Agenda and minutes

None were received

To elect a Chairman for the meeting.

RESOLVED:

That Cllr Alvey be elected Chairman for the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 20 April 2016 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 April 2016 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To note any declarations of interest made by members in connection with an agenda item.  The nature of the interest must also be specified.

Members are asked to discuss any possible interests with Democratic Services prior to the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest made by any member in connection with an agenda item.

To consider objections to the making of Tree Preservation Order 21/17 relating to land of 36 Alder Hill Drive, Totton.

The Hearing was preceded by a visit to the site to allow members to view the tree from surrounding public viewpoints to form a view about its visual significance within the surrounding area.  There were no issues to be considered relating to the health of the tree.  Tree Preservation Order 21/17 protected an oak tree in the rear garden of 36 Alder Hill Drive, Totton.

The Panel was reminded that they should consider the amenity value afforded by the tree and, if they were satisfied that it offered a significant level of public amenity, they should go on to consider the expediency of confirming the Order.  The Panel was also reminded of the need to take account of the Human Rights of the tree’s owners.

Mrs Farminer questioned why this particular tree had been protected when others in the vicinity, whose removal would have a much greater impact on the visual amenities of the area, were not.  Mr and Mrs Farminer had checked with the National Park Authority, on two occasions, before purchasing the property and had been advised that the tree was not covered by a Tree Preservation Order. They had subsequently moved into the property in December 2016.  The neighbour at No 37 had removed the large oak tree in their garden in April 2017.  Mr and Mrs Farminer had sought a quote from a tree surgeon to have the tree in their garden removed in January 2017 but had not proceeded at that stage, when they would have been legally entitled to remove the tree.  They felt aggrieved that the Order had been imposed before they had the opportunity to do so.  They could see no basis for protecting the tree, which they considered did not have significant amenity value from public viewpoints.  Mr and Mrs Farminer had canvassed a wide section of nearby residents, who had not been served with the Order, who had indicated their support for the removal of the tree which they considered to be too large for its location in dense urban development, offering limited amenity value to the area.  Mrs Farminer questioned why a wider range of residents had not been given the opportunity to comment of the Order, if it was judged that they would be affected by the loss of the tree.  Two neighbours had objected to the Order, as set out in the report to the meeting. Mrs Farminer considered that although it was disappointing that they had not pursued their objections, they had nonetheless objected.  The Panel had viewed the tree from 2 view points in the vicinity, and she had identified a third.  However, if the crown of the tree was reduced by 3 metres, as would be permitted by the Tree Officer, this would significantly decrease the degree to which it was visible in the surrounding area.  The cost of the works to the tree was significant and would have to be repeated every few years. This was not something that they felt they could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.