE HIGHWAY TREES [4].

  8. Technotronic says:

    URGENT!

    THIS IS THE CHANCE CITIZENS HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR…

    A draught tree strategy was published on 30th September, 2016. You have until the end of November, 2016 to comment on it.

    It will GUIDE and INFORM ALL policy and decisions related to trees in local authority care, and those in private ownership affected by acts and omissions necessary for the fulfilment of duties imposed upon the local authority by legislation. Once formally adopted as policy, the strategy should be reviewed and revised at planned and additional, appropriate, intervals, as detailed previously in the SORT & Nether Edge petition hand-outs (the SORT letters).

    For further details, please see Stocksbridge Community Forum:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/published-after-wait-14-months-sheffields-first-draught-tree-strategy-available-public-comment

    The purpose of and necessity for a tree strategy is clearly detailed in SORT letters. However, please also see:

    “RISK & LIABILITY: SORT / STAG VIEWS ON HAZARD AND RISK MANAGEMENT”
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/635#comment-635

    “STRATEGY: FORESTRY COMMISSION ADVICE”:
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/639#comment-639

    “STRATEGY: BRITISH STANDARD 8545”:
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/641#comment-641

    “STRATEGY: ADVICE FROM THE GOVERNMENT’S TREES IN TOWNS 2 REPORT”:
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/642#comment-642

    “STRATEGY: TREES IN TOWNS 2 “KEY RECOMMENDATIONS”:
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/643#comment-643

    “STRATEGY: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT & CONSULTATION”:
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/644#comment-644

    Sheffield Tree Action Groups seek an approach to policy and management that recognises the monetary value of benefits; ensures that assessments are balanced, undertaken by competent people and that acts and omissions are proportionate, defendable, “soundly based on available evidence, and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions”. Compliance with current good practice would help ensure this, and help temper a destructive, risk-averse approach to tree management. A tree strategy is the best and most appropriate way to ensure that adequate steps exist to achieve these aims.

    It is worth a look at one of the early letters from the Save Our Roadside Trees Group:
    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/save-our-trees-have-your-say-1-7292659

    The original (unredacted) can be found here:
    https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-city-council-streetsahead-sheffield-gov-uk-save-the-12-trees-on-rustlings-road-sheffield

    *****

    To quote from the SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016 (the Nether Edge petition hand-out that was distributed to EVERY councillor in the City of Sheffield):

    “The adoption and implementation of an adequate tree strategy, as Council policy, will help ensure a planned, SYSTEMATIC , INTEGRATED, SUSTAINABLE, STRATEGIC, proactive approach to all aspects of the urban forest management and practice in every land use category, INCLUDING HIGHWAYS (Britt, et al., 2008; Van Wassenaer, et al., 2012; Johnston & Hirons, 2014).

    The strategy should encourage and enable an open, honest, TRANSPARENT, CONSISTENT approach, with greater ACCOUNTABILITY. It should also help ensure that assessments are BALANCED and that acts and omissions are PROPORTIONATE, defendable and NOT UNDULY INFLUENCED by transitory or exaggerated opinions.

    SORT strongly urge that the tree strategy – including the sub-strategy specifically for highway trees – should:

    1) be draughted, in accordance with current arboricultural and urban forestry good practice;

    2) be developed through extensive consultation both within the local authority (LA) and among the local community (Johnston & Hirons, 2014);

    3) include a sub-strategy for community involvement that includes a balance of three essential elements: education, consultation and participation (Britt, et al., 2008);

    4) contain detailed policies (with stated aims and objectives) and plans that will guide and inform management decisions and help temper a risk-averse approach;

    5) include targets and ensure that they are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timed (SMART), to aid adequate resource allocation and delivery;

    6) ensure regular monitoring of the strategy’s progress (Britt, et al., 2008);

    7) contain detailed policies and plans that are revised every five years (Britt, et al., 2008, p. 407; Van Wassenaer, et al., 2012), and at appropriate intervals, as necessary, to reflect changes in legislation, policies and current arboricultural and urban forestry “industry” guidance and recommendations.

    8) ensure that adequate, appropriate, assessments are adopted;

    9) ensure that current, recognised and widely accepted assessment methods are adopted;

    10) make provision to ensure that personnel participate in a programme of continued professional development .”
    (SORT., 2016, p.6)

    ******

    “SORT believe that the most appropriate way to resolve all perceived difficulties is through a strategic approach to tree population management and arboricultural and urban forestry practice, guided by a tree strategy. As stated previously, such an approach would help ensure a planned, systematic, integrated, sustainable, strategic, proactive approach to all aspects of the urban forest management and practice in every land use category, INCLUDING HIGHWAYS (Britt, et al., 2008; Van Wassenaer, et al., 2012). It would ENCOURAGE AND ENABLE AN OPEN, HONEST, TRANSPARENT, CONSISTENT APPROACH, WITH GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY . It should also help ensure that assessments are balanced and that acts and omissions are proportionate, defendable and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions.”
    (SORT., 2016, p.56)

    *****

    “Methods are available for valuation of highway trees, and CAVAT and i-tree are both well recognised and accepted methods used by responsible, competent arboriculturists and urban foresters (Forestry Commission England, 2010; Sarajevs, 2011a). The METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED PERMIT CONSISTENCY, AUDITING, TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND AID COST:BENEFIT ANALYSES; SOUND, BALANCED, DECISION MAKING, AND HELP ENSURE THAT ACTS AND OMISSIONS ARE DEFENDABLE. To date, no evidence has been provided to indicate that Sheffield City Council have ever used any method of valuation for trees or ecosystem services afforded by trees.”
    (SORT., 2016, p.74)

    *****

    ” At the Amey Roadshow in Heeley, Mr Butt was asked why Amey and Streets Ahead have not made available to the public any DETAIL OF POLICIES AND PLANS, OR THE GUIDANCE, RECOMMENDATIONS, PROTOCOLS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, AND TYPES OF ASSESSMENT USED FOR: HIGHWAY TREE SURVEYING, HIGHWAY TREE INSPECTION; ASSESSMENT OF SEVERITY OF PAVEMENT RIDGING & KERB DAMAGE; TREE HEALTH ASSESSMENT; DIAGNOSES; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; VALUATION of the range of ecosystem services afforded by trees (to the environment and communities); COST:BENEFIT ANALYSES; RISK ASSESSMENT, AND RISK ANALYSES (see Appendix 15).

    Mr Butt was also asked why DETAIL OF THE STEPS TAKEN TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE, ADEQUATE SUPERVISION, AUDITING AND ENFORCEMENT has not been made available, at least online, to the public. Mr Butt said that Amey had tried to make this information available, online, to the public, but that the Council had placed “constraints” on what Amey could and couldn’t do, and that this prevented Amey from making such information available to the public. However, he also said that, HOPEFULLY, THE TREE STRATEGY CURRENTLY BEING DRAUGHTED BY THE COUNCIL WOULD ADDRESS ALL THESE MATTERS. SORT hope that it does, and expects this to be the case. Please confirm whether or not this is the case. Also, please make this information available to SORT or STAG at the earliest opportunity, preferably before the end of February, 2016.
    (SORT., 2016, p.75)

    *****

    “SORT hope and expect to see display of a far greater level of care, knowledge, understanding and wisdom by the Council and its Officers when making policy and taking decisions that affect the QUALITY, LIVEABILITY AND ECONOMIC SUCCESS OF NEIGHBOURHOODS, AND THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF COMMUNITIES within those neighbourhoods. Whether it be alternative HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS for footway, kerb and drain construction (to enable the safe long-term retention of mature trees during highway resurfacing works); the relevance of The UK Forestry Standard and SUSTAINABLE management; the Ảrhus Convention; the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE; ASSESSMENT OF CANOPY COVER, OR THE VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, or the need for BALANCED RISK ASSESSMENTS, a disturbing trend has apparently emerged. Rather than consider these matters and take appropriate steps to help ensure that the Council’s acts and omissions, and those of the Streets Ahead team, ADEQUATELY ALIGN WITH CURRENT POLICY COMMITMENTS AND GOOD PRACTICE, AND ADDRESS RELEVANT MATTERS IN AN APPROPRIATE, BALANCED, PROPORTIONATE, CONSISTENT AND TRANSPARENT MANNER, the Council and the Streets Ahead team have presented reasons to justify not doing so. In this communication, SORT have provided detailed reasoning as to why it is both reckless and irresponsible for the Council to continue ignoring each of these matters and dismiss them, apparently without careful consideration, sound reasoning, or the support of legislation, policy commitments, or current good practice guidance and recommendations.”
    (SORT., 2016, p.120)

    *****

    The SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016 [1] formed part of the Nether Edge petition hand-out that was DISTRIBUTED TO EVERY COUNCILLOR in the city by SCC’s John Turner (Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources) – on 1st February, 2016 – to encourage informed “debate” at the meeting of full Council, on 3rd February, 2016 ( about responsible, SUSTAINABLE tree population management) [2].

    1)
    The SORT Letters can be accessed via the following link:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/published-after-wait-14-months-sheffields-first-draught-tree-strategy-available-public-comment

    2)
    THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE ON 3rd FEBRUARY, 2016 – when the Nether Edge tree action group presented their 6,295 plus signature petition – can be accessed at the following link, under the sub-heading “Minutes of Previous Council Meetings”:

    http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=154&MId=6022

    Questions about trees are on pages 6 & 7 of the PDF. A redacted version of the petition, followed by the Council’s response, can be found on pages 18 to 24.

  9. Technotronic says:

    **** FLOOD CONSULTATION DEADLINE ****

    A Letter to The Star

    “YOU HAVE UNTIL THE END OF OCTOBER TO SUPPORT OR REJECT FLOOD PROTECTION PROPOSALS by completing an online questionnaire! The questionnaire can be accessed clicking the “get involved” option on SCC’s flood protection website. Further information is available online at Stocksbridge Community Forum.

    Sheffield City Council (SCC) is making a bid for a grant of £83m, for six flood protection schemes. Each covers a different part of the river network and each consists of a number of proposed projects. There have been several consultation events. At the Hillsbourough event, I met Dr Godwin Ekebuisi – SCC’s flood prevention Programme Manager. He told me that, in fulfilment of a condition necessary to access the £83m grant, it is necessary for SCC to show that they have consulted with the public about proposals. Worryingly, Dr Ekebuisi informed that his flood protection team is part of the Highways Department, working under Steve Robinson – SCC’s Head of Highway Maintenance.

    As I understand it, Mr Robinson is responsible for sanctioning all felling of highway trees, ensuring adequate supervision, monitoring and auditing of works in close proximity to trees, and for ensuring there are adequate steps to ensure enforcement of compliance with good practice. To date, there has not been much evidence of competence in the SCC approach to these tasks, if any. At the “bi-monthly” SCC Highway Tree Advisory Forum – which hasn’t met since the second meeting, on 2nd September 2015 – Mr Robinson belittled the contribution that trees make to sustainable drainage systems (SuDs), stating that engineering options are more effective.

    The website informs that “urban water management” to “slow the flow” is one option considered. It states that SuDs are one technique that can be used to: “control rainwater in built-up areas …and minimise flows to underground sewers and rivers”. I attended a flood consultation event in Oughtibridge and questioned an engineer from ARUP (the consultancy commissioned to draught proposals and produce a report making recommendations) about proposals for Coronation Park, Oughtibridge. He informed me that SuDs were not part of ARUP’s remit and that SuDs were only being considered for the Three Brooks Scheme (Manor, Manor Park, Darnall, Arbourthorne and Norfolk Park).

    The flood protection website states:

    “SOME TREE LOSS MAY BE REQUIRED, but we would minimise impacts and identify opportunities to OFFSET THESE WITH WIDER TREE PLANTING…where possible.”

    The ARUP engineer informed me that all trees along the riverbank in Coronation Park would need to be felled. Indeed, that is “some tree loss”! This revelation does not appear in any of the information that has been presented to the public. What else is being hidden?

    The engineer said there would not be enough money to go ahead with all proposals and that consultation FEEDBACK FORM THE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE USED TO ASSESS PUBLIC SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION FOR EACH PROPOSAL. He said that a scheme that met significant opposition would be unlikely to be regarded as viable. He added that THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT before ARUP present their recommendations to SCC, the Government and the Environment Agency, sometime in 2017.

    DON’T MISS OUT – HAVE YOUR SAY!”

    http://floodprotectionsheffield.com/pages/consultation

    Source:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/669#comment-669

    Also, see:
    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/fears-mount-over-flood-defence-plans-at-sheffield-beauty-spot-1-8163157

    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/mum-outraged-at-plans-to-turn-sheffield-park-into-huge-floodplain-1-8204637

  10. Technotronic says:

    FLOOD CONSULTATION DEADLINE

    The flood consultation ends today, at MIDNIGHT, I believe (based on what happened with the previous Streets Ahead feedback survey).

    It is an online consultation. You can find it here:

    http://floodprotectionsheffield.com/pages/consultation

    *****

    SOME OF THE KEY QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE SURVEY:

    • Do you agree with the objectives of the Sheffield Flood Protection Programme?

    • Your thoughts about the value of the rivers to your community and the city?

    • Please share your experiences of the impacts of flooding in Sheffield.

    • Overall, do you agree with the range of options that are being considered? If you have additional suggestions, please write them in the comments box.

    • If you have additional suggestions, please write them in the comments box.

    • Do you agree that the following flood storage options should be considered for further investigation in the Upper Don Catchment? (please add any comments in the Comments box)

    • We would like your views on the height of walls that could be acceptable for various sites along the Upper Don and Loxley. We have identified some possible wall heights and would like you to indicate the highest wall that is acceptable to you at the following sites: (please add any comments in the Comments box)

    • Please share any alternative options you believe should be considered.

    • Technotronic says:

      SIZE MATTERS!

      On 3rd October, 2016, there was a Bradfield Parish Council (BPC) Public Meeting in Oughtibridge, for Parish Councillors to present information about proposals for flood prevention and get feedback. Miriam Cates (BPC) stated that Arup (the consultancy responsible for drafting proposals) and Sheffield City Council have advised that the proposed embankment for Coronation park would be 3m tall with a maximum gradient of “approximately one in three”. She said it would be 4m wide top, to allow for a footpath. That would necessitate a width of 22m required beside the river to accommodate the embankment. ALL TREES BESIDE THE RIVER IN THE PARK WOULD NEED TO BE FELLED. Ms Cates stated that when the river reached peak flow, the proposal aimed to reduce the river level downstream by approximately 7cm. She said the proposal for the sports ground aims to achieve similar reduction in river level.

      See:
      https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/sheffield-city-council-scc-upper-don-flood-consultation

  11. Technotronic says:

    CLLR LODGE: SPIN & DECEIT

    In a news item published by The Star on 28th October, 2016, Cllr Lodge (SCC Cabinet Member for the Environment) is quoted as saying:

    “We have had over 700 responses to the consultation and over 90 per cent of respondents agree with our suggestions to protect communities from flooding.”

    Source:
    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/reader-opinion-split-over-sheffield-flood-defences-1-8206725#comments-area

    This is a clear example of one of the ways Cllr Lodge and SCC misuse and abuse statistics from dodgy questionnaires. They do this in a range of ways, all of which represent bad practice. This includes poor research methodology, such as asking leading questions or sample bias, or misrepresentation of results.

    Cllr Lodge’s comment refers to the first question in the flood protection “consultation” questionnaire. Here is that question (how would you have answered?):

    “1. Do you agree with the objectives of the Sheffield Flood Protection Programme?

    • Protect our communities
    • Grow our economy
    • Transform our waterways

    • Strongly Agree
    • Agree
    • Neither agree nor disagree
    • Disagree
    • Strongly Disagree”

    As you can see, citizens filling out the questionnaire were asked to comment on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the three stated objectives listed. It is highly improbable that the responses that Cllr Lodge mentioned agreed with all three listed objectives. Also, 90% of over 700 is a meaningless statistic, as the number of responses could be 701 or 552,698 (the entire human population of Sheffield) – we just do not know.

    This is consultation, democracy and governance at its worst.

    There is information available on how to do things properly, but SCC – in particular John Mothersole, Simon Green, Cllr Lodge, Steve Robinson – and partners, including Amey and Arup, choose to ignore it.

    See: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/644#comment-644

    What is required is a responsible, SUSTAINABLE approach to flood protection and management – a strategic approach: PLANNED, SYSTEMATC AND INTEGRATED. That is NOT what is being offered. Furthermore, as you can see for yourself –

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/Flood%20Protection%20Consultation_29th%20September_2016..pdf

    – key information, NECESSARY for making informed decisions, has been wilfully withheld from the public by Arup and Sheffield City Council, and their communications have misrepresented proposals.

    In short, the public have been wilfully misled and deceived Arup and Sheffield City Council.

  12. Technotronic says:

    ARUP / SCC MISINFORMATION & DECEIT

    The Online flood protection Consultation questionnaire closed to response submissions on 21st October, 2016, at midnight. The public had not been informed of the exact time for final submissions: a SERIOUS omission by Arup and Sheffield City Council.

    The next day, somebody sent me a copy of their completed questionnaire. I have been given permission by the author to post some of the content here.

    Question 10 of the questionnaire stated:

    “Your Views on Potential Flood Defence Wall Options

    Flood defence walls will be required to contain flood water as it passes through the city. The height of the walls required will depend on a number of factors, including how much storage can be provided upstream.

    In built up areas, flood defences often take the form of raised walls.

    We would like your views on the acceptability of different heights of flood defence walls in various locations through the city. This will help us to decide on the right balance of options to take forward for further investigation.

    In the supporting information, we explain more about how different heights of flood defences might affect the river and surrounding landscape. We also illustrate the different wall heights referred to in the following questions.”

    *****

    One of the subsequent questions was:

    “10. We would like your views on the height of walls that could be acceptable for various sites along the UPPER DON AND LOXLEY. We have identified some possible WALL HEIGHTS and would like you to indicate the highest wall that is acceptable to you at the following sites: (please add any comments in the Comments box)

    • low level (up to 0.5m)
    • medium level (up to 1.1m)
    • high level (higher than 1.1m)

    • Oughtibridge
    • Winn Gardens
    • Hillsborough
    • Loxley
    • Loxley Confluence
    • Neepsend to Kelham Island”

    *****

    The response provided by the person that completed the questionnaire is of particular interest, as it indicates that the people of Oughtibridge, and perhaps elsewhere in the city, have been wilfully deceived by Arup and Sheffield City Council withholding information and neglecting to conduct valuations of valuable community assets. Here is the response to the question (unedited):

    “This is a leading question – an indication of incompetence in social science research methods. It assumes that the person completing the questionnaire finds the proposal to have a wall acceptable.

    On Thursday 29th September, 2016, I attended the flood protection consultation event held by Arup and Sheffield City Council in Oughtibridge. I was told by Adam – an engineer from Arup – that an embankment would be required for the Sports grounds and for Coronation Park – NOT WALLS! In fact, when I suggested constructing the embankment proposed for Coronation park further in to the park, so as to retain existing trees along the riverbank, I was told that would require construction of an even more substantial embankment than the one proposed, to enable the target amount of water to be held. In fact, I was told that the footprint of such an embankment would be so much greater than that proposed that constructing it away from the trees would not be a viable option because there would then be insufficient space to hold the target amount of water.

    On 3rd October, 2016, there was a Bradfield Parish Council (BPC) Public Meeting in Oughtibridge, for Parish Councillors to present information about proposals for flood prevention and get feedback. Miriam Cates (BPC) stated that Arup (the consultancy responsible for drafting proposals) and Sheffield City Council have advised that the proposed embankment for Coronation park would be 3m tall with a maximum gradient of “approximately one in three”. She said it would be 4m wide top, to allow for a footpath. That would necessitate a width of 22m required beside the river to accommodate the embankment. ALL TREES BESIDE THE RIVER IN THE PARK WOULD NEED TO BE FELLED. Ms Cates stated that when the river reached peak flow, the proposal aimed to reduce the river level downstream by approximately 7cm. She said the proposal for the sports ground aims to achieve similar reduction in river level.

    Whether a wall or an embankment is constructed, the river will be obscured from the view of park users. Instead of a lovely view of large, mature trees and associated wildlife, visitors will have a view of a wall or an embankment, and the housing estate recently built on the opposite bank, in place of the grade two listed forge.

    However, the construction of a tall wall could be used as an alternative to an embankment. It would have a much smaller footprint than an embankment and it could be constructed further in to Coronation Park, away from the trees on the riverbank, in accordance with the guidance and recommendations of British Standard 5837 (2012), which Sheffield City Council and Amey claim to comply with and aim to build on:
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/629#comment-629 .
    Vines could be used to help obscure the wall and sections could be used as a bouldering wall (climbing).

    A wall is proposed downstream of the bridge in Oughtibridge, beside Waterside Gardens. Provided it does not extend beyond the houses recently built on the floodplain there, AND it is no greater than 1.3m above existing ground level, I do not object to it. HOWEVER, a more sustainable option would be for Sheffield City Council to purchase the few homes there that flooded and demolish them. This is my preferred solution to the flooding problem in Oughtibridge.

    The Arup engineer dismissed my concerns about proposed felling, and options that would enable the retention of mature trees, by saying that the large, mature trees along the riverbank in Coronation Park were not like ancient woodland and were not of the same value. The implication was that the trees in the park were of lesser/no value – monetary or otherwise.

    As the Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT) Sheffield Tree Action Group (STAG) have highlighted previously, in their communications with Sheffield City Council ( https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/published-after-wait-14-months-sheffields-first-draught-tree-strategy-available-public-comment ), trees have a structural value and, for each year of life, they contribute a range of VALUABLE ecosystem service benefits to the environment (neighbourhoods/ “place”) and communities (including people) each year. As SORT have correctly advised, these values should – in accordance with a range of current good practice guidance* be factored in to any cost:benefit analysis and be used in balanced risk assessment, to help ensure that acts and omissions are balanced, proportionate, defendable and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions. This would also help the council fulfil a range of existing policy commitments, in particular, the commitment made at the council meeting that took place on 3rd February, 2016:

    “At the conclusion of the debate it was moved by Councillor Terry Fox, seconded by Councillor Julie Dore, that this Council:-
    […]
    d) COMMITS TO BEING OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WITH THE SHEFFIELD PUBLIC ENSURING ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.”

    As SORT highlighted, in their letter dated 29th January, 2016:

    “It is clearly necessary to remind you of at least some of the content of the SORT letter:

    ‘The UK government has signed up to the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Ảrhus Convention). Article 7 states:

    ‘Each Party shall make appropriate practical and/or other provisions for the public to PARTICIPATE DURING THE PREPARATION of plans and programmes relating to the environment, within A TRANSPARENT AND FAIR FRAMEWORK, having PROVIDED the necessary information to the public.’’
    (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2008, p. 11)

    …we believe it is necessary to remind you of the wording of European Directive 2001/42/EC (legislation):

    “Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community…
    …(1) Article 174 of the Treaty provides that Community policy on the environment is to contribute to, inter alia, THE PRESERVATION, PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE PRUDENT AND RATIONAL UTILISATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THAT IT IS TO BE BASED ON THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.

    Article 6 of the Treaty provides that environmental protection requirements are to be integrated into the definition of Community policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting SUSTAINABLE development.”
    (European Parliament, Council of the European Union, 2001)

    Meeting these duties must be regarded by Sheffield City Council, and Arup as an urgent matter and immediate priority. Indeed, it is necessary to foster maintain and build community support, involvement and trust, as well as to achieve adequate openness, transparency, scrutiny, accountability.

    Trees MUST be assigned a structural value (monetary) and the value (monetary) of the range of ecosystem services they would provide over the remainder of their estimated safe useful life expectancy (SULE), based on the assumption that the park will remain as is (without planned flood defences), must be calculated and taken in to account when draughting policy, plans and proposals. It is also necessary in order to help ensure that losses are adequately accounted for and that communities are not short-changed when compensation is calculated and offered as a means of offsetting loss. Again, this is in line with a range of current good practice guidance.

    On Thursday 29th September, 2016, at the flood protection consultation event held by Arup and Sheffield City Council in Oughtibridge, I informed the engineer from Arup that Coronation Park is very popular, frequently used and that the trees that would need to be felled are large, mature, highly visible, as old as the park, and that they are likely to be worth thousands of pounds each. The mean CAVAT value of the healthy, structurally sound, mature lime trees that Amey have scheduled for felling on Rustlings Road is just over £19, 604. This does not take account of the value of the range of valuable ecosystem services that the trees afford to the environment and communities, which also benefit health and well-being: http://nhsforest.org/evidence . It is reasonable to believe that the trees in Coronation Park will have a significantly greater CAVAT value, due to age, condition and visibility. “Beauty” can be assigned a value – an “amenity” value. There are methods that can be used to assign an amenity value.

    It is reasonably foreseeable that the tree felling proposed for Coronation Park would have a strong, significant, negative impact on amenity and that if Arup and Sheffield City Council had been open, honest and transparent in the information provided to the public prior to consultation, most, if not all, locals would be strongly opposed to all trees on the riverbank in the park being felled and current proposals for the park would be firmly rejected.

    To date, with regard to felling proposals for Coronation Park, all the flood protection website states:

    “There would be temporary impacts for park users during construction… but we would look to minimise these.

    SOME TREE LOSS MAY BE REQUIRED, but we would minimise impacts and identify opportunities to OFFSET THESE WITH WIDER TREE PLANTING and habitat creation where possible.”

    Source:
    http://floodprotectionsheffield.com/pages/oughtibridge-flood-storage-areas

    Such little detail does not sufficiently inform the recipient of the information of the scale of felling proposals, nor the likely, reasonably foreseeable, significant, irreversible, negative environmental impact. In my opinion, the witholding of relevant information, necessary to develop a balanced, informed opinion, by Arup and Sheffield City Council, and their neglect to be open and honest about the scale of proposed tree felling in non verbal communications, in consultation documents – online and at consultation events – represents wilful misrepresentation and deceit. That does not foster, maintain or build credibility, trust or support within or between communities: it is harmful and damaging.

    On Thursday 29th September, 2016, at the flood protection consultation event held by Arup and Sheffield City Council in Oughtibridge, the Arup engineer said there would be no further consultations and that this is questionnaire is the only opportunity that the public will have to influence proposed changes. The engineer said that Arup are still early in the process of developing proposals and that it is unlikely that all proposals would actually be deemed viable. He said COST IS A MAJOR FACTOR TO CONSIDER, AS IS PUBLIC OPINION. HE SAID THAT THE FEEDBACK FORM THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE USED TO ASSESS PUBLIC SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION FOR EACH PROPOSED SCHEME and added THAT A SCHEME THAT MET SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO BE REGARDED AS VIABLE. This highlights the severity of negligent acts and omissions by Arup and Sheffield City Council when communicating with the public about flood protection proposals. It appears that Arup and Sheffield City Council have wilfully witheld information from the public, in an attempt to skew responses in favour of supporting current proposals presented by Arup and Sheffield City Council during the consultation process.

    * SOME GOOD PRACTICE GUIDANCE THAT SUPPORTS VALUATIONS, COST:BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND BALANCED RISK ASSESSMENT (for further references, see Stocksbridge Community Forum, online: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/sheffield-city-council-scc-upper-don-flood-consultation ):

    Sarajevs, V., 2011a. Street Tree Valuation Systems.
    Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCRN008.pdf/$file/FCRN008.pdf

    Forestry Commission England, 2010. The case for trees – in development and the urban environment. [Online]
    Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/eng-casefortrees.pdf/$FILE/eng-casefortrees.pdf

    Britt, C., Johnston, M., Riding, A., Slater, J., King, H., Gladstone, M., McMillan, S., Mole, A., Allder, C., Ashworth, P., Devine, T., Morgan, C., Martin, J. et al., 2008. Trees in Towns 2: a new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Johnston8/publications

    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Salbitano, F; Borelli, S; Conigliaro, M; Chen, Y, 2016. FAO Forestry Paper 178: Guidelines on urban and peri-urban forestry. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
    Available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/news/92439/en/

    Health and Safety Executive, n.d. a. ALARP “at a glance”. [Online] Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm

    Health and Safety Executive, n.d. b. HSE principles for Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) in support of ALARP decisions. [Online] Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpcba.htm

    Landscape Institute, 2013. Green Infrastructure: An integrated approach to land use (Landscape Institute Position Statement). [Online]
    Available at: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/sheffield-city-council-scc-upper-don-flood-consultation

    Smith, J., 2013. The Barriers and Drivers to Planting and Retaining Urban Trees. [Online]
    Available at: http://www.tdag.org.uk/uploads/4/2/8/0/4280686/btp_barriers_and_drivers_final_report_march_2013.pdf

    The British Standards Institution, 2012. British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations”. London: BSI Standards Ltd.

    The British Standards Institution, 2014. British Standard 8545:2014 Trees: From Nursery to Independence in the Landscape – Recommendations, London: BSI Standards Ltd.

    The National Tree Safety Group, 2011. Common Sense Risk Management of Trees: Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers. Forestry Commission Stock Code: FCMS024 ed. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/publications.nsf/searchpub/?SearchView&Query=(FCMS024)&SearchOrder=4&SearchMax=0&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchThesaurus=TRUE

    Trees and Design Action Group, 2012. Trees in the Townscape: A Guide for Decision Makers. [Online]
    Available at: http://www.tdag.org.uk/trees-in-the-townscape.html

    Trees and Design Action Group, 2014. Trees in Hard Landscapes: A Guide for Delivery. [Online]
    Available at: http://www.tdag.org.uk/trees-in-hard-landscapes.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s