Pavement Surfaces and Trees

Following on from the burgeoning controversy over street trees in Furness Road, I thought I should add in something about what I know about their effect on pavement surfaces.  During the Harlesden Town Centre redevelopment, the group agreed that wanted standard paving and that trees should either have hoggin around them (which is a kind of sterile soil piled up) or resin coated gravel (as in the photo of Wembley Market Square below).  The advantage of this is that they still let the water in to feed the tree (and of course help its survival).

Examples of resin costed gravel are plentiful around Harlesden Town Centre, and tend to be favoured in the more urban sites.  These sites tend to be replaced by smaller trees because the bigger trees (e.g. London Plan) tend to undermine peoples' houses which can lead to successful insurance claims and if taken that far, a court order to remove tree.

The more suburban sites are more likely to have grass verges and wider front gardens are less likely to be affected by insurance wrangles as the distances from the housing is sufficient to avoid subsidence. 

Paving with gravel and paving stones in my opinion looks much nicer, but it can be hard to reconcile with bigger trees as the stones immediately around the tree tend to get lifted up.  A combination of paving and asphalt can be tried, but also looks somewhat unsightly (see the photo below), and can become cracked creating tripping hazards.  Of course that also applies if the paving is replaced entirely by asphalt.  There are alternatives to asphalt, such as the granite materials used in Hazel Road, although I believe that is more expensive. 

When Brent Council decided to move away from paving stones in 2016, I believe it was fundamentally a cost based decision, and I think the councillors should be more frank in acknowledging that.