| |
Why were trees lost?
• AMONG the many questions that need to be asked about the felling by Transport for London (TfL) of two plane trees at the Goswell/City roads triangle is why Islington’s tree officers weren’t consulted; why members of the borough’s south area committee (SAC) approved the scheme last June which would have involved the loss of even more trees, six in total; whether the borough’s executive member for the environment, who knew about the proposal, objected, and if so whether he was overridden; and why an alternative plan wasn’t put forward by the SAC to retain all the trees.
Attempts by the council leadership to blame TfL for the loss of two planes are therefore misplaced.
What appears to have begun as a scheme, long supported by Islington Cyclists’ Action Group (ICAG) and pedestrians, to separate the bike riders from the walkers grew into something much bigger – or just a lot of hot air. There was talk of “improving the townscape for the future”.
But if Islington Council is committed, as its executive claims, to a presumption in favour of retaining trees and against felling, then it must explain why the SAC failed to ask TfL to produce a plan for an improved cycle/
pedestrian crossing which didn’t involve the loss of any trees. ICAG members are upset by what has happened. SAC members also approved, without adequate consultation, the loss of the Guardian trees.
MEG HOWARTH
Ellington Street, N7
|
| |
|
|
 |
Your comments:
|
| |
| |
