The latest news on the felled trees in Pentonville Road seems to make the situation a little more complex (as ever when dealing with the council!).
It appears at this stage that the developers almost certainly DID NOT have planning permission to fell the trees outside of the Nido development. What complicates matters is Pentonville Rd’s status as a Red Route. This means that Transport for London (TFL) also manage all aspects of the road, including the trees. The developers are alleging that they had an agreement under Section 106 (they have a sign outside the development to this affect), to remove the trees. At the moment no-one seems to know if this is true and if so, who agreed it. The council is shortly to have a meeting to discuss this and find out what’s going on.
This is a perfect opportunity to make sure the council know exactly how we feel about the situation… At this point we need to email the Planning Dept. Key contacts are:
graham.loveland@islington.gov.uk
kevin.o’leary@islington.gov.uk
Some points to consider:
Given their age, status and siting, did the trees have a Tree Preservation Order? If not, why not?
Those trees were older than the vast majority of people in the borough and as such, are irreplaceable in our lifetimes. They were part of Kings Cross’ heritage.
Some broader points:
* A large beech tree can provide enough oxygen for the daily requirements of ten people.
* Trees have a positive impact on the incidence of asthma, skin cancer and stress related illness by filtering out polluted air, reducing smog formation, shading out solar radiation and by providing an attractive, calming setting for recreation.
* Trees can save up to 10% of energy consumption through their moderation of the local climate.
* Property in tree lined streets is worth 18% more than in similar streets without trees, according to a survey in Chicago.
* Trees help to lock up the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming.
* Trees play a vital role in the urban ecosystem, by helping to support a great variety of wildlife.
* Trees reduce noise in cities by acting as a sound barrier.
* Trees and green spaces significantly reduce the stress of urban living
Please take a few moments to send the contacts above an email and let them know how strongly we feel about this. It can’t bring those trees back but it, by the we’ve finished, will mean it will never happen again!
Thanks
Sarah Ward [our Pentonville Road correspondent]
Kings Cross Environment 
My 7 year old son saw the photo’s of the stumps on Pentonville Road – as with the vandalism towards the younger trees in our area, he commented ‘why do people do this when we need the trees to breath’. Need I say anymore!
There should be a statement produced tomorrow (Friday 15th) by Islington’s planning enforcement people that clarifies the position.
From the site notices I read this afternoon, the developers are claiming tree removal is authorised by a section 278 agreement. This would be an agreement made under the 1980 Highways Act whereby a developer agrees with a local highway authority for improvement works to local roads. Normally it is used to for things like resurfacing of a road (especially if a developer has trashed it.
They claim this 278 agreement has been made with Islington, Camden and Transport for London although I find this an odd claim because Camden is not a relevant highways authority for Pentonville Road.
However, the key point is that although removal of trees could be dealt with by a 278 agreeement it does not actually give them permission to remove trees. A 278 agreement binds the developer to do something, but it does not give therefore give him carte blanche to do something which is covered by other regulatory powers.
I think that the Nido developers have said the agreement is to repair and improve the footpath and claim that they are replacing old trees with new ones. However, it does not matter what the developer has agreed with the highways authority: I am pretty sure these trees will have Tree Protection Orders and the developer will have had conditions attached to their planning permission requiring them to retain the tress and to physically protect them from damage as part of the construction process.
Even so, if one part of Islington Council has given the impression it’s OK to fell tress (and the Highways people indeed seem to be permanently semi-detached) whilst another part is trying to protect trees, it says something about the Council’s regretably dysfunctional Environment Dept.