To: Southwark Council Save the Cox's Walk Footbridge Oak Trees - Please Email them

[natty01295]

To: Southwark Council

Save the Cox's Walk Footbridge Oak Trees

Pennie Hedge via 38 Degrees

●

Please send support for TPO 605

Dear Friends,

There has been no word from Highways since the planning permission was refused last month. We think it is quite likely that they will object to the provisional Tree Protection Order (TPO) on Cox's Walk and Sydenham Hill Wood and submit another application to get the oak trees removed. It would therefore be really useful

if you could email

● [email protected] ●

to express your support for TPO 605. Comments and objections have to be received by 5pm on Tuesday 16th February 2021.

Dear Friends,

There has been no word from Highways since the planning permission was refused last month. We think it is quite likely that they will object to the provisional Tree Protection Order (TPO) on Cox's Walk and Sydenham Hill Wood and submit another application to get the oak trees removed. It would therefore be really useful if you could email [email protected] to express your support for TPO 605. Comments and objections have to be received by 5pm on Tuesday 16th February 2021.

If confirmed, the TPO would give ongoing greater protection to this treasured piece of ancient woodland by ensuring that work to any tree has to be given permission, and a greater weight of evidence that there was no alternative would be needed for it to be approved. In the current case of the bridge repairs, it would also protect the other trees that were going to be lost in the working area as well as the two oaks. The value of the trees for their amenity and eco system services would also be taken into consideration when looking at overall costs and compensation, which has not been the case so far.

We welcome this enlighted move by Southwark Planning in its recognition of the importance of this area of ancient woodland to biodiversity, carbon storage and capture and other eco system services. It also reflects the huge increase in public understanding of the importance of trees to our ecology and wellbeing over recent years, and the need to give them the highest priority for protection in any developments or other works. The TPO brings the Council's approach to Sydenham Hill Wood and Cox's Walk into line with the latest National Planning Policy Framework, London Plan and Southwark Plan. We look forward to it being confirmed in due course.

Many thanks,

Pennie

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-the-cox-s-walk-footbridge-oak-trees

● Sign The Petition●

[natty01295]

Please Email them

-

And also Click on the petition

[natty01295]

Sign the petition

[natty01295]

Sign the petition, please

[Eggybread]

Done both! Pleas3m everyone. This is the last opportunity to stop this!

[Nigello]

Please can someone who is not invested in either side explain the pros and cons of cutting down these trees. Then I may make a decision to sign a petition.

[alex_b]

As I understand it, the footbridge (or more specifically the supports) needs fixing/replacing. Southwark have claimed that in order to do this safely and to have a lasting effect they need to cut down a bunch of trees including some old oaks. The counter view is that the footbridge could be fixed without cutting down the trees. The goal of preserving the trees is clearly valuable, but I have no idea on the accuracy of the claims and counter claims on whether the footbridge could be made safe without cutting down the trees.

[ab29]

There are no pros for me - I'm happy to see the bridge go but don't want to see the trees destroyed.

[Nigello]

Thanks

A I am not an arborist. I am not an engineer. I like trees and nature and do a bit each day to help it (clearing litter, feeding the birds, gardening without chemicals, walking, not driving). I also like people not getting maimed or even killed, so I err towards safety of humans over everything else. I won't be signing, despite my green credentials generally.

[NewWave]

Signed !

[natty01295]

Keep signing Please everyone

[malumbu]

I struggle with this too. I've been at environmental protests in the past, supported those digging in, locking on and climbing up at the Crystal Palace Campaign and the like, yet feel like there are currently bigger battles. In particular in reducing emissions - sad that so many on this site are opposed to measures to reduce road traffic. Needs to be a holistic approach to the environment, not just particular causes.

That's a personal view, I wont be lobbying campaigners telling them they are wrong!

[taper]

We need that bridge back.

[BrandNewGuy]

Hmmm, you say bigger battles, but firstly, you can do two things at once, you know. And secondly, these bigger battles are often not real battles, but online 'clicktivism' where the participants actually don't do anything in the 'real world' to ameliorate the wrong they see. Not accusing you of this, malumbu, but I see it all the time ? for instance, folks who are strongly 'against climate change' but who wont lift a finger to defend their little local patch of greenery. Activism should be about being active, not just expressing an opinion online. 'Holistic' approaches can be a great way of doing bugger all.

[Nigello]

I agree it is good to do good stuff locally, but this case of a tree or two may be the clicktivism you refer to. It is a fact that sometimes, rarely, trees have to be lopped or chopped because of danger to humans. I think Southwark will be able to offset the damage to an extent, such as planting several new trees. If you really want to make an impact locally, somethign that is quantifiable and easy to most people, plant a tree or two in your garden, pick up litter, report fly tipping and vandalism, etc. to the council, walk more, turn off the lights, turn down the heating, buy less, etc. I think this is much more valuable than spending lots of time and effort on two trees that have had a long life but which are endangering human life, situated in a wood of thousands of trees of similar size and age. Context is everything.

[BrandNewGuy]

You might be right, but then again, we can do all those things you mention as well. Incidentally, there's no suggestion that these trees are a threat to human life, just that the bridge repairs cannot be done satisfactorily without removing them. Our bit of the Great North Wood really is unique and every bit of chipping away at it needs to be scrutinised closely.

[malumbu]

Gave you my view but that doesn't stop others protesting. I'm with Nigello - don't usually post such sentiments as can come across as sycophantic or not adding to the debate. But he/she has got it spot on from my take. I'm also reflecting on a planning battle I had a few years ago. One neighbour said that he wouldn't join in with me as we were distracting the council from important work (and costing them). We both had our point, at times good to see the opposite view. Sadly a sign of my aging as I was like a bull in a china shop not so many years ago in taking the authorities on (although I remain a raving leftie!)

[natty01295]

UPDATE.

Visit site

**● Last chance to support TPO 605

Pennie Hedge via 38 Degrees

Dear Friends,

Email address correction

Several of you have contacted me to report that your emails to Southwark planning have failed to get through. I've finally worked out the problem, which is that the 's' on 'applications' is missed off when you copy and paste the address I included. I do apologise for this error. The correct addresses to send to are:

[email protected] or [email protected] (case officer and urban forester)

Deadline for comments: Tuesday 5pm 16th February 2021

Tree Protection Order (TPO) 605 will give greater protection to all the trees in Cox's Walk and Sydenham Hill Wood. However, it is only provisional at the moment. Please send your support for TPO 605 and asking for it to be confirmed, by next Tuesday 16th Feb. We welcome this enlighted move by Southwark Planning in its recognition of the importance of this area of ancient woodland to biodiversity, carbon storage and capture and other eco system services. It also reflects the huge increase in public understanding of the importance of trees to our ecology and wellbeing over recent years, and the need to give them the highest priority for protection in any developments or other works. The TPO brings the Council's approach to Sydenham Hill Wood and Cox's Walk into line with the latest National Planning Policy Framework, London Plan and Southwark Plan. We look forward to it being confirmed in due course.

Many thanks

Pennie

[Blah Blah]

Removal of the trees may well be to allow for access for heavy machinery and materials. There are always other ways to do this. Having said that, using a crane costs considerably more than driving a vehicle onto site, but worth querying precisely why that space needs to be cleared.

[natty01295]

Please keep signing,And Email them as well