Several residents in Belsize Park spoke out, saying felling the trees was unnecessary, but a developer says they were dying
The council disputes that the “massive tree” was a plane tree(Image: Vicky Unwin)
A woman shocked by the felling of a small number of trees in North London has likened it to “murdering” them.
In February, Camden resident Vicky Unwin was walking home when she was struck to find a “massive tree” had been cut down in Belsize Park. Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), she said that although tree officers told her it was felled for safety reasons, she then spoke to tree surgeons who she claims disputed this.
“They said it was completely healthy,” Ms Unwin claims. “But the tree officer said they cut a diseased branch off. There’s no good reason for it.”
Camden tree officers say they only remove trees if necessary if they are “dead, dying, or dangerous”.
Local authorities in the UK regulate tree felling, Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and Conservation Area protections. Anyone who wants to fell, top or lop a tree protected by a TPO normally has to seek permission from the council first. Trees in conservation areas with a trunk diameter wider than 75mm require six weeks’ notice before such works.
But if a tree has no TPO and it’s not in a Conservation Area, it has little protection unless the council decides to place a TPO on it to prevent it being felled.
In March, Vicky was “appalled” to discover plans to fell three more trees and cut back three others in Belsize Park.
A notice put up by Camden Council informing residents of a plan to fell a tree and reduce another in Haverstock Hill(Image: Vicky Unwin)
Posting on social media platform Nextdoor, she said: “More trees are being murdered by Camden Council on Haverstock Hill. I’m beside myself.” Several other residents also shared their upset, though it wasn’t actually the council carrying out the work.
On behalf of Clarion Housing, construction consultancy Potter Raper sought permission to fell two “dying” elms and a sycamore tree and reduce the crowns of two others bordering a row of period terraced houses on Haverstock Hill. Reports state these were in danger of damaging a boundary wall and the pavement.
Camden approved the application, which did not need to go before a planning committee.
A clutch of local residents wrote in to object. Carole Snow said the move seemed “overzealous” and praised the mental health benefits the tree had brought her during the pandemic. Another resident, Rose Woodall Simmons, said the “beautiful” trees were protecting her and her children from pollution.
Sycamore and elm trees on Haverstock Hill(Image: Vicky Unwin)
Ms Unwin added: “I couldn’t see that the trees were causing any problems with the retaining wall, or why they couldn’t simply be pruned if they were thought to be too old or big. It appears that Camden consults but then doesn’t listen,” she told the LDRS.
A Camden Council spokesperson said: “We were made aware of two elm trees on Haverstock Hill in very poor condition and another sycamore tree was reported as weak and in contact with a nearby wall.
“After careful assessment, the council did not object to their removal as due to their condition and impact on the wall they did not meet the criteria for protection by a Tree Protection Order.”
The council added that the other three trees were not deemed suitable for bringing under the protection of a TPO.
Got a story? Email josef.steen@reachplc or @jslondonldr on X.
Stay in the loop with the latest North London news. Sign up to our MyNorthLondon newsletter HERE for daily updates and more.