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)

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.

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.

The identified tree is a sycamore (subject to Tree Preservation Order 2005 No. 3) sited within the boundary of 1 Ladysmith Road but adjacent to the garden of 21 Vicarage Lane, Ivinghoe. Our neighbour Geoff Travis (the occupier of 1 Ladysmith Road) would like to reduce the branches which are facing towards our house (21 Vicarage Lane) by 2 to 3 meters and balance the remaining crown by 1 to 2 meters. We fully support this and are assisting him with this electronic application. To date our neighbour (Geoff) has been corresponding via email with Neil Passmore in the Tree department at Buckinghamshire Council. It became evident in February with storms Eunice and Franklin that the branches could easily have come down causing damage to our property and the overhead telephone line. Given we have two small children, who are often in the garden at the front, we feel that there is a safety issue to consider as well as the practical issues of damage to property. Together with our neighbour we have obtained a quote and, subject to approval being granted, intend to have the works carried out by a professional tree surgeon (G O???Callaghan Tree Care Ltd). We both believe the proposed work is proportionate and balances the aesthetics of a tree (protected by a TPO) and practical/safety considerations.

Trees affecting No.30 McIndoe T6 - 1 x Field maple to cut back to boundary line, this will be secondary branches only not main stems. T7 - 1 x Plum to cut back to boundary line

Tree 1. Large Oak to the rear of the property. Heavy extended north facing lateral growth across neighbour's boundary line/ car port. South facing growth needs taking back from property. (Which should be covered in crown reduction.) . Carry out a 2.5 to 3m reduction . Slight crown thin. 5% . Remove all dead wood. Tree 2. Medium twin stemmed Oak situated adjacent to the fence. The North facing stem is mainly extended over the neighbour's boundary line and car port, reduce by 2m The South facing stem requires tidying and laterals taking back from the property, reduce 1.5 to 2m . Slight crown thin, 5% . Remove all dead wood, tidy old stubs Tree 3. Large Oak next in line in from garden fence. Concerns about the heavy north facing lateral growths across the neighbour's boundary line and above his carport. . Carry out a 2.5 to 3m crown reduction. . Slight crown thin, 5% . Remove all dead wood. Tree 4, Medium suppressed Oak on the end. . This tree has poor form as it is being suppressed by the dominant Oak behind which is encouraging it to grow out across the driveway. . Carry out a light rebalancing to south side . Remove all dead wood. . Carry out any corrective works required. Tree 5. Large Oak to the opposing side of the drive with mainly north facing growth pattern due to the proximity of tree 6. Has had reduction work carried out sometime in the past. . Carry out a 20/25% crown reduction. (Back to old cut points) . Slight crown thin, 5% . Remove all dead wood. Tree 6, Medium Oak adjacent to tree 5. Mainly south facing laterals due to being suppressed by tree 5. . Carry out a 2 to 3m crown reduction. . Slight crown thin, 5% . Remove all dead wood.

T1- Black Poplar. Reduce the tree by 4m. The tree is situated on the boundary of the rear garden of the house. It is a large spreading tree with historic tear out present as noted in the June 2018 BS5837 survey at the time of the building work. The reduction work would help to manage the tree in the space allocated. It was recommended that the tree was reduced by 30% in the June 2018 survey (we are aware that percentages are no longer an appropriate method for identifying reduction work) and has subsequently grown considerably. The tree presents many internal suitable growth points to which pruning could be carried out to maintain the overall form and vigour of the tree.