Jump to content

Recommended Posts

southwark plan to remove trees in the park,  opposite the boys school,  in order for contractors to carry out flooding work.  The Friend of Peckham Rye Park are fighting this and asking the council and contractors to find alternative way to carry out work without need to remove healthy trees. if you want to object, go onto southwark council planning applications and search no 23/AP/1028

image.thumb.png.6ef4cec2ba56ff1150877439432076c2.png

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 2

The other thing about this is that there has been pretty much zero info given out - FOPRP were not consulted (I wonder who was?) and there have not been any posters put around the area. 

 

Link to add your comment,  info, docs etc mentioned by the OP here:

Planning portal link and search using the OP's ref number

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-applications/planning-register-search-view-and-comment-on-planning-applications

 

Hopefully direct link to this application: 

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage

 

 

Edited by hpsaucey
  • Haha 1

Tried to get through on the link and got a server error message. Anyone else having same issue?

There may be very compelling reasons for doing this work now but what are they exactly? That area has always been a bit marshy but it has never been a problem that I am aware of. Won't felling trees increase the drainage issue in that roots suck up water? Very happy to learn more from those in the know.

 

Edited by first mate
  • Like 1
56 minutes ago, first mate said:

Tried to get through on the link and got a server error message. Anyone else having same issue?

There may be very compelling reasons for doing this work now but what are they exactly? That area has always been a bit marshy but it has never been a problem that I am aware of. Won't felling trees increase the drainage issue in that roots suck up water? Very happy to learn more from those in the know.

 

Ive edited with link to planning portal and hopefully direct link to this case..

 

HP

32 minutes ago, hpsaucey said:

Ive edited with link to planning portal and hopefully direct link to this case..

 

HP

I just objected by finding the case using the case number but the direct link does not seem to work for me (get a server error)

  • Like 1

I wonder whether removing these pesky trees will allow Southwark to rent out even more space to passing entrepreneurs, after all who would want trees when you can have beer tents and sound stages - and probably slightly boggy ground, if there is any - gets in the way of remunerative fun. It's a lot of trees scheduled to go so they can get the ground all nice for their paying chums. And I note there is no suggestion of any replanting, once the site is levelled (or not that I can see). Trees do, as has been stated, remove water from otherwise boggy ground, of course, but, if we're just talking about a park for the enjoyment of local people (but of course we're not) it's never been a problem. But trees do get so in the way when your renting out space to entrepreneurs, who really don't need trees getting in their way.

The water-logging problem was caused when, a couple of years ago, a festival was being held when it was raining, and the weight of people caused the land to bog-up a bit.

Those who pay the piper, of course, call the tune, and our local taxation is not seen by the apparat as paying the piper. Just as their right to receive it to allow us to live here.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Can anyone work out which trees these are as the area susceptible to flooding seems to be the area near the Totem Pole near East Dulwich Road but the proposals seem to suggest work all down the side of the park along Forest Hill Road?

 

Maybe this is what the Gala money is being put towards....;-)

If you wade through the documents on the council website, it would appear that this is a Flood Alleviation Scheme, to protect properties to the North of the Rye from a 1 in 75 year (or 1 in 30 year, it's not entirely clear) flooding event. The plan appears to be building some 'bunds' (banks or mounds?) along the North & West sides of the common to create a sort of temporary collection / storage area for flood water, which can then be drained in a controlled manner. There will also be a semi-circular 'bund' in the NW corner of the park, near where the fence has been removed for Gala. This is where the mature trees are due to be felled, but it would appear that it's only because of site access reasons, not because the trees are where the 'bund' is due to be built. The image below shows where flood water is projected to go, and therefore the locations for these 'bunds'.

There's lots of stuff about landscaping & replanting, but it seems such a ridiculous thing to do, cutting down perfectly healthy, environmentally important trees just because they will make it a bit tricky to get diggers in...?

It's very odd that there's been zero notification from the council, one would presume they have to publicise and hold consultations etc? So it seems very important to spread the word, especially as the cutoff for objections / comments is before 16/6!

PR FAS.JPG

I wonder what the motivation is for all this? Southwark is fiercely protective of trees, including street trees, it makes no sense. I'm not sure I buy the access point. If you read through plans for this work there is a huge amount about protecting trees and tree roots. This 'access' issue seems to have snuck in last minute.

 

Edited by first mate

https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map?easting=534795&northing=175338&map=SurfaceWater
 

This is from Environment Agency. I think the flood element is genuine but the sudden need to fell mature, healthy trees is very iffy.

Friends of Peckham Rye are furious and have published a notice to say they were not consulted about the tree felling aspect despite being a stakeholder. They say the works are being arranged to best suit the contractor. Another view might be, as Penguin suggested earlier, removing trees creates more event space for the future. 
 

Is this another Cllr Rose 'special'?!

  • Like 2

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

    • Tommy has been servicing our boiler for a number of years now and has also carried out repairs for us.  His service is brilliant; he’s reliable, really knowledgeable and a lovely guy.  Very highly recommended!
    • I have been using Andy for many years for decorating and general handyman duties. He always does a great job, is very friendly and his prices are competitive. Highly recommend.
    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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