Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bill Hartnett with Councillor Joanna Kane in attendance as a substitute.

Apologies were also received from Councillors Andy Fry and Gemma Monaco

To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and / or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests.

There were no declarations of interest.

To note Update Reports (if any) for the Planning Applications to be considered at the meeting (circulated prior to the commencement of the meeting)

There were no update reports.

The application was reported to the Planning Committee as there had been a objection to the raising of the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) which was not resolved by Officer mediation.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 5 to 11 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for the confirmation of the TPO (214) 2024 for a single Oak tree on the land at 83 Parsons Road, Redditch, B98 7EG.

Officers detailed that the tree was in the rear garden of 83 Parsons Road. The provisional order detailed on page 13 of the Public Reports pack came in force following a query regarding the tree. Upon inspection, a concern was raised regarding the threat of felling and therefore, the provisional order was raised.

On 30^th July 2024, Officers had undertaken a Tree Evaluation Measure for Preservation Orders (TEMPO). The results of the TEMPO survey was a score of 20 which was above the threshold where Officers would normally deem a TPO would definitely be required. The TEMPO evaluation was detailed on page 23 of the Public Reports pack

Following the raising of the order, an objection had been raised by the owner of 83 Parsons Road. The main reasons given for objection were that the tree did not have the necessary public amenity value due to being situated in their rear garden and that there was a health and safety risk due to falling debris.

Officers were of the opinion that the tree had the necessary amenity value to warrant the raising of a TPO, due to its size and visibility from public highways. Officer further stated that there was no visible health and safety risk posed by the tree, as the tree appeared to be in good health. Officers therefore did not agree with the objection. After failing to reach a conclusion via mediation the objector requested that the application be brought before Members.

The following was also clarified following questions from Members

• That the tree was approximately 130-160 years old and would be expected to survive for another 40-100 years.
• An Oak tree would be expected to grow 10-15 inches per year which would slow as it gets older.
• There was no evidence of any subsidence issues, and it was impossible to predict if any future problems would occur. It was further detailed that Oak trees tended to have little surface rooting; however, the deeper roots would likely be at least partially beneath the property due to its current size.

Officers clarified that for a TPO to be attached to a tree the tree needed to be of sufficient quality which included size, species and its amenity value to the public. There also needed to be a existing threat to the tree. Officers detailed that there were no other TPOs attached to trees in Parsons Road as many of those were on Council land and therefore, there was no clear threat to the tree  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.