Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Eleven Mature Trees Destroyed In School Grounds
A number of years ago, there was a thorough, in-depth asbestos survey of the ‘entire’ Ferry Lane Estate. After extensive searches, (comprising numerous test drilling’s into the soil - even including residents’ gardens - surveyors were more than satisfied to consider the estate safe, as any findings were tiny fibres and were buried; laying undisturbed in the soil, where they have been for many years.
Recently, as a result of nearby track works along Jarrow Rd, N17, (where surveyors found a tiny amount of asbestos), the Ferry Lane Primary School was alerted, and was surveyed soon after. Surveyors found a single fibre of asbestos deep in the school’s ‘green area’, which was always covered in grass and blessed with numerous mature trees, which provided a pretty canopy during light showers.
As a result of that single fibre scare, eleven mature trees have been recently chopped down in the school’s grounds. I see the remainder as possibly now threatened too. After all, following the removal of 11, the Council’s tree department, or the school, may not give much importance to the killing off of a few more.
The school, once lush and with plentiful tree canopies is now, 70% barren. This, at a time when the Amazon is under threat and Climate Change causes fires, destroying ancient woodlands in Europe, (obviously human negligence and purposeful acts play their part too). All this, in addition to the HS2 local destruction - opposite the school grounds, where 270 mature trees were chopped down a few years ago. Believe me, I’m still lamenting that loss.
I am immensely disappointed that Haringey and the school, (without any consultation or consideration for residents, whose homes back directly onto the school and over 2000 residents overall on Ferry Lane Estate), we’re kept ‘entirely’ in the dark, despite having a thriving Residents Group, (the Ferry Lane Action Group, FLAG).Residents do have a right to know about such things. Trees directly impact anyone living nearby - such as: trees are considered as a ‘noise barrier’, (they help to filter out loud playground noise, as after all kids need to play; ‘bird song’ and ‘nesting’, now reduced in the area and, of course, a matter of ‘light’’. Some residents prefer a shaded garden, especially as the closest gardens all face South! Eleven mature trees destroyed and ..... was sealing the asbestos fibre in even a consideration? I’ve heard that sealing can be very effective and, it was a single fibre that was found.
While works were going on, a visual barrier was put up around the whole playground site - thus concealing the carnage going on within. Residents had no idea about it. They heard the noise, but didn’t understand the full extent - not until one resident, (closely resembling myself), snuck in, through the barrier to take a peek, while the gate was opened for a vehicle.
What was seen, brought tears to the eyes. Beautiful, majestic trees laying on their sides.
I’m keeping a close eye, to help ensure the remainder of the trees aren’t unnecessarily felled.
It goes without saying that humans are seen as being far more important than trees, (while it needs to be said that there are a number of beliefs that consider every living thing as an equal). Surely, humans aren’t doing such a great job at caretaker’ing the planet. But, whatever side of the argument we’re on, we have a moral duty, (as far as I see it anyhow), to preserve the natural world, and explore alternatives, while ensuring our health, before sacrificing precious habitat.
https://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/17851813.trees-felled-har...
- more photos to follow -
Tags for Forum Posts: Ferry, Hale, Lane, N17, Primary, School, Tottenham, felled, trees
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jeanette Sitton on
-
Having heard back from LB Haringey that only a “tiny” fragment of asbestos was found buried in the school’s grounds, I wrote to an independent asbestos consultancy. This was their reply:
Quote —>
With regards to your enquiry I can offer comments as follows
Is a single, small fragment of asbestos dangerous, if it is outdoors and under soil?
Fragments of asbestos containing materials in soil do not usually pose a risk for the following reasons
- If fibres were ever liberated they would be immediately dispersed in the atmosphere. We have carried out many air tests on asbestos contaminated land and have never detected any unsatisfactory levels of fibre.
- For many areas the soil is generally damp / wet and this helps prevent any fibre release
Would tree roots, bringing a single fragment of asbestos to the surface, constitute a risk?
The answer is the same as above and any risk would be minimal.
If you have any details of what the material was that you are concerned about or can describe it I may be able to offer some more detail. One of the most common contaminants we find in soil samples is asbestos cement which intrinsically is a very low risk material when present in the soil.
I hope this helps but feel free to contact me again if you still have any concerns.
< — unquote
It is looking increasingly likely that the 11 healthy, mature trees were felled for nothing.
So far, I’ve seen no evidence to support the destruction, I will keep you updated.
-
Permalink Reply by andy thomas on
-
A lot of people panic at the very mention of the word asbestos and I have known an 8 storey research laboratory building containing 200 people being evacuated because an electrician cracked a ceiling tile containing asbestos in the basement. It was 2 or 3 days before the affected corridor was sealed off and staff were allowed to re-enter the building,
At the time this was regarded by some as a massive and disproportionate reaction by health & safety but at the same time, it's also true a that a single fibre or particle from that incident could cause someone grief later in their life, however unlikely it might seem. But there is a big difference in the risks involved with asbestos particles wafting about in an enclosed corridor and a buried fibre in a completely open space and the felling of 11 trees, which we really do need now that their role in the planet's ecosystem is better understood, is bordering on the criminal.
-
-
I could not agree with you more, Alan.
I have put in a Freedom of Information request, to ascertain the type of asbestos found. Once received, that will tell me one way or the other IF the trees’ destruction was at all necessary. This is the final step in this particular process. I will then move on to other fields of enquiry. If the asbestos was safe - then I’m determined that someone should be held responsible for such a heinous act; the destruction of mature, healthy habitat, which provided home and shelter to so much beneficial wildlife.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Hi Jeanette, As you know, I've great respect for your environmental work and campaigning in and around Ferry Lane Estate, the River Lee, and Tottenham Marshes. So, if anything, I tend to have "confirmation bias" assuming initially that Jeanette Sitton's observations and views need to be taken seriously. (Not least because I realise how ignorant I've been on environmental issues over the years.)
So please help me out. I've read your Freedom of information Request on What Do They Know website. I've read the reply you received from Haringey. Unusually in my experience it appears to be detailed, open and very helpful. I read the attached reports on:
* The Breeding Bird Check (Which includes bats.)
* Report on Ferry Lane Infant & Nursery School Mound Removal Works. (I assume this is the key document.)
I also scanned through the third attachment The Drainage Report. I noted in particular the mentions of tree root damage.I have to say that on the basis of the F.o.I reply it didn't seem entirely accurate: "that the 11 healthy, mature trees were felled for nothing."
Am I missing something new?
Best wishes, Alan
-
-
Hi Alan
You’re very kind. Your comments are appreciated.
To date the entire purpose I have been given for the works is, a “tiny” fragment of asbestos. This FoI feedback, which, incidentally, I have only just found, (thanks to your reply), however, does not give mention to any asbestos at all. As you’ll read from my original post here, it was railway workers that made the initial contact with the school. They made the school aware of potential asbestos in their school’s grounds. Following that, there was, apparently a survey, (according to the school), which discovered that single, “tiny” fragment of asbestos. On those grounds alone, (or so I have been informed anyhow), the 11 trees came out.
Now, the FoI points to tree roots being the cause. Which is an entirely different matter. Tree roots are, naturally, everywhere. Even where trees aren’t around, there is, to some degree, an amount of tree root present. My question now is, why has it taken the school until now, to determine that the roots constitute a risk to the children. I’m not entirely satisfied and I believe this may be a ruse to justify their removal and deflect the situation. More investigation is needed. What’s for certain is, we simply can’t allow schools or any other body, to act as if a law unto themselves. While I’m presently not saying that is the case here. We cannot be deprived of healthy, mature trees, unless it’s absolutely necessary to do so.
-
-
Not kind, Jeanette, just speak as I find.
Can I try to be helpful and draw your attention again to the document they sent: "Report on Ferry Lane Infant & Nursery School Mound Removal Works". Search on "asbestos". It seems their bore holes found more than just one "tiny" fragment.
But equally, it seems the school wanted to remove the two mounds and install another MUGA. It's very worrying how constricted children's lives seem be becoming. I can understand why schools - and parents - worry about safety and yet want to enable play space.
So you might want to FOI the minutes of the school Governing Body to find out more.
-
-
Hi Alan
I’ve now had chance to go through the new info, (in the FoI request reply).
Here’s the reply I’ve sent to all parties.
QUOTE
Until now, the entire reason I have been given for the 11 trees lost at the school, is ‘asbestos’. Taking my responsibilities as Nature Officer seriously, (while personally lamenting the loss of so many trees), I needed to determine the quantity of asbestos that is nationally considered to be dangerous. I approached an independent asbestos consultant, to ascertain whether the “tiny” amount found in the school’s grounds, (the description given me by Haringey’s Senior Projects Officer), a) constituted a bonafide health risk and, b) whether it warranted the loss of so many trees. Socotec told me, it didn’t, and I have already forwarded you that reply. Of course it would also have depended on the type of asbestos, but that was not made available to me, despite my many efforts to find it out.
Having now received a reply to my Freedom of Information Request, other info has come to light. That, while asbestos was of huge concern to both school and Haringey, there were, apparently, other factors present too. The findings inside the mound, (presumably discovered as a result of the asbestos survey), were things that might have directly impacted on the school structure itself, such as the dangers posed by roots; drain pipes, etc. (see reports).
In 3 emails, (including this one), please find attached 3 documents, (of the surveys carried out).
I am expert in only one of these surveys, (read below), though, from what I’ve read in the reports - through my lay eyes - I’m now believe that the felling, while very sad, might have been the only option available.
I am then, satisfied by most of the surveys as they stand. In terms of bat surveys though, (my field of expertise), I would like it to be known that, it is impossible to detect bat presence through daytime, (diurnal) surveys only. I’m presuming any surveys were conducted during the daytime, (as they very often only are, in the case of contracted ecological surveyors). That method is the most straightforward and entails less time and effort on part of the surveyor. Conscientious, and thorough bat surveys however, include nocturnal ones, which entail both ‘looking’ and ‘listening’ for bats at twilight. Bat social calls, (the chitter-chatter they use to communicate with each other), is well within the human hearing range, and can be clearly heard by standing at the base of trees. Also, trees should be monitored for bats exiting the roost at twilight. They often roost under loose bark, well hidden and out of sight from the ground. Basically, not all signs of bat presence can be detected by simply looking up with binoculars and certainly not during the day!
UNQUOTE
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
