{"id":27966,"date":"2018-03-29T03:00:20","date_gmt":"2018-03-29T07:00:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/?p=27966"},"modified":"2018-06-16T14:36:38","modified_gmt":"2018-06-16T18:36:38","slug":"sheffield-street-tree-massacre-notes-public-private-partnership-gone-wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/2018\/03\/29\/sheffield-street-tree-massacre-notes-public-private-partnership-gone-wrong\/","title":{"rendered":"The Sheffield Street Tree Massacre: Notes from a Public-Private Partnership Gone Wrong"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sheffield exemplifies the worst-case scenario when private companies are contracted to finance and deliver public goods, and a noteworthy example of creative and resilient community activism.<\/blockquote><\/figure>Often described as Europe\u2019s greenest city, Sheffield is reputed to have more trees per capita than any other, with over 100,000 trees spread across parks and open spaces,\u00a010.4 percent woodland by area<\/a>, and approximately 36,000 street trees. However, a public-private partnership (P3) is\u00a0dramatically altering\u00a0Sheffield\u2019s\u00a0urban forest. The various particulars of the situation have brought the northern English city into the\u00a0national headlines<\/a>, drawing scathing criticism from the\u00a0environment secretary<\/a>,\u00a0a former Council leader<\/a>,\u00a0music celebrities<\/a>, and\u00a0political analysts<\/a>, not to mention\u00a0landscape professionals<\/a>,\u00a0urban ecologists<\/a>, the\u00a0University of Sheffield<\/a>, and the\u00a0Woodland Trust<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\"\"
“Save me”. Photo: Sheffield Trees Action Group<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Sheffield \u201ctree massacre\u201d is the result of a private finance initiative (PFI<\/a>), a form of public-private partnership that should theoretically improve efficiency on public spending.\u00a0When Sheffield City Council signed a 25-year PFI contract\u00a0with a multi-national\u00a0infrastructure support service provider to upgrade the city\u2019s streets, the effect on the city\u2019s leafy avenues could not have been anticipated.<\/p>\n

There were some clues, however.<\/p>\n

Most notably,\u00a0the\u00a0contract\u00a0was negotiated behind closed doors, without any discussion in Council Chambers. The only version released for public examination was a heavily redacted document, with sections\u00a0blacked out\u00a0<\/a>on account of \u201ccommercial confidentiality\u201d. Effectively, taxpayers are required to pay for work about which they are legally not allowed to know. The situation was confusing from the start and has escalated into six years of conflict, in some cases posing grave questions about the democratic state.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The \u201csafety zones\u201d defined by the injunction. Photo: Sheffield Trees Action Group<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A flawed contract<\/strong><\/p>\n

Signed in 2012, the brief of the \u00a32.2 billion\u00a0Streets Ahead<\/a>\u00a0PFI\u00a0with Amey Plc\u00a0is to\u00a0upgrade the city\u2019s roads, pavements, streetlights, bridges, and other infrastructure. Although it is a highways contract (i.e., not a tree contract), thousands of mature street trees are being\u00a0replaced with 8- to 10-year-old saplings. Trees are technically removed if they are one of six \u201cDs\u201d: dangerous, dying, diseased, dead, damaging, or discriminatory. The two most frequently used of the 6Ds are \u201cdamaging\u201d, in which the tree damages footpaths or curbs, and \u201cdiscriminatory\u201d, meaning trees that are perceived to create difficulty for elderly, disabled, and partially sighted.<\/p>\n

The Council affirmed that felling is a \u201clast resort\u201d, and the contract includes a variety of common, low-cost methods for repairing pavements. One Councillor has stated that flexipave was \u2018already used\u2019 in 143 occasions<\/a>\u2019, but\u00a0an investigation in 2016<\/a>\u00a0by the Information Commissioner found that none of these alternatives had been used in the first five years of the contract, even though they are paid for.<\/p>\n

When residents noticed that healthy and mature trees were slated for removal, people began to protest.\u00a0Knowing it is a\u00a025-year contract,\u00a0campaigners feel that Amey is trying to avoid the costs of pruning and maintenance over the long term. Conflict flared in November 2016, when contractors arrived at\u00a0Rustlings Road at 5 am<\/a>\u00a0to cut down trees that residents had demanded should remain. Three people were arrested, in their pyjamas, for standing beneath the trees they wished to defend. Two of of those arrested were retired school teachers. Since then, at least 20 people have been arrested under a Thatcher-era anti-union law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The situation was in full swing at the time of this writing, with\u00a0breaking news<\/a>\u00a0emerging the day of deadline, so this essay was basically an archive from the moment it was published. For current news, check out\u00a0Sheffield Trees Action Group (STAG)<\/a>, the non-party-political umbrella group representing the local tree groups that emerged across the city. While there are juicy bits, such as the 100-year old listed\u00a0memorial trees<\/a>, the bizarre allegations of \u201ctea gate<\/a>\u201d or the embarrassment of\u00a0#tootgate<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0other arrests made over musical instruments<\/a>, this essay focuses on the PFI and how it relates to urban and human ecology.<\/p>\n

The PFI and the politics<\/strong><\/p>\n

An independent\u00a0survey<\/a>\u00a0in 2006-2007 suggested that 1,000 trees needed replacing, and approximately 10,000 needed \u201csome form of remedial treatment\u201d. A second survey was conducted in 2012 by Acorn, the arboreal firm that would later be sub-contracted to carry out the replacement work. That survey (which has since been removed from the Council website) stated that the majority of street trees would require replacement after 70-80 years. In 2012, City Council reported the intention \u201cto replace about 18,000 of 36,000 trees over a 25 year period\u201d (7.4, point m<\/a>). The possibility of a target for tree replacements was a mystery from the start, both to the public and to many members of City Council.<\/p>\n

To address public discontent,\u00a0in 2016 the Council\u00a0conducted a household survey to determine the degree of support for the tree replacements on affected streets. Of the 13.4 percent\u00a0response<\/a>\u00a0rate, 6.75 percent agreed, and 6.65 percent disagreed with the replacement program. It was odd, then, that\u00a0a Councillor would state<\/a>\u00a0in 2017 that \u201cthe majority of people in the city want to see this work carried out\u201d. As an outcome of the survey, an\u00a0Independent Tree Panel<\/a>\u00a0was formed, comprising impartial experts that would liaise with stakeholders and with Council in situations where 50 percent or more households opposed the work. However, trees were removed before being referred to the Panel on at least three streets, and in some cases before residents had had their say<\/a>. By Feb 2018, about 5,500 street trees had been removed. To make matters worse, a\u00a0horticultural critique<\/a>\u00a0has noted that most of the saplings will die young and will not reach the maturity of the trees they\u2019ve replaced.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The elm at Chelsea Road. Photo: Christine Thuring<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

On\u00a0March 12, 2018<\/a>, the politics of the situation became slightly clearer. Whereas the Council had consistently denied that there was a target for tree removal, it was finally ordered to reveal the redacted passages of the contract under the Freedom of Information Act. According to the document, \u201cnot less than 200 per year so that 17,500 highway trees are replaced by the end of the term\u201d, meaning that about half of all Sheffield\u2019s street trees would be replaced. Even with this new transparency, the Council cabinet member for the environment has responded by saying that \u201cany suggestion that 17,500 trees is a target or a requirement is an incorrect interpretation.\u201d If confusion is a strategy, then the prize goes to Sheffield City Council under the influence of this PFI.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The crown of Chelsea Elm in February, Sheffield. Photo: Christine Thuring<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Urban ecology<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of Sheffield\u2019s oldest trees slated for the chop included the\u00a0Chelsea Road Elm<\/a>, a veteran tree between 100-120 years old. Not only is the Chelsea Elm a gem for its genetic resistance to Dutch elm disease, but it also harbours a colony of the\u00a0White-letter Hairstreak<\/a>,\u00a0a priority butterfly species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. With these concerns, local residents\u00a0apparently<\/a> commissioned an engineer to provide an estimate for addressing the cracked paving and discovered it could be done without felling the tree, at minimal cost.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the cabinet member for the environment is quoted\u00a0saying<\/a>: “Due to the deteriorating condition of the tree, we now have to carry out pressing safety work to tackle extensive decay in the tree to ensure public safety.”<\/p>\n

When I visited the Chelsea Elm in early February 2018, the tree was decked out in masses of devotional content, including poetry, drawings, sing-alongs, and love letters alongside bunting and knitting. Examining its winter silhouette from all angles, crown die-back and dead branches were not evident, certainly not to the extent of \u201cextensive decay\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The roots of the Chelsea Elm have caused some uplift. Photos: Christine Thuring<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

With regards to the paving around the base of the tree, the roots have indeed caused some uplift (see above). Recalling the alternative solutions that are covered in the contract, and with respect to the stature and significance of the tree, this should be a textbook example calling for a tree pit or at the very least, permeable paving.<\/p>\n

By extension, the situation as it stands raises the question about the materials used for sidewalk paving, maintenance in general, and also the logic for absolutely straight curb lines (with no deviation!).<\/p>\n

Fortunately, the felling at Chelsea Road was prevented thanks to over forty dedicated supporters who stood vigilant by the tree for hours in the freezing cold. In mid-February, after a series of meetings between City Council, Amey, and Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trusts, it was agreed that the tree would be pruned with sensitivity both to the butterfly colony (i.e., the eggs laid on the tree the previous summer) and for the tree (which could still be at risk of infection by Dutch Elm Disease, since resistance is not the same as immunity).<\/p>\n

\"\"
\u201cReasonable force\u201d has been used against tree defenders. Photo: Sheffield Trees Action Group<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A sensitive pruning was conducted that left enough growth for the butterflies to remain\u00a0in situ. Were it not for the peaceful tree defenders, this tree and the butterfly would likely both have been destroyed.<\/p>\n

New forms of urban (wild-)life: injunction and evolutionary radiation?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The legal pressures of the conflict mounted in August 2017, when the Council gained a High Court injunction against those \u201ctrespassing within safety barriers<\/a>\u201d. The injunction for trespassers includes contempt of court, imprisonment, fines, and\/or having assets seized. In early 2018, security measures ramped up significantly, with \u201cspecially-trained stewards\u201d contracted to remove trespassers with the authorisation of using \u201creasonable force\u201d.<\/p>\n

Witnesses have provided evidence of assault, even on elderly peaceful protestors, and a worrying lack of health and safety on all operations. The escalating police presence, and its questionable neutrality led to an\u00a0expression of concern\u00a0by a former council leader, noting that the removal of one tree in early March involved 33 officers and 20 security staff.<\/p>\n

Despite substantial legal costs, the injunction has largely failed to deter protests and has led instead to creative responses by an increasingly committed community of campaigners and citizens. To continue defending trees in this criminalised environment, citizen responses have adapted depending on how much risk they are willing, and able, to take. These new strategies take their names from the animals they imitate.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Geckos in action. Photo: Sheffield Trees Action Group<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

So, for anyone wishing to dedicate themselves to preventing a tree from being cut down, they can choose from any of the following roles:<\/p>\n