Felling of oak trees in Sydenham Hill Wood

[doody]

I have now written to Andy Simmons about this. Perhaps others may also wish to write to their local councillors?

[kiera]

As there were only three objections it was not referred to a planning committee -the decision was made by an officer.

The Dulwich Hamlet/Greendale thread also reports that Southwark's planning website is down - since Friday apparently.

[MarkT]

Southwark's Constitution does indeed have a general threshold of 5 objections for decision by the Planning Committee. They have increased this threshold over years while simultaneously reducing their requirement for notifying potentially interested parties. As Kiera pointed out above:

"Most people probably didn't know anything about it until after the council had given themselves permission to fell the two mature and healthy oak trees."

Surely the objection from the London Wildlife Trust should have been given some weight, not just 1 of 3 objections.

Southwark's Constitution includes in the Planning Sub-Committee's duties:

"To consider the confirmation of tree preservation orders which are the subject of a sustained objection (a ?sustained objection? is defined as an objection that is maintained despite an attempt by officer to resolve it, or which officer consider incapable of resolution by negotiation)"

Did the objectors accept the decision to destroy these trees? If not then the matter should have been decided by the Planning Sub-Committee.

The Planning Committee must also consider:

"applications for the council?s own developments which are controversial, i.e. subject to 5 or more relevant objections"

By limiting the publicity, of course, the Council kept down the number of objections, but it is undoubtedly the council's own development, and is by any other definition "controversial".

[Countrlass22]

Signed petition

[first mate]

486 signatures so far. Please sign. This is important!!

[tiddles]

Signed and shared on fb

[Saturn 5]

It might be worth starting a separate thread solely to alert people of the petition headed something like "Petition against....blah blah blah" with any links.

[MarkT]

Like this one?

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,2053112

[betternowthanthen]

I've signed, its the only right thing to do. Thanks for the head up on this.

[Metallic]

I signed.

Have a laugh:

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/parks-leisure/

[hpsaucey]

God - the consultation draft doc on that link is 99 pages long - admittedly much of it appendices.

Doing the survey though after a skim read.

[Metallic]

Of course Southwark are also cutting down every tree in the cemeteries they use that are owned by the Diocese of Southwark - who don't care, incidentally.

[Penguin68]

Of course Southwark are also cutting down every tree in the cemeteries they use that are owned by the Diocese of Southwark - who don't care, incidentally.

That is simply put, a complete lie. The cemeteries are municipally owned - they contain consecrated areas which are part administered by the Diocese (because of the consecration) but they form NO PART of Church land. Neither is 'every' tree being cut down. Some scrub trees (and trees growing through graves) have been removed to allow full utilisation of the graveyards for interments - equally, numbers of new trees have been planted. And the the Diocese has considered applications from pressure groups and have dismissed them - that is not the same as saying they don't care, as they undertook due process.

Southwark undertakes no work on graveyards associated with churches, which are owned by the Church.

This is a revival of an old (and I would have hoped now exploded) set of tropes by a pressure group.

Amended to say, apologies for my harshness if you are repeating something you have read/ heard elsewhere, rather than propagating this myth afresh (but it's still not true!).

[Metallic]

Actually you are not totally factually correct but as you are so high handed and a bit too aggressive for me, I would just tell people to look for themselves, and try and find some photos of what these cemeteries looked like before Southwark cleared them. Additionally, as the new burial plots are mostly for Jewish and Muslim burials, they have ignored the fact that those religions do not allow for a burial to take place in such old plots. If you love the way Nunhead Cemetery has been conserved, then you should mourn what Southwark Council have done. Incidentally, they failed to get permission from the Diocese, who should have been consulted before, not during, clearance. And you may want to ask just how that worker got away with selling space for toxic waste to be dumped at the end of Ryedale gardens.

Principally the trees in our Borough help fight the pollution we all breathe, and provide an ecological oasis for species of plants, animals and insects. What is wrong with that?

[nxjen]

Can you elucidate how Penguin68 is not factually correct? And what/who are your sources? There was a lot of false information spread by the campaigners.

[Penguin68]

Just for information - the Diocese has no rights over tree clearance in non Church graveyards at all. It's rights concern how land which has been consecrated (much of the cemeteries are not consecrated ground) may be re-used (either mounding up or disinterring) for further burials and regarding the disposal or re-use of grave markers, and over the creation of new paths within consecrated areas - that because it is use of previously consecrated ground for non burial (i.e. pathway) purposes.

Tree preservation (or not) within municipal cemeteries is the purview of the local council. What Southwark council has done is to clear some areas where the graves are old, uncared for and in some cases inaccessible so that additional burials can be made - the numbers of new burials in the cemeteries are a clear indication of how welcome this in fact is. If you do visit these cemeteries (I live within 2 minutes walk of one of them) you will still find a huge and extended planting of trees still extant.

The 'protesters' mistook church rules about trees in church cemeteries/ graveyards (on church land) as applying also to consecrated areas in municipal cemeteries. They don't.

[Penguin68]

Oh, and this is all terribly off-topic - it's the trees in Sydenham Woods which are the issue for this thread...

[Metallic]

It is Southwark's attitude to trees which is also important. Especially as they are jokingly having a consultation on trees! https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/parks-leisure/

[Sue]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> Of course Southwark are also cutting down every

> tree in the cemeteries they use that are owned by

> the Diocese of Southwark - who don't care,

> incidentally.

Oh please don't start all this again.

Or if you must a) Do it on another thread (preferably on another forum) and b) Provide evidence for your statements.

Thanks.

[Metallic]

Nxjen - As you are asking - I saw it!

I appreciate this is not totally on topic but as Southwark is the base of both issues I reckon it is relevant.

I was not a campaigner.

[nxjen]

Keep up Metallic! My post asked for clarification how Penguiun?s post regarding ownership of the cemeteries and church involvement was ?not factually correct? and your sources for any response. But I think you know that.

[Metallic]

Probably you missed the BBC news film on it? Whereas I didn't.

[nxjen]

You?re just trying to divert attention! You still haven?t answered my question, neither does the BBC film. I am aware this is off topic which is regarding the felling of oak trees in Sydenham Hill Wood so will not be posting again.

[natty01295]

In near to Peckham A Tree has been cut to half now a stump

Please Southwark Council,

Look after Our Trees,I was shocked it was cut to a stump And Disappointed

[Penguin68]

In near to Peckham A Tree has been cut to half now a stump

You do need to find out why this happened. Trees, particularly in parkland, will be removed if they are diseased/ damaged such that they pose a risk to park users. Equally tree management means that trees can be pollarded - which looks brutal but where certain trees (suitable for this treatment) will come back invigorated but with a much smaller spread of branches, which can often be necessary in streets/ where there are power lines etc. Removing trees is expensive, so councils will not normally do so without good reason. You say 'near to Peckham' - is this on public land? If not the removal may be nothing to do with the council. Sometimes a tree are removed where it can be shown, or believed, to be damaging buildings.