Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Execution? For heaven’s sake, it’s a tree that’s very likely diseased and/or hazardous to humans. The council will replace it and there’s nothing at all stopping anyone from planting their own either. Go to the Wildlife Centre on Marsden Road and buy £3 treelets and plant away! Or grow them from pips/acorns etc. These are much better forms of action than typing something to send into the ether. 

  • Like 1

It’s not. It’s a reasonable and rational assumption, as is pointing out it could also be a danger to wildlife and humans. Both are more likely than suggesting it’s just a council officer’s  whim to destroy a fully healthy/non-hazardous tree. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

1) it's not the council that is cutting the tree down. It's the company owned by the flats in the block behind.

2) the tree is riddled with fungus - there is a arboriculture report that shows this. People don't spend thousands to cut trees down for no reason.

3) it's not a matter for Southwark Council because Tulse Hill is in Lambeth...

Go to the post on the "Herne Hill Forum" on Facebook (not the real forum)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

23_03538_TPO-TREE_CONDITION_REPORT-3128312_pp1-6.pdf

23_03538_TPO-TREE_CONDITION_REPORT-3128312_pp1-6.pdf

It is.  I'm attaching a copy of pp.1-6 of the Tree Condition Report, for the background information.  You can get the full report (5.4MB) from the above link.  At page 13 is the succinct:

5 Recommendations

5.1 T1 – Cedar of Lebanon – fell to ground level as soon as is reasonably practicable.

  • Thanks 1

Summary:

"5.1 The cedar tree is aged and fully mature. It has, in times past, split along the axis of the main union between the two leading stems. This in itself, has caused the tree to become hazardous.
 

5.2 Fungal colonisation by the brown-rotting Dyer’s Mazegill has weakened the root-plate so that it can no longer safely anchor and support the tree. Secondary colonisation has significantly degraded the inner trunk wood and continues to do so.
 

5.3 I conclude, with regret, that the tree is now unsafe and in the first stages of structural failure. Due to its location in an area of high vehicular and pedestrian use it cannot be safety retained."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

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

    • People have been setting off fireworks in London since the 1400s!!!
    • I still have a landline and the set of Panasonic cordless phones I have are on their last legs.  One display screen is broken. If you have a used set available, let me know.   John Lewis used to sell them but no longer.  
    • I personally, just lost respect as this is not the time to.disrupt hospitals and put additional strain on stretched resources.  BBC News - Doctors vote to go ahead with this week's five-day strike https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c246dnyjylqo
    • I'm guessing that most people with pets would not bring either the pets or fireworks into their day to day conversations, to complain or otherwise. Are you suggesting that only "timid" pets are scared by fireworks? What evidence do you have for that, exactly?  Or are you equating being scared of fireworks with being "timid"? And what about the foxes and other wildlife? Is it ok for them to be scared? Firework noise is not a noise that "comes with normal city living" ! What a very strange thing to say! Are you one of the people who have been constantly letting off fireworks recently? I'm assuming you don't have any pets yourself, or you wouldn't have these opinions, but if you do have pets, please share how they react when they hear loud bangs. Unless they are goldfish, in which case you probably wouldn't be able to tell.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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