Council to ‘accelerate’ felling of 500 trees
ABOUT 1,000 trees are to be axed in Sheffield by the end of the year – with 500 already gone since the start of legal action against protesters last month.
Sheffield City Council says it would face “catastrophic financial consequences” if the work, which is part of a £2.2bn PFI contract for highways improvements, is not completed by the end of the year and will now “accelerate” the programme in the wake of a High Court judgement barring campaigners from “direct action” protests.
In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Males granted injunctions against protesters who have been stopping the removal of trees by standing directly underneath them inside workmen’s “safety zones”.
In his judgment he stated: “The council is concerned that this work should be completed by December 31, 2017 within the core investment period of the PFI contract. At the present time, there remain about 1,000 trees which in the council’s view need to be removed.”
But the council today said around 500 trees have already gone since court papers were filed in early July. All the trees are being replaced and the council has promised to plant an additional 600 around the city.
The council and PFI contractor Amey have been attempting to remove 6,000 of Sheffield’s 36,000 street trees as part of the 25-year highways contract, which started in 2012 and involves the majority of work taking place by the end of this year before the contract moves into a “maintenance” phase. While the council insists
only trees that are dead, dying, diseased or dangerous are being removed and then replaced, protesters argue that many do not need to be chopped down and the work is being carried out as a cost-cutting exercise.
Mr Justice Males said there had been “some mistakes” in the removal of healthy trees, that Amey is “not a charity” and is seeking to make money from the PFI contract and Sheffield Council’s decision-making process on the issue was “largely dictated by financial considerations”.
But he rejected an allegation made by campaigners “that healthy trees are being felled because Amey is exercising improper influence over the council with a view to illegitimate profiteering”.
“I have found that allegation to be detached from reality in the light of the evidence before me,” he said.
Labour-led Sheffield Council had asked for orders barring three named people, including one of its own Green Party councillors, and “persons unknown” from “continuing to take unlawful direct action” or from encouraging others to direct action.
The three named people were Councillor Alison Teal, David Dillner and Calvin Payne.
In a 27-page ruling which followed a three-day trial in Leeds, Mr Justice Males said the council was entitled to the injunctions sought and they will apply from August 22.
Speaking outside Sheffield Town Hall following the judgement, Councillor Bryan Lodge, cabinet member for environment and street scene, said: “We have a responsibility to the taxpayers of Sheffield to do everything we can to avoid catastrophic financial consequences if the Streets Ahead work is not completed by the end of the year.
“Court action has been a lastresort option for us. We had no choice but to pursue these injunctions to stop a small number of people from causing major delays, not only to tree works, but also to work on roads, footpaths and street lights across the city.”
Campaigners are now going to decide whether to appeal against the judgement and are expected to make an announcement today.
IT WAS not exactly Gary Cooper in
High Noon, but the stakes were raised once again in the latest showdown over Sheffield’s tree-felling policy between council bosses and campaigners on the steps of the Town Hall.
Little more than an hour after a High Court judge passed an order granting the council civil injunctions to prevent protesters from participating in “direct action” to stop the removal of trees, Councillor Bryan Lodge walked out into the midday sun yesterday as the Town Hall clock struck noon to deliver a prepared statement.
In amongst the platitudes about court action being a “last resort” and offering to continue to talk to protesters “as we always have”, the council’s cabinet member for environment made clear that the legal battles are not over yet.
“We will be looking to seek associated costs and damages which will be covered at a later hearing,” he said.
With the council’s legal costs in relation to the injunction action already exceeding £150,000 of public money, that announcement sets the stage for the latest chapter in an increasingly bitter battle over the rights and wrongs of the removal and replacement of 6,000 of Sheffield’s 36,000 street trees.
Sheffield Council decided to pursue civil injunctions to prevent protesters standing directly under trees due to be removed after campaigners successfully used the tactic to prevent the felling of hundreds of trees. In June this year alone, 329 of 427 attempted tree-felling operations had to be abandoned.
After his statement, Mr Lodge headed straight back inside the council building without taking questions from the media and ignoring a lone heckler, before two of the three campaigners involved in the High Court dispute – Sheffield Trees Action Groups founder Dave Dillner and Green Party councillor Alison Teal – gave their take on the decision at the same location.
The pair said campaigning against tree felling will continue within legally-allowed limits and suggested an appeal against the High Court ruling is likely.
But speaking afterwards, Ms Teal admitted she is deeply concerned about the prospect of the council succeeding in its pursuit for costs and damage.
She said: “It means I would be destitute. I feel completely sick about it.”
But she added she did not regret taking the decision to court rather than signing an undertaking not to participate in future direct action protests, as was agreed by several other campaigners.
“I still feel what we did was right and the felling of healthy trees has been completely unnecessary. What this ruling says about local democracy and peaceful protest is really worrying.”
Mr Lodge said: “The council have explained the need to complete the Streets Ahead programme to protestors on a number of occasions and, consequently, that their direct action was preventing this. We explained that should their action continue, we would have no other option but to seek civil injunctions in court.
“Unfortunately, the refusal of a small number of people to abide by the council’s request meant that the council had to pursue legal action and subsequently incur costs.”
Whatever the outcome of the next stage in proceedings, the 27-page ruling by Mr Justice Males granting the injunctions following a three-day court case in Leeds has shed considerable light on the deep roots of the row between campaigners and the council.
He explained how decades of underinvestment in Sheffield’s roads led the council to reluctantly enter a 25-year PFI highways improvement contract with Amey in 2012, for which it is paying the company £2.2bn over the lifetime of the contract.
The programme, which became known as ‘Streets Ahead’, is the biggest urban road upgrade programme in the UK. According to the council, one result of the maintenance backlog on improving roads, pavements, street lights and traffic signals was the continued presence of around 6,000 trees which it says should have already been removed and replaced.
Mr Justice Males said most public concern has applied to “healthy, mature and attractive trees” that have been felled after being deemed “damaging” to the highway or “discriminatory” in their effect on the ability of disabled people, or those with pushchairs, to pass by.
He said the criteria had not been properly applied on all occasions but did not believe the council was deliberately removing healthy trees unnecessarily.
“Although some mistakes have no doubt been made resulting in the removal of trees which ought to have been retained if the criteria had been properly applied, removal of trees for its own sake has never been an objective of the council.”
Following the concerns, an Independent Tree Panel was established to help advise the council in late 2015. But while the council has accepted the panel’s advice that trees should be retained in 73 cases, on 223 occasions it went ahead with removals against the experts’ recommendations.
While funding for some engineering solutions to keep trees standing is included in the PFI contract, more complex and expensive work such as installing “geo-grids” under pavements to reduce cracking are not budgeted for. The judge said the council is unwilling to take money from other budgets for essential public services to meet such extra costs – a situation has led to an “impasse”, with no apparent solution that will satisfy both sides.
The judge added that the question of “whether it was wise of the council to enter into this contract or whether the council obtained good value for money” was not for him to answer.
But he added he said “allegations of profiteering by Amey” were “misplaced” and accepted the council’s case that objectors standing under trees in designated safety zones are trespassing.
“It is apparent that the issue has been extensively debated and that the council has decided that it is in the interests of the people of Sheffield as a whole to maintain its policy,” he added.
“The defendants and their supporters do not like and are entitled not to like the decision which the council has reached. They are entitled to think that it is wrong-headed, foolish or even intransigent. However, it cannot sensibly be denied that the council has considered the defendants’ views and has not accepted them.
“Despite this, the defendants and their supporters intend to continue the direct action indefinitely.
“A protest which may have begun with a view to causing the council to think again has now become an attempt to prevent the council indefinitely from carrying out work which it considers to be in the public interest.”
Tree campaigners fear they could be left destitute after Sheffield Council confirmed it will pursue them for more than £150,000 in legal costs and damages. Chris Burn reports. A protest which may have begun with a view of causing the council to think again has now become an attempt to prevent the council indefinitely from carrying out work. Mr Justice Males, High Court judge