sdrs

Hi James, would you mind getting onto the Council again and finding out where they are at with the traffic lights on Dog Kennel Hill? Nothing has changed, still cars sitting needlessly in queues with their engines idling, releasing exhaust fumes for the benefit of residents, pedestrians and cyclists all the way up the hill, while the traffic lights switch to allow non-existent buses through. It's fine when there buses coming down the hill but makes no sense when there aren't! The tailbacks will only get worse when normal traffic levels resume after half term. I was under the impression Southwark were going to sort this out as the system got screwed up during road re-surfacing? It worked well when approaching buses triggered a light change to give them priority.

Hi James, I just posted on the thread of the forum about the change to the phasing of the traffic lights on a Dog Kennel Hill which has caused such long tailbacks on the hill in recent months - think a few people have done the same, asking if you've had any joy chasing TFL about it, but posted on that thread rather than here! So apologies for repeating myself here. Quite apart from the effect on traffic (major delays for motorists), having cars sit in tailbacks going all the way up the hill with their engines idling is terrible for the environment, adding to air pollution in the area (ie impacting on all, not just motorists - pedestrians, cyclists, residents, local school children). The system worked fine when the arrival of a bus triggered a light change, automatically giving the bus priority. How can TFL be persuaded to reinstate this?

Hi James, have you had any joy chasing this? Tailbacks on Dog Kennel Hill caused by this change in the way the light changes are activated actually cause more than just serious and unnecessary delays to motorists - as cars sit with their engines idling in tailbacks on the hill, they are exarcebating already high levels of air pollution. This should not be inflicted on pedestrians/cyclists/residents/pupils of Dog Kennel Hill School. The system worked much better (as someone else has already commented)as it was before, when the light changes were activated by approaching buses - can pressure be brought on TFL to revert to this? Buses still had priority over other traffic when they came along.

Yes, but that exactly illustrates James' point about how the periodic moving and enlarging of the stadium on Green Dale would, if it continued, result in the eventual loss of almost all remaining green space on Green Dale. The current leader of the Council has, reassuringly, recently gone on record as saying that MOL on Green Dale fields will not be built on. Not everyone would dismiss as posturing concerns about the future of this protected green space in the heart of East Dukwich or consider the Council's planned ?1 million park as for the sole benefit of hedgehogs (not least when an improved sports pitch sits at the heart of it for the benefit of the whole community).

Peter John, leader of the Council, has recently gone on record that the time has come for Southwark to bring Greendale back into public ownership and invest public money (?1million, just under) in improving Greendale for the benefit of the local community. It has been unmaintained and fallen into neglect since Dulwich Hamlet FC acquired the lease for it in 1993. The lease ends at the end of the year, hence Southwark is consulting, and I imagine tenants other than DHFC will be applying to lease the playing field, including local schools (perhaps the proposed new secondary school on nearby East Dulwich Grove?) who would be obvious beneficiaries. The Council is proposing to improve the sports pitch as part of their current plan (see website) and this must surely be with a view to allowing its use by local schools. An improved sports pitch would not encroach on the protected Metropolitan Open Land (as Hadley Property Group's proposed stadium would, from what I understand) but would co-exist peacefully with the wooded semi-wild park planned.

Building a new stadium on the AstroTurf pitch is what the Hadley Property Group envisage if their lease is renewed by the Council, certainly, but this is not part of the Council's plan (as you will see if you look at Southwark's plans on the website). The stadium in the Council's plan for the new park is to remain where it is. My understanding is that the Council are of the view that allowing it to be relocated to the AstroTurf pitch (with a view to enlarging it) would detrimentally alter the character of the Green Dale fields, disturb wildlife (noise, floodlights, etc), impact on their habitats and encroach on the Metropolitan Open Land. There are legitimate concerns about the potential adverse environmental and ecological impact of allowing a larger stadium to be built right in the heart of Green Dale.

Here's a link to the online consultation: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200073/parks_and_open_spaces/3569/green_dale_fields

A new public park for Dulwich which will protect Green Dale (Metropolitan Open Land) as a precious and peaceful green space in the face of encroaching private development, enhance and facilitate local people's experience of it and improve their access to it, whilst protecting and encouraging wildlife so that our urban children still have some contact with nature, is an exciting prospect for the area which deserves to be widely supported. The Council is proposing to invest close to ?1 million to finally turn Green Dale into a community asset, after years of neglect, for the benefit of all local people. Full marks to Southwark for launching this major green initiative and to Friends of Green Dale for raising awareness of it and of the current online consultation.

For anyone who'd like to know more about the Council's proposals for Green Dale, here's a link to the Green Dale Open Space Improvement Project website: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10780/green_dale_stage_c_report

Sorry - the deadline is 24th August so still two days to get responses in! https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1117 There should no longer be a problem with getting forms to submit but responses can be submitted by email if necessary. The link James gave to the Friends of Green Dale website is very useful for more detail on the proposals and the background.

So frustrating, I know! You should email [email protected] and [email protected] and let them know this happened to you so they know my problem was not down to my computer (as they seemed to think it was) and can if necessary extend the deadline for submitting forms. You may find you are able to submit the form now that their IT officer has addressed whatever glitch was preventing me from submitting mine the first three times I tried, then again since the consultation deadline was 24th August, you may need to request for it to be extended. Rebecca and Pippa will be very happy to help I'm sure and will if necessary send you the questionnaire to complete by email.

Thank you both for your replies and many thanks for the offer of assistance, James. I agree that it is an important consultation for the area and like you, have joined the Friends of Green Dale. I got in touch with the Council about the problem I was having in submitting the online form and mentioned that I knew I wasn't alone in having a problem with it. They were quick to get their IT officer on the case and whatever the problem was (I still don't understand!) it seems to have rectified itself - I was finally tonight able to submit the form. The deadline for getting it in is 24th August, in case anyone else has had a disappearing form experience and wants to have another go!

Hi, is anyone else having trouble submitting their online questionnaire/form (if they've completed one that is!) to Southwark Council about the future of Green Dale fields and the shared pedestrian/cycle path that runs alongside it? Mine keeps disappearing unrecognised into the ether. I already tried to attend the public exhibition on Saturday and couldn't find it!

Peter John emailed me and I quote: "I agree and have asked for any proposed works to be put on hold until we have had an opportunity to investigate all options for the future of these trees." Traffic management is not an issue . The Highways Department have no grounds to argue that build-outs can't be used here because of residents' parking and sightlines/narrowing the road on approach to the junction. As Eleanor has said in an earlier post, the second reason is undermined by the first - since there are always cars parked here, the sightlines are always potentially obscured and the highway is narrowed anyway by residents' parking spaces. A build-out to provide access for buggies and wheelchairs would be no more obstructive than a parked car or van - in fact, it would be narrower and lower and would if anything improve sightlines. Residents' parking currently extends along both trees at the top of Grove Lane and it would be perfectly feasible to have a build-out in a small portion of the space currently reserved for parking. There is no shortage of parking at the top of Grove Lane - we cannot justifiably object to the loss of a space or two when spaces are in such plentiful supply. The significant monetary value of the tree having now been highlighted, the Highways Department will be expected to take a much more constructive approach to finding a solution to allow for its retention, as will the Trees Department. Don't forget that the tree is worth far more than the build-out and the wall repairs would cost, put together.

If there are grounds to fell the tree, perhaps! In this case, no evidence of a need to fell was ever presented to the handful of residents initially 'consulted', proper procedures were not followed, and there is a very strong case for retaining the tree in the public interest. There is a cracked garden wall which is now finally going to be re-built and the Council will be re-examining the possibility of building out the pavement under the new consultation that Councillors Renata Hamvas and Peter Johnhave have now agreed to. The tree is owned not by individual residents but by the public, to whom it is worth a considerable amount of money under a new valuation system which Southwark has formally adopted. Re what you say about heave and clay soils, you are right of course, soils up here are clay so I imagine the risk of heave attendant on felling such a big tree would be high (which is why I asked the Council about it). It is unclear (from the little we were told) whether subsidence or direct root damage caused the crack to the boundary wall. Either way, clearly the Council has a responsibility to maintain that wall. It has now pledged to meet that responsibility, along with its responsibility to explore ways to preserve the tree for the benefit of the wider community. Peter John is confident that this can be done by building out the pavement around the tree.

And as conferring the most benefit (Healthy, mature trees of this age and size being known to absorb up to 70 times more air pollution than a younger so-called "replacement" specimens)

Correct. Felling the tree carries a risk of far more extensive structural damage than is currently evidenced by the crack in the boundary wall, which the Council has now agreed to re-build anyway (not before time). I did ask the Council during the initial 'consultation' whether the owners of the cracked boundary wall had been made aware of this risk and whether a properly conducted independent assessment of it had been or would be carried out, but I never received a reply. The Royal Horticultural Society advises: "It is not always the case that removing a tree that is contributing to subsidence will make the problems disappear. Although the soil usually swells each winter, a permanent moist deficit can build up under certain circumstances that will result in significant swelling of the soil after the tree is removed and soil gradually returns to its previously moist state. This is called 'heave' and can result in serious damage unless it is controlled by careful soil management. Potential heave is very hard to detect and predict. For this reason, professional advice should always be sought when large trees are being removed in cases of serious subsidence. Be circumspect about removing a specimen that is suspected of causing a problem. Unless there is an imminent danger from structural failure, hasty action could cause more extensive damage in the future. It is nearly always worth seeking advice from a qualified arborist as well as a building surveyor." It has never been suggested that the property itself was under threat from the tree and the cracked boundary wall, as a knowledgeable neighbour has pointed out, was simply constructed to replace the railings removed in 1940 'to aid the war effort". The life span of such walls was expected to be extremely limited, the original railings were intended to be restored. Thankfully, the Council has this week acknowledged that to destroy a tree of this quality and value for the relatively small amount of money it would cost to re-build the wall and build the pavement out around it would have been an act of pure vandalism. And an act of serious non-compliance with its own policy. Southwark, having adopted CAVAT, estimates the value of its own trees at ?440,675,529 in its 'Tree Management Strategy' (2013) and must now use CAVAT (not just pay lip service to it) to protect and manages are those trees that can be identified as benefitting the greatest number of people for the longest time.

Just to thank all who've taken such a keen interest in the proposed felling of the mature plane tree at the top of Grove Lane and to say that I will be posting again tomorrow with an update.

Thanks to everyone who supported us in winning a reprieve for the Magnificent Tree of Grove Lane! The good news is that Councillor Peter John has today taken a look at the tree himself and says he sees no reason why the pavement can't be built out around the tree for the benefit of double buggies, wheelchair users and the sight impaired. So it seems there is a 'please-all' answer after all! Yes, this would involve removing a parking space (only one, Peter John thinks - he is going to have this looked at properly) but frankly, we are so amply provided for in parking spaces at this end of Grove Lane that I would think it indefensible for residents to demand the felling of the tree over the suppression of a single parking space! (or even two, if it came to it). The Council have also agreed to re-build the cracked garden wall behind the tree, importantly. In short, Southwark is finally putting its money where its mouth is and rising to the challenge of protecting these precious jewels in Camberwell's crown. I will keep posting until the matter has been fully resolved but was greatly reassured by the site meeting with Peter John today.

Southwark Council cannot seriously be proposing to fell a tree tomorrow (Tuesday 20th) which absorbs 30-70 times (by virtue of its age, health and crown size) the amount of pollution from the air than a younger replacement, located as located 50 metres from Dog Kennel Hill School, whilst currently actively promoting its Cleaner Air for Schools Initiative within the school? Did Southwark consult the children of Dog kennel Hill School itself on the proposal to fell the tree, or regard them as stakeholders, given that that the tree is on their doorstep? Dog Kennel Hill School is also taking part in a Kings College Hospital study on the effects of air pollution on childhood asthma. Felling the tree would be completely at odds with the initiative currently being promoted in the school and with Southwark's claim that it wishes to protect local children from air pollution. It seems that residents of Champion Grove were never consulted, despite the likelihood that their children would walk past the tree on their way to school, nor other stakeholders. In fact, the consultation was so limited in scope and crassly conducted, with the few residents consulted so outrageously ignored when they asked questions and raised concerns, that it can only be regarded as invalid.

Twitter!! My husband has just pointed out (I am a bit behind the times) that Peter John has a twitter account @peterjohn6 and he must be making good use of it, it being election week. So if you feel strongly about this, please tweet him today or tomorrow! Why not tweet him a photo of the notice to fell, seven feet in the air on the one side of the tree completely out of the eye line of pedestrians and with no reason for felling given and an absent council employees email address! And obviously get everyone you know to re-tweet! Meanwhile I am going to be requesting some information from Southwark under the Freedom of Information Act (eg I want to know which and how many local residents and other stakeholders were 'consulted")

Ps Apologies for the typo! That should have said the tree's CAVAT value in 2008 was between ?57,653 and ?144,133. In fact, it would have been at the very top end of that band. Based on its trunk diameter, health, location and Southwark's CTI Band value on the National Community Tree Index (5 - the same as Westminster, Camden and Tower Hamlets) the tree must now be worth well in excess of the the ?144,133 it would have been worth in CAVAT terms in 2008.

There are a few things I omitted to clarify in my initial response to Eleanor and Stone Brownie's posts. First, re the damage to the garden wall which prompted the owners of the property behind the tree to call for its felling. Let's be clear, we are talking about a single crack to the garden wall, not damage to the property itself, which is set well back from the wall, behind a garden and driveway. No one in favour of retaining the tree is suggesting that the Council doesn't have a duty to repair/replace the cracked wall or to extend the pavement around the tree to improve access for buggy and wheelchair. But it is also established in English law, in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 198 that trees have value as a public amenity and therefore local planning authorities are given a duty to protect trees in the public interest. Although the legislation itself does not specify how amenity is to be assessed, CAVAT has been designed (and adopted by local authorities) specifically as an asset management tool for trees that are publicly owned or of public importance. It expresses the value of publicly owned trees in monetary terms, in a way that is directly related to the quantum of public benefits that each particular tree provides. CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees) works by calculating a unit value for each square centimetre of tree stem and then adjusting this to reflect the degree of benefit that the tree provides to the local community. I am busily working out the CAVAT value of the tree with the illegally served felling notice on it at the top of Grove Lane and am being advised in this by John Welton, a distinguished tree surgeon and Member of the Arboricultural Association as well as the International Society of Arboriculture. It is already clear from my research and discussions with him that the tree (which as John has pointed out provides as part of the mature canopy on Grove Lane a much needed cooling effect and shade for children on their way to Dog Kennel Hill School in summer as well as visual pleasure to all who pass down Grove Lane on their way to work or to school every day) has an extremely high CAVAT value, based on its location as well as its great size and species (London plane being known for their extraordinary resilience and longevity in urban settings). Using a CAVAT banding tablefor 2008, the tree would have a monetary value as a publicly owned asset of ?57,653 and ?144,133. It is almost certainly worth more now and I will endeavour to establish an up to date figure for its worth by tomorrow and post it but clearly the Council, appointed to protect the tree in the absence of a Tree Preservation Order, has no right to destroy a public asset worth this much to the community. The cost to the Council of altering the footpath to improve pedestrianaccess and of fixing the wall behind the tree would be a tiny fraction of what the tree is worth. To go ahead with the felling would be to rob not just residents of Grove Lane but all who live and work in the vicinity of an irreplaceable public asset.

Thank you! Every email counts and we are running out of time. But please make sure your emails all go to Councillor Peter John because - final confirmation if any were needed of The Council's contempt for the public on this issue - Mr Erasmus is given as the only Council contact on the notice to fell the tree (assuming you are tall enough and/or determined enough to read it) yet his email is switched to an automated Out of Office AutoReply stating: "I'm out of the office and will be back on 21 May 2014. Your email is not being forwarded." 21st May is of course the day AFTER the proposed felling... If this is Southwark's idea of a joke, nobody's laughing. My eldest daughter and I took a measurement of the tree's circumference this afternoon and found it to be over 240cm. This means the likely diameter is 76-77cm. According to a study entitled 'The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality' conducted by David J. Novak in New York, "Large, healthy trees greater than 77cm in diameter remove 70 times more air pollution annually than small, healthy trees less than 8cm in diameter... Large trees have the greatest per tree effects."

Hi there, my family and I live directly opposite the tree with the notice on it. I was so heartened to read your post Eleanor and to know that it is not just residents of Grove Lane who regard these magnificent old plane trees as community assets, enhancing the character of the neighbourhood and people's daily experience of it as well as serving a vital function in absorbing pollutants from the atmosphere along what is, as you point out, an incredibly busy road and bus route (close to a local primary school). It is our view, shared by many fellow residents along Grove Lane, that the so-called consultation has been improperly carried out, too many residents' questions have remained unanswered by the Tree Officer appointed to handle consultation - that stone brownie wasn't consulted when he lives only twenty metres from the tree says it all. Stone brownie I would strongly urge you to email Peter John our local Councillor (I wouldn't bother with anyone else) this weekend, informing him that you consider yourself not to have been consulted re the tree outside 201 Grove Lane and that the felling proposed for Tuesday should be halted until a consultation has been properly conducted. We will emailing Peter John along these lines as well as Ernst Erasmus whose name is given on the notification of felling sign, located so high on the tree and facing the street, placed as though deliberately to avoid notice. Our neighbours have taken photographs and are emailing Both Ernst Erasmus and Peter John (ultimately the buck stops with him and no one else at the Council seems to give a monkey's about preserving our green canopy) to notify them that the notice to fell has been illegally served. It was put up some time yesterday Friday with the notification date for felling given as Tuesday 20th - that is barely 4 days and in fact barely two working days, when residents were told in writing there would be five days notice (and apparently some residents had no idea thre was a consultation!) The notice is clearly invalid having been placed so high that you practically need a step-ladder to read it, with no reason given on it for the felling and not giving the requisite five days notice. These trees are community assets - I am over the weekend going to bone up on CAVAT which is the community value of trees. The tree with the notice on it (and by the way the one next to it, closest to the school is also under threat of felling and another resident is angling to get a third felled, also at the Dog kennel Hill end of Grove Lane) is actually worth well in excess of what it would cost the Council to bring the pavement out around the tree to accommodate it (ie worth well over ?20,000) Ironically these trees have no Tree Preservation Order on them because it is considered that they will always be protected by the Council... We have to hold Southwark to account and demand that community assets of the ecological and environmental importance of these trees be properly valued (I will be demanding to know whether the Council has conducted a CAVAT survey of the avenue of ancient plane trees lining grove Lane) and protected and that the views of all stakeholders be taken into account. The cost of re-building the wall behind the tree has been estimated by a builder neighbour as under ?3,500. The parking issue is nonsense - we have ample parking on Grove Lane, we have residents' parking (controlled zone L) and to bring the pavement out around the tree to improve pedestrian access (which is clearly necessary) would only necessitate the suppression of a few spaces. A few spaces can easily be spared as only about half the residents' spaces are ever occupied. To quote from Southwark's own Tree Management Strategy: "Trees play a crucial role in mitigating climate change. Over a year a mature tree removes about 22kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Trees are essential for improving air quality. Leaves absorb air pollutants such as ozone, carbon monoxide, and sulphur dioxide. Dust and other particulates are collected by leaves and washed to the ground by rain, rather than remaining in the air." No replacement planting could compete with the ability of these giants to mop up pollutants from one of the busiest thoroughfares in Southwark. Please don't wait - please email [email protected] this weekend, before it's too late! And don't forget [email protected] whose name and email are given on the notification to fell. You won't be able to reach him on the phone - I tried! Finally, if anyone would care to join me I am thinking of tying myself to the tree on Tuesday morning.. I will certainly be there and hope that others will want to join me, from 8/8.30am. Our neighbour Jenny Eclair is right behind us if we need some celebrity whammy to stop this needless felling and we are thinking of contacting BBC LOndon/Southwark News to bring this matter to their attention.