Minutes - 30 July 2008

BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE LICENSING AND APPEALS (TREES) COMMITTEE HELD IN THE VILLAGE HALL GLEMSFORD ON WEDNESDAY 30 JULY 2008

PRESENT:   Mr B L Lazenby - Chairman

1.    Declaration of Interests
2.    Questions from Members
3.    Tree preservation Order No.BT408 - 28 Brook Street Glemsford

1    DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

None declared.

Back to top

2    QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

Back to top

3    TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO. BT408 – 28 BROOK STREET GLEMSFORD

Prior to the meeting of the Committee, Members met to view the Corsican Pine (T1) covered by Tree Preservation Order No. BT408, to which the owner of the tree had submitted an objection.

In addition to the Members of the Committee, the following were present for the site visit:-

Mr D Pizzey (Arboricultural Officer)

Mrs L Sheppard (Senior Democratic Services Officer)

Mr J H Slater (owner/objector)

Following the visit the Committee met to consider the objection to Tree Preservation Order No BT 408.

Members had before them the following papers:- 

• Report by the Head of Contract and Asset Management (Paper H71), and Appendices -

         (a)    Copy of Tree Preservation Order No. BT408.

         (b)    Copy of objection letter from Mr J H Slater dated 30 May 2008.

Note:  Members were aware that the photos referred to in the objection letter had not been circulated with the Agenda but indicated that they were satisfied that they had seen all they needed to at the site inspection.

• The Council’s ‘Procedure for Hearing and Determining Objections to Tree Preservation Orders’ (circulated with the Agenda).

Members were asked to consider the recommendation in paragraph 2.1 of Paper H71 that the Order should be confirmed without modification.  Two Members agreed with the recommendation and supported the Officer view (paragraphs 4.1 and 5.4 refer) that the removal of the Corsican Pine would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area, and those Members accepted the mitigation of the objection as set out in Paragraph 5.6 of the report. 

However, a majority of Members did not agree with the recommendation but accepted the point made by the objector that the Corsican Pine

 “is causing loss of light to the objector’s home and garden because of its height and spread.  Its size will increase over time” (paragraph 5.5 (b) of the report).  They did not agree with the Arboricultural Officer’s mitigation of this point (set out below), as stated in paragraph 5.6(b) of the report:–

 “It is not considered that the tree is causing an unreasonable loss of light to the objector’s house or garden.  Although the tree will hopefully continue to grow, it is a slender species and its influence on levels of light should not alter significantly from those at present.”

All Members were aware of the view expressed in paragraph 6.3 of Paper H71 that “the human rights of the individual must be balanced against the rights of the public to expect the planning system to protect a tree when its amenity value justifies such protection.” 

However, those Members who considered that the Order should not be confirmed did not accept the Officer view in paragraph 6.4 that in this case, the protection of the tree should prevail, or the response of the Arboricultural Officer in 5.6(b) as set out above.  Further, the majority of Members considered that in relation to paragraph 5.6(b) and the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, confirmation of the Order was not justified in this instance by reason of the interference to the objector’s rights to home and property arising from loss of light.

RESOLVED

That Tree Preservation Order No. BT408 be not confirmed. 

 Back to top

The business of the meeting was concluded at 3.40pm.

                                                                                      ..............................................................                                                                                         Chairman

Note

Reference was also made by Members, during the course of their discussion, to the possibility that the objector might wish to remove either a cypresses or silver birch in the vicinity of the Pine either in addition to, or instead of, the removal of the Pine itself.  Following the decision of the Committee as set out above, the Arboricultural Officer clarified the position for the benefit of the objector, who was present at the meeting, in relation to the relevant process which would apply in the Conservation Area if he wished either to remove, or carry out works to, the trees in question.