The Council won't replace the damaged tree in Dunstans Road

[kitwhitfield]

A couple of days ago somebody must have crashed their car into the lovely little maple on Dunstans Road - the one just opposite Balchier Road. It knocked the poor thing down completely.

I wrote to the Council to ask if they'd replace it, and they told me no: they'd recently adopted a new policy that meant the pavement had to be 2.1m wide for any trees to be planted, so they're just going to uproot the stump and pave it over in November or December.

I think this is really sad; the tree was a lovely part of the neighbourhood, and as far as I know it wasn't bothering anyone all the years it stood there. A policy about planting new trees being applied to replacing old ones strikes me as a bit unreasonable. If anyone agrees with me, please write to the Council! Maybe if they know enough people want the tree replaced, they'll at least think about it. The address is [email protected].

[catma]

I have the same situation re a tree in my street - it was diseased so had to go but it was a lovely tree and with the new rules they won't replace. Although bins can be left all over the pavement, reducing the width with impunity it seems.

[intexasatthe moment]

This was brought up some time ago and is horribly sad .

I've really no idea what can be done to change the policy .

[first mate]

What a shame and how short- sighted. Is there a plan to uproot trees to make bicycle lanes, I wonder?

[mynamehere]

well, Save Southwark Woods. Literally. And the oxygen trees produce for everyone

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/benefit-gig/4590824600

please buy a ticket and please come to our event on Sunday at 19:30 at the Ivy House

Space and trees won't have any value until they are cemented over and all chopped down.

Then we can sell oxygen canisters

[rbrtdngl]

Very sad indeed. I think the council should pride themselves on replanting trees and creating a better environment for everyone. It happened to me when I lived on Barry Road - tree knocked down and never replaced! Maybe some gorilla planting is the solution.

[RobMiller]

Seems the Council is a bit more anti-tree than simply not replacing damaged ones... The tree outside our house appeared to have some unauthorised pollarding which the Council disapproved of. Their first sign said it was 'dead, dangerous, diseased' (it wasn't any of those), we challenged that and the sign was changed to 'vandalised', and then it was cut down, so now we have a neat patch of Tarmac. Grr.

https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B045idkMwGPhoTe

[tiddles]

Cripes Rob Miller I know exactly where this is and had wondered what on earth had happened. A lovely little tree disappeared. This is a quiet road, so why the heck can't they replace it?

Southwark does seem to have gone a bit bonkers of late doesn't it?

lets watch barry road and see how long before that beautiful avenue is destroyed?..

[kitwhitfield]

Okay, I've started a petition about this. I'll put it in a new thread as well, but please sign it!

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/preserve-southwark-s-street-trees?source=facebook-share-button&time=1445154823

[otter]

I disagree as it does damage to property as what happened to me and others I know so perhaps it could be put outside yours.

[tiddles]

Depends on the type of tree otter.

In theory, we could lose all the trees in east dulwich as most of the pavements are not 2.1 metres wide.

Unlikely I know, but having all these trees is what makes many of our streets so attractive.

[kitwhitfield]

There is a tree outside my house. I'd be heartbroken if anything happened to it.

[DulwichFox]

kitwhitfield Wrote:

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

> There is a tree outside my house. I'd be

> heartbroken if anything happened to it.

Worth a read

Trees can be an attractive addition to any garden and provide homeowners with privacy, but it's important to be aware of the impact they could have on your home insurance.

Insurance for homes with trees nearby

Homeowners with trees in close proximity to buildings won't necessarily find their home's insurance premium any costlier, or the process of taking out insurance any more complicated.

http://www.gocompare.com/home-insurance/trees/

DulwichFox

[kitwhitfield]

Thanks. :-) Our home insurance is fine, tree and all.

[rbrtdngl]

Good luck with the petition Kitwhitfield :)

[kitwhitfield]

Thanks rbtdngl. Share it if you're willing! :-)

[Mustard]

I wonder if the massive tree on Oglander Road, which blocks the pavement, will stay there.

[picmicnic]

Thanks Kitwhitfield for the post.

Strongly agree that this tree should be replaced.

I was actually wanting to see more tree planted on Dunstans Road not less.

Does anyone know why the 2.1 metre rule exists?

Is it possible to request more trees are planted?

[rbrtdngl]

Hi picmicnic, you can make a request for planting new trees to Southwark Council here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/505/trees/552/new_street_trees

[dogcatdog]

Mustard Wrote:

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

> I wonder if the massive tree on Oglander Road,

> which blocks the pavement, will stay there.

is this is one that forces buggies onto the road to pass?

We are not short of trees in the area. I have no idea what the cost is to the Council for insurance claims for these mammoth London Plane trees, but I am sure it is not a negligible amount.

[Mustard]

Yes, that one. Don't think I would want the roots of that tree near my house's foundations. It also causes problems for blind and partially sighted people and wheelchair users.

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

> Mustard Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I wonder if the massive tree on Oglander Road,

> > which blocks the pavement, will stay there.

>

>

> is this is one that forces buggies onto the road

> to pass?

>

> We are not short of trees in the area. I have no

> idea what the cost is to the Council for insurance

> claims for these mammoth London Plane trees, but I

> am sure it is not a negligible amount.

[kitwhitfield]

The tree they're refusing to replace in Dunstans Road is a small maple, for the record. Not a structural problem as far as can be seen: the pavement's perfectly smooth around it, and the arrangement of gardens means that it's quite a ways from any houses. I'm sure none of us would object if they replaced it with something slow-growing or naturally small, but it really was Not Guilty when it comes to structural damage!

Surely the sensible thing would be for the Council to look at trees on a case-by-case basis. Damaging trees, nobody wants. Innocent trees, I think most of us really like. It's this blanket policy that's so unresaonable.

[dogcatdog]

ids this really a priority, given the state of local authority finances?

[kitwhitfield]

I figure that if they don't have the budget to replace damaged trees, they're perfectly free to make that call as and when. I'm just proposing that they don't have a blanket rule against it for non-financial reasons.

Besides, given the strain on people's mental health in hard times, I figure that living in a depressing or non-depressing neighbourhood does actually have medical effects. I know plenty of people who are struggling that way, and feeling like everything good is vanishing is not helpful. Nature tends to be good for the spirits, and goodness knows everyone's spirits are under strain.

[BrandNewGuy]

Indeed. And they do have budgets to do these things.