Regulatory Appeals Minutes

7. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations received at this stage.

8. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 2003/6 AT TIMBER, UNDERCLIFF DRIVE, VENTNOR

The Chairman advised the Committee that insufficient notice of the meeting had been given to the parties and after taking legal advice, it was agreed to defer this item to later date.

RESOLVED :

THAT the report be deferred to a later date.

9. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 2003/4 AT GREEN FINGERS, PELLHURST ROAD, RYDE

The Chairman welcomed the parties to the hearing and introduced the members of the Committee. He then outlined the procedure that the meeting would follow.

The objectors had submitted a number of photographs. The Chairman confirmed that the Committee were willing to consider this late evidence. The landowner produced annotated photographs that were referred to in the report. The objector also submitted a receipt for pollarding works that had been carried out but the Committee did not accept this evidence, as they believed it was not relevant.

The Committee were informed that land was a former nursery situated behind houses in Pellhurst Road and Mayfield Road. The landowners had requested that a TPO be made over their property, as they were concerned that neighbouring landowners would cut back trees, which overhung the boundaries. Four trees that were worthy of protection were identified. Of these, two were adjacent to the boundary, and of these, T1 was large enough to overhang the neighbours’ boundaries significantly

Three objections had been received from neighbouring properties on the grounds that the trees overhung others’ gardens and blocked the light to them. Two of the objectors, were from the two properties closest to T1. A letter of support had been received the landowners.

The Committee were advised that whether or not T1 tree was protected by the Order, it was unlikely to be removed as it was still largely within the boundary of Green Fingers. The owners of the tree had indicated that they did not intend to remove it, and so the tree itself was not under any threat. If the tree were protected, and the overhanging branches were a nuisance, it would be likely that the Council would be bound to grant consent for them to be removed anyway.

Members of the Committee were then able to ask questions followed by the objectors and the landowner. The landowner then had the opportunity to present her case and was asked questions by the Committee. The objector was able to state their case and the Committee had the opportunity to ask questions.

The Committee then adjourned into private session in order to take legal advice and to consider their decision. Upon reconvening in public, the Committee announced their decision.

Having considered all the evidence, the Committee endeavoured to balance the competing rights of landowner, objectors and adjoining parties. The Committee decided that it was not necessary to protect T1 by way of a tree preservation order as consent to any necessary works to be carried out to the tree by adjoining properties would be likely to be granted by the Local Authority. The current landowners also had made clear their intention to protect the tree.

RESOLVED :

THAT TPO/2003/4 be confirmed with modification to exclude T1, Cupressus macrocarpa

CHAIRMAN