Agenda item

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 0031/2020/TPO Moat Farm, St Marks Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells and this was summarised at the meeting by Jeff Mashburn, Tree Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – Due to the unusual circumstances in this case, legal advice had been sought. Whilst the Council was sympathetic to the frustrations and dissatisfaction expressed by Mr and Mrs Holmes in the TPO process, the recommendations set out in the report remained the same.

Registered Speakers – There was one speaker that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Public objector

·         Mrs Holmes, member of the public.

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers – Members raised a number of questions and officers confirmed the following:

·         The public amenity value of the tree at 21 Moat Farm was subjective but it was not agreed that it had no such value. In terms of the tree’s bearing on nearby houses, the tree was growing but had not grown significantly in the time that the houses had been built and the Council was not aware of any complaints before the current owners.

·         The context in which the appropriateness of a TPO could change might involve the addition of buildings, new trees had grown to the extent that old trees no longer proportionately contributed to the amenity of the landscape or if the condition of a particular tree no longer merited a TPO or needed to be removed on safety grounds. None of these applied in this case.

·         No representations nor any informal comments from neighbours, either for or against the TPO, had been received therefore there was no evidence to support comments that the neighbours consider the tree to be too large and of no amenity value.

·         It was demonstrated via the photographic evidence that the crown of the tree had been removed in previous works which could cause decay and this was therefore discouraged under current practice. Other severe pruning has been carried out in the past which could also cause stress, but this particular tree had responded well to historic pruning and no evidence of growth disfunction could be observed.

·         If the Council were advising on a tree like this presently it would encourage less harsh pruning, however the works that were carried out had been fortuitous for the property owners as it had limited the overall growth.

·         It was estimated that the tree was over 100 years old.

·         Based on assessments it was expected that the tree would continue to have a slow growth rate.

·         Under any existing TPO pruning would be permitted if carried out in accordance with guidance given.

·         It was regrettable that Mr and Mrs Holmes were misinformed about the status of the tree but it was reasonable that the Tree Officer relied upon the public map. TPO information had subsequently been corrected and this did not detract from the tree’s amenity value or the recommendation set out in the report.

Committee Debate and Officer Responses – Members of the Committee took account of the presentations made and raised a number of questions and issues within their discussions. These included:

·         The error in the location of the tree was unfortunate, but no individual officer was felt to be to blame and difficulties with historic mapping were understood.

·         The context for the TPO had not changed so it was highly warranted to maintain the protection.

·         The TPO did not prevent management of the tree but protected from further harmful pruning.

·         The tree was a fine and healthy specimen and it did have amenity value and contributed to the natural features of the estate.

·         The tree was also befitting of the area’s ecology and landscape.

·         If a new TPO was ordered on such a tree, the Council would be inclined to grant it.

·         It was the Council’s responsibility as well as the homeowner’s responsibility to protect and maintain trees and the TPO would allow pruning within the TPO limits and recommendations.

Decision/voting – On the basis that members were satisfied that all relevant

planning considerations had been covered within the report, a motion was proposed by Councillor Pound, seconded by Councillor Warne, and a vote was taken.

RESOLVED – That application 0031/2020/TPO Moat Farm, St Marks Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells be approved as set out in the agenda report.