Agenda item

Fell one Indian Bean tree (T69 on TPO 78a)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That the wording of the suggested informative be amended to provide the applicant with advice on relevant next steps.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted paragraph 6.1 of the report, which set out the rationale for the recommendation to refuse the application. The Committee was advised that the relevant tests to determine whether the tree was decayed and/or dangerous had not been carried out by the applicant, and without such evidence, officers could not justify the removal of a tree that had such a significant impact on the visual amenity of the street scene.

By way of written submission, petitioners objecting to the application made a number of points, including:

·         The tree had a Tree Protection Order (TPO) on it, which meant it should be protected.

·         The tree was located in a conservation area.

·         The tree was a rare example of its kind, seemed healthy, and brought pleasure to nearby residents who admired its beauty.

·         It would appear that the application seeking to remove the tree was based on the inconvenience of sweeping up its leaves during the winter months.

·         The residents at 3 Cedars Court knew there was a huge tree in the garden before they decided to live there.

·         The tree provided a home to many birds, the numbers of which have fallen due to a loss of habitat.

·         In light of global warming, it was irresponsible to cut down a tree of this size. Replacement by small saplings would not make up for the loss.

·         There had been too many large, healthy trees cut down in the Borough over the last few years because they were ‘in the way’.

By way of written submission, the applicant made a number of points, including:

·         A proper assessment by Council officers had not been conducted, as no detailed observation was performed. Due to the current pandemic, the officer observed from a distance and did not realise the depth of the decay.

·         Supplied photographic evidence showed the depth of the tree decay, which was getting worse, and was jeopardising the lives of three people directly, and others via the car park next to the property.

By way of written submission, Ward Councillor Ray Graham made a number of points in support of the petitioners, including:

·         The tree was a rare example of an Indian Bean Tree, that was subject to a TPO and was situated in the Hillingdon Conservation Area.

The Committee discussed the application, and sought clarity from officers on whether the tree was felt to pose a danger to residents and the wider public. Officers advised that, without the results of resistograph or picus tests carried out by qualified tree consultants, officers could not confirm whether the tree was dangerous. Such tests would show the extent of the decay in the tree vs. the remaining ‘good wood’, and would also allow for consultants to advise on the potential for treatments to extend the life of the tree.

The Committee was informed that the applicant had, in their application, referred to advice from three separate companies that the tree was decayed and required felling. Officers highlighted that these companies were not qualified tree consultants focused on the health of the tree, and were instead tree surgeons quoting for the felling of the tree. It was confirmed that officers generally placed greater weight on the advice of tree consultants over tree surgeons, as consultants were more highly qualified.

The Committee agreed that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence, by way of the aforementioned tests, to allow for their application to be approved. With this in mind, Members moved the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application, though suggested that the included informative be amended to provide clear advice to the applicant on how to carry out the required testing through registered and accredited tree consultants. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That the wording of the suggested informative be amended to provide the applicant with advice on relevant next steps.