Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

CC/19/02109/TPA - 41 Lyndhurst Road, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 7PE

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

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

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, and therefore should this not take place and a pedestrian is injured as a result, the Council would be liable.  Mr Whitty concluded that a Holm Oak was not appropriate for the location and on removal, the root ball would be bored-out from the ground.  Mr Whitby confirmed that a replacement tree could be included within the conditions and would be appropriate for the location.  The roots were currently becoming detrimental to light-structures for example block paving, and the situation would not be improved by new boundary treatments.  Members further debated the amount of footpath to be removed for the tree to be felled, whether the liability on the Council was quite limited, whether the block-paving could be replaced by gravel, whether further evidence of damage was required, and if the removed roots would leave voids underground.  Mr Whitby explained that the applicant may not receive an insurance claim for any damage caused by the tree.  Members commented they considered they were being forced into making a decision to fell the tree.  Mr Whitty advised that the applicant was not required to provide evidence, and if the application was refused, the Council would be open to any compensation claims regardless of the amount of evidence provided.

 

Mr Whitty confirmed that the roots would be reduced and that the only impact from the remaining roots was that the area may drop by a small amount.  Mr Whitty added that any replacement tree would be planted at ground-level, and that the recommendation from officers to agree for the tree to be felled had not been taken lightly.

 

Members further debated the importance of the appearance of the street scene, carbon reduction supported by the tree, the provision of a place for wildlife given by the tree, and when the damage to the wall had occurred. 

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Top of page