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."
Yes, it wasn't a criticism of the cause. It's been a hugely successful last minute campaign. It was more an acknowledgement of the horse-trading that usually happens toward the end of the planning process.
It's natural for them to want to clear as many 'obstacles' to building as they can, and only right that the public gets to say 'no'.
The scale of the development means its impact goes so far beyond the reckless destruction of the trees. I haven't read through the hundreds of pages of documents, but it seems obvious that there will be many instances of the developers pushing for concessions well beyond what they should reasonably be allowed. Parking for example. Why don't they limit it to spaces for deliveries and those with disabilities? Or dig down rather than provide on street parking?
Again, I have to wonder what our councillors are paid for.
995 dwellings!!! Where are these people coming from?
Don't be put off by the end date on the consultation. Any decision-making process will take some time yet. There is no reason not to continue putting in objections.
Have you read the response by Haringeys nature conservation officer? As far as I can tell it says absolutely nothing. http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Attachm...
Done. Better late, eh?
Yes, this was very well masked in the information sharing we went to in the park this summer.
Over the years, I've enjoyed walking around the grounds of St Anns Hospital and found some quiet there away from the busy-ness of Green Lanes. The trees and hedgerows are so beautiful and also home to many birds who can be heard singing their tunes so beautifully. It's simply horrifying that they wish to tear so many trees and hedgerows down and destroy the home of birds and other wildlife. This is not progress. Every time I hear or read something about 'sustainability' and 'protecting the environment' when property development is concerned, it often means the opposite.
I hope the objections are acted upon. Thanks for raising awareness of this Liz.
The objection form is still open, folks. Write in now, while we still can!
There are now 307 objections against this application. The first 60 (approx) are the standard concerns about public service resilience, population density and overlooking etc. Random informal sampling suggests that the remaining 260 are almost exclusively objecting to the loss of trees. This is a significant level of objections, but that won't necessarily result in success (but let's all keep them crossed).
What with Truss's shower about to detax and deregulate the UK, apparently the UK's environmental protections are set for another retrograde step, but I won't get in to all that (heaves a big sigh).
Expect more concrete from the 'build back better' brigade.... utter despair
Has anyone contacted David Lammy?
He was last seen in NY I believe at some global summit/WEF meeting?