Minutes:
The application was for TPO24/170 on the grounds of 256 Stourbridge Road, Catshill, Bromsgrove. The TPO was to request consent to fell a protected tree.
The Arboricultural Officer provided a detailed presentation and in doing so drew Members’ attention to the recommendation, as detailed on page 25 of the Public Reports pack.
Officers informed Members that 5 representations had been submitted in support of the application to fell of the tree. The main reasons given were: -
Officers identified each of these main reasons in turn.
Debris was to be expected from a tree of its size which included leaves, fruit and droppings, so was a consideration.
There was no formal right to light so Officers could not consider that as a reason to fell the tree. However, Officers clarified that there was a significant loss of light to the properties and that there was no measure which could be put in place to resolve this without felling the tree.
Officers further informed Members that the root system was very likely to be under the dwellings considering the close proximity, however, there was no evidence of subsidence, and it was impossible to determine if it would happen. However, considering that the soil in the area was sandstone rather than clay, subsidence was less likely as sandstone contracted less when drying out.
In terms of surface root damage and displacement, there was some evidence to support this. which included a gate which could not be opened; and a few bricks and slabs being raised, however, this was identified as a minor disruption.
Officers noted that considering the very recent storm activity there was likely to be increased anxiety and stress caused by the tree, however, Officers detailed that the tree was in a very good condition which would have deep roots and there was no evidence of damage or identified risk.
Finally, it was noted that the reasons supplied to fell the tree must be raised against its amenity value, The Arbicultural Officer gave substantial weight to the amenity value as the tree was a very good specimen which was visible from a number of properties, and it would be a significant loss to the area. Therefore, the Officers recommendation was to refuse consent to fell the tree.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Roy Eastwood, local resident, and Councillor S. Webb, Ward Member, addressed the Committee in support of the consent request application.
After questions from Members the following was clarified by Officers.
During the debate, Members discussed the recent storm damage that had been caused and expressed their sympathy towards the anxiety that having such a large tree in such close proximity would cause.
Members highlighted that a number of established trees had recently been felled by high winds so although there was no evidence that the tree would come down it was not entirely known what could happen. Therefore, Members gave substantial weight to the anxiety caused for residents.
Councillor B. Kumar proposed an Alternate Recommendation to approve the application to remove the tree stating the impact of the mental wellbeing of residents outweighed the amenity value of maintaining the tree. The Alternative Recommendation was seconded by Councillor E. McEldowney.
On being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED that Consent be granted to fell tree TPO24/170.
Supporting documents: