Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors S. J. Baxter, J. D. Stanley and M. Marshall, with Councillor P. M. McDonald in attendance as the substitute Member for Councillor M. Marshall.

To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 6^th August 2024, were received.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 6^th August 2024, be approved as a correct record.

The Chairman announced that there were no Committee Updates.

The Committee considered a report which detailed proposals to consider the confirmation without modification Tree Preservation Order (TPO) (N0.7) 2024, relating to trees on land at 20 and 28 Fenton Road, Hollywood, B47 5LS.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer provided a detailed presentation and in doing so drew Members’ attention to the recommendation, as detailed on page 7 of the main agenda pack.

Members were informed that the provisional order was raised on 4^th April 2024, as shown at Appendix 1 to the report; in response to information received which highlighted that the owner of 20 Fenton Road had intended to fell the two Oak trees, T1 and T2 of the provisional order.

A Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) was carried out on the trees, as detailed at Appendix 2 to the report. The TEMPO showed that the assessment of the trees had achieved a suitable score worthy of justifying consideration of a TPO protection.

Four objections had been received in respect of the provisional TPO having been raised. The officers’ comments in relation to the points raised in those objections were detailed on page 8 of the main agenda pack and referred to: -

• Public Amenity Value.
• Bird Fouling.
• Leaf, Seed and Debris Fall.
• Shading.
• Poor Historic Management of Trees.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer concluded that the trees were visible to the public and contributed to the public amenity value of the area.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. Sturdy, who had submitted an objection to the provisional TPO addressed the Committee.

Members then considered the TPO.

Members had noted the comment made by Mr. Sturdy that the trees had been inspected from a distance by the Senior Arboricultural Officer and had not been inspected / viewed in his back garden; some Members asked if this was correct.

In response the Senior Arboricultural Officer explained that the trees had been seen extensively from the bedroom windows of neighbouring properties and that he was happy with his assessment of the trees.

Members commented that they did not doubt that the trees were healthy but on balance were they a danger to the residents at No. 20 and 28 Fenton Road. Mr. Sturdy had expressed some concern when addressing the Committee, as to the safety of his children when using the back garden. Members further commented that this restricted family life. Mr. Sturdy had highlighted that the back garden was small and that the size and scale of the trees were not suitable for a small back garden.

Members further questioned the three chainsaw incisions referred to by Mr. Sturdy, and how these incisions could be physically inspected from the bedroom windows of neighbouring properties. Could these incisions be dangerous in a major storm.

In response the Senior Arboricultural Officer explained that usually ivy on a tree was removed with no serious in-depth incisions. However, he would agree that it would have been more prudent to inspect the trees more closely.

In response to further questions from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39/24

The Application had been brought to the Planning Committee as the applicant was related to a Council employee.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides as detailed on pages 32 to 35 of the main agenda pack.

The application was for a single storey flat roofed side/rear extension. The proposal related to a prior approval application for the erection of a single-storey extension to form a utility room at the rear of the property. The proposed extension dimensions were 6 metres by 2.2 metres with a height of 3 metres. The eaves height would be 3 metres.

Members then considered the application, which Officers had highlighted in the report, that prior approval was not required.

In response to Members, Officers confirmed that two letters had been sent to adjoining neighbours and that no objections had been received.

On being put to a vote it was:

RESOLVED that prior approval was not required, and that permission be granted subject to the condition as outlined on page 29 of the main agenda pack.