Conclusions.

13. The appeal trees do have a very significant value in the local community, and are at present something of a landmark, so their removal would be a great loss to amenity.

14. There has been considerable ground disturbance and root damage in the vicinity of the appeal trees, much closer than the distance between tree and building. This has compromised safety to an extent that cannot be ignored, and therefore felling both trees would be justified.

15. Although it would appear that the local authorities own guidelines on the siting of new buildings have been contravened, there is some dispute as to how these guidelines should be interpreted.

16. Although there would be some minor direct conflict between tree no. 773 and the building, it could be alleviated satisfactorily by pruning, and would not of itself be a justifiable reason for felling.

17. Altered wind patterns as a result of construction cannot be adequately quantified, but would not appear to be unduly serious, so would not justify felling.

18. If consent is given to fell either or both of the appeal trees, it would be desirable to plant replacements in order to provide for future amenity. The same species - Corsican pine - would be appropriate, size to be 150-200cm high root balled specimens on a one to one basis, located somewhere in the rear garden of the future house, the exact location to be a matter for agreement between the appellant and the local authority.

D.H.Thorman B.Sc., F.Arbor.A.

9 January 2004

The Photographs . . .