URL: https://moderngov.sutton.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4265

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: The Committee considered a report on the above application to make permanent a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at 52 Tewkesbury Road, Carshalton. The Copper Beech tree was considered to be of a high amenity value and its preservation meets the criteria as set out in The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012.   This had been referred to the committee because an objection to the TPO was received.   The Principal Tree Officer presented the Officers’ report.   Members asked questions on the replanting of a Copper Beech, permission to pruning, and the tree’s tolerance to pruning. Officers responded that the different trees have different capacities for pruning and pruning often depends on the arboricultural need so there must be a strong justification. Officers indicated The Beech Tree was capable of a small tolerance to pruning. Members also added that typically trees that have TPOs, residents are afraid to prune despite having permission to do so.  It was noted that the council did not undertake the pruning of privately owned trees.   Discussions addressed the Copper Beech Tree's life expectancy and maturity. Officers stated the tree could live for another 20-50 years, dependent on pathogens, but showed no signs of not reaching its full potential.   Officers provided background on the Estate's landscape features, noting its cottage architectural style and the steady decline of trees due to both natural and unnatural causes.   Members discussed the need to balance residents' concerns against the high amenity value of trees. Officers clarified that arboriculturists' decisions on tree protection are now statutory law. They stressed that protecting mature, high-value trees is crucial to prevent significant environmental loss, underscoring the legal framework for tree protection. Officers acknowledged residents’ concerns, explaining that numerous factors are considered when calculating a tree's amenity value.   Mr Mark Lake, the objector to the application, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.   The principal issues raised by the objector included:   ·         The tree was intended for removal by the owners when they purchased the property due to its excessive size, proximity to the house, and associated problems. Their plans were halted by a Tree Preservation Order just as they could afford the removal. ·         It was considered unfair that the owners are prevented from removing the tree simply because they could not afford to address it sooner. ·         The tree primarily provided amenity to those who directly experienced it, namely the owner's family and immediate neighbours. It is not a landmark in a public space but is situated in a private garden, making its visibility highly localised. ·         The tree was causing damage to the property as it is too large for the plot, with concerns about potential storm damage to the house. Additionally, pigeon droppings and falling leaves from birds nesting in the tree are issues. ·         The objector has offered to plant a smaller tree as a replacement. ·         A petition supporting the tree's removal gathered 24 signatures. ·         The owners wish to enjoy their home and garden without this obstruction.   Members asked questions to the applicant regarding the loss of access to natural light. The objector indicated that the house blocks the light in the morning and the tree blocks the natural light in the afternoon, there was a small period in which the natural light was accessible.   Members questioned the cost of pruning the tree, as the Council does not cover such expenses. The objector explained that they had planned to complete an extension to the house but this was prevented by the presence of the tree and that the cost of maintaining the tree would be significant.   Further questions involved the size of the tree 13 years ago when the objectors’ family moved into the property. The objector responded that the tree was significantly smaller, and his family wanted to remove it then as they still thought it was too big.   In response to questions, the objector explained that the intention was always to remove the tree as it was too big, situated too close to the property and could cause damage to the house. Other issues raised included pigeon dropping, seeds, leaves and beech nuts. The objector explained that whilst they had planning permission for an extension to the property, the scope, cost and difficulty was greatly increased due to the presence of the tree.   In debate, members raised concern that  the large tree presented significant maintenance challenges and a risk of injury or fatality due to its proximity to the residence. Members noted that it  also impeded natural light and produced considerable debris on the owner’s property. It was also noted that having a TPO might reduce pruning frequency due to residents' fears of over-pruning and receiving a fine. It was noted that residents had signed a petition indicating their support for the removal of the tree.   On the other hand, the committee noted that the tree's removal would further deplete trees in an area already deficient in trees It was noted that the St Helier Estate area lacks trees which provide shade in summer months and additional benefits to the environment. It was noted that the property was acquired with the tree present and classifying this tree as a public hazard could set a precedent for felling numerous other trees in the borough.   Councillor Jayne McCoy used her casting vote as the Chair of the Planning Committee to confirm the TPO.   RESOLVED: To CONFIRM TPO2025/01

Date of Decision: July 2, 2025