Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Massive habitat destrcution planned by Network Rail - Finsbury Pk to Ally Pally (June to March next year)
HABITAT DESTRUCTION - COME TO PUBLIC MEETING ON JUNE 6TH in Hornsey.
Letters through the door today, Network Rail are going to be clearing the railway lines of 21 feet (6+metres and beyond) of trees/vegetation from next month to MARCH 2025 from Finbsury Pk to Ally Pally.
Be warned, this is going to decimate a corridor of nature habitat, wildlife, birds, insects, amphibians, smaller mammals, hedgehogs, fox homes, squirrels all along this mile or so stretch of line.
This is also in nesting season (March to August) and should be delayed!
Network rail doesn't have good form at ecology protection. https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/martinharper/posts/good-new...
Please come to their PUBLIC MEETING on Thursday 6 June from 5-7pm at the YMCA Harringay Club in Hornsey (on the corner of Ribblesdale Road).
There is also an online meeting on Tuesday 4th June on this link https://t.ly/PGMYG
Tags for Forum Posts: biodiversity, network rail, trees
- Attachments:
-
-
networkrail letter.jpeg, 224 KB -
page 2 letter network rail.jpeg, 211 KB
-
letter 3 network rail.jpeg, 163 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Skelton on
-
I've read the comments below and then re-read the letter from Network Rail.
Whilst the tone and language are polite and measured, the seeming stated remit of the works is anything but.
The "agreed specification" "will mean that "all woody vegetation/trees will be removed that are within 6.5m(21feet) of the running rail on either side of the tracks."
All woody vegetation and trees. So a total clearance of the area either side of the tracks to 6.5m away. 6.5m metres from the tracks is a huge area affecting the whole corridor of nature.
I have to ask why this is felt necessary. I am a regular user of the trains on this stretch, among the various excuses given for late running trains, vegetation on the tracks has not featured.
I am also a resident of Wightman with a flat on the tracks side of the street. For the the trees at the back of our property provide a welcome barrier between our property and the trains. If they are all removed, as seems likely from the scope of works in the letter, it will have a negative impact for me.
I wonder whether the true motivation for these works is alluded to in the sentence: " Incidents caused by vegetation cost the railway industry large sums of money."
Far cheaper to scorch the earth once than to considerately manage the vegetation year on year.
To me, this feels like simply another instance of humans being motivated by profit at the expense of nature.
Even with the effects of the climate crisis so evident the world over, we continue to degrade nature, in the name of progress and profit.
The fact that the top of the letter is emblazoned with a "Please recycle me" stamp is a coup de grace.
I'm going to attend the 45 minute! online consultation, write to my councillors and MP and contact network rail direct. But i am not hopeful of a change of scope of works.
-
-
It's worth saying that Network Rail is a non-profit organisation. It's settlement from the government for maintaining the railway has been reduced in real terms over recent years and it has a duty to keep the railways open so that trains can run. The number of incidents due to trees falling onto tracks has certainly increased over the last few years as our climate is changing.
I don't think anyone wants to see a reduction in habitat for wildlife but Network Rail's primary concern is to ensure that trains can run.
-
Permalink Reply by Giovanna iozzi on
-
I thought they were private? But perhaps I'm wrong.
They made millions in profit last year but a breakdown here
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Network-Ra...
-
-
They are a public body, fully funded by the the government. There are no shareholders.
Any "profit" they make is reinvested in the railways.
-
-
Mark,
Thanks for the correction re profit/private/public. Though possibly worth noting that the corporate mindset is so embedded in our culture that it permeates even non profit organisations.
To your point that the number of trees falling onto the tacks has increased in recent years due to climate change; only humans could conclude that the solution to a climate change driven issue is to cut down more trees.
Indeed Network Rail's primary concern is to ensure trains can run. And the regulatory framework requires little in terms of nature protection.
Similarly, the CEO of Thames Water's primary concern is to maximise shareholder profit. That's their job. If the best way to do this is to fill our seas with shit, and the regulatory framework allows and rewards this, crack on mate.
If Chicken Farmers can kill the river Wye and are rewarded with profit, if the Amazon is more productive to humans as pasture and for soy farming, go for it.
Leaves on the line, cut down all the trees mate - sorted.
Until we understand that we do not own nature, that we are entirely reliant upon it for our existence, and are guardians of a liveable world for all future generations, and start making decisions with this as a primary concern; we are destined to continue our march towards climate breakdown and all the death, displacement and misery that already accompanies it and will only increase in future years.
So yeah, I think we should ensure the trains can run, but not at the cost of thousands of trees.
We put a man on the moon. I reckon with a bit more care and humility we could probable figure it out.
-
-
Paul,
Take a breath, just because I have said that Network Rail's primary aim is to keep trains running, that doesn't mean that I support water companies dumping sewage into the sea. Why the over-reaction? Seriously, if this is how you react to people making a factual statement I don't know how you get through the day. I didn't even offer an opinion as to whether it was right or wrong, I was just providing some context.
The primary concern of water companies should be to provide clean water and deal with sewage, clearly that system is broken and the industry should be nationalised.
For what it's worth I don't think that all trees should be cleared from the railway corridor, and I am fully aware of the need to preserve nature and fight against climate breakdown.
Maybe take a moment to think before you reply next time, and don't jump to conclusions so quickly.
-
-
Mark
Apologies if my previous reply felt like an attack. Or indeed felt as though my observations were aimed at you, or had made assumptions about your position on the matter.
It was not intended in that way. But I can see how i reads that way.
I was, and continue to be exasperated by the continued degradation and destruction of nature that is going on around the world in direct contradiction to the scientific advice.
Apologies that that spilled over into this forum on this occasion.
All the best,
Paul
-
-
Thanks Paul, apologies if my response was a bit much as well. It is an emotive subject.
All the best to you too.
-
-
Excellent points Paul.
-
-
I agree Paul, also removing vegetation will remove the sound buffering.
I have written a template email for anyone who wants to use or adpt it. The person on the letter Sharon Neil (Community Relations Manager) is on holiday until Monday (how rubbish does this look?!) her email is sharon.neil@networkrail.co.uk
But we need to source people at Network rail further up the line. Can anyone help? We need some ecology heads in Network Rail and senior managers.
My email is attached.
- Attachments:
-
-
I have written a template email for anyone who wants to use or adpt it. The person on the letter Sharon Neil (Community Relations Manager) is on holiday until Monday (how rubbish does this look?!) her email is sharon.neil@networkrail.co.uk
But we need to source people at Network rail further up the line. Can anyone help? We need some ecology heads in Network Rail and senior managers.
My email is attached.
- Attachments:
-
-
sent.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
