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