Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There is a proposal by Southwark Council to fell two mature oak trees in Sydenham Hill Wood. They are on the western (Dulwich) side of the Cox's Walk footbridge. The reason given is that major repairs can be carried out to the bridge's abutments and the bridge itself. Although there is no doubt that these repairs are necessary, the question arises as to why the trees need to be cut down. It would seem that the bridge was rebuilt in the 1980s when the trees were already mature, so it is doubtful that they are the cause of the damage to the structure. Extensive root ingress by ivy seems more likely to be the cause. Removing the trees could cause heave to destabilise the cutting slope as water which would have been take up by the trees, remains in the soil. Furthermore, the main reason for removing the trees would seem to be allow easier access for Southwark Highways Department, an issue which did not seem to prevent the rebuilding works in the eighties. Oaks are vital to the woodland ecosystem, especially mature oaks like these. Surely a more ecologically sound way could be devised of making the repairs, without felling two important trees like these?
Although I am entirely ignorant towards any reasoning why the trees are being earmarked for felling, it angers and frustrates me that, as Angelina says, the council seem to have an awful history with regards to felling, rather than trying to save trees. I absolutely adore the trees in the wood, especially the oaks and hope in the very least a second opinion is sought before we lose them.
The decision to fell is the council's. The planning application which was open for objections was last year. The London Wildlife Trust objected at the time. Most people probably didn't know anything about it until after the council had given themselves permission to fell the two mature and healthy oak trees. https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9581175
Perhaps The Woodland Trust should be made aware. It needs proper inspection and investigation by a structural engineer before such drastic steps are taken. Felling two mature oak trees in my book is a crime and if possible an alternative solution should be sought.

Thanks to Penguin68 for the petition link.

Yes, Kiera is right about the London Wildlife Trust objecting. It is worth remembering that LWT is a charity and is responsible for everyday management of the wood, including the mundane tasks like litter picking and dealing with dog mess as well as making the paths safer and mitigating excessive mud by building new paths and boardwalks. To do this, it relies on unpaid volunteers to give their time and efforts freely.

As they abut a public right of way. ie Cox's Walk, the trees are earmarked for felling by Southwark Highways Department. The issue is not that the bridge needs to be repaired, it does. Also it is an historical landmark due to its link with Pissarro. The issue is that the trees do not seem to be the direct cause of structural damage and they could be retained, especially as they form an important aesthetic grouping as sentinels for the bridge. Furthermore, their removal will have a dramatic effect on the balance of groundwater in the immediate area. Ground stabilty could be affected as it adjusts to the increased weight and pressure of water which otherwise would have been taken up by the trees and released back into the atmosphere as transpiration.

There should be a way to rebuild the abutments without removing the trees.

If you agree, please sign the petition as linked above if you have not done so already.

The link to the planning application given above by Kiera (Aug 5th) now leads nowhere:


"Planning Application details not available

This application is no longer available for viewing. It may have been removed or restricted from public viewing"


Surely that is out of order, as the matter is still live - at least while the oak trees are.


Was the decision to remove the trees taken by a planning officer or by planning committee? Are there particular rules governing a planning decision by the Council on a Council project? and were those rules properly followed?

MarkT

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

    • yes, which properly explains why they responded to me on this occassion, as i included the CQC in my response. I have spoken to the Health Ombudsman, and they feel the regulator is more suited to the issues I have raise for more than a year now. welcome aboard. its great to have you on the thread. so sorry you are also experiencing issues. has this been addressed as yet?
    • Tbh most Tesla owners are people who are concerned about the environment and have purchased accordingly- but mr nut job has soured their purchasing- so I actually sympathise with them being associated with such an awful man. But to actively promote the company given the knowledge we now know about him makes utterly unacceptable. 
    • Week 28 fixtures...   Saturday 5th April Everton v Arsenal Crystal Palace v Brighton & Hove Albion Ipswich Town v Wolverhampton Wanderers West Ham United v AFC Bournemouth Aston Villa v Nottingham Forest   Sunday 6th April Brentford v Chelsea Fulham v Liverpool Tottenham Hotspur v Southampton Manchester United v Manchester City   Monday 7th April Leicester City v Newcastle United
    • Isn't a collection of Teslas now known as a (Nuremberg) Car Rallie? I saw a great sticker on a Tesla bumper recently that read: Anti-Elon Tesla Owners Club
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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