500 signatures reached
To: Sheffield City Council
Save the Norfolk Park 6
We call on the Council to save the “Norfolk Park 6” trees.
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 Communtiy School, Guildford Avenue – 2 mature whitebeam trees. (“dangerous/disease”)
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 Communtiy School, Guildford Avenue – 2 mature whitebeam trees. (“dangerous/disease”)
Why is this important?
Between August 2012 and January 2016 Amey the Council contractor felled over 3500 trees across Sheffield. Now they are planning to chop down many of our local street trees. While 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 significantly impair accessibility for disabled people, or the use of prams and pushchairs. Sensitive engineering solutions (8), such as use of flexi-pave and/or pavement restructuring and localized remediation near trees, with kerb stones sculpted to accommodate root morphology, would represent a sustainable solution to perceived problems.
The other trees are said to be diseased or dangerous. Our independent ecologist says with sensible management the above 11 trees will thrive for many years and should definitely be saved.
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.
References
(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.http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6005/816.short
Escobedo, F., Kroeger, T. & Wagner, J. (2011). Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution, Volume 159, pp. 2078-2087.http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=14928633190131047233&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
(2) Trees and Design Action Group (2012). Trees in the Townscape: A Guide for Decision Makers, s.l.: Trees and Design Action Group.http://www.tdag.org.uk/trees-in-the-townscape.html
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: http://www.susdrain.org [Accessed 25 May 2015].http://www.susdrain.org/files/resources/ciria_guidance/ciria_rp993_literature_review_october_2013_.pdf
(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. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=1003233194462145743&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
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. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01450.x/full
(4)Sarajevs, V. (2011). Health Benefits of Street Trees, Farnham: Forest Research. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-8JCEJH
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.http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03071375.2013.852358
(4) Shackell, A. & Walter, R. (2012). Greenspace Design For Health And Well-being, Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/FCPG019.pdf/$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.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866707000416
(6) Forestry Commission (2011). The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/ukfs
(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.http://www.amjbot.org/content/98/3/503.full
(8) Trees and Design Action Group. (2014) Trees in Hard Landscapes: A Guide for Delivery. TDAG http://www.tdag.org.uk/trees-in-hard-landscapes.html
To find out more visit Save Norfolk Park Trees on Facebook.
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 significantly impair accessibility for disabled people, or the use of prams and pushchairs. Sensitive engineering solutions (8), such as use of flexi-pave and/or pavement restructuring and localized remediation near trees, with kerb stones sculpted to accommodate root morphology, would represent a sustainable solution to perceived problems.
The other trees are said to be diseased or dangerous. Our independent ecologist says with sensible management the above 11 trees will thrive for many years and should definitely be saved.
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.
References
(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.http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6005/816.short
Escobedo, F., Kroeger, T. & Wagner, J. (2011). Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution, Volume 159, pp. 2078-2087.http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=14928633190131047233&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
(2) Trees and Design Action Group (2012). Trees in the Townscape: A Guide for Decision Makers, s.l.: Trees and Design Action Group.http://www.tdag.org.uk/trees-in-the-townscape.html
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: http://www.susdrain.org [Accessed 25 May 2015].http://www.susdrain.org/files/resources/ciria_guidance/ciria_rp993_literature_review_october_2013_.pdf
(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. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=1003233194462145743&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
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. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01450.x/full
(4)Sarajevs, V. (2011). Health Benefits of Street Trees, Farnham: Forest Research. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-8JCEJH
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.http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03071375.2013.852358
(4) Shackell, A. & Walter, R. (2012). Greenspace Design For Health And Well-being, Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/FCPG019.pdf/$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.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866707000416
(6) Forestry Commission (2011). The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’ approach to sustainable forest management. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/ukfs
(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.http://www.amjbot.org/content/98/3/503.full
(8) Trees and Design Action Group. (2014) Trees in Hard Landscapes: A Guide for Delivery. TDAG http://www.tdag.org.uk/trees-in-hard-landscapes.html
To find out more visit Save Norfolk Park Trees on Facebook.
How it will be delivered
Directly at a Full Council meeting in the Town Hall. If we can get 5000 signatures this will force a debate in the City Council.
