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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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