The lessons from Sheffield’s controversial tree-felling programme

The felling of thousands of mature, healthy trees in Sheffield is an opportunity lost for a broader conversation about their value, says Steve Frazer.

A war of attrition between Sheffield Council and protesters created from the controversial Streets Ahead programme has included the felling of around 5,000 street trees to achieve road improvements. Headlines like ‘Sheffield’s Street Tree Massacre’ have brought stories of dawn felling, pensioner and councillor arrests, and high-level celebrity, political and expert condemnation to national attention.

Streets Ahead is a £2bn public-private initiative between Sheffield Council and Amey, tasked with improving and maintaining the quality of the city’s roads from 2012 for 25 years. It sets out to upgrade and maintain all adopted roads and has been actively promoted by the council for the functional and environmental benefits that it will bring.

After moving to Sheffield in 2012, I was keen to know how the objectives of Streets Ahead would be reconciled with existing city assets and if opportunities were to be taken within the upgrade works to improve the functionality and efficiency of Sheffield streets.

‘The solution appears logical, if streets are only

appreciated as conduits for conveying cars and people’

Rustlings Road was an early example, where a significant number of large healthy mature trees had been identified between the council and Amey as incompatible with the intended standards of highway improvement. The reasons given related to perceived damage and discrimination, two terms the council use to describe problem trees. ‘Damaging’ trees are claimed to harm footpaths, while ‘discriminatory’ trees are those perceived to create difficulty for elderly, disabled and partially sighted people.

Upon inspection, I agreed with residents that the council was not endorsing a balanced and common sense view. For example, a number of large healthy trees, important to street character, personal wellbeing and ecology, were being proposed for removal due to small or shallow bumps in the pavement that defined them as ‘discriminatory’. It subsequently became evident that Rustlings Road was an example reflecting policy across the city and affecting thousands of streets and trees.

Sheffield Council defends the ambitions of the contract; to improve Sheffield’s streets, claiming that it will not result in a deterioration of a city asset, since it intends to replace felled trees.

Members of the public protesting against the scheme passionately portray the benefits of mature trees for the raw enjoyment and sense of wellbeing they bring. In addition, they reflect the practical function of substantial trees and the benefits offered through ecosystem services (e.g. alleviating flooding, air pollution, the urban heat island effect), castigating the council for not considering these assets at the project outset.

The professional consensus is that a large proportion of trees within the contract cannot be justified for removal based upon arboricultural or highway grounds, validating the protestor’s position. The most severe indictment relates to best practice regarding highway standards, which makes clear that concessions within streets between highway aspirations and trees are possible and conventionally regarded as desirable.

From the council’s perspective, they have correctly identified a problem with bumpy roads and footpaths and they intend to solve it by making them smooth and flat, whatever the consequence. This solution appears logical, if streets are only appreciated as conduits for conveying cars and people and could accommodate no additional asset or function.

But streets form a significant setting to our lives, accommodating journeys and activities for which the environment is incredibly important, contributing to our sense of health and wellbeing. Streets house numerous practical functions and services, including the ability to communicate between people, information and services. Green elements, including trees, offer further opportunities for amenity and function, providing attractive living sculptures that also have the ability to provide for nature and ameliorate our environment.

The task of good design here, as with any other space, is to take opportunities and use resources economically, providing streets that are integrated with and beneficial to the context. Given the complexities and inherent potential of a city street, I believe such a project and their objectives should be forged from a collaborative multidisciplinary team, including arboriculturalists, landscape professionals, ecologists, highway, civil and drainage engineers, in conjunction with the community for whom the works are intended to benefit. This pooled technical and community expertise would have contributed a bolder vision, and a better understanding of opportunities, and come up with innovative solutions.

Sheffield feels like a big opportunity missed, with the Streets Ahead programme an ironic title falling woefully short of its potential. As a consequence, the public has been frustrated, the council have suffered tremendous reputational damage and the city will bear a poorer environment. A tough lesson on narrow ambitions meted out to Sheffield, but hopefully one now learnt by others.