Secrecy bid over council’s policy to axe trees
Confidentiality is in ‘the greater good’, say officials
SHEFFIELD COUNCIL has ruled it is in the “greater good” to keep secret its official policy for the controversial felling of thousands of the city’s street trees.
The council has rejected a Freedom of Information request by The Yorkshire Post to see its currently redacted ‘Highway Tree Replacement Policy’ contained in its £2.2bn PFI Streets Ahead contract with Amey. It said it is not in the public interest to reveal the policy while it is still reviewing what information in the contract can be released ahead of potential publication at an unspecified future date.
The response stated: “We believe the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Please note, public interest is what is of greater good to the community and not what interests the public.”
It comes after it was revealed last month that the contract, which started in 2012 and will run for 25 years, contains a target to remove 17,500 of the city’s 36,000 street trees and replace them with saplings.
Sheffield Council has previously insisted that felling is carried out as a “last resort” and published a ‘Five Year Tree Management Strategy’ in early 2016 which confirmed this position. The strategy, which is in the process of being updated, says trees will only be removed if they are dead, dying, diseased, dangerous, damaging or ‘discriminatory’ – affecting the ability of people to use the pavement.
However, a separate FoI council response to tree campaigner Paul Selby has confirmed that the strategy is superseded by what is contained within the contract.
It states: “In the event of any inconsistencies between the documents, the obligations contained in the Streets Ahead contract take precedence over any document produced under it.”
Mr Selby said this admission appears to show the published strategy is “worthless”. The council response to The Yorkshire Post in which it refused to disclose the Highway Tree Replacement Policy said the ongoing review of which parts of the 7,000-page Streets Ahead contract can be made public is “an arduous task and requires appropriate levels of scrutiny”.
When asked whether there is anything in the contract that confirms felling is a last resort, Sheffield Council said it would be making no further comment as it is currently working on an updated tree management strategy which will be released “in due course”.
SHEFFIELD COUNCIL has already suffered considerable reputational damage through the mishandling of its now notorious tree-felling programme, a major failure of public policy which resulted in dozens of police officers and private security guards being deployed to normally quiet residential streets to support removal operations in the face of growing public outrage.
Work is currently on hold as contractor Amey, which is conducting the removals as part of a secretive £2.2bn highways maintenance contract running for 25 years, reviews the way felling is conducted in the wake of condemnation from across the political and social spectrum.
Much of the recent outcry has focused not just on the use of huge police numbers, but also the revelation that the ‘Streets Ahead’ contract signed in 2012 contains a target to fell 17,500 of the city’s 36,000 street trees and replace them with saplings. This was only brought to light last month following the intervention of the Information Commissioner after a year-long Freedom of Information battle by campaigners.
However, lessons do not appear to have been learned, with the council now refusing to publish its official contractual policy for tree replacement work on the grounds that keeping the information secret is for the “greater good”. The Yorkshire Post has now requested a review of this decision and intends to take the matter to the Information Commissioner should the council maintain its current stance.
The situation is simple; the council has continually insisted that felling takes place only as a “last resort”. If this is indeed the case, then publishing the official contractual policy will confirm the council’s publicly stated position. However, if the contract tells a different story, it can only be for the “greater good” of the public and local democracy that this information is unearthed as soon as possible.