To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, paragraph 29 of the Council’s constitution.
Minutes:
Deputation
The Council received a deputation around the lack of public toilet provision in Haringey on behalf of an organisation called Loos for Haringey, who were linked to the Haringey Over 50s forum. The deputation party was made up of: Patrice Wellesley-Cole; Gordon Peters; Ceri Williams; and Dr John Miles. The following key points of the deputation were noted:
The following arose in discussion of the deputation:
In response to the deputation the Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Wellbeing thanked the deputation party for presenting their deputation and acknowledged that this was an important issue. Cllr Das Neves advised that she was the nominated Cabinet Member and that she and the Director of Public Health would be looking at the strategy. The Cabinet Member set out that the Ageing Well partnership board had started to look at this issue, and that the Health and Wellbeing Board would also look at the issue at a future meeting.
Cllr Das Neves acknowledged the need for a strategy to bring the different elements together and that the Director Public Health was meeting with other officers to kick start this process. The Cabinet Member advised that she had written to Loos for Haringey to arrange a meeting to look at what could be done in the short term as well as the long term.
The Chair of Adults and Health requested that an update on the toilet strategy also come back to the Adults and Health Panel in future for an update. (Action: Dominic).
Public Questions
The Committee also received a number of written questions from members of the public relating trees, and specifically relating to an ongoing legal case regarding the proposed felling of a mature plane tree on Oakfield Road in Stroud Green as part of an insurance claim by the owner/occupiers of two neighbouring properties. The questions involved a certain amount of overlap and a joint response was given to four out of the eight questions. N.B. The response to question 8 was not given during the meeting, but was supplied in writing. That response is included here for the sake of completeness.
Question 1 – John Syz
Haringey has recently spent a large amount of council taxpayers’ money on 24-hour security and scaffolding at the Oakfield Road plane tree which is currently undergoing a legal process to determine its fate. The letter that the council gave to local residents explaining their action states that the reason the tree is to be felled is because, “the insurance company has submitted evidence that demonstrates that the tree is contributing to the subsidence at the specified neighbouring property. Will the council state the specific evidence that the tree is the cause of subsidence at the neighbouring property, and also state who the person or persons are who scrutinise the evidence and data provided by the insurance company and their contractors to ensure that their interpretation of the data is fair and correct?
Question 2 – Camilla Marcus-Dew
For the security operation at the Oakfield Road plane tree from 4.30am on 12th to 19th March 2023, how much did it cost in total across all subcontractors involved including: BML, Arslan Security Risk Solutions, North London Scaffolding and any other parties. Who (is) signed off for the security operation against the tree on Oakfield Road, and based on what documented evidence?
Question 3 – John Syz
The reason that Haringey states for its justification of spending such a large amount of council taxpayers’ money on the fencing and 24-hour security is that "The Council has become aware that people have begun to install climbing ropes and other items in the tree. Therefore, in line with the possession order granted to the Council in December 2022, it has now had to take physical possession of the tree and the surrounding ground.” Haringey Tree Protectors refute that the tree had been occupied since the December 2022 hearing or had installed ropes or anything else in the tree prior to the March 2023 hearing as they had been honouring the ongoing legal process following the judge’s decision that the tree should not be touched by the Council until the Ombudsman ruling on the tree had been published. Will Haringey Council make public the evidence they have that ropes were being installed in the tree? Any photographic evidence will need the accompanying image metadata to verify the date the images were taken. This evidence is important as it is the basis on which Haringey made the decision to spend a large amount of taxpayers’ money on physically possessing the tree several days ahead of the hearing that would potentially determine its fate.
Question 4 – Jane Hill
How can we Haringey residents ensure and enable our council representatives to act on our wishes in seeing mature trees protected and prioritised in home insurers’ claims? Houses can be shored up. The immediate benefits of mature trees, once felled, are irreplaceable.
Response:
The tree in question is on the public highway on Oakfield Road, it is the subject of a subsidence claim against Haringey Council. The Council has undertaken at least 8 years of action to try and save the London plane by undertaking tree maintenance (including pollarding) to reduce the impact that it might have on the surrounding ground, including that beneath the two neighbouring properties. Council officers were presented with evidence that revealed the tree to be implicated in the subsidence of two of the adjacent houses. Legal advice was taken.
It would not be practical to share all the evidence by way of this statement as there is a significant amount of documentation that has been submitted to both the County Court and the High Court in consideration of this case. Just one document from a civil, structural and forensic engineering company setting out its opinion extends to 10 pages. However, the following extract from one of the many documents on the subject provides a reasonable summary of the views expressed in the court evidence bundles:
“The engineering, arboricultural and soil reports relating to both properties from between 2014 and 2021 all describe clay shrinkage caused, and at the very least exacerbated, by the influence of vegetation, primarily the London plane, rose, ivy and hydrangea outside the properties, the tree being considered the principal cause of subsidence. Soil analysis from both properties over the same period reveals a high level of seasonal swelling and shrinkage coinciding with live root activity. The level monitoring readings also reveal cyclical movement consistent with desiccation caused by tree root activity. European Plant Science Lab investigation dated 03.09.15 discovered Plane tree roots at a depth of 2.8m at one of the specified properties. Non-live roots were discovered at another property consistent with root behaviour after pollarding, causing roots to die back. Additionally, the extent of structural damage to the right side of the second property points to the plane tree being the principal cause of damage to that property”.
So, the Council was presented with two options – either fell the tree, or fight a court case, which lawyers advised we would lose, incurring hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs and yet still have the liability for paying for underpinning and repairs to the affected houses ourselves. If the tree remains, the latest estimates tell us that the Council risks facing an insurance claim of up to £1million which would be better spent on delivering key frontline services – and the planting of new trees to more than offset the loss of the specified tree on Oakfield Road. As we move into spring, the tree will begin growing again and the issues surrounding subsidence become pressing once more. If the Council does not act in good faith in regard to its obligation to remove the tree, it will be held liable by the insurers for costs in the courts. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the law, it is incumbent on the Council to progress its current legal position of removing the tree to avoid this liability being realised by the insurers. The documentation on this matter has been reviewed by officers from Insurance, Legal and Parks, external structural engineering consultants, external legal advisers and King’s Counsel acting on the Council’s behalf.
Protesters had previously occupied the tree to prevent the Council from removing it on two prior occasions. In response to this, the Council applied to the Courts to gain a possession order and an injunction on the tree. The Council had to take this action to demonstrate to the insurance companies that it was making best efforts to fell the tree, so as not to be taken to court. At that hearing on 21st December 2022, the judge made an order for possession but adjourned the injunction hearing, solely to give the Ombudsman until 24th February to make a decision brought by the owner of an adjacent property on Oakfield Road against the insurance companies for previously failing to underpin. It is incorrect to state that the Judge commented that the tree was not to be touched by the Council until the hearing on 15 March 2023, by which time he expected the financial ombudsman’s report to have been published. Although the judge hoped that the Council would not do so, the Council could have felled the tree at any point after 21st December 2022. However, it respected the judge’s wish that the Ombudsman be given additional time to reach a decision – but the expected timeframe had ended weeks beforehand.
Notwithstanding this, the Council had genuine reason to believe that the protestors would once again attempt to occupy the tree before, on the day of or immediately after the reconvened injunction hearing on 15th March 2023 in order to, once again, try and prevent it being felled. Officers noted new climbing equipment was visible in the tree and one particular climbing rope was hanging down over the road at approximately 1metre off the ground, which would have allowed easy access into the tree.
However, this was not the sole reason for taking possession of the tree by encasement. The Council took account that it would incur substantial costs applying to the High Court and to instruct bailiffs to remove any protestors if they were again in the tree once it was due to be felled. Any actions that would need to be taken to remove them to complete the necessary works would be deeply distressing to them, Haringey residents and Council staff. A similar situation of having to remove tree protestors has cost another London Borough in the order of £300,000.
The Council was also mindful that, having gone through an extensive consultation process, undertaken detailed surveys and options appraisals to reduce the number of trees that needed to be felled in the immediate vicinity of the failing Stanhope Road bridge on Parkland Walk, tree protectors occupied one of the trees on 6th February 2023, just prior to the Council attempting to fell it. At the Full Council meeting on 19th February 2023, in furtherance of its deputation, the Haringey Tree Protectors agreed that, once the Council has exhausted all reasonable options, there are circumstances when felling a tree is the only option. So, whilst the Haringey Tree Protectors may very well have determined that ‘it’ would not occupy the tree and find itself in contempt of court, relative to the possession order granted to the Council on 21st December 2022, there was no guarantee that any other tree protector would similarly honour the legal process.
The security measures implemented on Sunday 12th March 2023 were solely to secure possession of the tree and prevent any unauthorised occupation. It would also prevent anyone inexperienced in tree climbing - but wishing to prevent the felling - putting themselves at risk of injury from either attempting to climb or falling from the tree. The costs in relation to protecting the tree require some more time to pull together and a follow up response will be provided in writing.
With a High Court injunction granted in the early hours of that Wednesday morning and the High Court judge then determining on Friday 17th March that the claim for Judicial Review would not be heard until 29th March, the tree protection period doubled in duration and therefore increased the cost. Given the claim for Judicial Review, it was then unclear when a final decision would ultimately be reached, what the decision might be and what financial impact that might then have on the Council. With such uncertainty, the Council determined it was financially prudent to simply remove the tree protection and await a High Court decision.
Protecting and preserving trees across the borough is a key priority for the Council but there are circumstances when saving even mature trees may sadly not be an achievable outcome. The Council has determined that it will plant an extra 10,000 trees by 2030 to increase and bring a better balance to the green canopy across the borough. Whilst it has been suggested that the immediate benefits of mature trees are irreplaceable, once felled, this is not the case. Although the Council is exploring the science involved, arboricultural advice has been that the environmental benefit that a mature London plane tree that is in full leaf provides can be offset by the provision of around 50 semi-mature trees. Had the Council been able to use the costs that it has incurred to date in attempting to fell the tree on Oakfield Road, that equivalent environmental benefit could have already been realised.
Question 5 – Giovanna Lozzi
Haringey council announced a climate emergency in 2019. Can you tell me how this central key and fundamental issue is being integrated into departmental policy across the council's infrastructure (aims, objectives, procedures) specifically in your Highways, Planning and Finance departments. If it isn't, why not?
Response:
The Council adopted a comprehensive Climate Change Action Plan in March 2021 which embeds actions across departments to tackle the climate emergency. This is supplemented by an Annual Carbon Report, the latest of which was approved by Full Council on 27 March 2023 (press release).Alongside these to enable a strengthening of embedding carbon into all decisions, starting in 2023/24 the Council will be including a commentary and assessment on Carbon and Climate Change into all key decision making reports that are determined by Full Council and Cabinet.
Planning
In Planning, Haringey’s existing Local Plan has policies to ensure new development addresses climate change. These are being further enhanced as part of the emerging New Local Plan for which the First Steps Engagement document acknowledges the climate emergency (stated as Reason 2 for preparing a New Local Plan) and has a dedicated chapter of Climate Change and Sustainability and sought views on the matter. As a result of the Council’s strong policy position on carbon reduction and climate change adaptation, all decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan which includes the expectation to deliver carbon reduction and climate resilience.
Finance
The Council’s most recent Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) report includes several significant carbon reduction projects that are being funded by the Council. This includes the funding of Social Housing Retrofits, School Streets, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, and the Council’s Decentralised Energy Network Programme. The whole of the MTFS was also reviewed by the Council’s Carbon Management Service to ensure that no projects grew the carbon footprint of the Council or borough.
Haringey Pension Fund manages approximately £1.67 billion in assets. While the primary investment objective for the pension fund is to achieve a financial return on investments, the council recognises that climate change and investment in fossil fuels represent both a significant threat to the planet and a long-term financial risk to the pension fund. As such, a proportion of investments has been allocated across three indices aimed at reducing exposure to companies with the highest carbon footprints and towards firms associated with transition to a low-carbon economy. In total, around £768 million of the pension fund is invested across the MSCI3 World Low Carbon Target Index (20.2%), the Emerging Markets Low Carbon Index (7.1%), and the Research Affiliates Fundamental Indexation Multi-Factor Climate Transition Index (20.2%), as of 30 September 2022.
Highways
A new Highways Asset Management Strategy is currently being developed and will be reported to Cabinet later in the year. This strategy will demonstrate how the Council seeks to optimise its resources for the maintenance and operation of its carriageways in order to ensure they have the right level of accessibility and are maintained to a safe standard, an objective underpinned by the Corporate Delivery Plan for 2023/24. In responding to the ‘Climate Emergency’ theme. Details are set out under High Level Outcome 2: A Just Transition for ‘achieving more accessible footways and carriageways’ and ‘reduced casualties and safer road network in Haringey’ through measures that include an extensive programme of carriageway resurfacing schemes.
Initiatives currently under way include: 97% recycling of highways materials; a reduction of 10% in CO2 emissions by using warm mix asphalt for carriageway resurfacing; completion of street lighting conversion to LEDs; replacing internally illuminated bollards with reflective bollards or using solar panels on bollards; robust gully cleansing, enhanced flood defences and flood water management schemes to reduce flooding likelihood; implementing sustainable drainage schemes (SuDS) on the public highway to reduce surface water runoff and enhanced greening; and the switching to electrical plant and equipment and alternative fuels by the Council’s highway maintenance contractor, a company committed to achieving net zero by 2025.
Question 6 – Giovanna Lozzi
In the last full council meeting in Feb 2023, the point was raised that 'East of the borough' lacked trees and green spaces. How then, can you justify your planning officers and councillors giving the green light to the St Ann's development (one of the aforementioned poorer parts of the borough) losing irreplaceable green infrastructure of at least 117 rare groups of trees felled for flats and parking spaces? (NB. This was more than the trees lost at Plymouth and Wellingborough which have hit the national press for a few weeks)
Response:
As set out in the report to planning sub-committee, there are 227 trees on the St Ann’s site and 32 tree groups. The layout of the approved development necessitated 114 of these trees and 30 tree groups being removed. The trees to be removed are primarily lower quality trees with just two Category A trees being lost. No veteran or ancient trees would be removed or adversely affected by the development.
The approved development provides 471 new trees, a net increase of 357 trees across the site (not including tree groups). Of the 471 new trees, 137 large trees and 216 medium trees would be planted. The layout and spread of trees across the Hospital site means that a loss of trees is unavoidable if any development is to come forward that optimises the development potential of the site. The development provides 995 new homes including up to 595 new affordable homes (60% of the total), which exceeds planning policy for affordable housing. The proposal includes a large number of family-sized homes, new green spaces and a very low level of parking provision and other community benefits.
The loss of trees is required to enable the substantial benefits of developing the site to come forward and offset by a net increase in tree provision through the replacement planting.
Question 7 – Giovanna Lozzi
Mature tree Loss is happening everywhere in Haringey, in larger and small numbers: recent examples being at St Ann's (117+), McDonalds on Green Lanes (11+), on the Parkland Walk (150+), street trees (numbers to be gathered in an FOI for the last 2 years) How do justify these losses with the tree department's target of 30% more canopy cover across the borough's wards as laid out in the new Tree and Woodlands Plan?
Response:
The reasons for the removal of trees at St Ann’s have been answered above. The trees at McDonald’s were not subject to statutory protection and therefore no permissions were necessary, prior to carrying out the works to fell the trees. The Council had no power to prevent these works. The restaurant owner Mr Rashid has committed to funding the planting of 12 new trees on the public highway, which should be completed this spring. I do not recognise the figure of 150+ trees being felled on the Parkland Walk. The need for the trees that were actually felled has been widely published and was necessary to allow for works and inspections to the numerous bridges along the Parkland Walk, that are suffering structural damage, putting some at danger of collapse. Street trees are predominantly removed because they have been found to be dead, diseased or have sever structural defects that may lead to them failing. We cannot retain potentially hazardous trees on the public highway, putting pedestrians and road users at risk.
Street trees may also be removed if they are implicated in causing tree root damage to adjacent homes, where pruning works have failed to remedy the issue. And we have been advised that we are unlikely to succeed on the balance of probabilities to be able to successfully defend the claims in court. We have started an expansive programme of tree planting across the borough which will increase the tree canopy cover in those wards with low existing cover.
During the 2021-22 planting season, 571 new trees were planted. During the 2022-23 planting season, we have planted one mini-forest in White Hart Lane Rec, consisting of 600 native saplings and one area of native woodland in Perth Road playing fields consisting of 400 saplings. We have also planted 380 new standard trees to date in streets, parks and housing sites and expect to plant another 130 before the end of April 2023. All of the new trees will have a 3 years aftercare programme including monitoring and watering apart from those where residents have sponsored them and they have opted to do this. We are also working on plans to protect trees in our ancient woodlands by improving soils conditions and limiting access, which should lead to improved tree growth. We will also be looking at improving conditions for certain mature trees in parks and open spaces with the aim encouraging greater canopy growth.
Question 8 – Giovanna Lozzi
We were told that the reason some of the trees (e.g. the 'Hairy' Oak tree) were felled at the Stanhope Road entrance was because the bridge had to be raised as a
'legal requirement.' We are struggling to find this point of law. Was this not simply part of the guidelines from the 'Design Manual for Roads and Bridges' that is used for A-roads. What is the exact legal requirement in law that Haringey was obliged to adhere to and where is it stated?
Response:
The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges was the guidance used to inform the bridge design and height. The DMRB provides standards and best practice for all highway networks (not just A-roads) and are followed nationally by all local authorities. Adhering to the DMRB does not require a subjective view to be taken on current or future usage of bridge structures and roads, including at Stanhope Road. The DMRB standard future proofs the investment and design of the bridge and this principle was accepted and approved through the planning approval process.