It should be borne in mind that even if a valid survey methodology had been used, and even if the results had been correctly analysed and reported, a survey such as this is inappropriate as a basis for making tree population management decisions. It is contrary to all current good practice in urban forestry and arboriculture and incompatible with a SUSTAINABLE approach. Using a survey such as this to inform decisions on whether or not to fell trees is unnecessary, and represents unnecessary waste of resources (in particular, public funds). In short, using a survey for this purpose represents malpractice.

Sheffield City Council did know what they were doing. It was a purely political tactic. By conducting a survey such as this, they could falsely claim to have "consulted" the public, albeit only residents on streets where trees are scheduled for felling. This was a bonus for SCC as they had neglected to take any steps to consult the public on plans prior to commencement of the £2.2bn city-wide highway maintenance project. The survey also created valuable media opportunities for SCC & Amey, and positive media coverage, at a time when they were under intense scrutiny for their incompetent acts, and omissions (reckless and wilful), not least of all misrepresentation of information and distribution of false or misleading information.

The positive media coverage temporarily distracted attention from and provided cover for SCCs/Amey's wrongful, incompetent acts and omissions. It successfully diverted the media spotlight - temporarily - away from their transgressions, reducing the likelihood of public accountability and distracting opposition campaigners, causing them to lose focus & divert limited resources. It bought time. With the passage of time, SCC seek to dismiss their wrongs by saying those are in the past and we must "move forward", or "it's great to have hindsight". When I met with Cllr Bryan Lodge - SCC Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene (Cllr Fox’s successor) - back in August 2016, and told him that the surveys and Independent Tree Panel were an unnecessary waste of public resources, he used the latter to excuse his continuing errors. I pointed out to him - correctly - that all SCC errors could have been avoided had SCC & Amey put in place steps to enable and ensure adequate fulfilment of existing policy commitments* and if they were to use and apply the range of good practice guidance and recommendations they claim to, and which Amey are contractually bound to apply, in order to fulfil their contractual commitments*. I also reminded Cllr Lodge that his hindsight comment was well & truly out of order, as I had advised him on the most appropriate ways of addressing all highway tree related matters soon after he accepted his position as Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene. I also reminded him that I had previously provided similar advice to Cllr Jack Scott in early 2014 (then Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene) and all Cabinet Members as of 2015, on numerous occasions. I also reminded him of the very detailed communications that the Save Our Roadside Trees group (SORT) has distributed to every Councillor in the city (in June 2015 & January 2016):

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/SORT%20L...

https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/sites/default/files/files/SORT%20L...

I made it clear to Cllr Lodge that what the Council lacked and needed was foresight and that his wrongful acts and omissions, and those of all SCC Councillors and Officers, could not be defended by the excuse that they did not know any better, given that they had received so much sound advice from SORT & I. Cllr Lodge then promised to start identifying and correcting errors and start identifying and implementing steps to achieve adequate, positive, change. As we have all witnessed, he did not do a thing – it was just one of his many lies.

* See the following:

COST OF SUSTAINABILITY:
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/ignorance-pig-hea...

TREES & HAZARD MANAGEMENT (published):
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/802#comment-802

TREE POPULATION MANAGEMENT BY NUMBERS (published):
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/779#comment-779

"STREET TREE MASSACRE" - a response to Cllr Peter Price (published):
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/732#comment-732

A couple of the most important points amongst a number missing from the above critique are that:

1) the survey was accompanied by an introductory letter that was full of misrepresentation, intended to drum up support for proposed felling;

2) many of the questions were biased, leading questions;

3) a household representative was invited to provide reasoning to support their decision. However, THE LONG-STANDING SCC POLICY FOR TREE WORKS WAS NOT PRESENTED TO RECIPIENTS OF THE SURVEY. For your benefit, here it is:

“WE ARE UNABLE TO CARRY OUT WORK WHERE:

• Trees belong to private properties
• Falling leaves or fruit are causing an annoyance
• Falling blossom, sap or bird droppings are causing an annoyance

• Trees are blocking light or causing shade
• Trees are obstructing telephone wires (contact your telephone service provider)
• Trees are obstructing TV or satellite reception
• We do not remove trees for construction or widening of driveways”

Source:
Sheffield City Council, 2015. Roadside Trees. [Online] Available at: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/report_request/plants/trees.html [Accessed 15 August 2015].

4) Many people that completed the survey and supported felling did so solely for one or more of the above reasons. It was never made clear how such survey responses would be/were handled by SCC when assessing whether or not a sufficient number of households were opposed to proposals to trigger reference to the sham "Independent" Tree Panel.

I have commented on the household felling survey previously:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/foi_request_engineering_solution#...

Some of my other letters on the mass culling of Sheffield’s street trees:

SUSTAINABILITY Vs TREE MASSACRE (published):
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/813#comment-813

“HOW SCC & AMEY GET IT SO WRONG: FELLING: SCC/AMEY INCOMPETENCE AND DECEIT”:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/698#comment-698

“THE GREAT SHEFFIELD CHAINSAW MASSACRE” – A Response to Louise Haigh MP (published):
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/756#comment-756

SUSTAINABILITY – LEGISLATION:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/835#comment-835
&
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/george-monbiot-ad...

On a final note, I’ll just point out that Sheffield City Council has been able to squander resources on media spin & smear campaigns, converting enquiries & requests to Freedom of Information requests, the Highway Trees Advisory Forum, the household felling survey, the “Independent” Tree Panel, various court cases & employment of private surveillance, because it has fined Amey MILLIONS OF POUNDS - over £2m in 2015, alone! – for neglect to apply the level of care expected of reasonably skilled professionals when undertaking highway maintenance works for the Streets Ahead project. See:

COUNCIL INCOMPETENCE:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/728#comment-728

RECKLESS TREE FELLING: OPENNESS, TRANSPARENCY & JUSTICE:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/comment/714#comment-714