Agenda item

Fell 1 no. sycamore tree protected by TPO CCD-34-2012

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application to fell 1 no. sycamore tree protected by TPO CCD-34-2012 (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Caines, Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.

Mr S Johnson, a Consultant Ecologist, addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He had originally been asked to inspect the tree in 2012 and had found that it was leaning, and suffering from root heave and subsidence. The tree had been part of a large group, one of which was a beech tree to the north of the sycamore which had been felled. This had left the tree flat-sided with the branches on the west side overhanging a grade 2 listed wall, the branches to the east extending up to 3m and those to the south and west having a spread of 6–7m. This would affect the balance and stability of the tree. Sycamores were not native to the UK and only had amenity value in the open countryside.

Mr Johnson continued that the tree was infested with aphids and had tar spot, which although not fatal would reduce the tree’s ability to photosynthesise. He had spoken to a Council Tree Officer who, he claimed, had confirmed that the tree was leaning and that it would become unstable when it was pruned. 

On a further visit in 2013 Mr Johnson had noticed more weather damage and whilst there was no evidence of further lean, the sycamore was overhanging a yew tree. The applicant had agreed to plant two young oak trees which would be of benefit to the site for many years to come, in contrast with the sycamore which would fail at some point.

R Lowe, the Council’s Tree Officer responded to the comments made by Mr Johnson. He advised that when planning permission had been granted in 2011 an independent company had undertaken an arboricultural survey. The data from the survey was used in Mr Johnson’s report, although he had reached a different conclusion about the condition of the tree.

Almost every tree in County Durham had tar spots or aphids and there was no evidence to suggest that it was in danger of falling over. Whilst the tree had developed a lean this was not unusual as it had been one of a group. Most trees in County Durham were sycamores which could live for up to 400 years. This was a mature tree with high amenity value which was in good health and had been given a Category A rating by an arboricultural consultant in 2011.

In response to questions from Members the Council’s Tree Officer confirmed that the tree was safe despite the recent wet and windy weather conditions, and that no remedial works were needed. The Arboricultural Survey carried out in 2011 did not mention root heave but heavy vehicles may have disturbed the soil which could have caused Mr Johnson to believe that this was the case. The dwelling would be constructed on pile foundations in the Root Protection Area to safeguard the roots.

Councillor Richardson was of the view that the tree was too tall and, as had been the case with many other trees this winter, could fall over as a result of ground softening and high winds. There were a lot of new shoots at the base of the trunk which he understood were signs of a tree in distress. He favoured the applicant’s proposal to fell the sycamore and plant two young oak trees.

The Tree Officer clarified that the growth from the roots was because the sycamore had originally been one of a group and the buds, which were present in the bark of every tree, had started to grow after the other trees had been felled.

In discussing the application Members noted the conflicting expert opinions about the condition of the tree. The Legal Officer advised that the Committee needed to decide, on balance, having considered all of the evidence before it, whether the application should be granted or refused. If any particular Member could not reach a decision on the basis of the evidence before the Committee, they should abstain from voting upon the application.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.