Minutes 12 December 2002

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY APPEALS COMMITTEE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, NEWPORT, ISLE OF WIGHT ON THURSDAY 12 DECEMBER 2002 COMMENCING AT 10.00 AM

Present :

Mr A J Mundy (Chairman), Mrs T M Butchers, Mr K Pearson

Also Present :

Mr R C Richards, Mr A C Bartlett, Mr J F Howe, Mr D G Williams

14. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations received at this stage.

15. REPORTS OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

(a) Objections To Advertised Traffic Orders : The Isle of Wight Council (Various Streets, Sandown, IW) (Traffic Regulation) Order No 1 2002

(i) Drabbles Lane – No Waiting At Any Time

Old Reservoir Lane – No Waiting At Any Time

A number of amendments to the yellow line waiting restrictions had been advertised to address a number of road safety issues in Sandown. A site visit had taken place with the Police where it had become apparent that current-parking arrangements had severely restricted the visibility of vehicles leaving the car park. Three objections to the proposed restriction had been received on the grounds that it would have a negative impact on the capacity for on street parking and would exasperate the current parking difficulties.

The Committee considered the representations that had been received together with those of the Police.

RESOLVED :

THAT the restriction be implemented as advertised.

(ii) Avenue Road – No Waiting At Any Time

The restriction was advertised following concerns for road safety where current parking arrangement restricted visibility. Avenue Road was a busy road particularly during the summer and formed part of the main bus route. One letter of objection had been received concerned that the proposed restriction would have an impact on residents who parked on the road.

The Committee considered the representations that had been received together with those of the Police.

RESOLVED :

THAT the restriction be implemented as advertised.

(b) Woodington, Timber, Rondebosch, Cheviot Cottage, Fleet House And Woodlands, Undercliff Drive, St Lawrence - Tree Preservation Order No. 23, 2002

The Committee were informed that an Area Order had been made in 1954 that included Woodington, Timber, Rondebosch, Cheviot Cottage, Fleet House and Woodlands. An outline of subsequent Tree Preservation Orders that had been made was given.

The new TPO was made on 11 September 2002 as a partial revision to the 1954 Area Order and included the 26 trees at Timber from TPO/2001/17, the 4 trees at Rondebosch from TPO/2001/32, and a further 7 trees at Woodington, Rondebosch, Cheviot Cottage, Fleet House and Woodlands which were identified in a survey carried out in August 2002.

The grounds for making the Order were that the trees were of high public amenity value and were visible from Undercliff Drive as well as the coastal path. They were also important as a wildlife habitat, especially for birds and squirrels and could contribute to land stability in the Undercliff.

A consultant’s report carried out by the owner of Timber was submitted which objected to the inclusion of 14 of the 26 Trees at Timber. 65 letters were received objecting to the protection at Timber of the sycamore trees and a letter of objection was received concerning the group of trees known as G1 on the grounds that they caused a nuisance with overhanging branches and that they caused damage. A letter was also written pointing out mistakes in the plan, however, the Committee were informed that these could be corrected in a modified confirmed Order

Advice was given that whether a tree was self-sown was not relevant to its protection as this should be on the basis of its amenity value, however the tree got there: that sycamores seed prolifically which was why they were not welcomed by most gardeners; and that they tended to dominate semi-natural habitats, which was why they were often not welcome by conservationists. With regard to G1, the Committee considered selecting a specimen from G1 with the removal of the rest but were advised if a tree was found to be causing damage, an application could be made for its removal or pruning.

The Committee considered the consultant’s report and went through the trees that were highlighted in turn. The Committee accepted the grounds for deleting T6, T11 and T19, and changing the description of T28. The Committee believed that it would be prudent to retain the protection of other trees, since unprotected trees on or near the boundary had been cut in the past. Concern was raised over the protection of T5 due to comments in the consultant’s report, however the Committee believed protection was necessary until evidence from a possible climbing inspection showed otherwise.

RESOLVED :

THAT Tree Preservation Order 2001/23 be confirmed with modifications to delete T6, T11 and T19 and to identify T28 as “cedar”.

The Committee were advised that a planning application had been received for a development in the garden of 53 Grange Road and following a visit by the Tree and Landscape Officer a tree preservation order was made to protect a pear tree which would be lost if the development were to proceed. The grounds for making the Order were that the tree was of high present and future amenity value and that it was visible from the public highway. It was also potentially important as a wildlife habitat. The local member supported the Order.

An objection had been received, which stated that the tree only had a limited future life expectancy, was not visible from many roads, was not a rare specimen and was not important as wildlife habitat.

The Committee believed that the tree was of high amenity value as they were not many trees in the area and that wildlife value would be increased if trees in the vicinity were to be retained. Advice was received that the tree was middle aged and could survive for many decades.

RESOLVED :

THAT Tree Preservation Order 2002/9 be confirmed

(d) Land to North West of Scotchells Bridge, Newport Road, Lake – Tree Preservation Order No.11, 2002

A Tree Preservation Order had been placed on two oak trees following a request from a member of the public, as they were of high present and future amenity value and were visible from Newport Road, Scotchells Brook Lane, the public footpath and the bridleway. An objection had been received on the grounds that the site was not an attractive location and the order was a financial burden on the landowner.

The Committee were of the view, that it was because the area was not particularly attractive, that trees should be protected. Advice was given that the landowner was already financially responsible for the trees and the order would not increase this burden.

RESOLVED :

THAT Tree Preservation Order 2002/11 be confirmed

(e) Fairway Park, The Fairway, Lake – Tree Preservation Order No 13, 2002

An Area Tree Preservation Order had been placed on the trees within the grounds of Fairway Park following a request from a member of the public as a planning application had been received for development at Fairway Park. The grounds for making the Order were that the trees were of high present and future amenity value and were visible from The Fairway, Roseway, Medeway, Fairmead Close, from the public footpath and from Los Altos Park. They were also important as a wildlife habitat, especially for birds and potentially for red squirrels.

Two objections had been received from local residents whose land adjoined the park. The grounds for objection were that the trees from the park could pose a threat to adjoining landowners, the trees would cause inconvenience such as loss of light or leaves in gutters, and that the existence of the Order could reduce the value of the property.

The Committee were advised that the concerns relating to damage to properties could be met by applications for work to be carried out to the relevant trees. However, a detailed survey of the site had not yet been made to identify which trees were significant enough to merit protection and therefore it would be prudent to confirm the Order until such a survey was carried out. The Committee believed that then a more precise order could be made.

RESOLVED :

THAT Tree Preservation Order 2002/13 be confirmed

(f) Wood to West and North of Mirables, Undercliffe Drive, St Lawrence, Ventnor – Tree Preservation Order No 17, 2002

The Committee were informed that Mirables was within the Isle of Wight Council (Urban District of Ventnor) Tree Preservation Order, 1954. As part of revisions to TPO’s, a survey had been carried out of the woods within the Undercliff to see which were worth protecting. The wood was considered to be of very high present and future amenity value and was visible from Undercliff Drive and the coastal footpath. It was also important as a wildlife habitat, especially for dormice, badgers and red squirrels. It had been suggested that the wood could also contribute to land stability in the Undercliff.

An objection had been received from the landowner who stated that the boundary of the wood had not been plotted accurately and who was of the view that the boundary of the protected wood should be placed away from the road in order to allow the removal, without permission, of any trees or branches that may fall onto the road.

A letter from the landowner was circulated at the meeting which expressed concern over the south eastern boundary of the Order which ran very close to the house. Given that a site visit to check the accuracy of the boundary had still to be carried out and a revised plan could be made if found to be necessary, the Committee believed that the Order could be confirmed subject to the south eastern boundary being moved back 10 metres away from the house. The local member spoke on behalf of the landowner.

RESOLVED :

THAT Tree Preservation Order 2002/17 be confirmed with the modification that the boundary on the south eastern side of the wood be moved back 10 metres away from the house

CHAIRMAN