'Aggressive action' taken by council in Haringey tree dispute -

A legal row between local activists Haringey Tree Protectors and the council has been escalated by the deployment of security guards at the site, reports Miriam Balanescu

A 120-year-old tree in Stroud Green is once again under threat as a legal row between local activists and Haringey Council comes to a head this week.

The tree on Oakfield Road has been the subject of a furious dispute between Haringey Tree Protectors (HTP) and the council for more than a year, after the council made the decision to fell the tree in April 2022.

Insurance company Allianz claim the tree is causing subsidence in the street’s homes, which could lead to an insurance claim of “more than £400,000” for the council.

However, HTP disputes these claims, telling BBC News that the evidence for subsidence is “limited, dated and partial”.

In December, the council took HTP to court to seek an injunction against the group, enabling them to arrest protesters if they sought to occupy the tree. The council won possession of the tree but a decision on its request for an injunction was deferred, awaiting a decision by the Financial Ombudsman on the complaint made by the homeowners which may force their insurers to underpin. The hearing on the injunction was postponed until March, with proceedings currently underway.

On Sunday, 12th March, the council carried out what HTP called a “dawn raid” on the tree, covering the tree in plastic and installing a viewing platform and scaffolding – waking local residents at 4.45am. The decision to surround the site with “around 22” 24 hour security guards has also sparked widespread controversy.

Gio Iozzi, a spokesperson for Haringey Tree Protectors, told Haringey Community Press: “These are the extreme measures the state will go to to fell a healthy 120-year-old tree that is helping mitigate against the worst effects of the climate and biodiversity crisis.

“This is a brutal show of power by a council that claims it is committed to fighting the climate crisis. It is undemocratic and undermines the court hearing process we are involved in with the council.”

There have been speculations regarding the cost of these measures taken by the council, with the Liberal Democrats claiming that the move has cost “thousands of pounds to local taxpayers”.

Cllr Scott Emery, opposition spokesperson for the environment, said: “This aggressive action by Haringey’s Labour council is totally disproportionate. Residents have expressed their shock and upset at the Haringey moving in security guards in the middle of the night, and who can blame them? The Labour council should be supporting local people, not making them feel as though they have done something wrong when they are sticking up for their community.”

Gio added: “Thousands of pounds of our tax paying money is being spent against our will on this. This is not the way to do democracy.”

The council have responded by saying that they became aware of climbing ropes being installed in the tree and that their actions are in line with the possession order granted to them in December 2022. These are claims which HTP denies.

A council spokesperson said: “We have been fighting to save this tree since the original claim was made in 2015. But the technical opinion we have most recently received supports the requirement for this tree to be removed as it is contributing to the subsidence issues. Having considered this matter in the light of expert opinion, the council considers that felling the tree is the only option in the circumstances.

“The council has exercised the authority granted by the court order by taking physical possession of the tree to deter and prevent illegal occupation. We appreciate that some disturbance and inconvenience may have been caused by this action, but we hope residents will understand the necessity of this work, and to do so unimpeded. We will make every effort to keep further disruption to a minimum.

“If the tree remains, the council risks facing an insurance claim of more than £400,000. Should the council be held liable, that cost would need to be met by us rather than an insurance company or any other organisation. Such a large sum of money would have a significant impact on delivering key frontline service areas our residents rely on. We therefore had no option other than to apply to the Court for an order for possession of the tree and this was granted at the hearing in December 2022.

“We appreciate and understand the strength of feeling that the removal of trees invokes among some residents in our borough. We are responsible for approximately 40,000 trees in the borough, and, in the vast majority of cases, only remove trees that are either dead, diseased or dying. However, there are occasionally times, such as the one on Oakfield Road, where a tree needs to be removed because of its likely contribution to subsidence to adjoining homes.”

Local news needs your support

We are proud that we were at the forefront of reporting on the recent local elections. We can’t do this without the support of our readers.

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.