Elmswood, No 26 Lathbury Road
The rejected development proposal inserted
The trees on Lathbury Road
Page 2 (Click here for other pages)
The trees
A tree survey and report was submitted with this application. It was the same as was submitted in 2006, a report that was criticised for its inaccuracy. Recently, the city Council has been requiring applicants to submit such reports as a condition of consent rather than on application . See for instance the officers' report, click here, concerning development at 29 Charlbury Road in the same conservation area. (This application was eventually dismissed on appeal.)
As was clearly stated in representations against all of the applications, the survey plan of the trees and the arboricultural report was inaccurate. The trees are protected but would have been made more vulnerable by these proposals.
A drawing is available which overlays the development plan onto a satellite photograph, to see it click here. On this the very close proximity of the extended house to the trees may be seen.
It has been suggested that if this development had been built, not only would the existing trees have been damaged by the building works (not only by severing roots but by compressing them), but the lack of light would have caused the subsequent owners to seek to thin, lop and remove them. A suggestion by the City Council for protecting the trees with a "no dig" policy would not have been feasible.
Pruning, lopping, topping and crown raising, root damage and compaction, all cause wounding. The trees most at risk of disease are oak, beech and horse chestnut. All can become diseased if they are subjected to sub-optimal conditions. See here, for instance, for a Forestry Commission Report on Bleeding Canker.
Drawing showing the trees properly to scale, and the proximity of parking.
The proximity of the proposed extension to the house to the existing trees would have endangered them. The building foundations and car park would have impinged upon the root growth area. The requirements of British Standard 5837:2005 would not have been met. Moreover, the Standard draws attention to the obvious consequence of crowding trees:
"Layouts sited poorly in relation to retained trees ... may be resented by future occupiers and no amount of legal protection will ensure their retention and survival."
Here is a Tree Constraints Plan drawn in the method prescribed by the British Standard showing the encroachment of the proposal into the tree root growth area from which it can be seen that root crowding would have been inevitable.
For a more detailed analysis, see the letter to the City Council Tree Officer of 21 October 2009.
The City Council Local Plan Policy that deals with trees may be found by clicking here. See in particular paragraphs 4.7.1, 4.7.2 and 4.7.4 on page 55, and Policy NE.16. N.B. All the trees are "protected" by reason of them being in a conservation area.
|
POLICY NE.16 - PROTECTED TREES |
|
Planning permission will not be granted for any proposal that destroys or involves major surgery to protected trees if it will have a significant adverse effect upon public amenity, unless such action can be shown to be good arboricultural practice. Any protected tree that is destroyed must be replaced by a tree, or trees, suitable for the location. Tree surgery work needing consent must be undertaken in accordance with best arboricultural practice. |
The City Council Tree Officer, in his report on the last application, did not accept that these trees would come under pressure from this development.
This is page 3
Please scroll down and click on page 3
The heavily pruned oak tree on Lathbury Road
The arched gate and the roofscape
The front garden, seen through the gate, will be lost.