Coming home from yoga tonight, I noticed, with shock, that the beautiful tree outside no. 42 is scheduled for removal.It's the usual: the tree is healthy, but there is, it seems, an insurance issue. On the sign around the tree, it says that it "has been implicated in damage to an adjacent property". And that "works will commence shortly". No 42 is up for sale, so I imagine this is how this has come up.
I feel devastated by this. I can't let this happen. My younger daughter is in tears. The tree has been there since when we moved into the house opposite, when she was born, and has been an important presence for all of us ever since.
Is the nicest remaining street tree on Cavendish Road (a tall tree was removed not long ago near the top of Cavendish Road, and the site has been paved over, so I think there are no plans to replace it), and tends to be full of birds and birds' nests (though less so this year, as it has been pruned recently).
I've written to the planning department, but I'm not sure how much that is going to help in the face of an insurance company.
I'm happy to do pretty much whatever it takes to stop this -- any help, advice or support is appreciated.
The Council's Aboriculturalists organise to go round the borough in swathes maintaining street trees. The maintenance schedule (PDF files) is on this page- here below I've copied the latest ones - pretty much every street is in there somewhere, so it's possible to discover from them when yours is next due for some TLC:
Read more about London's (and Haringey's) street trees here.
PS: Maren, if you haven't previously heard of it, you may be interested to have a look through the Treeconomics website. They work with community groups, research organisations, public bodies and private business to complete projects which highlight the value of trees. I'm attaching a copy of a study they published in 2015 on London's Street trees.
Actually, Hugh, a few of us in Haringey took part in this survey - it's not a street-tree one. The Forestry Commission did it, Treeconomics acted as one of the consultants. Around 600 plots throughout London were chosen at random to be visited and the trees on the plots counted - a few of mine contained none at all, and some were in back gardens, some in Golf courses etc.
To be honest, I didn't think much of the survey at all (too small and random). They also missed the chance, having recruited teams of 'citizen' tree surveyors, to grow (or even engage with) those teams in future.
Thanks for the inside view.
Hugh, I read the Treeconomics report when it was published. It seemed to me a very positive document, not least because it indicated strong cross-party agreement about the vital importance of London's trees. Also because the report stated that the work was shared between a number of bodies clearly listed in the report. And many volunteers who were credited by name.
At Zena Brabazon's request I took photos of the threatened tree in Cavendish Road. I also posted them on my photoblog - adding a link to Google Street View to give an aerial view.
From above, it's apparent how much more tree cover is provided by garden trees on these Ladder roads than by street trees. (I'm not suggesting this justifies removing street trees!)
By contrast an aerial view of the streets near my own home in Tottenham Hale gives the impression of far fewer trees, and many more rear structures such as garages, sheds, and patios.