tree vandalism in the park

[davidh]

southwark's merry band of tree butchers are back hard at work in peckham rye park hacking away and ripping down loads of mature trees. the contractor's notices say the work is being done to protect "public safety". what we are actually seeing is the destruction of beautiful mature trees, the like of which we will never see again in our lifetime. just look at the appalling totem pole they have left after ripping away at a lovely tree next to the sexby gardens. can anyone provide statistics proving the dangers involved to park users? exactly how many people, children and dogs have been killed by an errant collapsing tree? perhaps james barber or renata hamvas can explain.

[edhistory]

What is the trading name of these contactors?

John K

[Penguin68]

It is simple really - contractors (who are doing the job of tree-felling) tell the council that the trees, or limbs thereof are dangerous - council cannot afford to ignore their advice - as the law-suit costs were there to be an accident are far greater than the charges the contractors make for destroying the trees - so contractors get lots of work (double bubble, one fee for advice, one fee for felling) and the council can show that they are operating for public safety. [indeed, once the advice is given - the council must take it - imagine the damages if they were 'advised' a tree was dngerous and didn't then act and it fell and hurt someone.]

The only way of doing this is to separate out the advice giving from the tree felling - so employ someone to advice them who has no interest (pecuniary) in the outcome of the advice. But that would demand thought.

Better just to kill of trees, who needs them anyway? - they just cause litter and encourage nasty wild-life to mess things up. What we need is wind-farms to replace the trees, long lasting astro-turf to avoid mowing and maintenance, fill-in the ponds (what's the point of them?). Nature, amenity? - bah humbug.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Are you sure that it's the same contractors advising as doing the actual felling? If correct, clearly a conflict of interest.

[edhistory]

James Barber thinks this may be the case.

John K

[davidh]

sorry, penguin. I had stupidly thought that thought had been employed. I have lived in southwark long enough to know how silly I was. so, yet again, james and renata... make a difference.

[davidh]

if james barber thinks there is a conflict of interest, he and renata should act TODAY to put an end to this wanton abuse

[Penguin68]

To be fair, it is quite normal to employ a tree-surgeon both to advise on your trees and to undertake any necessary remedial work - as a private individual I do so, but clearly I do discuss things with the tree surgeon, and as I am paying for work out of my own pocket (and the trees concerned are directly my own amenity) my own 'interests' will counter those of my advisor and contractor. The liability insurance I carry for any damage caused by falling trees (which are not in a public place anyway) is sufficient but not costly. Councils and council officials are in a very different place from me.

[UncleBen]

Come on local Cllrs ACT TODAY to stop the wanton destruction of our flora and fauna for private greed and profit. Stop the butchers now.

[EDjules]

Its more likely to be a council employed tree officer (or even a member of the public reporting dangerous tree to the council) that determines the work to be done. Then the work is sent to the contractors to complete as instructed. My partner does council trees for a different borough and that is how it works their, they just follow instructions.

[UncleBen]

Same tree surveyor that works for butcher company if i understand correctly. Oh, look, that tree may possibly, don't know when, fall down, possibly, don't know when, and may, possibly hit someone if it falls. And all other trees in vicinity may also possibly, don't know when etc etc. And all caused by a new un-named fungus. Must be new as never had to butcher trees like this before. Oh, wait, arborists were council employees back then, not for profit contractors. Btw any coincidence that contract is coming to an end. . .

[pez]

Something needs to be done about this (not sure what to suggest!). I was walking into the park by Camberwell cemetery today and it's awful to see all the amazing poplar trees gone. Terrible shame.

[joseph holly]

Beautiful trees in Peckham Rye Park have notices on them stating that they are due to be felled on 2nd July (next Tuesday). One is an old Cherry Tree which I took the attached photograph of when it flowered. James Barber is now aware. Surely something can be done to prevent more of our trees from being destroyed.

[tiddles]

I'm sorry but what IS going on?? one of the lovely things about where we live is the wonderful parks and trees (and tree lined streets) There seems to be a determined effort by the council to, without redress, hack about with the trees, regardless of whether it is necessary, and with no regard to wildlife.

As far as I am aware, our local councillors have received a load of old waffle regarding the decisions taken, quoting external consultants - who I suspect (and I could be completely wrong) may also be responsible for making a complete hash of pollarding many of the boroughs exiting mature trees. Barry road is a marvellous example, however i must add that many roads in dulwich village have had their trees mullered as well. I suspect the council is hedging its bets in getting rid of as many mature trees as possible to as to prevent insurance claims. This has been mooted before, but a lack of response has been overwhelming. I have had not response from my emails to the council direct. I think (tho cannot be sure) that others have also been unanswered. This makes me suspicious. Yes I have had a glass of wine, but this has been rumbling on for months now, without a proper explanation or reassurance from the council.

[nununoolio]

Sorry to be boring and stick a pin in your balloon of rapidly inflating hysteria but the following is pretty much what happens.

Council officer or gardener who works in the park identifies tree that may be dangerous because they have the knowledge to identify the symptoms. Information passed to Council tree officer who has qualifications and expertise to confirm or otherwise the concerns raised. If tree confirmed as dangerous, contractors employed by the Council to remove or prune the trees. It really is that simple.

There isn't a Council plot to kill trees for no reason. Much like people, trees have a life cycle and they are also blighted by disease. When this is identified, it is dealt with. The poplars at Honor Oak Sports ground were all planted at the same time. Would it not be reasonable to suggest that they might reach the end of their life cycle at the same time or possibly be affected by the same disease.

If you have little knowledge of tree health and/or your local authority's policy for dealing with that matter, please try to find out something factual before you post.

[joom]

It's Gristwood and Toms, I believe. They felled a tree in my neighbours property which is council owned. He worked on Barry Road and said a lot of those trees are diseased. Not sure if I believe that, though, judging by the wholesale carnage of that beautiful avenue of trees.

[taper]

I think Nununoolio is right. Southwark have very knowledgeable tree people and are famously protective of trees, in their parks and in conservation areas where permission has to sought to fell trees. The buggers refused me permission to fell a sycamore in my garden! Could clearly be more transparent and informative about what they're up to though.

[edhistory]

Past performance is no indication of,,.

[KidKruger]

taper - fell the sycamore, it's not fair on your neighbours to have to dig-out this invasive weed year after year.

[UncleBen]

In an ideal world, Nunu, but that was a long time ago. Why aren't the "diseases" and "fungi" being named? And don't assume posters do not have knowledge or quals in the matter-you don't knw who posts here.

[Saffron]

nununoolio Wrote:

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

> Sorry to be boring and stick a pin in your balloon

> of rapidly inflating hysteria but the following is

> pretty much what happens.

>

> Council officer or gardener who works in the park

> identifies tree that may be dangerous because they

> have the knowledge to identify the symptoms.

> Information passed to Council tree officer who has

> qualifications and expertise to confirm or

> otherwise the concerns raised. If tree confirmed

> as dangerous, contractors employed by the Council

> to remove or prune the trees. It really is that

> simple.

>

> There isn't a Council plot to kill trees for no

> reason. Much like people, trees have a life cycle

> and they are also blighted by disease. When this

> is identified, it is dealt with. The poplars at

> Honor Oak Sports ground were all planted at the

> same time. Would it not be reasonable to suggest

> that they might reach the end of their life cycle

> at the same time or possibly be affected by the

> same disease.

>

> If you have little knowledge of tree health and/or

> your local authority's policy for dealing with

> that matter, please try to find out something

> factual before you post.

Well, if that's the case in Southwark, fairplay to ya.

HOWEVER, I did read up on tree health, and I investigated my local authority's policy (Lewisham Council); and it really is not "that simple". I was told that the council cannot work to best practice because of financial constraints. Basically, they will only do what they can afford to do, which is not always what is best for trees and the local environment.

[Marmora Man]

Saffron said:

Basically, they will only do what they can afford to do, which is not always what is best for trees and the local environment.

Rather like the rest of then really. Having to cut our cloth according to our means. Given that councils are pending tax payers money they have a duty to spend it wisely and efficiently - compromise is inevitable.

[Willard]

Aside from any potential conflict of interest, I thought the best time of year to pollard was winter...

[Renata Hamvas]

Dear all, yesterday myself, my Ward Colleague Vikki Mills and the Cabinet member, Cllr Barrie Hargrove met with council officers. Tree maintenance on highways and in parks/open spaces is different. We have asked that trees that are being pruned or pollarded or reduced on pavements are treated differently to those in parks and open spaces. In both instances public safety is the most important issue. A tree on St Aidan's road has needed to be removed due to it being unsafe, (leaning and evidence that it could uproot). Trees that are diseased are also removed, as they are or could become unsafe and also to protect other trees. On highways, tree root spreads are an additional issue. They can cause problems for nearby properties and subsidence of the highway (this is part of the reason for the crown reduction and pollarding works).

We have requested that in the future that when pruning and pollarding works in parks and open spaces are done, that these are done only when really necessary for safety or tree health etc.

Renata

[davidh]

/Users/david/Desktop/photo.JPG

this is an example of what I was talking about earlier. what was the point of this appalling butchery?