Sheffield tree felling saga: Lord David Blunkett speaks out about 'hunger for revenge'

The report made for uncomfortable reading for the council, with “dishonest”, “deluded” and damaging behaviour throughout the tree felling fiasco highlighted.

What started out as a programme to improve the city's highways spiralled into one of the most infamous council scandals in history.

During one particularly infamous incident – known as the “dawn raid” on Rustlings Road – council contractors reportedly knocked residents up out of their beds at 4.45 am to move their cars so that trees could be felled before protesters arrived. Nick Clegg, then MP for Sheffield Hallam, described it as “something you’d expect to see in Putin’s Russia”.

Sir Lowcock, whose long-awaited report sought “truth and reconciliation”, described it as a “dark episode in Sheffield”.

He found that the council overstretched its authority in taking drastic action against campaigners, had serious and sustained failures in leadership and misled the public, courts and an independent panel it set up to deal with the dispute.

“It lacked transparency and repeatedly said things that were economical with the truth, misleading and in some cases were ultimately exposed as dishonest,” Sir Lowcock said in one of many scathing statements.

Christine King, former co-chair of Sheffield Tree Action Group described the felling of thousands of healthy and much-loved trees as a “needless destruction of our green heritage”.

The tree felling report found that if there had been no campaign in Sheffield to oppose what the council was doing with the city's trees, at least 10,000 more would have been chopped down

There are still 14 years left of the roads contract left.

In a letter to The Star, former Sheffield MP Lord David Blunkett said: “As someone who, behind the scenes, did everything possible to try and find common ground for those protesting against the removal of trees and the council which had signed the contract with Amey (the private company implementing the road and pavement restoration programme), I'm deeply concerned about the nature of the current debate.

“I have, myself, been involved with earlier studies prior to the present detailed and extremely concerning report by Sir Mark Lowcock KCB, including writing the foreword to the academic publication put together from the University of Sheffield

“There are numerous lessons to be learnt and many questions to be answered, most of which apply to individuals previously working for the council who have now “moved on” or retired, and clearly profound lessons for politicians who accepted, at face value, what they were being told.

“This, of course, applies to those who signed off the original contract, as well as the tragic mishandling of the situation for the following decade.

“But this independent review was about two things: truth and reconciliation.

“We have, thanks to this investigation, got as near to the truth is we are ever going to achieve. We know what happened, and how to avoid it happening again.

“But the second part of the enquiry was about “reconciliation". I'm afraid I see very little willingness from some quarters to be reconciled to what happened in the past, rather than seeking retribution in the present. I see very little evidence of conciliation or willingness to understand what “truth and reconciliation" actually means.

“We can't, and we certainly shouldn't, live in the past but, of course, we can learn important lessons and move on.

“If Sheffield's image nationally is not to be damaged still further by what happened, then we must surely have a grown-up conversation about how public engagement, listening and being willing to think again, can be embedded in both policy and practice from here on in.

“That, surely, is a more fitting outcome than a hunger for revenge?”