|Posted on Thursday, 24 May, 2007 - 06:23 pm: |
Does anybody know anything about the cutting down of 6 trees on Davids Road pavement opposite Forest Hill Station from the Hob Pub down to the gym? Lewisham Borough Council had better have very good reason for cutting these trees down.
|Posted on Friday, 25 May, 2007 - 07:25 am: |
They've cut two down on taymount rise in the last couple of weeks, too. They seemed fine to me.
|Posted on Friday, 25 May, 2007 - 08:27 am: |
I've just been speaking to the tree officer. Apparently it was thought that these trees would damage the retaining wall between the high pavement and the road as they got older. The council officers will speak to the resident who brought it up with me yesterday evening and are arranging a meeting with residents' assoc reps to discuss planting alternative species (which wouldn't cause such damage) later in the year. Of course, why someone thought that species of cherry was a good idea in the first place is another question (!)
|Posted on Friday, 25 May, 2007 - 01:04 pm: |
Was a bit surprised when they got planted in the first place - as you say, not terribly clever to plant them behind a retaining wall.
Shame to see them go, though.
Well done Lewisham for your good use of my council tax.
|Posted on Friday, 25 May, 2007 - 01:58 pm: |
There was an item on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning about broad-leafed trees along roads being cut down and replaced with smaller trees. It's partly because of fear of subsidence claims but also because of the amount of cabling and pipes located underground.
Don't know what smaller trees could replace the cherry trees along Davids Road - bonsai perhaps?! Is there enough space for plant troughs instead?
|Posted on Friday, 25 May, 2007 - 06:19 pm: |
That's a real shame, those cherries were doing well and made a positive contribution to the atmos of Davids Rd, give or take a bit of vandal damage. Still Lewisham has trumped the vandals. Not impressed with the cluelessness of planting the trees and then going in and sawing them off at ground level.
I've been trying to get a cherry to grow in my garden for 3 years without much success and would have given them a home (not that it was really a practical proposition).
I would have liked to have seen the cash going to sorting out the planters-o-weeds-and-rubbish in front of the railway station. That could make a big improvement to first impressions.
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 05:40 pm: |
We could do with the replacement of the many trees lost in Dunoon Road. As I've said before, compare the tree planting carried out by Southwark with the tree cutting or just plain indifference of Lewisham. I say re-forest the Hill!!
|Posted on Tuesday, 29 May, 2007 - 07:17 pm: |
Yes, I agree... There should at least be a policy of replacement where a tree is lost. And London Road especially has such unusually wide pavements - perfect for trees all along its length. Something like that would single FH out and make it more attractive to retailers.
|Posted on Monday, 18 June, 2007 - 02:01 pm: |
I was also upset to see those 2 healthy looking trees cut down in Taymount Rise.
|Posted on Monday, 18 June, 2007 - 08:18 pm: |
In the last few days. contractors have come down Dunoon Road and slapped tarmac over where the trees used to be as if LBL was proving that is that! Just what does the council have against street trees? Not only that but a large and very old tree has been destroyed in the front of the block of flats next to Walters Way, half way up Honor Oak Park. Why? I would have thought that with all the environmental concerns these days, tree planting would be high on the agenda. Contrary Lewisham seems more enthusiastic about cutting them down. Perhaps we should change the areas' names to Deforest Hill and Honor Oak Gone Park.
|Posted on Wednesday, 20 June, 2007 - 03:26 pm: |
The least they could do when they cut a tree down, I would've thought, is to pin a temporary notice on the stump saying why it was done - at least then you'd be able to see what the justification was.
|Posted on Wednesday, 20 June, 2007 - 05:54 pm: |
Any joy with Julie Sutch Nevermodern?
|Posted on Wednesday, 20 June, 2007 - 06:40 pm: |
Surely 'Results' Sutch is all over this like a salaried council worker managing a town centre?
|Posted on Thursday, 21 June, 2007 - 11:16 am: |
Vipes, I'm going to try to see her personally rather than email her. If this doesn't sound too much of an excuse, I've got to find a day when I'm not working at the moment, which is tricky. I'll keep you posted!
|Posted on Tuesday, 17 July, 2007 - 06:41 pm: |
I have an urgent request for help. There is a sign on a tree on Gabriel Street which states 'major tree works' is going to take place tomorrow. It appears they are planning to cut the tree down and I want to prevent this. The tree is clearly infected with something and whilst I am not a tree expert, I strongly suspect that the tree could be TREATED rather than simply cut down. I have called Lewisham Council four times in the past 2 months asking for a tree surgeon to look at the tree and each time I specifically made a request that the tree should be TREATED and NOT cut down. I am furious with Lewisham as they did not call me back, they did not consult with me or residents of the street but instead have unilaterally produced a 'message' on the tree that they are going to cut it down tomorrow. I have just called Lewisham Envirocall and spoke to a woman who was sarcastic and unhelpful. Help me please.
|Posted on Wednesday, 18 July, 2007 - 05:37 am: |
They did major tree surgery in Devonshire yesterday. Whilst I agree trees should be kept where ever possible , there are occasions when action is probably required
I however agree that the council should allow you to speak to them about this rather than ignore you. Try our Elected Mayor.
|Posted on Wednesday, 18 July, 2007 - 08:00 am: |
There is a dedicated tree man at Lewisham Council, I seem to remember he is called Jim. Speak to the council, tell them you have a tree issue and they will put you through or give you his mobile number. I have spoken to him a few times and he has been more than helpfull and prompt.
|Posted on Thursday, 19 July, 2007 - 02:32 pm: |
I am pleased to say that Lewisham did not (once they heard objection) ignore the pleas of residents and cut down the tree on Gabriel Street. My friend spoke to very personable guy called Rick Farr who is the tree officer for Lewisham. He provided detailed explanation why the tree needed to be cut down (it was dead apparently). That means the tree is still going to be cut down. However at least there was a bit of local consultation and an undertaking that the tree will be replaced. I am now more of a tree hugger than ever and I want the streets of SE23 full of trees! The key problem seems to be the scumbags who keep vandalising the newly planted trees.... What do you wanna pick on a young tree for, eh? Pick on some other scumbag and leave the baby trees alone!
|Posted on Thursday, 19 July, 2007 - 02:41 pm: |
Excuse my ignorance. Lived in SE 23/6 all my 58 years but not sure where Gabriel Steet is.??
Is it next to Angel Street??
|Posted on Thursday, 19 July, 2007 - 03:08 pm: |
That's really funny!
No, it's off Brockley Rise and near the Babur restaurant.
|Posted on Thursday, 19 July, 2007 - 05:22 pm: |
Well done Lola. Being a fellow "tree-hugger", I would love to see a comprehensive street-tree planting programme in the area. We've lost quite a few in the Dunoon Rd area; one, a lovely weeping silver birch was removed by Belgravia Homes to allow access to their new development , The Heights, now renamed Montgomery Mews. It still annoys me to think that LBL sanctioned the destruction of a public amenity to allow a developer make money and did not require them to replace said tree. There is plenty of room for two trees on the new pavement. Whatever happened tp planning gain?
|Posted on Friday, 20 July, 2007 - 01:02 pm: |
A suggestion to the council. If a tree requires surgery, whether it be for pruning or felling, then why don't they:
1) Attach a notice to the affected tree(s) outlining their intent to prune/pollard or fell the tree on a particular date.
2) Include on the notice the main reason for the surgery, i.e maintenance/diseased/removal.
3) Include the follow up, i.e. replace or fill in.
4) Include a council contact number on the notice so that concerned members of the public may speak to the tree officer.
So for example, in its simplest form you might have a notice attached which reads:
Date of treework: 01/08/07
Type of work: Felling
Follow up: Replace
Contact number: 0208-etc
Members of the public would then have the basic information they need and can decide whether to phone and discuss further.
|Posted on Friday, 20 July, 2007 - 06:31 pm: |
I agree with you Trinangle and theotherbrian. Forest Hill (funny enough) has TREES! Those trees need protection or replacement and if a developer fells a tree for access then they should darn well replant a tree once they have done their developing!
I also think that Lewisham needs to get on the ball a bit better about informing and consulting local residents about the trees on their streets! LB Lewisham has a serious problem about who they think they are and who they think their constituents are. They need to be told that just because we have elected a labour council, that does NOT mean that the council knows best! No! Instead our councillors should be jumping through hoops to ensure that local opinion is being heard and understood. Cos if they want to ignore the 'people', we might as well elect a conservative council - at least they'd have cheaper council tax! So, listen loud and listen clear Lewisham councillors! Your constituents need to be listened to! Don't give us what you think we want! Let us have what we ask for!
|Posted on Friday, 20 July, 2007 - 10:02 pm: |
Have 'we' elected a labour (Labour) council?