Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

To consider confirmation of Tree Preservation Order TPO/00216 (2024) – G1 – 8 Oak Trees.

RESOLVED: That TPO/00216 was CONFIRMED.

Audio recording – 39 minutes 38 seconds

The Planning Officer presented the report and advised that:

·       Some sections of the report had been incorrectly carried over from a previous report and therefore these needed to be updated.

·       At Paragraph 6.1, reference was made to trees needing work or in decline, but this was incorrect and should instead include reference to the requirement to provide evidence for emergency works to the trees covered by the TPO.

·       Paragraph 9.2 of the report could be disregarded.

·       Paragraph 9.3 of the report referred to trees not being protected, but this was incorrect as most of the trees were covered by an existing TPO.

·       This TPO was seeking to remove 2 of those trees, one from eastern end and one from 31 Garden Fields, and add a new tree, adjacent to the parking area at the western end.

·       The reason for the addition of the new tree was following a request to complete works to the tree at the western end, at which point the tree was identified as one which required protection.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of TPO/216 supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised that:

·       A management company was responsible for the tree proposed to be included in this TPO.

·       It was not proposed to fell any of the trees, but to remove them from the TPO, and therefore a condition could not be added for a replacement.

The Chair invited Ms Claire McNulty to speak as an objector to the application. Ms McNulty thanked the Chair for the opportunity and advised that:

·       She and neighbours had previously made objections to this when notified in July and November 2024.

·       The proposed TPO was unnecessary and would hinder the management of the tree, as it was on land managed by a management company and they were responsible for consideration of any works required.

·       The proposed new tree to be included was not neglected or at risk and was already well looked after by residents.

·       There were trees already covered in the existing TPO which posed a risk to children playing in gardens.

The Chair thanked Ms McNulty for her presentation.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Caroline McDonnell

In response to points of clarification, Ms McNulty advised that:

·       The current process was that requests for works went to the directors of the management company to consider. The directors were happy to see the gardens maintained and, once works were approved, they would arrange a company to conduct the works.

·       There was some confusion with residents unsure which trees were covered by the TPO and what was proposed in this new TPO. Therefore, some comments related to trees already covered by the existing TPO.

·       It would have been beneficial for the directors of the management company to have been notified of this meeting, though she was unsure whether this had been sent and missed.

In response to points of clarification, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

·       The purpose of the TPO was to give the Council control of works proposed to trees before the work is completed.

·       Requests to conduct work to trees covered by a TPO can be made through a simple and straightforward application process.

·       In the case of emergency works, this was allowed, and photos should be taken as evidence of the required works and provided to the authority after. It was not the purpose of a TPO to leave dangerous branches in place where danger was imminent.

·       In most cases where an application is made to a TPO, it would be approved.

·       The TPO allowed the Council to control trees, with the main benefit being the prevention of unnecessary felling of trees which made a positive contribution to an area.

·       There would be no change with this new TPO to the existing covered trees, it would only remove the 2 trees and include the additional tree referred to in the report.

Councillor Martin Prescott proposed to confirm TPO/216 and this was seconded by Councillor Ruth Brown.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Louise Peace

Points raised during the Debate included that:

·       The TPO would supersede the directors of the management company and therefore any issues which needed urgent resolution could be done, with retrospective permission sought. This should not extent the current timeframe for action.

·       It would be worthwhile for a letter to be sent to residents to confirm which trees were included in the TPO and explain the situation, as it had been apparent that some confusion existed.

In response to a point raised in the Debate, the Chair advised that neighbouring properties could be contacted to advise of the TPO.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That TPO/00216 was CONFIRMED.