Agenda and draft minutes

To elect a Chairman for the meeting.

RESOLVED:

That Cllr Dunningbe appointedChairman ofthe Panel

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 an objection to the making of a Tree Preservation Order TPO/0002/21 relating to land adjacent to “The Ruffs”, Chapel Lane, Langley.

The hearinghad beenpreceded bya visitto thesite toallow membersto viewthe trees identified as woodland adjacent to “The Ruffs”, Chapel Lane, Langley of Tree Preservation Order 0002/21 (‘the TPO’).

The               woodlandwas viewed from various standpoints, from Blackfield cemetery, the open forest, and Chapel Lane.

Members were reminded of the tests that should be applied in considering whether or not to confirm the TPO, as set out in the report to the Panel. The Panel was advised that it might confirm the TPO if it considered that it was expedient and in the interests of amenity to do so.

Mr Smith, the Objector, addressing the Panel, produced 2 new plans of the site and claimed that the plan attached to the TPO was inaccurate, as there were areas of his site (marked in red) that were not included in the TPO.  The plans comprised the   Land Registration Plan and the TPO Plan. He claimed the red areas showed where the TPO had not covered all of his land, and the areas marked in blue showed areas which were outside his land boundary.  Mr Smith stated the blue areas were owned by the Forestry Commission, which he said had not been served with the TPO. He felt the consequences of this were that the TPO needed a minor amendment to exclude this area.   In regard to the red areas of the map (areas of his land not covered by the TPO), Mr Smith pointed out that omitting the area in question from the TPO would mean that 30 or 40 trees on the western boundary would be excluded. This in his view would require a further TPO.

Mr Smith explained that he wished to be in charge of restocking his woodland, but that the TPO would make this difficult, and that this and would lead to an excess of oak trees in the site. He suggested that individual TPOs should be made on each of the oaks on the site, which would not hinder him from restocking the Forest, in line with the Council’s Tree Strategy.   

Mr Smith claimed that the Council would be liable for compensation in the region of approximately£50k-£100k regarding the loss of timber as a consequence of the TPO being confirmed.  The Tree Officer pointed out that a felling licence would be needed for this amount of timber and the licence would override the TPO.  Mr Smith claimed that a licence was not required under a certain number of cubic square metres, and therefore he would have to apply to the Council for consent to fell trees, and if refused, he asserted that compensation was then payable.

In response to a question about the value of timber, Mr Smith accepted that while he had had an overall valuation, his estimate may not be accurate.

In answer to a question about licences for felling, Mr Smith stated that he had no interest in felling oak trees, but reiterated that the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.