Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have just seen that a beautiful old beech tree on the corner of Linden Grove and Evelina Road in Nunhead is scheduled to be cut down tomorrow. This tree is in a Conservation Area and if it wasn't on Southwark Council owned land, removal would never have been permitted. Please email [email protected] if you would like to object to this felling. Hopefully it is not too late.

Hi JMT, I know all about this tree. This is a Holm Oak. A few years ago it caused the subsidence to the Victorian Terrace to the South of it. They had major cracks and were underpinned, works were done to the tree. New large cracks have appeared in the houses. A dig has been carried out looking to establish for sure what is causing the second round of subsidence. It has been proven that the cracks are due to the tree as the roots of the tree were found in the dig pits. All other options have been investigated and unfortunately this tree needs to be removed. Discussions and investigations over this tree have been going on for years. Officers have tried to find a way to save it. The repairs to the houses have been put on hold until the tree is removed. The Holm Oak is on the list of trees with invasive roots. A new tree will be planted, but it won't be a Holm, Oak as we don't want to have this situation again. I spoke to one of the residents involved and what she has told me correlates exactly with the Officer I spoke to.


I agree it is an attractive tree and as soon as I spotted the notice, I emailed and then spoke to Officers about it. I do try my best to save trees where this is possible, asking officers to look at all other alternatives eg the Cherry tree on Peckham Rye Park. Unfortunately in this case all other options have been exhausted and it needs to go.



Renata

Hi Renata


Thanks for taking the time out to explain this. It really is a shame that its fate has been sealed. It gives great character to the area. Please could you tell me the planning reference number for the application for removal, as I can't find it on Southwark's website?


Thanks again

I agree that it gives character to the area, JMT, but if I were the owners of the buildings next to it then I'm sure I'd want it gone too, given the subsidence problems it?s evidently causing. It's a shame to lose established trees that will take a lifetime to replace with anything of a similar size (though with less invasive roots) but sometimes there's no alternative.


Here?s a link to the planning application:

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9554232

Renata Hamvas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi JMT, I know all about this tree. This is a Holm

> Oak. A few years ago it caused the subsidence to

> the Victorian Terrace to the South of it. They had

> major cracks and were underpinned, works were done

> to the tree. New large cracks have appeared in the

> houses. A dig has been carried out looking to

> establish for sure what is causing the second

> round of subsidence. It has been proven that the

> cracks are due to the tree as the roots of the

> tree were found in the dig pits. All other options

> have been investigated and unfortunately this tree

> needs to be removed. Discussions and

> investigations over this tree have been going on

> for years. Officers have tried to find a way to

> save it. The repairs to the houses have been put

> on hold until the tree is removed. The Holm Oak is

> on the list of trees with invasive roots. A new

> tree will be planted, but it won't be a Holm, Oak

> as we don't want to have this situation again. I

> spoke to one of the residents involved and what

> she has told me correlates exactly with the

> Officer I spoke to.

>

> I agree it is an attractive tree and as soon as I

> spotted the notice, I emailed and then spoke to

> Officers about it. I do try my best to save trees

> where this is possible, asking officers to look at

> all other alternatives eg the Cherry tree on

> Peckham Rye Park. Unfortunately in this case all

> other options have been exhausted and it needs to

> go.

>

>

> Renata



I think these fellings of trees on the basis of subsidence are highly questionable. Could you provide a link, Dr. Hamvas, to the list that says the Holm Oak has invasive roots. Thank you

Ms Hamvas, I too shall be grateful for a link to any published list of UK trees with invasive roots. Your post makes me think that Southwark Council maintain such a list. I hope that you will both share it and let us know the sources drawn on in compiling it.

Quick Wikipedia search does not throw up any root issues as far as I can see, however it seems to be an "alien invader" that damages biodiversity in the uk (bad) as well as an Top 3 tree for truffle cultivation whose acorns are a fundamental for pigs used to make jamon iberico (good!)


The jury is still out for me!


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quercus_ilex

Holm Oak roots can extend far beyond the canopy. A look at the photo shows that roots are more than capable of penetrating under the building.


Edited to add;


Some detailed information here by people who know what they are talking about.... (wiki is often not the best source of anything).


http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/pep/Canadell_etal_1999_StructureAnd%20DynamicsOfTheRootSystem.pdf

I posted a whole ago about a tree outside my neighbours, planted by council 8ft from his front door. It's grown to 50ft and his front yard wall leaned increasingly as the pavement resembled something from the Kyoto 'quake.

The council were adamant it was nothing to do with the tree. Digging out the foundations under the wall showed roots as thick as your arm going towards the houses nearest - as if the roots were seriously expected to avoid the house.

It was cut down 3 weeks ago and I've a ton of firewood.

No-one with half a brain plants a tree with so much potential to grow so close to a house, unless it's the council who don't give a flying feck and will do this to other people's houses, with no consultation.

Try NHBC website - outlines trees with high, medium and low water demand. Anything high, such as a Holm Oak, is never suited to being in close proximity to houses. Even up to 10m away the root system is such that it can cause significant damage to properties - of you were looking to build a new house in such a situation you would be looking at foundations going around 1.5m deep, which is much much deeper than anything a victorian property would be founded on, hence the damage. As much as I like to see the trees serious consideration should be given to what is being planted by the council but from experience the department dealing with landscaping don't typically have much awareness of the damage they can do with an ill thought out specification

Sporthuntor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quick Wikipedia search does not throw up any root

> issues as far as I can see, however it seems to be

> an "alien invader" that damages biodiversity in

> the uk (bad) as well as an Top 3 tree for truffle

> cultivation whose acorns are a fundamental for

> pigs used to make jamon iberico (good!)

>

> The jury is still out for me!

>

> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quercus_ilex



Why is the jury out for you? There aren't a lot of free range pigs around Nunhead unless the place has changed a lot since I was last there.

Hi again all,

the database of trees with invasive roots is for arborists and not something that's on the Southwark website, I don't know if it's something that's available for all to view, but I'll look into this. The other tree in the picture is also a Holm Oak. There was an attempt a few years ago to stem the growth of these trees. (I don't know the details, the resident told me about this) What is not clear from the picture that even though the trees were the same age, the second one is significantly smaller as the measures were a success for this tree and it is further away from the Nunhead Lane terrace of houses that have been affected by tree roots.

Renata

Renata Hamvas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi again all,

> the database of trees with invasive roots is for

> arborists and not something that's on the

> Southwark website, I don't know if it's something

> that's available for all to view, but I'll look

> into this. The other tree in the picture is also a

> Holm Oak. There was an attempt a few years ago to

> stem the growth of these trees. (I don't know the

> details, the resident told me about this) What is

> not clear from the picture that even though the

> trees were the same age, the second one is

> significantly smaller as the measures were a

> success for this tree and it is further away from

> the Nunhead Lane terrace of houses that have been

> affected by tree roots.

> Renata


Sorry, I think we meant a database of trees in Southwark with TPOs, searchable I assume by post code or street.


The Southwark website has application forms if one wanted to make changes impacting a TPO tree, but how does one establish if it has a TPO or not in the first place?

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> sycamores you can to dig out. I dug out 30ft

> trees a few years ago, the pit for each tree root

> was 6ft wide x 3ft deep and I poisoned the root

> which I left there and sealed with plastic.


I was hoping to kill them before they reached that height. When they are just little saplings, swaying in the wind. Wanted to know if poison would work from above.

"The Southwark website has application forms if one wanted to make changes impacting a TPO tree, but how does one establish if it has a TPO or not in the first place? "


I've looked for this unsuccesfully ,in the past . Would be great if there was on on line .

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

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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