The subject of this application is the only remaining horse chestnut from an original rankof five trees, protected by TPO, running on a north/south line between 7 and 9 Pyecroft Avenueand across the road through the front and rear garden of 4 Pyecroft Avenue. Over the years fourof these trees had to be removed at various times because of the spread of disease, canker andgeneral instability.

From this tree's current appearance it does not look to be in particularly good health and, lastautumn, more noticeably mirrored some of the characteristics previously seen in those that had toeventually be felled. The tree may have suffered from extensive building work undertaken at 9Pyecroft Avenue in 2016/2017 when indiscriminate and unbalanced branch lopping was carriedout by onsite labourers and heavy materials were at times stored near the tree. It was alsoobserved that some of near surface roots were cut through. ( Planning ref 16/03368H )

At probably well in excess of 20 meters in height the tree towers over 7 Pyecroft Avenue, isdangerously close to that property and, in the opinion a number of neighbours, is not now aspecimen of great beauty.

No objection is raised the tree being pruned by either 30% or 50% or indeed to it being takendown altogether.

Whatever decision is arrived at it would seem advisable that any planning approval should includea condition that all work done must be carried by qualified tree surgeons in order to avoid apossible repeat of the 2016/2017 fiasco. Additionally we trust that the Case Officer will closelymonitor the approval so that the owner of 9 Pyecroft Avenue is not allowed to repeat the blatantabuse and disregard of planning conditions as so plainly occurred in numerous directions under

reference 16/03368H.

I think that tree should be reduced by at least 50% if not removed completely.

It has been diseased for a number of years. I have lived at 7 Pyecroft Avenue for 48 years and Ihave photographs of leaf disease dated 2014.I also believe it could have bleeding Canker.The tree has grown so much it is almost touching my house and I am concerned about its safety.I feel that the tree should be independently inspected by the City Council to certify its health.

It looks to me as if this is one of the original trees on this land, and one of the few tosurvive the development and beyond.Pruning a tree is never good for the tree. The only real benefit is to endeavour to remove anystructural defects early in the life of a tree to try to prolong its life. Anything else, and for any otherreason, is harmful. It causes stress, it reduces the trees ability to make everything it needs, itreduces its potential to fight off pathogens, indeed every wound is a site for potential ingress ofpathogens.But sometimes trees have to be pruned - especially those trees in association with buildings. Thepoor "urban" tree. Vital for our own health and well being but frankly, in the way!There have to be limits. No damage to buildings is alleged in the application. No disease of thetree is mentioned in the application. So, firstly, why prune this tree at all? No reason is given.One can only surmise that it is too large where it is for the convenience of the applicant. That isnot a good reason to prune a tree.We have to leave it to the expertise of the Tree Officer, but surely a 50% reduction puts at risk thevery survival of this tree?All the literature suggests that as an absolute maximum (i.e. pruning a tree should not be done atall) there should never be a reduction greater than 30%. I should like to suggest that IF this mustbe done then a figure below 30% is set, and checked up on afterwards.