Agenda item

Concerns, comments and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

• The petitioner circulated document setting out the concerns and suggested solution.
• The report does not mention the road was a cul-de-sac.
• Historically Beech Avenue was lined with trees but as trees were removed they were not replaced.
• Does the cost of removing the tree include the cost of resurfacing?
• Removal of the tree will not improve the situation for Pushchairs and wheelchairs as there would still be a problem with existing street furniture.
• Access gates on Beech Avenue were pegged open onto the footpath causing obstruction for pedestrians.
• There was a danger of pedestrians falling as there would be an incline on the repaired pavement so it would be safer to walk in the road.
• Path was a mixture of paving slabs and tarmac.
• Beech Avenue was a cul-de-sac much used by pedestrians as Footpath R161 crosses at the top of Beech Avenue.
• It was the narrowness of the footpath that was causing the problem. There were only 8 houses past the tree to be removed and the only vehicles accessing this part of Beech Avenue were residents and there visitors.
• It was suggested that the footpath could be extended into the carriageway to avoid having to remove the tree. .
• Consideration should also be given to Beech Avenue becoming a Home Zone.
• If the tree was removed the Avenue would lose its historic character.
• Asked the Cabinet Member to look at all the options put forward. 

Councillor Keith Burrows listened to the concerns and points raised by the petitioner and asked officers to comment on the options put forward by the petitioner.

Officers advised that the cost referred to in the report was only in relation to the removal of the tree.  The reason for removal of the tree was due to the root damaging the footway and becoming uneven and unsafe for pedestrian users.  The Council has a duty of care under the Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, to ensure safe pedestrian passage.   The petitioner’s suggestion of Beech Avenue being made a Home Zone had not been considered.

The Cabinet Member stated that he would not agree to the tree being removed at this stage and deleted recommendation 2 and added a new recommendation in its place.   The Cabinet Member stated that Officers had already highlighted the Council’s duty of care and this must be taken into consideration when a decision was made.  The new recommendation would be to instruct officers to take into account the petitioners concerns and the options they put forward and report back prior to a final decision being made on the removal of the tree.  The Cabinet Member advised those present that the outcome may still be that the tree was removed.

That the Cabinet Member:

1.      Met and discussed with petitioners’ their concerns regarding the removal of the beech tree located outside No. 63 Beech Avenue, Ruislip.

2.      Instructs officers to into account the petitioners concerns and the option put forward to build out the footpath around the tree and report back to the Cabinet Member and Ward Councillors before making a final decision to remove the tree.

Reasons for Recommendation

The proposed removal of the beech tree located outside No. 61/63 Beech Avenue will improve pedestrian access on Beech Avenue and reduce the risk of tripping accidents associated with the current uneven footway.

Alternative Options Considered

No root grinding, resurface footway:   unfortunately given the extent of root growth it is not feasible to simply resurface the footway as the surface would still be too uneven and unsafe for pedestrian access.

Root grinding, resurface footway:  the height difference between the surrounding footway and       standing by the tree is such that if we were to reduce this height difference to an acceptable amount from a pedestrians safety perspective the damage to the tree would result in terminal decline and death of the tree. The tree would become unstable and prone to topple over.

Grass over footway to become verge:     this considered option was to leave all roots intact, grass over the area and allow it to become a grass verge rather than a footway. However as stated above the Council has a duty to maintain the footway to a standard that is “fit for purpose” and therefore will not be allowed to “stop up” the footwayunless a stopping up order is made. Stopping up this part of the highway is not considered to be a desirable or practical solution.

Grass over footway to become verge, construct current verge as footway adjacent to boundary wall of 61 Beech Avenue:   constructing the footway in place of the current verge would only be at best a temporary solution as the roots also run through the verge and would affect the newly constructed footway. Construction of the footway adjacent to number 61 would also impact on the property at 61 and require the Council to make adjustments to the private boundary wall. The construction of the footway in this location may also have drainage implications that may affect number 61 Beech Avenue.