TfL Ref: EIR-1152-2122
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 29th August 2021 asking for information about a tree that was removed on Farringdon Road.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access policy.
Specifically you asked:
“It seems to me that TfL is overcomplicating the matter. Why not simply ask Rob Cummings (Asset Operations Manager in SQA-8018 form) to provide the relevant emails, specifically to show:
(1) Who first initiated the removal of this tree, and why (e.g. result of routine inspection, response to complaint received, or other reason)?
(2) Who decided that no replacement was viable, and why (e.g. visibility, cost, or other reason)?”
The question of why this tree was removed has already been addressed in our previous correspondence. For example, our email of 18th June 2021 under case reference FOI-483-2122 contained the two attachments provided again with this email. The document titled “FOI 0483 Farringdon Road and Roseberry Avenue - Plane Assessment” was written following an inspection of the tree by my colleague Grayham Tindal on 15/10/2018. It includes the following paragraph:
“Due to the historical evidence of vehicle impact damage, this tree is at an increased risk of the abnormal stresses associated with a vehicle impact. Given the presence and position of the cavity and decay, there is an increased risk of catastrophic tree failure in the event of vehicle strike. Therefore to reduce the risk I believe there are only two reasonable solutions to consider. The first option would be to ban the left turn for south bound traffic on Farringdon Road or the second would be for the tree to be removed via a controlled fell. Both options will require further investigations as there are pros and cons to both solutions. Indecision will place TFL at significant financial and reputational risk in the event on an incident, given the target area, there are substantial risks to both property and
persons in the event of a catastrophic failure.”
The attachment titled “FOI 0483-0525 SQA - Farringdon Road (200100053570)_MR_pdf” is the associated “Green Estate removal request”, the decision having been taken to remove the tree. It was submitted by my colleague Rob Cummings on 22/10/2020 and inlcudes the following explanation of why removal of the tree was necessary:
“Large cavity in trunk, tree unsafe if struck”.
In order to answer the specific questions of who exactly first raised the isssue and why, and who first determined that no replacement was viable and why, we would need to conduct a trawl of hundreds - or possibly thousands - of emails, as explained previously by my colleague Emma Flint in her email to you of 4th August 2021 (shown below) in response to your request for an Internal Review. This remains the case, and hence the “manifestly unreasonable” exception under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR applies again to your current request, for the same reasons set out by Emma previously. Note that in addressing this current request I have followed your suggestion and liaised directly with Rob Cummings to see if he could find the original emails himself. The earliest email chain he was able to find is attached, which begins on 11th October 2018 (note that the direct contact details of staff have been removed under Regulation 13 of the EIR, which protects against the unfair release of personal data). The document referred to in the email chain is the same document already provided to you, from Grayham Tindall dated 15/10/2018. We do not believe that this was the first email that was exchanged on the matter, hence the conclusion that the only way to find those original emails (should they still be held, which is not certain) would be to conduct a remote search and trawl.
If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for any reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.
Yours sincerely,
David Wells
FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London
