The two oaks are clearly mature trees. They are therefore not only a source of greatpleasure to local residents, they also have considerable value for local wildlife and for theenvironment. It is well established that mature oaks have a very special place in their localecology, as a home for birds, mammals and insects, as part of the plantlife communicationssystem and as part of the 'road system' for birds and beasts to move about the area. To fell twosuch trees should not lightly be considered.It is clearly not the case that felling is the recommended way forward. The Tree Reportemphasises regular visual inspection, not felling, and I very much hope that this is the agreed wayforward.

I object to these trees being felled and support the objection from Mrs StephanieFrench, who is an expert on this subject.The trees were there before the flats and the garages should have been built with this in mind.Better foundations could have been installed and they should be repaired accordingly.Trees are precious for the environment and our health, and should not be removed because of afew cracks in garages.

It is not easy to sort out the tree numbering and make it match the plans and photo..In the Application Form: "T8 - Oak, T9 Oak & T10 Field Maple - trees growing in close proximity toflats & garages apparently causing building cracks Fell trees to ground level."I know that the same trees are numbered differently in different drawings/plans/photos. But still Icannot make the TPO plan and the arborists photograph "add up".In the aerial photograph submitted by Arborista T8 T9 and T10 are between garages and one ofthe apartment blocks.On the TPO 1064 Plan two trees are shown between the same buildings, so only 2 have a TPO.- T1 an Oak and T2 a Maple.T8 (Arborista) is an Oak, so is this T1 on the TPO plan?T9 (Arborista) is an Oak, so is this not a TPO tree?T10 (Arborista) is a Maple, so is this T2 on the TPO plan?No doubt the AO will sort this out.

But the Arborista report does not recommend felling of any of them..T8 - an Oak - Fair condition. MonitorT9 - an Oak - Good condition - end weight reduction. Life expectancy 40+ years.T10 - a Maple - Fair condition. Monitor. Life expectancy 40+ years

The comment in the Application Form would be amusing if it was not so sad. These flats were builtin 1964/1965. Rather than "trees growing in close proximity to flats & garages" I would say"Buildings erected far too close to trees to enable their long-term survival". Oak trees can live 1000years, Field Maples can live 350 years. It is possible, even likely, that these trees were there first,so what were Planners doing permitting such things to happen? If the buildings were there first -who put an oak tree/two oak trees between a block of flats and a block of apartments?

These are TPO trees. Do they really have to be felled? If they do - it is not stated in the report butseems to be suggested for the safety of the garages - then please condition their replacement.

It is said they are causing the cracks in the garages. This question on the Application Form hasbeen answered in the affirmative " 2. Alleged damage to property - e.g. subsidence or damage todrains or drives. Yes/NoIf Yes, you are required to provide for:- Subsidence: A report by an engineer or surveyor (to include a description of damage, vegetation,monitoring data, soil, roots and repair proposals) and a report from an arboriculturist to support thetree work proposals.- Other structural damage (e.g. drains walls and hard surfaces): Written technical evidence froman appropriate expert, including description of damage and possible solutions."No such report is provided with this Application.These are trees and we need every one we have got. These are TPO trees - please do notdismiss them so lightly.The accompanying tree report does not recommend felling.The report that might recommend felling - the engineer's subsidence report - is not in evidence.

These trees are of significant value to the local area linking the ancient oaks of theallotments (we are allotment holders there) with the other ancient oaks of Rayleigh Road. Thearborists report doesn't recommend felling, it recommends management so there is no imperativeto fell these stunning ancient trees.This group of oaks support a huge diversity of natural life which is something we are duty bound tosupport given the pressures on nature everywhere. Rare birds have recently been sighted (forexample firecrests this year) in the environs of these trees. I sympathise with the desire to protectproperty that could be damaged if these trees are themselves damaged or poorly managed, butthe trees were there a long time before the garages, which really are not at all of cultural value intheir appearance. These trees obviously do need managing but do not need to be felled. Theimpact on this area if these trees are not valued and protected as they deserve to be, would begreat. If we destroy trees that were here long before any of the buildings in their immediatesurroundings, then we destroy our heritage and the heritage of the natural world. Please honourthe value of these trees to the local area and our wildlife and protect them.