The Map

This is a new map compiled in January 2016, and updated in October and November, to focus on the trees that have been condemned for felling in 2016. The old map was a bit random and a lot of the data was out of date. This one has been compiled from information issued to residents by Sheffield City Council as part of their tree felling consultation, including detailed street maps showing the location of individual trees. Unfortunately that data is not available to the general public in an easily accessible form except on this map.

There are about 320 trees on the map where the information is very basic. These are trees recently condemned and we are still working to enter the full data.

There are a few streets missing from this map, please let me know if you spot one, and I would be grateful to know about trees showing here in red, yellow or green that have now been felled. You can use the contact form here.

If you spot anything incorrect or confusing please let us know.

Last update 12 October 2016

9 thoughts on “The Map

    1. Lammergeier

      TREES: CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION CONTINUES: 1,000 HIGHWAY TREES FELLED IN 4 MONTHS

      On 17th November, 2015 (this Tuesday), at the Amey Roadshow in Heeley, Darren Butt (Operations Director for Amey: “principally responsible for trees…”) announced that 1,000 MORE HIGHWAY TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED IN THE PAST FOUR MONTHS, since the inaugural meeting of Cllr Fox’s Highway Tree Advisory Forum (23rd July, 2015). Mr Butt is aware that many of the 36,000 highway trees classed as “mature or over-mature (75%) are likely to be causing “pavement ridging” or disturbing kerb alignment. He said this is unacceptable but that his arboricultural team had worked with Graeme Symonds’s (Amey’s Core Investment Project Director) highway construction team to develop a range of alternative highway engineering specifications for footway and kerb construction, which the Council have not mentioned or made available to the public.

      Six months since Save Our Roadside Trees (SORT) highlighted Amey’s plans to fell thousands of healthy, safe highway trees on the basis that they damage pavements and kerbs, Cllr Leigh Bramall’s (Deputy Leader of the Council: Lab) words from the meeting of full council, on 1st July, 2015, remain a cause for deep concern:

      “THE CONTRACT SAYS UP TO 50% OF TREES CAN BE REMOVED, ERM, AND ACTUALLY THAT’S 18,000.”

      His words echoed those reported in the December 2012 issue of ‘Transportation Professional’ (a Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation publication), when Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) was interviewed. The publication stated that:

      “OVER THE FIRST FIVE YEARS of the 25 year Streets Ahead deal…” AMEY will be: “REPLACING HALF OF THE CITY’S 36,000 HIGHWAY TREES”.

      This continues until 2018!
      _____________________________________________

      The above letter was sent to The Star on 18th November, 2015.
      Source: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/contribute-website?page=4

      Like

      Reply
  1. Lammergeier

    18,000 TREES FACE THE AXE (50% Of highway trees)!

    The 2006/07 highway tree survey (commissioned and paid for by the Council) said 75% of trees are mature (including over mature), according to officials (Streets Ahead; SCC: website & David Caulfield; Amey: Jeremy Willis; also, Cllr Terry Fox: 74%; Cllr Leigh Bramall: 70%). That is 27,000 trees. Many of these will have been subsequently classed as damaging or discriminatory (campaigners haven’t asked how many actually are) by Amey, when they commissioned their own highway tree survey in 2012, as they are associated with pavement ridging and the dislodgement of kerb stones. Furthermore, 10,000 trees require treatments (removal of epicormic shoots, crown reduction, deadwooding, etc) and most of those, if not all, will be mature trees. TO DATE, >3,500 TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED (1,000 SINCE 23rd JULY, 2015). The contract allows 18,000 to be felled. Transportation Professional said this figure applied to the core investment period – the first 5yrs of the Amey PFI contract! So, based on what we know, we can expect 14,500 more trees to be felled before 2018. Beyond that, we just don’t know. However, it is reasonable to assume that Amey will concentrate on phasing out the remainder of 27,000 trees: at least 9,000 mature trees, as Streets Ahead believe these trees are near the end of their life, on the basis that they are mature and require “treatment” of one kind or another.

    Cllr Fox stated, at the meeting of full Council, in the Town Hall, on 1st July 2015:

    “We had an independent survey done in 2006-2007 which helps us inform our priorities for the formation of the contract…”

    “The survey noted that 74% of our mature tree stock with very few young trees has given this combination the RATE OF DECLINE EVIDENCE BY THE NUMBER OF TREES NEEDING TREATMENT.”

    Just to remind you, STEVE ROBINSON (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) COMMENTED, at the inaugural meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum, on 23rd July, 2015:

    “We had a survey carried out by an independent firm in 2006/2007 that identified that there was 10,000 trees – that’s out of a highway tree stock of 36,000 – that required some type of intervention, and they recommended that there was a process of SUSTAINABLE replacement. So, in light of that, the Council, as part of its application to Government for the Streets Ahead project, received funding to manage the city’s highway tree stock. It also seeks to repair the city’s infrastructure… So, we believe that the Streets Ahead project offers a unique opportunity to MANAGE, MAINTAIN AND REPLACE trees, and to offer a generational shift to leave a lasting legacy. …So, our underinvestment and underfunding left us with A NUMBER OF DEAD, DYING AND DANGEROUS TREES. Some of you would be surprised that there were 1,200 TREES THAT WERE WITHIN THAT CATEGORY. SO, AMEY IDENTIFIED THOSE TREES AND ADDRESSED THOSE FIRST.”

    “Our next priority is to improve the condition of our roads and pavements. So, in other words, deal with the DAMAGING trees – those trees that are damaging kerbs, pavements and drains. And then, because the Council is actually improving its footpaths, we are obliged to consider equality. So, we’re now looking to deal with DISCRIMINATORY trees…”

    Like

    Reply
  2. Lammergeier

    Urban Forest Cover

    Urban Forest Cover or Canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above.

    The aim of a canopy cover assessment is to help decision makers understand their urban forest resources, particularly the amount of tree canopy that currently exists and the amount that could exist.

    Measuring canopy cover has helped city planners, urban foresters, mayors, councils, local authorities, and communities see trees and forests in a new way, focusing attention on green infrastructure as a key component of community planning, sustainability and resilience.

    Urban Canopy Cover is an easy-to-understand concept that is useful in communicating messages about our urban forests with both the public and policy makers.

    For more information please contact:
    Treeconomics Ltd
    Chapter House
    Priesthawes Farm
    Polegate
    East Sussex
    BN26 6QU
    Tel: 0845 460 4700
    Email: info@treeconomics.co.uk

    Treeconomics Ltd is a social enterprise, an organisation that applies commercial strategies to maximise improvements in human and environmental wellbeing, rather than maximising profits for external shareholders.

    Registered in England, company number 07497755, at the above address.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Lammergeier

    BBC BREAKFAST

    I’ve just seen Dave Dillner (Sheffield Tree Action Groups) on TV, on Rustlings Road!🙂

    SUMMARY:

    Footway ridging and kerb disruption is being categorised as damaging and dangerous, with ridging also classed as DISCRIMINATORY (hindering access & mobility). However, alternative highway engineering construction specifications can address all these problems and avoid felling. Many trees are being felled because Amey predict they will be severely damaged during resurfacing works. Compliance with National Joint Utility Group Guidance & British Standard 5837 would avoid such damage.

    This is a fully funded £2.2bn city-wide project that threatens 75% of highway trees: 27,000 MATURE HIGHWAY TREES. They have up to £1.2bn from the Department for Transport – TAXPAYERS MONEY! There can be no excuse for non-compliance with arboricultural and urban forestry good practice!

    Currently, there are no balanced risk assessments – valuation of benefits and cost:benefit analyses NEEDED.

    In a communication dated 7th July, 2015, the Department for Transport stated (see Appendix 3 of the recent SORT letter, dated 29th January, 2016):

    “Local highway authorities, in your case Sheffield City Council, have a duty under Section 41 of the HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 to maintain the highways network in their area. THE ACT DOES NOT SET OUT SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF MAINTENANCE, as IT IS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY TO ASSESS which parts of its network are in need of repair and WHAT STANDARDS SHOULD BE APPLIED, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances. Central Government has no powers to override local decisions in these matters.”

    Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) gave a presentation at the second Streets Ahead Highway Tree Advisory Forum meeting, on 2nd September, 2015. He stated:

    “We are replacing about 70% of the City’s footways over the first FIVE YEARS. We have a duty to consider equalities. Now, in the past, existing TRIP HAZARDS have been left, and the Council has a defence under the Highways Act – SECTION 58 DEFENCE UNDER THE HIGHWAYS ACT – OF NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO DEAL WITH ALL THOSE DEFECTS.

    European Directive 2001/42/EC (legislation):

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

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

    The Government has agreed to adopt and apply the precautionary principle in its agreement to Agenda 21at the Earth Summit meeting at Rio, in 1992, which states:

    “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.’ (Principle 15)”.

    Guidance provided by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) – “the public body that advises the UK Government and devolved administrations on UK-wide and international nature conservation”:

    “The Precautionary Principle is one of the key elements for policy decisions concerning environmental protection and management. It is applied in the circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for concern that an activity is, or could, cause harm but where there is uncertainty about the probability of the risk and the degree of harm.”
    (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2007)

    http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2519

    Like

    Reply
    1. Lammergeier

      SAVING TREES

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

      “The other three Ds – Diseased, Damaging and Discriminatory – there is a degree or, erm, of judgement to be taken on it. That word was used earlier. So, JUST BECAUSE A TREE IS DISEASED DOESN’T MEAN TO SAY THAT THAT TREE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. It is the type of disease, the effect that disease will have on the tree’s life, err, whether it turns out to be dangerous, so on and so forth, and those judgements are made by tree people.
      […]
      In terms of damaging, yes, again, there is a degree of judgement and, erm, and, you know, if something can be done, IF AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION CAN BE APPLIED, THEN IT WILL BE APPLIED. Err, there was a lots [sic] of comment made earlier on about whether a tree is removed as a last resort; and a tree is removed as a LAST RESORT.

      Like

      Reply
  4. Lammergeier

    AMEY BLUNDER

    At the start of the week, on 15th February, 2016, the following letter arrived in my inbox. The author has given permission for me to post it here, in its entirety, for your benefit. The same day, it was also sent as a letter to THE STAR newspaper, but they have clearly chosen not to publish it.

    Dear Editor of The Star

    AMEY STREET LIGHTING NIGHTMARE

    On 29th January, Amey came knocking to request a car be moved so a hole could be dug for a street light, within 90cm of the trunk of my 25yo tree. I was instructed to contact Streets Ahead Customer Services (SACS: provided by Amey) if I wanted my objections to be considered and that regardless, a hole WOULD be dug in 3 days’ time. I did. Our house is at the end of a dead-end street that has never had lighting in the 45yrs (approx) that the street has existed.

    Amey started as they meant to carry on: heavy handed, ignorant, incompetent, reckless and negligent. Four days later, and the day after telling two of my local Councillors David Wain and Steve Robinson (SCC Environmental Technical Officer & SCC Head of Highway Maintenance, respectively: “experts” on the Highway Tree Advisory Forum panel) that a complaint investigation was underway, Amey excavated a hole. Two days AFTER works started, I received an e-mail to say the investigation had been completed and the light would be positioned where planned. No explanation or reasoning was provided, even though requested. On 8th Feb, they stuck a lighting column in the hole.

    Amey claimed to have investigated my objections, requests and suggestions. All were TOTALLY ignored. One objection was that the light would be just over 8m metres from our bedroom windows (as high as our roof), so would represent a nuisance. Mr Houston – Amey Street Lighting Supervisor – “guaranteed” that a “back-plate” (shield) would be fitted. It was not, even though Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) had also repeatedly assured us that one would be. Mr H said if the light was too bright, brightness could be adjusted and the unit could be tilted to direct light away from the home. He claimed that he had given his phone number to my neighbour and that if there were any problems all we had to do was call him. He claimed he wasn’t like other Amey supervisors that don’t care or respond to problems. Mr H said he couldn’t put the light elsewhere as he had to follow a plan that his boss had given him. He insisted that it was company policy not to give out contact details for any Amey department, so I couldn’t contact his boss. Mr Houston insisted he wasn’t prepared to discuss any of my suggestions or objections with his boss and that he would stick to the plan.

    Another objection was that not only did positioning a light so close to my tree represent non-compliance with industry good practice, but excavation so close to the tree, particularly with digging machinery and without an arboricultural supervision, would be likely to cause serious damage to roots of my tree (private property) that could, as Amey have repeatedly stated, result in decay and compromise structural integrity, therefore causing increased risk of danger to people and property and increased exposure to liability. It is precisely this kind of reckless damage that is likely to bring about the “catastrophic decline” in the number of highway trees that Cllr Bramall and Streets Ahead have predicted, because 27,000 of highway trees are mature and particularly vulnerable to negligent acts and omissions that arise as a result of non-compliance with current good practice: such as that detailed in letters from Save Our Roadside Trees campaigners (SORT), addressed to Cllr Fox, available in the “Resources” section at the savesheffieldtrees.org.uk website.

    On 11th Feb, Amey excavated a deep hole, fit for a coffin, within 33cm of the trunk of my tree, extending past it in both directions, using a digging machine. The hole remained open, with roots exposed, until 15th Feb, when they connected the light to an electricity cable. As they did the work, lights in our home flickered and our boiler (just months old) was damaged and stopped working, as did the electric ignition on our cooker. When we asked our neighbour for Mr Houston’s phone number, we discovered that what Mr H had actually provided was the SACS number – NOT HIS! It often takes SACS a month to respond to enquiries, when they bother.

    We (including elderly with cancer) are now stuck in a cold house, without hot water or the chance of a good night’s sleep. Cllr Fox, Mr Wain and Mr Robinson have all refused to provide contact details for the SCC people most directly responsible for the supervision, monitoring and enforcement of standards for highway works in close proximity to trees. Furthermore, all have neglected to fulfil the requirements of the Ảrhus Convention; to:

    “make appropriate practical and/or other provisions for the public to participate during the preparation of plans and programmes relating to the environment, within a transparent and fair framework, having provided the necessary information to the public.”

    No doubt our experience matches that of many thousands of Sheffield people. What is the Council doing to ensure that its acts and omissions are adequate and appropriate to fulfil their duties and responsibilities?

    Mr P. Isthoff

    Upper Don Valley.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Lammergeier

      I am told Amey also burst a nearby water main and that following connection of street lights to the power grid cable, voltage has been peaking at 295, blowing transformers and overheating many electrical appliances in numerous homes. Have you had a similar Amey experience?

      Like

      Reply

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