New trees

[Nigello]

Conway are out spraying where new trees will be planted. I?ve seen about six pits-to-be in SE22 but the man said there were to be three hundred new trees ?around? here. Good news!

[DulwichFox]

2 - 3 Houses on my Road Badly Damaged by Tree roots involving expensive repair jobs.

Trees need to be more than 15 feet asway from any building.

Bigger trees should be further away..

Apart from damage caused by roots, as trees grow they block out a lot of light.

If you want to see trees.. go to the Park.

Foxy

[KidKruger]

yeah my next door neighbours had a tree upending the pavement and making their wall lean badly, council said nothing to do with tree even though entire block had no problems elsewhere. they couldn't afford for a survey demanded by southwark to make a claim. But when the lawyer moved in he had council in-hand in just a few weeks, tree down, pavement fixed, wall rebuilt (there WERE tree roots under the wall and heading under his house).

[Sue]

These days street trees are carefully chosen to be varieties which do not cause subsidence issues.

[Sue]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> 2 - 3 Houses on my Road Badly Damaged by Tree

> roots involving expensive repair jobs.

>

> Trees need to be more than 15 feet asway from any

> building.

>

> Bigger trees should be further away..

>

> Apart from damage caused by roots, as trees grow

> they block out a lot of light.

>

> If you want to see trees.. go to the Park.

>

Just one article on the importance of trees in an urban environment:

https://canopy.org/blog/impacts-of-trees-on-mental-health/

[Spartacus]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> 2 - 3 Houses on my Road Badly Damaged by Tree

> roots involving expensive repair jobs.

>

> Trees need to be more than 15 feet asway from any

> building.

>

> Bigger trees should be further away..

>

> Apart from damage caused by roots, as trees grow

> they block out a lot of light.

>

> If you want to see trees.. go to the Park.

>

> Foxy

You are in a cheerful mood today foxy ?

[KidKruger]

don't get me wrong Sue, I'm all for trees in the street, but not at cost of house damage.

If there are better varieties being selected (which I assume means less invasive root structures) that's great news, but the obvious question is how tall can these type of trees grow before becoming a liability, cos smaller root ball = less stable tree the taller it gets.

Sue Wrote:

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

> These days street trees are carefully chosen to be

> varieties which do not cause subsidence issues.

[Nigello]

I think trees in teh past were not always chosen with future growth, below ground especially, in mind, but now that isn't the case.

I have to say that, on the whole, Southwark's rather good when it comes to parks, trees, litter picking, etc. It is the residents (some of them)

that are rather crap when it comes to litter, at least...

[Jellybeanz]

Sue Wrote:

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

> These days street trees are carefully chosen to be

> varieties which do not cause subsidence issues.

All trees as they grow larger have greater root area. Therefore surely they all pose a subsidence risk unless far enough from a house? They simply aren't meant to be planted a few yards away from a house. Trees should be in large gardens or parks / woodlands...

Not wishing to argue but I have heard countless stories about subsidence in this area.

[KidKruger]

jellybeans - that was my belief up until reading this thread. From the few studies I did years ago, if you look from afar at the shape of a tree, you can mirror the image underground for a sense of how far the roots will spread (the root shoots may not be as thick).

Which is why, although trees are nice to have around, planting them 10feet away from a house always seemed senseless if it's going to be allowed to grow past a couple of metres (and why I questioned earlier the site of tree root mass in relation to height of a tree).

[Sue]

Jellybeanz Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > These days street trees are carefully chosen to

> be

> > varieties which do not cause subsidence issues.

>

> All trees as they grow larger have greater root

> area. Therefore surely they all pose a subsidence

> risk unless far enough from a house? They simply

> aren't meant to be planted a few yards away from a

> house. Trees should be in large gardens or parks /

> woodlands...

>

> Not wishing to argue but I have heard countless

> stories about subsidence in this area.

Southwark council's website specifically says they now plant "small ornamental trees" in streets.

Subsidence locally due to tree roots is from larger growing trees which were planted years ago. Given that the council has to pay for repairs if it is shown that damage is due to tree roots, I doubt if they are going to deliberately continue to put themselves in that position 🙂

However, as you know, not all subsidence is due to tree roots. As you know, the subsidence in my bay was not due to the adjacent tree.

In this area (and London generally) it is often due to houses being built on clay soil which expands and shrinks greatly with seasonal weather/moisture changes.

https://www.subsidencesupport.co.uk/about-subsidence/what-causes-subsidence/

Not all of us wish to look out of our front and back windows and see a barren landscape of buildings and loft extensions with no trees or birds 😥

ETA: Interested that you perceive presenting a different viewpoint as "arguing" 🙄

[rch]

Intriguingly, I?ve been working with the council?s tree officers for years to identify small ornamental trees which would work in our area as street trees, specifically to add a green feel to the roads without creating subsidence or blocking out light.

A couple of years ago we experimented with a columnar Sunset Boulevard cherry tree to replace a dead chestnut tree in front of the terrace at the junction of Melbourne Grove and Blackwater, as it has a small root ball and a vertical crown. It?s worked so well that I recommended this to some residents on Blackwater Street when they asked me which small trees would suit the side of the road with no trees. The ward councillors didn?t approve our CGS bid to fund three Sunset Boulevards on Blackwater last year, so I resubmitted the bid again this year, fingers crossed.

But there are several options which will create a green feel to a road, which won?t cause problems, so I?m happy to hear that this is now a Southwark Council policy.

[Sue]

That's excellent, rch!

That link I posted above refers to a list of trees suitable for planting near houses, but it doesn't include the full list, just a few of them.

And includes some which I wouldn't have thought were suitable! Maybe that's for comparison purposes,though.

[Penguin68]

Trees naturally root differently - some are shallow rooted and spread (like poplars and silver birches) - clearly those are less suitable to be near properties, but others are naturally deep rooted, going down before they go out. These are more suitable to be close(er) to buildings. [it is true that roots tend to spread as wide as the tree is high, but from where they are spreading - how deep down, is key]. Additionally pollarding trees to reduce the crown will tend to reduce the root spread as well. Much of the area here is quite hilly, so trees planted down in a (comparative) valley will have roots which naturally don't impinge on foundations higher up a hill side. Conversely, of course, where the roadway is higher, then roots are more likely to impact houses which are lower down.

I suspect Robin's list assumes that the road-way and the houses adjacent are broadly at the same level - but any hillside planting can make a difference, allowing some trees which might otherwise be avoided, but (on the other side of the street, as it were) meaning that even otherwise 'safe' trees should be planted with caution.

But, and in general, having trees is infinitely better than the alternative, in most cases. In the last couple of years the cherry blossom around ED streets had been superb, and quite uplifting in a time of gloom.

[rch]

It?s taken a long time to identify species that are suitable, because ?native? trees don?t work well as street trees or in the warmer urban climate.

Also, smaller trees look better planted closer together in a mini avenue as the visual impact is more noticeable, hence applying for funding for three Sunset Boulevard cherries for Blackwater to start with, which we can add to later on.

[Brian up the hill]

I live just over the border in LB Lewisham and all they seem to do is cut down street trees and slap a dollop of tarmac in the hole. Any new trees have to be paid for by residents. I envy you the tree lined streets just over the border.

[heartblock]

This is something Southwark Council needs to be congratulated for..... more trees please 🌳

[Nigello]

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2021/jan/southwark-council-to-plant-10-000-new-trees-by-2022

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> This is something Southwark Council needs to be

> congratulated for..... more trees please 🌳

Here, here!