Agenda item

Public Speaking:

Mrs Hibbert, applicant, in objection

The Senior Trees Officer commented that he had never noticed this tree when driving along Tatchley Lane, which shows that it is only really visible when standing directly opposite the house, and then partly hidden by a laburnum and flanked by conifers – not really of significant amenity value.  It is a beautiful tree but only 1.8m from the building. There seems to be no fixed minimum distance for this, though recommendations of 10 metres or 10 paces, and the National House-Building Federation recommends a distance equal to three-quarters the mature height of the tree, to ensure no problems in future – this is significantly more than 1.8m.  If this tree continues to grow, it will cause structural damage to the house.  The Trees Officer acknowledges the tree has a a structurally compromised main trunk and the crown has been reduced in the past to relieve stress.  The tree was planted around 1979, but the owners cannot have considered the future problems it could cause when mature.  It still a relatively young tree, so now would be a good time to replace it; would be happy to plant a semi-mature replacement – 15-20 years old - in a different position, to give enjoyment for the next 70-100 years. Would not object to a TPO being placed on this replacement tree.  If Committee would like, will also remove leylandii hedge to expose original redbrick wall and provide a highly visible and striking backdrop, with glorious amenity value to Tatchley Lane.

Member debate:

CC, in response:

-       the TPO came about following pre-app advice on a change of use application which would involve the removal of the tree.  Trees officers feel that it has sufficient amenity value to be worthy of a TPO; the application is at Committee because the owners have objected to the TPO, and officers thought it fair to let Members decide whether or not it should be confirmed. 

BF:  what age is the tree and what is its life expectancy?

CM:  the speaker referred to the structural integrity of the tree – what are officer views on this?

HM:  what sort of a root system does a walnut tree have – shallow or deep?  Are the roots likely to affect the foundations of the house?

CC, in response:

-       the tree is about 50 years old; its life expectancy should be at least the same again;

-       the tree has been reduced on a previous occasion – it was done well, providing a nice scaffold for future growth;

-       regarding the tree’s structural integrity,  the main fork is not ideal but not about to collapse.  If the order is confirmed, trees officers would support an application to take it back to its pollard points;

-       to HM, the roots of walnut trees are usually 50-60cm deep.  This tree is growing in a planter, which may push the roots deeper, but not likely deeper than the adjacent building foundations.

PT:  looked closely at the tree on Planning View and has listened carefully to CC’s comments.  The tree is a very nice shape and in good condition.  It would be a very simple job to reduce the height, as has been done before, and this would ameliorate the problems.  The applicant has commented about walnuts on the ground and the nuisance caused by squirrels crossing the road – this is not relevant and just fudging the issue.  There’s nothing wrong with the tree itself; it is a feature of the area and can be seen above the wall.  Has experience of similar trees at her own garden, and would not be concerned with the root system of this tree if she lived at this house.  Would like to see the order confirmed.

Vote on officer recommendation to confirm the TPO

13 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

ORDER IS CONFIRMED