Lydgate Lane trees earmarked for felling

200-year-old trees on Lydgate Lane are scheduled to be cut down as part of the Streets Ahead project.

Notices have been placed by Amey/Streets Ahead on three trees stating they have developed a structural fault and are to be felled within two weeks – possibly on Wednesday 28 October – as part of the city-wide programme to improve Sheffield’s roads

Campaigners have organised an emergency meeting at 5pm Sunday 25 October in The Sportsman pub on Benty Lane – anyone with an interest in the fate of these trees is invited. Dave Dillner from Sheffield Tree Action Group will be attending. A petition to save the trees is also available for signing in Enhance Hair Salon.

Anyone wanting to express their views on the proposals to representatives from Amey and local councillors will also have the opportunity to do so at the next Crosspool Forum Open Meeting/AGM on 29 October at St Columba’s Church, 7pm start.

You can also contact Amey/Streets ahead directly.

Lydgate Lane tree
Three trees on Lydgate Lane are due to be felled



26 Replies to “Lydgate Lane trees earmarked for felling”

  1. I do hope those with ‘views to express’ also have some expertise & knowledge to offer, not just knee jerk opposition.

  2. I agree CB but Amey have hardly given anyone chance to do much research or get any second opinions from professionals.These are ash trees – the type which are dying by their thousands over Britain from a fungal disease – ash dieback. I am informed that the disease has not yet reached Sheffield …the nearest place is York. The government are planting quarter of a million saplings to try to find a disease resistant strain to repopulate. Surely we should be trying to save these seemingly healthy ashes or at least have the chance for independent assessment. Amey are shutting Lydgate Lane for tree felling next Tuesday and Wednesday ….BEFORE THE PRESENTLY SCHEDULED meeting ( notice on the road opposite the pictured tree went up today)

    1. The meeting is coincidental, & is not about the trees specifically. I do hope the Chairman doesn’t let a few protestors hijack it. Although if the trees are already dealt with, there wouldn’t be much point them doing so.

    2. The notices went up on the trees a few weeks ago, and there weren’t people asking for signatures on a petition immediately. Seems a bit late to start protesting anyway.

  3. I could understand the brouhaha more if the council weren’t replacing them, but as they are I don’t get it. The list of possible replacements includes cherry trees, which would be really pretty in spring.

    Of course if the trees were to fall down, there would be an equal amount of people complaining that the council did nothing. The same people maybe?

    It all seems a little silly and middle class

    1. Not sure about planting cherry trees, they are notorious for shallow roots damaging pavements. There are much better native species.

      1. Just goes to show how much (little?) I know about trees!

        I still don’t understand why there is a fuss if they are getting replaced?

  4. From Councillor Geoff Smith

    I have not commented earlier because I have been working on this issue for a few days and wanted to wait for an initial decision before saying anything.

    The work on the Lydgate Lane trees has been suspended so will not take place tomorrow and Wednesday. I have been pressing for this and I will explain my position.

    I do not want any trees to be felled without good reason, particularly trees of some note and vintage that are in a prominent local position. But of course I have to act responsibly and if trees are a safety risk and there is no other way of reasonably dealing with the risk then I have to accept them being removed.

    I have had some misgivings in pressing for a postponement because of the safety issue but I wanted an opportunity for Amey to explain their reasons for felling the trees. In particular, given that there is a Crosspool Forum meeting on Thursday with Amey representatives present.

    There has been some misunderstanding about the issue. The proposal has nothing to do with the replacement of pavements or any other part of the Streets Ahead highway refurbishment programme. It relates to a safety assessment of trees.


    1. Hello Councillor Smith,
      Firstly, you say, “There is no other way of reasonably dealing with the risk.”
      As I understand it (from independent expert assessment) the Marsh Lane tree has previously been on a pollard schedule. The risk comes from decayed limbs above the line at which they were previously pollarded and does NOT represent a risk from the whole tree.
      To remove the offending limbs and prune back the rest of the new growth would suffice in this instance and reduce the weight bearing load. It would then need to be reassessed every five years on an ongoing pollard cycle.
      Please explain why this is not REASONABLE.
      With regard to the safety issue I would like you to explain why the tree has not been attended to since last year when the incident of the falling limb first came to light. Why your SUDDEN concern now?
      Finally, by your own admission, “The proposal has nothing to do with the replacement of pavements or any other part of the Streets Ahead highway refurbishment programme. It relates to a safety assessment of trees.”
      Why then, at last night’s meeting, did you feel the need to go into so much detail about
      pavements being obstruction free?

    2. If felling is truly the “last resort” as has been claimed by your colleagues in the council and Darren Butt last night it is REASONABLE to apply the precautionary principle in the case of the Marsh Lane tree and have Amey consider the alternative to felling I didn’t get the chance to voice last night due to interruption and abuse. The tree in question last received maintenance 5 to 8 years ago as can be evidenced from observing the growth from the base of the pollarded branches. If the decayed branches were to be removed and the tree put back on a new 5 year pollard cycle to reduce the stress then felling is ABSOLUTELY NOT the last resort.
      If you wanted to be seen acting in a responsible manner why has nothing been done to ensure the safety concerns since the reported loss of a branch mentioned last night?
      How does this equate with your “misgivings?”
      You need to stop using the word “replacement” to describe what is being taken away and what is being installed instead. It does not qualify as replacement.
      If you insist on making such statements you really do need to acquaint yourself with the UKFS and its definition of sustainability and the Helliwell System 2008 used by the Arboricultural Association and adopted by councils with a POSITIVE tree strategy in place.
      The UKFS requires that the stewardship & use of forests and forest lands in a way, and a rate that maintains their potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions at local levels.
      The Helliwell System states that to REPLACE a tree one should plant the largest growing tree that the space will comfortably hold, as this will give maximum visual amenity.

      You were quite correct to say above that there has been “some misunderstanding” about the issue.
      I trust I have just demonstrated to you where your own misunderstanding lies!

  5. Geoff
    With the number of trees that they are taking out in Sheffield they are not safety concerns they are harvesting them. Where does the money go when they sell the wood from these trees.

    Keith Kendall

  6. One of the trees on Lydgate Lane,
    (the one that has the notice on it ‘Trees not Tarmac’ is virtually dead. So disaster needs to be averted and the thing removed. Why don’t the council try replanting with fruit trees? We’d all benefit then.

      1. Sadly, I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting, otherwise I would have been more than happy to ask the question. I also have the opinion that if we don’t start a proper management programme now, then there will be no mature trees for future generations. They will have been removed or died and not replaced in time for them to grow to maturity. It seems to me to make perfect common sense to have an ongoing programme and not a knee jerk reaction in years to come. We are wasting far too much time and money arguing about whether to remove and replace. Now is the time to act.

      2. Hopefully we can get an answer about the fruit tree option for you.

        All the trees being removed are being replaced, you may have noticed there is a recently planted tree in the verge where the tree we’re talking about is. In fact more are being planted than are being removed, with more appropriate species, although as far as I’m aware that doesn’t include fruiting trees. Amey’s contract will ensure they are properly managed for at least the remainder of the 20 years I think it runs.

      3. CB

        You are missing the point, the trees are being replaced but with what. These trees at the moment have grown into full mature trees that are home to many insects birds, and Owls. replacing them with cherry trees that will never reach this height or scale of maturity is very inappropriate.

      4. I wasn’t responding to your comments, but I have already clearly said that cherry trees are not appropriate, so why are you suggesting I am proposing these trees are replaced with cherry trees?

        Expert advice says there are a small number of trees at this location, next to a busy road and a footpath used by primary school children, which are dangerous and need to be removed on safety grounds. Unless you have some expertise and can say they are wrong, I suggest prioritising insects is rather odd.

    1. I suggest you study the picture of the tree to which you refer above. “Virtually dead?”

  7. Shame on Sheffield council and Amey, if the trees had been well maintained over the years then there would be no need to fell them. Yet another piece of Crosspool history lost.

    1. The fact that you feel Amey, who’ve only had the contract for a few years, are somehow responsible for any (& I don’t accept your premise) lack of ‘maintenance’ over the decades that the tree has been growing, really puts your comment in perspective!

  8. Only a fool could think that the saplings or new trees that Amey are planting are adequate replacements for all the mature trees that are being felled. Given the Council’s and Amey’s record of transparency and the many cases where they have said trees are diseased when they are not (as proved by an independent tree expert who examined a tree at Crookes due for felling) who can trust what they say. I firmly believe that most of the 2,000 trees removed so far were not diseased or dangerous but have been felled to avoid future maintenance costs. Those people who believe what the council say are either very stupid or incredibly naive. By the time the Council and Amey have finished we will have no roadside or street trees left. So much for the Council’s claim that Sheffield is the greenest city and their claim of several years ago (which some people seem to have forgotten) that they will never fell a healthy tree. Shame on Sheffield City Council for ignoring 12,000 signature petitions and the wishes of residents.

Leave a reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: