The short answer is no (Is this a war on trees? Notebook, 22 November). As a several decades-long member of the Woodland Trust, I value mature trees and the recreation of ancient woodland, but in respect to Sheffield’s tree-culling, Patrick Barkham has given only a one-sided story, that of the “save all trees” fanatics who forced the council’s hand. In our leafy suburbs many of the trees are over 100 years old and, yes, they do add many benefits to the environment. However, many are huge, forest varieties, unsuitable for the streets in which they were planted. Thus some obstruct pavements and roadways, and their roots have caused ground upheavals of 20cm or more. Some are also reaching old age, with a consequent risk of falling branches.
Looking at the wider picture, it thus makes very good sense to cut these down and replant with more suitable varieties as part of the road and pavement renewal scheme, to avoid later more expensive replacement after they have damaged the new roads and pavements. I will be sad to see them go – it’s only a selected few – but very glad to get rid of the potholed roads and lumpy pavements with their tripping hazards. And my children will benefit from the new trees as they mature, as part of a planned tree-management scheme.
Michael Miller
Sheffield
• Patrick Barkham is quite right that the council’s handling has been disgraceful and that taking action in the middle of the night was at best misguided. But he misses the bigger issue: why Sheffield city council and other authorities are forced into signing such appalling contracts. That they have to make real choices about what they can deliver and what they can’t any more is the real reason people ought to be in revolt. If there’s a toss-up between, say, social services and the trees, then there’s not much debate. I say that as someone who loves the city for, among other things, how green it is. The bottom line is that trees can be replaced. The lives of vulnerable people who lose access to essential services can’t.
This whole furore feels like a gift to the government: outrage over decisions taken by a Labour council, with not a whisper about this ultimately being the impact of austerity. Nick Clegg can be as outraged as he likes, but his hands are hardly clean. Patrick is wrong: it isn’t Sheffield council or even Amey, the contractor, that are responsible for this controversy. It is the Tories’ ideological obsession with austerity. If Sheffield council has something to learn here, it is that it needs to be bolder in telling residents why they are being forced to make such unpalatable decisions.
Richard Thackeray
Sheffield
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
