Agenda item

To consider report PES/353bof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to CONSENT.

The Committee considered report PES/353(b) of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed:

T6 – Turkey Oak – fell, and T7 – Common Lime – fell.

Councillors Jaggard and Purdy declared they had visited the site.  Although he had not visited the site recently, Councillor P Smith stated that he knew the site well.

The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application.

In line with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules, two statements submitted by members of the public were read to the Committee.

The first statement (submitted by objector Mr John Cooban) highlighted matters including:

·       The application to fell the trees did not solve the access problem to the church.

·       The trees in question could provide 20-40 years more years of beneficial life if they were managed appropriately.

·       Felling the trees could damage the roots (and health) of the remaining adjacent trees.

·       Alternative access routes had not been properly considered.

The second statement (submitted by Mr Hal Appleyard as the Agent for the Applicant) highlighted matters including:

·       The removal and replacement of the trees would have a negligible visual impact on the landscape and conservation area.

·       The tree roots currently impeded access along the path to the church, causing a ‘trip hazard’, especially to those who were elderly or infirm.

·       Pruning the tree roots would cause unsustainable harm to the trees.

·       Relocating the path was not feasible given the position of existing graves.

·       It was prudent to remove and replace the trees in question.

The Committee then considered the application in detail raising concern in particular about the loss of mature trees.  Several Committee Members questioned whether an alternative option was possible which would enable retention of the trees.  In response to the various concerns and queries raised by the Committee, the Group Manager (Development Management) advised the Committee that:

·       Re-routing the pathway had been explored in the past and evidence had suggested that it was not a practical option.  Given the age of the church the grave map was incomplete and did not include the early graves.

·       The roots of trees T6 and T7, if felled, would not be dug out and would instead be left to decay so that the roots of the neighbouring trees would not be disturbed or damaged.

·       The replacement trees would be planted close to the current trees but further from the path so they would remain part of the avenue once they matured, thus retaining the 12 Apostle principle.

·       All twelve trees along the path to the church were subject to Tree Preservation Orders and, therefore, any tree works required submission of an application to the Council as the Local Planning Authority.

A recorded vote was taken on the recommendation in accordance with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules.  The names of the Councillors voting for and against the recommendation, along with any abstentions, were recorded as follows:

For the recommendation to consent:

Councillors Irvine, Purdy, Sharma and P Smith (4).

Against the recommendation to consent:

Councillors Ascough, A Belben, Jaggard, Mwagale, Pickett and Rana (6).

Abstentions:

None.

The Officer’s recommendation to consent was therefore overturned.

Following further consideration by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Jaggard (seconded by Councillor A Belben) that the application be refused due to the amenity value and positive contribution provided by the two trees to both the approach to the church and the Worth Conservation Area.  The Committee was of the view that the application had not demonstrated that the scheme for the proposed removal of those trees was justified.

A recorded vote was then taken on the proposal to refuse planning consent in accordance with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules.  The names of the Councillors voting for and against the proposal, along with any abstentions, were recorded as follows:

For the proposal to refuse consent:

Councillors Ascough, A Belben, Jaggard, Mwagale, Pickett and Rana (6).

Against the proposal to refuse consent:

Councillors Irvine, Purdy, Sharma and P Smith (4).

Abstentions:

None.

RESOLVED

Refuse for the following reasons:

The two trees have amenity value and make a positive contribution to the approach to the church and to the Worth Conservation Area.  It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the scheme for the proposed removal of the trees is justified.