Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Happy New Year ED Folk,


Wandering around the area I have just noticed that there appears to have been a spate of mature street trees cut down by the council.


This is alarming, these tree's and all trees are a important part of our area's ecosystem and environment.Is this perhaps a new cost saving "initiative" by southwark council?


what can be done to prevent further environmental vandalism ?

The council wouldn't cut down trees for no reason.


Maybe find out why they did it before accusing them of vandalism?


Mature trees may sometimes have to be cut down because they are diseased and/or unsafe.


Also in some cases they may be affecting nearby houses, eg causing subsidence.


These days councils are more careful about planting small suitable street trees than they were in the past.

I can understand that, however if they are to cut down a tree, at least replace it with a new "suitable" tree.


It is in my eyes vandalism if they just remove a tree and don't replace it with another. Our trees need to be protected along with all the wildlife that live within.

If you are going to cut down trees, then now (when no birds are nesting, even if many will be roosting in trees) is ideal. They are also without leaves (deciduous ones) which makes it easier, safer and cleaner to remove them.


The cost of professional removal of trees is not cheap - if they could have been left in situ that would be a cheaper option for the council, so I suspect there will be good reasons to remove them (disease, old age leading to instability, unacceptable root or canopy encroachments etc.) Of course they should be replaced (by perhaps more appropriate trees for the site, preferably ones which encourage native bird and insect species), but either autumn or spring is a better time (certainly not when the ground is likely to be frozen). As long as none have been removed because of complaints that 4WD buggies can't negotiate passed them, I am easy about this.

85volga Wrote:

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

> My answer to that is common sense should prevail

> Curmudgeon


Absolutely agree


And common sense would suggest that talk of "environmental vandalism" is irresponsible flamebaiting and replanting trees during the winter months not really appropriate


Wouldn't it?

85volga Wrote:

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

> Happy New Year ED Folk,

>

> Wandering around the area I have just noticed that

> there appears to have been a spate of mature

> street trees cut down by the council.

>

> This is alarming, these tree's and all trees are a

> important part of our area's ecosystem and

> environment.Is this perhaps a new cost saving

> "initiative" by southwark council?

>

> what can be done to prevent further environmental

> vandalism ?


1 - Read the councils Tree Management Strategy http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/505/trees/2016/tree_management_strategy


2 - Email your concerns to Southwark @ [email protected]

Checking some simple facts before telling someone that their email suggesting re-planting of trees in Winter is 'inappropriate' might be an idea!


Tree planting seasons differ for plants with a potted root ball or bare rooted. In general most horticulturists would avoid planting bare rooted trees at times when the ground is either likely to be frozen or flooded - so planting takes place often in late autumn or early spring - certainly between November and March but not at any time or condition in that time-spread. One expert advises:-


The don?t?s

? Never plant when the soil is waterlogged or frost is on the ground as buried ice stays frozen for months and slows root establishment. If you need to plant when cold weather is forecast, cover the area with cardboard or plastic sheets to keep out the cold.(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/9689949/A-guide-to-planting-bare-root-trees-shrubs-and-perennials.html)


Street planted trees are always under some stress. Planting them in winter conditions will stress them further and be a poor investment.


What I would do in my garden (where I can protect the trees, and where I can ensure that the roots neither dry-out or drown or freeze) is very different from what the council can do with street planted trees. Better would be to plant them as potted plants (already in soil and established) - which can be done outside the November-March window.

Penguin 68 - my slight irritation was with the over-generalised (and incorrect) statement from a user that trees shouldn't be planted in the Winter. Also I felt sorry for the OP, as I thought some people's responses were on the rude side.


The RHS and Woodland Trust both say that bare-root and rootballed trees should be planted between late Autumn and early Spring. That's good enough for me. Clearly not when the ground is frozen solid or flooded though.I'm not a horticulturalist and cannot comment on the stress levels of urban trees!

I think we are getting away from my original thread, I am concerned as to the amount of freshly cut tree stumps appearing around the area. I am not debating as to when or how to plant replacement trees. When a tree is cut down it is gone forever along with its ecosystem. Yes there are a lot of trees in the area, thus we need to keep the numbers up.


As normal within the Ed forum lots of prickly keyboard warriors in the forum, that would argue the sky isn't blue, just for the sake of it. Well I guess it is a forum :) like it or lump it, a good day to you all

There are proper considerations when trees are taken down, but usually it's with good reason. There's a strong case when a disease is present, as it damages the tree slowly but surely.


In the park near my house I was concerned with the size of the bracket fungus on an Ash tree. The tree was situated right by the gate, it should have been cut down. Instead it blew down, thankfully not hurting or causing much damage. We were lucky, but it might have done worse were it 20+ mt closer up the park. On inspection the tree was soft as cork through much of the trunk and down to the root stock.


There's no room for sentimentality when safety is a priority.

There is a real problem with a Plane Tree disease (Massaria) which may be being addressed by the council http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/beeh-9sqfb4 - does anyone know what type of tree is being removed? Additionally other sycamores can be effected by anthracnose https://www.rhs.org.uk/Advice/Profile?PID=694. Perhaps any councillor reading this could throw more light on the council's actions here?
A quick skim read of December suggests only two felling locations in Dulwich, the remainder seem to be pollarding, tree stump grinding etc. Which would suggest that if there have actually been 'a spate' of mature trees recently (last month) felled this isn't in the schedule of works. Perhaps the OP might see if it is possible to match recently felled trees with this schedule. Emergency work (to deal with newly identified diseased trees) wouldn't necessarily be in this schedule anyway. Removing diseased trees at this time of year (if that is what is happening) may protect uninfected trees more effectively.

These two trees on Worlingham Road were cut down quite recently, as you can see from the pictures I took today. Both were felled in December. Neither were dying, and the stumps have just been left - as well as with another tree in the opposite side, which was also cut down late last year.


There was another tree on this road cut down recently, but it had suffered storm damage and was dead... So I can understand that. The stump was completely removed soon after. It's the felling of seemingly healthy trees that concerns me.

May I point out that the first stump, on the right hand side of Worlingham Road from the Goose Green end, was of a tree that was bent over the road at about 45 degrees and had been in this dangerous position for quite some time.

I don't know about the other tree.

Hi all, mature street trees are cut down for a reason. This may be disease, instability or sometimes tree roots may be growing under a building causing movement and damage. I have investigated a few cases where street trees had been earmarked for removal and in all cases there was a good reason for the removal.

Renata

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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