replacing street trees

[intexasatthe moment]

If a mature tree is removed ,was growing in a metre square tree pit ,will it be replaced ?

The tree was reportedly diseased and had for many years been growing at an angle .I'm slightly suspicious as it's removal makes an application for a dropped kerb and off street parking feasible .

Anyone know ? RCH ? Does Southwark have a policy ?

[catma]

I was trying to find this out too - I had a lovely tree removed outside my house, but I think in this case the gap between tree and pavement may not nnow meet the council's metre square rule. this despite noone can get down the street because of all the dustbins that litter it!!!

All i have now is a stump and two of those plastic railings in the way!

[intexasatthe moment]

I guess I should have googled first ,though I don't always find that Southwark's on line guidance is current .

Anyway tho I've not yet read the whole document I found this in Southwark's Tree Management Strategy

"6.1 Replacement Planting

Replacement tree planting is needed to replenish Southwark?s tree stock: to replace trees lost

through disease, age and development, and to conserve and enhance Southwark?s varied

landscape character. The size of tree and design layout needs to complement the existing

landscape character and be appropriate for the function of the site.

Replacement planting will be undertaken between November - March for trees removed in the

previous 12 months to ensure the replenishment of Southwark?s tree stock."

on p 24 there are details re contacting S'wark about trees .

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2621/tree_strategy

[rch]

Just so you guys know... I'm still in the process of addressing some of the restrictions on planting replacement trees under the new tree policy, working in tandem with the Dulwich Society Tree Committee.

If nothing else, I'm hoping to get a palette of smaller trees to be agreed for the general Dulwich area by the relevant cabinet member if our pavement doesn't meet the required width policy.

I'll try to keep everyone better updated - but if you can post the location (street name and closest house number) of the empty pits and maybe the species of tree that was there previously, I'll go have a look and see what we can do to lobby in tandem.

I believe that East Dulwich ward has a CGS tree planting budget available via councillors plus I also have a CGS budget for Village ward which I applied for personally, so hopefully we can get trees replaced if we can overcome policy restrictions...

[sheilarose]

Is there any possibility that we could campaign for productive replacement trees -- nut or fruit trees?

[Penguin68]

Is there any possibility that we could campaign for productive replacement trees -- nut or fruit trees?

Sadly both types of tree, once fecund, will tend to produce fruits which fall and create trip or slip hazards - and which will make street cleaning more problematic. Trees which blossom, or which (and which?) have strong autumn colours would be good - or evergreens which do not have significant leaf fall. Limes should be avoided (their sap is dreadful on pavements or cars). Trees which have berries which are taken by birds would be a good compromise (rowans are frequently grown - their fruits don't fall so spectacularly).

[rch]

We tend to go for nut or fruit trees on verges because we can't plant them on pavements due to safety hazards of people slipping.

But in the general Dulwich area there are pavement avenues of cherry trees called Prunus X Yedoensis, which have glorious blossoms, because they don't have large fruits (and the birds eat the tiny fruits before they drop) or roots that lift the pavement.

Some of the older Yedo (also known as Yoshino) avenues now look spectacular enough to think about having a Dulwich Cherry Blossom Festival when they bloom... just need to find some monks and some funding!

Edited to say that Peng and I overlapped posts, pretty much agreeing...

[Nigello]

I'm slightly suspicious as it's removal makes an application for a dropped kerb and off street parking feasible .

I thought that as well, but do acknowledge that that bit of the pavement had been semi-blocked because of the tree so perhaps it was a coincidence or the planning people decided to let it go given that a bid for a dropped kerb had been put in.

I thought the square-metre requirement had been quietly dropped, after certain dead or removed trees were replaced even after I was orignally told they would not be because of new rules.

[intexasatthe moment]

"I thought that as well, but do acknowledge that that bit of the pavement had been semi-blocked because of the tree so perhaps it was a coincidence or the planning people decided to let it go given that a bid for a dropped kerb had been put in."

Mmm - well if the tree was being removed because it was diseased and it's Southwark's policy to replace trees ,why isn't it being replaced ?

As for planning letting it go ... I didn't think that removing /replacing street trees was up to the planning department ?

Though happy to be enlightened .

[Fitzgeraldo]

What is the policy on species of tree? Outside of my house (where I park my car) is a lime tree that for several months each year exudes some sappy fluid that drops and then sticks to my car and consequently renders the windscreen and windows opaque. I am all in favour of having trees to line our streets but why select such inappropriate species?

[jaywalker]

One move might be to go to more sub-tropical species; with the increase in temperatures we've experienced these clearly thrive in the protected environment we have. These (all of which do well in my garden) will grow upright and have spectacular leaves and make no mess, they are all pretty much frost-hardy down to about-5C:

tetrapanax papyrifera (t-rex) grows to about 20 feet eventually, with massive exotic leaves.

musa basjoo (or equiv) hardy banana

palm trees (any number of varieties)

There is also plenty of space for more trees than currently planted. I would like to see a profusion of planting, a 'reforest Dulwich' campaign.

[Penguin68]

Clearly trees are a real amenity (although I'm afraid the exotic species listed above may be even more vulnerable to the sort of mindless vandalism we occasionally get) but it would be good to know what is the cost/ budget for a tree planted in an existing space (i.e. replacement tree) and what it costs additionally (i.e. labour and planning costs) to introduce a tree into a new site? I suppose the first set of costs would be (1) buying a tree - presumably 3-5 years old for one of sufficient size (2) labour to plant tree (and clear old tree roots etc. if necessary) and (3) on-cost of managing planted tree annualised over expected tree-life. At a time of stretched council budgets trees will cost money - although as the concomitant well-being produced by having tree-lined roads cannot probably be accurately measured as a costed amount it is probably not possibly to offset that cost with some putative down-stream cost benefit because people are happier. [if you assumed your well-being was improved on a monetary basis by as little as 10p a year per tree in a street you frequent that would probably amount - assuming say only 200 residents sufficiently regularly impacted by the tree to 'count' - to ?20 a year of contribution to local well being - or perhaps ?1200 per tree over a 60 year tree life.]

[Nigello]

I am not keen on tropical/sub-tropical species, mainly because they look out of place and are not as likely to support the wildlife we have here. Having said that, any tree pit that needs feeling should be filled soon and more trees, whatever kind, should be planted on streets, in "pocket parks" and in private gardens, for that matter.

[intexasatthe moment]

Agree with above .

[jaywalker]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I am not keen on tropical/sub-tropical species,

> mainly because they look out of place and are not

> as likely to support the wildlife we have here.

My point was that the climate is changing. Not having Elms used to look out of place to me - now the Chestnuts are dying. The wildlife has already started to move on: parakeets for example (the only constancy will probably be the adaptation of grey squirrels and the continued domestication of urban foxes). What looks out of place depends on what you are used to: but what you are used to no longer survives. Sometimes this is planning arbitrariness: there are some very large trees in East Dulwich planted by the Victorians: they would not be allowed today and will not be replaced.

[catma]

That sounds positive - I've noticed the hole around my tree stump (an ex-flowering cherry)has been lengthened and neatened so maybe a tree is going back??

rch Wrote:

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

> Just so you guys know... I'm still in the process

> of addressing some of the restrictions on planting

> replacement trees under the new tree policy,

> working in tandem with the Dulwich Society Tree

> Committee.

>

> If nothing else, I'm hoping to get a palette of

> smaller trees to be agreed for the general Dulwich

> area by the relevant cabinet member if our

> pavement doesn't meet the required width policy.

>

> I'll try to keep everyone better updated - but if

> you can post the location (street name and closest

> house number) of the empty pits and maybe the

> species of tree that was there previously, I'll go

> have a look and see what we can do to lobby in

> tandem.

>

> I believe that East Dulwich ward has a CGS tree

> planting budget available via councillors plus I

> also have a CGS budget for Village ward which I

> applied for personally, so hopefully we can get

> trees replaced if we can overcome policy

> restrictions...

[MarkL]

We had a similar situation outside our house in Waghorn Street, which is the Lane Ward

After many emails and phone calls someone from Southwark Council eventually visited and said that the tree would not be replaced as the pavement was not wide enough (2.1m from memory).

Not long after this the original site of tree was tidied up, i.e. neatly squared off, then later tarmacced over.

Needless to say this was disappointing.

If there's any advice on what steps we could follow to get any type of tree replanted please post them here.

I've actually seen freshly planted saplings around the borough on pavements which are clearly below the width threshold so I guess getting a new tree is just a matter of engaging the right people?

[sdrs]

The person to talk to at the Council is Gary Meadowcroft, he is the Boroughs new chief tree officer and is in the process of revising the absurd tree strategy that forbade planting trees where the footpath was less than 2m.

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanks sdrs that's helpful .

[rch]

FYI, Gary is the officer that I liaise with most frequently, he's very good... but the problem is that the new tree pit policies are a Highways pavement policy which is a different council department under a different cabinet member than the tree planting department. Insanely, the theory appears to be to restrict tree planting in order to protect damage from being done to public pavements in order to save public money on maintenance and repair issues.

Right hand and left hand serving different purposes... or, tail wagging the dog, take your pick.

Fortunately, we now have a new highways cabinet member who seems to be able to process information about the wishes of residents, so I'm working my way around to him...

[sdrs]

Well that is good news! I hope the tide is changing as Council departments are forced to accept the legitimacy and importance of the Trees Department and to acknowledge the benefits of urban trees. Gary certainly has or has had his work cut out with the tree-hating Highways Department. He told me a few months ago that the tree pit policy was their brainchild and that he was in the process of re-writing it. Which can only be good news. The Highways guys seem to have an outdated, frankly environmentally ignorant tendency to treat trees as a nuisance, which runs completely counter to current thinking on their benefits and to CAVAT (the tree valuation method adopted by Southwark to ensure that they be treated as assets rather liabilities). I would urge anyone interested in the borough's tree stock to read Southwark's 'Tree Management Strategy', available online, and the London Tree Officers' 'Risk Management Strategy', whose principles underpin it. I'm hoping Gary will revise some of the Tree Management Strategy too! Islington's seems to me to be more robust.

[catma]

Awww - I'm Choumert. There was I getting my hopes up but I guess it will just be tarmac not a tree...

Might try the Tree Oficer and see what's what.

MarkL Wrote:

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

> We had a similar situation outside our house in

> Waghorn Street, which is the Lane Ward

> After many emails and phone calls someone from

> Southwark Council eventually visited and said that

> the tree would not be replaced as the pavement was

> not wide enough (2.1m from memory).

> Not long after this the original site of tree was

> tidied up, i.e. neatly squared off, then later

> tarmacced over.

> Needless to say this was disappointing.

>

> If there's any advice on what steps we could

> follow to get any type of tree replanted please

> post them here.

>

> I've actually seen freshly planted saplings around

> the borough on pavements which are clearly below

> the width threshold so I guess getting a new tree

> is just a matter of engaging the right people?

[sdrs]

Go for it! Good luck.