Issue - meetings

Fell 1 no. Holm Oak tree (T3) subject to CC/93/00284/TPO.

PERMIT

Mrs Stevens introduced the application and Mr Whitby, the Council’s Tree Officer.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Alan Carn – Objector

Ms Jenny Cole – Objector

Mr Colin Wood – Supporter

Mr J Summers – Supporter

Mrs Kathleen Spur – Applicant

The Chairman invited Mr Whitby to provided further information regarding the tree.  Mr Whitby explained that the tree was a mature Holm Oak tree from the Mediterranean region, three metres in circumference, and had been pruned every eight years.  The tree was an evergreen, with old foliage dropping in May, followed by new foliage and flowers forming, and was a healthy specimen. 

During the discussion Members debated the Holm Oak on the other side of the street, whether the wall could be removed and a fence erected in its place, the risk to the footpath and applicant’s garage, the amenity value of the tree, the replacement, the need to remove the element of risk, the reduction in flood risk by the tree’s take up of water, that trees are part of a cycle, and a replacement tree being of a more appropriate variety or form for the location.

The Chairman advised that previously Planning Committees had refused to allow the felling of a tree and the resultant damage caused had required that the Council fund the cost of repairs, and also that the Committee should be aware that the Council would also be liable for any trips or falls caused by the tree. 

Members further debated the definition of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), whether the tree had to date caused any cracks in the adjacent garage wall, the impact of not removing roots if the tree was felled and how easily a replacement tree could be planted in the location.

Mr Whitty responded that permission could not be refused due to the climate emergency, and that the tree had a value within the street scene and was in good health but a balanced view was required.  There was no current evidence that the tree was causing damage to the garage or the dwelling, although this may be a material consideration for the future.  The Holm Oak on the other side of the street had not caused the same degree of issues, a fence would not retain the soil surrounding the root ball, and a reduction in the roots could cause the tree to become unstable.  The area was in flood zone 2/3 only within a specific year event but Mr Whitty agreed the tree did take up excess water.  The amenity of the footpath was also to be considered and required work to remediate the footpath, was likely to be on-going.  Mr Whitty further advised that should the application be refused, from today forwards, should any damage occur to the applicant’s property, the Council would be liable, and cited a similar situation in which costs had totalled over quarter of a million pounds.  The highways authority had requested that the tree was felled,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43