20080722cutting

20080722 Cutting

This page illustrate an example of problems inherent in Park management and especially in public relations with the park end users.

It is often forgotten that parks are created to ameliorate the lives of residents and their feedbacks and care for the green spaces should be an essential part in considering strategies for the area management and its overall purpose.

The East side of the Surrey Square Park had only one tree.

Here it is providing shadow in the hot summer a couple of years back

It was planted when over 25 years ago the parkland was created. It had sustained some damage when the great wind storm of 1989 broke one of the two main branches. Many people at the time thought that it would die but like many other lime trees it showed an extraordinary resilience.

Here it is the last winter amongst the frozen blade of grass. Note how well proportioned and healthy the branches are. This was not a sick tree at all.

Here it is healthy an leafy last autumn.

Not only it did not die but it thrived.

It was amongst the very few trees planted on the park inception some 25 years ago and had become mature and healthy, albeit with the scars left from the big wind storm.

Many birds used it for nesting and gave the park a little more character.

All gone.

The miscreants cutting it down.

The contractors without warning came along and felled it.

Now as anyone can see the Park, small as it is and in need of more trees and vegetation, has become significantly poorer.

It feels like a slap in the face of the so many residents that have recently fought to save the little green park from the proposal to built it over and that were promised that not only the project had been scrapped but that the park would have been improved.

Many felt that the promises to involved more the residents has been already been broken.

Allison, another long standing resident that has been involved in the care of our little park has also contributed the following images and you can find her Flickr links here and here

On the reason why the tree have been cut there have been some developments.

Letters of enquiry from Julian, the secretary of the Kinglake T&RA have been replied.

He addressed the original letter to Jon Best, the Southwark Ecological Officer, that although is probably not involved with the Park maintenance, could readdress the letter to someone responsible for the deed. Because Jon was absent Julian resent the email to Mr Stavros Valiris the supervisor in charge for the contractors works in Surrey Square Park.

Here his letter:

Dear Jon,

As part of some tree works taking place in and around the Kinglake Estate

yesterday, a large mature lime tree on the perimeter of the park, adjacent

to Southborough House, was cut down. Only a 1.3m section of the trunk

remains. I would like to know why it was cut down. Apart from some yellow

parking restriction signs put up a few days beforehand, we received no

notification of the works.

Please, could you forward me the name and contact details of the manager

responsible for tree maintenance on Surrey Square Park? I realise that

Surrey Square Park and Kinglake Estate are probably on different maintenance schedules. If you could send me any contact details of relevant maintenance personnel I would be very grateful.

I have spoken to Stavros Valiris on a number of occasions, about park

matters, and have found him helpful and supportive in our endeavours to enhance the park. He was instrumental in creating some uncut areas of grass around the perimeter of the crater playground on the park, to enable wild flowers to flourish. However, trees don't seem to be within his remit.

All too often, sensitivity to wildlife seems to be lost, somewhere along the line, in handing out maintenance schedules to sub-contractors. Another example of this that happened on Kinglake Estate about a week ago behind Amery House - a small grass area had become overgrown, and was due for cutting. However many wild flowers had sprung up, creating a mini wild meadow, which added colour as well as biodiversity to the place.

The contract was presumably to cut the grass, so everything was cut down. With better communication, surely it would be possible to retain some uncut areas around the verges or at least on the perimeter?

Myself and a small group of local residents are currently in the process of setting up a Friends of Surrey Square Park group, and would like to establish better contact with Council officers responsible for maintenance of the park, so that we can work together, and hopefully establish maintenance programmes which are more sensitive to the needs of wildlife and biodiversity.

Unless we introduce more flexibility and sensitivity into our Park and the Estate maintenance, and engage support of local residents, wildlife is never going to flourish here.

I would welcome your comments.

Regards,

Julian

Mr Valiris very kindly then sent it to the Arboricultural Officer, Rosalie Dobson , that at last replied with the reason why the tree was felled.

Here what she says:

Dear Julian

The tree opposite Southborough House was cut down on a job that I issued, as a result of a health and safety survey carried out in 2005. The surveyor identified basal decay and trunk rot, and recommended tree removal. I do appreciate that it is possible to maintain trees with dead or decaying wood in certain areas and aim to do so wherever possible. However, the tree surveyor would have taken these factors into account when making recommendations.

We do not normally carry out formal notification when removing trees, but aim to attach a felling notice to any significant tree which is being removed at least five days in advance. I apologise if this was not carried out in this instance.

Please let me know if you would like to arrange a walkabout in order to establish contact and discuss any future tree work requirements. You can contact me by e-mail or on my direct line: 020 7525 2089.

Kind regards

Rosie Dobson

So I have done some investigation for myself.

Here the trunk from the side and the front. Note the big scar left by the wind damage in 89 when the tree was basically cleaved in two. The count of the growth rings gives an age of 27-28 years.

The trunk viewed from above show how deep the scar run along it. The part of interest is at the bottom. I removed some detritus (some is still there) that made it appear that the cavity was sealed.

Some close-ups and some comparative measurements.

Note some that has been detritus removed next to the end of measuring tape.

It is not a huge cavity but it certainly exist.

None the less the tree survived some windy days prior to be felled and generally basal rot is associated with fungal decay (see for for example Decay_Fungi_1.doc) that usually produces fruiting bodies like Ganoderma adspersum (a typical fungus responsible for "tree or basal rot").