Agenda item

The Executive Member for Development Management and Council support submitted a report inviting Members to consider the objections to the making of the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) received by the owner of the tree.  Members were asked to consider the objections and reasons for making the TPO and to determine whether Tree Preservation Order No 4 2018 P/TPO 614 should be confirmed without modification.

The Arboricultural Officer advised that a written application had been made to fell a mature and fairly large field maple within the Patmore Heath conservation area.  The reasons given were risk of damage to Hitch Green Cottage, shading and interference with telephone lines.  Members were advised that a yew tree had been removed after roots were found to be underneath the floor in a ground floor room.

The Arboricultural Officer advised that there was no evidence that this mature field maple had caused or would cause subsidence and the tree was an important public amenity.  Mr Chapman addressed the Committee in objection to Tree Preservation Order No 4 2018 P/TPO 614 being confirmed without modification.

In response to comments from Councillor J Jones regarding evidence of damage to Hitch Lane Cottage, the Chairman referred to evidence he had received from a professional arboricultural contractor.  Following a request from Councillor J Kaye, the Chairman dictated the contents of the letter to the Committee.  The Chairman commented on the public accessibility of this evidence.

The Arboricultural Officer confirmed to Councillor D Andrews that there was a prevailing south westerly wind in this location and this had been the case for the lifespan of this tree.  Officers had assessed the tree and would not seek confirmation of a TPO where there was a risk of a tree failing.

Members were advised that the Authority could not agree to the felling of every tree where there might be a risk of subsidence.  Subsidence was a complex issue that could be influenced by a number of factors.  The field maple had public amenity value and there was no evidence that this tree was causing any problems.

Councillor M Casey commented on the level of information and qualifications that would be required to convince Officers that a tree should be removed.  The Arboricultural Officer advised that she would expect a report covering the species of the tree and an analysis of the type of soil it was sitting on.  She would also expect to see an engineer’s report regarding any movement to a property or cracks to suggest that a tree was causing problems.

Councillor P Ballam commented on whether further crowning works would reduce the risk to the property.  Councillor B Deering queried whether the requirement for evidence had been explained to the applicant.  The Chairman pointed out that this matter could be deferred pending further information being submitted.

Councillor D Andrews stated that the field maple appeared to be a sound tree in good condition and he would not be supportive of deferring a decision.  The Head of Planning and Building Control commented that this matter had to be determined prior to the next meeting of the Committee if the 6 month deadline for confirming the TPO was to be met.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor P Ruffles seconded, a motion that Tree Preservation Order No. 4 P/TPO 614 should be confirmed without modification.  After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Executive Member for Development Management and Council Support as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that Tree Preservation Order No 4 2018 P/TPO 614 be confirmed without modification.