Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of Evidence Based Policy and Air Quality

5.1.1

Vanessa Lygo commented that evidence based policy demanded a rational, rigorous and systematic approach. It was based on the premise that policy decisions should be informed by a wide range of available evidence and should include rational analysis. It was now widely recognised that policy decision making which was based on systematic evidence was seen to produce better outcomes.

5.1.2

Ms. Lygo asked did this Council and its Members support and promote the concept of evidence based policy development (EPB)? And was the proposed Clean Air Strategy underpinned by the wide body of evidence that supported different methods of tackling air pollution?

5.1.3

In response, Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability, commented that the Council did support evidence based policy. Some of the solutions to reducing air pollution were not cheap, easy and popular but they were the right things to do. The Strategy did reference an evidence based approach. The Council needed to win hearts and minds and interventions needed to be based on evidence and thought through properly.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Clean Air Strategy

5.2.1

Brian Mosley asked, given the overwhelming body of scientific evidence demonstrating the valuable services of urban roadside trees in improving local air quality, how did the Council explain the glaring omission in this proposed Clean Air Strategy? Why was there no consideration of urban vegetation and trees included in this purported progressive and modern strategy?

5.2.2

Councillor Jack Scott responded that pages 56/57 of the Strategy was explicit about the role trees could have. The Council had planted 65,000 new trees. Dead trees did not improve air quality. The Council could increase street trees by 10x and it would have a negligible impact on air quality.

5.2.3

The key was to prevent dangerous emissions in the first place. The Clean Air Strategy was the boldest plan in the country to try and improve air quality. Councillor Scott understood concerns in respect of street trees but the Council could quadruple the number of trees in the City and it would still have a negligible impact on air quality.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Clean Air Strategy

5.3.1

Neil Parry commented that he welcomed the new Clean Air Strategy and believed it to be bold and ambitious. The citizens of Sheffield wanted this public health emergency sorting out for the sake of the health of their families. The Strategy stated “working together to tackle the sources of air pollution will create a healthy thriving City”.

5.3.2

Mr Parry added that the Air Quality Action Plan approved by the Council in 2013 was also ambitious but seen as anti-business by some senior Councillors and Officers. This perpetuated the notion that if something was good for the environment it must be bad for business. Even though senior Officers were designated champions charged with implementing the action plan, Mr Parry believed it had a very low priority and failed to make an impact.

5.3.3

Mr Parry therefore asked will the implementation of the Clean Air Strategy be a high priority for the Council and Officers or be seen as another task to be done after their day’s work has finished?

5.3.4

Councillor Jack Scott welcomed Mr Parry’s support for the Strategy. The Strategy stated that clean air was a good driver for economic growth. He also welcomed the challenge to the Council and believed that the Strategy should be fundamental to people’s day job. He understood the scepticism following the Air Quality Action Plan but saw renewed enthusiasm to make this Strategy work. Councillor Scott believed it was a social justice issue and there could not be a fairer City without cleaner air in poorer areas. The Council could not implement the Strategy on its own and needed to work with partners to create cleaner air. Following approval of the Strategy at the meeting today, further plans would be brought forward as to how the Strategy would be implemented.

5.4

Public Questions in respect of War Memorial Trees

5.4.1

Sue Rodgers referred to the Cabinet report, on the agenda for the meeting, in respect of War Memorial Trees. She referred to the statement in the report which read that, ‘following discussions with residents on the War Memorial streets, practical and affordable options be considered to replant trees that were lost and not replaced in previous years prior to the current Streets Ahead contract’.

5.4.2

Ms. Rodgers commented that there had been no invitation or discussions to her knowledge to residents on Oxford Street and she suspected neither Binfield or Frechville Street and possibly not Springvale Road. Could the Council evidence this consultation?

5.4.3

Ms. Rodgers further referred to the statement in the Cabinet report that ‘the Council would guarantee that the 300 new trees in parks and any possible replacement trees in parks and any possible replacement trees on the war memorial streets, be replanted in perpetuity’. Ms. Rodgers asked what did this mean? And had there been any Citywide consultation on this?

5.4.4

Ms. Rodgers further referred to the statement in the Cabinet report which read ‘the survey gauged public reaction to specific tree proposals on a street by street basis. Any streets where a majority of respondents disagreed with the proposed works were referred to the Independent Tree Panel (ITP) for an independent second opinion’. Ms. Rodgers believed that, at the time of this survey, there was no knowledge of the memorial status of the trees on Oxford Street, discovered by Ms. Rodgers after the survey. Also, she believed there had been no consultation survey on trees on Tay Street even though these trees were known to be memorial trees.

5.4.5

Ms. Rodgers then referred to the statement in the Cabinet report which said that ‘Tay Street was not included in the household survey as there were no residences. Two trees needed to be replaced. Both were damaging the highway and one was dying’. Ms. Rodgers commented that, from the information given to residents by the Council to identify the trees, the one purported to be dying looked completely healthy and repeated requests and promises for this to be reviewed by the ITP had been ignored.

5.4.6

Ms Rodgers further referenced the Cabinet report which stated ‘Oxford Street 8 trees referred to the ITP. ITP agreed with the Council for replacement of 4 trees and proposed engineering works on 4 trees. Following further review the Council agreed with ITP advice and had found a solution to retain 3 of the 4 trees the ITP advised could be retained’. Ms. Rodgers commented that the fourth tree which the ITP wished to retain and which was condemned by the Council was the tree with the highest CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees) of trees under threat surveyed in Sheffield. It was located on a busy residential road next to a tall block of flats with many residents who would benefit from its air cleaning attributes. Ms. Rodgers believed the 3 trees at the top of the street would benefit from islands into the street which would also benefit traffic calming which was needed as the street was a rat run.

5.4.7

In concluding, Ms. Rodgers commented that she would be grateful if her observations, comments and questions could be addressed at the meeting.

5.4.8

Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, responded that the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee had been requested to look at the issue of the War Memorial trees and their recommendations had been accepted by Cabinet. People had fed their views into the Council and many petitions had been submitted. Any trees that have to be felled will be replaced and kept in perpetuity. Any of the trees which had been felled previously would be replaced where it was feasible.

5.4.9

Paul Billington, Director of Culture and Environment, commented that the Judge, in a recent legal judgement regarding trees, accepted that a number of meetings had taken place regarding the issue of tree felling. Significant public consultation had taken place and an open public meeting had taken place in respect of Western Road. The Council had not been able to commit previously to replacing trees in perpetuity but the report on the agenda for this meeting was now recommending that this take place.

5.4.10

Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, confirmed that 300 trees would be planted in parks around the City and discussions were now being held as to the locations for these. The locations would be presented for public consultation and it was hoped that they would be planted for the 100^th anniversary of the end of the First World War.

5.4.11

Paul Billington added that a heritage review had not taken place. This was a highways maintenance contract and not just about trees. The Council’s position had been supported by the Courts on two occasions. The Council was committed to preserving war memorials so he hoped that the public could support the proposals going forward.

5.5

Public Questions in respect of War Memorial Trees

5.5.1

Elizabeth Motley commented that engineering solutions allowed within the Streets Ahead Contract were the use of thinner profile kerbs, excavations for root examination, rampling or reprofiling, flexible paving or surfacing, removal of displaced kerbs and filling of pavement cracks, root pruning, root shaving, root barriers and guidance panels, tree growth retardant, the creation of larger tree pits, heavy crown reduction or pollarding to stunt tree growth and retention of dead, dying, dangerous and diseased trees for their habitat value. Creation of new tree pits which allow air and water to pass deep into the roots, which may lead to surface level roots subsidising back down.

5.5.2

Ms. Motley added that, where tree roots were damaging buildings, if this was low garden walls, then she believed that these could be rebuilt at a likely cheaper cost than felling a tree and replanting would be. Surely, therefore felling should be a last resort?

5.5.3

Ms. Motley then referred to the costings presented in the report on the agenda for the meeting. She asked if they had been independently assessed by a Quantity Surveyor or estimator, who had no connection to Amey? If not, how could we ensure that they represented value for money?

5.5.4

Ms. Motley then asked how had the need for 5m length build outs been calculated? Had an independent civil engineer looked at this and made an independent assessment?

5.5.5

Ms. Motley further commented that she believed that it had been assessed by independent experts that only three build outs were necessary for the whole length of Western Road. How had this led to the assumption that 35 car parking spaces will be lost?

5.5.6

Ms. Motley also asked how had the sum of £500k come about for retaining the trees? Had this cost been independently cross checked? She further asked why weren’t these figures drawn up by independent experts, not the actual contractor doing the work? She concluded by commenting that the trees proposed to be felled were street related and not park related. Their connection was in the same streets where the boys that were killed in the wars walked to school. She did not believe putting them in parks was acceptable as it did not represent the same connection, memory and local linkages.

5.5.7

Councillor Bryan Lodge responded that engineering solutions were undertaken as a matter of course across the City, for example on Carterknowle Road, and these incidences were not recorded as they were undertaken as part of routine ongoing work. He had seen evidence of the damage caused to people’s properties and engineering solutions would not work with trees in these circumstances.

5.5.8

Councillor Lodge believed the views of tree protestors were not shared by everyone across the City but people did not feel comfortable in coming forward to share the alternative viewpoint because of the behaviour of some of the protestors.

5.5.9

Existing trees would be replaced as well as those that had been felled in the past. Trees across the City were being replaced and the Council was planting around an extra 600 trees. He believed that it was right to replace the trees near the school and an additional 300 trees would be planted in parks across the City.

5.5.10

Councillor Lodge accepted there was cynicism in relation to the costs quoted but further detail could not be released due to commercial sensitivity. Costs were looked at as part of the bidding process and the previous Council Administration had been involved in looking at the specification. Amey’s schedule of rates were competitive compared to other options and Councillor Lodge was confident that it was value for money.

5.5.11

If approval was given at the meeting today, Amey would not necessarily be given the contract and it would go out to tender. He was confident that the figures in relation to the parking spaces was correct.

5.6

Public Question in respect of War Memorial Trees

5.6.1

Nicky Bea commented that she believed it was very disrespectful to the fallen World War 1 Soldiers to fell the memorial trees. Had the Council considered seeking funding from memorial or military groups to save the trees and, if not, why not?

5.6.2

Councillor Lodge stated that this was not a decision taken lightly. He believed it was disrespectful to those that had their properties, drives etc. damaged to not undertake the work to prevent this in the future. Consideration was undertaken of alternative funding but no groups had come forward to provide this.

5.7

Public Question in respect of War Memorial Trees

5.7.1

David Dilner asked how many of the 41 Memorial Trees were unsaveable using any of the 14 engineering solutions in the Streets Ahead Contract that came at no extra cost to the taxpayer?

5.7.2

Councillor Lodge responded that the trees referred to in the report had been identified as the engineering solutions would not resolve the damage caused to properties, driveways, boundary walls etc. and the damage that they could cause in the future.

5.8

Public Questions in respect of War Memorial Trees

5.8.1

Reuben Fowles asked the following questions in respect of the War Memorial Trees:-

(i) Has Amey produced any paperwork to show that they have considered all the possible engineering solutions provided for in the Streets Ahead Contract and their reasons for excluding their use for each endangered tree on Western Road? Can we see this paperwork?

(ii) Would it be possible to plant any more saplings in the spaces along Western Road and Mona Road and review the trees again every five years or so to produce a rolling scheme of review, repair and replacement rather than tearing down half the mature trees in one fell move and worsening the level of airborne pollutants for decades to come?

(iii) The ITP report recommended saving eleven of the trees listed for removal. Once again, Mr Fowles believed, their findings had been ignored. Why did Amey have the final jurisdiction over the street trees owned by the City of Sheffield? Can we see the Amey report that has refuted all the ITP recommendations for Western Road?

(iv) After the Council Scrutiny Committee, the residents of Western Road were promised further consultation to consider their views on the report. Since then, the residents had heard nothing. When will this pledge be honoured?

5.8.2

Councillor Bryan Lodge commented that the Council’s response to the ITP findings was available on the Council’s website. The City Council made the final decision and not Amey. Further investigation work had taken place and it was found that the solutions were not possible. Some of the trees the ITP had identified for solutions had been saved and details of this were available on the Council’s website.

5.9

Public Questions in respect of War Memorial Trees

5.9.1

Arthur Baker asked the following questions in respect of War Memorial trees:-

(i) How much confidence does the Council have in the Amey estimate of £310,000 for the cost of saving the Western Road memorial trees? Does the Council have any plans to consult any other organisation for a more independent estimate of these costs?

(ii) Could the Leader of the Council give Mr Baker, as a resident of Western Road, a categorical assurance that ‘masked Council thugs’ will not be used on Western Road during tree felling as they had been used in other parts of the City?

(iii) Would the Leader of the Council agree with Mr Baker and the Secretary of State for the Environment that the Council’s plan to chop down 23 War Memorial trees on Western Road, Crookes was ‘absolutely bonkers’. Would she also agree that Sheffield was in danger of being regarded as ‘a second rate City run by a third rate Council’.

5.9.2

In responding to the question, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Dore, commented that some of the language in Mr Baker’s questions was unhelpful and the Council did not employ masked operatives. Councillor Lodge had responded to previous questioners in relation to the cost estimates.

5.10

Public Question in respect of Clean Air Strategy

5.10.1

Marie Miller commented that the Cabinet was being asked at today’s meeting to approve a Clean Air Strategy for Sheffield. Why then were the Council planning to remove healthy trees on a road where children walked to the local primary school? Ms. Miller stated that it was proven that trees absorbed air pollution.

5.10.2

Councillor Jack Scott responded that there was already evidence of poor air quality across the City and retaining trees would not make a measurable difference to this. No City in the world would be able to plant enough trees to tackle the air quality problem. He did not disagree with the other benefits that trees could have which was why the Council was undertaking a replanting programme. Planting more trees was not the solution to tackling air quality and solutions needed to be bolder and would probably be more expensive. More children needed to be encouraged to walk to school and public transport needed to be improved.

5.11

Public Questions in respect of War Memorial Trees

5.11.1

Alan Storey asked the following questions in respect of War Memorial trees:-

(i) In 1919 the working class community of Crookes organised a public subscription so that they could plant trees on Western Road to remember local lads who had died in World War 1. Later, the trees were turned over to the City Council to act as the protectors/guardians/stewards of these trees. What moral and legal authority did the City Council have to tear down those healthy trees?

(ii) The Cabinet is acting on the report of the Working Party on Western Road trees which endorsed what it called “the concept of the trees” on Western Road, meaning that it was ok to fell some of the healthy trees as long as saplings were planted in their place and the “concept of the trees” was maintained. Did the Council know of anyone who lived on Western Road who endorsed this concept?

(iii) A petition asking the Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn MP, to mediate the Sheffield trees debate, including the trees on Western Road, between the City Council and tree campaigners, has gathered more than 10,500 signatures. If Corbyn agrees to act as a mediator, will the City Council come to the table?

(iv) When Western Road residents were last at the City Council Cabinet meeting on 20 September, almost three months ago, they were informed that the Cabinet would consult with Western Road residents before making any decisions. Could the Cabinet explain why it had not done so or even answer an email sent by Mr Storey’s neighbour to the Executive Director, Place about the plans?

(v) Yesterday morning at 4:15 a.m. Amey/Acorn sent a tree ‘crew’ to do its work on the cherry trees of Abbeydale Park Rise. Did the Council plan to do the same thing on Western Road?

(vi) It was agreed that, if you were building a snooker table, it was a good idea to have perfectly straight sides and not to have roots growing out a few centimetres from the cushions. Substitute “kerbs” for “cushions”. Why was this a problem on Western Road?

5.11.2

Councillor Bryan Lodge responded that not all of the trees which had been planted in 1919 had survived and some had been replaced. Why was that ok then and not now? The City was a different place to when the trees were planted and handed over to the Council and to when some of the trees were replanted in the 1940’s. He had received comments from some residents that it was difficult to walk on Western Road due to some of the trees.

5.11.3

In respect of Abbeydale Park Rise, Amey stewards would not be required if some residents had not been acting in a sinister manner as vigilantes or climbing into safety zones. Councillor Lodge had always stated that he supported peaceful protest and he therefore asked protestors to act in a peaceful manner and respect the Court injunction.

5.11.4

Paul Billington added that he had had discussions with many organisations who were aware of the solutions outside of the contract and the issues in respect of the War Memorial trees and none had been willing to offer funding. The War Memorial Trust said that they could offer £30k but that would not cover the cost of the War Memorial trees. Trees for Cities tended to offer low grants, on average around £7k. He would, however, continue to talk to the organisations.

5.11.5

Councillor Julie Dore added that if Jeremy Corbyn wished to approach her with any questions or concerns she would engage with him accordingly.