Oak tree felling at 157 Long Catlis Road, Parkwood, Gillingham

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Medway Planning Committee on 19 Nov 2025.

TPA/24/2254Refused

No officer report was published for this decision; this summary is from the committee minutes.

Application to fell a mature oak

The application sought consent to fell an oak tree to ground level and treat the stem to stop regrowth.

“The Tree Specialist Consultant outlined the application in detail for T1 - Oak - fell to ground and treat the stem to stop regrowth.”

Minutes

Evidence for subsidence was not comprehensive

The tree specialist said the evidence was not comprehensive, with only one soil moisture reading rather than readings at multiple depths.

“The Tree Specialist Consultant confirmed that while the applicant had submitted what was required to determine the application, the evidence provided to support the application was not comprehensive. It was normal, in an Arboricultural Report, to have various soil readings submitted at different depths, this only had one reading at one depth.”

Minutes

Oak's age and other causes of dryness

The oak was about 150 years old, and members noted a dry summer could explain the dry soil rather than the tree itself.

“The Tree Specialist Consultant confirmed that the oak tree was approximately 150 years old, which was not even halfway through its life cycle.”

“Members acknowledged that the oak tree could draw out the moisture in the soil, however, this year had been a very dry summer, and this may have been the reason for this result.”

Minutes

Costs and hardship risk discussed

Members considered that refusing to fell the tree could expose the council to costs, and that refusal could affect the applicant's ability to sell or re-mortgage.

“The Committee considered the application noting that if the Planning Committee refused to fell the oak tree, the Council could be liable for costs.”

Minutes

Tree valued as part of the area

Members said the oak was a valuable feature in the skyline and part of the character of the area.

“Members stated that the oak tree was a valuable feature within the skyline and was part of the character of the area.”

Minutes

Replacement tree would not match benefits

A replacement tree would not match the carbon footprint or environmental benefits of the existing oak for a long time.

“Following a question as to whether a replacement tree would need to be sought if the tree was felled, the Tree Specialist Consultant confirmed that as this oak tree was ranked as high due to the amount of water it absorbed, the applicant would not be able to provide the same carbon footprint to replace the existing tree. If the applicant could secure planting elsewhere, you could mitigate the loss, however, there was nothing referenced in the planning application.”

Minutes

Refused for lack of evidence

The application was refused because the evidence did not show the oak caused the reported damage, monitoring showed only slight, normal seasonal movement, and no heave risk assessment had been submitted.

“Insufficient Monitoring: The level monitoring data spans a limited period and indicates movement within a normal seasonal range (maximum 2 mm). This does not support severe foundation movement attributable to tree roots or justify removal of a prominent protected tree.”

“Heave Risk Unaddressed: The oak predates the house, yet no assessment of potential heave risk has been submitted, contrary to good arboricultural and engineering practice.”

Minutes

Councillors at the meeting

  • Chrissy StampChairLabourFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • Mark JonesVice-ChairLabourFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • Linda BowenLabourFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • Gary EtheridgeConservativeFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • David FieldLabourFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • Phil FilmerConservativeFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • Jim GilbourneConservativeFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • Paula HamiltonLabourFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • Gareth MytonLabourFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • Eddie PeakeLabourFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • Michael PearceIndependentFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • John VyeReform UKFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • Smitha CampbellSubstitute for HamandisheLabourFor refusal(no vote against recorded)
  • Matt FearnSubstitute for GulvinConservativeFor refusal(no vote against recorded)

The minutes record this decision with no vote against, so each member present for this item is shown as voting for it.

Apologies Kwashie Anang Conservative, Adrian Gulvin Conservative, Douglas Hamandishe Labour

Also attending Vince Maple Labour

Source: Plota analysis of the council's minutes; parties from the council's list of councillors.

Sources

  • Medway Planning Committee minutes, 19 November 2025
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Medway's committee minutes. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Medway
Date
Wednesday 19 November 2025
Committee decided
Refused
Councillors
14Labour 8Conservative 4Independent 1Reform UK 1Show votes
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)
Application
The application (council website)

This committee's year

19 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →