Anyone been involved with this? Taken from The Daily Mail
The chainsaw massacre! Council fells 3,000 trees in England's greenest city in a bid to save money... but residents fear thousands more are at risk
Sheffield residents are locked in a bitter battle with the council over trees
More than 3,000 roadside trees were felled in an attempt to save money
Campaigners fear some 75% of the city's 36,000 roadside trees are at risk
Council denied claims, saying many trees were replaced with saplings
By Chris Brooke and Josh White For The Daily Mail
Published: 23:23, 9 February 2016 | Updated: 07:06, 10 February 2016
With more trees per person than any other city in Europe, residents of Sheffield are rightly proud of its green heritage.
But they are now locked in a bitter battle with the council over plans to chop down thousands of the trees – all to save money on road maintenance.
More than 3,000 of the 36,000 roadside trees have already been felled.
Campaigners fear that a staggering 75 per cent could be at risk.
Green and pleasant: Tree-lined Humphrey Road in Sheffield was typical of the many leafy streets in the city
Chopped: The council replaced the 3,000 felled trees with saplings, causing fury among local residents
They are so concerned that the authorities are disregarding public opinion, they have gone to court to stop them.
The trees were felled after the council agreed a 25-year, £2.2 billion private finance initiative deal with construction firm Amey to carry out road improvements.
Dead, dying and diseased trees have been cut down, along with trees said to be damaging roads or causing an obstruction to pavements. The council has dismissed criticism of mass felling, saying many of the trees have been replaced with saplings. A spokesman said an independent study a decade ago found that 75 per cent of roadside trees were approaching the end of their natural life.
But residents say healthy trees are being cut down and claim large trees have been axed and replaced by saplings to make road resurfacing and maintenance cheaper.
Petitions objecting to the felling have accumulated more than 22,000 signatures, and when a decision was made to take legal action almost £10,000 was raised to cover costs on a ‘crowdfunding’ website.
Now a High Court judge has issued an interim injunction banning Sheffield City Council from felling trees unless they pose an ‘immediate danger to the public’.
Angry: Determined residents who are staging a week-long vigil to stop Sheffield council from felling more trees
Outrage: Dead, dying and diseased trees have been cut down, along with trees said to be damaging roads or causing an obstruction to pavements
Campaigners persuaded Mr Justice Dove to halt the chainsaws on the grounds there had not been a ‘proper and fair consultation’ about the felling policy. His ruling was made ‘pending further investigation’ and could remain in force for three months.
The court action was instigated by David Dillner on behalf of the Sheffield Tree Action Groups. Mr Dillner, 69, says it will be an ‘ecological and environmental disaster’ if the council doesn’t have a rethink. The retired actor added: ‘No one is arguing to keep all trees – that would be total nonsense. If a tree is dangerous it needs to be felled.
‘What they are doing, and what we are saying they cannot do, is remove so many trees with large canopies – healthy trees – in such a short space of time.’
Money saving: Residents say healthy trees are being cut down and claim large trees have been axed and replaced by saplings to make road resurfacing and maintenance cheaper
He said they were being replaced by trees of a different species that won’t produce the same canopies. ‘That is a disaster waiting to happen in a city that was recently placed on the danger list for air quality. Removing the trees will damage the air quality.’
The council says it is saving taxpayers £26 million by felling rather than saving the 2,000 trees earmarked for removal.
Councillor Terry Fox said: ‘We were not notified of the proposed application to court before it was submitted and the court order was passed without our position being heard. Our lawyers are now considering the appropriate action.’