URL: https://democracy.winchester.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1431

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Proposal Description: Item 6: T6 – Oak (Remove) (Amended)           The application was introduced. During public participation, Diana Watts and Councillor Maggie Hill (Colden Common Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.   Councillor Bailey-Morgan and Councillor Cook spoke as Ward Members in objection to the application.   In summary, Councillor Bailey-Morgan raised the following points:   1.       He stated that this case served as a test of whether Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) are being applied as a safeguard of last resort or if their        protection was being incrementally eroded under financial pressure. 2.       He acknowledged the reality of building movement and the clear need         to stabilise the property. 3.       He questioned whether felling the specific protected oak tree was truly          unavoidable and whether all reasonable alternatives had been                   genuinely exhausted. 4.       Councillor Bailey-Morgan highlighted a significant anomaly in the                   evidence, noting that while one part of the house was affected by                  subsidence and had not been underpinned, another section near an           even larger oak tree was underpinned and was not experiencing             comparable movement. 5.       He argued that seasonal movement in clay soils did not, on its own,    prove that a protected tree must be removed, especially when                 structural solutions have not yet been implemented. 6.       He emphasised that the sequencing of works was critical in this case. 7.       He noted that due to the severity of clay desiccation, the immediate     removal of vegetation posed a well-recognised risk of clay heave and        associated structural damage. 8.       He considered that underpinning prior to tree removal was the only            method to stabilise the property against both further subsidence and         rebound movement. 9.       Councillor Bailey-Morgan expressed concern that the current proposal      suggested underpinning only after the tree was removed, despite a               lack of evidence that the work could not be undertaken while the tree   was retained. 10.      He suggested that implementing structural stabilisation first may arrest        movement without the permanent loss of the protected oak, whereas          felling the tree removed the opportunity to test its necessity. 11.      In conclusion, Councillor Bailey-Morgan reminded the committee that        TPOs existed to set a high bar for removal, requiring that felling be                 genuinely unavoidable rather than merely preferable, cheaper, or                  procedurally simpler.           In summary, Councillor Cook raised the following points:   1.       Councillor Cook urged the committee to consider who benefits from the     tree, noting that T6 was not incidental to a single property but sits                 within Avondale Park where it provided direct public amenity to nearby         residents. 2.       She considered that the tree contributed significantly to the character of       the park, providing shade during periods of extreme heat. It supported wildlife and was valued daily by the community. 3.       She stated that public amenity was the specific reason the                          Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was created. However, the officer's               report described the tree as having only moderate value based on              views from Hazel Close, failing to assess the amenity from within the           Avondale Mobile Home Park itself where it was experienced most              directly. 4.       The omission of the park community's perspective in the report risks    understating the true amenity impact of the tree’s removal. 5.       Councillor Cook expressed concern that accepting the removal of a protected oak based on probabilistic evidence alone—before                    reasonable alternatives were exhausted—would materially weaken the          protection afforded to other TPO trees. 6.       It was argued that once one oak was lost, the argument for removing subsequent trees became easier. The committee was reminded that it          had previously deferred the application to seek stronger evidence of causation, such as DNA root analysis, which had still not been                 provided. 7.       In respect of potential financial liability, she stated that compensation          risk was a known consequence of making and enforcing TPOs and              suggested that if financial exposure alone justified removal, TPOs            would become meaningless. 8.       While replacement planting was welcomed, it did not replicate the            fundamental amenity, biodiversity, or climate value provided by a                    mature oak. 9.       Quoting the Woodland Trust, Councillor Cook stated that where a TPO           was in place, removal should only be permitted with clear, site-specific evidence of direct damage and when no reasonable alternative                  solutions existed. 10.      It was emphasised that subsidence alone did not automatically justify felling a protected tree and that the process should be an evidence-led         approach given the importance of mature oaks. 11.      Councillor Cook stated that many residents in the area, some of whom         had already had their homes underpinned, chose to live there because          of the trees and did not want them removed. 12.      She emphasised that once a tree was gone, it would be gone forever. 13.      The committee was urged to refuse or further defer the application to           ensure that all requirements for reasonable alternatives, including full   structural stabilisation, were genuinely exhausted before sanctioning the loss of a protected oak.   In response to questions, the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer clarified the legal requirements under regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012 and made reference to a similar case of Chubb European Group Se v London Borough of Enfield (2025), whereby the case was concluded as a civil matter with the standard of proof being ‘on the balance of probabilities.’   During further consideration of the application, the committee proceeded to ask for specific legal advice in respect of the application site. In response, the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer clarified that due to the confidential nature of the detailed legal advice to be given, whether the committee was minded to exclude the press and public for this part of the meeting and that the committee would need to determine whether in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information and resolve accordingly.   The committee agreed to proceed into exempt session with the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer, the Team Leader and the planning case officer in attendance (detail in resolution – minutes 7 & 8 below refers) and: (i)             To pass a resolution that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of this part of the application because it was likely that, if members of the public were present, there would be disclosure to them of ‘exempt information’ as defined by Section 100 (I) and Schedule 12A (Paragraph 5) to the Local Government Act 1972.   The meeting adjourned to exempt session between 10.40 am and 10.46 am.   Upon resumption of the open session of the meeting, the Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.   RESOLVED:                        The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report.    

Date of Decision: February 4, 2026