Sheffield City Council publish open apology to residents on the street trees dispute
The letter of apology has been put together by both the Leader of the authority and the Chief Executive
An open apology from Sheffield City Council over the tree felling saga has been published this morning
It's been released by the Leader of Sheffield City Council - Tom Hunt - and the Chief Executive of the authority - Kate Josephs.
You can read it in full below:
We are sorry for the actions that we took during the street trees dispute.
We recognise that this full apology, for some, is a long time coming, and we
understand that due to the Council’s behaviour, some people will never forgive
Sheffield City Council and have lost trust and faith in us. We hope that this apology
will begin the process of restoring trust and faith.
We would like to specifically apologise to campaigners. We are sorry that they were
misrepresented as unrepresentative and primarily concerned with their own streets.
This inaccurate characterisation sowed discord within communities. A lot of people
care about our street trees and gave their time and energy to try to protect them for
the benefit of the whole city.
Since the publication of the Sheffield Street Trees Inquiry Report by Sir Mark
Lowcock on 6 March 2023, we have taken time to study and understand the findings
and reflect on our behaviour. The mistakes the Council made were set out very
clearly by Sir Mark Lowcock, they should not have happened, and we apologise for
them unreservedly. We have committed to taking the action needed to ensure we
learn from the past and never repeat those same mistakes again.
The Inquiry found serious errors of strategic leadership and wisdom of decision
making during the dispute. The errors made were enabled by an unsympathetic
culture and problems with the quality of advice, capability, systems and resourcing
which were not addressed when they should have been. Members’ and officers’
treatment of the public was at times poor, falling short of how we want to behave.
There was little openness to scrutiny and a lack of use of guidance, good practice
and consultation which could have alerted the Council and Amey to major issues in
the design and implementation of the original tree replacement programme.
During the dispute the Council failed to communicate in an open and honest way, let
misinformation enter the public domain and allowed it to remain there. Failing to
consult, engage and listen to the public, experts and organisations, all of whom
should have been our partners, made these mistakes worse.
The errors that the Council made led to harm. Our own staff, contractors and
subcontractors were placed in unacceptable positions and subject to harassment.
Protesters and campaigners were maligned, injured and experienced physical,
emotional, and for some, financial stress. The action the Council took damaged
Sheffield’s reputation in a way that casts a long shadow.
The Council decided on the removal of healthy trees which should still be standing
today. These healthy trees were important to residents and gave communities and
the city benefits which were overlooked. Residents should not have had to fight their
Council to retain and value healthy trees, particularly not those with special
significance such as memorial, rare or veteran trees. We recognise that we got so
much of this wrong and we apologise unreservedly.
Missed opportunities and inadequate risk assessment
In the design of the original tree replacement programme, while the Council did
follow required processes and procedures, it did so with too narrow a focus and did
not consider the value of trees from a biodiversity, wellbeing or climate perspective.
Inadequate risk assessment meant that there were flaws in the approach which were
not noticed or addressed. The Council misinterpreted data it had commissioned
leading to wrongly including in the contract the aim to replace 50% of Sheffield’s
street trees. These are serious issues. But they did not make it inevitable that a
dispute would arise. That happened because of the decisions the Council made in
handling the dispute and not suitably exploring alternative approaches before 2018.
We are sorry for developing and adopting a flawed plan and including the aim to
replace half of the city’s street trees. It was not made clear enough to everyone that
this meant healthy trees would be removed, and that this would disproportionately
affect some parts of the city. We accept that the responsibility for this rests with
senior Council officers and senior politicians in the administrations of the governing
groups between 2006 and 2012.
Once the dispute emerged, a lack of corporate oversight, control and leadership
meant the escalating approach went unchecked for too long. This had serious
consequences for the Council and organisations and individuals across the city.
Sustained failure of strategic leadership
Throughout the dispute too often decisions were made reactively and based on what
the Council was entitled to do rather than what was wise to do. Insufficient thought
was given to whether the actions taken to address the protests were the right thing to
do or likely to be effective in resolving the real causes of the dispute. As the Inquiry
points out, during the dispute the Council consistently chose to escalate the actions it
took which understandably motivated those who disagreed with the tree replacement
programme.
There were signs that the tree replacement programme was not progressing well
from 2012. These should have been heeded. The events of Autumn 2016 should
have been a final and clear indication that the approach we were taking was
ineffective, inappropriate and should be rethought rapidly. The first arrests and the
Rustlings Road operation should have acted as a wake-up call to the Council and
should have told us that we were not listening, working in siloes and in secrecy and
had placed the police in an invidious position. As the Inquiry notes, the Council had
negotiating power and could have looked to vary the contract to start to resolve the
dispute. Instead, the Council chose to escalate, including taking an unwisely punitive
approach to contract managing Amey.
The Inquiry found that the dispute could have been resolved earlier. It drew particular
attention to the opportunities missed in January 2018 when the Council chose to
press Amey to continue with tree replacement, and the police for stronger action,
even though major contract milestones had been met. This created the conditions for
some of the worst on-street protests. This was unnecessary and harmful.
The Inquiry found that while the Council was entitled to take the legal action it did, it
did not consider the wisdom or effectiveness of this action. It stretched, though did
not break, the proportionate use of its authority beyond reasonable limits. This
unwise action particularly affected people who were asked to sign legal agreements
with the Council or the Court, named in the injunctions or had committal proceedings
brought against them. The Council’s actions had particularly serious implications for
those found in breach of the injunctions, and we will work with them to maximise
what can be done to address any ongoing impact of the committal proceedings. We
also want to offer specific apologies to former Councillor Alison Teal. The Inquiry
observed that seeking punishment through the Courts of an elected opposition
politician, who was clear that she intended to comply with the law, sits badly with
democratic tradition.
We are sorry that these failures arose and that we did not take a different course of
action earlier. Had we done so, we would likely have avoided the deep rifts with
some of our residents and avoided some of the worst on-street clashes and the
harms which those caused to people and workers present, communities and the city.
A culture unreceptive to external views, discouraging of internal dissent and
prone to group-think
The Inquiry report describes ways of working in the Council during the dispute which
fall far short of what we want to be as an organisation. It talks of an insular culture
which was defensive and at times focused on blame and passing responsibility. This
meant that our own staff, experts and the public received dismissive and rude
treatment and had their concerns minimised. When organisations are insular and
unwelcoming of scrutiny they can also become prone to group-think. This happened
within the Council during the dispute and we have gone to great lengths to avoid
ever repeating this mistake, it just cannot happen if we are to be the organisation the
city deserves.
The Inquiry attributes the culture and strategic leadership failures ultimately to the
political leadership who were responsible for setting the direction and tone. But they
were not well enough supported by senior officers and the executive who should
have focused on helping the politicians resolve the dispute, rather than sticking
steadfastly to a flawed programme.
This approach set the tone for the communications during the dispute which the
Inquiry described as untransparent and which saw members and officers say things
that were misleading. We would like in particular to apologise for repeatedly saying
in the media, and in correspondence, that there was no target for the tree
replacement programme, that felling was always a last resort and that any change to
the tree replacement programme would result in catastrophic costs. It is clear that
this was not the case.
It was not only the public who were misled. While the Inquiry found that the
outcomes of legal action would have been the same without the Council’s version of
the 5-year tree management strategy, this document was misleading and
mishandled. The Council should have removed it from circulation and made the
Courts aware that it was not part of Amey’s operational approach. Misleading the
Courts is a serious matter and we will write to them to apologise.
The Council also set-up, undermined and misled the Independent Tree Panel, most
significantly over the engineering solutions available to save trees. It rejected many
recommendations the panel made. This was destructive of public trust and
disrespectful to the time, effort and professionalism of the panel. If the panel’s advice
had been followed the dispute may not have escalated as it did.
The Inquiry concluded that the political direction and mood within the Council was to
prevail in the dispute and not to find a compromise. This is not the way we wish to
behave as a Council. The Council exists to meet the needs of the city and to do that
it must be flexible and seek to learn, understand and change, as well as make
difficult decisions. We are sorry that the behaviour of the Council during the dispute
years had such a negative effect on staff, contractors, experts, the public, and
extended the dispute.
A lack of transparency, openness and on occasion, honesty
The Inquiry repeatedly highlights the problems created by a lack of engagement and
consultation. During the design phase, the Council did not learn lessons from the
past nor ask the right questions of the right people. There was also a lack of insight
into how communities would react which could have been anticipated had the
Council chosen to undertake wider consultation.
During implementation the Council did not listen to warnings offered by Council staff,
unions or local business leaders. This dismissive approach continued when
concerns escalated. Knowledgeable people and organisations who the Council could
have worked with were ignored, as were repeated calls for a political resolution to
the dispute. This was exacerbated by failures to meet information requests; we
withheld too much information for too long.
These issues highlighted by the Inquiry have also been remarked on by other
investigations. Collectively, they warn the Council that these issues must be
addressed throughout the organisation. We are aware of these issues and are
working hard to ensure that they are tackled and that we welcome scrutiny to monitor
our progress through formal processes and from residents. We are sorry that we
have lost the trust of some of our residents. We recognise trust is earned and we
have work to do to get to a place where faith is restored. While the road is long, we
are committed.
Moving forward together
As Sir Mark Lowcock told the Council in his report, the starting point for reconciliation
is a truthful and comprehensive account of what happened and why it happened.
The Inquiry report provides this definitively.
We are grateful for the efforts from all of those who have worked to help Sheffield
recover from the dispute. The joint tree inspections, establishment of the Sheffield
Street Tree Partnership and the publication of its Strategy and changes to the
Streets Ahead contract and the Inquiry, all mitigate against the dispute re-emerging.
We will continue to build on this progress and ensure that if new problems and
opportunities arise, we have the tools and spirit of partnership to deal with them.
Five years on, the Council is already a very different place. Through working openly
and inviting scrutiny we are developing an understanding of where we need to
improve. Actions including the development of our values have changed the way we
work, placing people at the heart of what we do.
We understand that apologies without actions are meaningless. We have set-out
actions in a formal report to Strategy and Resources Committee which will address
all the Inquiry’s recommendations. While we know that the decisions Sheffield City
Council take will continue to require challenging trade-offs, this should ensure that
lessons are learnt and that a dispute of this magnitude with our residents can never
happen again.
We look forward to working with the residents of Sheffield going forwards, so we can
continue our work to be the best we can be. We will listen and learn, we will try and
maybe we will fail sometimes. Failing and making mistakes is a part of life, but
refusing to listen and learn is a mistake we can never repeat.