The Anti-Leylanddii League

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next
Current: 1 of 3
Monday 12 June 2006 12.23pm
Does anyone else share my amazement that "eco-protesters" could have chosen the grotty Leyland Cypresses in Archbishop's Park as a cause.

Would anyone care to join me in forming a "town" chapter of the Anti-Leylandii League to fight these alien invaders that have destroyed so much of the traditional landscape of England, Scotland and Ireland.

They have even been sighted in all their naffness on one of the bridges across Shad Thames
Monday 12 June 2006 12.53pm
I get your drift, and if involved in consultation would have argued for the advantage in uniting the playground and losing some of the trees in the centre in order to have a central safe lawn, which was to me, an attractive part of the design. In exchange I would have asked for sensible planting of replacement trees in the autumn.

This was the committment I extracted from Lambeth when it became clear how upset people were.

(I am actually not so keen to trees. Certainly I feel that some green spaces have become dark, gloomy and forbidding as a result of too many trees.)

But then having done my bit, Lambeth goes and takes out some more trees around the periphery
and then one outside the playground that does not look like an everygreen at all. (The stump is in James' picture - no doubt Rabbie can tell species of trees from their bark.) Given I had spoken to Lambeth the the day before, they could have warned me. I still have no idea why this last tree went, and the guy doing the playground says he did not know it was going either.

Joking aside people were really upset. As they were over the previous tree felling. (I had received all sotrts of phone calls, and with the aplle tree had people knocking on my door.) I remember working for another local authority when one of the local landlords decided to fell what appeared to be a street tree, but which was just inside private land. The number of phone calls was astonishing.

At the root of all this is who the park really belonds to. People feel an amazing ownership, yet the Council thinks it is theirs. They should have let us share the play project, and then it all could have been sorted.

I understand that someone did go of to buy a chain and padlock to chain himself to one of the trees, but gave up when he realised that the workmen had probably gone off for an all-day breakfast. I hear the police ended up being called.

Are we going to see Rabbie out with his chain saw. With local eco-protesters standing between him and those fir tree things.
Thursday 15 June 2006 5.40am
Just what we need a tree snob! An ignorant one at that. These trees were planted by some thoughtful soul who knew that what was needed in a children's playground was shade and shelter and that it was needed quickly. These trees provided that. What is more they provided a few brave kids a thrilling scramble to the top. "Oh no! We can't have that!" I hear you cry. Instead we must plant yet another London Plane tree, not a native tree by the way, and not even a naturally occurring species. Wonderful! By the time it provides any shade you will be dead and your children (if you have any) will be long grown up. In the meantime its millions of boring clones in London will go on causing millions of hay-fever and asthma sufferers misery. Lucky the park is so convenient for St.Thomas'.
Thursday 15 June 2006 7.53am
Yes. It's different for people with children. Only when one becomes a parent are life's mysteries unveiled.

The rest of us continue to struggle along in darkness. Please forgive us our ignorance.

...if you press it, they will come.
Thursday 15 June 2006 8.18am
ryan sewell wrote:
Just what we need a tree snob! An ignorant one at that. These trees were planted by some thoughtful soul who knew that what was needed in a children's playground was shade and shelter and that it was needed quickly. These trees provided that. What is more they provided a few brave kids a thrilling scramble to the top. "Oh no! We can't have that!" I hear you cry. Instead we must plant yet another London Plane tree, not a native tree by the way, and not even a naturally occurring species. Wonderful! By the time it provides any shade you will be dead and your children (if you have any) will be long grown up. In the meantime its millions of boring clones in London will go on causing millions of hay-fever and asthma sufferers misery. Lucky the park is so convenient for St.Thomas'.

Welcome to the forum, Ryan.

I'm happy to be described as a tree snob, not least because I know enough never to recommend that plane, ash or silver birch should never be included in plantings around a children's playground. Sadly more than can be said for some of the "consultants" employed to design landscaping by our councils - who never seem to have never read a horticultural datasheet.

But potential for allergic reactions is no reason for uprooting historic plantings of London Planes. (Although I wouldn't go as far as some of the Muscovites defending every last pukh shedding poplar on the grounds that they were Comrade Stalin's favourite tree and his legacy to the city!)

But you should at least know that this thread started out as a light hearted rant against Leylandii in general, and I therefore posted it in the Chatter forum. It was only when Sarah posted her SE1 specific response that our editor decided to move the thread to the SE1 forum.

Indeed, thinking about their former appearance, I'm not even sure that the trees in Archbishop's Park were Cupressocyparis Leylandii as reported in the story - possibly a slower growing Cupressuscultivar?

However, I have seen far too many parks and playgrounds turned into dark and dank places because hedges of Leylandii installed as windbreaks have turned into 40 foot monsters due to a lack of maintenance budgets. (see the Kennington Park extension until recently)
Thursday 15 June 2006 8.56am
how about some nice oaks?
traditional english tree, buy in some fully grown ones from the countryside to provide leaf cover, they won't miss a four or five.
Thursday 15 June 2006 9.10am
Lang Rabbie wrote:
I know enough never to recommend that plane, ash or silver birch should never be included in plantings around a children's playground.

Not that I'm likely ever to have chance to plant any of these trees - I just wondered why they shouldn't be used round a children's playground - are they poisonous in some way?
Thursday 15 June 2006 9.57am
Not poisonous - it is just that they are the trees with pollen most likely to trigger an asthmatic reaction in children.
Thursday 15 June 2006 10.09am
Thanks LR, I knew planes were pollen-laden but didn't realise silver birch and ash were.
Thursday 15 June 2006 10.29am
The pollen police won't let you have oaks either, Jon.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next
Current: 1 of 3

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: