You’re nicked my son …….. Street tree campaigners arrested

Police in riot training: Police officers are often expected to give highly detailed accounts of violent encounters or chases

YOU’RE NICKED MY SON …….. STREET TREE CAMPAIGNERS ARRESTED

Image result for dixon of dock green photos

As Dixon of Dock Green would have said, ‘it is not often we have a story of two vicious tree-hugging felons disturbing the peace, terrifying neighbourhoods, and drawing down the full weight of the law…….. ‘

Sometime Environment Minister, Rory Stewart, said: ”Our trees and forests have long been central to British identity. But we are beginning to understand with even more precision, just how important they are to our air quality, our health and our happiness.”

But it feels like the world is going quietly mad, and compounded this week by the latest bizarre twist in the Sheffield street trees campaign as two peaceful protestors exercising their rights to demonstrate were arrested. Misusing some pretty appalling and thoroughly undemocratic legislation brought in by Maggie to quell the striking miners, it feels as if daily we are lurching haphazardly towards some sort of totalitarian state. Expensive and heavy handed would be the least of the accusations one could lob at Sheffield City Council and Amey in this latest twist.

Meanwhile I continue to be bombarded from across the city by people upset and concerned about the fate of the trees on their doorstep – an example was a reader from Hackenthorpe in Sheffield,

‘All the mature trees along the length of Well Lane have demolition notices on them. the reason given is disease.  I cant see any disease. I desperately need a tree person / ecologist to look at these trees and assess the result of this work – I suspect one of the reasons may be that the house owners above are constantly complaining about the leaves!! 

Who can help me to get this work delayed?’

Chris T.

Maybe some of the media who think this is so trivial might spare the time to take a look???

Image result for You're nicked

Of course, having brought out a good number of special response police officers in a number of vehicles, all at OUR EXPENSE (!!!!), the villains were released without charge – thus avoiding any possibility of testing the legality of this exercise in court.

Image result for You're nicked

Media & Mediocrity: even some of our local media are letting us down very badly by failing to understand the issues, getting their facts badly wrong, and not asking the right questions…….

In terms of context, the key issue – which appears to have been overlooked in much of the local media coverage, is that this is not a matter of saying no tree maintenance or management is necessary or appropriate – but that the approach applied by AMEY for SCC is rolled out without due process and without reference to many other viable alternatives.

For those interviewers who seem to think that there is only one single solution to tree management, you are wrong – and this is at the core of the protests which clearly demonstrate deep-seated discontent with how our precious tree resources are being managed and how OUR MONEY IS BEING SPENT.

youre-nicked-for-catalog-545x590

AMEY have a list of criteria that can condemn a tree – and in many cases these are HEALTHY TREES. If they are dead, dying or dangerous, then of course they need to go – but most of these are not, and independent, highly professional assessments confirm this.

Older trees will lift and damage paving and kerbs and in most, if not all, cases the solution which is cost-effective – is to engineer the pavement and road around the tree – it is not that difficult and councils elsewhere are doing this!!

The methods and technologies exist and others are using them – so why not Sheffield??? And why do interviewers not ick this basic stuff up on our behalf – we are their public for heaven’s sake and are being shoddily treated by ignorant politicians, professionals, and media alike.

I have brought to Sheffield some key national experts to look at the Street Tree situation here and these professionals – renowned authorities in their field – are unanimous that Sheffield has got it wrong – yet some of the media, many politicians, and some professionals, persist in misrepresenting the facts. Why?

I have been and talked to senior tree professionals in other local major authorities and they cannot believe that Sheffield is even considering removing some of the trees that I have shown them.

We even get the old mantra of planning a tree for every one felled as some sort of compensation – which of course it is not – a sapling planted – often in a different location – does not provide the same benefits:

Climate proofing, human mental and physical health and wellbeing – happiness, economic value in your home, biodiversity i.e. wildlife values, pollinating insects and millions of £s resulting value – remembering that honey bees have plummeted with massive potential costs to the economy*, sense of place, history and heritage,  water management and flood-proofing, carbon capture and more…..

*[worldwide economic value of the pollination service provided by insect pollinators, bees mainly, is €153 billion in 2005 for the main crops that feed the world]. – street trees are hugely important to this.

And yet they still don’t get it…………..dumb and dumber?????

COSTS & REALITY: Even the costs of remedial treatment trotted out are wildly inaccurate – with a tree in Nether Edge suggested by SCC / AMEY to cost £50,000 to £100,000 but an independent higways engineer estimated around £1,500 to £3,000 max. Lies and damned lies!

The recent High Court ruling is also misunderstood and misquoted:

Mr Justice Gilbart said that whilst Mr Dillner’s claim unfounded in law, (i.e. the campaign was addressing the wrong legal issues), ‘Nothing in this judgment is to be read as criticising the residents of Sheffield for seeking to protect the trees in their streets and roads whose presence many of them appreciate so much.’

‘……it goes without saying that the removal of trees will have environmental effects, and no one seriously disputed that in very many cases the environmental effects of removal would be adverse until the replacement trees became established. (That leaves the issue of whether the effects were “significant”)

‘I repeat that NOTHING in this Judgment is to be read as criticising the residents of Sheffield for seeking to protect the trees in their streets and roads, whose presence many of them appreciate so much. But as with many matters, such an understandable and natural desire must be tempered by acceptance of the important duties cast on the highway authority to maintain those roads and streets in good repair. It is unfortunate in the extreme that those advising the Claimant and others who object have failed to address both sides of the argument, and even more so that the claim was advanced, and the injunction sought, without any proper analysis on their behalf of the statutory and legal context. It may be that those who will be disappointed by the terms of this Judgment will want to see a different legislative regime in place. That is a matter for Parliament, and not for this Court.

The ruling was only able to consider the legal merits of the case and not the adequacy of the professional processes and methodologies applied in coming to a conclusion over the fate of groups of streets or individual trees. The challenge was thrown out largely because it failed to consider the statutory and legal dutes of the local authority to deal with highways issues and dangerous trees, but in no way dismissess the alternatives which are indeed applied successfully, by major local authroities elsewhere.  This was on a point of law and not one of principle.   

Myths & Lies: There is still a myth, again promoted by some media that this is just a bunch of posh people – NIMBYs – which is a total red herring and fundamentally incorrect for anyone that knows the Sheffield region – so why perpetuate it? Posh areas like Meersbook, Heeley, Sharrow, Hackenthorpe Handsworth, Deepcar, Stocksbridge – oh, I get it, those posh areas! I think we have a right to expect better and more balanced interrogation of the issues ………. in the meantime:

                                                                  ‘Evening all’

 

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

25 Responses to You’re nicked my son …….. Street tree campaigners arrested

  1. chrisrust says:

    Some of the campaigners do live in the posher parts of the city. But having met quite a few of them, they invariably turn out to be community-minded people with a well-developed social conscience, the first to want to help those in need.

    There are NIMBYs in all this, but the ones I meet seem to be preoccupied with getting rid of the tree in front of their house, while claiming that they like trees really. (“I’m not a Treeist, but…)

  2. Technotronic says:

    SCC / AMEY INCOMPETENCE

    “…EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR for Place Simon Green said: ‘…WE WILL of course CONTINUE TO assess our trees and REPLACE THOSE THAT ARE DANGEROUS.'” (1)

    Since at least May, 2015, the Council have 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. 73.8% OF HIGHWAY TREES ARE MATURE (25, 877). The Amey PFI contract permits up to 18,000 to be felled in the 5 year period (Core Investment Period) to 2018 (2).

    To 17th June, 2016, over 3,800 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED (3). On 3rd Feb, 2016, the Council tweeted that 14% of trees would be felled (4). The same day, Cllr Bramall (DEPUTY LEADER of the Council) was asked why he did not believe many trees would be felled. He tweeted: “coz only trees that fall under ‘6 ds’ are replaced” (5).

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

    “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.”

    On 19th FEBRUARY, 2016, the Information Commissioner completed an investigation (Case Ref: FS50596905) in response to a previous freedom of information request response issued by Sheffield City Council (request reference: FOI/ 422). It revealed that, 3yrs IN TO A £2.2bn CITY-WIDE PROJECT, NEITHER AMEY OR THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM HAVE EVER COMMISSIONED OR DRAUGHTED ANY ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS for footway, edging (kerb) or drain construction that could enable the safe long-term retention of mature highway trees, without unacceptable compromise to tree health or structural integrity.

    The Information Commissioner response stated:

    “Assessment of suitability/lack of suitability for engineering solutions is made during a “walk and build” process by Amey. This is a joint inspection between a highway engineer and an arboricultural surveyor.

    The team carrying out this “walk and build” hold detailed discussions at site level, considering and debating any and all potential engineering solutions which may be utilised to retain each specific tree, considering the council’s legislative requirements… however, THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION IS NOT RECORDED. The Commissioner considers that in this case, NO FURTHER INFORMATION IS HELD BEYOND THE LIST OF 25 OPTIONS, provided in response to your initial request… THE COUNCIL HAS NOW CONFIRMED TO YOU THAT NO INFORMATION IS HELD within the scope of your request “(6 & 7).

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

    References:

    1) http://www.hortweek.com/sheffield-city-council-overturns-tree-felling-injunction/arboriculture/article/1388743

    2) The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation, 2012. Transportation Professional. [Online]
    Available at: http://www.ciht.org.uk/download.cfm/docid/EAFEC96C-F341-455B-B811F1C627AC75AD .

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

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

    4) https://twitter.com/sheffcouncil

    5) https://twitter.com/SaveSheffTrees/status/695253114400739328

    6) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/full_work_contact_details_for_sc

    7) http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/updated-sheffield-tree-felling-can-legally-resume-but-council-pledge-not-to-1-7813277#ixzz44tvWqq00

    NB: The FOI / 422 request (dated 6th July, 2015) was:

    “Under the FOI Act, I request the SPECIFICATIONS for the range of options that were considered and deemed to be impracticable, for the 11 healthy trees due for felling on Rustlings Road.”

    Source:
    “SORT Letter To The Cabinet Member For Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox), dated 29th January, 2016” – accessible at:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/street-trees-3-month-ban-all-tree-felling-city

    The “LIST of 25 options”* – provided by the Streets Ahead team (Amey & SCC), over a month after requesting ideas from campaigners, as a substitute for not having draughted any alternative highway engineering specifications – can be found on pages 265 & 266 of the SORT letter.

    * https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/205#comment-205

    The first SORT letter, dated 14th July, 2015, advised that such alternative specifications should be draughted and used to retain mature trees. Cllr Fox ignored the advice. Every Councillor in the city has received a copy of both SORT letters, so there can be no excuse for the ignorant comments and scaremongering that is peddled by the likes of Simon Green, Cllr Lodge, Cllr Jack Scott, Cllr Anne Murphy, Cllr Peter Price, Cllr Tony Downing and Cllr Neale Gibson.

    THE LATEST GUIDANCE FROM THE UNITED NATIONS (UN):

    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. (2016)
    Available at:
    http://www.fao.org/forestry/news/92439/en/

    • chrisrust says:

      I realise you mean well, Technotronic, but you are swamping this discussion. If this was my blog I would probably delete your comments.

      • Technotronic says:

        You have. The fact is that few people comment here anyway. Many people will oppose a responsible, sustainable approach to the management and care of green infrastructure. That is largely because they do not understand or appreciate its multiple values. Generally speaking, such people cannot be bothered to search for the information necessary to develop informed opinions. Instead, they take the lazy route and rely on fear-mongering, misinformation and deceit. Their opinions are unduly influenced by vested interests and media. My contributions provide access to a pool of reliable information that people can use to develop informed opinions, necessary for sound, evidence-based decision making.

  3. Technotronic says:

    SHEFFIELD: ECO-DESTRUCTION

    THE AMEY PFI CONTRACT PERMITS AMEY TO FELL 67.7% OF SHEFFIELD’S MATURE HIGHWAY TREES.

    AMEY’s COMMENTS ON THE TOPIC OF DAMAGE CAUSED TO TREES DURING HIGHWAY RESURFACING WORKS:

    On 23rd July, 2015, at the inaugural meeting of the “bi-monthly” Highway Trees Advisory Forum (which has not met since the second meeting: 2nd September, 2015),

    DARREN BUTT (OPERATIONS DIRECTOR FOR AMEY) commented:

    “The majority of, err, tree roots are actually in the upper sixty mill of the, err, of the surface and therefore REMOVING THE TOP LAYER WILL REMOVE AND BE EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL TO THOSE TREES. I appreciate the problem. This gentleman’s trees were surviving well; the trouble is, when you see them in absolute blossom, and they are green, you think they’re safe and will continue to thrive, which is sometimes, can be, almost a pinnacle before THEY FAIL. So, hopefully, your tree doesn’t, but, err, THAT DOES HAPPEN.”

    Most trees that Amey have scheduled for felling are healthy and structurally sound. The main reason for felling appears to be (see Appendix 22 & Appendix 25 of the SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016*):

    “DUE TO DAMAGE TO THE PAVEMENT OR ROAD”

    Before Amey took its felling lists offline in autumn 2015, to re-word the reasons given for felling (possibly after realising that they represented evidence of non-compliance with the guidance they claimed to comply with and aimed to “build on”), common reasons included*:

    “…LIKELY TO BE DAMAGED upon reconstruction”

    “…WILL BE DAMAGED upon reconstruction”;

    “…WILL BE DAMAGED upon planing off”;

    “…CANNOT REPAIR WITHOUT ROOT DAMAGE”;

    “Kerbs absent, UNABLE TO INSTALL/REPAIR WITHOUT SEVER [sic] ROOT DAMAGE”

    “Kerbs pushed into c/w by buttress root pressing immediately on kerb rear – CANNOT REALIGN”;

    “…root growing into and uplifting f/w at shallow depth – WILL BE DAMAGED UPON RECONSTRUCTION.”

    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 THE 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.

    The team responsible for the £2.2bn Streets Ahead project (SCC & Amey) have even prescribed felling on the basis that mowers or excavations by Streets Ahead operatives could damage roots and lead to the same consequences.

    DAMAGE CAN BE MINIMISED OR AVOIDED. MATURE TREES CAN BE SAFELY RETAINED, LONG-TERM, THROUGH COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE GUIDANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS (TDAG; BS5837 & NJUG) that exists to minimise the likelihood and severity of such damage.

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

    NOTES:

    *From the SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016. SORT letters can be accessed here:

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

    The letter formed part of the Nether Edge petition hand-out that was DISTRIBUTED TO EVERY COUNCILLOR in the city (on 1st February, 2016), by SCC, prior to the meeting of full Council on 3rd February, 2016 (A).

    A) 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. The document is of interest because the meeting on the 3rd February, 2016 is the meeting at which the Council, “resolved” to:

    “COMMIT TO BE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WITH THE SHEFFIELD PUBLIC IN ENSURING ALL OUR INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.”

    IT WAS AT THIS MEETING THAT THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL (CLLR JULIE DORE: LABOUR) STATED THAT THE COUNCIL WAS ENTITLED TO TREAT ANY QUESTION THEY RECEIVE AS A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (FOI) request and then send it to the Information Management Officer to be dealt with. For further detail, see:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/653#comment-653

  4. Technotronic says:

    THE TRUTH

    SCC & Amey do not comply with current good practice guidance: inadequate ground preparation; inadequate protection; inadequate aftercare. Many of the young trees will fail to last to or beyond five years. SCC do not supervise, monitor or enforce compliance with good practice, so our valuable community assets are destroyed and our resources squandered.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/full_work_contact_details_for_sc

    On the 17th June, 2016, the Council announced that
    “OVER 3,800” MATURE HIGHWAY TREES HAD BEEN FELLED
    as part of the £2.2bn, city-wide, “transformational” Streets Ahead “improvement” project that claims to deliver BETTER management.

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

    On 23/7/2015, Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) informed that…

    THERE WERE ONLY 1,200 TREES THAT WERE DEAD, DYING AND/OR DANGEROUS. “AMEY IDENTIFIED THOSE TREES AND ADDRESSED THOSE FIRST.”

    Prior to commencement of the £2.2bn Amey PFI contract, an asset management company contracted by the Council (Chris Britten Ltd) commissioned Elliott Consultancy Ltd to undertake a survey of all highway trees – “Sheffield City Highways Tree Survey 2006 – 2007” (the Elliott survey). It is the survey that SCC’s Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport referred to at the meeting of full Council on 1st July, 2015, when he stated:
    “We had an independent survey done in 2006-2007 which helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract”.

    The survey stated that Sheffield has 35,057 highway trees and that 25, 877 are mature.

    What SCC & Amey have neglected to communicate is that the same survey stated:

    ****“THERE ARE 25,000 TREES REQUIRING NO WORK AT PRESENT”.****

    THE 2006/2007 HIGHWAY TREE SURVEY ONLY RECOMMENDED 1,000 TREES FOR FELLING, with an additional 241 to be crown reduced or to be considered for felling.

    THE SURVEY REPORT ALSO ADVISED THAT THE COUNCIL HAVE A
    TREE STRATEGY:

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

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

    (No wonder the Streets Ahead team – the Council & Amey – have done their best to avoid publishing the survey report and making it available to the public! See pages 237 – 240 of the SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016 (which only received a response on 16th June, 2016, after over four months!).

    The project is highway MAINTENANCE project. Most of the larger trees can be MAINTANED by pruning.

    Legally, trees are part of the land. In this case, the highway. The £2.2bn is for HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE.

    Most trees are being felled because they are associated with damage to footways and kerbs, and because Amey haven’t got any alternative highway engineering specifications and don’t comply with National Joint Utility Group guidance, or British Standard 5837 (2012). Also, Amey have wrongly led the Council to believe that “mature” means trees are “nearing the end of their natural life”. The Council have wrongly interpreted this as meaning that mature trees are likely to become dangerous in the near future. In truth, mature trees are very susceptible to damage such as can be expected from Amey’s non-compliance with the aforementioned good practice guidance & recommendations.

    Further detail, please use the links below. A PDF summary of the Elliott survey, provided by Elliott Consultancy Ltd to SCC, can be accessed using the first of the links below:

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

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

    http://www.savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/resources-and-links/

  5. Technotronic says:

    A LETTER TO THE STAR

    TREE POPULATION MANAGEMENT BY NUMBERS (“Impact Assessment”)

    THE UNEDITED VERSION
    (A badly edited version was published in The Star on 8th August, 2016)

    “Usually, when the Council or Amey have something to say about the £2.2bn, city-wide, Streets Ahead highway maintenance PFI project, they mention the number of trees in the city and the number of trees planted. They then state that felling thousands of healthy, structurally sound, mature highway trees is justified on the basis that one tree is planted for every tree felled, claiming that the work is necessary to avoid catastrophic losses over a short time period in the future – for the benefit of future generations.

    IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE LETTERS THAT THE SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES CITIZEN ACTION GROUP HAVE PUBLISHED (SEE: SAVESHEFFIELDTREES.ORG.UK), you PROBABLY believe the Council’s reasoning to be fair and their acts and omissions to be justified. In both cases, you would be wrong.

    Managing a tree population for the benefit of communities (PRESENT OR FUTURE) requires a responsible approach that has sustainability as a primary aim. “THE UK FORESTRY STANDARD (UKFS): THE GOVERNMENTS’ APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT” DEFINES WHAT A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH MUST BE. THE STANDARD APPLIES TO “ALL UK FOREST TYPES AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THE COLLECTIVE TREE AND WOODLAND COVER IN URBAN AREAS.” IT DEFINES THE TERM “FOREST” AS “LAND UNDER STANDS OF TREES WITH A CANOPY COVER OF AT LEAST 20%”.

    Until 3rd February, 2016, the Council & Amey had always stated that there are over 2 million trees in the city. As of 3rd FEBRUARY, a figure of 4m has been repeatedly quoted. This is important because, previously, the Council claimed that the UKFS did not apply to the highway tree population. However, the Council have previously claimed that Sheffield is “10.4% woodland by area”.

    Jeremy Gunton is the Council’s Tree Officer; one of two men responsible for drafting the long awaited, much delayed first tree strategy for the city – now 8 months overdue. He explained to me that the figures were “just estimates”. He informed that the 4m figure includes 2.2m trees managed by the Council, with the remainder being an estimate of the number of trees in private ownership.

    Trees outside woodland – such as highway trees – have considerably larger crowns than trees in woodland, so they contribute significantly more to canopy cover. In light of the 10.4% claim, assuming it is reasonably accurate, it is reasonable to assume that the city’s canopy cover is likely to be OVER 30%. That means that Sheffield certainly does have an “urban forest” and that the highway tree population is a key component of the urban forest. The UKFS and its guidelines do apply to all tree populations within the urban forest and the UKFS requires that they be managed sustainably, THROUGH:

    ‘THE STEWARDSHIP AND USE OF FORESTS AND FOREST LANDS
    IN A WAY, AND AT A RATE, THAT MAINTAINS… THEIR
    POTENTIAL TO FULFIL, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE,
    RELEVANT ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONS,
    AT LOCAL, NATIONAL, AND GLOBAL LEVELS..”

    These functions are fulfilled through the provision of a range of valuable ecosystem service benefits that canopy cover affords to the environment (neighbourhoods) and communities (including people). THE RANGE, MAGNITUDE AND VALUE OF THESE BENEFITS IS DEPENDENT ON THE SHAPE, SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CANOPY COVER. The Streets Ahead plan, to fell up to half the population of highway trees (17,528 mature trees), will have REASONABLY FORESEEABLE, HIGHLY LIKELY, SIGNIFICANT, NEGATIVE IMPACTS. Over 3,800 mature highway trees have been felled since August 2012. It is not a sustainable approach. Contrary to a range of current good practice guidance and recommendations, the Streets Ahead team has neglected to account for these benefits in cost:benefit analyses or risk assessments. The necessity to have some form of adequate environmental impact assessment is self-evident and indisputable. LET’S HOPE THEY SEE SENSE BEFORE WE EXPERIENCE FURTHER SERIOUS DEGRADATION IN THE QUALITY OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.

    MANAGEMENT BY TREE NUMBERS IS INAPPROPRIATE AND CONTRARY TO CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE.”

    D.Long (BSc Hons Arb)

    Source: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/534#comment-534

    Also, see the latest guidance from the United Nations (UN):

    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/

  6. Another well-written entry with good perspective and excellent sourcing. The trees and the people thank you and hope that we will all benefit from better decision making at all levels!

  7. grahamcole says:

    Comment: This is a tiny problem in Sheffield compared with ill health and early deaths of people from air pollution.

    My response: It is, I believe all part of the same issue – trees remove aerial pollution and mitigate urban heat islands etc and improve public health – so not either / or but all interelated. Even simply seeing trees improves physical and mental well-being. Having grown up with gross air polution and conequnce bronchil illness as a child, I fully appreociate aitr polution and health issues. The point I would make however, is that this should not be a choice between two evils – both are bad news!

    Ian

    • Technotronic says:

      AIR POLLUTION COSTS SHEFFIELD £160 MILLION AND 500 LIVES PER YEAR

      On 24th April, 2013, the BBC reported further comment:

      “Councillor Jack Scott, who has responsibility for the environment in the city, said:
      ‘WE KNOW THAT AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS BADLY ON SHEFFIELD PEOPLE’S HEALTH AND THE ECONOMY AND CONTRIBUTES TO CLIMATE CHANGE.

      ‘EACH YEAR, THE IMPACT OF AIR QUALITY ON HEALTH COSTS THE SHEFFIELD ECONOMY £160M AND RESULTS IN UP TO 500 EARLY DEATHS.’

      ‘WE KNOW ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THIS IS TRAFFIC.’

      ‘We know in theory the amount of harmful gases vehicles produce as told to us by manufacturers – but we have never tested the levels throughout the city.’ ”
      (BBC News, 2013)

      “OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT such as buses, trams and coaches HAS DECLINED.

      DATA FROM SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL also shows that ROAD TRAFFIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 50% OF NITROGEN DIOXIDE EMISSIONS on Sheffield, while 35% comes from industrial sources.

      FOR PARTICULATE MATTER PM10, 45% of emissions come from industrial sources while ROAD TRAFFIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 40%.”
      (AirQualityNews.com, 2013)

      On 23rd November, 2015, The Star reported:

      “Earlier this year analysis before Sheffield Council’s health and wellbeing board said there was a ‘strong correlation’ between hospital admissions for circulatory and heart diseases and average levels of pollution.

      ROAD TRANSPORT IS THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO SHEFFIELD’S NITROGEN DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, the city is missing its EU air quality targets and is not likely to be below the legal limit until 2020.” (Beardmore, 2015y)

      “…it has been reported that the tree population of Greater London “removes” 698 tons of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) each year: a service with a monetary value of £54,954,727.00 PER YEAR.
      (Treeconomics, 2015a)”.

      “299 tons of PM10 are “removed” from the air, each year, by trees in Greater London. The study concluded that this service had a monetary value worth tens of millions of pounds EACH YEAR: £63,268,423.00
      (Treeconomics, 2015a, p. 34).”

      “Air pollution is the biggest cause of early deaths in the UK after smoking. Often it’s invisible, so you aren’t even aware that you’re breathing it in.

      We’re developing a kit you can use to monitor, avoid, and improve polluted air where you live.

      Would you like to be the first to hear about it when it’s ready? Sign up…”

      If you would like to test NO2 levels where you live, you can apply for a free air quality monitoring kit, using this link:

      https://www.foe.co.uk/act/sign-air-monitoring-kit#.V1CrrTf6utc.twitter

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

      The quotes above come from pages 108 to 110 of the SAVE OUR ROADSIDE TREES (SORT) Letter that was addressed to The Cabinet Member For Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox), dated 29th January, 2016″. The letter, in its entirety, also formed part of Nether Edge petition “hand-out” that was DISTRIBUTED TO EVERY COUNCILLOR by SCC’s John Turner (Democratic Services Legal and Governance Resources) – prior to the meeting of full Council on 3rd February, 2016, in Sheffield’s Town Hall.

      The SORT letter can be accessed via this link:

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

      http://www.savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/resources-and-links/

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

      REFERENCES:

      AirQualityNews.com, 2013. Air pollution costing Sheffield £160 million. [Online]
      Available at:
      http://www.airqualitynews.com/2013/02/21/air-pollution-costing-sheffield-160-million/ [Accessed 21 February 2013].

      BBC News, 2013. Traffic pollution tested across Sheffield. [Online]
      Available at:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-22267983 [Accessed 24 April 2013].

      Beardmore, E., 2015y. Air pollution death toll – 698 people died prematurely in South Yorkshire in a year. [Online]
      Available at:
      http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/air-pollution-death-toll-698-people-died-prematurely-in-south-yorkshire-in-a-year-1-7582657#ixzz3sIgtwv2C [Accessed 23 November 2015].

      Treeconomics, 2015a. Valuing London’s Urban Forest: Results of the London i-Tree Eco Project. [Online]
      Available at:
      http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/2890-Forest_Report_Pages.pdf/$FILE/2890-Forest_Report_Pages.pdf [Accessed 4 January 2016].

      Also, see:
      “Growth of city trees can cut air pollution, says report”:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37813709

      &

      “UK Government has breached air pollution laws and failed to take enough action on emissions, High Court rules
      Government knowingly relied on ‘optimistic’ vehicle emissions tests and ignored ‘higher, more realistic’ figures in order to delay action by up to a decade, judge says”
      […]
      “MR JUSTICE GARNHAM RULED the Environment Secretary “fell into error by adopting too optimistic a model for future emissions” and also by deciding to comply with the law only by 2020 – and 2025 in London.

      HE QUASHED THE GOVERNMENT AIR QUALITY PLAN, SAYING THE ENVIRONMENT SECRETARY MUST ‘AIM TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE BY THE SOONEST DATE POSSIBLE’.

      This is the second time ClientEarth has won a court battle with the Government over air pollution. In 2015, THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT DOING ENOUGH TO REDUCE POLLUTION LEVELS TO WITHIN LEGAL LIMITS. MINISTERS WERE FORCED TO DRAW UP A NEW AIR QUALITY PLAN, THE ONE THAT HAS NOW AGAIN BEEN RULED ILLEGAL.”

      http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/air-pollution-verdict-uk-high-court-government-breach-laws-not-doing-enough-a7392876.html

    • grahamcole says:

      Street trees make only a micro improvement to air quality. Reducing traffic by 50% makes a 50% reduction in pollution. Please make a big fuss about traffic and I will respect you. Small trees planted now are the big trees of the future and I care about the future for the sake of my grandchildren. Another thing you can usefully campaign about is replacement of fertilised pastures with woodland and/or housing with gardens which do more good to our wildlife than nitrate rich pastures.

      • Technotronic says:

        FELLING & PLANTING

        Graham, if you feel strongly about something, then you get out there and try and address it! Each of us has limited resources. Those of us with common sense prioritise so as not to squander our resources and increase likelihood of achieving aims and objectives. In Sheffield, there is a mass felling programme for healthy, structurally sound, mature highway trees. There is no strategy to guide and inform decision making and help temper a risk-averse approach. Decisions are not evidence based or balanced. Acts and omissions are disproportionate and contrary to all current good practice guidance and recommendations. As the felling is happening NOW, and is resulting in severe, unnecessary, avoidable damage, loss and environmental degradation, the people of Sheffield have quite rightly decided to prioritise holding the local authority (Sheffield City Council) to account NOW.

        Trees improve air quality. The improvement they make can be quantified and is valuable (as shown in the above postings). IN ADDITION, THE SAME TREES AFFORD A RANGE OF VALUABLE BENEFITS TO NEIGHBOURHOODS AND COMMUNITIES. Street trees are a significant component of green infrastructure and a key component of Sheffield’s urban forest. They may not be the most effective means by which to help reduce particulate pollution of flooding, but there can be no denying that they have a valuable role to play as a significant component in ant strategy – be it air quality, flood management, green infrastructure, health & wellbeing, or pretty much any strategy that seeks to address impacts on neighbourhoods and communities.

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

        PLANTING

        An extract from page 345 of the SORT letter* to the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (Cllr Terry Fox)…

        REPLACEMENT Amey’s choice of species, scheduled to be used to replace trees felled, appears to consist mostly of shorter lived species, such as crab apple, pear, field maple, birch, hazel and hawthorn. Such species will have shorter safe useful life expectancy (SULE): @70 – 80 yrs, max. Such species have relatively small crowns at maturity (compared to species such as London plane, sycamore, beech, ash, oak, lime and horse chestnut) and will never develop crowns of similar size or shape to those tree species they are intended to replace. It is reasonably foreseeable that widespread, frequent use of such species will result in a streetscape of trees that only have relatively small crowns at maturity (a “lollipop landscape”). Such trees cannot ever maintain or deliver the magnitude of valuable benefits that neighbourhoods enjoyed at the start of the 5yr Streets Ahead PFI felling programme, which were and are largely provided by larger crowned, relatively long-lived species (>200yrs).
        …………………………………………

        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.

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

        A LETTER TO THE STAR

        Young trees are a joy to everyone. However, a report commissioned by the Government (Trees in Towns 2) revealed that: “25% of all planting undertaken in the public sector actually fails”. That happens for a multitude of reasons, including: poor ground preparation, inadequate protection, soil compaction & inadequate maintenance. It is likely that each tree Amey plants costs over £100. Some trees are associated with minor damage to infrastructure or boundary walls. Repair or reconstruction represent reasonably practicable alternatives to felling, in many circumstances. Damage is usually due to “soil” displacement as roots thicken each year.

        75% of Sheffield’s highway trees (27,000 trees) were mature when Amey came along. By definition, they are at a stage of life where their parts do not thicken as much as those of younger trees and will gradually thicken less each year. The good news is that not all trees associated with damage need to be felled. As the Department for Transport has stated (in a letter to SORT):

        “…the Highways Act 1980… does not set out specific standards of maintenance, as it is for each individual local highway authority to assess… what standards should be applied, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances.”

        In addition, the Roads Liaison Group guidance that the Council claim to comply with states:

        “In England, since 2008, there are no statutory indicators for the condition of footways.”

        After 7 months, the Information Commissioner has revealed that neither the Council or Amey have commissioned or drafted alternative highway engineering specifications for consideration as a means to retain healthy, structurally sound, mature highway trees, rather than fell them. It has taken the Council >8 months to reveal that the £2.2bn Streets Ahead highway maintenance project has not budgeted for using such specifications to retain trees. The Council claims felling is “always a last resort”. Evidently, it is not.

        Citizens campaigning for a strategic approach to enable sustainable management of the urban forest (which includes highway trees) have correctly recognised that highway trees are valuable community assets (a mature lime likely to be worth ~£19,500) that provide a range of valuable, ecosystem service benefits to the environment and communities. Correctly, citizens note that these benefits are provided each year, and, generally, increase with each year of remaining safe useful life expectancy. Benefits include improvement of environmental quality, air quality, health & well-being, and savings for the NHS. The monetary value of benefits afforded by a mature tree is likely to be well in excess of £1,000 per year (excluding amenity value: likely to be worth ~£5,000).

        Continued…


        A LETTER TO THE STAR

        I have downloaded & read the SORT letters to Cllr Fox (Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport) that are available online at saveSheffieldtrees.org.uk. I am pleased to confirm that the reasoning therein is sound, and that the works cited therein do represent current good practice guidance and recommendations. In particular, I was pleased to see that citizens have noticed that sustainable management is not about maintaining numbers, but most importantly, it is about maintaining canopy cover and, ideally, increasing numbers in all parts of the city, throughout the city.

        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.

        D Long (Arboriculturist & Urban Forester)

        Link:
        http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/your-say/young-trees-are-a-joy-1-7913085

      • chrisrust says:

        The air quality argument may be questionable Graham Cole, but the scientific evidence on street trees and health is extremely strong. Living with a good tree canopy in your street has the same effect on your health as being 7 years younger or your income being $10k higher.
        https://sheffieldtreemap.wordpress.com/resources/street-trees-and-health/

        Traffic is a different issue, both are important. Chopping 11 of 12 big healthy trees on my street (that’s the plan) and planting small trees is crude and damaging because the new ones will take decades to get anywhere near the size, while the old ones have over 100 years of life. Young children on the street today will grow up without that benefit to their health at the most crucial time in their development.

        If you want to replace big healthy trees you should plant the new ones and wait for them to grow, there’s space between the existing trees to do that. But our government have given an international company a 25 year monopoly on street maintenance in Sheffield and they are determined to chop down these big healthy trees because it is profitable.

      • Technotronic says:

        “a recent assessment of trends in urban tree condition and cover, Trees in Towns II, highlighted the decline in ‘large canopy trees’ in the urban environment. The trend runs counter to the future needs of society as there is clear evidence of the role of trees in adapting the urban environment.” (DEFRA 2010: 42)

        Source:
        DEFRA [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] (2010) Climate Change Plan 2010. London: DEFRA. [Online] Available at:

        https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69254/pb13358-climate-change-plan-2010-100324.pdf [Accessed 14 November 2016].

  8. Technotronic says:

    THE UN SUPPORT URBAN FORESTRY IN SHEFFIELD

    “Guidelines on Urban and Peri-urban Forestry explains how cities can maximize the contribution of urban forests to addressing local and global sustainable development challenges, including climate change mitigation and adaptation, food security, and human health and well-being.”
    […]
    ‘City planners and other urban decision-makers are often unaware of the crucial economic, social and environmental benefits that urban forests can provide, which means they are spending their budgets elsewhere,’ said FAO Forestry Officer Simone Borelli, one of the authors of the book. ‘In this publication we show them why MAKING URBAN FORESTS A PRIORITY AND “TURNING GREY TO GREEN” IS A WISE INVESTMENT THAT WILL IMPROVE MANY ASPECTS OF CITIZENS’ LIVES.’
    […]

    “WHAT IS AN URBAN FOREST?

    […]
    URBAN FORESTS CAN BE DEFINED AS NETWORKS OR SYSTEMS COMPRISING ALL WOODLANDS, GROUPS OF TREES, AND INDIVIDUAL TREES LOCATED IN URBAN AND PERI-URBAN AREAS; THEY INCLUDE, therefore, forests, STREET TREES, trees in parks and gardens, and trees in derelict corners. URBAN FORESTS ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, bridging rural and urban areas and ameliorating a city’s environmental footprint.
    […]

    Urban and peri-urban forestry (UPF) is THE PRACTICE OF MANAGING URBAN FORESTS TO ENSURE THEIR OPTIMAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PHYSIOLOGICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC WELL-BEING OF URBAN SOCIETIES.
    UPF IS AN INTEGRATED, INTERDISCIPLINARY, PARTICIPATORY AND STRATEGIC APPROACH TO PLANNING AND MANAGING FORESTS AND TREES IN AND AROUND CITIES.
    It involves the assessment, planning, planting, maintenance, PRESERVATION and monitoring of urban forests, and it can operate AT SCALES RANGING FROM SINGLE TREES TO LANDSCAPES.
    […]

    At the community scale, UPF EMPHASIZES THE ENGAGEMENT OF URBAN CITIZENS IN THE STEWARDSHIP OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC TREES, INCLUDING BY EDUCATING THEM on the value and benefits of trees and forests AND SUPPORTING their full ownership and responsibility for the environment around them.

    WHY URBAN FORESTS?

    Forests in and around cities face many threats, such as those posed by unregulated urban development and a LACK OF INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT. Although it has been demonstrated that coherent investment in the establishment, protection and restoration of URBAN FORESTS CAN HELP CREATE A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, such forests are often appreciated more for their aesthetic value than for their ecosystem functions.

    Mayors, planners and other urban DECISION-MAKERS ARE OFTEN UNAWARE OF THE CRUCIAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS THAT URBAN FORESTS CAN PROVIDE.”
    (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Salbitano, F. et al., 2016, p. 2)

    Reference:
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016. FAO Forestry Paper 178: Guidelines on urban and peri-urban forestry. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
    Available online at:
    http://www.fao.org/forestry/news/92439/en/

    • Technotronic says:

      STREET TREES:

      PART OF THE URBAN FOREST:

      Extracts from pages 54 & 123 of the SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016*

      Findings from Forest Research (The Research Agency of the Forestry Commission):

      “1. STREET TREES ARE A DISTINCT COMPONENT OF URBAN FORESTS
      providing particular benefits and interacting with people and communities in distinct ways.

      2. The NUMBER OF STREET TREES in the urban environment IS NOT INCREASING rapidly enough, LARGE VALUABLE TREES are being lost, and STREET TREES ARE UNEVENLY DISTRIBUTED across the UK’s urban areas.

      3. Street trees are removed mostly in response to HEALTH AND SAFETY concerns, but also new development and FEARS of subsidence, and

      A LACK OF RESOURCES WITH WHICH TO OBTAIN
      APPROPRIATE KNOWLEDGE CONTRIBUTES STRONGLY TO THIS LOSS.

      4. Street trees can posses a range of SOCIAL AND CULTURAL VALUES, relating to aesthetics, safety, community, business and history. However, it is unlikely that research to date has revealed the full range of values.”
      (Dandy, 2010, p. 3)

      “AS PART OF GOOD GOVERNANCE, DECISION-MAKING AFFECTING PEOPLE AND USING PUBLIC FUNDS NEEDS TO BE OBJECTIVE, BALANCED AND TRANSPARENT.
      Access to the right information at the right time is fundamental to coherent policy trade-offs.

      Better understanding and quantitative measurement of biodiversity and ecosystem values to support integrated policy assessments are a core part of the long-term solution.”
      (ten-Brink, et al., 2009, p. 4)

      “New approaches to macroeconomic measurement must cover the value of ecosystem services, especially to those who depend on them most –
      ‘the GDP of the Poor’.”
      (ten-Brink, et al., 2009, p. 5)

      REFERENCES:

      Dandy, N., 2010. Climate change and street trees project – The social and cultural values, and governance, of street trees. [Online]
      Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/CCST_Social_Report_March2010.pdf/$FILE/CCST_Social_Report_March2010.pdf

      ten-Brink, P., Berghöfer, A., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Sukhdev, P., Vakrou, A., White, S., Wittmer, H., 2009. TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers – Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature. [Online]
      Available at:
      http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/d1_summary.pdf

      * The SORT letters (the petition hand-outs) 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

  9. Technotronic says:

    GUIDANCE FROM THE LANDSCAPE INSTITUTE

    “Green Infrastructure An integrated approach to land use: Landscape Institute Position Statement”

    Extracts detailing the importance of the urban forest, including its STREET TREES, to green infrastructure.

    “Trees in the Townscape: A Guide for Decision Makers

    Trees in the Townscape: A Guide for Decision Makers, produced by the Trees and Design Action Group, sets out 12 action-orientated principles for the 21st century URBAN FOREST. Trees are increasingly viewed as essential alleviators of many of the adverse effects of urbanisation.

    STORM-WATER MANAGEMENT, urban cooling and microclimate control, air-quality improvement, visual amenity and carbon sequestration can all be addressed through better management of existing trees and the promotion of new planting.

    The guide is aimed at all those whose actions and decisions may affect, both directly and indirectly, the management and planting of urban trees. It provides examples of good practice, explanations of delivery mechanisms and links to further references. It sets out the importance of having a comprehensive tree strategy and understanding the tree resource of a particular area and how MULTIPLE BENEFITS ARE DERIVED FROM TREES.

    This publication is particularly relevant for the management of trees in existing urban areas. Where space is at a premium and the built environment is dominant, trees provide SIGNIFICANT NATURAL ASSETS that can be retrofitted into streets and other available spaces with relatively little disturbance to surrounding activities.

    In addition, the ECOSYSTEM SERVICES THAT THESE TREES PROVIDE WILL INCREASE AS THEY GROW. Urban tree planting therefore provides a significant opportunity to incorporate green infrastructure benefits into both existing and new built up areas.”

    SOURCE:
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/Landscape%20Institute_Green%20Infrastructure%20Position%20Statement_2013_0.pdf

    In a letter to a lead Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT) campaigner, dated 23rd March 2015, David Wain – leader of SCC’s Environmental Maintenance Technical Team – stated:

    http://www.tdag.org.uk is a useful resource for learning more about sustainable and sensible tree design and planting selection, and one of the arboriculturalists [sic] working on the Sheffield Streets Ahead project was actually involved in authoring much of the content, so WE DO AGREE STRONGLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED WITHIN THE DOCUMENTATION.’ ”

    SOURCE:

    The SORT letter dated 29th January, 2016* 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).

    *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

  10. Technotronic says:

    LEARN MORE: SELECTED REFERENCES

    (From the SORT letter to SCC’s Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport, dated 29 /1/ 2016)

    ARUP, 2014. Cities Alive: rethinking green infrastructure.
    Available at:
    http://publications.arup.com/publications/c/cities_alive .

    Dandy, N., 2010. Climate change and street trees project – The social and cultural values, and governance, of street trees.
    Available at:
    http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/CCST_Social_Report_March2010.pdf/$file/CCST_Social_Report_March2010.pdf .

    Forestry Commission England, 2010. THE CASE FOR TREES – IN DEVELOPMENT AND THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT.
    Available at:
    http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/eng-casefortrees.pdf/$file/eng-casefortrees.pdf .

    Forest Research: Social and Economic Research Group, 2010. STREET TREE VALUATION SYSTEMS.
    Available at:
    http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/eng-casefortrees.pdf/$file/eng-casefortrees.pdf .

    Forest Research, 2010a. Benefits of green infrastructure: Report to DEFRA and CLG.
    Available at:
    http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/urgp_benefits_of_green_infrastructure_main_report.pdf/$file/urgp_benefits_of_green_infrastructure_main_report.pdf .

    Forest Research, 2010. IMPROVING AIR QUALITY.
    Available at:
    http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/urgp_evidence_note_006_Improving_air_quality.pdf/$file/urgp_evidence_note_006_Improving_air_quality.pdf .

    Forest Research, n.d. IMPROVING AIR QUALITY.
    Available at:
    http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/URGC-7EDHQH .

    Greater London Authority, 2015. Natural Capital: Investing in a Green Infrastructure for a Future City.
    Available at:
    http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/URGC-7EDHQH .

    Kenney, W., Van Wassenaer, P. & Satel, A., 2011. Criteria and indicators for sustainable urban forest management. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, Volume 37, pp. 108-117.
    Available at:
    https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=3123305844502168759&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

    Sarajevs, V., 2011a. STREET TREE VALUATION SYSTEMS.
    Available at:
    http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCRN008.pdf/$file/FCRN008.pdf .

    Trees and Design Action Group, 2010. NO TREES, NO FUTURE.
    AVAILABLE AT:
    http://www.tdag.org.uk/no-trees-no-future.html [Accessed 3 April 2012].

    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 .

    Van Wassenaer, P., Sate, A., Kenny, A. & Ursic, M., 2012. A framework for strategic urban forest management. In: M. Johnston & G. Percival, eds. Trees, people and the built environment. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission, pp. 29-38.
    Available at:
    http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Trees-people-and-the-buit-environment_VanWassenaer.pdf/$file/Trees-people-and-the-buit-environment_VanWassenaer.pdf

    Woodland Trust, 2015. Residential Developments and Trees.
    Available at:
    http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/mediafile/100631140/pg-wt-300615-residential-developments.pdf?cb=f20eb2b74ac54ac3854213e8d7d4fb35 .

    Source: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/503#comment-503

  11. Technotronic says:

    GOOD PRACTICE & SUSTAINABILITY – THE COUNCIL’S POLICY COMMITMENTS

    ECO-SYSTEM SERVICES = HEALTH, WELLBEING & PROSPERITY

    “We are very lucky in Sheffield to live in the greenest and most wooded city in Britain. This means that our city is not only beautiful, but has enormous advantages in terms of
    FLOOD RESILIENCE,
    HEALTH AND WELLBEING and
    mitigation for HARMFUL EMISSIONS.

    This hearing focussing on green and blue infrastructure will
    consider how Sheffield’s natural and planned assets can
    deliver ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL and
    SOCIAL outcomes for the city.”

    (Cllr Dunn, Chair of the Sheffield GREEN COMMISSION)

    Source:
    Sheffield City Council, 2015. Sheffield Green Commission’s fifth public hearing.
    Available at:
    http://www.sheffieldnewsroom.co.uk/sheffield-green-commissions-fifth-public-hearing/ [Accessed 8 June 2015].

    On 25th June, 2015, an earlier version of the SORT petition hand-out (distributed to every Councillor in the city) was submitted to the SCC GREEN COMMISSION as “evidence” for consideration by the Commission. An amended version was submitted, on 29th of June, 2015. On 30th June, 2015, acting “for the GREEN COMMISSION team”, Heather Stewart (SCC Project Officer:
    CAPITAL DELIVERY SERVICE DEPARTMENT) confirmed acceptance of the document (a PDF) as “evidence”. For a copy, visit:

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/streets-ahead-stocksbridge-trees

    On 26th February, 2016, SCC published ” SHEFFIELD’S GREEN COMMITMENT – THE FINAL REPORT OF THE SHEFFIELD
    GREEN COMMISSION “.

    EXTRACTS:

    “TRPLE BOTTOM LINE:

    ECONOMIC:

    GREEN SPACE CONTRIBUTES TO ECONOMIC SUCCESS BY PROVIDING HIGH QUALITY URBAN ENVIRONMENTS to live, work and play in.

    The Crown Estate’s £1.5 billion investment in an ecology masterplan for the West End of London demonstrates that World Cities recognise the economic asset of QUALITY URBAN GREEN SPACE.

    The £30m cost of the 2007 floods to Sheffield creates THE BUSINESS CASE FOR INVESTMENT IN FLOOD RESILIENCE THROUGH GREEN AND BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE.

    HEALTH/SOCIAL:

    Green and Blue infrastructure can reduce emissions and improve AIR QUALITY; contribute to sustainable urban COOLING and HEATWAVE MITIGATION; improve physical HEALTH including reducing body mass index and OBESITY; improve MENTAL WELLBEING; increase longevity; reduce isolation, reduce health inequalities and increase SOCIAL COHESION.

    ENVIRONMENTAL:

    Green and Blue Infrastructure provides ecosystems services for cities: FLOOD resilience, CLIMATE adaptation (sustainable urban cooling/reduction of urban heat island effect); AIR QUALITY mitigation and increasing BIODIVERSITY; CO2 sequestration.”
    (p.35)

    The three components of this “TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE” are represented by a Venn diagram. Guess what label is attached to the centre of the diagram, where all three circles overlap:

    **** “SUSTAINABLE”! ****

    The SCC report can be accessed via this link:

    https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/policy–performance/green-commission.html

    • Technotronic says:

      SUSTAINABLE TREE POPULATION MANAGEMENT

      “At the Second Ministerial Conference, held in Helsinki in 1993, ministers adopted Resolution H1, which included the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) definition of SUSTAINABLE forest management:

      ‘the STEWARDSHIP AND USE of forests and forest lands
      in a way, and at a rate, that MAINTAINS their
      biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality
      and their potential to fulfil, NOW and in the future,
      relevant ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONS,
      AT LOCAL, national, and global LEVELS, and
      that does not cause damage to other ecosystems’.”
      (Forestry Commission, 2011, p. 93)

      THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORESTRY USED BY THE GOVERNMENT, set out in The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management.

      “THE UKFS AND GUIDELINES ENCOMPASS THE ENTIRE FOREST
      ENVIRONMENT, which may include open areas, water bodies
      such as rivers, lakes and ponds, and shrub species in
      addition to the trees themselves. THEY APPLY to the
      planning and management of forests within the wider
      landscape and land-use context, and TO ALL UK FOREST TYPES
      AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THE COLLECTIVE TREE
      AND WOODLAND COVER IN URBAN AREAS.
      […]
      In assessing whether the Requirements
      have reasonably been met, the overall balance of benefits
      or ecosystem services will be taken into account.

      DEFINITIONS AND TERMS

      THE UKFS AND GUIDELINES APPLY TO ALL UK FORESTS. The term
      forest is used to describe land predominately covered in
      trees (defined as land under stands of TREES WITH A CANOPY
      COVER OF AT LEAST 20%)…”
      (Forestry Commission, 2011, p. 4)

      Reference:
      Forestry Commission, 2011. The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/ukfs

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

      “Campaigners fighting tree felling in Sheffield have been calling for a city-wide tree strategy – but documents reveal one was drafted 14 years ago. …A consultation document for Sheffield’s Tree and Woodland Strategy seen by The Star, which was printed in 2001*, said

      ‘SHEFFIELD IS BLESSED WITH ONE OF THE FINEST URBAN FORESTS IN THE COUNTRY’ and ‘trees affect everyone’s lives.’ […]

      The council did not say why the strategy had not been adopted.”

      Reference:
      Beardmore, E., 2015. ‘Still room for compromise’ over Sheffield trees debate – says former MP David Blunkett.
      Available at:
      http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/still-room-for-compromise-over-sheffield-trees-debate-says-former-mp-david-blunkett-1-7340615 [Accessed 4 July 2015].

      * See: Lewis, D., Sellwood, N. & Page, M., 2001. Sheffield’s Tree and Woodland Strategy • Consultation Document. Sheffield: Sheffield City Council.
      Available at:
      https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/published-after-wait-14-months-sheffields-first-draught-tree-strategy-available-public-comment

  12. Technotronic says:

    SIMON GREEN = INCOMPETENCE

    SIMON GREEN (SCC’s EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR for PLACE)
    = DEATH OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE COMMUNITY FOREST

    CLOSURE OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE FOREST PARTNERSHIP – SYFP Partners Briefing October 2016:

    “Also for SYFP one of the biggest challenges has been THE LACK OF ANY STRATEGIC WORKING CONTEXT FROM WITHIN COUNCIL, IN OUR CASE THE PLACE DIRECTORATE, AND SPECIFICALLY IN RESPECT TO the Key challenges for SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING and projects.

    My immediate colleagues Maria Duffy former acting Head of Planning and Mike Hayden former Head of Planning did try to support SYFP through their line management role but MY VERY STRONG IMPRESSION IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO POSITIVE FEEDBACK OR INTEREST FROM MORE SENIOR OFFICERS TO BUSINESS PLANNING OR OTHER INITIATIVES I HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO TRY AND CREATE A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE for the organisation. THIS INCLUDES THE SUCCESSFUL WORK THAT WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN ON LOW CARBON AND RENEWABLES with SME’s through our ERDF Technical Assistance Project.”

    “Looking back on the performance of Place in respect to the environment the demise of Sustainable City Service under the former leadership of Andy Nolan appears to have been the beginning of a severe decline and deskilling. The Place Capital Delivery Service lead for renewable energy has recently left the Council with no replacement and the team also no longer exists.

    There is also NO COMMITTED RESOURCE FOR THE GREEN COMMISSION AND NO DELIVERY STRATEGY IN PLACE. ALL CAPACITY FOR DEVELOPING ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY FOR SHEFFIELD HAS BEEN ERODED AT AN ALARMING RATE and although austerity is a factor lack of proactive positive management is a more fundamental problem.”

    “During my year in post I have tried to promote a renewed focus on the LOW CARBON AGENDA through developing projects that link to TREE PLANTING, LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE. This is increasingly recognised as one of the key urgent responses to climate change and fundamentally for the Community Forest Network, necessitates significant investment in new woodland and forestry planting.

    For Sheffield specifically the potential for A JOINED UP RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST TREE FELLING AND REPLACEMENT SHOULD HAVE ALSO CREATED an additional opportunity for SYFP to work with SCC on tree planting. THIS IS ANOTHER LOST OPPORTUNITY.

    The outcome of the PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE TALKS and its NEW TARGETS FOR CARBON REDUCTION is already starting to influence Government policy making and regional responses will be required to step up to the challenge.

    Sadly, the SCR response and MY RECENT EXPERIENCES AT SCC DO NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE THAT A WELL-INFORMED RESPONSE IS IN PROCESS LOCALLY. This has to be compared with some of the other city regions and core cities which are illustrating much more positive and informed leadership.”

    Johanna Mawson, Director South Yorkshire Forest, 29th October 2016

    Source:
    https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/the-end-of-an-era-closure-of-the-south-yorkshire-forest-partnership-syfp/

  13. Technotronic says:

    TREES BENEFIT HEALTH & WELLBEING:

    References from the Save Our Roadside Trees Petition

    Karl, T., Harley, P., Emmons, L., Thornton, B., Guenther, A., Basu, C., & Jardine, K. (2010). Efficient atmospheric cleansing of oxidized organic trace gases by vegetation. Science, 330(6005), 816-819
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6005/816.short
    ***
    Escobedo, F., Kroeger, T. & Wagner, J. (2011). Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution, Volume 159, pp. 2078-2087. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=14928633190131047233&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 *** Trees and Design Action Group (2012). Trees in the Townscape: A Guide for Decision Makers, Trees and Design Action Group.
    http://www.tdag.org.uk/trees-in-the-townscape.html
    ***
    Construction Industry Research and Information Association, 2013. CIRIA Research Project RP993: Demonstrating the multiple benefits of SuDS – A business case (Phase 2). Draft Literature Review. [Online] Available at: http://www.susdrain.org [Accessed 25 May 2015].
    http://www.susdrain.org/files/resources/ciria_guidance/ciria_rp993_literature_review_october_2013_.pdf
    ***
    Sarajevs, V. (2011). Health Benefits of Street Trees, Farnham: Forest Research. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-8JCEJH
    ***
    Williams, K., O’Brien, L. & Stewart, A.. (2013). Urban health and urban forestry: how can forest management agencies help? Arboricultural Journal: The International Journal of Urban Forestry, Volume 35, pp. 119-133. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03071375.2013.852358
    ***
    Shackell, A. & Walter, R. (2012). Greenspace Design For Health And Well-being, Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/FCPG019.pdf/$FILE/FCPG019.pdf
    ***
    Velarde, M., Fry, G. & Tveit, M. (2007). Health effects of viewing landscapes – Landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 6, p. 199-212.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866707000416

    ********************
    Source:

    https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-city-council-streetsahead-sheffield-gov-uk-save-the-12-trees-on-rustlings-road-sheffield

  14. Technotronic says:

    TREES, HEALTH & WELLBEING

    EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE NHS (Selected extracts)…

    “EVIDENCE OF BENEFITS:
    There is mounting research evidence which backs up the case that the NHS Forest will help sites to realise the following, proven health, social, environmental and financial benefits:

    ACCELERATED PATIENT RECOVERY:
    Research has shown that patient recovery rates improve even if they can only view trees from their hospital window.

    IMPROVED COMMUNITY HEALTH

    GREATER SOCIAL COHESION:
    Trees and woods can enhance social cohesion between the NHS Estates and local communities through joint involvement in planting, maintenance and enjoyment of trees and woodland.

    IMPROVED AIR QUALITY:
    Trees and woodland have a measureable impact on air quality, in particular by adsorbing pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and ozone, intercepting harmful particulates from smoke, pollen and dust and releasing oxygen through photosynthesis, thus reducing the incidence of diseases exacerbated by air borne pollutants. The negative effects of air pollutants are proportionately greater in urban areas, where trees are close to sources of pollution and nearer to people who might be affected – yet tree cover in urban areas is under threat.
    The UK already has one of the world’s highest rates of childhood asthma, with about 15 per cent of children affected, and research by the British Lung Foundation suggests that one in every seven people in the UK is affected by lung disease – almost 8 million people. The predicted rise in air pollution will increase attributable deaths and hospital admissions, with as many as 1,500 additional deaths and hospital admissions each year (‘Future health – Sustainable places for health and well-being’, CABE 2009).

    REDUCTION IN NOISE:
    Trees can reduce urban noise through sound deflection and absorption and this can in turn improve the environment for patients and staff.

    HELP REDUCE THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISES:
    Trees and woods can reduce the impact of the ‘urban heat island effect’ which occurs when hard surfaces in summer act as giant storage heaters, absorbing heat during the day and releasing it at night. Dramatic summer temperature differences of as much as 10 degrees C between London and its surrounding areas have been recorded, which in turn exacerbate the symptoms of chronic respiratory conditions. Projections suggest this problem will get markedly worse. The cooling benefits of trees can also help in heat waves, which are also projected to become more frequent. The very old, chronically ill and poor are most susceptible to heat-related illnesses. By 2012, there will be a 1 in 40 chance that the South-East of England will experience a serious heat wave causing over 3,000 immediate heat-related deaths and 6,350 further heat-related deaths soon afterwards (DH, 2008a).

    “LESS SURFACE WATER FLOODING
    Throughout the UK winter is predicted to be wetter and summers drier and there is also a
    predicted increase in the frequency of very heavy rainfall. Trees can reduce the likelihood of surface water flooding, when rain water overwhelms the local drainage system, by regulating the rate at which rainfall reaches the ground and contributes to run off. Slowing the flow increases the possibility of infiltration and the ability of engineered drains to take away any excess water. This is particularly the case with large crowned trees.

    REDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS:
    Trees can help mitigate climate change and thus reduce the NHS carbon footprint by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reducing the amount of energy used in heating and cooling a building. It is estimated that the NHS Forest could directly absorb up to 260,000 tonnes of CO2.

    ECONOMIC BENEFITS:
    There are numerous economic benefits to be gained from the provision of high quality green space and wooded areas. These include:
    REDUCED COSTS THROUGH HEALTH PREVENTION
    REDUCED COSTS LINKED TO FLOOD PREVENTION
    REDUCED ENERGY COSTS
    REDUCED SITE MAINTENANCE COSTS
    VALUE FROM LEISURE USE”

    SOURCES:

    http://nhsforest.org/evidence
    via
    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/campaign-send-in-your-tree-photos-1-8173418

  15. Technotronic says:

    HEALTH, WELL-BEING & THE URBAN FOREST

    Research from Toronto, Canada

    “Results from multiple regressions and multivariate canonical correlation analyses suggest that people who live in neighborhoods with a higher density of trees on their streets report significantly higher health perception and significantly less cardio-metabolic conditions (controlling for socio-economic and demographic factors).

    We find that having 10 more trees in a city block, on average, improves health perception in ways comparable to an increase in annual personal income of $10,000 and moving to a neighborhood with $10,000 higher median income or being 7 years younger.

    We also find that having 11 more trees in a city block, on average, decreases cardiometabolic conditions in ways comparable to an increase in annual personal income of $20,000 and moving to a neighborhood with $20,000 higher median income or being 1.4 years younger.”

    REFERENCE:

    Kardan, O., Gozdyra, P., Misic, B., Moola, F., Palmer, L. J., Paus, T., & Berman, M. G. (2015). Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Scientific reports, 5.

    http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150709/srep11610/pdf/srep11610.pdf

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/233#comment-233

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

    “Sources of PM10 (particles with a diameter of less than 10 X 10-6 m) within urban areas of the UK include road traffic, industry and power production. Results from numerous longitudinal investigations of human respiratory and other diseases show consistent statistical associations between human exposure to outdoor levels of PM10 and adverse health impacts. Health effects range from alveolar inflammation and respiratory-tract infection (specifically pneumonia) to acute cardiovascular disorders. These often lead to substantially increased morbidity and mortality, in particular among elderly individuals. The adverse health effects of high ambient PM10 concentrations have resulted in the introduction of air quality standards which are designed to be protective of human health.”

    “…When considered in an economic context, the health costs incurred by PM10 pollution in the UK have been estimated to range between £9.1 and 21.4 billion per annum.”

    REFERENCE:

    Tiwary, A., Sinnett, D., Peachey, C., Chalabi, Z., Vardoulakis, S., Fletcher, T., Leonardi, G., Grundy, C., Azapagic, A. And Hutchings, T. R. (2009).
    An integrated tool to assess the role of new planting in PM10 capture and the human health benefits: A case study in London. Environmental Pollution 157(10), 2645-2653.

    http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=0&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&cluster=14156265087779895725

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/87#comment-87

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

    With regard to Tiwary et al (2009), Sarajev (n.d.) noted:

    “One study of the East London Green Grid (a proposed network of interlinked, multi-purpose and high quality open spaces) estimated that the establishment of 5.5% greenspace (a quarter of this provided by trees) across a single 10 km by 10 km square could avert two deaths and two hospital admissions per year”

    REFERENCE:

    Saraev, V., n.d. Health benefits of street trees. [Online]
    Available at:
    http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-8JCEJH [Accessed 12 March 2015].

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

    “There is increasing evidence that green space, including the urban forest, is linked to significant human health benefits both mentally and physically. This has led to some urban forestry programmes designed with the specific goal of improving human health.

    In this paper, empirical research to identify how urban forestry might best contribute to such benefits is reviewed. Four questions are considered:

    (1) What health outcomes should agencies aim to improve?

    (2) What kinds of urban forestry should be prioritised for human health?

    (3) What kinds of activities and social programmes should agencies support?

    (4) What kinds of partnerships are required to harness the health benefits of urban forestry?”

    REFERENCE:

    Williams, K., O’Brien, L. & Stewart, A., 2013.
    Urban health and urban forestry: how can forest management agencies help?
    Arboricultural Journal: The International Journal of Urban Forestry, Volume 35, p. 119-133.
    Available at:
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03071375.2013.852358

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/86#comment-86

    ***************
    Also, see:

    O’Brien, L., Williams, K. & Stewart, A., 2010.
    Urban health and health inequalities and the role of urban forestry in Britain: a review, s.l.: Forest Research.
    http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/urban_health_and_forestry_review_2010.pdf/$FILE/urban_health_and_forestry_review_2010.pdf

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

    According to this report, 30.41 per cent of adults in Sheffield are inactive. This is costing £19,937,814 per year for every 100,000 people that make up the population of Sheffield.

    Excerpts:

    “To turn the tide of inactivity it is critical for there to be a clearly-articulated national and local ambition. This report has found that reducing physical inactivity by just one per cent a year over a five-year period would save the UK economy just under £1.2bn.

    If every local authority was able to reduce inactivity levels by one per cent year on year over this five-year period they would save local taxpayers £44 per household. More importantly, they would improve the health and wellbeing of their local communities.”

    KEY FINDINGS:

    “Yorkshire is characterised by large areas of open space (59 per cent) compared with the national average of 46 per cent

    Despite this, Yorkshire’s inactivity levels (30 per cent) are above the national average of 29 per cent

    Yorkshire spends significantly more on physical activity programmes (3.5 per cent of its annual public health budget) than the national average of 2.4 per cent”

    REFERENCE:

    ukactive, 2014. Turning the tide of inactivity. [Online]
    Available at:
    http://ukactive.com/downloads/managed/Turning_the_tide_of_inactivity.pdf
    [Accessed 10 March 2015].

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/85#comment-85

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

    “Around one in two women and a third of men in England are damaging their health through a lack of physical activity. This is unsustainable and costing the UK an estimated £7.4bn a year. If current trends continue, the increasing costs of health and social care will destabilise public services and take a toll on quality of life for individuals and communities.

    • over one in four women and one in five men do less than 30 minutes of physical activity a week, so are classified as ‘inactive’

    • physical inactivity is the fourth largest cause of disease and disability in the UK”

    REFERENCE:

    Public Health England, 2014.
    Everybody active, every day: an evidence-based approach to physical activity, London: PHE publications.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374914/Framework_13.pdf

    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/85#comment-85

  16. Technotronic says:

    RESPONSIBLE ASSET MANAGEMENT:
    VALUING BENEFITS AFFORDED BY TREES TO NEIGHBOURHOODS & COMMUNITIES

    EXTRACTS FROM THE SORT LETTER DATED 29th January, 2016*

    From page 104:

    In an e-mail dated 10th DECEMBER, 2015, Cllr Nasima Akther (Labour) communicated “on be-half of Nether edge Councillors”:

    “To provide some context to the contribution made by trees to management of PM10 levels, a study by Tallis, Taylor, Sinnett and Freer-Smith suggested that the current entirety of tree canopy cover (approx. 20%) in GREATER LONDON removed somewhere in the region of 0.7% and 1.4% of the total PM10. As such, even if 100% canopy cover was achieved, it can be extrapolated FROM THE PERCENTAGES OFFERED ABOVE THAT THIS WOULD CLEARLY ONLY CAPTURE A VERY TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PARTICULATE POLLUTION.
    […]

    Given that such a tiny proportion of the overall PM10 is captured by even mature forest trees, A HOLISTIC STRATEGY IS REQUIRED in order to better manage air quality, and TREE PLANTING IS JUST ONE STRAND of a significantly larger arrays OF CHANGES REQUIRED TO MANAGE PARTICULATE POLLUTION LEVELS. This includes wide ranging behaviour change away from car use, as well as industrial regulation, all of which is detailed in the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan which is available for download at https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8kqi7yLDJAhVFlw8KHXuSAKwQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sheffield.gov.uk%2Fenvironment%2Fair-quality%2Faction-plan.html&usg=AFQjCNHHfgtuQFT6hG2YXiU6ng6yU8wBWQ
    […]

    …in terms of capture of PM10, but again, as outlined in the London study, this needs to be taken in context of wider change which would make A SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER CONTRIBUTION TO REDUCTION IN PARTICULATE POLLUTION LEVELS IF WE ALL SIMPLY WALKED, CYCLED OR UTILISED PUBLIC TRANSPORT INSTEAD OF DRIVING.”

    Extracts from pages 106 to 109:

    SORT are also pleased to learn that the Council also recognise that highway trees are part of the solution to addressing problems associated with particulate pollution and poor air quality. Cllr Akther is right; trees are and should be a vital component of any strategy that aims to improve air quality. What neither the Streets Ahead team, or the Council have recognised or acknowledged is that it is MATURE TREES THAT ARE OF GREATEST BENEFIT in provision of this VALUABLE ecosystem service. Cllr Akther has mentioned planting, but failed to address the matter raised, which was the likely negative impact on the environment and communities as a result of the scheduled felling of 92 mature highway trees in Nether Edge.

    72 of the mature highway trees in Nether Edge are scheduled for felling: “due to damage to the pavement or road” (see Appendix 22. Also, see page Appendix 25). Some common reasons that Amey have given for felling include:

    “…LIKELY TO BE DAMAGED upon reconstruction”
    “…WILL BE DAMAGED upon reconstruction”;
    “…WILL BE DAMAGED upon planing off”;
    “…CANNOT REPAIR WITHOUT ROOT DAMAGE”;
    “Kerbs absent, UNABLE TO INSTALL/REPAIR WITHOUT SEVER [sic] ROOT DAMAGE”
    “Kerbs pushed into c/w by buttress root pressing immediately on kerb rear – CANNOT REALIGN”.
    “…root growing into and uplifting f/w at shallow depth – WILL BE DAMAGED UPON RECONSTRUCTION.”

    Councillor Akther quoted a study published in 2011 (Tallis, et al., 2011), to imply that canopy cover has no significant impact on levels of airborne particulate pollution. What she, and the Council, appear to be missing is that regardless of the QUANTITY of particulate pollution filtered from the air by trees, or the PERCENTAGE of total particulate pollution filtered, THE FILTRATION OF PARTICULATE MATTER provides a range of valuable benefits: improvement of air quality, health and well-being, and reduced health costs (Forest Research, 2010; Gilchrist, 2012; Manes, et al., 2014; Treeconomics, 2015a. Also, see the references in Appendix 6). Therefore, this particular ecosystrem service has a MONETARY VALUE. The study quoted by Cllr Akther did not attempt to value the filtration service afforded by tree cover, nor did it assess the value of any other associated benefits.
    To quote from the SORT letter:

    “The NTSG position statement argues that IT IS REASONABLE TO INCLUDE SOCIETAL VALUE AND BENEFIT IN THE CALCULATION OF WHAT IS REASONABLE where a landowner or manager is acting in the public interest.”
    (The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 12)

    “…the majority of good practice tree management issues are directly or indirectly related to landscape QUALITY and AMENITY. IT IS ESSENTIAL TO HAVE IN PLACE A METHODOLOGY FOR MAKING TRANSPARENT AND CONSISTENT DECISIONS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THOSE VALUES.”
    (Britt, et al., 2008, p. 624)

    “Tree strategies seek to demonstrate good value by including, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, data on the ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE of and return on investment from trees included in a strategy, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ASSOCIATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFITS.”
    (The British Standards Institution, 2014, p. 27)

    “NON-COMMERCIAL TREES FREQUENTLY HAVE SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE AS WELL, AND ARE IMPORTANT TO HUMAN HEALTH AND WELLBEING. THE NTSG’S POSITION IS THAT, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, THE PRESUMPTION SHOULD BE THAT SUCH TREES BE RETAINED and allowed to complete their life cycle with minimal management interventions. Such A REASONABLE STRATEGY, ARTICULATING THE BENEFITS OF TREES, SHOULD, IN THE VIEW OF THE NTSG, CARRY AS MUCH WEIGHT IN PROTECTING THE TREE OWNER AGAINST LITIGATION FOLLOWING AN INCIDENT AS ANY FACTORY’S REASONABLE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY.”
    (The National Tree Safety Group, 2011, p. 27)

    Comparison of Census data for Sheffield indicates that, BETWEEN 2001 AND 2011, THE HUMAN POPULATION OF SHEFFIELD INCREASED BY 39,498 (Sheffield City Council, 2007; Sheffield City Council, 2014a). “Sheffield’s population in 2011 is 552,698, in 229,928 HOUSEHOLDS. …THERE ARE ALMOST AS MANY CARS IN SHEFFIELD AS THERE ARE HOUSEHOLDS” (Sheffield City Council, 2014a).

    According to the Council, based Mid-year Population Estimates for 2014, released by the Office of National Statistics, THE HUMAN POPULATION OF SHEFFIELD IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE INCREASED SINCE 2011 TO 563,749: “In-migration has been the biggest driver of population growth since 2001” and there has been “an increased birth rate” and “people are living longer. The 85+ population has grown by 16% since 2001” (Sheffield City Council: Performance and Research, 2015). From these figures, it would appear reasonable to conclude that a marked increase in levels of airborne pollution can be expected and that the percentage of the citizens most vulnerable to air pollution is likely to increase. THIS PROVIDES EVEN GREATER REASON AND IMPETUS TO RETAIN AND MAINTAIN MATURE HIGHWAY TREES AND THE BENEFITS THEY PROVIDE (see pages 28, 29 & 33-35).

    The figures that Cllr Scott quoted came from THE STATE OF SHEFFIELD 2013 report, commissioned by the Sheffield First Partnership, published on 18th FEBRUARY, 2013.

    “The Sheffield First Partnership is an independent body made up of public, private, voluntary and community figures that seeks to address key issues facing the city.

    ROAD TRANSPORT and industry are thought to be THE LARGEST SOURCES OF POLLUTION, with Sheffield city council monitoring data in the report showing that while traffic levels in the city centre have remained relatively stable OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT such as buses, trams and coaches HAS DECLINED.

    DATA FROM SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL also shows that
    ROAD TRAFFIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 50% OF NITROGEN DIOXIDE EMISSIONS on Sheffield, while 35% comes from industrial sources. FOR PARTICULATE MATTER PM10, 45% of emissions come from industrial sources while ROAD TRAFFIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 40%.”
    (AirQualityNews.com, 2013)

    References:

    AirQualityNews.com, 2013. Air pollution costing Sheffield £160 million. [Online] Available at: http://www.airqualitynews.com/2013/02/21/air-pollution-costing-sheffield-160-million/ [Accessed 21 February 2013].

    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.
    Available at:
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Johnston8/publications

    Forest Research, 2010. Improving air quality. [Online] Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/urgp_evidence_note_006_Improving_air_quality.pdf/$FILE/urgp_evidence_note_006_Improving_air_quality.pdf [Accessed 20 December 2015].

    Gilchrist, K., 2012. Promoting wellbeing through environment: the role of urban forestry. In: M. Johnston & G. Percival, eds. Trees, people and the built environment. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission, pp. 84-93.
    Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Trees-people-and-the-buit-environment_Gilchrist.pdf/$FILE/Trees-people-and-the-buit-environment_Gilchrist.pdf

    Manes, F; Silli, V; Salvatori, E; Incerti, G; Galante, G; Fusaro, L; Perrino, C., 2014. Urban Ecosystem Services: tree diversity and stability of PM10 removal in the Metropolitan Area of Rome. Annali di Botanica, Volume 4, pp. 19-26.

    Sheffield City Council, 2007. Sheffield Profile. Sheffield Key Facts. [Online] Available at: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/search-result.html?queryStr=third+largest+metropoliton [Accessed 10 January 2016].

    Sheffield City Council, 2014a. 2011 Census: key statistics. [Online] Available at: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/sheffield-profile/population-and-health/2011-census/key-statistics.html [Accessed 29 April 2014].

    Sheffield City Council: Performance and Research, 2015. Sheffield population estimates: Sheffield’s Population 2014. [Online] Available at: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/sheffield-profile/population-and-health/population-estimates.html [Accessed 10 January 2016].

    Tallis, M., Taylor, G., Sinnett, D. & Freer-Smith, P., 2011. Estimating the removal of atmospheric particulate pollution by the urban tree canopy of London, under current and future environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 103, pp. 129-138.

    The British Standards Institution, 2014. British Standard 8545:2014 Trees: From Nursery to Independence in the Landscape – Recommendations, London: BSI Standards Ltd.
    See: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/274#comment-274

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

    Treeconomics, 2015a. Valuing London’s Urban Forest: Results of the London i-Tree Eco Project. [Online] Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/2890-Forest_Report_Pages.pdf/$FILE/2890-Forest_Report_Pages.pdf [Accessed 4 January 2016].

    NOTE:

    * 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 either of the following links:

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

    http://www.savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/resources-and-links/

    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.

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