Issue - meetings

22/502529/TPOA - Holtye Cottage, Headcorn Road, Staplehurst, Kent, TN12 0BU

Meeting: 23/03/2023 - Planning Committee (Item 254)

254 22/502529/TPOA - TPO APPLICATION TO REDUCE ONE OAK TO 9.0M IN HEIGHT AND REDUCE LATERAL BRANCH SYSTEM BY 1.0M TO 1.5M BALANCING THE CROWN. REMOVE RE-GROWTH TRIENNIALLY; REMOVE ONE OAK (FELL) TO NEAR GROUND LEVEL. OWNER TO PHYSICALLY REMOVE ANY REGROWTH (NO CHEMICAL TREATMENT DUE TO TRANSLOCATION RISK) - HOLTYE COTTAGE, HEADCORN ROAD, STAPLEHURST, KENT PDF 416 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management concerning application 22/502529/TPOA. It was noted that:

· The two Oak trees subject to the application were growing within the rear garden of Holtye Cottage, a property situated to the north of Headcorn Road at the junction with Hurst Close. The applicant lived at No.2 Hurst Close which flanked the western boundary of Holtye Cottage.

· At the time of inspection, both Oak trees revealed no significant defects to suggest they were either unhealthy or unsafe. Both trees were of early mature size and clearly visible from surrounding public roads. It was considered that the proposed felling of one of the trees and reduction of the other would erode the mature and verdant landscape of the area by a marked degree and thus give rise to significant harm to its character and appearance.

· However, in light of the evidence submitted with the application, the proposed works were considered necessary arboricultural practice to help mitigate subsidence related damage to the property at 2 Hurst Close and were considered acceptable on arboricultural grounds.

· The owner of the trees at Holtye Cottage objected strongly to the proposal emphasising that they had never experienced subsidence issues despite being just as close to the trees as the applicant.

· A refusal of consent to carry out the works on the trees could potentially result in a claim for compensation for loss or damage arising within twelve months of the date of refusal. Based on information provided by the applicant, there could be a potential claim for costs of £66,000 should consent for the works be refused.

· As the applicant was not the owner of the trees, consent from the owner would be required before commencing any works permitted by the Council.

RESOLVED: That consideration of this application be deferred to (a) seek details of the CAVAT value of the two Oak trees which are the subject of the application (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees) and (b) consider a more appropriate replacement species such as Hornbeam.

Voting: 12 – For 0 – Against 1 – Abstention