PURPOSE/REASON

1. This report requires the Committee to determine whether or not to confirm Tree Preservation Order 2003/15.

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION/ORDER

2. On 26 June 2003, a TPO was made on four individual trees on land between 62 and 66 Clatterford Road, Newport. One letter of objection was received from a neighbour and one letter of support was received from a local person.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

3. The property is former garden; now overgrown, which is presently subject to an application for planning consent. It is raised up from Clatterford Road a considerable distance, and on a slope which overlooks Carisbrooke Castle.

RELEVANT HISTORY

4. Factual

As a result of the planning application the site was inspected to consider the effect of the application upon the trees. The trees were considered to be of sufficient amenity value that a TPO was made to protect them.

5. Committee History

An application for bungalow off Clatterford Road, Carisbrooke, conditional approval 12 October 1971, (TCP/13691/N/8784) REVOCATION ORDER Issued 24 November 1972, revoking permission on TCP/13691/N/8784

An application for a bungalow off Clatterford Road, Carisbrooke, conditional approval 10 July 1973, (TCP/13691A/N/9646)

An application for the erection of a bungalow off Clatterford Road, Carisbrooke, conditional approval 22 March 1973, (TCP/13691B/N/9963)

An application for extension to bedroom and extension forming kitchen, utility room and bedroom, 60 Clatterford Road, Newport conditional approval 4 November 1980 (TCP/13691C/M/11344)

An application for extension to form en-suite bedroom, 60 Clatterford Road, Newport conditional approval 6 October 1986 (TCP/13691D/M/1389)

An outline application for two bungalows including alterations to vehicular access to 60 Clatterford Road, land between 'Spindles' (62) and Harewood Lodge (66), Clatterford Road, Newport conditional approval 11 January 2001 (TCP/13691E/P/1042/00)

An application for 2 detached houses with garages; vehicular access, land between 'Spindles' (62) and Harewood Lodge (66), Clatterford Road, Newport refused 1 July 2003 (TCP/13691F/P/953/03)

An application for 2 detached houses with garages; vehicular access, (revised scheme), land between 'Spindles' (62) and Harewood Lodge (66), Clatterford Road, Newport. This application is pending (TCP/13691G/P/P/01510/03)

COUNCIL POLICY

6. When a TPO is made and an objection is outstanding when confirmation is required, it is normal practice to bring the matter before the Regulatory Appeals Committee for determination.

FORMAL CONSULTATION

7. Fire

None applicable.

8. Police

None applicable.

9. Relevant Council Departments

None applicable.

10. Parish and Town Councils

No Town or Parish Council exists in this area. Newport Forum was copied the relevant documentation.

11. Local Member

Cllr Mrs Foster has been copied the relevant documents in connection with this matter.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

12. Objectors

One objection was received. This is attached as Appendix A.

13. Supporters

One letter supporting the confirmation of the TPO was received. This is attached as Appendix B.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

14. It is clear that if the local authority refuses permission to do works, including felling a protected tree, compensation may be claimed against the local authority by the landowner. However any claim must be

· The natural or probable cause of the decision

· Within the contemplation of the authority at the time

· Quantifiable in money terms.

· Not too remote

In addition no claim will be valid

A for less than £500.00

B When made more than 12 months after the decision

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

15. The legislative framework is the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. As an objection has been received concerning the making of the Tree Preservation Order, the objections must be considered before the order is confirmed. In all other respects, the criteria for confirming a Tree Preservation Order are the same as for making it. Section 198 of the 1990 Act provides that

“If it appears to the local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the protection of trees… in their area they may make... an order with respect to such trees… as may be specified in that order.”

The committee deciding whether to make or in due course confirm such an order must balance the level of amenity of the tree against the level of interference, inconvenience or disruption to the landowner and anyone else affected by the tree(s).

When assessing amenity D.E.T.R. Guidance states that it is usual for at least part of the trees to be visible from a public place such as a road or footpath but this is not essential. In addition

§ The benefit may be present or future

§ Trees may be worthy of preservation for their beauty or contribution to the landscape, e.g. hiding an eyesore

§ Scarcity may enhance a tree’s value.

It is proper for the potential compensation to be considered by the committee as it reflects an element of the true cost of preserving a tree.

IMPLICATIONS UNDER THE CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998

16. None applicable.

IMPLICATIONS UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

17. If the recommendation is followed, it will directly impact on the rights of the landowner to use the land and therefore may interfere with their human rights under article 8 and article 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it is the author’s view that this interference is proportionate as it aims to secure a legitimate objective which in this case is the preservation of trees of high present and future amenity to the general public.

OPTIONS

18. OPTION 1: Confirm TPO/2003/15 without modifications.

OPTION 2: Confirm TPO/2003/15 with modifications (recommended).

OPTION 3: Do not confirm TPO/2003/15

EVALUATION

19. The site is set back from the Clatterford Road, and raised up to form a slope which overlooks Carisbrooke Castle. Existing properties front onto the road, and the site on which the trees stand is overgrown garden and orchard land reached by a private drive. This land and the surrounding areas have a secluded and quiet atmosphere as a result of the mature gardens and specimen trees in the area.

There are numerous trees on the site but only four were selected as worthy of a TPO. This was because of their very high future and present amenity value. In particular, the trees on this site were considered worthy of protection because of the effect upon the view from Carisbrooke Castle. This very important tourist attraction is in a dominant position, and views from the keep and walls are an important part of the visitor experience. The view from the castle west towards Carisbrooke and Clatterford Road is the only one to include many modern properties, but the good tree cover on the slope is very significant in screening these properties from view by those visiting the castle and the surrounding area. The trees identified in this Order are a part of that screen.

On the site in question, a development is proposed which would be visible from the Castle and other places. The trees identified in the Order would be particularly important in screening the new development, and are in any case very attractive trees that will enhance the site for those living in the new properties.

OBJECTION

One objection was received from a resident of Nodgham Lane. This is shown in Appendix A. A number of points were made, but none of them are sufficient reason not to confirm the TPO:

A) The objector believes that people visiting the castle are only “interested in the history of the Castle itself, and not in the four trees in someone else’s garden”. This is unlikely to be true, as discussed above, as these trees form a part of a very important view from the Castle. It is more likely that whilst some people do come to the Castle to enjoy history, others come to enjoy the panoramic views offered from this unique vantage point, and perhaps the majority of people come to enjoy both these things and more.

B) The objector says that T1 (False Acacia) is overhanging their boundary and ‘colliding’ with another tree. This is not in itself a reason to object to a TPO.

C) The objector says the T4 (Lime) “is interfering with the panoramic view of the Castle and countryside from Nodgham Lane”. This is indeed true, but conversely this confirms that the tree is also an important part of the screen protecting the view from the Castle west, and in fact, it is for this very reason that the tree was identified for protection.

MODIFICATION

After the TPO was provisionally made, a member of the public indicated that T2, Holm Oak, was in fact scheduled for removal under existing planning consent TCP13961E. Checking the planning file confirmed that this was the case and accordingly this tree cannot be included in the TPO.

RECOMMENDATION

20. OPTION 2 : Confirm TPO/2003/15 with modification to exclude T2 Holm oak.

APPENDICES ATTACHED

21. Appendix A: letter of objection

22. Appendix B: letter of support