96 Lydden Grove, London, SW18 4LN

T27 Lime Crown reduce by 1m. Crown thin by 25%; crown lift by 3.5m T28 Sycamore Crown reduce by 1.5m; crown lift to 3.0m. Cherry Tree (no TPO, but in Conservation Area) Crown reduce by 1m. Crown lift by 2.5m

T1 Horse Chestnut - Fell to ground due to Basal decay and presence of fungal brackets (likely Ganoderma), proximity to buildings.

T1 Sycamore: Fell to ground level / Section dismantle T1 is a large sycamore in a small rear garden, close to the boundary and neighbouring dwelling. It has outgrown its location, and its size, position and continued development are increasingly incompatible with the available space and the reasonable use and enjoyment of the adjoining property. The crown extends significantly over the neighbouring garden and dwelling, causing concerns about encroachment, potential contact with the roof, obstructed gutters, excessive shading, and nuisance from leaf and seed fall. The main stem is immediately adjacent to the boundary fence and already interfering with it, making fence maintenance or replacement impractical without addressing the tree. The tree has not yet reached full size. Sycamore is a vigorous, large-growing species capable of exceeding 20 metres with a substantial spreading crown. As it matures, its crown spread, stem diameter and spatial conflicts will inevitably increase. Pruning has been considered as an alternative, but there is no satisfactory long-term solution. Substantial crown reduction would be needed to achieve meaningful clearance from the neighbouring property, significantly altering the tree’s natural form and appearance. Sycamore also responds vigorously to heavy pruning, with rapid regrowth requiring frequent repeat work. This would create ongoing maintenance without addressing the tree’s unsuitable position. In terms of public amenity, the tree is in a rear garden and cannot be seen from the main road. Although partly visible from Openview, its contribution to the wider public landscape is limited when weighed against its constrained location and ongoing conflicts with neighbouring properties. Its removal would have limited impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal does not intend a permanent loss of tree cover. The owner has confirmed willingness to plant a smaller, more appropriate replacement species in a suitable location, able to reach maturity without similar conflicts with buildings, boundaries or residential amenity, while maintaining the garden’s contribution to local greenery and biodiversity. Conclusion Considering the tree’s size relative to its restricted growing space, its encroachment over the neighbouring dwelling and garden, its direct conflict with the boundary fence, its potential for further growth and the lack of a satisfactory long-term pruning option, removal is considered the most appropriate and sustainable arboricultural solution. The replacement planting would ensure continuity of tree cover and a more suitable long-term contribution to the landscape. On balance, the practical and residential benefits of removal, with the replacement planting commitment, outweigh the limited loss of public amenity. Accordingly, consent is respectfully sought for the removal of T1 sycamore, subject to appropriate replacement planting within the garden.