Agenda item

Various works to trees subject to Tree Preservation Order TPO CYC 53, including fell Sycamore (T3), Ash (T4), Hawthorn (T12), Laburnum x2 (in G1), Picea (in G2), Birch, oak, Chestnut, Apples (G3), Birch (in G2), Holly and Oak (G4), Cherry Trees (G5), Hawthorn (G7 and in G6); crown lift Holly (G2), Holly and Oak (G4) and Oaks T8-T11 [Strensall Ward] [Site Visit].

Consideration was given to a Tree Preservation Order application, submitted by Mr Adam Ward, for various works to trees subject to Tree Preservation Order TPO CYC 53 including felling Sycamore (T3), Ash (T4), Hawthorn (T12), Laburnum x 2 (in G1), Picea (in G2), Birch, Oak, Chestnut, Apples (G3), Birch (in G4), Cherry trees (G5), Hawthorn (G7 and in G6); crown lift Holly (G2), Holly and Oak (G4) and Oaks T8-T11.

Officers circulated a sheet showing a plan of trees recommended for retention and removal on the site together with a list of those trees the applicant proposed to fell. The sheet also detailed the Officers recommendation in relation to each of the individual trees. The Councils Landscape Architect confirmed that the additional sheet was not new information but a list of her recommendations in relation to each individual tree.

Representations were received from a neighbour, who confirmed that at the site meeting, the previous day, local residents had supported the proposals with just four exceptions. He referred to G2b Picea and G2a the Ash with a split stem and requested that these should be retained as a group together with the retention of G3a Oak, G3b Horse Chestnut and G1c Laburnum if at all possible. He confirmed that he supported the felling of a number of the trees and their replacement with young trees and requested that the Council oversee the works or appoint a representative on their behalf.

Officers confirmed that there was no reason why the work could not be overseen to British standards but that this would not form a condition of any approval.

The Chair agreed that the applicant, who was present at the meeting, but who had not registered to speak in advance could put forward his points. He stated that the site had been overgrown for a number of years and although no planning application had been submitted for the site that it was intended to develop the land in the future. The application would also include a landscaping scheme. He confirmed that he was happy to plant replacement trees for those felled and undertake thinning of others in accordance with appropriate British standards.

Representations were made on behalf of the Parish Council who requested that if trees were felled that they should be replaced by young semi mature specimens at appropriate locations. He also requested the retention of visual screening on site for neighbours and to act as a barrier for train noise.

Officers confirmed that the Picea was not a native tree and that the Ash referred to was unstable as it had multiple junctions. These trees were also very close to each other and in close proximity to a neighbour’s property. Members confirmed that they were happy with the Landscape Architect’s recommendations. 

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the imposition of the conditions listed in the report. ^1.

REASON:                  Some of the felling is refused because the trees still serve their function as specified under the TPO and are in such a condition that they could be retained under suitable management.