Overhanging branches to be professionally pruned back by JDR Treecare to give clearance for adults to walk. Cut back to boundary fence. Willow Trees First two branches to be pruned (see photograph 1). One is about 2.5 m long and the branch circumference is 8mm. The second branch is about 4m long and branch circumference is 16mm. The clearance from the ground is only 1.6m, hence adults will walk into it. Third branch (see photograph 2) is about 3m long and branch circumference is 11mm.

There are 7 trees affected by this application, all are Silver Birch, and the location is shown on the attached sketch, X1 to X7. They were included in TPO 29 1996 and were part of a group designated G3 in Planning Application 20/01790/APP in 2020 for what eventually became Tower View Cottage. These trees are approximately 65 years old (as advised by local residents who knew of the planting), but their growth has been suppressed for the majority of their life as they were shaded by other neighbouring trees in close proximity. At this age, even in good health, the remaining life is expected to be less than 10 years to failure or death, however they are all in the last stages of their decline and this time is likely to be considerably less than 10 years. They all have very thin crowns, and are sparsely leafed. Specifically there is considerable concern regarding the safety in the garden, and the proximity to the house and boundaries. Specifically :- X1 is dying, has significant dead wood in the crown and is leaning toward the eastern boundary. X2 is dying, has two major cavities at about 3m and is a potential danger to the house given the age and condition of the tree. X3, X4, X5 & X6 are all tall with very thin crowns, with minimal growth only at high level and are in decline. X7 has dead limbs at the crown and is dangerously close to the neighbouring house, Midcourts. This request is that due to the condition and age of the trees that they be felled and the stumps ground out. It is disappointing to have to request the felling of these trees, but given the circumstances it is considered essential. Therefore we would propose to plant 4-5 new trees around the garden, the species to be discussed with the Buckinghamshire Authority

T1 Horse Chestnut ? Reduce crown back to previous points T1 located inside boundary of 7 Vicarage Close significant shading to garden, debris hazard to small children and to outbuilding as per accepted previous applications dating back to 2001. 01/02525/ATP 83/01901/AV 92/02094/ATP 99/02051/ATP 99/02299/ATP 08/01961/ATP 14/00206/ATP 17/04353/ATP

T1 : Willow. Removal to ground level . Tree is dead. T2-T3: Maple. Reduce majority of crown to historic wounds ( 2-3m) to create a smaller balanced crown ( please see image 2) . Reduce lateral spread over neighbouring boundary to approx 1 m beyond historic wounds ( 3-4m) . This is to minimise the growth over the roof and against house. ( Please see image 3)

Horse Chestnut Tree - Cut overhanging branches back to boundary approximately 3-4m

Sycamore Dead ivy covered sycamore located on boundary fence line. Dense ivy encroachment on stem and at base preventing full inspection. Historically reduced at 8m approx. No live foliage noted at time of inspection - Fell tree.

The silver birch (T1) it's only really a tidy up of existing branches and therefore probably an overall height reduction of approximately 2-3m on two significant branches with no crown reduction, simply to give it a better shape and better overall health/longevity. The Copper Beech (T2) has previously had a significant crown reduction many years ago (probably in excess of 50?) and this has meant that much of the top of the tree above the original crown is now thin and wispy. The original crown would not be reduced. The thin branches above the original crown would be reduced between approx. 3 to 4metres to restore some shape and in addition the three lowest branches over-hanging the highway would be reduced by approx. 3 metres, (bringing them in line with the boundary fence and retaining their existing height at that point) whilst again bringing some shape and balance to the tree. The two key objectives with T2 are (1) to reduce some of the thin branch height above the original crown to improve sunlight to the thatch and (2) to remove the branches that are struck by passing vehicles on the highway. Copper Beech T3 is a better shape than T2 and again needs no crown reduction/raising. There are three lower branches growing downwards over the adjoining property driveway (as shown on the submitted photos) and these would be reduced by approx. 3m to bring them in line with the height and position of the boundary fence. There are also two lower branches extending over the highway (although not as low as T2) and these would simply be tidied up with no more than approx. 2m removed. The proposal is a general tidy up with no crown increase/reduction to improve/retain overall shape.

Tree 1 - ash. Reduce crown by 3-4 metres back to internal growth Tree 2 - sycamore. Remove low lateral branch on north-east side over young maple, back to stem. Remove lateral branch at 4m above ground level, on north side of upright stem, back to stem. Remove small branch at 3.5m on west side of upright stem (growing into ash). Tree 3 - Corsican pine. Remove. Tree 4 - sycamore. Reduce length of long, over-extended lateral stem on east side overhanging boundary, by 3-4 metres. Tree 7 - sycamore. Remove two stems to ground level. For reasons and justification of the work proposed, refer to the Tree Risk Assessment Report submitted with this application.

Would like to fell conifer in back garden (labelled T1) as a result of it now leaning at approx. 60 degrees back toward the house such that if it were to fall naturally there could be damage to one or multiple of the main house building / fencing / neighbours property. A replacement conifer would be planted to the front of the house where there is an existing row of small conifers lining the property boundary with the footpath (replacement position labelled in sketch). Would like to also fell a crab apple tree in the front garden (labelled T2) due to proximity to main house building and to therefore open up the front garden space and reduce shading caused by the tree (approx 4 meters tall). A further replacement conifer or similar would be planted to the front of the house where there is an existing row of small conifers lining the property boundary with the footpath (replacement position labelled in sketch).

The Sycamore tree, shown as T1 on the attached site plan, was the subject of a previous application in 2013 to reduce the crown because of fears that the tree was in close proximity of the Old Mill, a grade 2 listed building and could damage the building fabric. The tree sits on the bank of a raised former mill dam and has a large number of exposed roots. A full arboriculturist and engineering report was provided to support this application. At the time, the view of the Heritage officer, Julia Foster, was to remove the tree if it presented any further risk to the building. We were reluctant to remove the tree and chose to follow the pollarding route. This was approved and works subsequently undertaken by Pat Kernan, tree surgeon. Recent history The tree, being located on the bank of the millstream, has grown considerably in size. The roots are exposed and the recent high winds showed the tree moving significantly in the wind. It is not beyond bounds that then tree could be ripped up at its roots and topple on the listed building or neighbours buildings at Paradise House. It now presents an even greater risk to the listed building, as shown below. On Monday the 29th of June 2021 at approximately 3 pm in the afternoon, major damage resulted from a large branch blown down from a protected sycamore tree on the western boundary of the property which struck the south-west corner of the building, damaging the roof, dislodging the top of a dormer window, tearing off the gutters and their brackets and knocking down a twin wall stove flue attached to the building. Damage has been done to the brickwork where the flue brackets were ripped off. This resulted in over ??8,000 worth of damage We now wish to either remove the tree or significantly reduce the height of the tree to say four metres.