Fairview New Homes has submitted a planning application for work to the protected trees in the fields. The application actually covers much more than that, such as scrub clearance, which will reduce the biodiversity on the site. The application can be found here
You will need to register to be able to comment on the application. The deadline is October 30.
This is what Enfield RoadWatch has submitted:
Re. 24/03061/TPO | Works to trees protected by LBE ORDER NO 66 1977: 5x oak trees – remove
We object to the scope of the works proposed under this planning application for a number of reasons. It comes suspiciously soon after evidence was released as part of the Local Plan showing the biodiversity of the site in question and its potential to be a SINC. [You can find the Preliminary Ecological Assessment in the Regulation 19 representations from Enfield RoadWatch SA10.1]
The land has been owned by the Diocese of London for many years and managed by the applicant for over 10 years, during which time they have held an option to buy and develop the land. During the time of the option, management of the site has amounted to little more than permitting grazing by a small herd of horses. As a result, the two fields have resorted to a semi re-wilded state, which provides habitats for many birds and other creatures. It therefore appears that the main purpose of the proposed work is land clearance to reduce the likelihood of any significant biodiversity being retained or encouraged, thus making the area a little easier to build on. The label on the sketch which states: This tree survey information has been prepared for planning purposes only. Additional detail will be needed for foundation design adds to that assumption.
Under the guise of ‘tree works’ the applicant proposes significantly more extensive clearance of vegetation, most of it without the required survey documentation. The brevity and lack of detail regarding the structural and physiological conditions of the trees mentioned in the documents are inadequate to permit the work to proceed. All the tree work recommended should be carried out to the industry standard of BS 3998:2010 by competent and fully qualified tree surgeons and their reports should be included in the application. There is no mention of tree sizes or categorisation of condition – this is particularly important when it comes to larger trees as bat roosts may be present. If a bat survey has been conducted, it would be helpful for the report to be included. If no survey has been completed, it is imperative that any voids, loose bark, and dense coverings of ivy are subject to a close up visual inspection by an ecologist with a Natural England Class 2 licence. This is likely to involve the use of climbing equipment, high powered torches and endoscopes.
The site originally contained 8 veteran oaks that were protected with TPOs at the end of 1977. [T1 – T8] In the intervening time, lack of care has caused T1, T3, T5, T6 and T8 to die. This was likely due to soil compaction over the roots, leading to waterlogging and disease. The soil compaction was mostly caused by the horses sheltering under the trees and could have been avoided with fencing, if due care for the trees had been considered important by the applicant.With regard to specific items:
1. Tree No A – Areas of scrub. The location or locations are not shown on the sketch and permission could result in the removal of considerable vital habitat. Scrub is a valuable asset for birds and invertebrates and its removal would not produce the professed results of enabling the development of large trees, hedgerows and grazing.
2. Tree No B – Group of dead oaks. Given the location on the map, this is likely to include T-2 and possibly T-3. These are not just dead oaks. They were veteran trees protected by TPOs that were allowed to die through neglect. The dead trees do not constitute a danger to anything and are in their present condition habitat for woodpeckers and other wildlife. As it is the lack of care for these larger oak trees by the land owner and manager that has led to their demise, we believe that every tree removed should be replaced with two heavy standard oaks of native provenance.
3. Tree No 1 – The tree survey showing the ash dieback should be included. What are the other trees included in this group? There is insufficient information for the work to be permitted.
4. Tree Nos 2, 5, 6, 32, 61, 65-81. A great deal of work is proposed to the hedgerow along Enfield Road, including the removal of one entire oak tree. Given the value of the hedgerow habitat for birds, invertebrates and mammals only essential work should be permitted and the integrity of the hedgerow must be maintained. This must not be allowed to become a means of effectively removing the hedgerow for development purposes. Where possible, pollarding of the trees is better than monolithing and all deadwood should remain on site. It could be used to construct loggeries for stag beetles and other invertebrates.
5. Tree no 18 – English oak. This is a veteran oak, T-8, which was protected by a TPO in 1977. I refer you to my comments above about the lack of care for the TPO trees and the requirement for replacements. Ancient and veteran trees are among the BNG Irreplaceable habitats and there is a duty of care to protect them.
6. Tree No 60 – English oak. This is a veteran oak, T-1, which was protected by a TPO in 1977. I refer you to my comments above about the lack of care for the TPO trees and the requirement for replacements. Ancient and veteran trees are among the BNG Irreplaceable habitats and there is a duty of care to protect them.Granting the application in its present form would allow much more than necessary work for the health of TPO trees. It could amount to the removal of important habitats on a site that may not even receive development permission once the Local Plan is finalised. The site is currently in the Green Belt and is rich in biodiversity and those facts should be respected.