Jump to content

Empty tree pits in SE22


Nigello

Recommended Posts

Please add to the list the locations of empty tree pits in SE22.


It's so that councillors - and anyone else who has influence - can see where trees should be replanted (or not, if they don't want them back for whatever reason).


49 Landcroft Road

9 Goodrich Road

95 Goodrich Road

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's best not to have a tree by the petrol

> station - with bus queues and pedestrian traffic,

> it is not very practical. I agree, however, that

> it needs to be filled in.



I agree, this one by Texaco on Grove Vale is placed in the most stupid place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we of the opinion that this replanting isn't being done anyway? I reported a dangerous stump in Rodwell Road last year, and it was removed. The tree pit now has a young (fenced off) tree in it, after a few months of being empty.


Just wondering if this cataloging is going to achieve something that's already in-hand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also liaising with the Tree Dept and both ED and Village ward cllrs on updating the empty tree pit spreadsheet as there hasn't been a proper survey for a while now. I was going to start a thread like this, but I keep getting caught out by the CloudFlare problems. So this thread is very useful.


FYI, according to the last spreadsheet I updated, both 1 Glengarry and 86 (and also 45) Beauval are on the list to be replaced before the end of April. 1 Glengarry is to be a Prunus x Yedoensis (Japanese specimen cherry) the Beauval trees are to be Ginkgos to match the existing avenue.


But everything is on hold until the new treeplanting guide is approved... if the new specs for 1m x 1m pits are imposed, this could severely limit future replanting in Dulwich... in which case we might have to launch a new protest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks rch. Would this thread not be useful to persuade the powers that be that we would like the pits filled in before the 1m x 1m rule is imposed. THe empty pits look forlorn: at least have the manners to fill them in with concrete or a paving flag, council!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nigello, yes that was the plan, but obstacles are now hitting, so I'm waiting to hear if the issue can be resolved internally before we go into a public protest. Bear in mind that this ruling could seriously affect the character of the whole area if we can't plant trees as most of our pavements aren't wide enough to accommodate 1m x 1m pits.


In the meantime, it's probably best to leave the empty treepits unfilled in the short term as it will only cost more money to re-clear them for planting - only the pits which are definitely not going to be replanted are being repaved. We are lobbying for any pits that can't be replanted to be awarded another tree in the area in lieu (we have a separate Lieu List), but digging new pits costs extra money, which in turn eats into the replanting budget.


This is why both Ed and Village ward cllrs have awarded CGS funds for tree planting, in order to supplement internal budget.


We should hear back on the 1m x 1m policy in a week or two, then hopefully the planting list that was agreed in the autumn will go through in March and then we can start the surveys up again over the summer to prepare for next years planting list. Fyi, planting season runs from Sept-March when the trees are dormant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What would I do about cyclists?  The failed Tory manfesto commitment to train all kids was an excellent proposal.  Public information campaigns aimed at all road users, rather than singling some out, to more considerately share the road, as TfL have done, is welcome too. As for crunching vehicles.  I'd extend this to illegal ebikes, illegal e-scoooters (I think some local authorities have done this with the latter) but before that I would (a) legislate that the delivery companies move away from zero hours contracts to permanent employees and take responsibility for their training, vehicles and behaviour on the road.   More expensive takeaways are a price worth paying for safer roads and proper terms and conditions (b) legislate to register all illegal e-bikes and scooters so that when they are found on the road the retailer takes a hit, and clamp down on any grey markets.  If you buy an e scooter say from Halfords this comes with a disclaimer that it can only be used on private land with the owner's permission.
    • I know a lot of experts in the field and getting a franchise was a license to print money, that is why Virgin were so happy to spend lots of dosh challenging government ten years ago when they lost the West Coast franchise.  This will not be overnight, rather than when the franchise has come to the end. Government had previously taking over the operator of last resort when some TOCs screwed up. Good, at last some clear blue water between the parties.  Tories said they were going to do a halfway house, but I've not noticed.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Railways   : "On 19 October 2022, Transport Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan announced that the Transport Bill which would have set up GBR would not go ahead in the current parliamentary session.[15] In February 2023, Transport Secretary Mark Harper re-affirmed the government's commitment to GBR and rail reform.[16] The 2023 King's speech announced the progression of a draft Rail Reform Bill which would enable the establishment of GBR, although it has not been timetabled in the Parliamentary programme.[5] The Transport Secretary Mark Harper later told the Transport Select Committee that the legislation was unlikely to reach Royal Assent within the 2023-2024 parliamentary session.[17]"
    • Can't help thinking that regardless of whether Joe wanted to be interviewed, the 'story' that Southwark News wanted to write just got a lot less interesting with 'tyre shop replaced with ... tyre shop'! 
    • Labour are proposing to nationalise the railways, (passenger trains but not fright)  Whilst it removes them from shareholders control, and potential profit chasing, is it workable or will it end up costing tax payers more in the long run?  On paper the idea is interesting but does it also need the profitable freight arm included to help reduce fares,? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...