Development of John Jones Site / Sketch House

miss annie

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tory-donors-plan-for-megabasement-with-pool-and-yoga-room-thwarted-by-two-trees-9218412.html

graeme

<br>@miss annie, hard to say what this reflects.  <br><br>One family benefit in a leafy district - no trees can be cut <b>versus </b>one concrete outpost on the edge of Islington needs a new tax generator - cut them down.  It's a grubby business.<br><br><br>

NorthNineteen

It's purely because they have a Tree Protection Order. All trees over a certain diameter (I can't remember off the top of my head but it's quite small) in conservation areas have an automatic TPO.  If the trees at JJ had a TPO they would not have been felled. However, the were relatively poor quality trees and largely unsuitable for the location so they would not been granted TPO's, hence even though Islington rejected the application there hand was forced by the national planning laws this country has - yet again I'll reiterate we have some of the, if not the most stringent planning laws in the world.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Papa

I can't trawl through everything here again to find it, but what kind of trees were they again?<br><br>Were they planes?<br>

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

miss annie

There are many of the same trees on Fonthill, Charteris, Lennox, Moray and Woodfall Roads. As I recall the report said that there was no issue at all with the condition of the trees.

ChangN4N6

Sadly this is true. Big business rules. Even in the pet world. Chang

Toddlesocks

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">The two Popular trees on the JJ site had TPO's and were felled. </font><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><font size="2"><br></font></div><div><font size="2"><font face="Arial, Verdana">Only two of the  trees really needed to be removed to allow the development to take place. ( not that i think they should have been).</font><br></font><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><font size="2"><br></font></div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><font size="2">All the  trees in the latest felling were healthy!</font></div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><font size="2"><br></font></div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><font size="2"><br></font></div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><font size="2">Quote from inspectors report -</font></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">"Only two </font><span style="font-size: small;">trees need to be removed to allow the proposed development to take place but </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">the construction works would impinge on both the roots and canopies of several </font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">others and, consequently, their health and life expectancy could be reduced."</font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2">http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.2938748&NAME=/Decision.pdf</font></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><br></p></div></div>

NorthNineteen

I take it back, even though I posted that link before I missed that they had TPOs.<br>

Toddlesocks

@ NorthNineteen- Yes it was your link, thanks, ( I saved it so didn't need to dig far ) !<div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>

Papa

Am trying to get the internet to answer my question of how old many of London's street trees are - will report back with it.<br>

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

NorthNineteen

Or in the words of the Planning Inspector:<br><br>til this development and a shit load of "extensive benefits" came into play.<br><br><br>

Toddlesocks

I do not think the £100.00 for "replacement's " is " generous" ( like they claim) under the circumstances. Due to the very poor handling of the development, appears really important the community ensures this money is well spent.

Arkady

I’ve seen early pictures of Mount View Road from the 1890s, when the trees were saplings. I assume that the existing London Planes on that road are the same ones.<br><br>Those trees are vastly grander and leafier than the felled ones that were on Lennox Road and Morris Place, though. They mostly looked much younger (and of a different species, I think) to me. Could they have been planted in the 1980s when the coal depot was redeveloped as the current cheap-brick shanty?<br>

miss annie

I think they were Limes. They are often on the same streets as Plane trees. Edit Cambridge Botanical Gdns say they are commonly used as street trees. http://www.botanic.cam.ac.uk/Botanic/Plant.aspx?p=27&ix=66&pid=0&prcid=0&ppid=0

NorthNineteen

That would be my guess Ben.  I hope LB Islington are getting more than £100 to pay for replacement trees!<br><br>I was thinking it would be great if they could narrow Lennox Road a bit and plant street trees on both sides.<br>

miss annie

But that road is used by buses and for residents parking isn't it?

Toddlesocks

Sorry previous typo (am on phone). It's reported to be £100.000 the council are getting to replace trees.

NorthNineteen

That's a lot!  A semi-mature street tree (height of 2 storey building) costs about £1,000 and then x3 for installation/maintenace until the tree is bedded in (couple of years generally I think).<br><br>Miss Annie, look at: http://goo.gl/maps/q9CkE<br><br>You can see how the buildout narrows the road, that is the width that is needed so you could easily pull out the pavement on both sides and have street trees on either side of the road while retaining parking.<br>

Arkady

So John Jones are theoretically paying for 25 trees to replace the ones removed?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

dion

(we don't even know what type of tree we have murdered - how traumatic is that?)

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

ChangN4N6

It's a pity the timber was not made available for a carved totem of miscarra to be erected nr the tube exit 'welcoming' all passengers the the hellhole of SG - based on designs from d'angels and d''juniors. The familiar beak would have be come a landmark / meeting point/ busking centre - maybe the lib dems will do it? Chang

krappyrubsnif

I think Chang has an idea here. In medieval times they put gargoyles on churches and I believe sometimes they used to portray real people. We should get John Jones to build some contemporary gargoyles onto the corners of its allegedly unlovely building, starting with SG Org.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Mirandola

Did the bark peel off? If so, London planes.

ADGS

They didn't look like London planes to me.