Sheffield Live – the big debate on protecting Sheffield from the floods – with Ian Rotherham and Nigel Slack

river-rother-floooding-june-2007

Here comes the flood…………………..!!

Sheffield Live – the big debate on protecting Sheffield from the floods –

with Ian Rotherham and Nigel Slack

Wednesday February 22nd 7 pm to 8 pm – Live!

TV Presenter and environmentalist Nigel Slack discusses the proposed engineering solutions to the threat of flooding in Sheffield with Professor Ian Rotherham of Sheffield Hallam University.

Working with the grain of nature…….or against it?

Why do we get so wet?

What are the proposals?

Will it work?

Is this the only solution?

What about the damage?

How can we flood-proof the city region?

and more…………

And if you missed it first time, here it is…….


https://vimeo.com/205385670


https://vimeo.com/205388038

 

rother-floods-2007-christine-handley

Join us for ‘Talking Sheffield’

bentley-doncaster-1932

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

9 Responses to Sheffield Live – the big debate on protecting Sheffield from the floods – with Ian Rotherham and Nigel Slack

  1. Nimby says:

    How about planning authorities take the issue seriously and refuse any further development in floodplains?

    Ooops Government unlikely to want to curb private profit, prefer instead to pour public pounds down private drains? Apologies for wet metaphors ….

  2. Technotronic says:

    CLLR LODGE: SPIN & DECEIT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is consultation, democracy and governance at its worst.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  3. Technotronic says:

    THE SCC / ARUP FLOOD CONSULTATION RIP-OFF

    IS A MONSTER EMBANKMENT & MASS TREE FELLING COMING TO YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD?

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

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

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

    Trees MUST be assigned a structural value (monetary) and the value (monetary) of the range of ecosystem services they would provide over the remainder of their estimated safe useful life expectancy (SULE), based on the assumption that the park will remain as is (without planned flood defences), must be calculated and taken in to account when draughting policy, plans and proposals. It is also NECESSARY IN ORDER TO HELP ENSURE THAT LOSSES ARE ADEQUATELY ACCOUNTED FOR AND THAT COMMUNITIES ARE NOT SHORT-CHANGED WHEN COMPENSATION IS CALCULATED AND OFFERED AS A MEANS OF OFFSETTING LOSS. Again, this is in line with a range of current good practice guidance.

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

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

    On Thursday 29th September, 2016, at the flood protection consultation event held by Arup and Sheffield City Council in Oughtibridge, the Arup engineer said there would be no further consultations and that this is questionnaire is the only opportunity that the public will have to influence proposed changes. The engineer said that Arup are still early in the process of developing proposals and that it is unlikely that all proposals would actually be deemed viable. He said COST IS A MAJOR FACTOR TO CONSIDER, AS IS PUBLIC OPINION. HE SAID THAT THE FEEDBACK FORM THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE USED TO ASSESS PUBLIC SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION FOR EACH PROPOSED SCHEME and added THAT A SCHEME THAT MET SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO BE REGARDED AS VIABLE.

    This highlights the severity of negligent acts and omissions by Arup and Sheffield City Council when communicating with the public about flood protection proposals. IT APPEARS THAT ARUP AND SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL HAVE WILFULLY WITHHELD INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC, IN AN ATTEMPT TO SKEW RESPONSES IN FAVOUR OF SUPPORTING CURRENT PROPOSALS presented by Arup and Sheffield City Council during the consultation process.”

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

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

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

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

    Britt, C., Johnston, M., Riding, A. et al., 2008. Trees in Towns 2: a new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Johnston8/publications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source:
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/670#comment-670

  4. 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

    Also, see:
    “TREE POPULATION MANAGEMENT BY NUMBERS (“Impact Assessment”):
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/608#comment-608
    &
    “SUSTAINABLE TREE POPULATION MANAGEMENT”
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/623#comment-623

    • Technotronic says:

      SIMON GREEN = INCOMPETENCE

      SIMON GREEN (SCC’s EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR for PLACE)
      = THE 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 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/

  5. Technotronic says:

    SCC & AMEY INCOMPETENCE

    ARBORICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REBUKE SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL & AMEY

    See The One Show (BBC): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b085dtsv

    “BARRELL CRITICISES SHEFFIELD’S “SHOCKING” STREET TREE POLICY ON PRIMETIME TV

    Barrell Tree Consultancy managing director Jeremy Barrell attacked Sheffield’s street tree removal programme on last night’s (4 January) One Show on BBC1.

    Interviewed by presenter and veteran DJ Andy Kershaw while inspecting felled and soon-to-be-felled trees in the city, Jeremy Barrell said: “From a health and safety point of view they are fine – none of them need to come out.

    *** “THIS IS CONTRARY TO GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE AND GUIDANCE FROM THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION – IT’S A SHOCKING AFFAIR THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE DOESN’T HAPPEN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY.” ***

    Defending the policy, the council’s Cabinet Member for Environment councillor BRYAN LODGE said the trees “are causing DAMAGE to pavements and highways including those on Rustlings Road” – the site of a controversial night-time felling operation in November.

    THE REPORT ON THE RUSTLINGS ROAD TREES, PUBLISHED THE SAME MORNING, “SUGGESTED WE LOOK AT ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, BUT THE COUNCIL DOESN’T HAVE THE FUNDING AVAILABLE TO DO THIS SORT OF WORK”, Lodge added.

    The residents arrested during protests on Rustlings Road have yet to be charged.

    The programme can be viewed online via the BBC’s iPlayer here (from 11:50) for one month.”

    SOURCE:
    Horticulture Week – 5 January 2017. Author: Gavin McEwan.

    http://www.hortweek.com/barrell-criticises-sheffields-shocking-street-tree-policy-primetime-tv/arboriculture/article/1419998?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#disqus_thread

    *******

    COMMENT FROM THE ARBORICULTURAL ASSOCIATION

    “AA REGISTERED CONSULTANT JEREMY BARRELL ON THE ONE SHOW – BBC 1 4th January 7pm

    Arboricultural Association Registered Consultant and long term Fellow Member Jeremy Barrell will be appearing in a segment on The One Show about the Sheffield street tree situation.

    THE AA SUGGESTED JEREMY, AMONG OTHERS, after the BBC contacted us FOR IMPARTIAL COMMENT FROM AN EXPERT on the emotive topic. He spent the best part of a day in December filming for the BBC magazine programme.

    We hope this will be a great opportunity to advocate the SUSTAINABLE management of trees to the national audience, and for the importance for CLEAR LINES OF COMMUNICATION and COLLABORATION between all relevant parties to be emphasised once again, following the REGRETFUL HANDLING OF THE SITUATION.”

    SOURCE:
    http://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/News/AA-Registered-Consultant-Jeremy-Barrell-on-The-One

    *****

    For more information about Mr Barrell, please use the following link:

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

    ARBORICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REBUKE SCC & AMEY

    “THE ARBORICULTURAL ASSOCIATION COMMENT ON THE HANDLING OF THE FELLING OF TREES ON RUSTLINGS ROAD AND THE COUNCIL’S TREE MANAGEMENT POLICY.”

    “Street Trees in Rustlings Road, Sheffield

    Last Updated: 24/11/2016

    The Council have a legal responsibility to remove trees which are in a seriously diseased or dangerous condition. The removal of trees which are not dangerous but are merely seen to be “damaging” (to the pavement or nearby walls) or “discriminatory” (causing alleged obstruction to people with visual or physical impairments) has to be questioned. WE WOULD HOPE THAT ALL ALTERNATIVES TO REMOVAL WOULD HAVE BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED AND EXPLAINED TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS BEFORE ANY ACTION WAS TAKEN.

    FURTHERMORE, WE REITERATE THE IMPORTANCE OF COUNCILS, LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ANYONE WITH TREES UNDER THEIR STEWARDSHIP TO STRIVE FOR AND ADVOCATE THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF TREES, as well as highlighting the need for clear lines of communication and collaboration between all relevant parties before such crucial decisions are made.”

    SOURCE:
    http://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/News/Street-Trees-in-Rustlings-Road,-Sheffield

    *****

    PREVIOUSLY…

    “…we are unable to comment on Sheffield in any specific way, but… WE ARE …CONCERNED AT THE LEVEL OF UNNECESSARY TREE LOSS THAT MAY RESULT FROM OVER-ZEALOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF HIGHWAY MANAGEMENT STANDARDS.

    The AA position on trees in streets closely reflects the very strong research evidence and government guidance that trees MUST be properly and fairly accounted for in the urban management decision-making process.

    THE RECENT LONDON I-TREE PROJECT VALUED LONDON’S STREET TREES AT £6 BILLION and identifies and quantifies the wider benefits they bring (eco system services) in respect of storm water alleviation, carbon storage and pollution removal. This report clearly demonstrates that in the light of the benefits that trees bring, THERE CAN BE NO CREDIBLE CASE TO ADOPT AN AUTOMATIC PRESUMPTION TO REMOVE TREES CAUSING LOW LEVELS OF DAMAGE TO INFRASTRUCTURE.

    …the Arboricultural Association would urge all managers involved in this sphere to appreciate the importance of trees in streets, and particularly their beneficial effects on human wellbeing and health, flood buffering and their ability to make urban environments more pleasant places to live and work. WE ACTIVELY ADVOCATE THAT when tree removal is being considered, in addition to the maintenance costs associated with the presence of street trees, the BENEFITS ARE ALSO PROPERLY FACTORED INTO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. THIS PARTICULARLY APPLIES TO INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE, WHERE THE HIGHWAYS GUIDANCE CLEARLY IMPLIES THAT A FLEXIBLE AND BALANCED ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED.”
    (Barrell, 2016a)

    “Speaking at the Arboricultural Association National Amenity Conference, Lord de Mauley, PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND SCIENCE has recognised the Association as the representative body for the tree care profession and ‘THE VOICE OF ARBORICULTURE’.”
    (Arboricultural Association, 2014)

    *****

    “The Arboricultural Association has in its members a wealth of knowledge about the practical aspects of planting and caring for trees…”
    (Framlingham, 2015)

    *****

    “ABOUT US:

    AS THE LEADING VOICE ON ALL MATTERS ARBORICULTURAL IN THE UK, the AA provides a home and membership for all those employed within the sector; CHAMPIONING THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF TREES in places where people live work and play – FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY.

    We provide the standards, training, support and recognition that put our members – in the UK and overseas – at the peak of their profession.”

    Source:
    http://www.trees.org.uk/About-Us

    *****

    References:

    (FROM THE SORT LETTER dated 29th January, 2016:
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/SORT%20LETTER%20TO%20THE%20CABINET%20MEMBER%20FOR%20ENVIRONMENT%20AND%20TRANSPORT_29th%20January%2C%202016_v51.6_Corrected_1.pdf )

    Arboricultural Association, 2014. Defra recognizes Arboricultural Association as the ‘Voice of Arboriculture’. [Online]
    Available at:
    http://www.trees.org.uk/aa/news/Defra-recognizes-Arboricultural-Association-as-the-Voice-of-Arboriculture-323.html [Accessed 25 September 2014].

    Barrell, 2016a. Jeremy Barrell comments on the Sheffield Street Trees issue. [Online]
    Available at:
    http://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/News/Jeremy-Barrell-comments-on-the-Sheffield-Street-Tr [Accessed 18 January 2016].

    Framlingham, M., 2015. Queen’s Speech — Debate (4th Day) – in the House of Lords at 3:24 pm on 2nd June 2015: House of Lords Debate (c381). [Online]
    Available at:
    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2015-06-02a.298.8&s=speaker%3A10370#g381.0 [Accessed 4 June 2015].

    *****

    SOURCE:
    https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/704#comment-704

  6. Technotronic says:

    National shaming: news from a weekly trade magazine (Horticulture Week):

    “TREES FOR CITIES PULLS OUT OF SHEFFIELD OVER STREETS AHEAD CONCERNS

    8 March 2017, by Gavin McEwan

    ENVIRONMENTAL CHARITY TREES FOR CITIES HAS SAID IT WILL NO LONGER WORK WITH SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL due to its controversial street tree replacement policy.

    In a statement released on Monday (6 March), it said:

    “It is with deep regret that whilst these practices continue TREES FOR CITIES is unable to develop further projects on council land. For the sake of the city’s trees, inhabitants and wildlife, ***** WE IMPLORE THE DECISION-MAKERS in the City Council, Amey and local politicians to URGENTLY SEEK AN ACCEPTABLE RESOLUTION ***** to this situation.”

    TREES FOR CITIES has worked to plant trees in Sheffield for ten years, creating urban woodlands and community orchards and running projects in schools, during which it has planted over 25,000 trees – during which time “we have always received great support” from the city, it said.

    THE CHARITY ADDED THAT IT “BELIEVES THERE TO BE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT A NUMBER OF HEALTHY MATURE TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED WHERE OTHER OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE” in the city.

    The council’s cabinet member for the environment Bryan LODGE, has regularly defended the tree felling programme carried out as part of the Streets Ahead programme set up to repair Sheffield’s infrastructure.

    LODGE said in response: ‘We understand that Tree for Cities is a member-led organisation and it appears that some of its members are tree protesters who may have influenced the charity with incorrect information regarding our street tree programme.’

    He added: ‘In the next few weeks we will meet with Trees for Cities to update them on our tree replacement programme.’
    Reponding to Bryan Lodge’s statement,

    TREES FOR CITIES CHIEF EXECUTIVE DAVID ELLIOTT SAID

    ‘TREES FOR CITIES DOES NOT HAVE MEMBERS OTHER THAN ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND SO CANNOT IN ANY WAY BE INFLUENCED BY A FORMAL MEMBER BASE’.”

    *****

    COMMENT FROM DAVID ELLIOTT:

    “TREES FOR CITIES DOES NOT HAVE MEMBERS OTHER THAN ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND SO CANNOT IN ANY WAY BE INFLUENCED BY A FORMAL MEMBER BASE.

    Trees for Cities’ decision was not ‘influenced by tree protesters using incorrect information’. OUR DECISION WAS BASED ON A REVIEW OF A WIDE RANGE OF INDEPENDENT EXPERT ASSESSMENTS AND OPINIONS, and we purposely had minimal contact with advocacy groups in order to avoid potential accusations of partiality.

    This review came to the conclusion that THERE IS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT A NUMBER OF HEALTHY MATURE TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED WHERE OTHER OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE.

    Therefore, THE PRINCIPLE OF FELLING AS A ‘LAST RESORT’ HAS NOT BEEN ADHERED TO, resulting in the decision and position that Trees for Cities has taken on this matter.”

    Source:

    http://www.hortweek.com/trees-cities-pulls-sheffield-streets-ahead-concerns/arboriculture/article/1426738
    Accessed 12th March 2017

    *****

    LEARN MORE:

    Trees for Cities, 2005. Trees Matter! Bringing lasting benefits to people in towns. [Online]
    Available at:
    http://www.treesforcities.org/benefits-urban-trees/

    NEWS FROM THE STAR (A SHEFFIELD NEWSPAPER):

    “SHEFFIELD TREE PROTESTERS WILL ‘NO LONGER FACE ARREST’
    Read more at:

    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-tree-protesters-will-no-longer-face-arrest-1-8439143

    “Tree protesters ‘influenced charity with incorrect information’, claims Sheffield councillor”:
    Read more at:

    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/tree-protesters-influenced-charity-with-incorrect-information-claims-sheffield-councillor-1-8426296

    “Sheffield Council in war of words with eco charity over tree-felling”
    Read more at:

    http://www.thestar.co.uk/our-towns-and-cities/sheffield/sheffield-council-in-war-of-words-with-eco-charity-over-tree-felling-1-8428726

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