The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

The representative of the Head of Legal Partnership reminded the Committee that authorities should bear in mind that they may be liable to pay compensation for loss or damage as a result of refusing consent or granting consent subject to conditions.  However, if the authority believes that some loss or damage is foreseeable, it should not grant consent automatically.  It should take this factor into account alongside other key considerations, such as the amenity value of the tree and the justification for the proposed works, before reaching its final decision.  This was relevant to the decision-making process.

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Development Management, the Committee agreed to refuse permission.  Having also previously debated this item (on 23 March 2023) in making this decision, Members considered the reasons for the works and were of the view that notwithstanding the compensation that might be payable, given the condition of the trees, their amenity value (both visually and in the wider context of biodiversity, etc), their landscape contribution to the character of the area and wider character of Staplehurst, and relationship with the landscape of the area, the CAVAT value as well as the wider benefits offered by the retention of the trees, the proposed works to the trees and the associated harm caused as a result were so significant that refusal of the application was warranted.  The Committee had regard to the fact that the Council had declared a Biodiversity and Climate Change Emergency.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the following reason:

Having considered the reasons for the works and having regard to and having weighed the potential issue of compensation against other key considerations, in particular, the condition of the trees (Oak T2 and Oak T3); their life expectancy; the loss of their contribution to public visual amenity on the local environment is significant; the loss of their contribution to, and relationship with, the landscape and the wider character of Staplehurst; the Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees (CAVAT value) of Oak T3; and the loss of the wider benefits offered by the retention of the trees (including their intrinsic character and beauty and their contribution to biodiversity and climate change), the benefits of retaining the trees in their current form outweighed the resultant harm arising from the proposed works such that a refusal of the application is warranted.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions