Minutes:
Councillor Stockdale withdrew from the room due to her declaration of interest.
The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List reported that one further representation from a neighbour has been received. This representation suggests amendments to the recommended conditions set out within the committee report to include changes to the standard timescales for implementation, a requirement for the agreed replacement tree to be satisfactorily established prior to felling of T1, and the re-instatement of the boundary wall.
The timescales already suggested are appropriate for this type of application; the retention of T1 until its replacement has been planted and is satisfactorily established would prohibit the planting of the replacement tree within the same vicinity; a requirement for the re-instatement of the boundary wall is outside the remit of a TPO application.
Deputations were made, firstly by Ms Mair, objecting, whose points included:
· She represented 31 people objecting in the neighbourhood on the grounds of quality of life and the environment
· The tree should be respected and should have 10 years of life left in it
· Other trees in the road had already been lost and there are benefits from trees acting as the 'lungs of a city' and their importance is reflected in the Portsmouth Plan
· As there is a need for a replacement tree could this go in first to be established
Mr Cross then spoke to also object, whose further points included:
· A replacement tree should be nearer the corner of the road and he also asked that it be put in before the diseased tree was removed as the report said this had 10 years life.
· The applicant had felled a previous tree and there is the need to ensure a replacement is provided.
Mr Harmer the applicant spoke in support of his application whose points included:
· The primary concern is of public safety and the recommendations of experts were being followed to fell the tree which overhangs public highway and presents danger to the nearby building
· Neighbours were able to plant trees in their own gardens
· If it stayed and caused damage who would indemnify him?
Members Questions
It was asked regarding the suitability of replacement species and whether a semi-mature sweet chestnut could be specified. Also what would be the best location in the road; the condition specified that the best location was to be agreed, so this could be moved further to the East. The Arboricultural Officer explained the technical terms used within the report and his assessment of the condition of the tree which had showed a problem at the root, giving instability. The Legal Adviser advised that the legal responsibility was with the owner of the land and the City Development Manager explained that should there be further deterioration the tree could be required to be removed and the owner can request an assessment of its condition by the local authority.
Members' Comments
Members understood the concern of residents for the loss of this tree and the need for a replacement to be enforced. They were mindful of the dangerous condition of the current tree and asked that the officers ensure a suitable replacement species and location.
RESOLVED that conditional consent be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the City Development Manager's report.