Order confirmed to save six trees in Sheffield road despite felling work started

Sheffield City Council’s planning and highways committee yesterday (April 2) discussed the case of a tree preservation order (TPO) on Stratford Road in Fulwood after officers were told that 16 mature trees were being felled last Autumn.

A report published ahead of the meeting said a community tree officer visited the site and tried to stop the action but several trees had already been removed or had had their major limbs removed to leave a standing stem.

The document added: “It was the recommendation of the assessing officer that, pending further assessment, removal of all of the trees would have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the area and that a tree preservation order (TPO) should be served.”

However, the tree surgeons had chosen to continue working on the trees, and de-limbed a further number of the trees fronting Tom Lane, before eventually finishing work before the time that the order was made and came into effect later that day, the report said.

A subsequent site visit occurred on November 3 to carry out a more thorough inspection of the trees.

The inspection had found, the report said, that five of the 10 trees fronting Carsick Hill Crescent “were of insufficient quality to meet the high standard necessary to be included in a defensible TPO”.

It added: “Four of the trees fronting Tom Lane were also of insufficient quality to be included, due to being left as standing stems by the tree surgeons.”

The TPO now protects six trees from deliberate damage or removal and the committee is asked to confirm this. If the order is ignored, fines can be handed out.

The document said only the owners of the property on Stratford Road – or those on their behalf, to be more precise – objected to the TPO on October 30 (and then January 18, following the variation in the original order).

They said “the TPO was served in a storm for no apparent reason” and also “serving an ill-considered TPO does not encourage people to manage their trees and is likely to discourage tree ownership”.

Another objection to the varied order was submitted in February by another person raising concerns about “the loss of biodiversity” following the removal of the high number of unprotected trees.

Following a very brief discussion on the matter, the council’s planning committee confirmed the TPO to save the remaining six trees.