More big trees cut down in Calton Avenue

[reggie]

I notice that Calton Ave is almost a proper suburban street now with another large chestnut biting the dust. I hope Southwark and local residents are proud of this latest culling and are looking forward to the nice uniformity of little trees becoming a trade mark of the new Dulwich.

The Suburban Pirate

[Asset]

It is sad to see them go but I think it is because the trees are old and rotten that they are being taken down. At least they are being replaced just as quick.

[reggie]

Have a look at the trunk of the latest felling.Doesnt look rotten to me.

See for yourself.

[Asset]

Yeah but why? Trees are protected. In fact though Chestnuts which are old like that are dangerous as the large old boughs have a tendency to just fall off on top of whoever may be walking underneath.

As I said, they are being replaced by young chestnuts which will outlive us all.

[Guest]

To judge from the pavement it may have been the root systems causing problems.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Horse chestnuts or sweet chestnuts?

The Horse Chestnut is from Asia Minor and is not a native to these shores. Therefore they should not be protected and should be hunted down as vermin.

[reggie]

Mrs B

In what way were the roots "causing problems".

[benmorg]

big trees cause subsidence, which is v. expensive to put right. Might seem harmful to the environment to cut them down, but the growth a new tree will take as much carbon out of the air as killing the old tree released.

[Guest]

If you look at the pavement there are some big humps where the old trees were so I'm guessing the roots were starting to encroach on the foundations of the houses.

[candj]

I think the last time they did this was about 2 or 3 years ago, but they did indeed replace them quickly within days and all seemed okay again. I wouldn't worry as I don't think Southwark council are doing anything sinister, this time.

[benmorg]

Ms B Wrote:

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

> If you look at the pavement there are some big

> humps where the old trees were so I'm guessing the

> roots were starting to encroach on the foundations

> of the houses.

it's not encroachment of the roots that causes damage. It's the combination of subsoil london clay and large vigorous trees that suck water out of the ground in summer. The suction dries out the clay, which then shrinks and subsides. In winter the clay reabsorbs water and expands, causing "heave", which is the opposite of subsidence - i.e. the ground bounces back. Droughts magnify the effect.

Typically you would see cracks in masonry widening through summer and closing up in winter. Thiss happens to a lesser extent in very many houses, but if the cracks get wider than half a centimetre or so, then the house might need underpinning to strengthen the foundations, so a subsidence claim would be made by the owner on their building insurance.

It's a very common problem in east dulwich and norwood, which have one of the highest rates of subsidence in the UK. There has also been major landslip subsidence where the clay layer "flows" down steep hills and pushes whole rows of houses over, which happened on dunstans road under dawson's heights before before dawson's heights was built.

[reggie]

So the conclusion is:

Dont buy a house in Dulwich and then campaign to have that lovely big tree cut down.

Buy a house in another street or area.

I knew when my house was surveyed that the big chestnut down the road was making the insurance company nervous. But one of the attractions of the street was the trees themselves.But I decided to buy the house and to accept the good and bad aspects of the trees.

The Suburban Pirate

[*Bob*]

Insurance companies and councils love cutting down trees 'as a preventative measure'. It's a cheap fix so some pencil-pusher can sleep easier in his bed about not having a subsidence liability letter arriving on his desk in the morning.

The water table can be just as adversely affected by cutting a large tree down as it can be by letting it grow. 90% of the time the best option (for property and streetscape) is to maintain the status quo.

But then maintaining trees properly costs more than cutting them down.