Agenda item

Report No: DEV/WS/19/013

TPO/2007/02 - TPO/1996/06 - Tree Preservation Orders - (i) T1 - 1no. Oak - Fell  (ii) T8 - 1no Scots Pine - Fell

TPO/2007/02 - TPO/1996/06 - Tree Preservation Orders - (i) T1 - 1no. Oak - Fell (ii) T8 - 1no Scots Pine - Fell

This application was referred to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel.

Officers were recommending to grant consent for the felling of the T1 Oak and to refuse consent for the felling of the T8 Scots Pine.

The Town Council objected to the felling of both trees.  A Member site visit was held prior to the meeting.

As part of his presentation the Planning Officer advised Members that negotiation sought to secure changes to the proposal so that limb reduction works took place instead to the Scots Pine. 

However, the applicant did not agree to the suggested change from Officers, therefore making the recommendation the split decision as set out in Paragraphs 29 and 30 of Report No DEV/WS/19/013.

Speakers:    Bruce Talbot (neighbour objector) spoke against the application

                   Brenda Carey (applicant) spoke in support of the application

A number of Members made comment, largely opposing the felling of the Oak tree and posing a number of questions in relation to the tree.

In response to which, the Chair invited the Council’s Assistant Arboricultural Officer to address the meeting who advised the Committee that:

·         The Oak tree was considered to be of medium public amenity value.  On balance the replacement planting with a Lime tree would add to the Lime tree avenue that lined the adjacent Thetford Road and this enhancement was considered to be of high public amenity value; and

·         Whilst it was difficult to age trees accurately he considered the Oak tree to be over 100 years old and to have entered the last stage of its life.

Councillor Peter Stevens remarked on the Oak tree appearing to straddle the applicant’s property and that of the immediate neighbour. 

The Service Manager (Planning – Development) advised that if Members granted the felling of the tree then both parties would have to agree to the works, however, this was a matter of common law and not a material planning consideration.

Councillor Andy Neal proposed that the Tree Preservation Order Consent for the felling of the T1 Oak Tree be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, due to the high amenity value he considered the tree to provide.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Susan Glossop.

Upon being put to the vote and with 15 voting for the motion and with 1 against, it was resolved that

Decision

The Tree Preservation Order Consent for the felling of the T1 Oak Tree be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, due to the high amenity value the tree provided.

And, Councillor Neal also proposed that the Tree Preservation Order Consent for the felling of the T8 Scots Pine be refused, as per the Officer recommendation, This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.

Upon being put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that

Decision

The Tree Preservation Order Consent for the felling of the T8 Scots Pine be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.   The Scots Pine has a significantly high amenity value that contributes considerably to the wooded character of the local and wider area. Due to this high amenity value removal of the tree would need to be supported by additional information on the condition of the tree. No further evidence has been supplied and therefore, in the circumstance, it is not considered that a complete felling of the tree would be justified and would certainly not outweigh the adverse visual impacts that would arise and the removal of this tree would not therefore be justified. 

(Prior to taking the vote on this item the Lawyer advised the meeting that whilst Councillor David Gathercole had briefly stepped out of the room during the debate on this matter, whilst he was absent the only advice given by Officers was to highlight something that was not pertinent to the application, therefore Councillor Gathercole was still able to take part in the vote.)

(On conclusion of this item Councillors Susan Glossop, David Palmer and Peter Stevens left the meeting at 2.20pm.)