Skip to main content

Agenda item

Tree Preservation Order 25/00001/IND

To consider comments of objection and support to the making of Tree Preservation Order 25/00001/IND Corner Cottage Church Westcote Chipping Norton Gloucestershire OX7 6SH

Minutes:

Proposal

To consider comments of objection and support to the making of Tree Preservation Order 25/00001/IND Corner Cottage, Church Westcote, Chipping Norton, Gloucestershire.

Tree Officer: James Tyson

Ward Member: David Cunningham

 

Original recommendation: Confirm TPO 25/00001/TPO

 

The Chair invited the Tree Officer to introduce the Tree Preservation Order.

The Tree Officer introduced the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) by sharing:

  • The history behind the proposal for the TPO.
  • Various site location maps and photographs of the tree from various directions.
  • A risk assessment of the tree had been made by Tree Officer and deemed low risk.

 

Public Speaker

Objector - David Lewis

Objection points raised included:

  • concerns about the long term stability and the associated risk to the property and personal safety due to the close proximity of the tree to the dwelling. It was argued that the Council’s risk assessment had not accounted for the exposed location and that the tree should be considered a moderate risk, with removal being the preferred option.
  • questioning the tree’s public amenity value, citing its lean, unbalanced form, disproportionate size, and lack of aesthetic appeal, and noted that it already had protection under the conservation area designation.

 

Members Questions

In questioning it was noted that:

  • The tree (Corsican Pine) was approximately 25m in height and 8–10m from the property.
  • Any appeal against a decision made at the meeting would be with the Planning Inspectorate.
  • The previous tree that had been removed had not been replanted.
  • A replanting condition could not be considered if the TPO was rejected.
  • The altitude and exposure of the position had not been specifically noted in the risk assessment of the Corsican pine.
  • When permission was granted for the removal of the initial tree, the exposure of the site for the remaining tree had been taken into account.
  • The prevailing winds were South-Westerly and there would not have had any previous protection from the previously removed tree.
  • There would be no new growth from the trunk to compensate for the bare areas but other branches might grow into that space. 
  • The Corsican Pine (Black Pine) was brought to the UK in 1759 and was a common timber tree often planted as stand-alone specimens.
  • There were no figures for tree losses in the village; the only incidents known were those reported at the meeting.
  • If the TPO was confirmed, and disease was later discovered by the applicant, a further application by the applicant could apply for removal of the tree and a replant agreed.
  • The amenity assessment determined that removal of the tree would detract from the amenity and the character of the conservation area.
  • The Corsican Pine species was not particularly susceptible to falling with strong winds.
  • If the tree did fall while a TPO was in place, the Council would not be accountable as the responsibility remained with the owner. 
  • It was confirmed that causing anxiety to the applicant or neighbours was not a material planning consideration in deciding whether to confirm the TPO.

 

Members Comments:

Members made the following comments:

  • The tree was close to the house, was leaning and was not thought to be particularly attractive.
  • That the Corsican Pine location was causing anxiety to the owner and the Council had a duty of care to its residents.
  • Many local residents had communicated their safety concerns which were weighed against the tree’s amenity value.
  • Climate change was increasing the frequency of intense winds, which should be taken into consideration.
  • Discussion took place regarding the potential precedent for the removal of future TPOs.

Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed refusing the Officer recommendations and to not confirm the Tree Preservation Order 25/0001/TPO and Councillor Ray Brassington seconded the proposal.

 

The reasons not to confirm the TPO were:

  • The tree was 25 metres tall and located only 8 metres from the house.
  • The tree was already leaning and in a prominent position on a ridge.
  • Given the prevailing wind direction, the tree was considered to pose a potential danger.

 

RESOLVED: To REFUSE the making of Tree Preservation Order 25/00001/TPO.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages