Update from the organisers: *CHANGE OF DATE* Due to the pause in political campaigning following the sad death of
Prince Philip we have had to postpone the Mayoral Environment Debate. The
debate will now take place from 7pm to 9pm on Wednesday 21st April:
https://www.wcl.org.uk/mayoral-environment-debate.asp
Wednesday 21st April, 7pm – 9pm
Chaired by presenter & environmentalist Julia Bradbury
The debate will allow Mayoral candidates to forward their policies on nature
and climate to London’s voters. If you want cleaner air, thriving parks, more
abundant wildlife and new foot paths and cycle ways, this is your chance to ask
the next Mayor for them.
We are joining forces with climate and transport groups in London to host the
Mayoral Environment Debate. Organisations supporting the Environment Debate
include: RSPB, Open Spaces Society, The Orchard Project, CPRE London,
Woodland Trust, Butterfly Conservation, London Friends of Greenspaces Network,
WWT, WCL, London Gardens Trust, Ramblers, Trees for Cities, London National
Park City, Living Streets Group, London Wildlife Trust, Sustain, The
Conservation Volunteers, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, A Rocha UK, Badger
Trust, Born Free Foundation, British Mountaineering Council, Institute of
Fisheries Management, Four Paws UK, Tranquil City, Wildlife Gardening Forum,
London Greenpeace groups, London Friends of the Earth Groups, Haringey Clean
Air Group
All the best,
Dave Morris, Chair LFGN
Alice Roberts and Laura Collins at CPRE London
CPRE London is working with LFGN to bring more support to London's friends
groups
Getting closer to nature during the Spring Covid19 lockdown and a greater awareness of the threat to the planet posed by climate change has changed people's consciousness of the need to preserve and enhance our natural environment - across the globe and in our immediate home environment.
Brent Council declared a climate emergency and is currently consulting on its strategy.
The google view above shows what amounts to a mini-woodland environment produced by mature trees in a corner of Brent that is highly valued by local residents. They are now asking what Brent Council can do to preserve such valuable life-enhancing natural resources when they are under threat, and whether the Climate Emergency Strategy will address this issue.
There is a chestnut tree in a commanding position in the woodland area, shared between several gardens, that a specialist tree study described thus:
As can be seen one of the adjoining households has sought to enhance and naturalise the habitat around the tree whose roots spread beneath the neighbouring gardens, far away from the houses.
Now residents are concerned that Brent Council has given planning permission, despite 11 objections from neighbours, for a home gym of considerable size to be built at the bottom of the garden. Surrounding families fear that the building of the gym, and particularly the 4-6 metre foundation spikes will damage and perhaps kill the tree.
Small shed now (above) to be replaced by the building below
The Tree Report states:
The
tree is a prominent and shapely specimen unharmed by historic tree surgery and
visible from a number of vantage points. As such T4 warrants an A
classification on ground of landscape amenity.
The
objective of the report is to identify and evaluate the extent of direct and
indirect damage on existing trees that may arise as a result of the
implementation of the proposed development without appropriate guidance. A tree
may take a century to reach maturity, but it can be irretrievably damaged in a
few minutes often because of a failure to appreciate the vulnerability of trees
and particularly the root systems. Irreparable damage is frequently done to
existing trees in the first few days of a contractor’s occupation of a site.
The report sets out conditions to protect the tree when the 4-6 metre foundation spikes are driven into the ground beneath the tree but this is challenged by one neighbour who says:
The Tree Report, commissioned by the Applicant, has an internal contradiction.
Although it admits that drilling the six metre foundation spikes for the so-called ‘home gym’ “will cause irreparable damage” to the tree if the spikes encounter a root, the Report claims that, as long as the work is overseen by a tree officer, it will be acceptable to build.
However, the six metre spikes will need to be put into very specific places in order to support the building. What is not clear is what they will do if the allocated spot for a spike happens to have a tree root in it. Furthermore, it isn’t clear how having the whole process overseen by a tree officer guarantees the health of the tree.
Although we requested a second and independent Tree Report, and offered to pay for it, this offer was rejected by the Council as it was deemed unnecessary. The Council considered the first Tree Report, not exactly free of bias, was sufficient.
The wider issues are not lost on two children, sisters, who have written:
The Horse Chestnut is over 100 years old and 60 foot
tall. It forms part of the beautiful landscape of trees in our back garden and
makes a considerable contribution to our landscape. The proposed building will
cause considerable damage to the tree which supports untold species of animals,
birds and other wildlife. The life this tree supports should not be
underestimated and trees that are outside of woods are an important resource to
species in areas with little woodland cover and acts as refuge in urban areas.
It also creates bio-diversity hotspots and provide essential home to the
wildlife.
As well as having an impact on wildlife and society, trees
play a very valuable role in carbon sequestration and storage.
Our decision to move to this area was in-fact the view of
this small pocket of secret beauty and conservation area and I am very saddened
that this tree is NOT protected.
This application did not go to Planning Committee. A decision to grant planning permission was made by planning officers.
The question for the Climate Emergency Strategy perhaps is, 'Why is this tree not protected?' and further, 'How can Brent planning and environmental policies be changed so as to protect such trees?'
To comment on Brent's Climate Emergency Strategy go to LINK The last page of the consultation questionnaire enables you to bring up your own issues.
Many thanks to the children who gave permission for their letters to be published.
The strength of feeling amongst residents over the protection of the borough's street trees was evident yesterday evening when there was standing room only at the newly formed Brent Trees public meeting of residents, council officials and councillors. The Cabinet lead member for environment, Cllr Krupa Sheth, was unable to attend.
There were three very professional presentations from members of Brent Trees campaigns with space for a response from the Council after each one. Most responses came from officers, Chris Whyte (Environment), Tony Kennedy (Highways) and Gary Rimmer (Principal Trees Officer). Cllr Butt only spoke when a member of the audience pointed out that many of the questions were about Council policy and should be answered by politicians who make policy rather than officers.
The first presentation was about the value of trees and why there needed to be significant reasons for removal. A slide was shown of the trees outside Furness Primary School and the adjacent footway, damage to which had been cited as a reason for removal. There was laughter when the presenter said, 'By Brent standards that is a pretty good pathway.' Campaigners had managed to save some of the trees from removal.The Council was criticised for not giving sufficient, evidence based reasons for removal, and proper notice to residents who might wish to make representations. The conclusion was that Brent Council did not value its trees and saw trees as a cost and not a benefit.
CAVAT (Capital Assessment Valuation of Amenity Trees) in Sheffield has valued each mature tree at £25,446. It would take 20-30 years for replacement trees to give the same benefit. It need 26 young trees to replace the benefit of one mature tree.
Wrexham Council records the benefit of trees
Brent Trees wanted an Action Plan on the maintenance of mature trees to reduce the need for removal:
Prioritise mature trees
Do not remove an healthy trees
Commit to removing trees only as a last resort
Commit to replace all removed trees
Officers responded that dead, diseased and dangerous trees had to be removed, insurance claims had to be avoided, and solutions had to be found for trees that created obstacles for pedestrians. A campaigner said that the issue was more complex than simply chopping trees down to make pavements safer. Engineering solutions needed to be found.
A second presentation focused on poor communication by the council in the form of notices and the need for reasons for removal to be clearly stated and sufficient notice given. DEFRA had set out a Duty to Consult and a Duty to Report:
The Council needed to use the full range of social media available to it to develop a clear communications strategy to inform the public. Notices should state whether a new tree would be substituted for a removed tree and, if so, the type of tree that would be planted in its place,
Brent Council had failed to provide information for the London Mayor's tree map. A slide showed the information for part of Brent compared with Westminster across the border.
A traffic light monitoring system for trees was suggested:
GREEN - tree inspected and assessed and no action required
AMBER - tree inspected and assessed and some work needed to be done
RED - tree inspected and assessed as needing removal with reason and evidence cited (eg tree surgeon's report)
Chris Whtye of the Environment Department said that they had not entered a debate with the public but made a judgement themselves on individual trees. Independent consultation on every tree was not practical but if the government made it a requirement the Council would have to comply. A traffic light system was more than the council could provide. He admitted a lack of quality in the information that the council had been provided and there needed to be a clear description of the logic for removal. He recognised that there were gaps in information but that it was positive that Brent Trees had been set up and had entered into dialogue with the Council.
Members of the audience gave examples of trees removed without good reason in various parts of the borough as well as Old Paddington Cemetery. Data via i-tree (LINK) should record not just the number of trees but the size of the canopy and other information. Chris Whyte said that a larger canopy meant more uptake of water with a shrinkage impact on clay soils.
Officers said the the Council Communications Team would be asked to devise a new communications strategy.
An audience member was cheered when he condemned the officers' claim that because records did not have to be kept that they weren't. He said flatly, 'I don't trust you to make decisions on what is a healthy tree.'
The last presentation was on the lack of resources provided for trees in Brent. Similar boroughs such as Hackney and Islingtton were better staffed. The highest number of tree officers in London boroughs was 7, the average 3.38 and the lowest (one) was Brent.
Given the Declaration of a Climate Emergency by the Council, trees needed to be given a higher priority. The lack of resources devoted to trees indicated the low priority currently given to this vital issue by the Council.
Cllr Butt claimed that Islington and Hackney were not comparable to Brent and had a higher council tax revenue base while an officer said that more people were involved with trees in Brent than indicated by the quoted figures.
Cllr Butt said that because of government cuts to Brent's funding the council had to prioritise areas such as adult social care. He urged the public to take part in the current budget consultation to put their views.
He responded angrily when I pointed out the c£18m that had been earmarked to be spent on the replacement of the Wembley Stadium pedway by steps and the huge underspend in the 2017-18 Community Infrastructure Levy. The 2018-19 report should have been published by December 31st but is not yet available.
Cllr Butt said that the pedway removal was a planning obligation and that it was up to the public to make applications for Neighbourhood CIL.
The crowd at last night's meeting (Photo: Brent Trees)
After the meeting Brent Trees issued the following press release:
Following a public meeting on January 15th, the BRENT TREES group is
satisfied that the council has taken a step in the right direction but asks for
a budget commitment on a par with the climate emergency.
With a turnout of more
than 100 people, the event we organised at Newman Catholiv College on Wednesday
showed the depth of concern felt by Brent residents regarding the maintenance
of street trees by the council, particularly in light of the council’s own
declaration of a climate emergency.
We heard many stories from
the audience, echoing our own experiences. Last November, the council tried to
remove 11 trees on Furness Road in Kensal Green, even though residents had not
been given proper notice and most of the trees were healthy. That incident
caused a storm among the local community and resulted in the creation of the
Brent Trees group.
On Wednesday, Chris Whyte, Operational Director, Environmental Services,
Regeneration and Environment, Brent Council, welcomed the formation of our group. “We need to
enter a constant dialogue with you to get back onto a better footing”, he declared during the course of the public
event.
Mr. Whyte also stated that
the council will adopt “much clearer communication” with residents ahead of any planned felling of
trees by the council.
Gary Rimmer, who is
Brent’s sole Street Tree Officer, informed those attending that in future “a different
sign will go on trees” recognising
that the information displayed in Furness Road last November was inadequate.
We welcome the willingness
shown by both Chris Whyte and Gary Rimmer as well as the leader of the council,
Councillor Muhammed Butt - who was also present at the meeting - to improve
communication with residents.
We expect that the promises made at the meeting will be confirmed to us
in writing and are hopeful that a way of working will quickly be established. We want to avoid any further removals of healthy
trees as was the overall intention in Furness Road likewise thetaking down of a 150 YEAR-OLD tree in Paddington Old Cemetery which happened last November.
However, we are deeply concerned at the lack of resources dedicated to
trees by Brent council and believe, having declared a climate emergency, this
is a serious oversight that needs to be rectified. Brent has just one Street
Tree Officer. When we
compare the number of street tree officers employed by other London boroughs
with a similar socio-economic deprivation profile it is clearly too low.
Haringey employs 4 street tree officers ; Tower Hamlets has 2.
The BRENT TREES group will
use the ongoing budget consultationto repeat our request for the allocation of more
resources to street tree care. We believe the climate emergency declaration
adopted by Brent council last July compels Brent to take bold budget decisions.
We are aware of the
extraordinary impact of the austerity driven cuts imposed on the council by
central government since 2010. Nevertheless, the climate emergency is so
serious we have no choice but to raise the environment protection bar to an
unprecedented level.
We believe this can be
achieved in Brent if both residents and the council take inspiration from other
local authorities in London and across the UK, emulating best practice. We
simply have no other choice.
Brent-based voluntary organisation BTWSC is calling on local organisations, projects, and youths to get involved in The Environment & Performance Session event. This free community event, which takes place Friday September 27, 6.15-9.30pm at Tavistock Hall in Harlesden, is an opportunity for organisations to take a stall or the microphone to publicise what they do, whilst young people can either join a workshop to prepare performing the 'Look Around The Environment' song on stage with rapper/singer Kimba, or perform a family-friendly song in the open mic slot.
The event aims to repeat the nice community atmosphere generated at the July 1 International Reggae Day event at the same venue by bringing back lovers rock singer Melo D, reggae veteran Prince Jahkey and local gospel singer Patreecia, plus The Brent Factor will be singing their soon to be released anthem, and author Shaun Cain will conduct a reggae quiz.
Kimba will be performing songs from BTWSC's It's Cool To... environmental projects, which creatively engage young people with environmental issues, particularly recycling, littering and flytipping. Workshop participants can learn the song by watchingwww.bit.ly/LookAroundDraft (above) and Kimba's rap version at www.bit.ly/LATEKimba.
Press release from the London Mayor's Office
The
Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has announced a further £6 million
injection of further funding for protecting the environment and
improving green space in the capital.
The fund will deliver the roll-out of more new public water fountains - on top of the initial 20 the Mayor announced recently.
It will also create better local green spaces including in areas with little access to parks and community spaces.
Sadiq wants Londoners to help protect the environment by introducing
changes that will have a big impact on reducing the amount of single-use
plastic bottles and cups bought daily across the capital.
With many Londoners enjoying refreshments on the go from retail
outlets and cafes, the amount of single-use plastic waste is huge.
The Mayor is working with Thames Water and City to Sea to introduce a
Refill scheme so that Londoners can reuse their bottles and cups to top
up free tap water from local shops and businesses.
He has also
announced plans for the installation of 20 new public water fountains in
busy areas.
Sadiq has already allocated £750,000 in his draft budget over the
next three years to cut plastic waste, including helping launch a pilot
Refill scheme with retailers in five districts and installing 20 new
fountains. He is working with the #OneLess campaign, led by the
Zoological Society of London to find suitable fountain sites and the
first ones will be installed this summer. He has today announced
increased funding.
The Mayor has committed to working with manufacturers and supply
chains to trial coffee cup collection schemes where businesses and
retailers provide easily accessible recycling facilities for the
separate collection of coffee cups.
He is also considering the potential for a plastic bottle deposit
return scheme that gives Londoners money back for recycling bottles. ‘
Bottle banks’ or ‘reverse vending’ schemes where consumers get a voucher
when they return bottles, could be placed across London. Other
countries who have adopted similar schemes have seen plastic bottle
recycling increase up to 90 per cent. This work is part of the Mayor’s
ambition for London to send no biodegradable or recyclable waste to
landfill by 2026.
The funding will also help support the Mayor’s ambition to make
London the world’s first National Park City by engaging Londoners to
help create and improve green spaces and plant more trees, helping make
London a healthier and greener city.
It will also help pay for local measures to tackle toxic air
pollution including schemes in and around schools and in partnership
with local businesses, and installing green infrastructure that benefits
air quality and reduces exposure.
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan said:
I’m committed to helping
Londoners reduce plastic bottle use and help cut the amount of plastic
ending up in our oceans and in landfill.
This increased funding is matched by ambitious plans which aim to help
the public easily cut their use of plastic by offering water refills,
delivering more public drinking fountains and simple recycling schemes
that will help cut the purchase of single-use plastic bottles.
This extra funding will also help us race towards my goal of London
becoming the first National Park City, by funding more tree planting and
green spaces, especially in areas so that everyone in London can
benefit from an easily accessible park, play space, or community
garden.
Greenpeace campaigner Elena Polisano said:
Public water fountains,
and a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) for drinks containers, are both key
practical steps to reduce the flood of plastic waste endangering our
oceans. Water fountains help us to reduce plastic waste by making
reusable containers more convenient, and a DRS will help us to recycle
the plastic waste we do produce. Beyond that, they are useful ways of
reminding consumers and more importantly businesses that there is no
‘away’ where things can be casually thrown without consequences.
Fiona Llewellyn, #OneLess project manager, Zoological Society of
London:
This new investment by the Mayor will help transform London
from a throw-away plastic city into a city that refills; good news for
Londoners and for the ocean. #OneLess is excited to be part of the
Mayor’s drive to make London an ocean-loving city and the first capital
that’s free from single-use plastic water bottles.
The Mayor's draft London Plan highlights the importance of protecting
London’s green spaces and creating new, accessible open space,
particularly in areas with little access to parks. The new funding will
deliver more Greener City Fund grants to local projects, helping improve
parks, design new green spaces, green school playgrounds, plant trees
and restore waterways.
Graham Duxbury, national CEO of Groundwork said:
We know the
valuable role that greenspaces play in ensuring a better quality of life
for local communities in order for people to live happier and healthier
lives. We have seen first-hand that local people are committed to
improving their surroundings and local provisions and it’s important
that they have the right support and tools in order to be successful. We
are delighted that more resources are going to be provided to help
communities get involved in making positive changes to their local
greenspaces as well as tackling the important task of reducing our
plastic consumption. We look forward to seeing the positive results.
The Mayor recently awarded £1.1m from the first round of his Greener
City Fund Community Green Space grants to 55 local groups, with 60 per
cent of projects in areas with poor access to green space, and 14 are
based in schools, including a new community garden next to the temporary
site of a school relocated following the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower.
Make Votes Matter fringe at the Labour Party Conference this week
The Green Party came up against a solid brick wall at the General Election when it tried to get agreement with the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats for a 'Progressive' (Electoral) Alliance which involved a commitment to campaign for electoral reform in exchange for the other parties standing down in favour of the party best placed to defeat the Tory candidate. In the event neither the Lib Dems nor Labour made the commitment although Greens did stand down in a number of seats. Some Labour MPs made individual commitments on PR and a number of them spoke at the Make Votes Matter/Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference. Locally Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) has supported proportional representation. Coinciding with Conference the two organisations published a well researched paper making the case for the Labour Party to adopt electoral reform as policy. The paper has the non-snappy title The Many Not the Few Proportional Representation and Labour in the 21st Century. On line copy here LINK. This is an extract from the paper addressing the issue of environmental policy:
-->
The evidence
Studies have found that countries using
proportional systems set stricter environmental policies and were faster to
ratify the Kyoto protocol. On environmental performance, Lijphart and Orellana
found that countries with PR scored six points higher on the Yale
Environmental Performance Index, which measures ten policy areas, including
environmental health, air quality, resource management, biodiversity and
habitat, forestry, fisheries, agriculture and climate change.
Using data from the International Energy
Agency, Orellana found that between 1990 and 2007, when carbon emissions were
rising everywhere, the statistically predicted increase was significantly lower
in countries with fully proportional systems, at 9.5 per cent, compared to 45.5
per cent in countries using winner-take-all systems. Orellana found use of
renewable energy to be 117 percent higher in countries with fully proportional
systems.
Explanation
The UK has historically lagged behind its
European peers when it comes to action on climate change and uptake of
renewable energy. Depressingly, this is despite having by far the best off
shore wind and marine energy potential in Europe. Successive governments have
at best taken relatively limited action to move away from fossil fuels and
reduce emissions, or at worst have actively resisted such progress (with the
current government determined to begin shale gas production despite strong
opposition from both local communities and the general public).
Using data from
the International Energy Agency, in his 1990 book, Electing for Democracy,
Richard Kuper offers an explanation for this which remains true to this day.
“Were the Greens”, he writes, “in a position to obtain representation in proportion
to their vote, it is inconceivable that Labour would not already have in place
a coherent and much strengthened range of environmental policies in order to
head o the challenge.”
Because a vote for the Green Party remains a wasted vote
in almost every constituency, we in the Labour Party have little electoral
incentive to worry about winning those voters back by competing with the Greens
with our environmental credentials. On the contrary, since the swing voters in
marginal seats may not be keen on the idea of a wind turbine at the bottom of
their garden, an electoral agent may well advise us not to make too much of a
fuss about climate change.
It is good to see the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre reaching out into the community with half-term activities. The Centre was saved from closure as a result of campaigning by local schools, pupils and residents LINK and is now run by the Thames21 charity.
You can do your bit by taking part in conservation activities at the Welsh Harp Centre:
