Agenda item

Felling of one cypress lawson tree protected by a tree preservation order and replacement with indigenous deciduous variety.

The Principal Planning Officer, Alan Dobie gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the felling of one cypress tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and replacement with indigenous deciduous variety and it was recommended for the Committee to be minded to refuse the application. 

Members were reminded that the site was within the City of Durham Conservation Area and that in 2015, prior to the TPO being in place, an application was made to fell the tree under Conservation Area controls.  It was added that at that time Officers from the Landscape (Trees) and Planning Sections felt that as the tree was within the CA, and that it passed the relevant criteria associated with quality, health, age and longevity, that a TPO was appropriate for this particular tree.

The Principal Planning Officer noted objections to the application had been received from the Council’s Landscape (Trees) Officers in terms of the tree being a healthy specimen and was a notable and attractive feature within the visual environment, making a positive contribution to the character of that part of the Conservation Area.  It was noted that there had been 12 letters of support for the felling of the tree, citing reasons including: loss of view; non-native species; visual intrusion; detrimental impact upon the area; damage to church buildings; out of character; height; loss of natural light; and the tree being an overbearing eyesore.

The Committee noted that there had been 2 letters of objection to the felling of the tree noting that the tree enhanced the area, that the application for felling was more to do with house prices and that there had been a lack of notification/public consultation.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that in planning terms there were three considerations: the amenity value of the tree; whether the proposal was justified; and whether any loss or damage was likely to arise if consent was refused.  It was noted that these matters were set out in some detail within the report, and that Members had visited the site and therefore would be able to make some judgement in terms of the amenity value of the tree.  It was added that the tree had been assessed to have “some life left in it” and there was no evidence of the tree causing issues of structural damage.  Councillors were informed that there had been a campaign locally to save the tree, however this was not a relevant planning issue and the recommendation was based upon the merits of the application.

Members noted that unauthorised works had been carried out to the tree in terms of lopping, and a retrospective application had been made as regards this, with the Tree Officer having inspected the works and deemed them acceptable.

The Principal Planning Officer concluded that it was the view of Planning Officers that the application be refused, however, Members were advised to note that the Council’s Constitution was such that the Committee could not determine the application, rather be minded to approve or refuse and that the power to make a delegated decision was with the Head of Planning and Assets, taking into account the views of the Committee.

The Chairman asked the Local Member for Elvet and Gilesgate, Councillor R Ormerod to speak in relation to the Application.

Councillor R Ormerod thanked Members for the opportunity to speak and noted he would keep his comments brief.  Councillor R Ormerod noted that issues in terms of trees were often emotive and the judgement in these matters was subjective, with some trees being judged such to be retained, some to be removed.  Councillor R Ormerod noted that in this case he did not feel that the tree was worth keeping and highlighted that actually the tree would not simply be felled, rather it would be replaced.  Councillor R Ormerod noted that while some may judge the tree to be a fine specimen in isolation, it was in much conflict with the surrounding woodland and he felt that felling of the existing tree and replacement would be much more appropriate.  It was added that there could be an opportunity for the local primary school to get involved in the process of looking at a replacement tree. 

It was explained that local residents and the Dean and Chapter did not object to the application and therefore Councillor R Ormerod noted that he supported the application.

The Chairman thanked Councillor R Ormerod and asked Ms E Bell a local resident to speak in relation to the Application.

Ms E Bell noted that she and her husband had been dealing with the issues in relation to trees in this area over the last 6 years and that 5 conifer trees had been removed at her and her husband’s expense in order to give neighbours a view of the Castle.  It was explained that the TPO had been put in place less than a year ago, and Ms E Bell noted that the applicant appeared to insult the Officers involved in the process of granting a TPO, highlighting that TPOs were not arbitrarily determined, with the documentation being meticulously prepared.  Ms E Bell added that she would urge the Committee to refuse the application based upon the application being contrary to saved City of Durham Local Plan Policy E22 together with Policies E14 and E15.

Ms E Bell noted that the tree was not within the World Heritage Site; rather it was located within an allotment leased from the Dean and Chapter, in a grove with 4 other trees.  It was added that Ms E Bell felt it was unfeasible what the applicant proposed in terms of changing a 100 year old tree, it was not like changing your car, with Ms E Bell stating that the roots of the tree likely supported the local area, including land of the applicant and other neighbours.

Ms E Bell added that the tree would trap CO₂ all year round, being an evergreen species, and that the tree was in a sustainable area and that the only issue seemed to be it was impinging upon some peoples’ view, in their opinion.  Ms E Bell noted that it had been suggested that removal of this particular tree was no different than the other trees that had been removed.  Ms E Bell asked Members to note that the tree was named Elsee, and was not just any tree.  It was added that thousands of schoolchildren supported Elsee and that the Head of St. Leonard School, formerly resident at her property, supported Elsee.  Ms E Bell added that there were over 200 signatures in support of keeping Elsee and two children’s stories had been written about “Elsee the Miracle Tree” and she was meeting with a publisher and an illustrator in this regard.  Ms E Bell explained that there may be opportunities to have events involving and supporting the Woodland Trust and that this was not the end of Elsee’s story, the ending was up to the Committee.

The Chairman thanked Ms E Bell and asked Mr R Freeley, the applicant, to speak in relation to the Application.

Mr R Freeley thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted he and his partner lived at 55 South Street in the city.  Mr R Freeley explained that all the relevant background information had been provided in his statement within the report and asked Members to imagine if their own home looked out at a tall, dark, unchanging tree and asked would they not prefer to look out at an Ash Tree that changed throughout the year.  Mr R Freeley noted that the choice of replacement would be for the Council to make and would be made at his expense. 

Mr R Freeley added that it the majority of the residents were of a similar opinion and did not feel that the tree added to their amenity and therefore should be removed.  Mr R Freeley concluded by noting that the speaker in objection to the application was no longer resident in Durham and that he hoped Members would support the application.

The Chairman thanked Mr R Freeley and asked the Principal Planning Officer to comments upon the issues raised by the speakers.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the applicant had offered to replace the tree at their expense and while this was laudable, the loss of a tree of that scale and maturity would be difficult to replace.  It was added that any replacement specimen would not be as mature and require a number of years before becoming equivalent in size and impact, therefore in the short to medium term it would not be appropriate suitable replacement.  The Principal Planning Officer added that the tree was already in place when the applicant moved into the property and therefore the view of the tree would not have come as a surprise, and in the wider sense the Officers supported the retention of the tree.

The Chairman asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments on the application noting Councillor D Freeman, also a Local Member in respect of this application, indicated he wished to speak.

Councillor D Freeman noted he was a big fan of trees and it was not very often that he supported their removal.  Councillor D Freeman noted that the amenity test looked at whether the removal of a tree would have serious detriment to the amenity of the public, and in this particular instance he did not feel that there would be detriment to the public, with the majority of the local residents not supporting the recommendation for refusal, the planning portal not having any objections from residents of South Street.  Councillor D Freeman added that it appeared to him that the tree was not the 100 year old as claimed, rather it was likely planted in the 1980s and as the tree was non-native it conflicted with the natural surrounding area.  It was added that the landowner, the Dean and Chapter, had not objected to the removal of the tree, as there was no issue.  Councillor D Freeman noted that he understood that it was an emotive issue; however he felt that the removal of the tree would be beneficial to the amenity of residents and therefore he could not support the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Councillor B Moir noted he had sat on Planning Committees at Durham for almost 4 years, and had been involved with other Planning Committees for 16 years prior to this and felt he had almost entered an alternative reality when looking at this application.  Councillor B Moir noted that the Officers’ work on the matter had been solid and therefore he supported and proposed the recommendation that the Committee to be minded to refuse the application.

Councillor A Bell explained he had visited the site with the Committee, he felt that the tree actually complimented the area and hence the TPO being in place, and accordingly he would second the proposal for the Committee to be minded to refuse the application.

Councillor P Conway noted there was an issue of sovereignty in terms of who could make the final decision, and added that personally he often walked along this road and found the height and massing of Elsee to be very large and that a deciduous tree may be more appropriate.  Councillor P Conway added he was happy for the Head of Planning and Assets to make an aesthetic judgement in this regard. 

Councillor C Kay noted that when visiting the site, the tree was not what he had expected, and while he was no tree expert and while there may be some issue of amenity in terms of residents, no individual owned a view.  Accordingly, Councillor C Kay noted his support for the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor B Moir moved that the Members be minded to refuse the application; he was seconded by Councillor A Bell.

RESOLVED

That the Committee were MINDED TO REFUSE the application for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, with the final decision to be made by the Head of Planning and Assets under delegated powers.