MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY APPEALS COMMITTEE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, NEWPORT, ISLE OF WIGHT ON FRIDAY 30 AUGUST COMMENCING AT 10.00 AM

 

Present :

 

Mrs M J Lloyd (Chairman), Mr M J Cunningham, Mr K Pearson

 

Also Present (non-voting) :

 

Mr G P Price, Mr R C Richards

 

 

 

 

 11.            DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations received at this stage.

 

 12.            TREE AT JUNIPER COTTAGE, LOVE LANE, BEMBRIDGE - TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 2A, 2002

 

This matter had been deferred from the last meeting of the Committee in order for members to visit the site.

 

The Committee were informed that the Tree Preservation Order was made on the 6 March 2002 and an outline of events leading to the making of the Order was given.

 

Two objections to the confirmation of the Order had been received.  One was from the solicitors acting on behalf of the owners of 22 Trelawny Way, who objected on the grounds that the branches were overhanging their property and that roots from the tree were growing into the garden which constituted a nuisance.  It was also claimed that the tree may in the future cause structural problems to houses in the vicinity.

 

The other objection had been received from the owners of Trinity Cottage who claimed that the plants had been hindered in their development as the tree had taken sunlight from them.  Other grounds for objection included that the tree shed large quantities of seeds as well as leaves, that it was top-heavy and that if the tree should die it would fall onto the owners= workshop.

 

Letters from solicitors acting on behalf of the owner of Juniper Cottage, and from the owner themselves confirmed their support for the Order.  The local Bembridge tree warden had also written expressing support for the Order.

 

Advice was given to the Committee that nuisance was only actionable where the overhanging branches or roots had caused, or where there was an immediate risk of causing, actual foreseeable damage.  The Committee were informed that the position of the tree was least likely to deprive 22 Trelawny Way of sunshine, and it would only cast shade over Trinity Cottage for part of the day.  Advice was received that birches did not grow particularly large, and only cast a light shade.  They were considered to have low water uptake by the British Standard Guidance on Trees in relation to Construction and by the National House Building Council.  The range of plants that could grow beneath birch trees was wider than that for many other trees species.

 

The Tree and Landscape Officer conceded that the neighbours might not be able to grow plants with as much vigour because of the tree's roots.  However, the Tree and Landscape Officer  considered that the effects of the tree, if any, were not significant enough as to constitute a legal nuisance.

 


The Committee noted that birches, due to their low water uptake, rarely gave rise to claims for subsidence damage and no evidence had been submitted by the objectors to suggest that such damage had occurred or was likely to occur in future. The Tree and Landscape Officer confirmed that birch trees were not prone to dying suddenly and even if they were, it would not constitute grounds for not confirming the Order as dead trees can be removed without consent. The Tree and Landscape Officer did not consider the tree to be top-heavy or that it was in need of being topped and lopped which could render it more, not less, susceptible to decay.

 

The Committee were reminded that the objections, of shade and the presence of roots, to the confirmation of the Order could apply to almost any garden tree because of the closeness of most trees to neighbouring gardens, and thus a precedent could be set if the Order was not confirmed.

 

The Committee were advised that the owners of Trinity Cottage had applied for works to prune the tree, which had been granted subject to the consent of the owner.  The Owner of 22 Trelawny Way had not applied for such works and preferred the tree to be removed.

 

The Committee believed that the grounds for objection were insufficient for the Order not to be confirmed.  They supported the view that if the Order were not confirmed it could set an unacceptable precedent for the future.

 

RESOLVED :

 

THAT Tree Preservation Order 2002 / 2A be confirmed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN