spilldig Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I guess the trees were there before you and your neighbours. So if there's a problem it's you that should be removed. No problem with the trees when we moved here Cyclone. It was 40 years ago. Now I wouldn't say the council were very much good back then either, but they did look after the trees, not just letting them go for years like they do now, along with the pavements, not to mention the roads. ---------- Post added 08-01-2015 at 10:10 ---------- No The lifespan of this particular tree is 500 years old She's just a teenager - and you need to check your facts dude Many trees can easily live to this age ---------- Post added 06-01-2015 at 22:12 ---------- We have many century old trees where we live And I have been so very grateful for every day that I have lived under them, side by side The only people who don't appreciate trees, in my experience, are those who are very disconnected from themselves, nature and reality. And spend every christmas buying loads of plastic **** that they fill their bins with the next day, without a care in the world! As if there was another planet we could plunder of resources.... The two generally go hand in hand. Capitalism and nature blindness - They're both a disease I don't run a car. Purely for environmental reasons. One or two of my friends are the same. Most tree hugging greens that I have met do run cars, but don't get me wrong on this. I have nothing at all against trees if the council maintain them. Edited January 8, 2015 by spilldig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) What species of tree lives to 500 years old? A quick google suggests that even an oak only has a 200 year lifespan. Oh come on Cyclone Are you just arguing for the sake of it I wonder.... Everyone knows that the Major Oak in Sherwood forest is 1000 years old Tsk! ---------- Post added 08-01-2015 at 16:22 ---------- They can live to a 1000 years +. ---------- Post added 07-01-2015 at 12:12 ---------- We don't need no new plantation We don't need chainsaws and oil No dark sarcasm in the boardroom AMEY leave them trees alone Hey! AMEY! Leave them trees alone! All in all it's just another tree on the road. All in all you're just another tree on the road. We don't need no propagation We don't need no sprouting acorns No dark sarcasm in the boardroom AMEY leave them trees alone Hey! AMEY! Leave them kids alone! All in all it's just another tree on the road. All in all you're just another tree on the road. "Wrong, Grow it again!" "If you don't let it grow, you can't have an ancient beauty. How can you have an ancient beauty if you don't let it grow" "You! Yes, you behind the hi-viz, stand still laddy!" I think I love you and want to have your babies ---------- Post added 08-01-2015 at 16:26 ---------- People have lost all common sense with regards to our amazing old Sheffield trees... SO EVERYONE WHO HAS A TREE THAT THEY LOVE AND WANT TO PROTECT, I WOULD URGE YOU TO WRITE TO SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL AND REQUEST A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!! Edited January 8, 2015 by Solomon1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkleyIan Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Just on observation from walking the dog round Walkley. Some trees were felled when Amey did the pavements. As far as I can see they've put in just as many new trees as they took out. There actually look to be new trees where I don't remember an old one being. In some cases they wont plant a new tree until its the right time of year. This was explained at the open day they held in Ecclesall Woods in summer 2013 (during which we got to use some of the tree climbing and maintenance equipment they use) They stated that felling a tree and not putting one back in the same spot was a last resort. From what I've seen in Walkley (eg Industry street) the new trees are in the same place as the ones they removed and have already become established. There is no net loss though granted it will take time for a new canopy to develop. I can confirm that the trees removed were in areas where the pavement had become badly damaged by the roots this from Amey / SCC https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/report_request/plants/trees.html response from Sheffield wildlife trust telling you what to do if you think its being removed for the wrong reason. http://www.wildsheffield.com/what-we-do/south-yorkshire-biodiversity/planning-and-policy/sheffield-street-trees I'm also told that many Sheffield trees were planted around the same time back in Victoria's reign and so are reaching old age together. The old wood wasn't much use for anything although the sculptor over at the saw mill has been using some of it. From what Ive seen so far I don't think there is some conspiracy to reduce the number of trees in Sheffield or cut them down for financial reasons but use those links on the wildlife trust page if you think otherwise I know this was on private property but I happened to be in the next street that day and heard the crash when it come down. Imagine the stink if it was one of the trees under Amey's maintenance http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2012-03-15/fallen-tree-crushes-car/ ---------- Post added 08-01-2015 at 17:17 ---------- Oh come on Cyclone Are you just arguing for the sake of it I wonder.... Everyone knows that the Major Oak in Sherwood forest is 1000 years old I appreciate the smiley because I cycle over the see the major oak. Its held held up by scaffolding and wires and has been for over 100 years. Its like the tree equivalent of somebody on a life support machine. Its said to be 800 - 1000 years old but I wouldn't fancy sitting under it Because of its national importance, conservation measures to the tree have been carried out continually since 1908. In Edwardian times, metal chains were used to support its weighty branches, and lead sheet attached to protect the trunk. In the late seventies, these measures were replaced by large wooden struts, supporting the heaviest branches. Today, slender steel poles prop the sprawling limbs of this forest giant. Tree surgeons check the oak periodically and carry out remedial work as needed. http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/enjoying/countryside/countryparks/sherwood/sherwoodforesthistory/majoroak/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I know this was on private property but I happened to be in the next street that day and heard the crash when it come down. Imagine the stink if it was one of the trees under Amey's maintenance Stop with the fear mongering Ian Cars crash, does that mean we get rid of all cars? No Trees do fall down, few and far between. That's life. Are you proposing that we fell all trees to avoid this?? No, that's obviously nonsense. A little basic common sense here please! ---------- Post added 08-01-2015 at 17:33 ---------- I appreciate the smiley because I cycle over the see the major oak. Its held held up by scaffolding and wires and has been for over 100 years. Its like the tree equivalent of somebody on a life support machine. Its said to be 800 - 1000 years old but I wouldn't fancy sitting under it Point taken But if it had been in Sheffield when it was a teenager at 200, it would have been felled having not lived for it's 800 other feckin years!! Edited January 8, 2015 by Solomon1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I said that the tree was likely reaching the end of it's natural lifespan. You claim it has a lifespan of 500 years. Are you going to tell us what the species is, or is it a secret? (And the oak, as per the link I posted, has a average lifespan of 200 years, although it can live for much longer). ---------- Post added 09-01-2015 at 08:54 ---------- No The lifespan of this particular tree is 500 years old Come one, what type of tree is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Native lad Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) To answer the question, I would question whether Amey's arboriculturists are "competent" "arboriculturists" and if not what is being done about it? For clarity, definitions of “competent” and “arboriculturist” are provided below, reproduced from British Standard 3998: Tree work – Recommendations (2010) : • competent person: “person who has training and experience relevant to the matter being addressed and an understanding of the requirements of the particular task being approached…” …”A competent person is expected to understand the hazards pertinent to the task being carried out and the methods to be implemented to eliminate or reduce the risks that can arise…” • Arboriculturist: A “person who, through relevant education, training and experience, has gained recognized expertise in the care of trees”. Also, since Amey is contracted by the council, acting on our behalf, who is evaluating Amey's work? It should be audited. Is there provision for revision of policy, practice and guidance? Is education, training and supervision appropriate and adequate? Why on earth is one of the largest and greenest cities in the UK without a tree strategy document? One should be produced and "adopted" by the Council as a "supplementary planning guidance" document within the Planning Policy Framework. Until such a document is produced, there will not be a cohesive, integrated approach to management of the city wide tree population, not least because no single document exists that outlines the range of policies, commitments and arboricultural best practice guidance and recommendations that should influence all aspects of tree management. Without such a document, people that are not arborists, and even a number of arborists, will struggle to identify, let alone understand or budget for all that they should be doing. It could help for the council to employ a couple of full time arborists to supervise Amey's contract. I think that when draughting the contract, arboricultural consultants should have been involved, acting on behalf of the Council. If draughted by people that are not arborists, the contract will be full of errors and omissions, which any commercial business, such as Amey, will surely exploit. As an arboriculturist myself, I think that everyone here with an interest in Sheffield's trees, their conservation, maintenance and associated policies, would benefit greatly from visiting the Stocksbridge Community Forum: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.or...ribute-website (if this link doesn't work, then type "oak" or "Amey" in to the search box) It is nearly a year since the large, veteran oak on Melbourne Rd was removed (on 1st April 2014), with the stump ground out. Locals were not consulted and objections were ignored. Prior to removal, Amey posted a site notice on the tree stating that the tree “…needs to be removed…” because “The tree has decay or disease”. When questioned about this, Amey responded as follows: “The tree to which you refer was found to be infected with Laetiporus sulphurous (LS). Given the tree’s location, within the carriageway, and, therefore, contrary to section 96 of the Highways Act 1980 and also the nature of decay associated with LS, a decision to fell the tree was made." After helpful suggestions from locals, Amey issued the following comment “due to public reaction, and the prominent nature of the tree and its associated amenity value, further investigation has been arranged i.e. Picus tomography”. Reference: https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpr...tree/#comments Given that large, veteran oaks are rare on Sheffield's streets, this particular tree was very special. As many inspectors of street trees may lack the necessary education and training to make truly informed assessments of hazard (things that could cause harm to people or property) and risk (the likelihood of harm) for large, veteran trees, it is appropriate for an *arboricultural consultant* with expertise in these particular aspects of arboriculture to be commissioned to make the necessary assessments and recommendations. In the case of the Melbourne Rd Oak, Amey did commission an arboricultural consultant, but then ignored his findings. Instead of coming up with a sensitive tree management plan, they felled the tree and ground out the roots. After the tree had been felled, it took four months of pestering and waiting before the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene provided any answers as to exactly why the tree had been felled. Actually, the councillor was asked a number of questions and the question of why was just one of them. His response (four months after the event) was: "The recommendations of both the independent and Amey tree inspections showed that a movement to heritage tree management would entail sacrifice of the existing aesthetic of the tree by means of removal of the full crown and flowing branch structure in factor of preserving the stem for habitat value. A proactive management schedule to prevent crown retrenchment would be required to retain the stem in this form without allowing the canopy to reform, coupled with annual progress monitoring of the decay until this reached a point where even removal of the stem would be required. Given the encroachment of the stem into the carriageway, which both the independent and Amey inspections highlighted as a formal highway obstruction, to retain the tree as a highway obstruction, whilst losing all of the amenity value by removal of the crown, it was felt by all parties that removal and replacement from a highway safety obligations perspective were the first and preferred option. I can assure you that this decision was not reached without significant and considerable wide ranging debate of all available options both between Amey and the Council as well as lengthy and detailed discussions with numerous specialists, independent experts as well as appropriate conservation officers." Reference: https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpr...-to-be-a-tree/ Others on this forum have mentioned Cllr Jack Scott. Cllr Scott was Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene at the time the oak was felled. In disgrace, he stood down from that position in November and was replaced by another Labour councillor, Jayne Dunn. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-30102792 The role of Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene is a very important position within the council. It involves responsibility for the oversight of a range of council services that have responsibility for trees. Any person in this role should ensure that the council is compliant with international, national, regional and local policies and commitments and that these policies and commitments are adequate to comply with international and national laws. Excerpts from the report "Trees in Towns 2: a new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management" (published 2008.), published by the Department for Communities and Local Government: "In many respects, the existence of a relevant [tree] strategy document is the most significant indicator of a planned approach to management..." (p. 158.) "Those LAs that have not got an existing tree strategy and are not in the process of developing one, need to make this an immediate priority..." …"Even the existence of a specific tree strategy does not always imply that this is an appropriate document to drive the LA’s tree programme. How the strategy was developed and what detailed policies and plans it contains will determine this." (p. 192) For the casual reader this is, perhaps, a largely boring document. However, the final section of the document - pages 487 to 644 - consists of 12 case studies (Appendix 14), provided as local authority examples of best practice. The document is substantial, with a hefty price tag. However, it can be purchased for a fraction of the standard price at: http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-johnst...-18906201.html An Executive Summary is available to available to download (as a free PDF document): http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...sintownsii.pdf Any local authority, or agent acting on behalf of a local authority (LA), and claiming to act in accordance with current best practice guidance and recommendations will be doing their best to achieve the recommendations outlined in this publication. In Sheffield Council’s “Sheffield’s Great Outdoors: Green and Open Space Strategy 2010-2030″ document, the Council committed to producing a “Trees & Woodland Strategy”. This, in all but name, should constitute a Tree Strategy. However, to date, Sheffield is still without such a strategy. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--ab...-standard.html When Cllr Scott was questioned about what he was doing to ensure that such a document would be produced, it was apparent that he was not even aware of such a commitment. He commented “We do not presently have a strategy solely for trees. My view is that this wouldn’t be very helpful given they are an intrinsic part of the broader environment and ecology. However, I am confident that we have adopted very good practice in this area.”. “…In my view, current documents are sufficient.” Section 18 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires local planning authorities to produce a Statement of Community Involvement. Here is a link to Sheffield's Statement: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/plannin...volvement.html Sheffield's Statement of Community Involvement was adopted in 2006 and was updated last year. Between 17 March and 17 April 2014, the public were invited to comment on the Consultation Draft. "The Statement says how we will consult people and organisations on the preparation of local planning policies and on planning application decisions". In 2004, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published "Community Involvement in Planning: The Government's Objectives". http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...ityinvolvement Excerpt: "This paper sets out the Government's general objectives for community involvement in planning to provide the context for the changes being made to the way that the planning system operates at national, regional and local levels" An excerpt from page 2 of Read, H., 2000. Veteran Trees: A guide to good management (IN13). Peterborough: English Nature: “…there has also been considerable loss of veteran tree habitat due to ill-informed safety management. The conservation and continuity of old trees in the landscape depends on better informed management, which takes into account their intrinsic values as well as the legal implications of ownership.” Freely available at: http://publications.naturalengland.o...lication/75035 Excerpts from "Common Sense Risk Management of Trees: Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers", authored by The National Tree Safety Group, published by the Forestry Commission (Forestry Commission stock code: FCM 024): An excerpt from p.25: “the pressures on tree owners to follow a risk-averse approach have never been greater. Publishing a tree strategy which clearly indicates how these management decisions are taken and by whom allows a local authority to temper a risk-averse outlook. As the house of Lords select committee on economics has put it: “…the most important thing government can do is to ensure that its own policy decisions are soundly based on available evidence and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, whether formed by the media or vested interests.”” Excerpt (from page 53): "OBVIOUS FEATURES THAT MAY INDICATE STRUCTURAL FAILURE it is inappropriate to react to tree defects as though they are all immediately hazardous. Growth deformities and other defects do not necessarily indicate structural weakness. When noting features that might indicate a likelihood of weakness or collapse, it is important that concern for risk of failure is restricted to events likely in the near future. trees exhibit a wide range of such features, and the scope for interpreting their significance is complex, particularly when considering the likelihood of non-immediate failure. for example, anomalies in tree growth may indicate internal decay and hollowing; but anomalies in form may be attributable to the tree having compensated for the decay, by mechanically adapting to natural processes." Excerpt from page 44: “WHAT IS A DEFECT? the term “defect” can be misleading, as the significance of structural deformities in trees (variations from a perceived norm) can be extremely variable. indeed, deformities can be a response to internal hollowing or decay, compensating for loss of wood strength and providing mechanical advantage, allowing the tree to adapt to wind and gravitational forces. With inadequate understanding, so-called defects may be erroneously confused with hazards and, furthermore, hazards with risk – so unless the risk of harm arising from a hazard is properly taken account of, management can be seriously misinformed, potentially leading to costly and unnecessary intervention. NTSG definition: “a defect in the context of the growing environment of a tree is a structural, health or environmental condition that could predispose a tree to failure”. This publication is freely available for download as a PDF document at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/p...Thesaurus=TRUE If this link doesn't work, visit the Forestry Commission website and search for "NTSG" in publications. ---------- Post added 15-03-2015 at 17:15 ---------- With regard to the current guidance and recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive, you will find detail and references within the aforementioned NTSG publication. Further extracts from that publication... An excerpt from p.20: “Very simply, a hazard is something that can cause harm and here, the hazard is a tree. Risk is characterised by reference to potential events and consequences, or a combination of the two. It is often expressed as a combination of an event’s consequences and the likelihood of it occurring. In this case, a potential consequence is death or serious injury. The important part of the assessment is the likelihood of either occurring.” An excerpt from p.22: “…With a UK population of roughly 60 million, this leads to an overall estimated risk of about one death in 10 million people per year from falling or fallen trees and branches. So far as non-fatal injuries in the UK are concerned, the number of accident and emergency cases (A&E) attributable to being struck by trees (about 55 a year) is exceedingly small compared with the roughly 2.9 million leisure-related A&E cases per year. Footballs (262,000), children’s swings (10,900) and even wheelie bins (2,200) are involved in many more incidents”. An excerpt from p.24: “HSE refers to the role of perception in its Sector Information Minute (guidance for HSE inspectors and local authority enforcement officers) as follows: “The risk, per tree, of causing fatality is of the order of one in 150 million for all trees in Britain or one in 10 million for those trees in, or adjacent to areas of public use. However, the low level of overall risk may not be perceived in this way by the public, particularly following an incident.” “ Edited March 29, 2015 by Native lad To remove the misplaced word "their". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Native lad Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) What species of tree lives to 500 years old? A quick google suggests that even an oak only has a 200 year lifespan. You may be interested in the following: White, J., 1998. Estimating the Age of Large and Veteran Trees in Britain, Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/searchall.nsf/GoogleResults?open=&cx=001774383426470524382%3Aa5mnshoy9zo&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Estimating If the link doesn't work, copy and paste the title in to the Forestry Commission website. Edited March 29, 2015 by Native lad To remove a non-functional web link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 To answer the question, I would question whether Amey's arboriculturests are "competent" "arboriculturists", and if not, what is being done about it? For clarity, definitions of “competent” and “arboriculturist” are provided below, reproduced from British Standard 3998: Tree work – Recommendations (2010): • competent person: “person who has training and experience relevant to the matter being addressed and an understanding of the requirements of the particular task being approached…” …”A competent person is expected to understand the hazards pertinent to the task being carried out and the methods to be implemented to eliminate or reduce the risks that can arise…” • Arboriculturist: A “person who, through relevant education, training and experience, has gained recognized expertise in the care of trees”. Also, since Amey is contracted by the council, acting on our behalf, who is evaluating their Amey's work? It should be audited. Is there provision for revision of policy, practice and guidance? Is education, training and supervision appropriate and adequate? Why on earth is one of the largest and greenest cities inn the UK without a tree strategy document? One should be produced and "adopted" by the Council as a "supplementary planning guidance" document within the Planning Policy Framework. I think that when draughting the contract, arboricultural consultants should have been involved, acting on behalf of the Council. If draughted by people that are not arborists, the contract will be full of errors and omissions, which any commercial business, such as Amey, will surely exploit. As an arboriculturist (tree carer) myself, I think that everyone here with an interest in Sheffield's trees, their conservation, maintenance and associated policies, would benefit greatly from visiting the Stocksbridge Community Forum: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.or...ribute-website (if this link doesn't work, then type "oak" or "Amey" in to the search box) It is nearly a year since the large, veteran oak on Melbourne Rd was removed (on 1st April 2014), with the stump ground out. Locals were not consulted and objections were ignored. Prior to removal, Amey posted a site notice on the tree stating that the tree “…needs to be removed…” because “The tree has decay or disease”. When questioned about this, Amey responded as follows: “The tree to which you refer was found to be infected with Laetiporus sulphurous (LS). Given the tree’s location, within the carriageway, and, therefore, contrary to section 96 of the Highways Act 1980 and also the nature of decay associated with LS, a decision to fell the tree was made." After helpful suggestions from locals, Amey issued the following comment “due to public reaction, and the prominent nature of the tree and its associated amenity value, further investigation has been arranged i.e. Picus tomography”. Reference: https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpr...tree/#comments Given that large, veteran oaks are rare on Sheffield's streets, this particular tree was very special. As many inspectors of street trees may lack the necessary education and training to make truly informed assessments of hazard (things that could cause harm to people or property) and risk (the likelihood of harm) for large, veteran trees, it is appropriate for an *arboricultural consultant* with expertise in these particular aspects of arboriculture to be commissioned to make the necessary assessments and recommendations. In the case of the Melbourne Rd Oak, Amey did commission an arboricultural consultant, but then ignored his findings. Instead of coming up with a sensitive tree management plan, they felled the tree and ground out the roots. After the tree had been felled, it took four months of pestering and waiting before the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene provided any answers as to exactly why the tree had been felled. Actually, the councillor was asked a number of questions and the question of why was just one of them. His response (four months after the event) was: "The recommendations of both the independent and Amey tree inspections showed that a movement to heritage tree management would entail sacrifice of the existing aesthetic of the tree by means of removal of the full crown and flowing branch structure in factor of preserving the stem for habitat value. A proactive management schedule to prevent crown retrenchment would be required to retain the stem in this form without allowing the canopy to reform, coupled with annual progress monitoring of the decay until this reached a point where even removal of the stem would be required. Given the encroachment of the stem into the carriageway, which both the independent and Amey inspections highlighted as a formal highway obstruction, to retain the tree as a highway obstruction, whilst losing all of the amenity value by removal of the crown, it was felt by all parties that removal and replacement from a highway safety obligations perspective were the first and preferred option. I can assure you that this decision was not reached without significant and considerable wide ranging debate of all available options both between Amey and the Council as well as lengthy and detailed discussions with numerous specialists, independent experts as well as appropriate conservation officers." Reference: https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpr...-to-be-a-tree/ Others on this forum have mentioned Cllr Jack Scott. Cllr Scott was *Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene* at the time the oak was felled. In disgrace, he stood down from that position in November and was replaced by another Labour councillor, Jayne Dunn. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-30102792 The role of Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene is a very important position within the council. It involves responsibility for the oversight of a range of council services that have responsibility for trees. Any person in this role should ensure that the council is compliant with international, national, regional and local policies and commitments and that these policies and commitments are adequate to comply with international and national laws. Excerpts from the report "Trees in Towns 2: a new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management" (published 2008.), published by the Department for Communities and Local Government: "In many respects, the existence of a relevant [tree] strategy document is the most significant indicator of a planned approach to management..." (p. 158.) "Those LAs that have not got an existing tree strategy and are not in the process of developing one, need to make this an immediate priority..." …"Even the existence of a specific tree strategy does not always imply that this is an appropriate document to drive the LA’s tree programme. How the strategy was developed and what detailed policies and plans it contains will determine this." (p. 192) For the casual reader this is, perhaps, a largely boring document. However, the final section of the document - pages 487 to 644 - consists of 12 case studies (Appendix 14), provided as local authority examples of best practice. The document is substantial, with a hefty price tag. However, it can be purchased for a fraction of the standard price at: http://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-johnst...-18906201.html An Executive Summary is available to available to download (as a free PDF document): http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...sintownsii.pdf Any local authority, or agent acting on behalf of a local authority (LA), and claiming to act in accordance with current best practice guidance and recommendations will be doing their best to achieve the recommendations outlined in this publication. In Sheffield Council’s “Sheffield’s Great Outdoors: Green and Open Space Strategy 2010-2030″ document, the Council committed to producing a “Trees & Woodland Strategy”. This, in all but name, should constitute a Tree Strategy. However, to date, Sheffield is still without such a strategy. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--ab...-standard.html When Cllr Scott was questioned about what he was doing to ensure that such a document would be produced, it was apparent that he was not even aware of such a commitment. He commented "“We do not presently have a strategy solely for trees. My view is that this wouldn’t be very helpful given they are an intrinsic part of the broader environment and ecology. However, I am confident that we have adopted very good practice in this area.”. “…In my view, current documents are sufficient.” Section 18 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires local planning authorities to produce a Statement of Community Involvement. Here is a link to Sheffield's Statement: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/plannin...volvement.html Sheffield's Statement of Community Involvement was adopted in 2006 and was updated last year. Between 17 March and 17 April 2014, the public were invited to comment on the Consultation Draft. "The Statement says how we will consult people and organisations on the preparation of local planning policies and on planning application decisions". In 2004, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published "Community Involvement in Planning: The Government's Objectives". http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...ityinvolvement Excerpt: "This paper sets out the Government's general objectives for community involvement in planning to provide the context for the changes being made to the way that the planning system operates at national, regional and local levels" “…there has also been considerable loss of veteran tree habitat due to ill-informed safety management. The conservation and continuity of old trees in the landscape depends on better informed management, which takes into account their intrinsic values as well as the legal implications of ownership.” (Read, 2000, p. 2) Read, H., 2000. Veteran Trees: A guide to good management (IN13). Peterborough: English Nature. Freely available at: http://publications.naturalengland.o...lication/75035 Excerpts from "Common Sense Risk Management of Trees: Guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers", authored by The National Tree Safety Group, published by the Forestry Commission (Forestry Commission stock code: FCM 024): An excerpt from p.25: “the pressures on tree owners to follow a risk-averse approach have never been greater. Publishing a tree strategy which clearly indicates how these management decisions are taken and by whom allows a local authority to temper a risk-averse outlook. As the house of Lords select committee on economics has put it: “…the most important thing government can do is to ensure that its own policy decisions are soundly based on available evidence and not unduly influenced by transitory or exaggerated opinions, whether formed by the media or vested interests.”” Excerpt (from page 53): "OBVIOUS FEATURES THAT MAY INDICATE STRUCTURAL FAILURE it is inappropriate to react to tree defects as though they are all immediately hazardous. Growth deformities and other defects do not necessarily indicate structural weakness. When noting features that might indicate a likelihood of weakness or collapse, it is important that concern for risk of failure is restricted to events likely in the near future. trees exhibit a wide range of such features, and the scope for interpreting their significance is complex, particularly when considering the likelihood of non-immediate failure. for example, anomalies in tree growth may indicate internal decay and hollowing; but anomalies in form may be attributable to the tree having compensated for the decay, by mechanically adapting to natural processes." Excerpt from page 44: “WHAT IS A DEFECT? the term “defect” can be misleading, as the significance of structural deformities in trees (variations from a perceived norm) can be extremely variable. indeed, deformities can be a response to internal hollowing or decay, compensating for loss of wood strength and providing mechanical advantage, allowing the tree to adapt to wind and gravitational forces. With inadequate understanding, so-called defects may be erroneously confused with hazards and, furthermore, hazards with risk – so unless the risk of harm arising from a hazard is properly taken account of, management can be seriously misinformed, potentially leading to costly and unnecessary intervention. NTSG definition: “a defect in the context of the growing environment of a tree is a structural, health or environmental condition that could predispose a tree to failure”. This publication is freely available for download as a PDF document at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/p...Thesaurus=TRUE If this link doesn't work, visit the Forestry Commission website and search for "NTSG" in publications. ---------- Post added 15-03-2015 at 17:15 ---------- With regard to the current guidance and recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive, you will find detail and references within the aforementioned NTSG publication. Further extracts from that publication... An excerpt from p.20: “Very simply, a hazard is something that can cause harm and here, the hazard is a tree. Risk is characterised by reference to potential events and consequences, or a combination of the two. It is often expressed as a combination of an event’s consequences and the likelihood of it occurring. In this case, a potential consequence is death or serious injury. The important part of the assessment is the likelihood of either occurring.” An excerpt from p.22: “…With a UK population of roughly 60 million, this leads to an overall estimated risk of about one death in 10 million people per year from falling or fallen trees and branches. So far as non-fatal injuries in the UK are concerned, the number of accident and emergency cases (A&E) attributable to being struck by trees (about 55 a year) is exceedingly small compared with the roughly 2.9 million leisure-related A&E cases per year. Footballs (262,000), children’s swings (10,900) and even wheelie bins (2,200) are involved in many more incidents”. An excerpt from p.24: “HSE refers to the role of perception in its Sector Information Minute (guidance for HSE inspectors and local authority enforcement officers) as follows: “The risk, per tree, of causing fatality is of the order of one in 150 million for all trees in Britain or one in 10 million for those trees in, or adjacent to areas of public use. However, the low level of overall risk may not be perceived in this way by the public, particularly following an incident.” “ I'm one of a group fighting to save 129 healthy trees from being cut down to make way for a bus lane. Do the people who serve on this council not realise that the city is reputed to take great pride in its green credentials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Native lad Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) Do the people who serve on this council not realise that the city is reputed to take great pride in its green credentials? The council produce many fine words, but there is little action that follows. Their policy documents and press releases are all smoke and mirrors - all talk, no walk. One key problem is that there is no single tree strategy document that ALL interested parties can turn to for guidance. As councillors are not arboriculturists, they have to rely on what they are told by those who claim to have relevant, appropriate levels of specialist skill and knowledge. However, how can they be expected to discern who has such skills/knowledge? A tree strategy document would settle all such questions. Once, while employed by the largest private forestry business in the UK, a manager once told me "if you can manage a shop, you can manage a tree population". His view was that management skills remain the same regardless of which business sector you work in. I'm afraid that this is also an attitude prevalent at every level of local government (speaking from personal experience). It is an ignorant/ uneducated/ misinformed view. Unfortunately, those that hold the purse strings for local government arboriculture are business people without any arboricultural education, knowledge, training or experience, so they do not and cannot appreciate the full effects of the decisions they make. A Tree Strategy document, as defined in the "Trees In Towns 2" report, would certainly help those that hold the purse strings to make better decisions. Although general management skills, particularly administrative skills, are transferable, I can't stress strongly enough the importance of specific education and training in arboriculture, not least because trees are living organisms and growth and development are iterative processes, influenced by a range of biotic and abiotic factors. It was no surprise to me when the manager that made the aforementioned comment admitted to me that his only previous work experience had been as a night club bouncer. We NEED to have arboricultural managers that are educated, trained and experienced in arboriculture, if sensible tree population management decisions are to be made. If any of these three criteria are not met, problems and mistakes will certainly arise and will be more severe than they would otherwise be. By the way, you would probably find British Standard 5837 (2012) of use. It may interest you to know that the Principal Planning Officer (Howard Baxter) made the following comments last year (June 2014) when it was suggested to him that that 1) we should have a Tree Strategy; 2) that there is absolutely no point in wasting time and money on draughting documents with fine words if works are not appropriately supervised and conditions enforced; 3) that a small fortune has been spent on new trees in recent years, but little thought appears to have been given to the requirements necessary to help ensure successful establishment; 4) that he should always consult an arboriculturist when matters related to trees arise in order to meet his duty under section 197 Town and Country Planning Act 1990: "...(a) to ensure, whenever it is appropriate, that in granting planning permission for any development adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees; and (b) to make such orders under section 198 as appear to the authority to be necessary in connection with the grant of such permission, whether for giving effect to such conditions or otherwise”. Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/part/VIII “Thank you for your email. I have forwarded a copy to… the Landscape Manager concerning a tree strategy document. It is likely that resource restrictions will prevent the Council following best practice, as you will know the Council has been cutting back on staff resources for a number of years now and this is likely to continue for the next few years. I am afraid in the current climate we are likely to be doing less rather than more.” When Mr Baxter's commens were communicated to Cllr Jack Scott (July 2014), his response was as follows: "Officers' comments about the cuts we're facing are a matter of public record - it would be unusual if anything else was said, given our funding from government has reduced by 50% and we have had cuts totally £230m. " ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Just a thought, but if you could put a monetary value on the range of ecosystem services that the trees you hope to save provide, you would have a stronger argument for their retention. An assessment of amenity value ("amenity valuation": an assessment of aesthetic value) would be good too. Unattractive though doing this is, with a financial value you are better able to bargain for compensation of any private loss, for the benefit of the local community (which could benefit local community projects). Further information and links to documents explaining the range of methods available to do this can be found on the Stocksbridge community Forum: https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/news/contribute-website ---------- Post added 15-03-2015 at 22:39 ---------- ---------- Post added 15-03-2015 at 22:42 ---------- I feel exactly the same way as you drummer! And it seems we're not alone on here.....wouldn't it be good if all of us tree warriors got together and protected Sheffield's Trees in the way that they should be! RESPONSIBLE DIRECT ACTION... Why not become a voluntary Tree Warden? As such, you would help identify trees worthy of protection, identify hazards, protect and care for trees in your local neighbourhood, and help the local authority to monitor tree works, so as to ensure compliance with the aforementioned British Standards. http://www.treecouncil.org.uk/tree-wardens Sheffield must be the only large city in the UK without a single tree warden in any area of the city! Edited March 18, 2015 by Native lad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 RESPONSIBLE DIRECT ACTION... Why not become a voluntary Tree Warden? As such, you would help identify trees worthy of protection, identify hazards, protect and care for trees in your local neighbourhood, and help the local authority to monitor tree works, so as to ensure compliance with the aforementioned British Standards. http://www.treecouncil.org.uk/tree-wardens Sheffield must be the only large city in the UK without a single tree warden in any area of the city! Where have you BEEN dude?? Thank you for your posts, very much appreciated. Will check out The Stocksbridge forum and look into Tree Wardenship. Thanks man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts