Anyone interested should read what was recorded about the meeting. https://bristoltreeforum.org/2017/07/05/bristol-trees-in-crisis-notes-of-04-july-public-meeting/
I see a representative of the Sheffield debacle was present.
Personally I would conclude that the Council's decision is short-sighted, irresponsible and ill-informed. But councilllors who vote omn budgets may not be there in 3 or 5 or 7 years when weak pollard attachments fall on cars and people, when epicormics hide the sudden failure of trees form Kretzschmaria and when retrospective claims for subsidence start coming in.
I only hope for the sake of the Council that it has consulted with its risk managers (insurers) before making this decision. It's premia must go up, and since insurers are not in the business of making losses or insuring just for fun, the premia should go up be more than the cost of claims.
I think the real misery, though, is going to be for residents whose gardens and houses could be plunged into darkness by unpollarded trees. Since this is not a 'nuisance' that they can do anything about except pay for repollarding themselves, I can see why this sad decision might be justified by the Council. Don't use public money when you can make neighbours so desperate for basic light that they pay for tree works themselves.
I hope the first claim against the Council is for damage to an inanimate object rather than a person, and it would be nice if the decision makers were found responsible for failing to take professional advice on the implications.
I've never been in Bristol in my life, but I still find this decision and the way it has been taken really pathetic. The industry knows by now what is right and wrong in urban tree management, but the bean counters always override it. Just another symptom of society in the UK.