Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

The Chairman reminded Members that the proposed Tree Preservation Order was for two trees out of a total of 17 trees in the orchard.

The Planning and Development Team Manager presented the report to Members. 

Mr S Clarke, agent, addressed the Committee.  He detailed the law regarding the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order and urged Members not to use the power lightly.  He informed Members that the removal of the trees was proposed as part of planning application 16/00678/FUL which had been submitted nine months prior.  As it had taken so long to put the Tree Preservation Order in place, Mr S Clarke questioned how important the officers felt the trees were and intimated it was a method of preventing planning permission being permitted.  He concluded that there would be no benefit to the visual amenity by retaining the trees as there was no public view or any footpath nearby.

The officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor J Legrys and seconded by Councillor D Everitt.

Councillor J Bridges raised concerns regarding the timescale of the proposed Tree Preservation Order as the agent had highlighted that the related planning application had been in process for nine months.  He stated that he would like to see a proper survey undertaken as to why the trees should be protected.

Councillor M Specht was surprised that the proposal was to protect only two of the trees.  He also asked if the confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order would affect the planning application.  The Planning and Development Team Manager reported that the application had not yet been determinedbut if confirmed, the Tree Preservation Order would form part of the considerations.  He added that the applicant had not provided any evidence to suggest that the trees should be felled rather than retained.

The chairman also raised concerns regarding the timescales, especially as the owners could have taken the decision to remove the trees at any time previously.

In response to a question from Councillor G Jones, the Planning and Development Team Manager stated that he was unsure as to the reasons for the timescales.  He explained that the initial planning application was submitted in mid-2016 and a number of issues had held it up.  Also the proposed Tree Preservation Order was the result of an objection received to the removal of the trees, which had led to an officer visiting the site and taking the decision to protect the trees as detailed in the report. He explained that the lengthy timescales would not constitute a reason not to confirm the order.

The officer’s recommendation to confirm the Tree Preservation Order was put to the vote and LOST.

Councillor J Bridges moved that the confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order be deferred to allow a thorough survey to be undertaken on the two trees in question.  It was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

RESOLVED THAT:

The confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order be deferred to allow the site owner to undertake a thorough tree survey of the trees recommended to be protected.