Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs D Andrews and C Ford.

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 13 March 2018 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2018 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 17/18 relating to land of north of Torreyana Gardens, Pennington, Lymington.

The hearing had been preceded by a visit to the site to allow members to view the trees identified in W1 of Tree Preservation Order 17/18 (‘the Order’).  The woodland was viewed from three places in Torreyana Gardens and from the public footpath to the north of Torreyana Gardens.

Mr Spooner advised the Panel that his client had owned the site for the last 40 years.  He considered the public amenity value of the trees to be negligible.  The tallest trees in the area identified in the Order were 7m high and approximately 20-25 cm in diameter.  It was estimated that the trees were 40 years old and were therefore immature.  Mr Spooner considered the trees as scrubland in nature, rather than woodland.  A definition of scrubland was provided to the Panel.  Mr Spooner also raised the issue of the expediency of the Order and referred the Panel to paragraph 5.3 of the report, which detailed the DCLG Guidance on expediency.

Mr Spiller reported that his client had a long term interest in the site.  The owner had been a good custodian of the land, leaving the trees to grow.

The issue of future development of the site was raised and concern was expressed that the Order could make any development proposals unviable.

In answer to a question from the Tree Officer regarding the reason for the objection, Mr Spooner reported he did not agree with the description of the area being “woodland” in nature, nor was it expedient to make the order.  If any trees were to be protected, protection should be afforded only the most valuable ones. 

In answer to questions from members, Mr Spiller advised that the land subject to the Order was within the green belt and that the owner had promoted the land for development for a long period of time.  The owner had also worked with the District Council on the development of the Local Plan, although it was noted that the land was no longer allocated for development in the Local Plan. However, discussions had been taking place with the Town Council in relation to whether the land would be suitable as an affordable housing exception site.   

The site would continue to be promoted for development and it was hoped to bring forward planning proposals in the future.  It was argued that there was no immediate or future risk to the trees, if development of the site was not approved.  It was felt that the Order was an unnecessary and unreasonable burden.

Mr Palmer, the Tree Officer, advised the Panel that a Tree Preservation Order had been proposed a number of years ago in response to the Urban Design Officer at New Forest District Council having concerns about the site.  A decision had been taken not to proceed with making an Order at that stage as it was believed not to be expedient at that time.  Mr Palmer had been asked more recently by officers at New Forest District Council to consider whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.