Felling three poplars at 2 Wilshere Crescent, Hitchin

What was proposed

The application sought removal of three protected Lombardy poplar trees because of alleged root-related clay shrinkage subsidence damage.

“Application No. 26/00375/TPO Proposal Works to TPO 306: Fell 3x Lombardy Poplar trees (TG1) in rear garden due to root induced clay shrinkage subsidence damage to No. 62 Ash Grove…”

Officer report

The site

The trees are in the rear garden of a three-storey detached property within the Beverley and Newland conservation area.

“RECOMMENDATION The application be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The protected trees (G1 of TPO no. 306) shall not be removed before a scheme for the provision of 3x replacement trees to compensate for the loss of the protected trees has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.”

“The site is located within both the Beverley and Newland conservation area. The group TPO No. 306 was confirmed on 7 th October 2025 after a request to fell the trees was refused ref: 25/00636/TC. This proposal is to fell these 3x Poplar trees which are alleged to be causing subsidence damage to No. 62 Ash Grove.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the evidence showed the poplars contributed to subsidence and required replacement planting to address their loss.

“These trees make a significant positive contribution to the character and amenity of this part of the Newland Conservation Area. The proposal is to fell this group of trees on the grounds that they are causing subsidence damage to the property at No. 62 Ash Grove. A Section 211 notification was previously refused due to insufficient evidence to reach a robust conclusion that the Poplars were responsible for the damage.”

“CONCLUSION The submitted evidence demonstrates that the Poplar trees have contributed to the subsidence damage of the property at No. 62 Ash Grove. Whilst the trees have amenity value, the damage being caused to the property would likely increase if the trees remained in situ. Therefore, it is considered acceptable for the trees to be felled, provided that replacement trees are planted, which can be secured through a condition.”

Officer report

What people said

Urban Forestry raised no objection, while neighbours included an objection about insufficient justification and a separate expression of support.

“18.08.2025 REPRESENTATIONS Urban Forestry No objections on the basis that new reports showing soil movement which is indicating the 3x Poplars are the causal factor.”

“2x comments from neighbours i. Objects to the request of felling of the trees as tree owners: • Concerned that the application was submitted without their knowledge • States that insufficient justification is provided • States trees were in situ before houses were built and very close • Requests refusal or delay in decision…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A planning officer presented the application, and a neighbour addressed the committee.

The committee vote

A councillor proposed approval subject to conditions, another councillor seconded it, and the motion carried.

“Moved by Councillor Randall and seconded by Councillor Henry:”

“That the above application be approved, subject to conditions, as detailed in the Planning Schedule.”

Minutes