Street trees: when is it time to call time ?

[ed_pete]

Just walked back from DV to Lordship Lane and wandered through the estate on EDG.  There's a tree surgeon pruning the trees there (council funded for sure) and it just seems a bit bizarre as the stumps that are left are far from attractive. I would that thought that replacement was what was really needed here. Appreciate that funds are tight but really is there not a better option ?
 

[CPR Dave]

They'll look fine when they grow back in the spring. 

The trees that should be removed are the female gingko biloba trees that are randomly dotted about the area. These produce hundreds of fruit that contain the putrid smelling butyric acid (the same chemical that is found in vomit and rancid butter). 

The smell of these tress is absolutely vile and it lingers for months on end every year. There's one at the North Cross Road end of Ulverscroft road and it's huge and stinky.

 

I think they should be considered a public health hazard and should all be cut down.

[malumbu]

Pollarded.  Standard thing to do.

[ed_pete]

I get that they're being pollarded. This estate was built in the 60's and so I'm guessing that they're around 60 years old.  Nothing wrong with that but even when they re-grow they're hardly going to be the most attractive. Y'know just musing on improving the look of our public spaces.

 

[Mabaker]

I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I think trees laid bare without their clothes on always look attractive to me 

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's just the type of tree. That is what they look like

Edited January 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[ed_pete]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's just the type of tree. That is what they look like

Once someone has constantly loped of all the branches. 🙂

[Guest Dulwichway]

Councils love a chainsaw!

[Jellybeanz]

7 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

They'll look fine when they grow back in the spring. 

The trees that should be removed are the female gingko biloba trees that are randomly dotted about the area. These produce hundreds of fruit that contain the putrid smelling butyric acid (the same chemical that is found in vomit and rancid butter). 

The smell of these tress is absolutely vile and it lingers for months on end every year. There's one at the North Cross Road end of Ulverscroft road and it's huge and stinky.

 

I think they should be considered a public health hazard and should all be cut down.

Agree, plus disgusting to step on the mush

[CPR Dave]

Some poor person's car was buried under it last year! 

I think I'd have just abandoned that if it was mine and started again with a new vehicle. 

[malumbu]

Gosh trees producing fruit, whatever next.  You don't want to park under an elderflower when in fruit, if the fruit does get you the birds poo is purple.

[Twoddle]

When I were a lad there used to be climbing trees all over the place. I used to have multiple places to exercise and do pull ups on low tree branches when I moved here. Those spots have all gone, so bad for mental health. Leave the damn trees alone, they have rights and give us oxygen to boot.

[Nigello]

Trees are great - I plant and raise my own and petition the council to look at damaged specimens and plant more - but they need to be tended to when they’re in non-woodland spaces. I encourage all those who have a strong liking for trees to plant them, grow from seed etc. - much better for all than tapping on keypads. 

[ianr]

On 09/01/2025 at 12:14, CPR Dave said:

The smell of these tress is absolutely vile and it lingers for months on end every year. There's one at the North Cross Road end of Ulverscroft road and it's huge and stinky.

Sounds worth an excursion.  Thanks.

Edited January 10 by ianr
Expand avoidance

[CPR Dave]

Just a note of caution for you Nigello - trees planted too close to houses can cause terrible problems with subsidence.

[Moovart]

15 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

Just a note of caution for you Nigello - trees planted too close to houses can cause terrible problems with subsidence.

Unless they are London Planes planted by the council in Lordship Lane in which case the usual concerns about trees next to foundations don't seem to apply!

[mlteenie]

Trees, eh?

I feel your pain, EDP, but I like the light provided by the pollarding. I'm interested in the gingko, tho. 

I love a tree, me - Hillsboro Rd has lost about five over the last 20 years (2x lime, cherry, strawberry, and, er...).

The council did take down about 5 ill original lime trees behind our house but then gave us Golden Rain trees.

God, if only we had known what a PITA they are. The main problems are massive invasive surface roots which have buggered up my back fence and paving, plus thousands of vigorously self-seeding offspring every year, which I go around pulling up before they turn into trees. And the leaves are tough things, like horse chestnuts, so don't rot easily. I hate them. 

Wish they could have been something native and attractive, like birch or something... council isn't interested in helping. 

Ah, well.

[malumbu]

Rather than have a go at Southwark,  contact them, they will employ at least one arborist who will know far more than most people on this site.

Here's one: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shaun-murphy-morris-03b7b665/?originalSubdomain=uk

Edited January 11 by malumbu

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

they will employ at least one arborist who will know far more than most people on this site.

That may not be so - many on this site are experts in many areas - you yourself claim huge traffic management (or similar) expertise for instance. And I think you will find that Southwark employees are unlikely to support criticism or challenges to Southwark policy - why, you don't and you apparently neither live in, or vote in, the borough. Do you, however, work for it, as you are such a cheerleader? If not, then you are the most passionate disinterested person on this site, as regards so many aspects, not just traffic.

[FredMarsh]

👍

[malumbu]

17 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

That may not be so - many on this site are experts in many areas - you yourself claim huge traffic management (or similar) expertise for instance. And I think you will find that Southwark employees are unlikely to support criticism or challenges to Southwark policy - why, you don't and you apparently neither live in, or vote in, the borough. Do you, however, work for it, as you are such a cheerleader? If not, then you are the most passionate disinterested person on this site, as regards so many aspects, not just traffic.

That because I work in transport.  As I work in transport I know quite a lot about it.  Not everything.  But a lot.  And I know people who can also tell me what is going on.  And I have this massive resource of information at my finger tips.  Called the internet.  So I try to base my views on real information rather than perception.  Rather than what somebody told me down the pub, or on X, or on Nextdoor.com, or someone interviewed in the street by the BBC, or the Daily Mail, or UnHerd.com, or a Jeremy Vine programme.  I can't comment on LBC and only once spent five minutes on GB news.  And I don't automatically believe everything in the Guardian, Radio 4 comedy, Have I Got News for You or Led by Donkeys even if the politics often aligns with mine

It's just lazy to go straight to the stereo types about national and local government, and insulting to label most public and civil servants viewing them as biased, incompetent or ignorant (and the 'I know better').

And with the opportunity to ask questions through the official channels why so many instantaneously resort to social media rather than trying probing themselves.

[van dessel]

On 10/01/2025 at 15:46, CPR Dave said:

Just a note of caution for you Nigello - trees planted too close to houses can cause terrible problems with subsidence.

Bit over-stated that.  Fully-paved front drives cause same/worse issues.  The hermetically-sealed, boundary-to-boundary hard surfaces you see all over Dulwich prevent natural rainwater from continuing to nourish the dirt/clay under the house.  Houses around ED have very very shallow foundations which is the root cause, frankly.  I just spent a year renovating a house down to the foundations and they barely exist and the brickwork is easily disturbed by any ground movement.

Last time I checked, humans can't breathe their foundations can they?  But most humans require oxygen...  This foundations trope is the go-to bogey man.  Defo not having a go at you Dave, I'm sure you'd prefer more trees to fewer trees, but short-term vs long term decisions must be made.  Choices: Do we want a fully-paved, grey, barren landscape or greenery with all the health & beauty benefits?

[ed_pete]

I think most people want trees. Just trees that are suited to their surroundings.

Edited January 14 by ed_pete
typo

[CPR Dave]

Agree, most people want trees. Just not problematic ones.

Edited January 13 by CPR Dave

[Pugwash]

Wish they get rid of the tree in Barry Rd adjacent to the Plough, The roots are all over the place, Council re tarmacked them some time ago but makes the pavement uneven. You cannot get a mobility scooter over them as tarmac slopes. Witness a lady with wheelchair trying to get over , in the end her carer had to help over with 2 crutches then push the empty chair over. Also young children using scooters/bikes have fallen off at this point. Hubby spoke to tarmac workers when the work was done and they felt the area was very dangerous to pedestrians and the council should have authorised the removal of both tree and roots. Some prams cannot get over as well. Prior to Christmas, mother/carer with 2 children in double buggy had to walk in road with on coming traffic.

We do need trees   I have 2 in my garden - one is well over 50 years old and we have it pollard every few years to prevent it damaging neighbours property.