Tree Preservation Order 65 of 2005
114 and 116 Chobham Road, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 0HX and Home End, Priory Road,
Sunningdale, Berkshire, SL5 9RQ
1.
Background:
Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 65 of 2005 was created in December 2005 on land at 114 and
116 Chobham Road, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 0HX and Home End, Priory Road, Sunningdale,
Berkshire, SL5 9RQ.
The Order originally related to seven individual trees. It has since been amended to two
individual trees and two groups of trees as per the specification below:
T4:
T5:
G1:
G2:
2.
Yew (Taxus baccata)
Common Oak (Quercus robur)
3 x Common Oak (Quercus robur)
2 x Common Oak (Quercus robur)
Objections:
Two letters of objection were received in respect of this TPO, from Mrs Gill Chater and Mr
Mervyn Mitchell of 114 Chobham Road. The first, dated 12th December 2005, is summarised
below:








T5 is under the remit of the owners of 116 Chobham Road.
T7 does not appear to have been recorded in the correct location.
This site and its trees have been visited by at least three Council Tree Officers in
the past. During all of the visits each Tree Officer said the trees were old, in bad
condition and in a dying state, and would not be subject for a Tree Preservation
Order due to these issues. All of the Oak trees have dead branches, which
regularly fall into our garden and have caused damage to the roof of our garage.
These trees are now older than when first surveyed and have numerous dead
branches that can be seen clearly.
In recent storms a number of trees in our grounds have fallen or been badly
affected due to their fragile state.
T4, T5, T6 and T7 are next to/under live electricity wires and telephone cables.
The trees have been subject to trimming by the relevant authorities. We have no
control over this.
T6 and T7 are alongside the railway embankment and have been subject to
several prunings by the relevant authorities. Again, we have no control over this.
Fail to understand why the judgment of previous Tree Officers appears to have
been changed. It is contradictory to the earlier site visits.
Trees provide little, if any, public amenity benefit. It is not possible to see all
these trees from the public highway, and there remains a risk that public liability
will exist from damage caused by these trees.
The second letter of objection sent in reply to the Council’s Arboricultural Officers site visit
and subsequent letter, dated 1st April 2006, is summarised below:


T5 is within land at 116 Chobham Road, however T6 and T7 belong to 114
Chobham Road. This is confirmed by Land Registry documents. Furthermore T1
is not on our land and T4 is again wrongly sited. All locations and ownership
were explained to the visiting officer on site. Therefore, we cannot understand
why errors remain in the site diagram.
To ensure independence and objectivity a different officer should visit the site on
the second occasion. This was not the case, with both site visits carried out by
the same officer. The same officer has also written the letter from the Borough,








with no reference to any separate review. Therefore request a visit by a more
senior officer as well as the dealing of this letter.
Question over why there is concern the trees would be felled? The visiting officer
stated there was no specific reason for the visit to our land. If it is with regard to a
planning application it does not, in any way, affect the trees.
How can it be said there is dead wood on the trees and at the same time be
stated that there is no sign of decay? There was plenty of dead wood on the
ground during the officers’ site visit.
The reply by the Borough does not answer all the comments contained in our
original letter. Three separate Tree Officers have visited the site in all four times
since 1997. They all stated the trees were in a bad state and not worthy of
protection. The Borough’s Legal Department called us before the second site
visit after our original letter, they stated that previous site visits would be
considered and if a change in determination arose then the inconsistency or
contradiction would be explained. Why has this not been done?
With regard to the Yew tree we note that Bristol City Council has recently insisted
on the removal of trees of this kind due to Health and Safety factors. Given this
we cannot understand why the Yew tree is protected. We understand the
Council takes responsibility for any injury or damage arising from the tree
because of the TPO.
Each visit by the Tree Officer regarding this TPO was unappointed. Identification
was not provided on site by the officer, nor confirmation to the right of
unannounced access to private land. Previous Tree Officers have arranged
appointments, why was this not done?
We cannot be held responsible for pruning by authorities that have accessed our
property and dealt with any tree overhangs that affect the performance of their
services.
Question regarding the meaning of a ‘Group Order’.
Bridge View is a private cul-de-sac and therefore cannot be considered as public
highway for the purposes of this TPO.
3. Responses to the objection and justification for the Order:
Under the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) local authorities may make a TPO if it
appears to them to be expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the
preservation of trees or woodland in their area. The Act does not define amenity, nor does it
prescribe the circumstances in which it is in the interests of amenity to make a TPO. In the
Secretary of State’s view, a TPO should be used to protect selected trees and woodlands if
their removal would have a significant impact upon the local environment and its enjoyment
by the public. Local planning authorities should be able to show that a reasonable degree of
public benefit would accrue before the TPO is made or confirmed. The trees, or at least part
of them, should therefore normally be visible from a public place, such as a road or footpath.
Trees may be worthy of preservation, amongst other reasons, for their intrinsic beauty or for
their contribution to the landscape.
The local planning authority may create a TPO when it is believed there is a risk of a tree
being cut down or pruned in ways that would have a significant impact on the amenity of the
area. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has visited the site and has confirmed that the trees
do merit protection. The trees are visible from public areas and make a significant
contribution to the amenity of the area. The trees can be seen from Chobham Road and
Bridge Road. Trees in Group 1 are visible from Priory Road. Whilst these trees are not
visible in their entirety they are an important skyline feature and contribute to the character of
the area. The loss of the trees would detrimentally impact upon the character of the area and
therefore it was expedient to create the TPO.
The category of TPO that has been initiated is a Tree Specific Order on seven individual
trees. Tree Preservation Order 65 of 2005 was initiated as a precautionary measure as it was
perceived that the trees were under threat from potential development within the area, and
that the removal of the trees would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the
area. In response to objections received the Council’s Arboricultural Officer has since visited
the site and has recommended that the Order be amended to two individual trees and two
groups of trees. It is considered that T1, T2 and T3 are regarded as a group component and
will be identified as Group 1. Trees T6 and T7 will be identified as Group 2. It has been
determined that seven trees in total are worthy of protection. The Borough’s Arboricultural
Officer therefore recommends the Order be confirmed subject to the recommended
modifications. The initiation of this TPO is not intended to affect the decision making process
when determining planning applications or future development.
A Land Registry search was undertaken in response to the objections received. According to
the Land Registry document trees T5, T6 and T7 are growing on land registered as being in
the ownership of 116 Chobham Road. The Borough’s Arboricultural Officer undertook a site
visit in response to the objections that were received. In regard to trees T6 and T7, it was
considered more appropriate to amend the individual TPO of these two trees to a Group
Order. The amendment also took into consideration the re-positioning of T7. In regard to the
positioning of the trees protected by this TPO the icons used are to be accurate to within 5
metres of the tree it represents. It is not necessary for the trees to be pin-pointed by the use
of professional surveying equipment, but they must be plotted in such a way so that it is
unambiguous as to which trees are protected. The TPO plans are based on the latest
Ordnance Survey plans, which should ensure a reasonable degree of accuracy. If you
consider a sufficient degree of error exists, you may wish to advise Ordnance Survey. It is not
the responsibility of the Borough to determine whether boundaries are accurate on maps that
are used.
Trees T6 and T7 are growing adjacent to low voltage electricity cables. Statutory undertakers
may prune trees without permission of the Local Authority so as to maintain/repair their
services. Previous pruning works have been sympathetic to both the trees appearance and
health and currently there is sufficient clearance to these cables. At this stage pruning work is
not being recommended.
The Borough’s Arboricultural Officer inspected the trees and concluded that they appear to be
in a relatively sound and healthy condition with no outward signs of disease or decay. Minor
deadwood within the canopies of the trees was noted and it was regarded at that time not to
be an indication that the trees are in poor health. Deadwood can be removed via exemption
under Section 198 (6a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Any works above the
removal of deadwood that necessitate the cutting into live wood requires a formal application
to be made and written consent obtained from the Local Planning Authority. A TPO should
not hinder the appropriate management of the trees. The Council’s Tree Unit offers free
arboricultural advice and is willing to discuss any works with interested parties. Any
application to undertake work would be judged against good arboricultural practice and would
not withhold consent for appropriate works.
Scattered minor deadwood was also observed in the canopies of the Oak trees indicated as
T1, T2, T3 and T5. These trees also appear to be in a relatively sound and healthy condition
with no obvious signs of disease or decay. However, ivy is obscuring the stems of these
trees. It has therefore been recommended that the ivy be severed and once this has died
back, to contact the Tree Section so that these trees can be re-inspected. In respect to the
overall condition of the trees identified within this order it is strongly recommended that annual
inspections of trees by a qualified Arboriculturalist be undertaken.
Minor deadwood within the canopy of trees is a common phenomenon seen in many tree
species. Trees will shed unwanted distal parts such as twigs when, for example they become
shaded out by other parts of the canopy. The deadwood is not present within the main
structural components of the tree but confined to the terminal ends of branches. At the time
of inspection by the Borough’s Arboricultural Officer, minor deadwood within the canopy did
not raise cause for concern or warrant any further investigation. However, if circumstances
should change the Tree Section can make a visit and re-inspect the tree.
A landowner has a “duty of care” to surrounding landowners and as such any tree, whether
subject to a Tree Preservation Order or not, within their curtilage should be inspected
periodically by a qualified Arboriculturalist for health and safety. The Council is not liable for
matters relating to the normal management of a protected tree. However, should an
application be refused to remove a tree that subsequently fails due to an obvious defect that
was present when the application was assessed, the Local Planning Authority may be liable
for compensation for the resultant loss or damage.
It is recognised that there are no absolutes in nature and that even a healthy and structurally
sound tree may fail in the event of unusual weather. However, matters of safety are
paramount within legislation and as such exemptions to the TPO allow the removal of dead,
dying or dangerous branches and trees without the need to gain consent from the local
planning authority. It should be noted that the matter of whether or not a branch or tree has
become dangerous for the purpose of this statutory exemption is not always straightforward.
The Borough’s Arboricultural Officer advises that there are no outward signs of weakness. It
is therefore not foreseeable that these trees will fail. However, it is recognised that
circumstances may change and therefore, if there are any concerns, the Council’s Tree Unit
offers free arboricultural advice.
In respect to concerns over Bristol Council removing a number of Yew trees due to Health
and Safety reasons, current research has been looked at. A recent worldwide investigation in
1998 showed 11,197 records of Yew poisoning which resulted in no deaths (Krenelok et al).
There are only a few reported incidents of yew poisoning in this country over a number of
decades and as such the risk to humans from Yew is considered negligible. Protected trees
are the responsibility of the landowner and not the Local Authority.
A search of records was conducted in response to comments regarding previous site visits
from Tree Officers. Unfortunately no written records have been recovered. It is the Tree
Sections professional opinion that due to ever increasing development pressures within the
Borough and the contribution to the character and amenity of this area of Ascot the trees
indicated in the provisional TPO 65 of 2005 are worthy of protection.
When undertaking site visits in regard to development applications appointments are not
normally arranged in advance unless it is known beforehand that there will be difficulty
gaining access. All Borough Officers are required to carry identification that is produced to all
homeowners on arrival. In regard to carrying out work in connection with TPO’s, any person
duly authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority may enter land for the purpose of
surveying it in connection with making or confirming a TPO (DETR Tree Preservation Orders
– A guide to the Law and Good Practice).
4. Sustainable Development Implications:
In terms of the sustainable development policy the recommendation contained in the report
will have the following significant beneficial sustainable development implications: A positive
impact on the natural environment by retaining the tree stock.
RECOMMENDATION that Tree Preservation Order 65 of 2005 is confirmed with the
following amendments.
TPO address is amended to:
114 and 116 Chobham Road, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 0HX and Home End, Priory Road,
Sunningdale, Berkshire, SL5 9RQ
TPO schedule is amended to:
T1: Yew (Taxus baccata)
T2: Common Oak (Quercus robur)
G1: 3 x Common Oak (Quercus robur)
G2: 2 x Common Oak (Quercus robur)