Jump to content

Did you know they can cut down trees without warning?


Recommended Posts

I was sitting looking out the window and along came the woodchopper about to cut down our lovely big old chestnut tree on Melbourne Grove. I rush out and start pleading and to my surpise they leave.

I ring the council and they say it might be deceased and I say how do you know and how about warning us. I ask what is the policy on cutting down trees and they say there is no policy!

Do you trust the council to look after our trees when their main worry is about getting sued? My suspicion is that cutting down the big trees and having lots of little ones makes their job easier and Dulwich more boring.

So keep an eye out for those guys.

The Suburban Pirate

Yes but some of these trees are a real pain!....


Every Autumn they shed leaves which I have to Sweep up from my doorway, and if I park my Car under them (in the limited space available) the bloody birds perched up in them end up cr@pping all over my car!


Chop 'em down I say!

there is a tree on felbrig road with a demolition notice on it and loads of kiddy pictures for save our tree


the thing is leaning on to the road


Have to say I trust the tree surgeons to determine which trees need to be removed and which don't

When I lived on Oakhurst Grove we had a lovely big silver birch outside, didn't appear to be anything wrong with it, not leaning, no diseased, and it provided a bit of privacy from the flat opposite. Came home from work one day, thought something had changed - took me a good half hour to work out the tree had gone. No notices, no warning - just gone. Really missed it.
Having suffered subsidence caused by a large Horse Chestnut street tree I'm afraid I have little sympathy. These trees were simply not designed for the relatively narrow streets and pavements we have in the area. Their roots break up the pavements and presumably are a pain in the neck for the utility companies. One of the worst examples I know of is the tree at on the RH side of Melbourne Grove opposite the church - the pavements completely broken up and the gap between the tree and the hedge/fence is only big enough for one person.

One problem is that the first port of call for an insurance company who is eager to avoid a subsidence claim - is to demand the removal of any trees near to the property, however minor the threat. And why not eh? The cost of doing so will be below the subsidence excess so it's no skin of their nose.

Equally, they warn about trees that are outside of the boundaries of your property - more often than not this means on the street. They suggest that you contact the council to ask them to 'trim down the tree'. And the first port of call for a local council (equally eager to avoid having to pay a subsidence claim) is to cut it down rather than trim it. And why not? Once it's down, it won't cost them any more. If they leave it, it will only keep growing.


That's the trouble with living things.. they just need too much care and attention.

Lets hope that our local councillors are reading this. As far as I know, Southwark Council should have an aboricultural policy and plan that council staff or contractors work to. If these aren't in place, it's plainly ridiculous and needs putting right. However, my guess is that if you called up to ask about this, you got the Council's inadequate call centre system, where no one who answers knows anything about anything, and acts as a barrier to speaking to someone who does. I'm not sure how or why we let our council get away with this.


"Having suffered subsidence caused by a large Horse Chestnut street tree I'm afraid I have little sympathy."


I sympathise with you, but that's no excuse for cutting down trees that aren't (apparently) causing problems. It's ironical that a number of trees in the part of Melbourne Grove you refer to were lost in the great storm of October 1987, with quite wide regret at their loss. One of the joys of living in South London is the green spaces and abundant trees.

ed pete you amaze me

One of the most beautiful huge lovely trees around is the very one you think is a problem. For the last 10 years I have loved walking round that tree and no that wasnt a problem. It is one of the reasons I moved to Melbourne Grove. It is not a huge deal to let someone pass that small gap. Wow.. now I know what it really feels like to be a suburban pirate.

Are the streets of Dulwich so narrow and so bumpy that we must cut the big trees down just to make it a bit easier to walk down the street?

the suburban pirate

Frisco Wrote:

I'm notsure how or why we let our council get away with

> this.

Because my dear frisco there are loads of people who are more interested in nice smooth pavements and insurance issues than 130 year old trees.Why do people come to Dulwich and then want to destroy one of the main things that makes it special?

That tree on Fellbrigg Road made a large dent in our car.

And dents in lots of other cars.

It had to go.

Needless to say our tree hugging daughter spent all evening making those signs to save the tree........

She was very upset when she got home from school.

Ah, leafy Dulwich. If any of you tree lovers, and I count myself as one, can be bothered to go to Goose Green, for instance. You will see beautiful, large trees growing in an enviroment which is right for the tree. When trees were planted 130 years ago in roads, the planters cannot for one minute, have thought they would still be there all this time later. I say plant the right tree in the right location. It's not just foundations that are affected what about natural light at first floor level? pollarding is unattractive and, I think cruel. Lets see some active tree management from Southwark and in some parts of E Dulwich the Dulwich Estate
Reggie - are you referring to the tree on Melbourne that is opposite Colwell Road? If so, that tree produced no leaves this year and so is surely dead. A lot of horse chestnuts have been suffering from (a) 2006 drought and (b) a disease. But the chestnuts of Melbourne Grove are a local treasure, and I hope the rest survive, or that they plant some new ones. The other trees that are getting to the end of their shelf life are the damson trees - on Colwell and also Worlingham I think. Was never so keen on those because of their dark red leaves.
I can see how sometimes people might want trees to be cut down but what really gets me is how they don't tell anyone, you just come home one day and another one's gone. You need to put up signs around the place to see if anyone objects to something being built, why dont you have to do that when you take things away?

Yes Curmudgeon -my 10 year old daughter made all those signs. She too was a little emotional.


She was torn between being pleased that someone on the forum had noticed her efforts and feeling patronised at her drawings being called "kiddy" !


( Admittedly not helped by me coming home saying "Hurrah they've got rid of that stupid tree")

Muttley

No, the colwell rd one was surely dead, in fact it got the chop yesterday! No its the others that I mean. Shelf life though is a slippery slope for the cut em down brigade who are just itching to get the street nice and neat with no leaves,no fuss, no trees.

The Suburban Pirate

One day I was on the way to school (The Charter School) when I noticed that a whole rows of about 10 lovely, healthy birch trees had been cut down with seemingly no reason. They weren't anywhere near a building and the path that ran adjacent to them seemed completely fine. Anybody know y they did this (it was the row of trees that ran down the path to alleys swimming pool.:X

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

    • 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. 
    • Would they keep until Christmas?
    • As a customer of DKH I have sympathy with the staff but this a matter for their trade union to address. The law states that temperatures in the workplace must be “reasonable”, and adds guidance that a reasonable minimum temperature is 16C for sitting down jobs like checkouts or 13C for physical work like packing and stacking.  The law also states that there must be easily readable thermometers installed in the workplace so that staff can check the temperature. When I still worked, these would be mercury thermometers red-lined at 16C, so staff knew when it was permissible to stop work if they were uncomfortable. However, I always worked in trade union represented jobs. I suspect (but certainly don’t know) that a lot of Sainsbury’s staff these days don’t bother to join the union, so are not protected (please put me right if you know otherwise).  In any workplace, you either take collective action to improve things or just accept the conditions imposed on you. If staff are in a union, they need to take a hand in making sure the union and its reps do their job in representing them.
    • £1,155 now raised. Would be great to get to £1,500 by 17th January when the Crowdfunder will close. His family and friends are hoping to do something for charity in his name... 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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