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 6 March 2018 (including confidential minutes) as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2018, including confidential minutes, 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 52/17 relating to land of Hythe and Dibden Memorial Hospital, Beaulieu Road, Hythe.

The Hearing had been preceded by a visit to the site to allow members to view the trees in Group G4 of Tree Preservation Order 52/17, in particular the 2 oak trees to the rear of No 9 Highlands Close, the property of the objectors.  The trees were viewed from within the rear garden of 9 Highlands Close and from surrounding roads in order to evaluate the public amenity offered by these trees, within Group G4.  This was a significant group of trees that ran along a raised bank to the rear of properties in Highlands Close and Belvedere Road.

Mr Van Hal advised the Panel that the trees covered by the tree preservation order had not been adequately maintained throughout the 35 years that he had lived at 9 Highlands Close, and as a consequence they were in a poor condition.  He was concerned that the Order would further prevent maintenance work to the trees.  Whenever he and his wife had requested that work should be done there had been a long delay in any response and they were routinely told that very little work could be done to the trees as they were protected.  The trees were in the grounds of Hythe hospital and therefore the responsibility of the National Health Service.

Mr Van Hal was also concerned that the roots of the trees could damage his property and the Order would prevent work to stop this happening.

Mr Van Hal had been advised by the Tree Officer that consent would be granted to remove a smaller oak tree at the rear of his property that was lower on the bank and overshadowed by its large neighbour, consequently making a limited contribution to the amenity value offered by the group of trees.  In addition, the larger tree could be subject to a crown reduction of up to 3 metres, but the NHS’ tree contractors had said that nothing like this level of work could be carried out.

Mr Van Hal’s main objection related to the large oak tree that was the first in the row of trees along the bank behind these properties.  This was by far the largest tree in the group.  His objection was on the grounds that the tree was not maintained.

Mr Van Hal was advised that the Council had no authority to require a landowner to carry out maintenance to a tree unless it was dangerous.  He considered however that the Council could write a letter to the NHS to point out the need for maintenance.  He had merely been advised that no work could be done as the trees were protected, even though that had not been the case.  Mrs Van Hal supported this objection.  Mrs Chalmers, the Tree Officer, advised the Panel that a group of trees at the front of the site had been the subject of a Tree Preservation Order for a number of years; however the trees to the rear had only been protected recently by this current  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.