|
|
 |
| |
More than aesthetic frills, city trees have a vital role
• THE decision of Islington Council’s scrutiny committee to investigate how better to maintain and protect the borough’s trees is welcome (Help protect our trees, urges Town Hall team, October 17). Green Party councillor Katie Dawson is to be congratulated on the success of her initiative. It should become harder for developers to cut down trees solely to maximise floor space and profits.
Regarding the Farringdon Road plane trees, however, we believe it was the failure to apply existing planning policies correctly, not the need for new ones, which has led to the absurd situation where the only significant trees along an otherwise long ugly polluted concrete thoroughfare might yet be cut down.
Passing taxi drivers and delivery lorries honked their support of the campaign’s protest in great numbers earlier this year. Passers-by took one look at the endangered trees, said simply “That’s wrong” and signed the petition opposing their felling.
On the site of the Guardian newspaper office, the trees have been described by the current developer’s own arboricultural advisor as “in robust health”. Despite this, the council argues that an existing planning consent, granted in 2007, allows for the planes to be cut down and that it will therefore be unable to refuse permission for any new development on the grounds of saving them. (The Guardian is moving to York Way at the end of November and the site’s new owner is relying on the earlier consent to remove the planes to make way for a large corporate headquarters.)
Our campaign believes that the previous planning application was mishandled by the council. Local authorities have an obligation to provide information and to consult locally about developments. But the earlier site description for 119 Farringdon Road failed to mention the trees. Not surprising, therefore, that there was little objection to the scheme. How can people oppose something they know nothing about?
The new site description, in contrast, makes clear that the trees will be felled if planning permission is granted, so no surprise that opposition to plans for the site is overwhelming. Councillor Greg Foxsmith, executive member for the environment, has to date failed to acknowledge these concerns. We are currently seeking the view of the ombudsman.
Urban trees are more than aesthetic frills, as Councillor Ruth Polling’s comment about “beautiful trees” implies. They provide shade, reduce noise and air pollution and lessen flood risk by soaking up water as in recent heavy downpours.
It’s estimated that upwards of 1,000 deaths a year in London result from exhaust fumes, with children and women particularly vulnerable. Trees help regulate these emissions, while their role in good mental health is increasingly recognised. (Mind’s ecotherapy report should be a must for Islington’s councillors; the borough has a high rate of emotional ill health.)
Trees are vital for the functioning of the city, its environment and the physical and mental well-being of its population. It’s to be hoped that the scrutiny committee’s review will reflect their irreplaceable role.
Harriette Ashcroft and Meg Howarth
Save the Farringdon Road planes
Ellington Street, N7
• I AM pleased that Islington Council has agreed to a Green Party proposal to scrutinise its treatment of our trees and it deserves credit for this. But the self-congratulatory tone of its press release last week is slightly baffling and quite inappropriate.
Yes, we have a lot of trees in Islington but we also chop a lot down. According to Greater London Authority figures, over the last five years Islington lost 1,519 trees – more than any other inner-city borough.
In the same period, Camden lost just over 600 trees, Hackney lost 325, Lambeth 496 and Southwark 251.
It was a Lib Dem-controlled planning committee that gave permission for the 10 mature London plane trees by the Guardian building in Farringdon Road to be felled.
That these trees have been given no protection whatsoever from the council but have been sacrificed for the convenience of a developer is nothing short of a scandal.
Other recent examples of the council not only failing to protect trees but actively seeking their destruction include the huge poplars in St John Street, the beautiful plane on Rheidol Green and the ancient pear trees at St John’s Villas, which were only spared after a vigorous campaign by residents and the Green Party.
For this scrutiny to be fruitful the council would be well advised to approach the subject matter with humility and even a degree of contrition, rather in its usual bullish and overspun style.
CLLR KATIE DAWSON
Green Party, Highbury West
• I AM pleased to read that Councillor Ruth Polling is keen on trees because the plan she is promoting to redevelop the Sobell Centre site poses a serious threat to the fine open space there and the trees on it.
We are told there will be more open space after the redevelopment but study of the plans shows there will be higher ground coverage by buildings and that much of the open space will be in the form of comparatively narrow unusable strips overshadowed by buildings up to 10 storeys high.
In a letter from the chair of Anaconda Swimming Club (Sobell secrets, October 17), the council is praised for its redevelopment proposal because of the swimming pool that will be provided.
But a swimming complex could be provided without redevelopment. The council’s own study considered converting half the existing sports hall for the purpose and I have myself shown that it could be added at the north-west corner of the site without spoiling the existing hall or the landscaped open space and trees.
JAMES DUNNETT
James Dunnett Architects
Barnsbury Road, N1
• MAY I draw the attention of readers to the fact that if the Sobell Leisure Centre is redeveloped it will involve the felling of at least 30 mature trees and the loss of a large green space.
So much for the lip-service Islington Council pays to the green agenda.
JL NICOL
Hornsey Road, N7
|
 |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
