Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I came home from work last night to find my beloved tree and home to many squirrels had been cut down. I live in a private block with a beautiful garden. The tree was my only privacy from the road and the top deck of the Crystal Palace bus that passes every 15 minutes. I rang the management company this morning and apparently the insurance company had instructed it to be removed. The tree wasnt close to the building or the road. Do you need planning permission etc to take down a tree?

If you live in a conservation area, permission must be sought from the council. If a tree has a preservation order on it, ditto. In both cases, if the tree represents a threat in terms of damaging foundations etc. then permission will be given but sounds like this isn't the case where you are.


If you're not in a conservation area and if the tree had no T.P.O. then your management company are within their rights.

Some boroughs (I don't know whether Southwark is one) place an 'automatic' preservation order on all trees above a certain girth - on the basis that they are (or must be, at that size) an established part of the environment and would need council permission to be removed. Sometimes this order reflects only trees that are visible from roads, or other areas with public access. This is separate from 'conservation areas' I believe. This sort of blanket authority is clearly more cost effective than having to assess individual preservation orders tree by tree.

Deewoffaz,


I'm sorry to hear about your tree, you have been rather unlucky there. If the tree had been planted by the council on the pavement near your house then it would certainly have been left alone, just like the one that has been wrecking the front of my house for the past few years.

Unfortunately, in spite of my insurance company 'dealing with the case' for past two years (premiums for that period ?1,500) there has been no action by the council. I was told that they were going to cut it back in January, then that it was being taken down by the end of June (Thursday - no sign of notices or tree surgeons). Meanwhile, the cracks in the front room are getting bigger and the front of the house looks a mess because I can't redecorate until this is resolves.

Southwark puts big financial values of their trees once they're established, ever thought they're the wrong type for the place where they've planted them!

What next - find a tree assassin?

Maxxi,


Remember that film; 'Day of the Hackall' - mind you, I think that was about someone who 'took out' hedgerows and shrubbery.

And of course there's the recent; 'Eat, Pray, Lop', Julia Roberts as a municipal council worker in leafy Rome. Shame that did'nt get released, but her other one of similar title was quite successful. Look out for her latest film with Tom Hanks in which she plays someone poor, but with perfect teeth - imagine that!

  • 2 weeks later...

According to my little chart from some subsidence advisory group or other, sycamores should be planted at over 17 meters away from your house in order to ensure they can't mess with your foundations. If you're in a block it may have considerably larger foundations than a single house, esp. if the house is old and the block is new - sorry, but personally i'd prefer to be you with a bad view than your neighbour with subsidence!


Shame you weren't consulted - i think trimming them back can work as a solution to reduce root growth?

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

    • Repossession? Oh no, that's really sad 😢 
    • That's a really interesting possibility!
    • Noticed yesterday a reprocessing order on shop front door.
    • The fundamental problem at present is that the government has been given to belief that if they took it into public ownership, they'd have to pay all its billions of debts. This, oddly, is not a problem that's dogged any of its previous owners, and a very simple solution would be to fine it, say, £40bn for being useless and then pick it up for free. So that's possible. However one of the compelling arguments that got it privatised in the first place was that government-run operations aren't often very well run. They might promise 40 new reservoirs to get them through an election, but that's the last you'll hear of it till the water-rates bill arrives, and there's precious little in the way of economic "growth" to be had out of processing sewage. There are advantages, perhaps, to having an accountable hand on the tiller, but governments, and their agencies, tend not to very accountable. Last December, for example, the Office for Environmental Protection released a report detailing how DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Ofwat had all failed in their legal duties, but as the OEP's powers extend only to writing reports, that's as far as it went. An alternative might be to have it run as an autonomous business, with the government holding the only share. But that's what they did with the Post Office where any benefits of privatisation have become only a boondoggle for lawyers. Not that lawyers don't deserve the compulsory generosity of taxpayers, but their needs must surely be secondary to the Post Office's vital core missions of re-selling stamps, not handing out pensions and cooking the digital books. Which leaves us, I think, in need of a Third Way. That might seem a little too Blairite for some, but I think there's a way to add a Corbynish gloss by setting it up as a co-operative, owned not by the state but by its customers, who would have an interest in striking a balance between increasing bills, maintaining supplies and preserving their own environment, and who'd be able to hold the management to account without having to go through a web of five regulators by way of the office of a part-time representative with an eye on a job in the Cabinet. There are risks with that, of course, in that the shoutiest can exert the most influence, and the shoutiest are not often the most wise, but with everyone having an equal stake, the shoutiest usually get shouted down, which is why co-operatives tend to last longer than businesses steered by cliques of shareholders or political advisers. In other words, the optimum and correct path to take is tried and tested and sitting right there and I'll eat my hat if it happens.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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