ITEM 6 Planning Committee 16Th January

ITEM 6

Planning Committee

16th January 2018

Application No : 17/05198/TPO Works to trees subject to a TPO Location : 41 Canewdon Gardens Runwell Wickford Essex SS11 7BJ Proposal : T2 - Oak of MWA Arboricultural report; works - REMOVE; reason: the above tree is considered to be responsible for root induced clay shrinkage subsidence damage to the subject property. TPO Reference : TPO/1987/007 Case Officer : Lynn Cameron Applicant : Owner/Occupier Agent : MWA Arboriculture Ltd Date Valid : 18th September 2017

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 1 09_OFFRPT_2

REPORT

This application was considered by the Planning Committee at the meeting on 28th November. The Committee resolved to defer a decision on the application to enable officers to consider whether further information can be obtained to substantiate the conclusions of the consultants mentioned in the report, the findings to be discussed with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Councillor Mountain before being brought back to the Committee.

Officers have instructed an independent loss adjuster to review the case and advise accordingly.

Once received, officers will discuss the findings with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Councillor Mountain as instructed and provide an update at the meeting.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 The application is referred to the Planning Committee as there is significant local opposition to the removal of a preserved tree and the Council would need to accept liability for compensation if permission to remove the tree is refused.

1.2 The application seeks permission to fell one preserved Oak tree which has been implicated in subsidence at an adjacent property, 32 Canewdon Gardens. The Oak tree is part of an established tree belt which is on the bank of Runwell Brook and provides a natural barrier between Canewdon Gardens and three newer properties on the other side of the brook. The tree is situated on land outside the curtilage of No 41 Canewdon Gardens which is recorded as “Unregistered” by the Land Registry.

1.3 The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Appraisal Report and an Engineers report that implicate the tree in damage to the property related to clay shrinkage subsidence.

1.4 Although the tree is an attractive feature and provides an important natural boundary on the bank of the brook, its implication in subsidence at 32 Canewdon Gardens means that permission to fell cannot be withheld without the Council assuming liability for any subsequent loss or damage to the property from the preserved tree.

1.5 In the circumstances the application is recommended for approval.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The oak tree, protected by TPO 1987/007, is situated on land outside the curtilage of 41 Canewdon Gardens on land which is unregistered. It probably formed part of an old hedgerow, along the brook.

2.3 Immediately to the left of the tree, on the other side of the driveway, is a smaller Oak tree which is not protected by TPO but is also implicated in the subsidence claim at No 32 Canewdon Gardens.

2.4 The protected tree is approximately 20m from the corner elevation of 32 Canewdon Gardens, the property with alleged subsidence damage. The highway and driveway across a bridge to 34, 36 and 38 Canewdon Gardens is situated between the tree and the property.

2.5 There is a stream immediately to the north of the protected tree. Local residents have indicated that this area is liable to flooding during heavy rain.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 2 09_OFFRPT_2 2.6 The owner of the property has advised that the property has recently sustained flooding internally from a damaged pipe in the bathroom. Internal water damage was seen at the time of the site inspection.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF TREE

3.1 The preserved Oak tree has an estimated diameter of 740mm at breast height which gives it an approximate age of 100 years. The tree is approximately 20m tall, with a canopy spread of 9m, extending over the driveway leading to Nos 34, 36 and 28.

3.2 On the other side of the driveway and closer to No 32 (16m), is a younger Oak tree that is not the subject of a TPO. When viewed from the junction of Egbert Gardens with Canewdon Gardens, the trees appear as one canopy.

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

4.1 The proposal seeks permission to fell the preserved oak tree (T1), as it is considered to be responsible for root induced clay shrinkage subsidence damage to the subject property. The unprotected tree is also proposed to be removed.

4.2 The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Appraisal Report by MWA Arboriculture Ltd and an Engineers report that considers the damage to the property to be related to clay shrinkage subsidence.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

TPO/1987/007 – TPO to protect 1 x Oak tree – from the details on the file, it would appear that the TPO was served as a result of the proposed development of 34, 36 and 38 Canewdon Gardens

10/05241/TPO - Oak (T1 1987/007) - within road - reduce lateral spread towards 41 Canewdon Gardens by 2m max, cutting to suitable growing points (suitable growing points are side branches that are at least one third the diameter of the originating branch); crown clean – made by the owner of No 41 Canewdon Gardens

6.0 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS

• Parish Council: Strongly object to the loss of the tree.

• Anglian Water: No response received

• Local Residents: 16 letters of objection. Two letters supporting the application.

The Parish Council and other objectors raise a number of other possible causes for the damage to 32 Canewdon Gardens, and raise concern about damage to other properties from heave if the trees are removed. These are discussed below.

7.0 AMENITY CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Both trees have high amenity value as they can be clearly seen from the junction of Canewdon Gardens and Egbert Gardens, forming a backdrop to the residential properties. The road is well used as it provides access to Runwell County Primary School. The school use the tree as an educational tool. In addition, it provides an important linear wildlife habitat ambiance to the adjacent residential properties. Due to the age of T1 there is evidence to show this was part of a historic hedgerow on the edge of Runwell Brook and therefore has importance to the Parish of Runwell. The proposal would mean the loss of an historic tree and open up views to 34, 36 and 38 Canewdon Gardens, across the brook.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 3 09_OFFRPT_2

7.2 The documentation supporting the application states that the main area of damage is on the left- hand side of the dwelling.

7.3 Given the strength of local feeling supporting the amenity the tree provides, an exercise has been carried out to place a value on the trees using the recognised tool of CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees). This system provides a basis for managing trees in the UK as public assets rather than liabilities. It is designed not only to be a strategic tool and aid to decision-making in relation to the tree stock, but also to be applicable to individual cases, where the value of a single tree needs to be expressed in monetary terms.

7.4 It is intended particularly for Councils and primarily for publicly owned trees. It is established in UK law, in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Section 198, that trees have value as a public amenity and therefore local planning authorities are given a duty to protect trees in the public interest. The legislation itself does not specify how amenity is to be assessed, leaving it open for the value of trees to be expressed in the most appropriate way. CAVAT works by calculating the unit value for each square centimetre of tree stem, by extrapolation from the average cost of a range of newly planted trees.

7.5 The system has been in use since 2008 when it was approved as fit for purpose and has been promoted by the London Tree Officers Association (LTOA). The first major recognition was its inclusion in the Joint Mitigation Protocol, agreed between the LTOA and the insurance industry, published 2008. The calculation for these trees has been discussed with the author of the system to confirm the figures are correct.

7.6 Using this method the tree has a value of £62,287. The cost of repairs to the property if the tree remains is likely to be significantly higher.

7.7 As Members will be aware the other form of assessment that is used to assess trees for consideration for a Tree Preservation Order is TEMPO. Under this method of assessment, the tree scored 23 justifying the TPO.

8.0 ASSESSMENT

8.1 The site investigation report shows the building to be shallow founded at 450mm below ground level on London Clay. The laboratory tests show the clay to be of high shrinkage potential.

8.2 Roots were noted to a depth of 1.8m. Those to 1.5m were identified as oak and a shrub.

8.3 The Arboriculturists report concludes that two oaks (T1 and T2 on their plans) are potentially the cause of the subsidence, and recommends that they both be removed. T2 is the protected tree and is furthest from the building. Both are capable of laying roots beneath the building.

8.4 Consulting structural engineers, engaged by the Council, have assessed the information supplied with the application. They accept there is clear evidence of seasonal and progressive movement in the building most probably caused by tree root action, but consider that the data does not conclusively show which tree is responsible, or whether both are to blame.

8.5 They suggest a DNA test of the roots found closest to the property should be carried out to identify the tree but the applicants argue that although this would show which tree’s roots have been recovered / sampled – potentially one or both, it wouldn’t show that roots from the other tree aren’t present.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 4 09_OFFRPT_2 8.6 The consultants also raise concern about potential damage from heave if the trees are removed. MWA confirm that they do not consider heave to be a risk, and in any event this is a matter for the insurers to consider, not the Council.

8.7 Whilst there is some concern that the data does not conclusively prove that the preserved tree is responsible for the subsidence damage, the information indicates it is a likely cause, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

9.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

9.1 Local residents and the Parish Council have raised a number of other possible causes of damage to the property, including flood damage and heave from trees previously removed. These have been put to the applicants for their consideration but they advise they have been discounted as causes of the damage.

9.2 There is also concern that removal of the trees may result in damage to other properties or to the bridge that crosses Runwell Brook. Whilst this concern is understandable, the applicants consider it is unlikely and ultimately it is a private matter, as it would be if an unprotected tree were removed.

10.0 LEGAL POSITION

10.1 Under regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 a person is entitled to compensation if they can establish that loss or damage (in excess of £500) has been caused or incurred in consequence of a refusal by the local planning authority to grant consent to fell a protected tree. This liability to pay compensation can encompass the reasonable cost of carrying out underpinning or other requisite remedial/preventative works to the affected property where, at the time of refusal, the material available to the local planning authority was sufficient to show, on the balance of probabilities, that there was a real risk of further subsidence. A claimant can refer a disputed claim for compensation to an independent Tribunal for adjudication.

11.0 CONCLUSION

11.1 The tree is a fine specimen, providing a high level of amenity and an important local habitat. In normal circumstances its removal would not be permitted. However, having regard to the submitted evidence, as verified by the Council’s own structural engineer, it is considered that it is likely that the trees are a contributory factor to the movement occurring at the property and therefore their removal is justified.

11.2 In these circumstances it is not considered the Council can reasonably refuse permission unless it decides to accept liability for compensation.

11.3 The cost of alternative works to underpin the property to protect it from further damage would be considerable, and likely to be recoverable from the Council. The Council does not have a budget for compensation in these circumstances and it is a matter not covered by our insurers. In the circumstances, therefore, the recommendation is to allow the tree to be felled.

CONSULTATION RESPONSE SUMMARIES

Anglian Water Services Ltd

Comments Council Response No response received

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 5 09_OFFRPT_2 Runwell Parish Council

Comments Council Response 1. Strongly object to this application. Comments noted and addressed in the 2. Evidence presented does not prove that the officer report. tree identified is the cause of the damage to 32 Canewdon Gardens. 3. There are a number of other species close to the property that are more likely to be the cause of the damage namely Willow and Bamboo. 4. In recent past other trees in the vicinity of the property have been removed 5. T2 Oak is a magnificent example of its species and is key to the street scene of Canewdon Gardens 6. Properties far closer to the tree are unaffected. 7. The effect of the removal of the tree also needs to be considered; being the effect on the river bank (the ditch is a main tributary of the River Crouch) a lot of remedial work would be necessary and the very high chance that heave could occur in the nearby properties. 8. It is likely that removal of the tree will cause damage to the bridge access to the properties located on the other side of Runwell Brook. 9. There used to be a swimming pool in the garden of the property, the original construction and filling in of the structure needs to be investigated. 10. 32 Canewdon Gardens has often suffered from surface flooding during periods of heavy rainfall. 11. A root barrier protection system could be used around the tree. 12. The age of the bungalow is thought to be pre- war and may have insufficient foundations.

Local Residents

Two representations supporting the application

Comments Council Response 1. If the tree is allowed to continue growing it is likely Policy DM20 of the Chelmsford City Council to endanger these drainage systems, which at Tree Management Policy updated May 2015 present are in working order. states applications will normally be refused on the grounds of blocked drains. As this has not yet occurred, this is not a viable consideration. 2. Support managing the tree(s) to control the growth, No application has been made to reduce the but in view of the lack of clarity over ownership it is tree.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 6 09_OFFRPT_2 extremely unlikely the this would be carried out on a regular basis if at all! 3. Even if this tree is not the only one responsible for See Officer report above. the reported damage to the property, it is likely to be at least a major contributor and should be removed. 4. Support the application – damage to my property Noted from tree

Fifteen representations have been received objecting to the felling of the tree on the following grounds

Comments Council Response

1. Removal of the oak tree could cause more damage See Officer report above to surrounding properties. 2. The trees have been here some 120 plus years, long before the houses, and are valuable and irreplaceable features 3. The only access to 34, 36 and 38 is via the bridge and there would be a danger of the bridge to de- stabilising 4. The river bank would collapse causing flooding to properties and prevent the Runwell Brook to flow through to River Crouch. 5. Other trees have previously been implicated in damage to this property 6. There has been flooding at this property in the past and removal of the trees would increase this. 7. It would be better to save the trees by putting in a root barrier and cutting the trees back rather than full removal. 8. Who would be responsible for damage to neighbouring properties, as there are no problems at the moment? 9. The evidence provided in the report is inaccurate ie the drawings. 10. The report states other roots were found but there has been no further investigation into this. 11. The swimming pool, the bamboo, the flooding, the other trees. There is nothing in the report covering this. 12. Removing T1 & T2 would have a devastating effect on the environment and nature 13. Removal of trees results in significant expansion of ground and leaving the tree in situ and not disturbing the equilibrium may be the best course of action. 14. A trees Root's search for water is the dominant factor in determining the scope of its root system

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 7 09_OFFRPT_2 and is the major factor that limits tree growth. 15. Reduced moisture levels encourage roots to grow in search of water. In this case the trees are directly next to year round water supply in Runwell Brook so it is highly unlikely the roots of these two trees search far for additional water sources. 16. Diffusion rates through water are even lower than in compacted soils. Saturated soils are likely to be particularly effective in inhibiting root growth. Ditches/streams or drains leaking over the long term may result in sufficiently saturated ground to prevent root growth. It is fair to say that these trees position next to a constant flowing brook sufficiently prove they are unlikely to search for water elsewhere. 17. Removal of the trees create a problem though excessive re-hydration that did not exist. There are situations too where tree removal is not a solution due to the possibility of heave. 18. Trees are important, particularly in urban environments, they filter out significant proportions of atmospheric pollutants, they suppress noise such as traffic, they provide a "feel good factor". 19. Trees are a key source of shelter and food for wildlife and promote biodiversity. 20. The Factual Reports appear to be contradictory. 21. The Appraisal Report does not include discussion of the effects of ground water on the property. 22. The property regularly suffers from excess surface water during periods of heavy rain. 23. Removing the tree is likely to have a significant long- term impact on the water table and the stability of the surrounding soil. 24. Detrimental effect on the character of the area and the environment 25. Why is there no mention of trees closer to number 32 being removed? 26. The tree is a well-loved landmark in the local area and every effort should be made to save it for the future. 27. Removal of this tree does not fall under the guide lines of Subsidence Support or the ABI to be a Hazard. 28. Owners of the adjoining properties, where they also have Oak Trees, have been told by Essex County Council that under no circumstances are the trees going to be removed, they will only be maintained. 29. No mention has been made of the large oak tree to the rear of the claimants property which is also closer in proximity to the affected part of his building. 30. Other options that have not been tried before

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 8 09_OFFRPT_2 removing a protected tree. 31. Having previously had similar problems with our garage, after investigation this was put down to tree roots, we were advised that taking down the trees would make the problem worse. We were told the best option was to reduce the trees in size and keep them trimmed. 32. Major loss of privacy

Chairman of the Crouch Conservation Trust. 1. The Oaks are situated on the edge of the bank of the Runwell Brook, which is classified as Main River. 2. The survey does not seem conclusive, as I observed several other species of tree including other Oaks nearby. 3. No evidence seen of root uplift adjacent to these trees on the road or footpath. 4. Significant root growth of a bamboo shrub was observed 5. Environment Agency has been advised of concerns, since is quite possible the trees are on the land which it is responsible for. 6. The trees, which are relatively slow root growing, could be pruned back to a reasonable and manageable size and height, but should not be removed. 7. The trees are important to the Nature Corridor of the watercourse, and also add to the street scene of the area. 8. Given their location they already form a significant part of the bank structure to the watercourse, the removal would no doubt eventually lead to land slip and collapse of the bank side. The River Crouch Conservation Trust strongly object to the removal of trees T1 and T2 on this application.

Essex Wildlife Trust - Chelmsford Local Group, OBJECT to the removal of the tree for the following reasons:- 1. The tree is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order 1987/007/TPO. 2. It is noted from photograph 2 on the G A Robins report that there is a water butt served by two down pipes draining the gutters. These presumably originally fed into a rainwater drainage system either taking the water off the property or into a soakaway. When it rains the water butt is likely to fill up very quickly and overflow saturating the surrounding ground and possibly causing local movement in the clays and hence the subsidence to the building. 3. The trial pit indicates that the foundations are only 240mm deep, far below current building standards.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 9 09_OFFRPT_2 4. From the application form it appears that the tree is healthy. Before the removal of the tree is even considered we recommend that the applicants ensure that (1) the rain water is removed away from the building and then monitoring is carried out for a further period, and (2) a root barrier is considered to ensure that these minor roots that have been found are kept away from the building. 5. Chelmsford City Council Tree Management Policy updated May 2015, states in Policy DM2 - "To seek to ensure through the use of tree preservation order and conservation area legislation, that trees, of particular amenity value in the area served by Chelmsford City Council, are retained." 6. In addition Policy DM3 states: - "To use TPOs to protect selected trees, groups of trees or woodlands if their removal would have a significant impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public." 7. The planning authority are obligated by law (Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006) to make sure that they have all the information on the presence of protected species on site before they make a decision on the planning application. As this could include bats we recommend that an ecological assessment of the trees is carried out.

For the reasons above we consider that the removal of this tree is a draconian measure and that an alternative remedy be pursued. We urge the Council to REFUSE this application.

Further representation: Received from Runwell Community Primary School • We are an eco school and object strongly to the felling of the trees • There is little evidence that the roots have caused the damage • The road and gardens could collapse • The trees are part of Runwell history • Could not see that the trees are in the way or causing damage

CONSULTATION EXPIRY DATE 16th October 2017

RECOMMENDATION

The Application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 10 09_OFFRPT_2 Condition 1 These works may be implemented at your earliest convenience, but in any event, must be carried out within 2 years of the date of this decision, otherwise you will need to make a further application to the local planning authority.

Reason 1 In order to promote good arboricultural practice.

Condition 2 The work is to be carried out to British Standard 3998 : 2010.

Reason 2 In order to promote good arboricultural practice.

Notes to Applicant

1 WARNING: You run the risk of being prosecuted if you do not adhere to the Councils specification when carrying out work to protected trees. If in doubt, please email the Trees and Landscaping section at [email protected].

2 The Highway Authority (Essex County Council) must be contacted regarding the details of any works affecting the existing highway. Contact details are: Development Management Team, Essex Highways, Springfield Highways Depot, Colchester Road, Chelmsford CM2 5PU. Telephone: 0845 603 7631. Email: [email protected].

3 IMPORTANT NOTE : Where it is necessary to enter land not within the ownership of the applicant, in order to carry out the works, the applicant must seek permission from the owner of the land before implementing the works for which consent has been granted in this notice.

4 Tree work is a skilled operation. It is therefore recommended that you consider seeking the services of a competent Tree Surgeon.

5 Before operations, the person undertaking the work to the tree(s) must ensure that it does not contain any bat roosts or nesting birds. The bats can be found in the tree cavities and cracks within the dense ivy or epicormic growth. This is because it is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; the Conservation (Natural Habitat) Regulations 2010 and the Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) Section 81 to intentionally or recklessly disturb bats and their roosts or intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built. Further information is available on the Bat Conservation Trust website at www.bats.org.uk.

6 The applicant should be aware that the removal of the tree may result in damage to the property that could be caused by 'heave', and therefore advice should be sought from a structural engineer or similar, prior to work being carried out.

7 The applicant is requested to notify the Council of the date when the felling of the tree(s) the subject of this application, is known. To do this, please email the Trees and Landscaping section at

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 11 09_OFFRPT_2 [email protected]. This will assist the Council should any enquiries be made when the works are being carried out.

8 Applicants are reminded that although consent has been granted for the felling of tree(s) subject of a Tree Preservation Order or within a Conservation Area, a Felling Licence may also be required. Further information may be obtained from https://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-fellinglicences or contacting Forestry Authority, East of England Conservancy, Tangham Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3NF or Phone: 0300 067 4567.

9 The person carrying out the work must have a copy of this decision notice with them

Background Papers

Case File

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 12 09_OFFRPT_2 Appendix 1 – Consultations Anglian Water Services Ltd

Comments Council Response No response received

Runwell Parish Council

Comments Council Response 11.10.2017 - Runwell Parish Council strongly object to this application. The evidence presented does not prove that the tree identified is the cause of the damage to 32 Canewdon Gardens. There are a number of other species close to the property that are more likely to be the cause of the damage namely Willow and Bamboo. We are also aware that in the recent past another oak tree in the vicinity of the property was removed and this could have caused heave. Local residents attended the parish council meeting on Monday 2nd October and are also strongly against the removal of the tree. T2 Oak is a magnificent example of its species and is key to the street scene of Canewdon Gardens, it is a considerable distance from 32 Canewdon Gardens and we fail to see how it can be responsible for the damage claimed, properties far closer are unaffected. The effect of the removal of the tree also needs to be considered; being the effect on the river bank (the ditch is a main tributary of the River Crouch) a lot of remedial work would be necessary and the very high chance that heave could occur in the nearby properties. We ask that Chelmsford City Council has irrefutable evidence that the tree is to blame for damage to 32 Canewdon Gardens when considering this application.

11.10.2017 - Runwell Parish Council wish to add further comments as received by the public at the council meeting held 2nd October 2017. It is likely that removal of the tree will cause damage to the bridge access to the properties located on the other side of Runwell Brook. It was reported that there used to be a swimming pool in the garden of the property, the original construction and filling in of the structure needs to be investigated. 32 Canewdon Gardens has often suffered from surface flooding during periods of heavy rainfall. A root barrier protection system could be used around the tree. The age of the bungalow is thought to be pre war and may have insufficient foundations.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 13 09_OFFRPT_2 Local Residents

Comments Council Response to remove an oak tree completely long term we believe could cause more damage to surrounding properties. trees of this size are normally reduced by gradually cutting back over several seasons- not complete removal overnight.

I write as the Chairman of the Crouch Conservation Trust. This morning I attended the site at SS11 7BJ and observed the two Oak in trees in question. There are situated on the edge of the bank of the Runwell Brook, which is classified as Main River. I understand these trees (T1 and T2) are given as the reason for root damage to a nearby property, and the application rests upon one survey which does not seem conclusive, as I observed several other species of tree including other Oaks nearby. I also could not see any evidence of root uplift adjacent to these trees on the road or footpath. I did observe however significant root growth of a bamboo shrub, which shows signs of rigorous growth so much that it has protruded under the boundary fence of the property in question. I have advised the Environment Agency of my concerns, since is quite possible they are on the land which it is responsible for. In our opinion the trees, which are relatively slow root growing, could be pruned back to a reasonable and manageable size and height, but should not be removed. The trees are important to the Nature Corridor of the watercourse, and also add to the street scene of the area. Given their location they already form a significant part of the bank structure to the watercourse, the removal would no doubt eventually lead to land slip and collapse of the bank side. The River Crouch Conservation Trust strongly object to the removal of trees T1 and T2 on this application.

I strongly object to the removal of the trees for the following reasons:

The Trees have been here some 120 plus years, long before the houses, so not only if the removal of T1 & T2 were to go ahead would all the nature lose its home, but i feel my property would be under serious threat from Heave caused by the removal of the trees, as would the house already with the issues. My only access to my property is via the bridge and I feel would be in danger of the bridge to de- stabilise, I also feel the river bank would collapse causing flooding to my property and prevent the Runwell Brook to flow through to River Crouch.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 14 09_OFFRPT_2 I am not convinced it is the oak trees causing the issues and also some two years ago the insurance company was trying to take an Ash tree down that is in front of my property! There are other trees nearer to the property in question, again other oak trees and a willow tree. So if this does not rectify the issue will trees be removed until hopefully the right one is found, IF IT IS EVEN A TREE CAUSING THE PROBLEM.

There has been flooding surrounding this property in the past, could this be the reason. Surely its better to try and save the trees by putting a Route barrier and cutting the trees back rather then full removal or is purley £ for the company instructed to give their opinion when they are tree surgeons. If my property is affected by the removal of the trees, who would be responsible as I nor my neighbours (who the trees are nearest too) have any problems.

The evidence provided in the report is inaccurate, surely something as serious as removal of two oak trees we should have more accurate drawings for example, making it look as though one oak tree is right next the damaged property and to state in the report Drawings not authenticated. The report states Other roots were found but there has been no further investigation into this. Has there been any further investigations into what could also be causing the issue, The swimming pool, the bamboo, the flooding, the other trees. There is nothing in the report covering this.

Again i reiterate to the fact that by removing T1 & T2 would have a devasting effect on the environment and more potential damage to the property in question and my aswell.

I strongly object to the planned removal of the two trees.

Mature tree such as these two trees are valuable and irreplaceable features and should be preserved as much as possible with all other avenues extinguished before any consideration is given to their removal.

The alleged damaged property already suffers from flooding, removing this tree can only serve to increase this risk to this and surrounding properties. The trees form a substantial part of the river bank. During periods of heavy rain it would concern me that without the trees the bank would collapse and cause significant flooding to surrounding properties. Equally studies have shown that removal of trees results in significant expansion of ground and leaving the tree in situ and not disturbing the equilibrium may be the best course of action.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 15 09_OFFRPT_2 A trees Root's search for water is the dominant factor in determining the scope of its root system and is the major factor that limits tree growth. Reduced moisture levels encourage roots to grow in search of water. In this case the trees are directly next to year round water supply in Runwell Brook so it is highly unlikely the roots of these two trees search far for additional water sources. Diffusion rates through water are even lower than in compacted soils. Saturated soils are likely to be particularly effective in inhibiting root growth. Ditches/streams or drains leaking over the long term may result in sufficiently saturated ground to prevent root growth. I think it is fair to say that these trees position next to a constant flowing brook sufficiently prove they are unlikely to search for water elsewhere.

Removal of the trees create a problem though excessive re- hydration that did not exist. There are situations too where tree removal is not a solution due to the possibility of heave. Large trees significantly predating and near a property - subject to species, damage history, soil conditions, structural type - may cause more or new damage to a property and those around it if removed. It may create a problem though excessive re-hydration that does not exist.

Though attempts have been made to value trees, I suspect this will remain elusive. One must try and consider all of it's benefits to the area. Trees are important, particularly in urban environments, they filter out significant proportions of atmospheric pollutants, they suppress noise such as traffic, they provide a "feel good factor". Moreover they are a key source of shelter and food for wildlife and promote biodiversity

We strongly object to the removal of the tree for the following reasons:

1. Concerns about the evidence submitted, and the conclusions drawn from the evidence submitted - including:

(a) The Factual Report (page 7) identifies the presence of other tree roots of "unidentified shrub species", in addition to oak tree roots, which the Report says "may be possible to include... [in] the list of possibilities". The Appraisal Report ignores this, singling out only oak tree roots. There are a number of other large trees closer to the affected property than the oak in question, including at least one other oak tree - the roots of which cannot, according to the Report, be distinguished from those of the oak tree in question - and a weeping willow tree, of which the Appraisal Report makes

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 16 09_OFFRPT_2 no mention.

(b) The drawings submitted to show the positioning of the tree in relation to the alleged damage (page 2 Factual Report; page 4 Preliminary Report) are inaccurate. The drawings suggest that the tree is immediately next to the alleged damage, whereas in fact the tree is a significant distance away on the pavement adjacent to the front of the property. The true positioning can be seen in photographs and the Land Registry plan. The tree is closer to other properties (No. 41, 38, 36 and arguably 34 Canewdon Gardens), which, to our knowledge, have not suffered any damage.

(c) The Appraisal Report (page 4) asserts that the movement detected on the property "indicates a cyclical pattern of movement consistent with the influence of oaks on soil moisture". The graph in the Factual Report showing the movement recorded over the course of one year does not show a pattern, and so we assume that the Report authors are asserting there is an annual cycle, even though only one year has been recorded. If it is the case that there is an annual pattern, then presumably annual rainfall cycles and the resulting changes to the soil are a relevant factor to consider as well as potential dessication of the soil by trees.

(d) The Appraisal Report does not include discussion of the effects of ground water on the property. We understand from independent expert advice that the presence of excess ground water is typically a material factor in property damage of this nature - and is more often the causal factor than the presence of nearby trees. We understand from a number of our neighbours that the property regularly suffers from excess surface water during periods of heavy rain, due to its positioning in the street and inadequate surrounding drainage systems.

As such, we consider that the evidence submitted is insufficient to show that the tree in question (T2) is the primary cause of the alleged damage. Indeed we consider that the evidence does not even demonstrate that the tree is the probable cause, given (a) the presence of other tree roots found at the property, and (b) the lack of investigation into the effects of ground water at the property.

2. Concerns about the effects of removing the tree on all neighbouring properties - We understand from independent expert advice that removing the tree is likely to have a significant long-term impact on the water table and the stability of the surrounding soil, potentially leading to increased flooding and "land heave" on the neighbouring properties. We understand that these consequences may

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 17 09_OFFRPT_2 cause severe damage to the neighbouring properties - including the property concerned in this application. We understand that the damage to property caused by land heave and flooding is typically more serious than damage typically caused by clay shrinkage subsidence.

Further, given (we understand) that the property concerned was built after the oak tree became established, we would assume that the purchaser would have considered its potential (if any) to impact the property upon making the purchase - whereas neighbouring properties could not reasonably have anticipated the impact of the removal of the tree which they had understood to be protected by Chelmsford County Council.

3. Detrimental effect on the character of the area and the environment - The oak is a large, mature and extremely old specimen. It truly is a majestic tree, and forms a matching couple with a neighbouring oak tree. As such, it is not only a specimen of outstanding natural beauty, but a key feature to the street (visible all the way from the entrance to Canewdon Gardens) and is a part of the history of the area. Such a tree is increasingly rare in this built up area, which would be all the more a stark brick landscape and poorer environment without it. We would consider it irreplaceable, and we would urge all parties concerned to consider this matter most carefully before this is spoilt.

Further, if - and only if - it could be proven that the tree is the primary cause of the alleged damage, we would hope that the parties concerned would explore less risky solutions than removing it. We understand from independent expert advice that a root barrier should, if properly installed, be an effective solution and is likely to be significantly less expensive than removing the tree. As such, in that scenario we would implore Chelmsford County Council to engage in discussions with the insurance company concerned to reach an agreement for this approach, primarily in order to safeguard nearby properties.

I wish to register my strong objection to the above application to remove the oak tree outside my house, which is subject to a preservation order.

The grounds for for my application are as follows -

1) My family have owned 41, Canewdon Gardens since it was built in 1961. Our house is the closest to the tree yet we have never experienced any problems with subsidence. Our drive is 3m from the tree and our house is approximately

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 18 09_OFFRPT_2 12m away.

2) In the 1970's my father arranged for a preservation order on this beautiful old oak tree to ensure the tree wasn't damaged or removed when the houses were built on the other side of the brook.

3) No 32 is more than 4 times further away from the tree than our house, in addition there are many large trees closer to the property, why is there no mention of trees closer to number 32 being removed ?

4) It cannot possibly be proved that this oak tree which is furthest away from number 32 is responsible for their subsidence issues.

5) There are many other possible causes of the subsidence, a large number of conifer trees were grown for many years within the garden of number 32, it has also suffered historically from frequent flooding at times of high rainfall.

A swimming pool was installed in the garden close to the area of subsidence. There is now a substantial amount of invasive bamboo growing in the area close to the corner where the subsidence has occurred.

In addition there was a large oak tree in the back garden which has recently been removed.

Many large trees are presently growing to the left and rear of the property including a large oak tree, could these have contributed to any damage to the property ?

6) The oak tree T2 is situated right by the brook which provides a constant source of water, the roots of the tree would not be searching for water way over by the house at number 32.

7) I am also seriously concerned that the removal of the tree could cause heave damage to the surrounding areas including the land by the brook, our drive, our home and the surrounding homes and road.

It cannot be proved that this particular tree is the cause of damage to number 32, the tree grows very close to our house which has not had any subsidence issues or suffered any damage at all.

The oak tree T2 outside our gate is a beautiful mature specimen which has been a local landmark for many years and well loved by neighbours and residents of Canewdon Gardens and Runwell.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 19 09_OFFRPT_2

I am strongly objecting to the removal of this tree, this is an irreplaceable mature oak tree being well over 100 years old, it hasn't caused any damage to our property or the surrounding area and it cannot me proved to be responsible for issues with number 32 when there are so many other trees closer to the property and a list of other possible causes as mentioned above.

Yours faithfully,

Jacqueline Turner

I wish to register an objection to the above application to remove the Oak tree which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The grounds for my objection are as follows:

1. The tree is a well loved landmark in the local area and every effort should be made to save it for future residents coming to live in Runwell.

2. The applicant has not demonstrated that this particular tree is the cause of their problem and until they can supply irrefutable proof that the tree is the cause of the alleged damage it should be allowed to remain and the application rejected.

3. If the tree is removed it is likely to have an effect on the banks of the Runwell Brook which provides the main surface water drainage for this part of Runwell and Environment Agency should be consulted on this point.

4. A close inspection of the area surrounding the site reveals no sign whatsoever of any damage caused by the tree and no adverse reports have been made by properties situated closer to the tree than the site in question.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on this application

Support the application - damage to my property from tree

Whilst I regret the loss of any trees, I feel that I must support this application. We live in a property adjoining no. 41 and our drainage systems (sewage and surface water) both cross the garden of no.41 between the house and the brook to exit near the tree in the proposal. There is also a large drain crossing the same garden which serves several other properties. If the tree is allowed to continue growing it is likely to endanger these drainage systems, which at present (I believe) are in working order.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 20 09_OFFRPT_2

I would support managing the tree(s) to control the growth, but in view of the lack of clarity over ownership it is extremely unlikely the this would be carried out on a regular basis if at all!

Even if this tree is not the only one responsible for the reported damage to the property applying for the removal, it is likely to be at least a major contributor and should be removed.

We refer to the above application and on behalf of the Essex Wildlife Trust - Chelmsford Local Group, OBJECT to the removal of the tree for the following reasons:- 1. The tree is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order 1987/007/TPO. 2. It is noted from photograph 2 on the G A Robins report that there is a water butt served by two down pipes draining the gutters. These presumably originally fed into a rainwater drainage system either taking the water off the property or into a soakaway. When it rains the water butt is likely to fill up very quickly and overflow saturating the surrounding ground and possibly causing local movement in the clays and hence the subsidence to the building. 3. The trial pit indicates that the foundations are only 240mm deep, far below current building standards. 4. From the application form it appears that the tree is healthy. Before the removal of the tree is even considered we recommend that the applicants ensure that (1) the rain water is removed away from the building and then monitoring is carried out for a further period, and (2) a root barrier is considered to ensure that these minor roots that have been found are kept away from the building. 5. Chelmsford City Council Tree Management Policy updated May 2015, states in Policy DM2 - "To seek to ensure through the use of tree preservation order and conservation area legislation, that trees, of particular amenity value in the area served by Chelmsford City Council, are retained." 6. In addition Policy DM3 states: - "To use TPOs to protect selected trees, groups of trees or woodlands if their removal would have a significant impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public." 7. The planning authority are obligated by law (Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006) to make sure that they have all the information on the presence of protected species on site before they make a decision on the planning application. As this could include bats we recommend that an ecolological assessment of the trees is carried out.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 21 09_OFFRPT_2

For the reasons above we consider that the removal of this tree is a draconian measure and that an alternative remedy be pursued. We urge the Council to REFUSE this application.

Further to my previous telephone conversation with the head of Tree Preservation in respect to the above TPO, I now understand from my client that a new application as been made for the removal of the tree, in my opinion this should not be granted for the reasons below. a)This is the furthest Oak tree away from the property with the alleged damage. b) There now appears to be another property owner attached to this application, when their property is not effected by the tree. c) Remove of this tree does not fall under the guild lines of Subsidence Support or the ABI to be of an Hazard. d) Removal of the tree could have serious effect to my clients property and the nearest properties to the tree, should the application be granted are yourselves and the applicants going to indemnify my client against any future damage to their property caused by heave. e) There is no mention of the remove of the other Oak trees adjacent to the above TPO, these are nearer to the property with the alleged damage.

At you advice I contacted the company dealing with this, however they complete ignore my communication and failed to provide any documentation.

I have spoken to the owners of the adjoining properties, where they also have Oak Trees and they have been told by Essex County Council that under no circumstances are the trees going to be removed, they will only be maintained.

There is no reason why a root barrier can't be installed, in stead of removing such an historic tree that forms part of the beauty of the area and one of the reasons my clients purchased property.

i am writing to express my deep concerns and disappointment with regard to the proposed removal of the two, as we thought, protected oak trees situated to the front of my property.

After reading the relevant insurance reports submitted on the claimnants behalf, i am not only wholly unconvinced as to the reports conclusion that these 2 trees are the cause of

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 22 09_OFFRPT_2 the problem, but also feel that i must bring attention to some important points that i feel have been overlooked. Firstly, no mention has been made of the large oak tree to the rear of the claimants property which is also closer in proximity to the affected part of his building.

Secondly, it is my understanding that the claimnants property has in the past been affected by flooding. this would, i think pose a more serious threat of subsidance. Lastly and by no means the least of my concerns, is the potential risk of damage any attempt at removal of said trees would cause to my and my immediate neighbours properties. we each have access to our properties via a bridge which crosses the Runwell Brook. This is our only access to our properties and we have serious conerns that the removal of the oak trees would destabalise not only the bridges that we rely on for access to our properties, but also the banks of the brook. In times of heavy rain, the water level of the brook can rise considerably. we have concerns that any destabilisation of the river bank could restrict the flow of water and thus significantly increase the risk of flooding to our properties, which in turn could potentially increase our insurance premiums etc.

As an extremely concerned resident, I do hope that these concerns are given the consideration that i feel that they deserve.

I would like to object to this application as I feel there are other options that have not been tried before removing a protected tree. Having previously had similar problems with our garage, after investigation this was put down to tree roots, we were advised that taking down the trees would make the problem worse. We were told the best option was to reduce the trees in size and keep them trimmed.

I strongly object to the removal of the tree (T2) for a number of reasons:

1. MULTIPLE OAK TREES - The evidence provided seems to draw conclusions without facts to back it up. It says oak roots were found and states that T2 should be removed, however there are two other oak trees that are closer to the property - one of these (T1) being situated immediately next to T2. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SHOW THAT T2'S ROOTS ARE THE ROOTS THEY FOUND, and I would think that if there are two other oak trees closer to the property, logically T2 would be the least likely of the oak roots to be found. At the very least, GIVEN THE PRESENCE OF THESE OTHER OAK TREES, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT T2 IS

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 23 09_OFFRPT_2 THE PROBABLE CAUSE, EVEN IF OAK ROOTS WERE PROVED TO BE THE CAUSE.

It is also worth flagging that the drawings of where T2 is situated are INACCRUATE AND THEREFORE MISLEADING - the drawings make it look like T2 is right next to the property, whereas in fact T2 is a good deal further away sitting on the edge of our property at the end of the road (see the Land Registry plan). They are so inaccurate that only a person who has never been to the site could have drawn it. Footnotes such as "Drawings not authenticated" are surely unacceptable.

2. OTHER SIGNIFICANT TREES/SHRUBS - OTHER ROOTS WERE ALSO FOUND IN TESTING at the same depth as the oak roots but there seems to have been no attempt to find out what these roots are and NO MENTION OF THESE IN THE CONCLUSIONS REPORT - despite the laboratory stating that if they were given a list of trees nearby they might have been able to identify them and they might be included in the list of possible causes (see page 7 of the Factual Report). With a number of other large trees bordering or close to the property, including a full size conifer and at least one weeping willow, and also WHAT APPEARS TO BE A STRETCH OF BAMBOO GROWING ON THE APPLICANT'S OWN PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO THE SITE OF THE DAMAGE, I am unsure as to why this have been ignored if they are so sure that roots are causing the problem. Bamboo and similar species are known to grow aggressively and can cause damage to buildings, and so I'm surprised this has not been investigated further, particularly given its very close proximity to the area of damage.

3. EXCESS GROUND WATER REGULARLY SUFFERED BY THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY - Having spoken with an independent Expert in Structural Repairs and Subsidence, I understand that property damage and/or ground movement resulting in property damage can be due to other reasons such as excess ground water. Many residents have told us that due to inadequate drainage in the area, the front of the property suffers from a significant excess of surface water when there has been heavy rainfall. There is nothing in the evidence to explain why this was either discounted or not investigated as a potential cause and once again highlights why I feel the report is lacking.

We also understand that ground movement due to trees soaking up water is very common but is rarely significant enough to damage property - the fact that clay shrinkage due to trees has been detected does not necessarily mean this was the cause of the damage. The fact that - as far as I am aware - none of the other properties surrounding T2

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 24 09_OFFRPT_2 have suffered from any damage (including ours, which is the closest property to T2) further supports the position that the cause is unlikely to be T2.

4. SEVERE RISK OF SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, INCLUDING CAUSING OUR ONLY ACCESS TO BECOME DANGEROUS - I am also deeply worried that should the tree be removed, the resulting change in the water table could cause damage to my property and other properties nearby. Our independent expert indicated that the change in water levels and soil stability could potentially cause more flooding and also 'LAND HEAVE' which could prove extremely damaging to a number of nearby properties. The base of T2 straddles the bank of a tributary of the River Crouch and the edge of the only access to my house and driveway which is a bridge over the tributary, and should there be any land heave or soil instability following removal I BELIEVE IT WOULD CAUSE THE BRIDGE TO DE-STABILISE AND BECOME DANGEROUS, THEREBY AFFECTING THE ONLY ACCESS TO MY HOME. IT COULD ALSO CAUSE THE RIVER BANK TO COLLAPSE INTO THE RIVER, CAUSING FLOODING TO MY PROPERTY AND OTHERS.

5. LOSS OF OUTSTANDING FEATURE - In addition to my concerns about my property and other neighbouring properties, I would be extremely disappointed if this tree was to be removed as it is a beautiful and mature specimen. It is a unique feature of this street and was one of the reasons we chose to buy our house. I take great pleasure in turning into Canewdon Gardens and seeing the tree at the end of it. I am informed by other residents that it is over a hundred years old, and it is therefore a part of history that deserves to be treasured.

6. LOSS OF PRIVACY - Further, if T2 were to be removed, we would suffer a major loss of privacy because, as we are on the end of the street, every car and pedestrian (including school attendees) who turns into our street will be able to see directly into our house as they travel down the street, which we could not reasonably have foreseen when we bought the house (given the TPO attached to T2). Though this is not our main concern, I do feel that we would have been less likely to have bought the house if it had always been so very 'on view' to every person entering the road.

Therefore, as it has not been proved that T2 is the probable cause of the damage, and the serious risk to other properties if it were removed, I believe it would be wrong to remove T2. Indeed if this tree is not protected, then it is difficult to see how any tree with a TPO attached to it would ever be protected.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 25 09_OFFRPT_2

I am writing to Object to the above application, on the basis that I understand the evidence submitted is insufficient to prove that the tree "T2" is the cause of the applicant's damage. In this regard I fully support the position taken by our local Parish Council.

Further, if in future it is proven that T2 is the primary cause of the damage, I would sincerely hope that all other potential solutions would be considered before any decision is taken to remove it.

I strongly object to proposed removal of two oak trees (T1 and T2) I am absolutely shocked that those trees are being blamed for subsidence issue caused to number 32 Canewdon Gardens. I am really confused why number 41 Canewdon Gardens is being listed on the report where subsidence is caused to number 32 not 41. The report that is determining the actual cause of subsidence states that OAK T1 and of OAK T2 are "PROBABLY" the cause of subsidence and that is the reason why they should be removed. Surely when talking about cause of subsidence there should be definitive proof not a PROBABILITY for it to be even considered of being an issue. A year ago an Ash tree was being blamed to be a cause of the subsidence to the property but never proven. This year the blame is being passed on to both of the Oak trees without any substantial proof. Are there any other trees that will be made responsible for the subsidence after that? In recent years there had been two oak trees to the rear of the property in question that have been removed - could that have contributed to the subsidence problem? Could it be the: - Numerous flooding that this property suffers from during heavy rainfall - the swimming pool that was situated on the left hand side of the property close to the subsidence damage few years ago - Big Bamboo that it is situated close to the damaged part of the building - All other numerous trees that are alongside the property and haven't been listed in report (Weeping willow, Horse Chestnut etc) All of those factors could be the reason of the subsidence to this property but there is no actual cause listed. From my understanding, taking any mature trees out will cause more damage to the environment and all of surrounding properties around them. It might even cause

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 26 09_OFFRPT_2 bigger damage to the property in question. Removal of those trees will not only cause structural issues to the houses around them due to HIVE( land slide) and flooding but it is very likely that it will cause damage to the river bank of River Crouch on which both of those trees are situated and on which their roots are mainly located. Removal of these trees will also affect all the wildlife that nests in them every year and it will also stop a food source to the different animals and bird's species. My objections to the removal of those two OAK trees (T1 and T2) are based on all of those factors listed above and on the opinion that there has not been enough consideration given to the other possible options (Root Barrier, Crown Trimming) instead of the removal of such wonderful Landmarks of nature of over 130 years. I would appreciate if my objections were taken into consideration whilst making the decision on this application.

01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 27 09_OFFRPT_2