MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES AND MISCELLANEOUS APPEALS SUB COMMITTEE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, NEWPORT, ISLE OF WIGHT ON FRIDAY, 16 JUNE 2006 COMMENCING AT 10.00 AM

 

Present :

 

Cllrs David Whittaker (Chairman), Henry Adams, George Cameron

 

Also Present :

 

Cllr Andy Sutton

 

 


4.                 MINUTES

 

RESOLVED :

 

THAT the minutes from the meeting held on the 9 June 2006 be confirmed.

 

5.                 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Cllr George Cameron declared he was a member of Freshwater Parish Council.

 

6.                 THE CHRISTMAS TREE FIELD (NINE ACRES), FRESHWATER, ISLE OF WIGHT, TREE PRESERVATION ORDER TPO/2006/8

 

The Chairman welcomed all those present and introduced members of the Committee, and outlined the procedure that the meeting would follow.

 

The Committee received the report of the Head of Planning Services, which required the Committee to determine whether or not to confirm the Christmas Tree Field (Nine Acres) Tree Preservation Order TPO/2006/8.

 

The Committee was informed that the Council’s Tree Team section was first alerted by a concerned member of the public who felt a lot of trees were being felled in the Christmas Tree Field. It was then considered appropriate to put in place an area order, as a temporary measure, until a survey of the Christmas Tree Field had been carried out. It was explained that on the 17 March 2006, following the said survey, the area order was not confirmed and the new order TPO/2006/8 was made and served.

 

The Committee was informed that TPO/2006/8 protected six individual oak trees, four groups of oak trees and a large area of woodland, protecting all trees of whatever species including understorey and regeneration. It was stated that the six individual trees and the four groups of trees were considered of high amenity and contributed considerably to the character of the area and that correct management of the woodland would hasten its improvement to amenity and character of the area.

 

It was stated that what the landowners referred to as ‘scrub’ in their objections was in fact the woodland’s undergrowth or understorey and its removal would be detrimental to the woodland as a whole, its amenity and its nature conservation value.

 

The Committee asked two questions related to the definition of a tree and the age a tree had to be before a Tree Preservation Order could be placed on it.

 

The landowners informed the Committee that they were disappointed with the report on a number of grounds :

 

1.                  That the proposals stated in their letter of objection to TPO/2006/8 had not been addressed by the Tree Team.

 

2.                  That the area covered by TPO/2006/8 had been misrepresented.

 

3.                  That TPO/2006/8 had not been mapped accurately.

 

4.                  That the amenity value of the individual oaks and the groups of oaks protected by TPO/2006/8 had been overstated and had resulted in an inaccurate assessment of the trees.

 

5.             That the woodland had been represented as more mature than it actually was.

 

The landowners suggested that the term ‘understorey’ was only included to protect shrubs and bushes. They argued that, on their understanding of the relevant legislation, Tree Preservation Orders were only meant to protect trees not shrubs, and that the inclusion of the term ‘understorey’ undermined the validity of TPO/2006/8.

 

Finally, the landowners stated that the interference with their rights as landowners, which TPO/2006/8 caused, was not proportionate and urged that the Committee should adjourn to give the Tree Team time to negotiate a settlement that would meet the objectives of all the stakeholders.

 

The Committee and its legal advisor then questioned the landowners over the nature of Appendix D of the report, a letter sent to the Council’s planning department from a planning consultant, who had proposed that the Christmas Tree Field be considered for inclusion in the development envelope.

 

The local Member made it clear to the Committee that prior to the meeting he had never met with the landowners and that his only association with them was through a single telephone conversation, within which development of the Christmas Tree Field was not mentioned. The local Member then spoke on behalf of Freshwater Parish Council and urged the Committee to fully support TPO/2006/8 and the recommendations as laid out in the report.

 

The Committee considered all the evidence presented and the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act before reaching its decision.

 

The legal representative informed those present that the Committee’s decision was to confirm Option 2 of the report. 

 

RESOLVED :

 

THAT, Option 2 of the report, to confirm TPO/2006/8 with modifications as shown on the plan which is included as appendix F of the report, be confirmed.

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN