| Condition Details / Information Notes |
| No arboricultural justification has been provided for these works |
| The site sits on the western flank of the Malvern Hills, approximately 70 metres from the West Malvern Road in West Malvern. The site is in proximity to public rights of way (PRoW) reference numbers 532(B), 533(B), 576(B), 617(B), 625(B) and 636(B). Westminster Bank is one of the principal access points for walkers and cyclists onto the Malvern Hills. The site is located within the Malvern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The trees are a prominent feature of the locale, being clearly visible from nearby PRoWs and the West Malvern Road. According to the findings of a Planning Inspector for a previous appeal for this site, the trees “are a positive and prominent feature in this landscape and make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the AONB. Moreover, the contribution made by the trees to the visual amenity of the area is not a matter of dispute between the parties”.
|
| Section 3.5 of the submitted Tyler Grange report (separate from the tree survey schedule) submitted in support of this application states "Mr Farrer informed the author that one of the reasons for placing a TPO on these trees is their aesthetic value as a group. With one of the largest trees being removed to the south of the group it would leave a gap within the overall crown shape with a sharp lip up to the crown of the remaining trees. It would therefore be aesthetically beneficial to reduce the height of the trees across the group by 2-3m to lessen the appearance of the loss of the tree removal". The only justification given for this part of the application was for aesthetic reasons. No arboricultural justification was provided for the proposed works in the Tyler Grange report. The tree at the south end of the group has now been removed. The remaining trees to the north of the gap that the tree removal has created, still represent a cohesive and visually pleasing group. It therefore remains the opinion of the council that the proposed reduction works are not necessary and would be to the detriment the natural shape, form, and flow of the trees’ collective canopy, and therefore to public amenity. |
| In section 7 on page 4 of the Government guidance notes that are available to accompany applications for tree work, in the section titled “Poor tree surgery” it states "Proposals that would endanger the health or condition of a tree or greatly reduce its amenity value to the local environment are unlikely to be allowed unless there are strong reasons to do so". It the council’s opinion that no “strong reasons” have been provided therefore, so, in accordance with Government guidance, the application should be refused.
|
| The trees have grown and developed in this location and will have grown accustomed to the conditions that they are exposed to. Trees respond to the stresses and strains to which they are exposed, laying down sufficient wood to support themselves (thigmomorphogenesis). The trees are in good health with no structural defects identified and the conditions they are exposed to have not markedly changed. While it is acknowledged that the conditions experienced by the trees in the immediate vicinity of the gap created by the removal of T9 may have changed, this would not apply to the tree group as a whole. This is also recognised in the Tyler Grange report and some canopy reduction works were proposed to address the change in conditions of the trees in the immediate vicinity of the gap. For clarity, targeted works were proposed by the applicants arboriculturalist as part of a 2021 application (21/01180/TPOA). These were approved by the council. Targeted works were considered to be appropriate. However, the overall reduction in size of the whole group would not be considered appropriate, nor was it proposed by the applicant’s arboriculturalist for reasons of safety. Only for aesthetic reasons. |
| The applicant expresses concerns regarding the overall safety of the trees. While the applicant's concerns are noted, and have been noted in the past, insufficient arboricultural justification has been provided for the overall canopy reduction works that the applicant desires. Also, the applicant's concerns are not considered to outweigh the detrimental impacts of that proposed. |
| Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) do not reduce well. The results of sycamore canopy reductions are often displeasing to the eye. This is part due to the typical distribution of foliage within the trees’ canopies and partly to do with their (opposite) branching habit. Regrowth tends to be clustered and “unnatural” in appearance i.e., atypical of a tree’s canopy that has naturally developed over time. In an appeal decision for a previous application for similar works to the trees, the Planning Inspector states “In addition, any pruning works would be likely to prompt new growth. I agree with the Council that sycamores are not particularly receptive to formative pruning”. It is important to remember that while the canopy structure of a tree may be somewhat hidden from view when a tree is in full leaf, trees are without leaves for a significant proportion of the year. The result of any canopy reduction works undertaken would be clearly evident. |
| Every cut made on a tree is a wound. Wounds can be entry points for harmful pathogens or decay. Wounds create cavitation, i.e., disruption of a tree’s vascular system, resulting in increased hydraulic stress. The internal conditions of a tree are changed. These changed conditions can provide opportunities for the activation of latent decay fungi. Fungi whose activity has up until the tree is cut, has been curtailed due to the anaerobic conditions inside the tree.
|
| The proposed works would mean a reduction in the trees’ leaf area resulting in the reduced availability of carbon and other products for photosynthesis and potential to respond to other threats to the trees. |
| Pruning trees always causes some harm to them. Removal of branch tips can reduce dissipation of wind loads via mass damping, thereby increasing the risks of branch failure. |
| The removal of significant sized limbs, as proposed, would mean a reduction in the available carbon that could be allocated for defence and increased competition for carbon for regrowth and reproduction. The proposed works would be considered to the detriment of the overall health and resilience of the tree and are therefore not considered acceptable. |
| The application is supported by an arboricultural report written in May 2021. The report is therefore considered to be out of date. |
