| Condition Details / Information Notes |
| The submitted document titled “Andrew Grout Tree Report” (2021) looks at a number of issues. The report alludes to the possibility of the trees in the vicinity of the building (includes the tree that is the focus of this TPOA). However, it does not provide any conclusive proof that the trees in Morgan Court are causing subsidence. The extent of the investigations undertaken in relation to the report are limited only. Establishing a positive link between trees and building damage takes thorough and comprehensive assessment of the situation. This would need to include soil sampling (through excavation to below foundation level), soil testing (laboratory), the identification (species confirmation done in a laboratory) of live (done in a laboratory) roots at below foundation level, and level monitoring undertaken over a twelve month period that clearly demonstrates that any building movement is cyclical in nature and can therefore be attributable to the nearby trees. The report does not provide any of the information required. The need for these detailed investigations is recognised in the Andrew Grout Tree Report. In the section of the report titled "Recommendation", it states "In the first instance you should notify your buildings insurance that potentially there is an issue with regards to the adjoining owners trees affecting the building and grounds. They will then liaise with the adjoining owner and arrange for further investigations that are required by specialists". In addition to this, although it is recognised that there is some minor cracking evident within part of Inchbrook House, the cracking forms lines that rise roughly from east to west i.e. away from the trees. Generally speaking, if the trees were involved in movement of the building, the cracks would rise towards the trees i.e., west to east. Taking all this into account, it has not been demonstrated that the tree has caused the applicants' building to subside. |
| The second issue in the Andrew Grout Tree Report concerns cracking in the wall of a low brick structure towards the rear of the Inchbrook House neighbouring the southern rear lower ground floor entrance, and the presence of a root under the laid brick path leading to this entrance. This structure is some way removed from the tree that is the subject of this TPOA. The closest tree to the structure is a yew tree (not the subject of this TPOA). No evidence has been provided establishing a link between any tree and this damage, and certainly not the tree that is the subject of this TPOA. Indeed, the outer wall of this aged structure supports the driveway. It is considerably more likely that any issues that are occurring are due to the build up of pressure from the driveway, and the increased usage from when the driveway was constructed as a result of a historic change to multiple occupancy and the increase in car ownership and usage. The yew tree was the subject of two relatively recent Conservation Area Notifications (CAN), M/23/01616/CAN and M/22/01177/CAN. Neither of which were opposed. The 2022 CAN was specifically to address the issue of the root lifting the pathway. The presence of damage to this wall is not considered justification for the removal of the tree that is the subject of this TPOA. |
| The third issue in the Andrew Grout Tree Report is that roots “could easily penetrate into the drains”. While it is possible that tree roots can make access to damaged drains (they cannot penetrate intact drainage systems, contrary to public misconception), no drain damage has actually been reported, and in the report itself it states “I lifted the two manhole covers within the path and a further manhole cover within the rear car parking area. There is no evidence of tree root activity within the manholes”. This is therefore not considered justification for the removal of the tree concerned. |
| The fourth issue raised in the Andrew Grout Tree Report is the suggestion that the trees are lifting the surface of the neighbouring driveway. However, there is no evidence of any significant damage to the driveway. This can be seen by comparing previously taken photos with each other. The photos, taken in 2022 and 2024, shown no appreciable damage or indeed change in the surface of the driveway. This is therefore not considered justification for the removal of the tree. |
| The fifth issue raised in the Andrew Grout Tree Report is the damage caused by the tree in question to the Malvern stone retaining wall between Inchbrook House and Morgan Court (one of the two reasons given for the tree's removal on the application form). The tree stands within the grounds of Morgan Court. The wall supports the driveway of Inchbrook House. The ground level of Morgan Court is approximately 1 metre below the height of the driveway of Inchbrook House. The wall is approximately 1.4 metres tall. However, on the Inchbrook House side (the part viewed by the applicants), the wall is only approximately 0.4 metres tall. It is clear that the tree is causing some displacement of some stones at the top of the wall. Photo 21 in the Andrew Grout Tree Report (presumably taken in 2021 when the report was written) shows a crack in the wall at driveway level. The top of the wall is covered in ivy, restricting full view of the wall. However, it appears, when compared to photos taken by the council in 2022 and 2024, that the situation is static i.e., not progressive. The crack size does not have appeared to have increased. Inspection of the wall from within the grounds of Morgan Court does not reveal any significant damage to the body of the wall, although views of the wall are restricted by its ivy cladding. Any damage that has occurred is very limited in nature, largely cosmetic, and could straightforwardly be repaired. It appears that repairs have been undertaken in the past, unfortunately using cement mortar, rather than the more flexible lime mortar. The wall poses no risk to occupants of either property, and the damage is only seen by occupants of Inchbrook House i.e. it is not evident to the public. The tree, on the other hand, is large and clearly visible from a public perspective. The damage to the wall is therefore not considered strong enough justification for the removal of the tree. |
| The issues raised in the Adrian Hope Tree Services letter are largely dealt with in other reasons for refusal. However, a couple of points need addressing. The letter states “The tree is causing significant damage to the retaining wall between the properties”. However, the letter goes on to state “I would advise that the tree is removed and some minor re-pointing to take place; this should improve the stability of this area”. It is difficult to understand how the damage evident could be both “significant”, yet only require “some minor repointing” to make good that damage. The yew tree mentioned in the letter is not the subject of this TPOA, but works have been “permitted” to this tree on two different occasions (M/22/01177/CAN and M/23/01616/CAN). The reasons given in the Adrian Hope Tree Services letter are not considered adequate justification for the removal of the tree. |
| The tree (and its 3 neighbouring western red cedars) grow in a publicly prominent location. The trees are clearly visible from the perspective of the Worcester Road and Malvern Link Common. Conifers, such as these, are strongly characteristic of old Malvern. The property sits within the Malvern Trinity Conservation Area. In the conservation area appraisal document (section 5.5.11) it states, “The mature trees and greenery visible from the roads is a crucial part of the experience of the character area”. The removal of the tree, as proposed, would be considered to the detriment of public amenity, the Malvern treescape, and the Malvern Trinity Conservation Area. |
| In a recent report undertaken by a firm of arboriculturalists (Treecare Consulting (Defective tree list and management recommendations)) on behalf of the tree owners (Morgan Court), the only identified issue with the tree and subsequent works proposed, were to “Sever and strip all ivy to aid future inspection”. No further investigation was identified as being needed for the subject tree, or the other 3 trees in the group. For clarity, there was no mention of any concerns with the retaining boundary wall, or the health or structural integrity of the trees. The tree's health or structural integrity could not be considered justification for the removal of the tree. |
| The tree that is the subject of this application is one of a group of four. Its appearance is bound up with that of its neighbours. The proposed removal of one of the trees within the group would be to the detriment of the appearance of the group as a whole. |
