Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Some contractors are cutting down the beautiful cherry tree by the junction near Colyton Rd/Forest Hill Rd corner. The one they damaged for the Gala Festival. I don’t remember any signs up about it. There were a couple of locals trying to talk to them but the contractors became quite aggressive and threatening. 

I was one of the locals who challenged the workmen, mainly because I presumed it was related to Gala again. Due to this presumption the exchanges were initially heated, but once they had explained the situation we had a reasonable conversation. Another man did come over to have a bit of a rant at them, but left fairly soon having made his objections known. 

When I queried the lack of notice, they said they'd been asked to remove the tree as a matter of urgency due to the high winds - the roots are apparently diseased. However they said the work order had been issued two weeks ago, and couldn't say why there had been no notice attached. They also couldn't produce any work order, or contact details for the person at the council who had issued it. They then agreed to stop work on the removal, put up the requisite notice, and arrange to return in "a couple of weeks".

I tried to call the Tree dept at the council for some clarification, but it went through to an answerphone which was apparently full. I've emailed them to ask what the situation is, and why they aren't more communicative & transparent with these things. My family love & cherish that tree (dubbed "Favourite Tree" by our kids when they could barely talk), if it is diseased & dangerous then it's very sad and we'll have to accept it. But surely the council understand that they really must explain these things fully to prevent misunderstanding, distrust & protest?

23 minutes ago, Jenijenjen said:

The weekend fun runners hanging their bags and coats on it at the start of their run can't have done it much good

To be clear, the issue is with a fungal infection of the roots, so absolutely nothing to do with kids climbing it, runners hanging kit off it etc. etc.

Can we therefore end any persecution of perceived tree damaging parties?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 2

I'm glad I am not interrogated doing my job by passers by.  Difficulty I have with this forum is the distrust in Southwark by some.  I expect that Southwark are fairly competent on knowing when trees are diseased and needs to be felled.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1

For me, this all started back in 2013 when I saw a notice on this tree which has always been a landmark and favourite in Peckham Rye Park. Local residents saved it then and it has gone on to flower beautifully  every year since then. People love it, it’s beautiful in all seasons (see photos). It’s had to put up with the vandalism inflicted on it by the setting up for the Gala festival last year, in order to make way for the horrendous Berlin Wall that now appears annually. Too much of a coincidence that this tree was ‘in the way’ last year and suddenly is in dire need of felling this year, before Gala swallows up even more of our park. Could it be that all about the money?

20200409_100353.jpg

20200530_094151.jpg

20221116_113733.jpg

20180302_155214.jpg

image.png

Edited by joseph holly
  • Like 5

So the contractors have cut some branches off already (see pics) and there is no notice on the tree or area. Someone up thread mentioned the contractors said they would put one up.

 

I am no expert but noticed that the tree seems to be covered in new buds - not really a sign of a tree with deceased roots?

I picked up a twig from the ground and saw the buds are green inside as is underneath the twig bark - more likely to be signs of live? Again, I'm no expert but some of the comments above indicate this has been a longstanding wrong diagnosis? 

PXL_20250129_122753452.jpg

PXL_20250129_124816127.jpg

  • Agree 1
3 hours ago, alice said:

There was a notice on it. Someone has clearly removed it. Whether or not a tree is unsafe is not evidenced by buds but by experts  who have examined the tree.

Good to know that there was a notice -it was not there today at 12.30 ish. 

Not sure why someone would want to remove it?

As for the expert assessment, I am just highlighting that it seems to have been misdiagnosed back in 2013 and it could simply be an error based on that diagnosis.

  • Agree 2

I spoke to the Chair of FoPRP today,  apparently it was a misunderstanding,  the contractors were meant to be removing another tree, not this one!! So I'm glad locals/park users did intervene and interrogate them as otherwise a perfectly healthy tree ( as people have noted) would no longer be there!!! Bad things happen when good people do nothing!

 

I also attended the Gala meeting and spoke with their representatives about the damage they inflicted on this tree to erect their hoarding last year.  They were contrite and acknowledged it was a big mistake and that it would not be repeated.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4

Thank you to fishboy and the other locals who rightly challenged the contractors! We're all lucky that you happened to be in the park at that time. This beautiful tree is worth fighting for. It has now survived two misguided attempts to fell it, the first in 2013 and the second in 2025. The actions of local residents have saved it on both occasions. Let's hope it hasn't been too damaged this week so that we can all continue to enjoy its beauty. 

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
26 minutes ago, alice said:

IMG_0666.jpeg

This notice was put on the wrong tree, apparently it is another tree that is due to be felled.

I also echo well done to those people who intervened,  thank goodness you were around and took action!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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