Lime tree height reduction at 19 The Paddock, Witton-le-Wear, Bishop Auckland

What was proposed

Consent was sought to reduce a protected lime tree’s height by 4–5 metres, about one third of the tree.

“1 The application relates to a Lime tree located within the garden of 19 The Paddock which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The applicant seeks consent to reduce the height of the Lime tree by 4-5m, which represents approximately one third of the tree.”

Officer report

The site

The tree is in a rear garden within a residential area and the Witton-le-Wear Conservation Area.

“5 The application relates to a Lime tree located within the rear garden of 19 The Paddock, a semi-detached dwelling with associated private front and rear gardens located within a residential area within the village of Witton-le-Wear, Bishop Auckland. The rear garden accommodates two large trees; a Lime tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and to which this application relates, and a Sycamore tree which is not protected under a TPO.”

Officer report

Earlier tree applications

Earlier applications included permitted reductions, withdrawn and refused felling proposals, and a refused heavy height reduction.

“8 The applicant first notified the Local Planning Authority of their proposal to fell the Lime tree in December 2015 (DM/15/03772/TCA) with an objection raised to the proposed felling in January 2016. A Tree Preservation Order was confirmed on the 6 th of May 2016 (TPO/0016/2016).”

“10 On two further occasions the applicant proposed the felling of the Lime tree, one of which was withdrawn (DM/22/00698/TPO) and the other which was refused in April 2025 (DM/25/00348/TPO). A further proposal for heavy height reduction to the Lime tree was refused in July 2025 (DM/25/01488/TPO). Planning Policy…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the works were excessive, unjustified, harmful to the area’s character and contrary to tree protection guidance and policy.

“4 Officers recommend that Members of the Committee REFUSE this application for the following reason:”

“The proposed works are excessive, unjustified, and would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy 40 of the County Durham Plan, the Council’s Trees, Woodlands, and Hedges Supplementary Planning Document, and Part 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Officer report

The main safety issue

Officers found the mature tree healthy, with no obvious risk features and a very low risk of falling, while the proposed works could harm it.

“29 The Council’s Arboricultural Section has caried out their own inspection and advised that the Lime tree is a healthy, mature specimen with no obvious risk features present. Therefore, they consider the risk of the tree falling to be very low.”

“32 In order for the LPA to support the proposed works it must be satisfied that the works are justified and that subsequent loss or damage is not likely to occur should consent be refused. The Council’s Arboricultural Section notes that the application does not include adequate information to justify the extent of the works proposed. The applicant has not provided any professional Arboricultural evidence of their own to support the extent of the proposed works.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The Arboricultural Section objected, while no comments or objections were received from nearby occupiers; a councillor raised safety and mental health concerns.

“18 The application has been publicised by way of direct notification letters sent to adjacent occupiers. No comments or objections have been received.”

“19 Councillor Schulman, Crook Division, has requested the application be determined by the planning committee raising concerns over the condition of the tree, potential property damage were it to fall, and the impact on the mental health of the occupants of 19 The Paddock.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The local member and applicant supported the works, while the planning and tree officers explained the low risk and harm from excessive pruning.

Members’ debate

Members considered the applicant’s concerns, the alternative three-metre reduction, the tree’s stability and whether heavier pruning could increase risk.

“Councillor M Wilkes referred to paragraph 33 of the report stating that there was a difference of 1.5 metres in relation to the proposal by the applicant and what had been recommended by officers. He had tried to use the Council’s GIS mapping system to determine how close the tree was to the house and how high the tree was in relation to that distance to establish if it would hit the property if the greater reduction was made.”

“Councillor M Wilkes sympathised with the applicant but he had read the tree policy and except for the health of a tree they would not be excessively cut back. The tree expert had assessed the tree who felt cutting the tree back over 3 metres was over excessive and create a greater risk. He was worried that if the application was approved it would make the lime tree less stable.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted on a motion supporting the officers’ recommendation to refuse the application.

“Councillor D Freeman noted that it was difficult as the applicant was looking out for the best interest of his property. He had heard from the Senior Tree Officer who stated that a three-metre reduction was sufficient and 4-5 metres would be detrimental. He did feel for the applicant but he seconded the motion to support officer recommendation to refuse the application.”

Minutes