Tree ID: T1 - Beech (Copper Beech) as identified under the Modified Schedule of TPO 2025.005. Proposed Work: Sectional dismantle to ground…

Official description

Tree ID: T1 - Beech (Copper Beech) as identified under the Modified Schedule of TPO 2025.005. Proposed Work: Sectional dismantle to ground level and reinstate 1x Ginkgo biloba standard at the southern end of the grounds as indicated on the attached sketch plan. Reasons for Work: Incompatible Spatial Relationship & Mutually Agreed Pruning Failure: The main stem of this 50ft tree stands within a critical 1.2 metres of the residential property, overhanging the building ridge line by 6-7 metres. In Case AT/2026/0070 (Page 2-3, Sec 8, 11), the Council's Tree Officer explicitly ruled that the pruning works required to achieve safe, long-term structural clearance from the roof would remove over 30% of the leaf-bearing volume, risk fatal 'sun scorch damage' to this thin-barked species, and invite decay. Because the physical proximity to the house is absolute, and the council formally agrees that the pruning required to clear the building is physiologically destructive to the asset, long-term retention under BS 3998 is entirely unviable. Arithmetic Defect in Standalone Amenity Scoring (True Score: 14):The TPO was confirmed subject to modifications on 12th December 2025, legally isolating the Beech tree as 'T1'. The collective evaluation score was benchmarked at the absolute minimum threshold of 15 for each property, but inflated by artificially combining data across two properties where the protected trees on each site are situated some 200 feet apart. In the confirmation report (Page 3), the council explicitly accepted the applicant's formal objection regarding local tree density and issued a 1-point reduction (-1) to the category score. Because the modified order must protect T1 on its standalone merits, its true standalone arithmetic score is 14. Torbay Council's local framework dictates a minimum score of 15 to justify a TPO. T1 falls below the threshold and its ongoing retention is procedurally unjustified. Minimal Public Landscape Contribution: Situated ......