Rectory Barn, East Portlemouth

Rectory Barn, East Portlemouth

T71: Ash - Fell leaving 1.5 metres of stem base due to poten=al habitat, T75.1: Ash - Removal of stems on All sides and retain coppice stool due to overhead cables to East within striking distance, T76: Sycamore - Crown liH by 3 metres on North & West side removing secondary branches only, branches to be no more than 100mm in diameter at final pruning points, W78 (Hazel, Wild Cherry, Common Oak, Ash, Elm, Walnut, Sweet Chestnut, Field Maple, Hornbeam & Holly) – Coppice Hazel, Thin group of trees by 20% removing dying and squirrel damaged ash tree and/ or other minor stems, Coppice Holly to ground level from group level, T88: Ash - Remove & Retain for safety management, W89: Hawthorn – Fell all Ash, including dead trees, squirrel damage throughout group, G90: Ash (3 trees & 6 stems) – Remove tree due to OH cables within crown South Crown, T76: Sycamore - Crown liH by 3 metres on North & West side removing secondary branches only, branches to be no more than 100mm in diameter at final pruning points and W91: Hazel, Wild Cherry, Common Oak, Ash, Elm, Walnut, Sweet Chestnut, Field Maple, Hornbeam & Holly - Coppice hazel to open up light levels to ground, Thin group by 20% removing dying and squirrel damaged ash trees and / or other minor stems (less than 75mm in diameter) where needed to provide even cover and favour larger trees in group.
The treescape surrounding Rectory Barn

As we said in our objection, with any application to fell protected trees a balancing exercise needs to be undertaken. The essential need for the works applied for must be weighed against the resultant loss to the amenity of the area.

While we acknowledged that some of the trees with advanced ash dieback would need to be removed on public safety grounds, the trees that presented negligible risk should be retained, we said, at the same time arguing that the extent of the proposed felling, thinning and coppicing would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

Unfortunately, while accepting there would be some impact on local amenity, the tree officer concluded the works were arboriculturally appropriate and necessary.

The works were allowed.