Agenda item

To fell one Oak tree (T1) on TPO 510.

Recommendation: Refusal

Application to fell oak (T1) on tree preservation order number 250 (TPO 510) on land at, and between, 34 Warrender Way and 38 College Drive, Ruislip.

Officers introduced the report. It was noted that the applicant had raised a number of concerns regarding the oak tree. The planning officers stated that the tree was a healthy medium sized oak tree, it did not suffer from disease, had high amenity value and contributed to the street scene.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution representatives of the petition received in objection to the proposals were invited to address the meeting.

Mr Dennis Hall spoke on behalf of the petition submitted, and as the applicant:

• Mr Hall questioned the accuracy of the officer report and felt the reference to high visual amenity of the oak tree was false.
• The report stated that 20 houses were consulted but this was inaccurate. There was not a no. 40 house so this figure of 20 was incorrect. Furthermore, Mr Hall had spoken to neighbours who had informed him that they had not been consulted over this application.
• The quantity of dead wood was important.
• It was absurd that the Council officer suggested Mr Hall should employ a gardener or tree surgeon. That it was an infringement of his human right to ask him to concur the cost of the tree which he did not own and did not want.
• The Council had created the problem and the owner of the tree should maintain the tree and the problems it was creating.
• That officer’s were contradicting themselves and deliberating trying to distort the facts.
• Mr Hall asked what the benefit of a glimpse of a tree was to residents.
• He felt the report was misleading, biased and there was no consideration of the people that lived near the tree.
• The Councillors were meant to put residents first.
• The TPO was issued behind his back and when he brought the property he was told there was no TPO on the tree.
• Mr Hall was told there were 2 boundaries to consider and that the nearby college owned a strip of the land.
• The tree was dangerous and he could no longer cope with the problems it caused.
• If the Committee did not agree to fell the tree that they should consider to agree to significantly reduce the size of the tree.
• Mr Hall asked the Council to issue a formal directive to the college.
• It was noted that Mr Hall did not believe the Committee Room was fully equipped with hearing loop facilities and had difficulty with hearing all the conversations of the Committee Members and officers.

It was noted that the college had not specifically said they owned the tree but the strip of land. Officers clarified the consultation at 40 College Drive and that a consultation letter was sent to the address, but it did not exist. This was not for Councillor’s to consider, but it was noted that consultation letters were sent out to other addresses in the area, as per what was required.

Officers stated that the issue of ownership was not for consideration for this meeting and that the Council issued a TPO in 1992. That in 2005 a planning inspector had looked at this tree and considered it of amenity value. It was noted there had been correspondence on the ownership of the tree and this was being debated. The issue of who owned the tree was a civil matter and outside of the remit of the Committee.

Members sympathised with the petitioner and recognised that it was a very large tree. Members questioned who was responsible for the dead branches of the tree and who was responsible for the cost of trimming the tree. Officers reminded Members that the application before them was to fell the tree and there were processes for picking up dead wood.

Members agreed that they did not want to chop down a healthy English oak tree which had at least another 40 years life. The petitioners concerns were appreciated and that ownership was not a matter for Committee to consider.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be refusal as per the agenda.