Agenda item

To confirm the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for a tree in the rear garden of No 11 Conway Road.

RECOMMENDATION: to approve the confirmation of the TPO

The Committee considered a report on an application to approve the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for a tree in the rear garden of No 11 Conway Road. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to confirm the TPO.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The report also sought authorisation to delegate all powers regarding TPOs (and the ability to further sub-delegate these powers) going forward to the Director/Assistant Director Planning save for TPOs that had objections to them where authorisation was sought to delegate all powers relating to these (and the ability to further sub-delegate these powers) to the Director/Assistant Director Planning subject to agreement with the Chair or Vice-Chair.

The home owner of 11 Conway Road addressed the Committee to outline her objections to the TPO as follows:

·         She had no intention of felling the tree but wanted to retain responsibility for its maintenance, particularly as it was in close proximity to neighbouring properties and had suffered from storm damage in the past.

·         Confusion was expressed over why the TPO was necessary and how the site survey had been undertaken with no request received to inspect the tree from the garden of 11 Conway Road.

·         The visibility of the tree from the street was limited.

·         An insurance company had recommended the felling of the tree in the past as a preventative measure following the completion of a subsidence survey but the owner had decided not to proceeded with this action as she wanted to retain the tree as a wildlife habitat.

The Committee sought clarification from officers on where the future maintenance responsibilities for the tree would lie. In response, it was advised that this responsibility would remain with the owner but that any substantial works would require consent to be obtained from the Council due to the TPO status.

An explanation was sought as to why the TPO was considered necessary for this particular tree. Officers advised that a number of similar trees in the vicinity had been felled and so the Council’s arboriculturist had surveyed the area and was proposing a TPO as a safeguarding action to protect the tree in perpetuity from felling.

In response to concerns that the householder hadn’t been more involved in the decision to impose a TPO, officers advised that the correct process had been followed including allowing the owner to make representations, a right she had exercised. A survey was not required in to make a TPO although the arboriculturist had visited a neighbouring garden to assess the condition of the tree. 

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·         To approve the confirmation of the TPO and authorise the Assistant Director Planning to take all the necessary steps required in connection with the confirmation of the TPO (and to further sub-delegate this power).

·         To authorise the delegation of all powers regarding tree preservation orders (and the ability to further sub-delegate these powers) to the Director/Assistant Director Planning save for tree preservation orders that have objections to them for which all powers relating to these (and the ability to further sub-delegate these powers) are delegated to the Director/Assistant Director Planning subject to agreement with the Chair or Vice-Chair.