Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Council Online Planning - Decision Notice Summary

Planning Application Number: RB2025/1080
Site Address: Beaglewood Quarry Lane North Anston 9999
Description: Application to undertake works to a tree(s) protected by RMBC TPO No. 08 1989
Officer Recommendation: PART GRANT PART REFUSED TWA
Officer Recommendation Date: 29 October 2025
Decision Date: 31 October 2025
Decision Type: PART GRANT PART REFUSED TWA
Temporary Expiry Date:
Decision Level/Committee: Proposed to be Delegated
Conditions / Reason for Refusal: Reasons for Refusal 01 The reason for refusal relates to the following matters: • T1 sycamore- fell • T2 sycamore- fell • T3 sycamore- crown reduce to remaining height- 16.5m and average spread- N(3)E(3.75)S(1.5) & W(1.5m) • T4 sycamore- crown reduce to remaining height- 16.5m and average spread- N(3)E(3.75)S(1.5) & W(1.5m) • T5 sycamore- crown reduce to remaining height- 13.5m and average spread- N(1.95)E(3)S(1.5) & W(1.5m) In the case of T1, the structural survey carried out in 2018 which still holds true does not specify the removal of tree T1 based upon damage to the properties, but requires that an arboricultural authority should be consulted to assess the trees. This was carried out in June 2025 and concluded that all trees were in good condition both physiologically and strucuturally. No acceptable evidence was given in either report that shows the trees as unsuitable to retain for reasons of either being in poor condition, or causing damage. In the case of T1, crown reduction works recommended in the tree survey and adhering to BS3998 (2010) cannot be consented in this case, as the request in the applicatio is to fell the tree. Please see informative 1 below. In the case of T2, the initial arboricultural report and subsequent ‘Second report on T2’ do not give any evidence or request for the removal of T2 based either on structural damage or tree risk. The removal of this tree is requested purely from the point of view of perceived danger, which is not substantiated in either arboricultural report. The requested works to sever Ivy is not applicable to the TPO and not necessary to gain consent, nor is the removal of dead wood. Any crown reduction work discussed or required should be requested through a separate application. Please see informative 1 below. In the case of T3- T5, the proposed works go beyond the recommendations set out in British Standard 3998:2010 Tree Work – Recommendations, section 7.7.2 and therefore could lead to the decline in the amenity provided by the tree(s) to the local area. Healthy and structurally sound trees are capable of tolerating crown reductions of 30% of leaf volume, which is detailed as approximately 12% of branch length (allowing for variation in species). The proposed works go well beyond this maximum level. A crown reduction of lesser proportions is specified that adheres to within recommendations set out in BS3998 is consented below. Conditions imposed: 01 Consent is granted to the following schedule of works, and refers to the submitted applicant’s site plan: Tree species Proposed works T3 sycamore Crown reduction with remaining height of approximately 20m, and spread of approximately n-3; e-4; s-1.5; w-1.5 T4 sycamore Crown reduction with remaining height of approximately 20m, and spread of approximately n-3; e-4; s-1.5; w-1.5 T5 sycamore Crown reduction with remaining height of approximately 16m and spread of approximately n-2; e-3; s-1.5; w-1.5 02 All tree works detailed in condition 1 shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998: 2010, unless otherwise stated in the application. 03 Please note the authorised works should be completed within 2 years of the decision notice otherwise a new application for consent to carry out any non-exempt tree work will be required. Informatives 01 Any non- applied for works required that cannot be consented in this application should be applied for in a separate application (for example, the Local Authority cannot suggest a crown reduction where felling is applied for). All works should be in accordance with British Standard 3998: 2010

Click here to return to: Welcome Screen Search Screen Search Results Details Screen