Did you know they can cut down trees without warning?

[mlteenie]

We came home one day to find the council had cut down five lime trees (approx. 30 years old) outside our rear garden's boundary fence, about 30 feet away. That was quite a shock I can tell you.

Now they have planted three Golden Rain Trees which have a mixed reputation.

And on the subject of trees, I have phoned the council two or three times about a sapling planted outside JAGS (near the bus stop) which has been beautifully tarmacced around. F'crissakes it's gonna die of dehydration.

Some workman who thought he was doing a good job has gone right up to it with his chocolate-crispie blatter and condemned the damn thing. Has the council done anything about it over the last two or three months!? Has it hell. Drives me mental!

Rant over.

[EDOldie]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> EDOldie.. how can pollarding be 'cruel'?!

Bob it seems cruel to me to pollard a tree when they should have space to grow to their full size, as they do in many parks and gardens. I don't want the chainsaw solution to everything which is the inevitable outcome of poor planting and planning. The Victorians would have just chopped away anything that didn't agree with them. Hopefully we are abit more thoughtful today. I would like to see more trees planted in Dulwich just ones that are the right size and in scale to their surroundings.

[chuff]

fractionater - What is the copper nails thing? I thought ringing was the only way to really damage a problem tree.

We've had an arboculturist visit us quite a few times as we have a dangerous tree right outside our side door leaning over the pavement. It has demolished the drains, cracked the main water supply to the house flooding underneath without us noticing and causing rot which means the back of the house needs the joists replacing. There are huge cracks everywhere and it is now pulling the adjacent house with it. All this from one tree and a bit of dry clay.

Our arboculturist told us that the tree has to go, it is an ash tree that will continue to grow quickly and if we get any more dry summers will cause further damage. He assures us that Southwark will re-plant a suitable tree in its place and that there are many trees that cause much less damage and are much nicer on the eye.

As far as old trees go though, even if there is an insurance claim against a tree it is very unlikely to be removed if it is older than the house it is affecting, so the lovely big old oaks that are around should be safe from the chop.

There is also a tree on Zenoria Street that has been hanging onto the road for years, that really should go to.

All that said, I love trees me.

[macroban]

> There is also a tree on Zenoria Street that has been hanging onto the road for years, that really should go to.

Last time I walked past this tree had a yellow execution notice.

[Frisco]

"When trees were planted 130 years ago in roads, the planters cannot for one minute, have thought they would still be there all this time later."

What rubbish, there were equally aged trees in existence 130 years ago. There needs to be an effective plan of management and replacement, which doesn't involve the destruction of healthy trees without very good reason, and certainly not just at the instigation of insurance companies.

[reggie]

Thank goodness I'm not alone,thanks frisco, I doff my cap to a fellow suburban pirate

The Suburban Pirate

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Cuff asked - "What is the copper nails thing? I thought ringing was the only way to really damage a problem tree" - it's to stop them being able to use a chainsaw on the tree cos they will hit embedded nails and break the chain.

[chuff]

thanks CWLD

I won't be doing copper nails or the ring thing to my problem tree though. chuff

[ed_pete]

"One of the joys of living in South London is the green spaces and abundant trees."

Absolutely, don't get me wrong I'm all in favour of trees - but it should be the right tree in the right place and ED streets are the wrong place for huge trees.

[reggie]

ed pete

There are loads of towns and suburbs that have little trees in neat little rows. Dulwich really stands out for having big trees and not pollarded little suburban sops to the idea of 'leafy'.

When you moved to this area did you not think Dulwich benefits from these kind of trees or did you think oh good one day they'll all come down.

The Suburban Pirate

[Marmora Man]

"They" - by which I mean the local council can also impose a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) without warning. I lived in the Midlands in an area known as the Lickey Hills. I wished to take down two huge (100ft +) Black Pines that were within 5ft of my house, inside my garden - blocking light and gutters, lifting paving, cracking drains and overhanging the roof. The Lickey Hills had approximately 100,000 such trees all around.

I arranged for a tree surgeon to cut them down but, as a good citizen, recognising that the work might block the lane on which I lived for half a day I informed the council about the work I was planning for two days hence. OVernight and within 12 hours they had slapped on a TPO and despite many protests and complaints, including the Government Ombudsman agreeing the council had misused heir poweres I was unable to overturn the TPO.

Two classic lines from Council Staff:

1. "Well if it does fall over onto your house and son's bedroom you can always rebuild - it would take 30 years for a tree to grow again"

2. "I am a council official - I am not obliged to explain my reasons to you"

I like trees - generally would not wish to cut one down but they are renewable - lose one here and plant another over there and all is equal. The recent stories of how the trees damaged / destroyed in the '87 storm have been replaced with new growth is an excellent example.

[EDOldie]

Frisco Wrote:

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

> "When trees were planted 130 years ago in roads,

> the planters cannot for one minute, have thought

> they would still be there all this time later."

>

> What rubbish, there were equally aged trees in

> existence 130 years ago. There needs to be an

> effective plan of management and replacement,

> which doesn't involve the destruction of healthy

> trees without very good reason, and certainly not

> just at the instigation of insurance companies.

Do you really think our dear East Dulwich forefathers, as they planted trees, worried about what size they would be in 2007? The equally aged trees were probably self sown. I think you are living in a complete fantasy world.

Anyway, years ago the late, and much lamented, Camberwell Council, had a team of what you posh people would call tree surgeons. They were superceded by a team employed by Southwark Council (it's all 'outsourced' these days) who used to drink in the east dulwich pub I worked in for a bit of extra cash. We called them the Tree Fellas (funny eh?, well it was the 1970's). Their job was to travel the borough lopping and removing dangerous and inappropriate trees, or generally tidying up the mess inappropriately planted in the past. So, it's not a new problem, the trouble is the local badly sited trees have become our sacred cow.

The copper nails, they poison the trees and the poor old tree suffers a prolonged, agonising death. Ring barking is almost equally barbaric. The chain saw is quicker but it's a bit like trying to justify the death penalty.

[reggie]

ed oldie

I like the way you really feel for the trees. Hard to believe they were self sown though but I may have to bow to your ancient wisdom.

marmora man

Is a little tree equal to a big old tree...I think not.This is my point...do we want to live in an area where all the trees are small because large trees are equal to little saplings? Imagine Dulwich Village by Pizza Express without those fantastic big chestnuts or is it all the same to you?

[Frisco]

"Do you really think our dear East Dulwich forefathers, as they planted trees, worried about what size they would be in 2007?"

It seems that you don't appear to know very much about 18th and 19th century landscaping, where the projected size of trees were taken into account fully. It may also be that you don't know very much about the history of the development of the Victorian suburb, an integral part of which was roadside tree planting, with particular types denoting the status of the people who lived in the road. It was not random self-seeding at all, and if I'm living in a fantasy world it appears you may be in living in ignorance purporting to be fact.

"Anyway, years ago the late, and much lamented, Camberwell Council, had a team of what you posh people would call tree surgeons."

What us knowledgeable and educated people would call arboriculturalists, actually. They've always (by one name or another) been employed as long as local councils have existed. And it's not that badly sited trees have become a sacred cow at all, it's that people are resistant to them becoming easily expendable in the face of those who don't seem to want to appreciate their value.

"The copper nails, they poison the trees and the poor old tree suffers a prolonged, agonising death. Ring barking is almost equally barbaric. The chain saw is quicker but it's a bit like trying to justify the death penalty."

News: Trees do not feel pain.

[EDOldie]

Reggie, thanks. Christ, I've really wound the posh bloke up! Sorry mate, but just think 250-260 years ago it was all fields around here. There may have been some planned planting by farmers or landowners but they would have had no idea that Melbourne Grove would have been where it is (for instance)although Lordship Lane existed at that time. The big trees are very good in the right place as are the small trees, again, in the right place.

The trees feeling pain is you completely missing the point, as you do when it suits you. Plants should be able to grow, I bet you eat that white asparagus you sadist.

[Marmora Man]

reggie Wrote:

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

> marmora man

> Is a little tree equal to a big old tree...I think

> not.This is my point...do we want to live in an

> area where all the trees are small because large

> trees are equal to little saplings? Imagine

> Dulwich Village by Pizza Express without those

> fantastic big chestnuts or is it all the same to

> you?

No - my point is that trees live, grow and die. We should recognise that they will be cut down / fall down when aged and plant new trees in recompense. If this is done every year, or so, there will always be a great range of trees of all ages and maturity.

Just like families - constantly growing and renewing themselves - once I was young, one day I'll die - but by then there will be other youngsters to replace me.

PS: I agree with Frisco - trees don't feel pain. I'll eat almost anything be it fish, fowl, animal or vegetable. White asparagus, fois gras, young carrots, tender lamb - all part of life's rich pageant.

[Frisco]

"Christ, I've really wound the posh bloke up! Sorry mate, but just think 250-260 years ago it was all fields around here."

I know exactly what was around here 250-260 years ago thanks, most of it was a managed manorial estate. Almost certainly, none of the trees on the streets of East Dulwich are more than 130 years old, so what 250-260 has to do with anything is anyone's guess. As far having no idea goes, the building lands for development were sold off in plots that roughly cover what were previously fields.

There's no need to idly speculate about what was an wasn't here before, and you too could can research and read up on it and look at the contemporary and historical maps (if that's not too posh for you).

PS I'm not your 'mate'.

[EDOldie]

Sorry generic term, won't happen again I assure you. Eh?, it was you that was alluding to the 250 years ago "What rubbish, there were equally aged trees in existence 130 years ago." I fully accept your point about tree planting in Victorian/Edwardin times, you won't seem to accept my point that the Victorians/Edwardians would not have given a toss what happened later they might have taken a 15-20 year view but not a 130 year one. Educated people such as yourself however, can take a longer term view and think about what might b good for East Dulwich and how we can plant and improve for the future without despoiling the streetscape by thoughtless planting and, dare I say it, thoughtless retention of inappropriate, to their surroundings, trees.

Sorry to go on about the 'pain' thing but trees do live and I think we should respect them and give them proper space. I'm not a hippy but the trees in Dulwich (and London) are one of the very real pleasures of this town. I could go on but even I think I'm getting boring.

[macroban]

Frisco wrote:

> [...] the history of the development of the Victorian suburb, an integral part of which was roadside tree planting, with particular types denoting the status of the people who lived in the road.

There is ample evidence of this in photographs of East Dulwich streets taken before the First World War.

Barry Road was once upper-crust.

[Frisco]

"you won't seem to accept my point that the Victorians/Edwardians would not have given a toss what happened later they might have taken a 15-20 year view but not a 130 year one."

No, I'm afraid I won't because it's wrong. The Victorians took at long term view and over-engineered almost everything so that it would last. That's why we're still using their railway infrastructure, sewer system and most of us, at least until very recently, their water mains.

"Educated people such as yourself however, can take a longer term view and think about what might b good for East Dulwich and how we can plant and improve for the future without despoiling the streetscape by thoughtless planting and, dare I say it, thoughtless retention of inappropriate, to their surroundings, trees."

This makes no sense. I have not advocated thoughtless new planting, or keeping trees that genuinely need to be cut down. What I have said is that they shouldn't be cut down needlessly, or without extremely good reason, and certainly not at the behest of insurance companies overreacting to assessed risks. Personally, I'd prefer to navigate around a tree than around cars parked on the pavement (such as is the case on the other side of Melbourne Grove) or badly designed and mostly useless faux Victorian street furniture.

[EDOldie]

Good points but I think you have a higher opinion of Victorian Dulwich than me. The reason we are still using all those things is because it's too expensive to replace them. A tree only genuinely needs to be cut down if diseased or dangerous, or, and this is my point, if it is in a place that is genuinely inappropriate to its surroundings.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

"The copper nails, they poison the trees and the poor old tree suffers a prolonged, agonising death." - it must be just the normal nails they use then to stop them cutting them down.

Just looked it up, it's called spiking and is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking and here are some instructions incase anyone fancies taking a bit of direct action http://ragette.org/treespike/how.htm!!

[EDOldie]

It is called spiking but please don?t take any such action in Dulwich or East Dulwich. I believe it can be extremely dangerous for both the tree and for anyone who is legitimately undertaking work to trees.

[reggie]

Spiking and direct action well that's more like it, lets see a bit of passion. My middle class roots of course make it hard for me to do more than I am doing already ie. jump out of the sofa at the sign of tree fellas and make a podcast but hey we all have to start somewhere.

Suburban Pirate Broadcasts

[Frisco]

"Good points but I think you have a higher opinion of Victorian Dulwich than me."

No, I seem to have more knowledge of what the Victorians did and planned in terms of urban and suburban developments. As I said previously, do some reading and research on the subject rather than speculating without knowledge and information.

"The reason we are still using all those things is because it's too expensive to replace them."

We are using them because they were so well built/over-engineered, and relatively future proof, that government (both national and local) took the view that they didn't needed to be replaced until the fabric began to crumble. In the case of sewers, this began obvious as a major problem after almost 150 years. As I've said, read up on it. Also, a programme of planned gradual renewal is much cheaper, and far less disruptive, than complete renewal. The problem is that there has been no such gradual renewal or upgrading policies and plans until relatively recently.

"A tree only genuinely needs to be cut down if diseased or dangerous"

I think I covered this when I mentioned genuine reasons.

"or, and this is my point, if it is in a place that is genuinely inappropriate to its surroundings."

This, of course is hard to determine, and I haven't seen you satisfactorily explain 'inappropriate to its surroundings', or why your view of what that is (or the self interested and risk averse views of insurance companies) should hold sway in terms of tree management in ED.