The Friends of St Ann's Green Spaces were shocked to discover that Catalyst's current planning application will result in loss of 50% of the existing trees on the site.
They have asked me to bring to the attention of Harringay Online users this alarming loss of trees from the St Ann's site that has emerged from the publication of the The Arboricultural Impact Assessment Survey as part of the current consultation.
They have also asked that concerned people respond to the consultation by 22nd September 2022 and reject these plans.
The Arboricultural Impact Assessment Survey (available in full here) lists a far higher than expected rate of tree loss in the course of the build.
Out of a total of 226 individual trees, 32 groups of trees and 7 hedges “within influencing distance of the application site”, the survey confirms removal of 71 trees, 15 tree groups and 96.5m of hedgerow.
In addition “the anticipated effects would include the removal of a further 0.4143ha of canopy cover equating to 43 individual trees and 15 groups or parts of groups as well as 164m of hedgerow.”
Both Friends of the Earth and the Haringey Parks Forum have registered their alarm at the loss of trees and canopy cover at a time when it is clear that we need as much green space as possible in London to combat climate change. The site is known for its rare and special trees, some of which grow nowhere else in London, and its SINC (site of importance for nature conservation) that runs along the back of the site along the railway line and also forms an important link with Railway Fields as a wildlife corridor and habitat.
Noted tree expert and ecologist, Russell Miller, made the following comments after seeing the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Survey:
- the scale of tree and canopy loss is extraordinarily high
- given the climate emergency and record London temperatures in 2022 loss of canopy of this magnitude should lead to an automatic rejection of the design. People in London are dying from excessive heat and air pollution. A project that predicts an overall loss of canopy even after new planting should be unacceptable. All planning guidance in London is for increasing canopy cover.
- the failure to correctly identify and quantify the loss of SINC woodland is a major flaw in the AIA. The SINC woodland abuts a key railway wildlife corridor and its value is therefore even greater than the canopy cover and group of trees alone. The final AIA Appendix plan refers to SINC gain and SINC retention but not SINC loss.
- the trees at St. Ann's are much more diverse and unusual than typical urban planting. Whilst the AIA acknowledges this it nevertheless proposes tree losses on a huge scale.
- The planned green roofs are a major element of post development habitat. The roofs are said to be largely 'intensive' but terminology in this area is new and undefined leaving too much scope for poor delivery. Greater clarity is required as to minimum substrate depth, substrate type, maintenance provisions and biodiversity value of these roofs. This is essential if anything of wildlife value is to be gained from these buildings."
This is important. We need more trees in Haringey not less! Replacement trees take decades to mature and provide equivalent benefit to what we already have.
Thank you! The more people raise their objections to this the better.
Please note that I have now added the stAGS response to the planning application below if you wish to use it as the basis for your objections
Thanks for sharing Liz, I wasn't sure how to phrase my objections.
I might be mistaken, but in looking at the list of comments and objections, there appears to be nothing from local councillors Hakata and Davies. Have I missed them?
Such a massive development and not a peep?
Not yet but they have been formally written to by StAGS as have all councillors today. They still have time to respond
Thank you to everyone who has responded so far. Still the rest of today and tomorrow to get in objections
Done. Thank you Liz.
It occurs to me that it might be an idea to send a copy of your objections to your councillors (Mike Hakata is the Climate Action lead) and fill up their inboxes with this issue. They at least can't claim not to know about then even if they don't reply. I'm fairly sure most of them will say that they are concerned by climate change and the effects on London. They surely won't want to ignore deforestation on their doorstep in that case
Find your local councillor here
Just added my objection. And bringing this thread back to the front page
So far, of the 270 consultation comments just 2 are explicitly in support.
What is a little concerning is the fact they are almost all about the trees. A clever developer might have poked that particular bear on purpose.
It's the largest residential development in Harringay since the Gardens were established in the 1890s. 17 acres, 995 dwellings. And the only thing we're pushing back on are the trees?
Meanwhile, the many councillors from the area (including several Cabinet members) remain conspicuous by their absence.
The developer had nothing to do with alerting people to the tree loss, although the information was hidden in plain sight, it was a member of Friends of St Ann’s Green Spaces who read through the tree assessment and discovered the plan. She then brought to people’s attention. More likely they relied on people not reading it and then after it was done saying “we told you, not our problem if you didn’t notice until too late”. There is also some pushback on the demolishing of the Victorian buildings and some people are trying to get a few of them integrated into the new development in particular the stables block. If there’s less pushback from the public it’s maybe because on the whole people don’t get as emotionally attached to buildings as they do to trees although some of us do both!