Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A beautiful mature Rowan tree (Mountain Ash) in Ulverscroft Road has had all its branches hacked off and just left on the pavement.


It was the last tree in the road on the even-numbered side, at the Whateley Road end.


When I saw it like this yesterday, I assumed that the council had done it for some reason. However I just passed it as a council team were collecting the branches, and apparently the council did not do it, and the enforcement team is "investigating".


This was not just random vandalism by some drunken person pulling off a low lying branch. Somebody must have deliberately got a ladder and sawed every branch off.


To whoever you are - shame on you. The tree cannot be saved.


However the council will plant another tree, so if you didn't want a tree there - too bad.

There is extensive work going on at the corner house and they are digging down to some considerable depth.

Several skips worth already gone.


Considering the proximity of the tree to the house, I suspect the tree has undermined the buildings foundations

and needs to be removed..


DulwichFox

WTF do the council plant tress 4 feet form the external wall of a house, it's basically criminal damage by stealth.

Finally got rid of the 45ft tree which was 6ft from front of my house, the bastad - only goo dthing about that tree was the tonne of wood I've got seasoning for year after next's Xmas.

We have a similar problem, KK. A self-seeded sycamore on council property ten feet from our house has caused structural damage. The council refuses to cut it down but are happy to accept liability to pay to remedy any further damage. Insanity. We're going to make one last request for them to remove it... If that doesn't work, I'll be out with the chainsaw ;-)

The thing is, in the case of the Ulverscroft Road tree, it is not right for people to take things into their own hands in this way.


If it was undermining the foundations in some way they should have contacted the council.


Quite apart from the main issue, they didn't even bother to remove the branches, just left them cluttering up the pavement and some of the road.

Sue Wrote:

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

> The thing is, in the case of the Ulverscroft Road

> tree, it is not right for people to take things

> into their own hands in this way.

>

> If it was undermining the foundations in some way

> they should have contacted the council.

>

> Quite apart from the main issue, they didn't even

> bother to remove the branches, just left them

> cluttering up the pavement and some of the road.


How do you know they did not contact the council and/or it was cut down by contractors

on behalf of the council. ???


Foxy

DulwichFox Wrote:

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


>

> How do you know they did not contact the council

> and/or it was cut down by contractors

> on behalf of the council. ???

>



Because as I said above, I have spoken to the council people who came to remove the branches.


They are investigating who cut the tree down. It was not the council and it was not contractors on the council's behalf.

Otta Wrote:

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

> If they just cut away the branches, it doesn't

> sound like it was anything to do with the roots

> and foundations of a building.



Obviously I have no idea, but possibly they were disturbed before they could cut down the trunk - or didn't have sufficiently strong tools to do it.


In some cases, removing a mature tree can actually cause more damage to a building than leaving it there, unless you know what you are doing.


A quick google brought up this (I'm doing a Dulwich Fox now :)) ):


"Heave can be caused by the removal of trees or severe pruning of mature trees which can allow clay soils to recover their moisture content which results in the ground swelling and causing uplift or heave. Heave is also seasonal and the extent of heave can vary throughout the year. Heave can cause serious damage to properties"


http://info.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=35300&p=0



IF it was done by the owners of an adjacent house, or people working for them, they may have shot themselves in the foot.


Edited to add the bold

I wish someone would carry out a similar stealth hatchet job on the runty, sad excuse of a tree in the middle of Goose Green (near the end of the path). It's really out of place there. I heard the school that planted it last winter made a mistake - apparently it's not the type or size of tree agreed with the Council. Isn't the best thing to do with mistakes to rectify them?

goosey-goosey Wrote:

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

> I wish someone would carry out a similar stealth

> hatchet job on the runty, sad excuse of a tree in

> the middle of Goose Green (near the end of the

> path). It's really out of place there. I heard the

> school that planted it last winter made a mistake

> - apparently it's not the type or size of tree

> agreed with the Council. Isn't the best thing to

> do with mistakes to rectify them?



Trees do take time


I planted a horse chestnut in Swansea at 7 - It still looks

youthful 40 years later :)

I'm surprised by the comments on this thread ,the area has clay soil and many of the little Victorian terraced houses are now very elderly and insubstantially built in the first place .


Subsidence ( which is not after all equal to the Black Death )will happen ,no need to criminalising every root and branch in the vicinity .


And yes - heave ....

I've had a closer look..


The tree is leaning over the road..


Now I'm not a big bloke, but I can move / rock the tree with one hand with very little effort.

..and see the base of the tree an earth moving.


Sue says the tree is a Rowan.. Well the Rowan doe have a shallow root system so unlikely to do

much structural damage to buildings..


... but presumably as branches grow and with heavy leaf mass (for want of a better term)

it might become top heavy ?? and with a shallow root system could be unstable in high winds.


Like I say I can move it.


does not solve the question who has done this and what's to be done with the trunk.


DulwichFox

DulwichFox Wrote:

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


> Like I say I can move it.

>



Obviously I have no idea, but I imagine you can probably move it because either the person/people who cut the branches off or the council workers who came to pick up the branches have tried to remove the trunk by rocking it.


That's what I would have done.


And I imagine they couldn't, although they managed to loosen it which is why it moves, so will have to remove it by some other method.

The owner of a car thing is plausible. About the council saying it wasn't them though... I have a mate who was getting an extension to the back / side of his house and a week before the work was due to start the neighbours had a load of scaffolding put up, which was a problem for his builders. He asked his neighbours and they said it was put there and arranged by the council because their house (the neighbours) was council owned and needed repointing. Problem was when he phoned the council to find out how long it would be there they said they had no record of the job. The point of this story is although the council arranged a job, they couldn't confirm it because at the time of contacting them this information was lost in the system. So even if the council deny it, it may possibly still be them, although looking at the photos probably not as they would surely not just left all the branches on the roadside.
I can't see that the council would have any possible reason to cut all the branches off a tree, leave the trunk behind, leave the branches lying all over the pavement and road for at least a day, deny that they had done it, but then send in their enforcement team to find out who had !

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...