To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.
Minutes:
The Committee received a deputation on behalf of the Haringey Tree Protectors, around their concerns with the felling of trees on Parkland Walk and the need to maintain and enhance the existing tree coverage in the borough. The deputation was given by Giovanna Lozzi and Hannah Pescod. The key points of the deputation are summarised below:
· Parkland Walk was described as a 2.5 miles long former railway, which was home to rare species of flower and fauna, birds, owls, bats. A recent series of tree works was undertaken at this site, which had been deeply unpopular with some local residents, and had resulted in a petition and some local press coverage. It was commented that the works were the biggest intervention at this site since it became a wildlife corridor.
· The deputation party suggested that that the planning, commissioning and site-management procedures of those works were beset by serious failings and were fundamentally flawed. It was contended that the Council appeared to take a ‘chop down first, ask questions later’,approach. A particular point of contention was the process of felling all trees within 5m of a bridge without ascertaining whether the trees were causing structural damage. Given that the world was facing a climate emergency, it was felt that trees needed to be maintained and protected.
· The Deputation party set out that they did not believe that the Parks service adhered adequately to the existing management plan for the site and should have adopted a more localised, nuanced and sensitive approach on a tree-by-tree basis.
· Concerns were raised as to why officers did not seem to be involved in the specification of works, or in carrying out a thorough survey and ecology report, which assessed both the ecological value and potential impact of the work on trees and other vegetation beforehand. Instead, the felling works were carried out by contractors without, it was suggested, any effective monitoring and site-management by the Council.
· A failure to manage the work effectively resulted in: The mistaken felling of a number of 100-year-old oak trees at St James’ Bridge; trees being cut down beyond the 5 metre remit; the loss or an array of other local flora, such as bluebells and daffodils; and path widening taking place which exceeded the 5m limit.
· The deputation party requested that OSC look into the works further in order to learn from mistakes. It was also suggested that:
o There should be enhanced tree protections for trees, with TPOs that are properly enforced.
o Trees should form a central part of the new Biodiversity Action Plan and Haringey urgently needed a properly implemented and scrutinised trees strategy.
o There should be well-financed, robust and valued trees department.
o Trees should be considered as local heritage assets and be treated with equal respect as buildings.
o Haringey should consult meaningfully with communities on large ecological projects. It was suggested that some residents, whose houses back onto the walk, had not been consulted with or informed the work was being planned.
The following points arose as part of the discussion of the deputation:
a. The Committee sought clarification around whether deputation party had received any response from the Council on their concerns so far. In response, the Committee was advised that as they understood it, the Council was conducting a retrospective environmental impact analysis and that this was still being completed. The deputation party advised that they had also submitted an FOI request.
b. The Cabinet Member, Cllr Hakata, thanked the deputation party for their deputation and advised that he was new in post and was unable to respond in detail on some of the historical points. Cllr Hakata advised that he acknowledged the need to learn lessons from this process as well as the need to engage with residents better. The Cabinet Member advised that he would be developing a community engagement plan going forwards. The Cabinet Member also acknowledged the importance of biodiversity and the role of trees and woodland within that.
c. The Head of Parks and Leisure advised that he was happy to share the environmental study with the deputation group and would also commit to meeting them in the next few weeks to discuss the findings of the study with them and learning points going forwards.
d. The Chair set out her concerns with the potential that a number of tress were cut down in error and requested whether a tree audit could be carried out so that there was a record of exactly what was there. In response, officers advised that they needed to go through the environmental study point by point. Officers advised that during the works they adopted a different specification that may have been done in the past whereby all tress within 5 metres of the a bridge were felled. The Head of Parks and Leisure advised that he was happy to commit to an individual assessment in future, whereby every tree would be marked up.
e. The Committee raised concerns with a perceived lack of consultation and engagement around these works and queried why all adjacent residents were not consulted with. In response, officers set out that letters did go out to local residents and that notices were also placed at the appropriate places. Officers also consulted with the Friends of Parkland Walk in advance of the works. In response to a follow-up point, officers agreed to supply the Committee with the communications plan that was used for these works including names and addresses of those engaged with. (Action: Simon Farrow).
f. The Chair thanked the deputation party for their contribution and advised that this issue would be incorporated into the Panel’s work programme going forwards.