Council unearths ‘lost’ plan for tree removals
Detailed scheme to replace 17,500 in city is revealed
DETAILED PROPOSALS to replace exactly 17,500 of Sheffield’s 36,000 street trees were drawn up six years ago, according to a newly published document which the city’s council had previously said was lost.
Sheffield Council said it had “stumbled upon” a series of strategy documents for the controversial policy of felling street trees after previously telling the Information Commissioner’s Office they were “not held” in any form.
Newly discovered copies of a five-year tree management strategy have now been published online and the first version from 2012 – the year in which the contract started with Amey for the work to be carried out – includes a chart detailing proposals to remove precisely 17,500 trees and replace them with saplings in seven areas of the city.
The ‘Highway Tree Replacement Plan’ table set out proposals suggesting that in south-east Sheffield 1,370 trees would be replaced, with 2,795 in the south of the city, 3,979 in the south-west, 2,103 in central Sheffield, 2,420 in the north, 2,939 in the north-east and 1,894 in the east. The figures add together to exactly 17,500.
The other newly published versions of the strategy for between 2013 and 2017 do not specify planned replacement numbers, and the council has described the figures in the table as a “pre-contract estimate” that have since been revised.
The authority has faced national criticism for its controversial tree-felling policy and earlier this year it was revealed the £2.2bn 25-year highways maintenance contract that work is being done contains a clause stating trees should be replaced “at a rate of not less than 200 per year so that 17,500 are replaced by the end of the term”.
The council stressed the figure is not a contractual target, but says it is unable to explain what the financial consequences will be should fewer than 17,500 trees be removed by the end of the contract with Amey in 2037 – and will not be in a position to do until that year.
A spokeswoman said in relation to the potential financial implications: “We are unable to predict what will happen between now and 2037 when the contract expires. Therefore, the council will not be in a position to answer this question until this time.” The council previously told
The Yorkshire Post in March this year that there would be a “financial adjustment” to the contract should fewer than 17,500 trees could be felled, but said it could not explain whether the authority or Amey would be the beneficiaries. The council said yesterday that despite the wording of the contract and the emergence of the 2012 document, there is no target for tree-replacement numbers. A version of the tree management strategy was published by the council in early 2016 shortly before tree campaigner Dave Dillner went to the High Court to seek a judicial review of the council’s decisions.
WHILE SHEFFIELD Council continues to insist that it has no target to remove 17,500 of the city’s cherished street trees – despite the wording of a clause within its £2.2bn highways maintenance contract with private provider Amey and the new emergence of an operational plan from 2012 setting out proposals to replace precisely that number – questions remain.
In March this year, the council told The Yorkshire Post that there would be a “financial adjustment” to the contract terms should fewer than 17,500 trees be removed but said it could not explain whether it would be the authority or Amey footing the bill.
The council now states it will not be able to answer the seemingly simple question of who would pay out should a smaller number of trees be removed for another 19 years. The basis for this argument is that as it is impossible to say exactly how many trees will be replaced by the end of the contract in 2037, the authority “will not be in a position to answer this question until this time”.
While it may be difficult to ascertain what the exact costs would be, it should surely be possible to say in general terms whether the council or Amey would benefit from fewer than 17,500 being removed. This leaves two possibilities – either a council is ignorant of the terms of its own multibillion contract and the consequences of alterations to it, or the public is still not being told the full story. Even the council’s own cabinet member for environment, Lewis Dagnall, has described the need for transparency as “incredibly important”. Taxpayers should not have to wait almost two decades for answers.