Agenda item

Person to contact – Justin Hobbs, Tree Officer, 01452 396897

Councillor Chatterton having declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in this application took no part in the debate or vote.

The City Council Tree Officer presented the report which sought confirmation of Tree Preservation Order 287 made by the City Council on 8 May 2014 subject to the amendment of the title of the order to ‘The Council of City of Gloucester (Land adjacent to 287 Stroud Road) Tree Preservation Order 2014.

He displayed photographs of the tree, a Corsican Pine which stood on a thin strip of land owned by No. 1 Willowtree Court and immediately adjacent to the southern rear boundary of 287 Stroud Road.

He advised that the tree was unlikely to grow much bigger and had shown no signs that it had suffered as a result of the construction of nearby dwellings in 2008. He agreed that the shed needles and cones were a nuisance but that did not justify removal of the tree.

Paul Pepler of 285 Stroud Road and also representing the residents of 287 Stroud Road addressed the Committee in opposition to the confirmation of the Order.

Mr Pepler was certain that this type of tree would not be planted in this location. He expressed concerns relating to health and safety and noted that the debris, needles and cone, presented a nuisance in blocking gutters which required a ladder to clear presenting a further potential health and safety hazard.

He disagreed that tree was an asset to the area as it was only visible for approximately 10° from the road. The residents of 287 Stroud Road were unable to see the tree from their property and local residents considered it to be an eyesore.

He appreciated fine trees and the contribution they made to the environment so he would support the replacement of the tree by a more appropriate species.

The Chair was advised that the tree predated the properties 285 and 287 Stroud Road which dated from 1953.

Councillor Mozol expressed concerns relating to possible liability falling on the Council raised by Mr Kilmister together with his written comments regarding the survey.

The Tree Officer advised that Orders were often made in reaction to a tree being placed under threat. He confirmed that this was national practice and how the legislation was intended to protect appropriate trees. He advised that this tree was at least 12 metres from the house and had a light canopy.

He confirmed that responsibility for the tree remained with the owner who had indicated that she was happy for the order to be confirmed. He noted that there was no common law right for people to trim overhanging trees protected by a TPO without prior Council permission.

Councillor Dee believed the tree made a major contribution to the area and to visiting birds. He saw no grounds for not confirming the Order.

Councillor Smith believed that when purchasing houses with a tree they should be aware that a TPO could be made in the future. She noted that the tree was visible from the road and should the condition of the tree change the residents could contact the Tree Officer.

RESOLVED that The Council of the City of Gloucester (287 Stroud Road) Tree Protection Order be confirmed subject to amending the title of the Order to the Council of the City of Gloucester (Land adjoining 287 Stroud Road) Tree Preservation Order 2014.