Agenda item

To consider representations received in response to the making of a Tree Preservation Order in respect of 2 Beech trees.

(The trees subject to the Order were viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party)

The Committee considered objections to the Tree Preservation Order 2091.

The Committee also considered the written report of the Head of Planning together with correspondence received.

The Committee received a deputation from Councillor Hughes who expressed concern that the order was made in response to a general enquiry about the status of the trees, without any prior discussion with the owners before the imposition of the order. He further objected to the Order for the following reasons:

1)           there was no threat to the trees as there was no intention to remove the trees, the subject of the order. Therefore, there was no need for a Tree Preservation Order;

2)           T1 hindered visibility to drivers when exiting the driveway of 64B Stakes Road causing danger and inconvenience to other road users. A solution to this problem would be to expand the driveway, which could not be achieved, if this tree was retained in the order;

3)           T1 was too large and unsuitable for a site of this size and location

4)           the root structure was causing cracking to the driveway;

5)           the imposition of an order would place an unnecessary financial and administrative burden on the existing owners and any potential buyers of 64B Stakes Road;

6)           these trees did not need protecting as there were a sufficient number of trees in an excellent condition in the area; and

7)           The economic and social impact outweighs the environmental impact of keeping the trees protected.

He recommended that the Committee confirm the order subject to the deletion of T1.

Mr Boulding, who had objected to the making of the Order, was invited to take part in the meeting to present his case.

(Mr Boulding joined the meeting)

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer presented the officers report and advised that it was considered expedient to make the Order to protect the significant public amenity value of the trees in response to a warning from a member of the public that there was risk that the trees would be felled. The trees appeared to be healthy and structurally sound.

In response to questions raised by the members of the Committee, the Council’s Arboricultural Officer advised that the owner would be able to fell the trees if the Order was not confirmed.

Mr Boulding had no questions for the Officers.

Mr Boulding supported Councillor Hughes’s recommendation and objected to the Tree Preservation Order for the following reasons:

(A)         T1 had increased in size and the root structure was causing damage to the driveway; and

(B)         the access onto Stakes Road could not accommodate modern vehicles and needed to be widened;

In response to questions by the Committee, Mr Boulding advised that:

a)               he did not wish to fell the trees himself, only to not have an order restricting this option for future buyers; and

b)               he was aware that an Order did not prevent any works to reduce the impact of the tree. However, to widen the access on to Stakes Road he would require removal of the trunk and root structure.

Mr Boulding was given an opportunity to summarise his case but he advised that he had nothing further to add.

In response to a question from a member of the Committee, the Council Arboricultural Officer advised that the trees appeared to be healthy and structurally sound;

The Committee discussed the views raised by the deputee and invitee together with a motion to confirm the order.

The Committee considered that the trees were healthy and structurally sound and had significant public amenity value. It was therefore

RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order 2091/2019 be confirmed without modification.