Agenda item

To protect trees within the designated Area.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the site location and details of the current and proposed tree perseveration orders were shown. Members were informed that several objections had been made by residents regarding the protection order, as well as concerns of harming neighbouring properties, however, there was no evidence to support this.

Public Participation

Mr Bratchell spoke against the proposal. He felt that the TPO had been issued under false pretences and that nobody had taken the time to view or discuss the impacts on neighbouring properties. This had been an ongoing issue and after years of neglect the trees are imposing. Mr Bratchell discussed the damage that the trees were doing to his property, in particularly branches falling and damaging greenhouses, as well as being a result of constant maintenance on garage roofs. He informed members that this is something that he struggles to do now and is becoming dangerous for him to constantly clear up mess from trees on his property. He hoped members would consider the application carefully and asked that they remove the Tree Preservation Order to safely manage and maintain properties.

Mr Tyler requested that the committee remove the existing Tree Preservation Order on his property. He informed members that the trees were imposing and had been majorly neglected. This was shown through damaging the property structure and the flooding of garages. It was highlighted that pedestrians had been scared to walk in front of his property due to the damage that had been caused. Mr Tyler felt that it posed significant risks to neighbouring properties. He highlighted that there were no other TPOs on the road and felt singled out from neighbours which he didn’t feel was fair. He urged the committee to remove the TPO in its entirety to ensure trees on his property could be maintained.

The Parish Councillor hoped the committee would retain the Tree Preservation Order as a safeguarding action. Cllr Manuel noted the statements and comments made from residents, however, still felt the order was necessary. It was highlighted that the Parish Council was not aware of the TPO on the site initially, but it did receive her support and she noted the importance of preserving the trees.

Members questions and comments

·       Members thanked the officer for his report and presentation.

·       The purpose of Tree Preservation Orders was future proofing.

·       Noted that in the past the trees had been neglected which would hopefully be maintained in the future to mitigate further damage.

·       Benefits and difficulties of upholding a temporary Tree Preservation Order.

·       Members noted the importance of protecting significant trees through serving Tree Preservation Orders.

·       Clarification as to whether consultation has been made with highways regarding impacts on footways.

·       Confirmation as to whether the tree had damaged neighbouring properties and if this was the result of lack of maintenance.

·       Proximity of tree to neighbouring property.

·       Lack of assurance over impacts on neighbouring property.

·       Questions regarding whether the tree was mature when existing dwellings were built.

·       Clarification on the implications and liability of damage to properties.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representations; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to approve the officer’s recommendation to confirm the TPO with modifications to the schedule and site plan as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Alex Brenton, and seconded by Cllr John Worth.

Decision: To confirm the TPO as modified.