SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Shops & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »
Tree felling
Author Message
suchalife


Posts: 16
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #1
31-03-2011 09:23 PM

I am a resident of 105 Honor Oak Park and many trees have been felled behind our property.
The area in question is subject to a TPO Tree preservation order.
I also understand from reading the TPO guide that in order to remove any trees covered by the order the landowner must seek consent, in writing, from Lewisham Council and that the application to carry out any work on the trees in the area will include reasons for doing so and that, importantly, the council will consult with local residents for a period of three weeks before any decision is made about whether work should proceed.
I believe that the only time work can be undertaken on trees that are under a preservation order is when full planning permission has been granted for a new development; this is not the case here,not have local residents been informed.

We at 105 HOP are incredibly concerned that a large number of trees have been removed from the area and even more concerned that Lewisham Council have allowed this work to proceed, seemingly without question. I believe that the removal of the trees will have an 'impact on the local environment', that they were 'worthy of preservation for their intrinsic beauty' and that they served 'to screen an eyesore'.

The planning officers have stopped work on the site after finally 3days they came to the site ,although workmen complety ingnored the order and started work agian after they left.

Im asking is there anyone out there having photos form the site 105 107 & 107 a Honor Oak Park ?People who live at Boveny road maybe?
All this is needed for evidence to prosecute.



Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Find all posts by this user Reply
Tim Lund


Posts: 255
Joined: Apr 2008
Post: #2
01-04-2011 10:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Reply
Zimmerman


Posts: 81
Joined: Jan 2011
Post: #3
02-04-2011 11:20 AM

I have been through the Tree Preservation system trying to preserve a Fig tree in a public place but as it had not been listed in advance and no records could be obtained to protect that tree the Council brought in contractors in the early morning to cut it down.
You say that the trees are protected by an oprder each tree has its own preservation order and is numbered and the specis of tree noted, condition, height, gerth, proximity to buildings.
Any costs to appose and the loss of the cutting down, could only be made by the owners of the trees.
It is a sad fact that on requesting a meeting with the Tree peservation officer you will be imformed that that person is only a part time officer or is on holiday or not available, you will be delayed untill the trees have gone.
I wish you well but you cant beat the Council.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Perryman


Posts: 809
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #4
02-04-2011 12:19 PM

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=U...5&t=h&z=19

I think it is the mature trees in the centre of the above view that are threatened.
They are part of a chain of trees that map out the course of the old canal - you can follow them down from the back of honor oak pk around the top of boveney rd all the way to devonshire road.

Find all posts by this user Reply
edd


Posts: 147
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #5
02-04-2011 11:24 PM

What gives with Lewisham's destructive zeal towards trees? Two perfectly good specimens between FH station and the cafe near the Coop have been sliced down in the past couple of weeks too. Over thirty years old, one of them. Lewisham are a bunch of ****ing ****ers. I look forward to polling day.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #6
03-04-2011 09:44 AM

edd, look closer at why the council take some trees down and then lay blame at our expanding compensation culture.

Just Google "tree compensation claims" and you will see what I mean.

We live in a sad world.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Geoff


Posts: 11
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #7
03-04-2011 10:17 AM

I agree with the opinion of edd.Lewisham planners seem hell bent on destroying trees. The agreed to cut down 60% of the trees on the Tyson Rd. development.The so called "ecology and environment " officer said it would all get better again after the developer moves out.I don't think so.
Also I have a mature oak tree at the bottom of my garden which is on the course of the old Croydon canal,maybe I should become a 24 hour tree hugger in case my garden gets invaded by the demolition squad!

Find all posts by this user Reply
Tim Lund


Posts: 255
Joined: Apr 2008
Post: #8
03-04-2011 10:29 AM

Suchalife - if I may call you thatSmile

Did you know these trees were subject to a TPO before they were felled?

Do you know what the penalty is for felling a tree which is subject to a TPO? A quick google reveals that in Ribble Valley

Quote:
What are the Penalties for Infringement of a TPO?
For felling without permission and/or justifiable reason - up to 」20,000 fine. For lopping, topping or causing damage to a tree or trees - up to a 」2,500 fine.


Does anyone know anything about the record of Lewisham in following up TPO breaches?

Do you know who the landowners were who were responsible for this?

SE23.com readers may also be interested in this related post I made on Sydenham Town Forum

Find all posts by this user Reply
HOPcat


Posts: 40
Joined: Feb 2008
Post: #9
03-04-2011 11:36 AM

Now that government has announced via the Budget that it is going to make life a lot easier for developers by relaxing planning laws, we are seeing what lies in store for our area. Because Lewisham has been so slack about tree preservation, the back-garden grabbers are trying via a fait accompli to get their speculative blocks of flats crammed in everywhere, in defiance of government's stated policy on back-garden grabbing and Lewisham's own local policy for the area.
Planning law, however, is still in force, as are tree preservations orders, and we need to tell our councillors, our MPs, the Greater London Assembly rep (Len Duvall) and even Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Community, that local residents will NOT stand for this.
The Honor Oak Park Residents Association, active in this area for 30 years, is fully in support of the residents of 105 Honor Oak Park and others threatened with garden grab development. We have been instrumental in the last few years in having several objectionable local schemes turned down or substantially modified and we will not let go of this one.
Our AGM and Open Meeting is on Wednesday 20 April at the Small Hall, Ackroyd Centre, Ackroyd Road, 8pm. Locals welcome - you don't have to be a member.

Find all posts by this user Reply
suchalife


Posts: 16
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #10
03-04-2011 11:40 PM

It has been announced by the government and as far as I am concerned its about time!!
I welcome the change with the garden grabbing law, for too long the corrupt councils have allowed internal development to go on based on who has influence and how that influence is applied, our villages are destroyed and towns made into bricks and mortar jungles as each bit of green is built upon.

Stop infilling the only areas that we have to live in on a daily basis and start pushing back village and town boundaries for spacious development with green areas that are covenented so they cannot ever be developed.

Don't you think that squeezing all this has contributed to the downside in their numbers, for Sparrows and Blue Tits and Bees there is more food in a traditional garden that in a field that has a crop on it for just 2 months of flowers and is completely barren during Winter.

Bring back development in a sensible way, and watch how mother nature populates it again.

The flip site is that you read on Lewisham Councils website the following, but in this case the TPO is completly ignored!!

Trees and high hedges on private property Trees are important to the quality of our lives because: 付hey make Lewisham a more attractive place in which to live and work
付hey are a familiar and cherished feature of many parts of Lewisham
付hey provide a valuable habitat for wildlife
付hey act as a barrier to noise
付hey produce oxygen, trap dust in their leaves and absorb carbon dioxide and other pollutants.
Because of their importance to the environment, the Town and Country Planning Act gives local authorities powers to protect trees in conservation areas, and to make tree preservation orders.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Tim Lund


Posts: 255
Joined: Apr 2008
Post: #11
04-04-2011 11:15 AM

Suchalife

Please be careful using this sort of language:

Quote:
for too long the corrupt councils have allowed internal development to go on based on who has influence and how that influence is applied


Without necessarily being prepared to hug them, most Councillors and council officers will also value trees as part of making "Lewisham a more attractive place in which to live and work". Their challenge is to balance this 'good' against competing 'goods' such as finding people places to live, which becomes ever more difficult as people want to live in smaller households - so requiring more dwellings per person. It is a particular problem in London, since so many people want to live here. So what you call 'influence' may in fact be reasoned argument based on a full understanding of a council's planning policies - and reasoned argument can often be quite influential.

OTOH, there can be bad planning decisions - and I would say this one, the subject of heated discussion on STF was one such, but I think it would be quite wrong to jump from cases where officers seem, however clearly, to be incompetent, to any suggestion of corruption. I even think it would be unfair to say that individual officers are incompetent - just as likely they are over-stretched or poorly managed.

In such circumstances, real, effective policy amounts not to what is written in documents such as the one you quote, but in what gets enforced, which is why I asked about the record of Lewisham in following up TPO breaches. If the truth is that developers can get away with breaking the rules, or pay nothing more than a fine which is less than the additional value they can squeeze out of the development thanks to the breach, then the policy is a dead letter. Actual policy become a matter of how enforcement priorities are decided - on which I am not aware of any documents open to public scrutiny.

However, when a council also has policies, imposed on it from above, to get flats and houses for many thousands more people constructed, then it may well see this as a good reason for quietly ignoring the implications of planning regulations such as TPOs - and rather wishing that people who make a fuss about them would just go away.

My understanding is that the Coalition government - as part of its localism agenda - is moving away from these centrally imposed housing targets, and instead paying Councils a certain amount for every new dwelling that gets built - more here. The author of this article calls this bribery, but doesn't think it will be enough "to influence councillors who will lose their council allowances if voted out by angry residents opposed to development."

I'm afraid I'm not quite sure where this leaves us in Lewisham. I very much believe in relatively densely populated cities as part of how humanity can survives in a sustainable way, and I want to see as much greenery as possible in such cities. But to get there, it is worth trying to understand the realities for Councils.

Find all posts by this user Reply
suchalife


Posts: 16
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #12
04-04-2011 05:36 PM

Thanks for pintinh this out to me ,but I hope they do understand my point of vieuw. ( see vieuw attached)



Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Find all posts by this user Reply
edd


Posts: 147
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #13
04-04-2011 06:04 PM

Mmmm. What a lovely view it truly is now. Wouldn't want to impede the vista of fading blue paint and brick boxes with some boring old trees. Unsure

Find all posts by this user Reply
Mummycat


Posts: 32
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #14
04-04-2011 06:17 PM

Hi Suchalife! (I can call you that, can't I?!)

What a terrible thing to have happened! Thumbdown

And now they've left you a lovely old tree to look at being strangled by ivy. I hope you get to the bottom of this and get lots of community involvement...Thumbup

Find all posts by this user Reply
suchalife


Posts: 16
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #15
05-04-2011 03:23 PM

I rather see a tree with Ivy then no tree! Ivy doesn't strangle ... read more....

Ivy http://www.arborecology.co.uk/article_forf.htm

The issue of ivy and trees is one of those matters where it is all down to personal opinion. To some, it is a pernicious weed that smothers the natural form of trees and on which constant war must be waged. To others, it is an essential part of the wildlife habitat, providing shelter and food for a diverse range of different organisms.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #16
06-04-2011 02:51 PM

Looks terrible to me. I case I have missed it what was the councils reason for this butchery.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Tim Lund


Posts: 255
Joined: Apr 2008
Post: #17
06-04-2011 03:35 PM

Brian

I don't quite get why you automatically blame the Council first. I'd agree that the Council has a case to answer if it's allowed a tree with a TPO to be felled, but surely the developers are the main party at fault?

Find all posts by this user Reply
suchalife


Posts: 16
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #18
06-04-2011 05:10 PM

As I already said let's not dwel on the fact that I have mistakenly worded the Council to blame. What I menat is my frustration, if officers had come to the side earlier the trees would have still be standing.
We have lost trees and thats why I posted this thread so lets foucus on this.

Find all posts by this user Reply
suchalife


Posts: 16
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #19
06-04-2011 05:16 PM

Brian, Its the landowner who is to blame as he has development plans.

Thumbdown

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #20
06-04-2011 05:42 PM

Tim and Suchalife many apologies.
I did not read all the posts correctly.
I did not appreciate that the land was going to be built on.
I appreciate not nice if your lovely view is blighted.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields