Proposed felling of plane tree top of Grove Lane

[ellabrunswick]

Hello,

I've just seen a Southwark Council notice announcing the intention to fell the mature plane tree outside 201 Grove Lane, next Tuesday, 20 May.

The notice is attached to the tree seven foot up, so it is neither obvious nor easily readable. Nor is the 'reason for felling' section filled in.

I've just been told by the council that there was a consultation meeting about this last September and residents on the whole of Grove Lane were invited. Did anyone reading this attend?

I am not a resident of Grove Lane but I walk up and down it frequently and the lovely old plane trees are both a delight to look at and play a role in countering the air pollution on this busy road. It's also a conservation area, where mature trees are supposed to enjoy particular protection.

I would like to know more about the reasons for felling the tree and the consultation process - can anyone help?

Thanks!

Eleanor

[ellabrunswick]

To reply to my own question...

I made a complaint about the felling notice to the Trees Department just before posting here and I've just had a long phone call back from a tree officer explaining the reasons for felling. In this case it seems there were two problems: subsidence to the boundary wall and narrowing of the pavement.

The subsidence could mean the council being sued and being ordered to cut the tree down.

The narrowing of the pavement is a different matter. It clearly needs to be sorted at this point, since you can't get a buggy through, let alone a wheelchair. The Highways Department argues that build-outs can't be used here because of a) the loss of parking and b) problem with sightlines/narrowing the road on approach to the junction. But the second reason is undermined by the first - since there are always cars parked here, the sightlines are always obscured and the highway narrowed. A build-out would be no worse than a car or van - in fact, of course, it would be narrower and lower.

Those consulted were 40-50 residents on Grove Lane, contacted by hand-delivered letter. Others in the surrounding areas were thought to have 'less of a vested interest'. But precisely because I don't own any trees, I have a strong vested (personal) interest in the street trees I walk past! And a wider interest in how a community decides to use any given square metres of street space, whether we choose to reserve it for the parking of one private car, or reserve it for one public tree.

From my conversation with the officer this afternoon, I don't know what the balance was in this case between the two reasons given for felling. But I would like this kind of discussion to be public, and look at a wider definition of interest.

I can only report that the officer says that a new plane tree will be planted at the start of the new planting season and that it will be as large as it can be with a hope of establishing itself well.

Information about the reasons for felling and the plans to plant a new tree should be added to the notice by the contractor this afternoon or first thing on Monday.

And the tree felled on Tuesday.

[????]

All very Gerald Manley-Hopkins....without the poetry

[stonebrownie]

Thanks for that information- I live twenty meters away in Grove Lane - I wasn't consulted by letter and hadn't read the notice (which as you say is very high up on the tree). I am also surprised that rigorous pruning is being carried out on these in the Summer- shame.

[sdrs]

Hi there, my family and I live directly opposite the tree with the notice on it. I was so heartened to read your post Eleanor and to know that it is not just residents of Grove Lane who regard these magnificent old plane trees as community assets, enhancing the character of the neighbourhood and people's daily experience of it as well as serving a vital function in absorbing pollutants from the atmosphere along what is, as you point out, an incredibly busy road and bus route (close to a local primary school). It is our view, shared by many fellow residents along Grove Lane, that the so-called consultation has been improperly carried out, too many residents' questions have remained unanswered by the Tree Officer appointed to handle consultation - that stone brownie wasn't consulted when he lives only twenty metres from the tree says it all. Stone brownie I would strongly urge you to email Peter John our local Councillor (I wouldn't bother with anyone else) this weekend, informing him that you consider yourself not to have been consulted re the tree outside 201 Grove Lane and that the felling proposed for Tuesday should be halted until a consultation has been properly conducted. We will emailing Peter John along these lines as well as Ernst Erasmus whose name is given on the notification of felling sign, located so high on the tree and facing the street, placed as though deliberately to avoid notice. Our neighbours have taken photographs and are emailing Both Ernst Erasmus and Peter John (ultimately the buck stops with him and no one else at the Council seems to give a monkey's about preserving our green canopy) to notify them that the notice to fell has been illegally served. It was put up some time yesterday Friday with the notification date for felling given as Tuesday 20th - that is barely 4 days and in fact barely two working days, when residents were told in writing there would be five days notice (and apparently some residents had no idea thre was a consultation!) The notice is clearly invalid having been placed so high that you practically need a step-ladder to read it, with no reason given on it for the felling and not giving the requisite five days notice. These trees are community assets - I am over the weekend going to bone up on CAVAT which is the community value of trees. The tree with the notice on it (and by the way the one next to it, closest to the school is also under threat of felling and another resident is angling to get a third felled, also at the Dog kennel Hill end of Grove Lane) is actually worth well in excess of what it would cost the Council to bring the pavement out around the tree to accommodate it (ie worth well over ?20,000) Ironically these trees have no Tree Preservation Order on them because it is considered that they will always be protected by the Council... We have to hold Southwark to account and demand that community assets of the ecological and environmental importance of these trees be properly valued (I will be demanding to know whether the Council has conducted a CAVAT survey of the avenue of ancient plane trees lining grove Lane) and protected and that the views of all stakeholders be taken into account. The cost of re-building the wall behind the tree has been estimated by a builder neighbour as under ?3,500. The parking issue is nonsense - we have ample parking on Grove Lane, we have residents' parking (controlled zone L) and to bring the pavement out around the tree to improve pedestrian access (which is clearly necessary) would only necessitate the suppression of a few spaces. A few spaces can easily be spared as only about half the residents' spaces are ever occupied. To quote from Southwark's own Tree Management Strategy: "Trees play a crucial role in mitigating climate change. Over a year a mature tree removes about 22kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Trees are essential for improving air quality. Leaves absorb air pollutants such as ozone, carbon monoxide, and sulphur dioxide. Dust and other particulates are collected by leaves and washed to the ground by rain, rather than remaining in the air." No replacement planting could compete with the ability of these giants to mop up pollutants from one of the busiest thoroughfares in Southwark. Please don't wait - please email [email protected] this weekend, before it's too late! And don't forget [email protected] whose name and email are given on the notification to fell. You won't be able to reach him on the phone - I tried! Finally, if anyone would care to join me I am thinking of tying myself to the tree on Tuesday morning.. I will certainly be there and hope that others will want to join me, from 8/8.30am. Our neighbour Jenny Eclair is right behind us if we need some celebrity whammy to stop this needless felling and we are thinking of contacting BBC LOndon/Southwark News to bring this matter to their attention.

[ironjawcannon]

Have written to both Peter John and Erasmus, and urge many people to do likewise...

[sdrs]

Thank you! Every email counts and we are running out of time. But please make sure your emails all go to Councillor Peter John because - final confirmation if any were needed of The Council's contempt for the public on this issue - Mr Erasmus is given as the only Council contact on the notice to fell the tree (assuming you are tall enough and/or determined enough to read it) yet his email is switched to an automated Out of Office AutoReply stating: "I'm out of the office and will be back on 21 May 2014. Your email is not being forwarded." 21st May is of course the day AFTER the proposed felling... If this is Southwark's idea of a joke, nobody's laughing.

My eldest daughter and I took a measurement of the tree's circumference this afternoon and found it to be over 240cm. This means the likely diameter is 76-77cm. According to a study entitled 'The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality' conducted by David J. Novak in New York, "Large, healthy trees greater than 77cm in diameter remove 70 times more air pollution annually than small, healthy trees less than 8cm in diameter... Large trees have the greatest per tree effects."

[sdrs]

There are a few things I omitted to clarify in my initial response to Eleanor and Stone Brownie's posts. First, re the damage to the garden wall which prompted the owners of the property behind the tree to call for its felling. Let's be clear, we are talking about a single crack to the garden wall, not damage to the property itself, which is set well back from the wall, behind a garden and driveway. No one in favour of retaining the tree is suggesting that the Council doesn't have a duty to repair/replace the cracked wall or to extend the pavement around the tree to improve access for buggy and wheelchair. But it is also established in English law, in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 198 that trees have value as a public amenity and therefore local planning authorities are given a duty to protect trees in the public interest. Although the legislation itself does not specify how amenity is to be assessed, CAVAT has been designed (and adopted by local authorities) specifically as an asset management tool for trees that are publicly owned or of public importance. It expresses the value of publicly owned trees in monetary terms, in a way that is directly related to the quantum of public benefits that each particular tree provides. CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees) works by calculating a unit value for each square centimetre of tree stem and then adjusting this to reflect the degree of benefit that the tree provides to the local community. I am busily working out the CAVAT value of the tree with the illegally served felling notice on it at the top of Grove Lane and am being advised in this by John Welton, a distinguished tree surgeon and Member of the Arboricultural Association as well as the International Society of Arboriculture. It is already clear from my research and discussions with him that the tree (which as John has pointed out provides as part of the mature canopy on Grove Lane a much needed cooling effect and shade for children on their way to Dog Kennel Hill School in summer as well as visual pleasure to all who pass down Grove Lane on their way to work or to school every day) has an extremely high CAVAT value, based on its location as well as its great size and species (London plane being known for their extraordinary resilience and longevity in urban settings). Using a CAVAT banding tablefor 2008, the tree would have a monetary value as a publicly owned asset of ?57,653 and ?144,133. It is almost certainly worth more now and I will endeavour to establish an up to date figure for its worth by tomorrow and post it but clearly the Council, appointed to protect the tree in the absence of a Tree Preservation Order, has no right to destroy a public asset worth this much to the community. The cost to the Council of altering the footpath to improve pedestrianaccess and of fixing the wall behind the tree would be a tiny fraction of what the tree is worth. To go ahead with the felling would be to rob not just residents of Grove Lane but all who live and work in the vicinity of an irreplaceable public asset.

[sdrs]

Ps Apologies for the typo! That should have said the tree's CAVAT value in 2008 was between ?57,653 and ?144,133. In fact, it would have been at the very top end of that band. Based on its trunk diameter, health, location and Southwark's CTI Band value on the National Community Tree Index (5 - the same as Westminster, Camden and Tower Hamlets) the tree must now be worth well in excess of the the ?144,133 it would have been worth in CAVAT terms in 2008.

[sdrs]

Twitter!! My husband has just pointed out (I am a bit behind the times) that Peter John has a twitter account @peterjohn6 and he must be making good use of it, it being election week. So if you feel strongly about this, please tweet him today or tomorrow! Why not tweet him a photo of the notice to fell, seven feet in the air on the one side of the tree completely out of the eye line of pedestrians and with no reason for felling given and an absent council employees email address! And obviously get everyone you know to re-tweet! Meanwhile I am going to be requesting some information from Southwark under the Freedom of Information Act (eg I want to know which and how many local residents and other stakeholders were 'consulted")

[sdrs]

Southwark Council cannot seriously be proposing to fell a tree tomorrow (Tuesday 20th) which absorbs 30-70 times (by virtue of its age, health and crown size) the amount of pollution from the air than a younger replacement, located as located 50 metres from Dog Kennel Hill School, whilst currently actively promoting its Cleaner Air for Schools Initiative within the school? Did Southwark consult the children of Dog kennel Hill School itself on the proposal to fell the tree, or regard them as stakeholders, given that that the tree is on their doorstep? Dog Kennel Hill School is also taking part in a Kings College Hospital study on the effects of air pollution on childhood asthma. Felling the tree would be completely at odds with the initiative currently being promoted in the school and with Southwark's claim that it wishes to protect local children from air pollution. It seems that residents of Champion Grove were never consulted, despite the likelihood that their children would walk past the tree on their way to school, nor other stakeholders. In fact, the consultation was so limited in scope and crassly conducted, with the few residents consulted so outrageously ignored when they asked questions and raised concerns, that it can only be regarded as invalid.

[Renata Hamvas]

Hi all,

thank you to all the residents who've raised the issue of this tree. I've just raised your concerns with senior council officers (and told them about this thread). I've just had it confirmed that as a result of this, the scheduled felling of the plane tree outside 201 Grove Lane has now been postponed to allow a more widespread consultation process and further investigations to take place.

Renata

[KidKruger]

Make sure you get the views of the person who's property is being compromised by the tree.

Some of these trees have been planted in really stoopid positions, relative to buildings / walls.

[intexasatthe moment]

Thank you SO SO much Renata ,that's fantastic news .

Well done sdrs , ellabrunswick ,and everyone else .

I do so hope that people will respond in favour of keeping the tree and that Southwark will change their minds . After all a consultation hardly differs from a way of keeping people informed about some pre determined plan of action .

KK there's a picture up thread showing the location of the tree and the OP has explained that it is a considerable distance from the house itself .

[bluecanary]

It's a tricky one. Council are damned if they do and damned if they don't as there are no easy 'please all' answers. Sdrs makes a brilliant case for the tree to stay, and as someone who loves mature trees for their beauty and majesty, let alone the environmental benefits, it would be fantastic if the tree could stay, providing the householder's house and amenities are not in any danger and the council maintain the wall. But then what happens to the pedestrians, buggy and wheelchair users, sight impaired, and those people who have anxieties or/and learning or other disabilities and are either not able to negotiate the 'enclosed' space or need to be holding hands? It's not as if they can step into the road, or cross to the other side. So enlarge the pavement - oops, there go a couple of residents parking bays. Doesn't bother me, as I live the other end of Lordship Lane, but it will bother the residents.

Well done on getting the stay of execution for this glorious tree in order that everyone's views can be heard and given equal merit.

Although I don't live local to the tree, my son used to attend Dog Kennel Hill up until a couple of years ago and I am familiar with the area.

[ellabrunswick]

Thank you Renata,

This is very good news.

By chance, on my way through Victoria this afternoon I saw a lovely avenue of plane trees on Morpeth Terrace with a school wall built to zigzag around them. (The trees belong to the school.) This way, both children and pedestrians get the benefit of the trees - cooling, shading, cleaning the air - and there's room to walk.

Eleanor

[ellabrunswick]

And here's a view of the whole street...

[sdrs]

Thanks to everyone who supported us in winning a reprieve for the Magnificent Tree of Grove Lane! The good news is that Councillor Peter John has today taken a look at the tree himself and says he sees no reason why the pavement can't be built out around the tree for the benefit of double buggies, wheelchair users and the sight impaired. So it seems there is a 'please-all' answer after all! Yes, this would involve removing a parking space (only one, Peter John thinks - he is going to have this looked at properly) but frankly, we are so amply provided for in parking spaces at this end of Grove Lane that I would think it indefensible for residents to demand the felling of the tree over the suppression of a single parking space! (or even two, if it came to it). The Council have also agreed to re-build the cracked garden wall behind the tree, importantly. In short, Southwark is finally putting its money where its mouth is and rising to the challenge of protecting these precious jewels in Camberwell's crown. I will keep posting until the matter has been fully resolved but was greatly reassured by the site meeting with Peter John today.

[tiddles]

great outcome all round it would seem. Well done for your commitment to this!

[redjam]

How lovely to hear an outcome where common sense has prevailed! Many congratulations to sdrs for all your hard work on this (and ellabrunswick for raising it in the first place). Great news.

[sdrs]

Just to thank all who've taken such a keen interest in the proposed felling of the mature plane tree at the top of Grove Lane and to say that I will be posting again tomorrow with an update.

[treehugger]

So very pleased that this tree will be saved. Well done to all those involved.

[pipsky2008]

The tree hasn't been saved, it's felling has been postponed for further consultation as Cllr Dr.Hamvas has indicated in her post.

I know the tree in question, it is close to the brow of the hill on a narrow pavement which has become difficult to pass with a pram, buggy or some such.

The tree is a heavily pollarded London Plane.

The water table at the brow of the hill is going to be a good distance down, it stands to reason. It is likely therefore that both the structural root and feeding systems of the tree are going to stretch in a downward rather than laterally to source water and nutrients.

The tree will, of course, have made a good anchoring system for itself as each tree responds to it's circumstances according to it's needs.

, soil conditions, nutritional sources, soil stability, etc

The concern with subsidence is occasionally, if not frequently, mistaken for the phenomenon of heave.

This phenomenon occurs in any situation but becomes significant in urban areas when a tree is in proximity to a wall or property and the tree is suddenly removed, felled or dies suddenly.

Heave occurs when the water that would normally be taken up by a tree is suddenly not. The surrounding soil swells greatly especially on rainfall.

As a consequence, considerable vertical forces can be exerted which can and do cause damage to structures, vertical force toward the surface being the natural course of release.

[intexasatthe moment]

Mmm - so damage by removal of tree and heave could be more significant than any existing damage currently attributed to the tree ?

[sdrs]

Correct. Felling the tree carries a risk of far more extensive structural damage than is currently evidenced by the crack in the boundary wall, which the Council has now agreed to re-build anyway (not before time). I did ask the Council during the initial 'consultation' whether the owners of the cracked boundary wall had been made aware of this risk and whether a properly conducted independent assessment of it had been or would be carried out, but I never received a reply. The Royal Horticultural Society advises: "It is not always the case that removing a tree that is contributing to subsidence will make the problems disappear. Although the soil usually swells each winter, a permanent moist deficit can build up under certain circumstances that will result in significant swelling of the soil after the tree is removed and soil gradually returns to its previously moist state. This is called 'heave' and can result in serious damage unless it is controlled by careful soil management. Potential heave is very hard to detect and predict. For this reason, professional advice should always be sought when large trees are being removed in cases of serious subsidence. Be circumspect about removing a specimen that is suspected of causing a problem. Unless there is an imminent danger from structural failure, hasty action could cause more extensive damage in the future. It is nearly always worth seeking advice from a qualified arborist as well as a building surveyor." It has never been suggested that the property itself was under threat from the tree and the cracked boundary wall, as a knowledgeable neighbour has pointed out, was simply constructed to replace the railings removed in 1940 'to aid the war effort". The life span of such walls was expected to be extremely limited, the original railings were intended to be restored. Thankfully, the Council has this week acknowledged that to destroy a tree of this quality and value for the relatively small amount of money it would cost to re-build the wall and build the pavement out around it would have been an act of pure vandalism. And an act of serious non-compliance with its own policy. Southwark, having adopted CAVAT, estimates the value of its own trees at ?440,675,529 in its 'Tree Management Strategy' (2013) and must now use CAVAT (not just pay lip service to it) to protect and manages are those trees that can be identified as benefitting the greatest number of people for the longest time.