Agenda item

This item was taken first on the agenda. As Councillor Chelin was not present for the start of item she did not take part in the debate or vote.

The Tree Officer introduced the report as published.

There was one public speaker on the item: an objector.

The objector addressed the committee and made the following points:

-       Appealing against the proposal to convert the Tree Protection Order (TPO) on the Holm Oak at Mitford Lodge, Tivoli Road, from temporary to permanent.

-       Misguided by previous advisers and now understand the process. The tree can be satisfactorily maintained under the arrangements in place for managing trees within the conservation area, without the need for a TPO.

-       The trigger for the temporary TPO came about because as ‘laypeople’ they didn’t fully understand the process for the application to undertake remedial work. The advice given at the time was that the application would lead to a conversation and agreement on the detail of the work.

-       Do not recall point 4.5 in the officer’s comments whereby they were advised against the proposal by original consultants.

-       Also refer to point 6.1 of the Conclusion and Recommendation that “despite attempts by the tree officer to negotiate a more moderate approach to the tree, the applicant was unwilling to change their proposal until a TPO was served”. These comments were made directly to previous advisors and the applicants had no knowledge of these attempts. This was no fault of the officers.

-       Now understand that the original application was a statement of intent and this can only be declined by the council through the introduction of a TPO. Have since engaged a new professional consultant who has explained the process fully. This has already led to an approved programme of work for the tree which has recently been successfully completed.

-       Look forward to working with these professionals along with the council to maintain Holm Oak. In their opinion there is no need for the TPO to be made permanent.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that:

-       If the TPO is agreed, the residents can approach the council’s tree officers if they want to carry out maintenance work. Providing it is acceptable this work would be approved.

-       Officially, technically and by the letter of the law all tree works should be submitted to the local authority and approved prior to work commencing. From a procedural perspective there is very little difference from the customer’s experience of submitting a tree works notice if a TPO is present or not. In either case they would need to submit to the council. It is unlikely that the council would prosecute someone for removing epicormic growth without prior notice to the council, as it is unlikely to be in the public interest to do so. Submitting the correct paperwork does not take a lot of energy or time and contractors can do this on the owner’s behalf. There is no fee from the council, it is a small administrative obligation that they notify the council prior to works commencing.

The matter then went to Member debate where the following points were made:

-       The committee has been here with other trees a number of times. If the applicant has a plan that officers have approved for works, can see no hindrance in there being a TPO in place. The only reason to not have a TPO is so that works can be carried out that are not allowed.

-       This is an important heritage tree in Cheltenham, 150-200 years old and predates the building. A TPO is the only legal way to protect it.

-       Introducing TPOs on lovely, mature trees is a custodial process. Whilst there has been a lot of misunderstanding hope that can look beyond that and see the TPO is intended to protect the tree. More mature trees in Cheltenham should have TPOs as they are important parts of the landscape.

-       Truly stunned when they saw the tree, a magnificent specimen that would not be out of place in Kew Gardens or Westminster. Sure the current house owners’ owe it no ill will but should do all possible to protect it in the future.

-       Very impressed with how clear it was to see from the road and from many other properties. It is very much part of the local landscape which has likely been there since there was a much larger house in the area. The landscape that can be seen through this tree and others throughout Tivoli Road tells you about the heritage of Cheltenham, which was once a town within a park. Likely predates most of the houses in the area. This tree deserves to have a TPO.

The matter then went to the vote on the officer recommendation to confirm the Tree Protection Order without modification.

For: 9

Against: 0

Abstain: 0

Voted UNANIMOUSLY for the officer recommendation to confirm the Tree Protection Order without modification.