Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order TPO/00221 (2025) – W1 & W2 – comprising trees of various species.

RESOLVED: That Tree Preservation Order (TPO/00221) be CONFIRMED.

Audio recording 1 hour 5 minutes 15 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application TPO/00221(2025) and advised that:

·       The Applicant had objected to the original Tree Preservation Order under section 8.45 of the constitution.

·       A letter had been received since the report had been published from a local resident in support of the Tree Preservation Order.

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application TPO/00221(2025) accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The Chair invited the Public Supporter, Nicholas Pellett to speak in support of the application. Mr Pellett thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

·       He was the representative for 30 local residents and other concerned parties which included some countryside experts.

·       These woods had enjoyed a natural existence free from development.

·       The natural habitat had taken centuries to evolve and was irreplaceable.

·       The woodland had suffered the last two years from development in the area resulting in inappropriate drainage in the woodland.

·       The subsequent raised ground level and flooding of the woods was detrimental to the trees.

·       This Tree Preservation Order would provide effective protection for the future of the trees which were threatened by development.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Val Bryant, Mr Pellett advised that the woods were formerly part of the estate owned by Lord Brockett and were a local resource.

The Chair thanked Mr Pellett for his presentation and invited the Ward Member, Councillor Paul Ward to speak in support of the application. Cllr Ward thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

·       He was in support of the Tree Preservation Order.

·       He had been contacted in September 2024 by a local resident who was concerned about the impact on the woods from nearly properties.

·       As a result of this, he met with residents and listened to their concerns.

·       Following a visit to the woods, he could confirm his agreement with paragraph 4.3.2 of the report.

·       This Tree Preservation Order was critical to protect the trees in the woodland.

·       The high ecological status of the site and the scale of unauthorised works and damage that had already happened, it was imperative that the woodlands were protected for the community, as detailed in paragraph 4.3.7 of the report.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Councillor Ward for his verbal presentation and invited the Representative of the Applicant, Ms Sophie Cairns to speak against the application. Ms Cairns thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

·       This proposed Tree Preservation Order was neither justified nor proportionate.

·       The trees were located on private land with no public rights of way.

·       The current owners had developed good woodland management and were enhancing biodiversity.

·       A Tree Preservation Order would only introduce hurdles to the management of any coppicing and thinning of trees.

·       The Applicant was willing to cooperate by implementing a woodland management plan for the site.

·       She urged the Council to withdraw the Tree Preservation Order and to work with the owners to create a woodland management plan.

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

·       A meeting was planned to discuss the longevity of the site and how to ensure best management in the future.

·       Flooding in the woods came from the road and not just from the drainage works from the site.

·       A woodland management plan would prevent the hurdles which resulted from a Tree Preservation Order.

In response to points of clarification, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

·       A woodland management plan could only be secured through a planning application or a Section 106 agreement.

·       The view of the site could be accessed by members of the public from Three Houses Lane and therefore the site did have amenity value.

·       There was concern around inappropriate tree species that had been planted on and around the boundary of the site which were not native species.

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission, and this was seconded by Councillor Val Bryant.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Clare Billing

Points raised during the debate included:

·       Trees and the ancient ecosystem must be protected, as advised by CPRE Hertfordshire, Natural England and The Woodland Trust in paragraphs 4.3.3 and 4.3.6 of the report.

·       The native species of trees in the woodland must be protected by ensuring no irresponsible planting happened.

·       There were many bluebells in the woodland which needed to be protected.

In response to a point raised during the debate, the Senior Planning Officer advised that bluebells were protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

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

RESOLVED: That Tree Preservation Order (TPO/00221) be CONFIRMED.