Forum topic: Railside tree removals spark angry reaction

The first image clearly shows the green (low level) reptile fence erected as a condition for the redevelopment on the site of the old garages. I believe the aim was to prevent reptiles etc moving from the embankment on to the building site where they would be at risk from construction work.

An additional condition was the creation of "loggeries" for stag beetle larva to compensate for the removal of fallen timber on the site. In addition, I believe that the ecological report provided by the developers noted the area as being suitable for feeding bats because of the surrounding trees.

Network Rail's blitz has completly undermined these attempts to protect wildlife in the area, and compounded things by the removal of potential nesting and feeding sites for birds.

Private developers are forced to make some compensatory gestures, as in the Sherygreen project, but Network Rail seems able to carry on without any constraints or remedial action.

I was unable to stay for the whole of Monday’s meeting arranged by David Burrows with Network Rail on the Fox Lane bridge, but I’ve spoken to some who did.



I don’t think that we made much impression on Network Rail. They were confident that they had done even more on consultation than they were obliged to, and that all the work had been carried out in line with their arboriculturalist’s professional advice. They said that they might leave some of the felled tree trunks to provide habitat, and could re-visit the scene to consider whether there could be some replanting. However, again on advice from the arboriculturalist, they said that intended to put stump killer on the felled trees. This would of course prevent any regrowth, and ensure that the embankment remains bare and sterile. It was also claimed that full examination of the embankment had failed to find any evidence of frogs, toads, or newts.

Network Rail may of course be re-thinking their position, but given the lack of lasting effect from the protests and meetings held after the earlier mass clearance on the Grange Park embankment, this may be too optimistic. In the light of such continuing difficulty with Network Rail’s crude approach to embankment maintenance, consideration is now being given to linking with other protest groups and raising a national petition on this issue. I don’t think that anyone disputes the need for a maintenance programme, but the way it’s carried out is another matter.

Comments that I've seen by people with some expertise in this area and sight of their correspondence with Network Rail confirm the impression that NR are unrepentant. They are using the existence of the arboriculturists' report to justify complete removal of the group of sycamores and ashes near the bridge. However, the allegation is that Network Rail did not set the correct terms of reference for the arboriculturist, eg did not ask them about the effect on embankment stability or recommend less drastic methods of fixing any problems with that particular group of trees.

Network Rail did commission an ecological survey (attached to this message), but there is a suggestion that tree felling had already begun before this was carried out.





The accusation against Network Rail is that they are overly focussed on train operation and minimising costs and pay scant regard to their responsibilities as stewarts of large tracts of land. By felling as many trees as possible they hope to be able to reduce the frequency with which they need to deal with trackside trees and vegetation. They are also excessively anxious to reduce the likelihood of their being held responsible for train delays due to tree falls etc because of the system of fines which is in force.

The problems are countrywide and go back to the time when Network Rail was set up. See this Parliamentary debate from 2003 about similar problems in Birmingham.

hansard.millbanksystems.com/westminster_hall/2003/jun/03/tree-management-network-rail

My attention has been drawn to the fact that there are three significant planning policies in London which touch on the importance of our rail embankements as "green corridors" for wildlife. These are the National Planning Policy Framework; The London Plan, and the All London Green Grid which is classified as being Supplementary Planning Guidance. Boroughs are obliged under the All London Green Grid to take specific actions in line with these policies. Setting aside the national policy, of most relevance to London we have two significant policy statements

The London Plan 2014 (Draft) contains wording which is essentially a repeat of that in the 2011 plan. The draft says:

7.62 The richness of London’s biodiversity is also dependant on private gardens, parks and open spaces and green corridors along canals and railways as well as on the River Thames and its tributaries (Policy 7.29) that allow essential interconnection between London wildlife sites. The network formed by biodiversity sites and the spaces between them will have a significant role in assisting biodiversity to adapt to climate change. Further guidance on this is given in London Climate Change Partnership’s ‘Adapting to Climate Change: creating natural resilience’. Also Policy 2.18 recognises how green infrastructure can assist in enabling biodiversity to move to adapt effectively to the impacts

Green corridors are defined as follows:

This refers to relatively continuous areas of open space leading through the built environment, which may be linked and may not be publicly accessible. They may allow animals and plants to be found further into the built-up area than would otherwise be the case and provide an extension to the habitats of the sites they join.


The All London Green Grid 2011 (Supplementary Planning Guidance) says:

5.17 The Wood Green Link connects Clissold Park in the south to Finsbury Park and Alexandra Park to the north, continuing on through Wood Green to Palmers Green. Outside of these green spaces the link mainly passes through built-up areas.

This document defines Green Corridors as follows:
This refers to relatively continuous areas of open space leading through the built environment which may be linked and may not be publicly accessible (e.g. a railway embankment). They may allow movement of some animals and plants, and act as a conduit for species to reach further into urban areas that would otherwise be the case, and potentially provide extensions and connectivity to green spaces they join.

Though the corridor north of Palmers Green isn't specifically mentioned, the principle must surely be the same.

It seems clear to me that the rail embankment through Enfield is a green corridor as defined above. So the first question is "Is Network Rail immune from these planning policies?". If they are not immune, the next question is, "Who should be enforcing these policies?" Third, if Network Rail is immune from complying, the question must be "How can the immunity be removed?".

At the very least in order to comply with the spirit of these planning policies, Network Rail should halt work until a more sensitive managment plan can be adopted and a replanting proposal offered for consultation.

It's a sad reflection that the value of these green corridors is only fully appreciated when they are being destroyed.