Agenda item

To Fell One Oak in Area A1 on Tree Preservation Order Number 392.

Recommendation : Approval     

In introducing the report, Officer’s drew the Committee’s attention to the following points: there was evidence that the tree was responsible for causing structural damage to the chalet bungalow, the scale and cost of repair, the low amenity value of the tree and the slight adverse impact of the tree on the amenity and character of the area.

In response to a query about the age of the tree, Officers explained it was difficult to provide an exact figure, but from the size the trunk it was likely to be somewhere between 80 and 100 years old.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the representative of the petitioners in objection to the application addressed the meeting.

The petitioners made the following points:

·        The tree was healthy and was about 80 to 100 years old. The tree had intrinsic value and was an integral part of the Linksway avenue. There was no need for it to be felled.

·        The tree had value by way of its contribution to the estate. The Copsewood Estate was attractive because of the mix of architectural styles as well as the different species of trees.

·        The proposal to fell the tree was not related to damage to the property. The property was on the market to be sold and it was likely that the current property would be demolished and a bespoke home built in its place. Therefore, the removal of the tree was related to the potential sale rather than for environmental reasons.

The agent was not present at the meeting.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·        The Ward Councillor spoke in support of the petitioner

·        The application should be refused and the tree should not be felled.

In discussing the application, Members asked officers to clarify the options which were available to prevent further damage to the property. Officers explained that a root barrier had been considered but site investigations had confirmed that the root systems of the tree where now too close to the foundations of the property to make this viable. An alternative option which officers had considered was massive pruning of the tree by 60% to 70% which would significantly reduce the water demands of the tree but the disadvantage of this action would be the impact this would have on the visual amenity of the tree.

Clarification was sought about the canopy of the tree and the distance of the tree trunk from the property. In response, Officers confirmed that despite a distance of about 30 feet, the canopy of the tree still touched the roof of the property. Members discussed the environmental importance of oak trees and the biodiversity value this species had.

The Legal Officer advised Members that they were required to consider whether any loss or damage was likely to arise if consent was refused and highlighted that the Authority would be liable to pay compensation for any loss or damage as a consequence of its decision unless they were to certify that the tree had an outstanding or special amenity value (Article 5 certification). In this particular case, it was material that as Officers had deemed the tree did not warrant an Article 5 certification, the Legal Officer confirmed that the Authority would be open and might face a claim for compensation if consent was not granted to fell the Oak.

A Member expressed the view that as these cases were exceptional, it was important to take account of the views of experts. In this case the roots of the tree had been responsible for damage to the property as evidenced by the horizontal cracking in the property walls. It was noted that remedial action would be expensive, the tree was not an outstanding specimen and if the tree were felled, then a different variety of tree could be planted as a replacement. Officers stated that in most cases, efforts were made to protect trees but in this particular case, the site had been monitored for 9 months which had resulted in a technical report which recommended the felling of the tree.

The recommendation for Approval was moved, seconded and on being out to the vote was agreed with four Members in favour with two against.

Resolved – That the application be Approved for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.