Here is
the answer I have had from the tree officer, Kevin Caldicott, to my
questions about protection both for the line of prunus trees and for the cherry
tree next to No.1.
I find
his comments quite reassuring. He is not only prompt in replying, but
thoughtful and reliable (not something I would say for all council officers!).
He is happy for me to pass on his comments, and ends his message by saying,
"Let's keep an eye on the situation." I am sure we will.
I agree, these trees
certainly make a valuable contribution to visual amenity in the area and as you
say their “contextual significance” is such that they should be
retained unless there is a robust justification to do otherwise. They could be
protected by a TPO if they weren’t already protected, but since they
already enjoy statutory protection by virtue of their location in the
conservation area - in planning law the offence of felling a tree in the
conservation area without giving the Council prior notice is the same is
felling a TPO tree without consent - no real benefit would accrue.
So, as things stand I have
to say I don’t think it is expedient for the Council to use its powers to
make a TPO at this time. This would change if the Council ever received formal
notification of the intent to fell or prune (in a way which will significantly
harm their amenity value) any of the trees or a planning application to develop
the Wadham owned site, but as things stand neither of these things apply.
Turning to the 2nd
question, the Council has indeed received notice of the intent to prune the
tree on the border of 1 Hayfield
Road . I’ve already visited the site and
inspected the tree and in my judgement the removal of one branch as proposed will
not significantly harm the tree or amenity in the area. It seems like a common
sense move, because it is prudent to ensure that building contractors vehicles,
which inevitably have to access the development site at
1 Hayfield Road , do not bash into the
crown of the tree and damage it. I have therefore advised the arboricultural
consultant who acted as agent for the notice of proposed pruning work that
removal of the branch as proposed is acceptable but only after the trunk of the
tree has been protected by robust barrier fencing.
In the notification letter
the arboricultural consultant outlined, for discussion, Mr Cohen’s
preference to remove and replace the tree on completion of the development, but
that did not part of the formal notice of intended work. In response, I have
advised the consultant that I would not support a proposal to remove the tree
that the Council would make a TPO to prevent it if formal notice of such work
was submitted in the future.
I would of course be
happy to meet you to look at the tree if you think it is necessary having read
this reply.