Agenda item

To confirm the following Tree Preservation Orders:

1. Oakfield Court, Haslemere Road, N8
2. 89 & 91 Fortis Green, N2
3. 65 Mount View Road, N4
4. 95 Mayfield Road, N8

The Committee received the report recommending 4 tree preservation orders (pages 77-94 of the agenda pack) and the additional information previously circulated, in response to objections received in relation to items 3 (65 Mount View Road) and 4 (95 Mayfield Road) below.

1.         Oakfield Court, Haslemere Road N8 (Pages 79-81)

RESOLVED

That the tree preservation order placed on Oakfield Court, Haslemere Road N8 be confirmed.

2.         89 & 91 Fortis Green, N2 (Pages 83-85)

RESOLVED

That the tree preservation order placed on 89 & 91 Fortis Green be confirmed.

3.         65 Mount view Road N4 (Pages 87-89)

The Head of Development Management introduced the tree preservation order placed on 65 Mount View Road, N8 and the objections raised by the occupants of Flat A & Flat C 9 Dashwood Road.

The Committee noted the statements of Karen Louise Hill (Flat C 9 Dashwood Road) and Mark Whent (Flat B 9 Dashwood Road) including comments and photographs showing that in the objectors’ opinions it was unclear which tree the preservation order related to and the trees at 65 Mount View Road shaded neighbouring gardens. 

Members of the Committee expressed concerns that clarity was needed around which tree the order related to and it was:

RESOLVED

That the tree preservation order recommended for 65 Mount View Road N8 be deferred until the Planning Sub Committee in September to allow officers to inspect the site and produce a photograph in a future report  of the exact tree which the preservation order relates to.

4.         95 Mayfield Road N8 (Pages 91-93)

The Head of Development Management introduced the tree preservation order for two lime trees in the rear garden of 95 Mayfield Road and highlighted that works for planning application reference HGY/2011/0917 had not yet been permitted.  In response to a question it was noted that the Council could not add conditions to a tree preservation order to ensure a property owner pollarded (regularly maintained) a tree.

The Committee noted the statement of Ms Danielle Simler owner of 95 Mayfield Road including that she spoke on behalf of the residents of 94 Inderwick and 96 Mayfield Road who had also submitted letters of objection to the Council.  Ms Simler highlighted that the property was not in a conservation area; the trees were barely visible from the street and neighbouring property owners had cut down similar trees which were not a rare species.  Ms Simler informed the Committee that the trees adversely affected views from 95 Mayfield Road and neighbouring properties and shaded the sun from the gardens and would be costly to maintain.  If felled Ms Simler would replace the trees with alternative trees.

In response to questions from the Committee the Head of Development Management reported that there was no evidence of subsidence at the site and that management of the trees would resolve any future issues.

The Chair moved the recommendation and, on a vote of 6 for and 2 against, it was:

RESOLVED

That the tree preservation order placed on 95 Mayfield Road N8 be confirmed.