PAPER A3

Purpose: For Decision

Committee: REGULATORY APPEALS COMMITTEE

Date: 12 DECEMBER 2002

Title: LAND BETWEEN 53 AND 57 GRANGE ROAD, EAST COWES -

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO. 9, 2002

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

SUMMARY

The pear tree is within the garden of 53 Grange Road, East Cowes.

A TPO was made on 5 July 2002. An objection has been received. If the Order is to be confirmed this must be done by 4 January 2003.

BACKGROUND

Making of Order

On 14 May 2002 a planning application was received for a development in the garden of 53 Grange Road, in the space between 53 and 57 Grange Road. A pear tree stands in the middle of this space. As is usual in cases where a proposed development would result in the loss or the possible loss of a tree, the Tree & Landscape Officer was asked to assess the tree for its amenity value, and an Order was therefore made on 5 July 2002 to protect a pear tree which would be lost if the development were to go ahead. The grounds for making the Order were "the tree is of high present and future amenity value and is visible from Grange Road, Upper Yarborough Road and St David=s Road. It is also potentially important as a wildlife habitat, especially for birds and red squirrels."

Objection

An objection was received on 29 July, from solicitors acting on behalf of the owner.

The grounds for objection were that

"The tree considered is a pear tree and it is around 70 - 80 years old. In view of its age the tree can have only limited future life expectancy."

"The tree is not visible from many parts of St David's Road ... and is therefore only visible from the entirety of two roads in the whole town"

"The tree is certainly not important as a wildlife habitat..."

"... being a member of the pear family the tree has no particular value due to its scarcity or rarity. The mere fact that the tree is publicly visible should not in itself be sufficient ... "

The objection letter also referred to comments made in the local press, but since these were not grounds given when the Order was made, these comments are irrelevant and will not be considered further.

Comments on objections

The Tree & Landscape Officer visited the site on 24 July, having previously viewed it from the surrounding roads. Although there was a cut in the trunk, as if a start had been made to remove the tree, it still appeared sound and capable of living as an attractive tree for many decades. 70 - 80 years is quite a long time in a modern commercial fruit orchard, but for a tree grown not for profit but for household fruit and for beauty, it is still in "middle age".

The tree is not visible from many parts of East Cowes, but it is of high value because there are very few other significant trees in the area.

The tree would have greater actual wildlife value if other landowners in the area also retained trees in their gardens.

Planning application and appeal

The tree is in the middle of the site, so that it would be very difficult to design a new development which would not result in the loss of the tree. In the view of the Tree & Landscape Officer this is especially unfortunate since there is enough space within the site for a new house, and since fruit trees generally, and pear trees in particular, are especially suitable for retention within new development. This is because fruit trees are generally smaller in height and spread than many other trees; they tend to have a low or medium water demand; they tend to have few structural problems compared with many other trees; they have beautiful blossom in spring, and of course attractive edible fruit. Pear trees, although often the tallest of fruit trees apart from cherries, tend to have fairly narrow upright crowns; they have very attractive glossy green leaves; their blossom is especially beautiful; and they tend to be structurally sound and reliable.

The owner could have removed the tree quite legally before submitting a planning application but did not do so, and cooperated with the Tree & Landscape Officer in making the site visit. Unlike most other householders in the area they have kept a tree in the garden, and it is unfortunate for them that their affection for the tree has led to a conflict of interest.

The application was refused on 20 June 2002 on four grounds, of which only one related to the tree: Adevelopment of this site for two dwellings would result in the loss of a significant tree of importance in the local landscape and would therefore be contrary to policy C12 of the UDP@.

An appeal was submitted but a site visit has not yet been made by the Planning Inspectorate, so a decision is not expected until January 2003 at the earliest.

If in future a development were proposed that would retain the pear tree, then if there were no other reason to refuse consent the Tree & Landscape Officer would advise that it be granted consent; or if at a future date a planning application were made which included the removal of the tree but also included proposed new planting, this might be considered acceptable by the Tree & Landscape Officer depending on the precise proposals.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

As with any TPO, compensation could be claimed by an applicant if consent to remove tree or for works to the tree were refused, and the refusal resulted in loss or damage.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

Removal of the tree would be a loss for the local landscape.

OPTIONS

Confirm TPO / 2002 / 9. If the order is confirmed it will ensure the continued existence of the tree for the foreseeable future.

If the order is not confirmed, the tree might be under threat. Although the owner has so far kept the tree, contrary to their own perceived interests when making a planning application, they might be tempted to remove it if it were not protected, in the false belief that their planning application would have been successful had it not been for the tree.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Confirm TPO / 2002 / 9.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Planning application TCP/7510/L received 14 May 2002.

2. Plan from TPO No. 2002 / 9 made 5 July 2002.

3. Letter from solicitors acting for owner, dated 26 July 2002, received 29 July 2002.

4. Refusal of planning consent TCP/7510/L 20 June 2002.

Contact Name : Rowan Adams tel 4559

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director

Corporate and Environment Services