BTF response: OBJECT

Save for the statement that these trees need to be felled, the applicant has failed to produce any arboricultural evidence to support its application. The application form clearly states: 'Please indicate whether the reasons for carrying out the proposed works include any of the following. If so, your application MUST be accompanied by the necessary evidence to support your proposals'. For this reason alone, the application should not have been allowed to proceed and should be refused.

We also note that there is what appears to be an almost identical application for the permission to fell 2 trees - 21/04334/VP | Ash (T1) and Ash (T2) - Fell. TPO 1436. The reasons for the request are identical and, again, provide no supporting evidence. This too should be refused.

We also note identical applications earlier this years for the same consents - 21/03374/VC & 21/03472/VC. In both cases TPOs were made and the officer noted in their delegated report dated 28 July 2021:

'The subject young ash trees are prominent features in the NHS car park. The trees have local amenity value and likely to have cultural value to staff and patients at the hospital. The trees have varying degrees of ash dieback, with limited severe cases at the time of writing. Due to the amenity value of these trees, I object to the proposed work and order TPO 1437 is issued to preserve these tree and ensure replacement trees can be secured if/when these trees succumb to ash dieback. Please note - In future, I will accept tree works applications to manage these trees as ash dieback advances.'

It is hard to imagine how the condition of the trees could possibly have changed in such a short time such that either of these applications can now be justified.