Protected Chatteris tree wins reprieve from axe – but for how long?
A tree facing the axe has been saved after Fenland Council planning officers refused an application made by the authority itself because insufficient information was supplied on the proposal.
Thirty-one neighbours and Chatteris Town Council were all opposed to the felling of the oak tree covered by a preservation order (TPO) and located on land south of 16 Bridle Close in Chatteris.
The application to fell the tree believed to be anywhere up to 100 years old, was due to assertions its roots were causing damage to property, but it was considered that insufficient evidence was provided to show this was the case.
However, a report drawn up by planning officers explains this decision may only be a temporary reprieve.
The report states: “The arboricultural officer has recommended refusing the application as at this moment in time insufficient information has been provided to justify the tree’s removal.
“The arboricultural officer has mentioned that this is not to say if more technical information in the future will be provided, that may support its removal if other management options are not practical.”
The council wanted to fell the tree amid concerns it was affecting the property at 16 Bridle Close but Chatteris Town Council, in recommending refusal for the plan said: “There is no proof that the tree is causing any problems, the tree is a long way from the house which was piled when it was built. Felling the tree could cause even more damage.”
Adding: “The tree is covered by a TPO for a reason. Agree to works to manage the tree but not to felling. If felled the tree must be replaced.”
The council’s arboricultural officer agreed with the town council and said: “The tree report provided with the application states, no technical information has been provided at the time of writing the report, and the recommendation is based on assumptions the tree is the cause of damage.
“I consider at this moment in time insufficient information has been provided to justify the tree’s removal.”
Many of those objecting to the tree’s removal pointed out that it was there many years before the houses it is allegedly affecting were built.
One person wrote: “The house was built in the last 20 years with inadequate planning for the tree to stay where it is. The developer should have added suitable mitigations.”
Another wrote: “It's been there long before the houses this should not keep happening leave it alone.”
While another said: “This tree predates the nearby house, built within the last 20 years, and should have been protected by the developer. The tree has significant amenity value, which the TPO aims to safeguard.”
The decision to refuse was made under officer’s delegated powers this week and the notice was signed by Matthew Leigh, the council’s head of planning.
