Sheffield Council accused of being “hostile and defamatory” in action to protect trees
Councillors have issued an order to protect trees on land off Rivelin Park Road - which the owner wants to turn into a dog park
A landowner has accused Sheffield Council of issuing a tree protection order that was “hostile, full of errors and defamatory” for land that he plans to turn into a dog park.
Members of Sheffield City Council’s planning and highways committee yesterday (November 11) confirmed the tree preservation order for five trees on land off Rivelin Park Road and Hollins Lane, Rivelin.
Community tree officer Simon Farrimond told councillors that members of the public alerted the council that vegetation on the land. He conducted a site visit in June and said that the site had been “cleared back to bare earth from being densely vegetated with the exception of nine retained trees and boundary vegetation”.
He said there was soil disturbance and visible damage to surface roots. The degree of damage to subsoil roots could not be determined during the visit but evidence of heavy plant movement in close proximity to the trees would have significantly degraded the soil structure and will have a long-term impact on their health.
Mr Farrimond’s report said: “Aside from the visible root damage and occasional poor pruning of lower minor branches, the trees were generally found to be in good structural and physiological condition with the exception of four ash trees.
“These trees were all exhibiting signs of reduced vitality consistent with the impact of ash dieback disease. This disease has the potential effect of limiting their expected lifespans.”
Landowner John Clare said that Mr Farrimond’s report was “hostile, full of errors and defamatory”. This included naming the road as Rivelin Valley Road.
His name and address were blacked out in council documents but referring to him as landowner meant he could be identified.
“That calls into question the care and accuracy of the report,” said Mr Clare.
He said that the report made it sound like “we cleared a place full of beautiful trees” back to bare earth when that was far from the case and healthy, mature vegetation has been retained.
Mr Clare said he could legally have cleared the site before any tree preservation orders were in place but he had not done so. “The trees are not, never have been and never will be in any danger whatsoever,” he added.
As a civil engineer he contested the issue of soil compaction and damage to tree roots, saying that more damage would have been caused by people walking on the area to inspect the site.
Mr Farrimond said his assessment is based on a British standard that recommends a root protection area around a tree for heavy machinery when construction work is taking place.
Mr Clare said that one of the trees named in the order is a Christmas tree that his wife and her dad planted after it had been in the house. Mr Farrimond responded that the Norway spruce might not be a native species but it is visually prominent on the land.
Coun Garry Weatherall asked about a hawthorn named in the tree preservation order. Mr Farrimond replied that they are a native tree which provide a natural habitat for lots of species.
Coun Marieanne Elliot said: “It seems to me like a win-win situation. The trees are retained, the amenity values are still retained and the owner can still apply for a dog park with those trees still in it.”
Councillors unanimously approved the tree preservation order.