Development of John Jones Site / Sketch House

yagamuffin

So some of the trees were removed because the inspector thought "<span style="font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20.799999237060547px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">their health and life expectancy could be reduced". Not that anyone qualified said their health and life expectancy would be reduced. Surely they should have been left for a future decsion based on evidence of what actually happens.</span><div><span style="font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20.799999237060547px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Bloody council!</span></div>

DillysDad

And there we have it. Doomed to death because of development or a so called 'bigger picture.' The trees along the pavement belong to all of us ... To appeal the councils original refusal to have trees with TPO's cut down just proves that vanity trumps environmental conscience. I'm pretty staggered at how many people are quick to dismiss the obvious benefits of having trees ... Especially given our dwindling bird population.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

andy

I think you're leaping from the general to the particular. "Cutting down seven trees" isn't the same as "trees are bad". Quite the opposite.<div><br></div><div>You're in danger of holding the fundamentally conservative position that all change is bad. </div><div><br></div><div>The bigger picture is that well-run and planned cities are the most environmentally sustainable way to house and accommodate millions of people. New, cleaner, better insulated, more sustainable buildings are a big part of that. Ones owned and run by local people - who aren't primarily developers, but picture framers, who have an interest in the local community, local employment, and employing locally skilled workers, seem to me to be the best that can be hoped for. </div><div><br></div><div>There are so many other tinpot, poor quality speculative residential developments that are blighting the city, but you pick on this one.</div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Even after subtracting the cost of losing seven trees, this is a net win for the area and the environment. Notwithstanding the fact that the trees are going to be replaced.</span></div>

DillysDad

Andy - Trees replaced with trees that will take decades to get even close to the maturity of the trees that are already there. I'm in no way approaching the 'change is bad' attitude. Change is good but as you say 'well-run and planned' ... appealing a decision not to cut down trees with TPO's and one man overturning that decision isn't well planned.<br><br>There is nothing environmental about comfortably housing/accommodating  people. Ensuring there are sufficient natural air filters for the millions of people is truly environmental.<br><br>And again, monetary value and greed trumps the invaluable benefits that mature trees give people and our dwindling bird population. Just what is the point of having TPO's if folk can cut them down with the promise of a few silver coins?<br><br>And yes, I'm sure there are hundreds of tin pot developments but they're not in my community. If they were, I would absolutely want to ensure those responsible are held accountable.<br><br>And yes, John Jones are local and not developers ... but let's not make out that this development is primarily for the good of the community.<br><br>And yes ... employing local people is great (would love to see how many of the staff are in fact local) but do you really think that not cutting down those trees would prevent those same people from being employed?<br><br>I think the bigger picture in this case would have been to consider the adverse effects of cutting down the trees prior to appealing the decision.<br>

Arkady

Small point in the scheme of things. but young, growing trees take in more carbon that mature ones.

DillysDad

Arkady - Not according to the latest research<br><br>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-15/big-trees-growing-faster-than-small-ones-will-absorb-more-carbon.html<br><br>I particularly like the football analogy<br>

ChangN4N6

Well assuming it goes ahead, are we in favor as a contingency with replacement mature trees (not saplings)? Otherwise it's going to be crap. And the 'welcome splash of green' as we know it will be gone, gone, gone. Presumably the students would like it too. Can the Fin-woteva partnership (silent on here) knock heads togetha? Chang

Arkady

DD- That is interesting.

andy

<div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; font-size: 10pt;">Your arguments do look a lot like fundamentally conservative arguments in favour of the status quo. </span><span style="font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">There are tin-pot developments in your community. The one next to John Jones, for example. </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="lucida grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, tahoma, sans-serif" size="2"><span style="line-height: 20px;">I happen to think the John Jones development IS good for the local community. It's because that sort of development is good for this sort of community, in a way that bad speculative residential development isn't. </span></font></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 20px;">That's not dependent on the benevolence of the part John Jones, and it doesn't need to be.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="lucida grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, tahoma, sans-serif" size="2"><span style="line-height: 20px;"> (That said, I genuinely think they are community-minded folk). That's the big picture.</span></font></span></div></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="lucida grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, tahoma, sans-serif" size="2"><span style="line-height: 20px;"><br></span></font></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="lucida grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, tahoma, sans-serif" size="2"><span style="line-height: 20px;">And this sentence: "</span></font></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">There is nothing environmental about comfortably housing/accommodating  people</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">", I don't understand.</span></div>

DillysDad

Andy - If the other development were cutting down trees (which to my knowledge, they aren't) then they'd be held accountable.<br><br>It seems the reason you don't understand the point is because you're failing to see that there is a much bigger picture beyond the modern wants of human kind. Your belief that my arguments are 'fundamentally conservative' appear to show that. But as we're on an internet forum, discussing local issues, you are of course entitled to that opinion, from behind your computer ... perhaps from the comfort of an arm chair. <br><br>I wonder when we'll stop seeing our financial wants as being superior to nature ... probably when there are no trees left.<br><br>It's simple, the development would have gone ahead with or without the trees being cut down. Yes, it may have had to have been slightly adapted to accommodate the trees.<br><br>Finsbury Park was recently dubbed 'the lungs of London' ... hmm?!<br>

Arkady

DD, Are you not being a bit short-termist yourself?  There will end up being at least the number of trees that there are now (so the 'probably when there are no trees left' rhetoric doesn't hold, does it?). And even if they replace them with young saplings, those are saplings which will grow into mature trees that will presumably live for longer than the ones that they are replacing (particularly if they replace them with more appropriate trees for urban environments, and ones less likely of knackering the curb and having to be removed).  They will be enjoyed by our children and grandchildren, who might otherwise have had to see them replaced in their lifetimes. <div>So in the big picture, you have the same number of trees, for at least the same amount of time. The difference being that then replacements will hopefully be more robust and less intrusive to pedestrians (or foundations).</div>

DillysDad

Arkady - that is a fair point. However, you say that now ... and in 10 years when someone else deems them as being 'unsuitable' or in the way of their development ... ?<br><br>And what about the returning Starlings that visit that hedge row and those trees every year? Now they are a species that don't like change.<br><br>I love your image of the big picture (I genuinely do) but the facts are that that image won't be realised for decades. Our kids won't enjoy the mature trees as they'll still be saplings, grand kids? Maybe at a push. Certainly none of us would. <br><br>Or ... we could say 'sure, build your development, but leave the trees alone.' Not really sure why that's so hard to grasp.<br>

andy

<div>The patronising tone I can live with. I'm pleased with the concessions on my "fair points" about jobs, community and net environmental benefits and Arkady's fair points about there being no net tree loss, but really, what have the romans ever done for us?</div><div><br></div><div>Brilliant. I think we're done here.</div>

DillysDad

<br><br>Patronising? Coming from the person who dismisses peoples genuine concerns (and I'm not the only one on here) as 'arm chair internet critics'! From the guy who runs an internet forum, that's laughable!<br><br>The comment I think you may be referring to is a genuine belief that the reason you don't understand me is because I value the natural world more than human kinds achievements. There was nothing in there that was meant to be patronising. If indeed it came across that way, I can only apologise.<br><br>And yes, they were 'fair points'. I'm giving credit where it's due ... as opposed to ignoring salient points or disagreeing with every element of an argument.<br><br><br>

Toddlesocks

@DD - in repeating Misscara is there anything we can do to try and save them/ help ?

DillysDad

@Misscara and @Toddlesocks - If you're on twitter, give Caroline Russell (@Highburyonfoot) a shout. She is brilliant and immediately responded when I let her know it was happening. Jeremy Corbyn and Emily Thornberry are also interested.<br><br>The Islington Gazette and Tribune will be interested, I think Caroline is on their case. I would wholeheartedly recommend contacting Caroline though. If you're not on twitter, let me know and I'll DM you her email address.<br><br>Peter Dempsey is the guy Environment & Regeneration Dept go to person (his name is on the notices) <br><br>His number is 02072723130 and the reference number is P100197<br>

Toddlesocks

Ok DD i am on twitter, @studionicol<;div><br></div><div>Will do my best to spread the word./ what you suggest,</div>

miss annie

Which of the many different communities that live in the immediate area is cutting down trees to build an art centre, and student housing appealing to? The middle class (sorry), reasonably affluent, garden/allotment/balcony owning community that perhaps belongs to a community forum will be of course think 'for heaven's sake, it's just a few trees. Look at this vision of the future that's being built on top of them'. The less affluent communities living in poky, dark flats without gardens, who have no interest in a gallery space, framing emporium and student accommodation, who will never be able to afford affordable housing and may think differently. I suspect the latter group outnumber the former in N4. We should not fall into the middle cass (again, sorry), trap of think everyone is in the same fortunate position as ourselves.

DillysDad

I adore you Miss Annie! Was telling Lynn so today.<br><br><br>

dion

everyone should know andy runs this forum like a totalitarian dictator, cf how he dealt with that other thread i didn't quite understand. at least at this rate he will run out of trees to tie people to before he shoots them<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>(for the avoidance of doubt, this is a tongue in cheek post, so no more abusive pms please)</div><div><br></div><div>(just kidding, there were no abusive pms)</div>

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

dion

on another note, trees annoy me as they stop the sun shining on me. in a city such as this with very little sunshine, it is annoying that trees more than often provide shade when I don't want any

dion

and the evil wind/storms blew down plenty of trees over the winter - like that one in the park that must have been at least 130 years old, judging by the maps.  at least the storms will have blown all the diesel particulates to norway. how many trees will we have to plant to replace that one?

Sutent

Thank you dd for your posts today. I am behind you on this one.

DillysDad

@misscara - No. Not all (see Dion's post)<br>@Sutent - Thank you. <br><br><br><br>

andy

@missannie I think the forum appears reasonably split down the middle on this. In general, nimbyism is a middle class phenomena.

dion

ha, with his Speer-like vision of a greater stroud green with grand avenues, and imposing monolithic architecture - he will be annexing Upper Holloway before we know it

dion

ha ha, www.upperholloway.org<div><br></div><div>(it doesn't exist - maybe it has already been annexed)</div>

andy

Brilliant, I'm being passive-aggressively called out on twitter now. "Cranky IT guy". Ha. As uninformed comments go, that's right up there.