Haringey Council has said it was justified in spending £92,000 of taxpayers money on stopping protesters going near a tree.

The plane tree, in Oakfield Road, Stroud Green, has been at the centre of a legal battle, with insurance company Allianz claiming it is causing subsidence to two nearby houses. 

The council had tried to cut it down in April 2022 but was thwarted by activists and took environmental group Haringey Tree Protectors (HTP) to court in December to gain possession of the tree.

With the hearing at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court adjourned until March 15, residents in Oakfield Road were "shocked and stunned" to be woken at 4.30am on March 12 as the council took "possession" of the tree with security guards and scaffolding.

A notice from Simon Farrow, head of parks and leisure at Haringey Council, dated the morning of the action, suggested protesters had prepared to occupy the tree, although the council has never provided any proof of this.

Security guards continued to man the tree 24 hours a day for more than a month as the council battled a high court injunction with Andrew Brenner.

His house is affected by subsidence but who contests his own insurance company's view that the tree is to blame. Haringey Council settled out of court earlier this month.

A Freedom of Information request has shown that the council spent £92,000 occupying the tree.

A council spokesperson blamed the activists and Mr Brenner for the costs incurred.

They said the cost was "a result of the direct action taken by protestors", who had twice prevented the council from felling the tree.  

They added the council possession order granted in December 2022 had "a legal duty" to secure possession to prevent unauthorised occupation, and protect anyone putting themselves at risk of injury. 

The council said its original cost estimate of £45,000 doubled when the court allowed Mr Brenner to appeal its injunction.  

But it said the £92,000 was "proportionate" given that another local authority recently paid £300,000 to remove protestors from a tree.

Jo Syz, from Haringey Tree Protectors, said HTP had not occupied the tree since the court process began as "they were respecting the due process of law".

"At the time that Haringey Council took physical possession of the tree with scaffolding and securing guards, the granting of their injunction against protest at the tree was imminent. The penalties for breaking this would be profound.

"However if anyone decided to break the injunction, it already included the power of arrest so any protestors occupying the tree would be able to be removed without great further expense.

"If the council had considered what the local community requested all along, and waited to make a decision about the tree until after the ombudsman's ruling, this whole process could have been thwarted."

Mr Brenner is awaiting a financial ombudsman report on whether the tree or the clay soil is the cause of the subsidence.