1no. Oak (T1, originates in land behind gardens of no. 64) - Fell (sectional dismantlement) & clear, cutting the remaining stump as low as possible & cross hatching. Tree show signs of Hypoxylon canker around the base of trunk. Tree is close property boundary line. Replacement tree will be planted in a more suitable position. 1no. Oak tree (T2, originates in land behind gardens of no. 62) - Lateral reduction of 4-5m to limbs over property garden & public footpath. 3-4 meter crown reduction & removal of all dead wood. (T3) Oak tree "Quercus" located in land behind the gardens of number 62: To carry out a 4-5 meter crown reduction and removal of all dead wood. The trees have had no work carried out on them for a number of years.The work proposed is in the interests of good arboricultural management to maintain the trees health,to prevent damage to the property and in the interest of good tree husbandry and visual amenities in the area.

1. REFUSE: REFUSE PERMISSION: T1 - 1no. Oak - Fell (sectional dismantlement) & clear, cutting the remaining stump as low as possible & cross hatching. T2 - 1no. Oak tree - Lateral reduction of 4-5m to limbs over property garden & public footpath. 3-4 meter crown reduction. T3 - Oak tree - To carry out a 4-5 meter crown reduction. REASON FOR REFUSAL: The trees stand on the edge of a woodland nature reserve. The public have full access to this site and the trees offer significant benefit in terms of visual amenity. The proposed works are stated as being required for the following reasons: “The trees have had no work carried out on them for a number of years. The work proposed is in the interests of good arboricultural management to maintain the trees health, to prevent damage to the property and in the interest of good tree husbandry and visual amenities in the area”. This justification is generalised and does not relate to any specific tree. No tree survey information has been supplied. There is no evidence which explains why individual trees require work, nor any which would explain why such severe work would be in the interest of either good arboricultural management, tree good tree husbandry or maintenance of tree health. No evidence has been supplied which would explain how property is at risk of becoming damaged. The proposed work would remove the visual amenity and ecosystem services provided by T1 and severely impact the same benefits provided by T2 and T3. These impacts have not been justified. As such, the application has been refused permission.

No related records were published in this section.