Skip to main content

To: Sheffield City Council

Save the Norfolk Park 11

Save the Norfolk Park 11

We call on the Council to save the “Norfolk Park 11” trees.

Why is this important?

Between August 2012 and December 2016 Amey the Council contractor felled over 4200 trees across Sheffield. Now they are planning to chop down 27 of our local street trees. Some of these trees are near the end of their life and should be replaced, many others are mature healthy trees that help to keep the air clean (1), protect our homes from flooding (2) and provide a habitat for local wildlife (3), as well as making our streets nicer and healthier places to live (4). Mature trees are particularly good at filtering out pollution (5), cooling the air in summer (6) and maintaining nature's delicate balance (7).
Four of the trees are said to be damaging the pavement and are therefore discriminatory to disabled people and those using pushchairs. We believe the damage is minor and does not impair accessibility for disabled people, or the users of prams and pushchairs. Alternative highway engineering specifications (8), such as use of flexi-pave and/or pavement restructuring near trees, with kerb stones sculpted to accommodate roots, would represent a sustainable solution to the perceived problems.
The other trees are said to be diseased or dangerous. Our experts say with sensible management and in some cases some pruning, the following 11 trees will thrive for many years and should be saved.
Seabrook Rd/Stafford Road healthy mature sycamore (“damaging”)
Tylney Rd healthy mature sycamore at no.7 (“damaging”)
52 Park Spring Drive - mature healthy cherry tree (“disease”)
76 Park Spring Way - mature healthy sycamore (“dangerous”)
Opposite Norfolk Community School, Guildford Avenue – 2 mature whitebeam trees. (“dangerous/disease”)
Norfolk Park Road 3 Horse Chestnuts grouped together near Sheffield College (“dangerous/disease”)
Holdings Road (outside nos.7 and 31) Cherry Trees (“damaging”)
The Council carried out a survey of households to see if people wanted to save the trees. This was deeply flawed as many houses and in some cases whole streets were missed out.
(1) Karl, T., Harley, P., Emmons, L., Thornton, B., Guenther, A., Basu, C., & Jardine, K. (2010). Efficient atmospheric cleansing of oxidized organic trace gases by vegetation. Science, 330(6005), 816-819.
Escobedo, F., Kroeger, T. & Wagner, J. (2011). Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution, Volume 159, pp. 2078-2087.,5
(2) Trees and Design Action Group (2012). Trees in the Townscape: A Guide for Decision Makers, s.l.: Trees and Design Action Group.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association, 2013. CIRIA Research Project RP993: Demonstrating the multiple benefits of SuDS – A business case (Phase 2). Draft Literature Review. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 25 May 2015].
(3) Ewers, R. M., & Didham, R. K. (2006). Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biological Reviews, 81(01), p. 117-142.,5
Gilbert‐Norton, L., Wilson, R., Stevens, J. R., & Beard, K. H. (2010). A Meta‐Analytic Review of Corridor Effectiveness. Conservation Biology, 24(3), p. 660-668.
(4)Sarajevs, V. (2011). Health Benefits of Street Trees, Farnham: Forest Research.
Williams, K., O'Brien, L. & Stewart, A.. (2013). Urban health and urban forestry: how can forest management agencies help?. Arboricultural Journal: The International Journal of Urban Forestry, Volume 35, pp. 119-133.
(5) Shackell, A. & Walter, R. (2012). Greenspace Design For Health And Well-being, Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.$FILE/FCPG019.pdf
Velarde, M., Fry, G. & Tveit, M. (2007). Health effects of viewing landscapes – Landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 6, p. 199-212.
(6) Forestry Commission (2011). The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.

(7) Gonzalez, A., Rayfield, B., & Lindo, Z. (2011). The disentangled bank: how loss of habitat fragments and disassembles ecological networks. American Journal of Botany, 98(3), p. 503-516.

(8) Trees and Design Action Group. (2014) Trees in Hard Landscapes: A Guide for Delivery. TDAG

Norfolk Park, Sheffield

Maps © Stamen; Data © OSM and contributors, ODbL

Reasons for signing

  • Mature trees have irreplaceable value for us as well as wildlife, and the council's starting point that they are dispensable as if they are just objects to be tidied or disposed of is wrong in my view.
  • This is because the councils no longer want to maintain trees. The lungs of a city...Their ploy is to let the trees become a nuisance and cut them down end of story. It costs £250 to replant (brent council 2016) but no-one chases this up. A cunning unscrupulous and short sighted vision of the future and guess what. No more bird song.
  • It's important to show due regard and respect our natural environment. Whilst I understand there is a need for it to be managed, the council needs to demonstrate a greater level of transparency regarding decision making which should go some way to addressing the concerns of resisdents. Additionally, clearly demonstrating replanting schemes to offset felling would be of benefit.


2017-07-17 16:19:49 +0100

500 signatures reached

2017-03-20 14:32:59 +0000

100 signatures reached

2017-03-20 10:22:06 +0000

50 signatures reached

2017-03-19 22:28:40 +0000

25 signatures reached

2017-03-19 21:02:31 +0000

10 signatures reached