Agenda item

CC explained that this application has come out of an earlier application to fell the tree.  As it is situated in a conservation area, officers tried to negotiate, ultimately putting a TPO on the tree.  The flat owners objected and CC has brought it to Planning Committee for an airing and to allow Members to make the final decision. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Worsley, on behalf of residents of Thorncliffe, in objection

Originally submitted an application to remove the tree which residents feel has become dangerous and unsuitable, and to replace it with two new more suitable trees.  It was a democratic and unanimous decision by all the flat owners.  Lansdown Road is a busy road and the flats have large frontage and attractive borders.  The tree is taller than the five-storey building, it bends in the wind giving rise to health and safety concerns, and causes distress to elderly residents on the upper floors, who are worried that it could fall and cause damage or injury.  In addition, birds roost in the overhanging branches, making a mess which, combined with the fallen pine needles on the sloping surface, cause a significant slip and trip hazard for residents.  The TPO was issued based on a TEMPO report which is very subjective; there is some discrepancy here and residents dispute the scoring.  What exactly does high amenity value mean?  Residents are not seeking to damage the area, but to enhance it, improve safety, and alleviate their worries and fears.

Member debate:

BF:  the tree doesn’t appear to be dangerous; can CC confirm if it is?  This tree is a community asset, can be seen by many people from a distance as part of a long view of Lansdown Road, and is a beautiful tree, which predates the flats.  As long as it is safe, it is making a positive contribution to the street scene.

SW:  endorses this view.  How often do tall trees grow bolt upright?  Not very many.  Has seen older trees than this which list even more but remain safe.  As for bird fouling, knows the problem from his own garden, but that’s life -  we’re not going to get rid of all trees and birds and live in a concrete only city.  As long as the tree is safe, it should be retained.

KS:  agrees with the residents.  Wouldn’t like to live in the shadow of this tree leaning towards her flat.  Has tried to love it, but can’t – it’s just not that attractive – and cannot comment on its score for amenity value as she is no expert.  Would not have a problem with the tree being removed and new ones planted.  There are other trees in the area for people and birds to enjoy.  Is happy to vote against this TPO, though if the tree was further away from the flats, it would probably be OK.

Vote on officer recommendation to confirm the TPO

13 in support

2 in objection

TPO is confirmed