Proximity over of the stem Within a metre 1-3 metres 3-5 metres 5-10 metres 170metres to road Score -2 -1 0 0 0 Final Score 0 Grand Total from both 0.00 parts: Results Trees that have scored a minus figure are not worthy of a TPO. Those that have score a plus score are suitable for a TPO Part 4: Expediency Assessment Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 Perceived Foreseeable only threat threat threat Total: Part 5: Decision Guide If any Sections in Part 1 1-6 points 7-11 12-15 points 16+ Scored 0 points points Decision Do not apply TPO TPO Does not TPO defensible merits TPO TPO Firstly, given the scarcity of TPOs within Villages and the propensity for Rutland  County Council to approve tree felling over the last two years (which in the absence of sight of the related appraisals) suggests that the Rutland County Council might be short-cutting the process for other resource reasons, and which on present showing will lead to the decimation of trees within the Conservation Village; Secondly, it is quite clear from National Government Guidelines that the County  Council does have other options like dialogue and advice more sympathetic to the – notion of conservation where it believes it is dealing with a responsible – owner/applicant; Thirdly, it is also clear from National Government Guidelines that within the  context of a Conservation Area that other factors can and must feature in the decision making processes and not simply the assessment of each single tree as suggested by RCC Officer responses (again without sight of the RCC assessment criteria the Parish Council has no idea whether such considerations are being applied?)  Fourthly, National Statutory Guidelines clearly indicate a requirement for local consultation in relation to all applications and one presumes that this is meant to be
Proximity of the stem to road Within a metre 1-3 metres 3-5 metres 5-10 metres over 170metres Score -2 -1 0 0 0 Final Score 0 Grand Total from both parts: 0.00 Results Trees that have scored a minus figure are not worthy of a TPO. Those that have score a plus score are suitable for a TPO Part 4: Expediency Assessment Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 only Perceived threat Foreseeable threat threat Total: Part 5: Decision Guide If any Sections in Part 1 Scored 0 1-6 points 7-11 points 12-15 points 16+ points Decision Do not apply TPO TPO Does not TPO TPO defensible merits TPO  Firstly, given the scarcity of TPOs within Villages and the propensity for Rutland County Council to approve tree felling over the last two years (which in the absence of sight of the related appraisals) suggests that the Rutland County Council might be short-cutting the process for other resource reasons, and which on present showing will lead to the decimation of trees within the Conservation Village;  Secondly, it is quite clear from National Government Guidelines that the County Council does have other options – like dialogue and advice more sympathetic to the notion of conservation – where it believes it is dealing with a responsible owner/applicant;  Thirdly, it is also clear from National Government Guidelines that within the context of a Conservation Area that other factors can and must feature in the decision making processes and not simply the assessment of each single tree as suggested by RCC Officer responses (again without sight of the RCC assessment criteria the Parish Council has no idea whether such considerations are being applied?)  Fourthly, National Statutory Guidelines clearly indicate a requirement for local consultation in relation to all applications and one presumes that this is meant to be