Felling five protected trees at 12 Wergs Road, Wolverhampton

What was proposed

The application sought to fell five Corsican pine trees protected by the Tettenhall Urban District Tree Preservation Order 1962.

“Planning application no. 26/00093/TR Site 12 Wergs Road, Wolverhampton, WV6 8TD Proposal Fell five Corsican pine protected by the Tettenhall Urban District Tree Preservation Order 1962.”

“Summary recommendation 1.1 Refuse 2.0 Application site 2.1 The application site relates to12 Wergs Road, Wolverhampton, WV6 8TD, a large, detached dwelling to the north of 10 Wergs Road (the applicant). The trees subject of this application are located on the south-western boundary of no. 12, which is north-west of 10 Wergs Road. A public right of way leading from Wergs Road and Wrottesley Road runs in between the boundaries of these dwellings.”

Officer report

Tree and site history

The trees formed part of a protected line originally containing 36 trees; a nearby extension and carport were built beneath their canopy.

“Compensation may also be payable in the event that there is a loss arising which is reasonably foreseeable at the time of and attributable to a refusal to grant consent to cut down or carry out work on a protected tree. No compensation shall be payable to a person for loss or damage that was reasonably foreseeable by them and attributable to their failure to take reasonable steps to avert the loss or damage or to mitigate its extent (CS/10032026/1).”

“This has led to complaints from the owner of number 10 about pine-cones and leaves falling onto the roof and blocking the gutters of the extension. A detached carport was also built in the last year or so, again directly beneath the canopy of the line of trees, this appears to have been undertaken without planning permission, the Planning team are investigating the alleged planning breach.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the trees contributed to the area’s character, showed no obvious instability, and lacked robust evidence of danger.

“As the proposal would result in the loss of five mature trees, there would be considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, any reasons given to justify the proposed felling of the tree need to be clear and convincing. Where health and safety is presented as a reason for removing protected trees, the applicant is required to provide supporting evidence.”

“The essential need for the works applied for must be weighed against the resultant loss to the amenity of the area. In this case, the felling of the five trees would result in considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area and, notwithstanding the claimed escalating risk to people and property, no robust justification or evidence has been provided that the trees are in a dangerous condition, such that they warrant felling.”

Officer report

Consultation and publicity

The tree owner was notified by letter, and the report recorded no consultees.

“Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (UDP) – Policy N7: The Urban Forest 5.0 Publicity 5.1 Tree owner has been notified of the application by letter. Consultees 6.1 None 7.0 Legal implications 7.1 Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (UDP) – Policy N7: The Urban Forest, provides that the Council will “seek to preserve enhance and extend the urban forest within Wolverhampton, by ...discouraging the removal of mature, healthy trees, including the placing of tree…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Tree Officer outlined the report, a councillor’s supporting email was read aloud, and a speaker addressed the committee in support.

Members’ discussion

Members acknowledged that the trees were in good health and considered that the application should be refused after questioning the Tree Officer.

“The report was considered by Committee, and the Tree Officer responded to questions asked. Members acknowledged that the trees were in good health and therefore felt that the application should be refused.”

Minutes

The vote

A councillor moved the report’s recommendations and another councillor seconded them.

“Councillor Paul Sweet moved the recommendations within the report. Councillor Ben Evans seconded the recommendations.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because insufficient evidence had been provided that the trees were dangerous.

“Resolved: That planning application 26/00093/TR be refused on the ground that insufficient evidence had been provided that the trees were dangerous.”

Minutes