Agenda and draft minutes

To elect a Chairman for the meeting.

RESOLVED:

That Cllr Derek Tipp be appointed Chairman of the 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 any agenda item.

To consider objections to the making of Tree Preservation Order 0012/21 relating to land of land of 30 Park Road, Fordingbridge.

The hearing had been preceded by a visit to the site to allow members to view the tree at 30 Park Road, Fordingbridge of Tree Preservation Order 0012/21 (the TPO). The tree was viewed from the road, close to where it stood.

Members noted 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 Appeals 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 Edmunds, the owner, explained the reasons for his objection to the TPO.  Since it was planted by a landscape gardener employed by him in 2014, the tree, a London Plane, had exceeded its expected rate of growth and was already overhanging the road.  He was also concerned about the roots of the tree damaging his retaining wall. He did not feel the tree was a candidate for preservation and estimated that the spread of the tree could potentially be 40 feet. He would like to retain the tree but could not see how this was practical.  He felt the TPO was an infringement of his civil liberties.

In answer to a question from the Tree Officer on whether he sought professional advice on the planting of the tree, Mr Edmunds stated that the landscape gardener who planted the tree did not advise Mr Edmunds about the size and he did not know whether the landscape gardener had any professional accreditations.

Mr Edmunds was asked why he objected to the TPO when he could manage the tree with the Tree Officer’s advice. Mr Edmunds felt he could manage the tree himself through common sense management.   He did not feel the TPO was justified and did not feel that the tree made a difference to the visual amenity of the area.

In her statement, the Tree Officer explained that following the July 2021 planning application, it was not clear whether the tree would be retained, and therefore the TPO was made due to the potential risk to the tree. It was felt the future amenity value of the tree should be protected.  Although the tree was not a mature specimen, this did not restrict the amenity value.  She explained that this species of tree (a London Plane) tolerated pruning, and pruning over the highway was exempt from the conditions in the TPO. The Tree Officer estimated that the potential spread of the tree was 10m in diameter and was a great feature to that part of the road.

Mr Edmunds asked what recourse there was if the tree damaged his retaining wall, including the inconvenience and expense.  The Tree Officer responded that trees could be removed if there was subsidence to properties, in which case an application to fell the tree could be made ie if they were a ‘legal nuisance.’ Where there was evidence of damage caused by trees, the Council could potentially also be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.