Agenda item

To advise members of the current situation and determine an appropriate course of action.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members and stated that Chatteris Town Council have notified the Council that they support the TPO.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Donna Barwell, an objector to the TPO. Ms Barwell stated that her objection is straightforward, the Eucalyptus tree at 23 Station Street is unsafe, unsuitable for its location and the temporary TPO was issued, in her view, without the necessary evidence or assessment. She expressed the view that the provisional TPO was imposed without an arboricultural inspection, there was no assessment of the tree’s structural condition, its risk level, its life expectancy or its suitability for long-term retention.

Ms Barwell expressed the opinion that a TPO should only be confirmed when a tree provides significant public amenity and when it is expedient to protect it and neither requirement has been met. She feels the tree has multiple well-documented structural defects, it has had previous branch failures, it has visible decay and extensive bark loss, it has a pronounced lean of around 45 degrees and its species typically has shallow rooting and brittle wood.

Ms Barwell stated that one of the most important points is the species behaviour of sudden limb drop, with Eucalyptus trees being known for shedding large branches without warning, even in calm weather. She added that following an incident of this nature, which was reported to the Council in June 2025, they were advised to make the tree safe and her concern is, therefore, not theoretical as several branches have already fallen from this tree and it has been fortunate that these have been inside the boundary of her property, as if those should have fallen in the opposite direction it would have landed where children walk to the local primary school and where vehicles regularly pass, which demonstrates a real risk.

Ms Barwell made the point that Eucalyptus trees are not native, the grow very fast and have shallow spreading roots that can affect drains and structures and they are prone to structural failure. She expressed the view that in a confined high traffic urban setting she does not believe this tree is suitable for long-term retention and it also offers limited ecological value compared with native alternatives.

Ms Barwell expressed the opinion that given the tree’s condition, its species characteristics and its location, she does not believe it can be reasonably considered suitable for long-term protection. She feels the TPO was issued reactively following a felling application and not based on evidence, with the statutory test of amenity value or expediency not being observed.

Ms Barwell expressed the view that protecting a hazardous tree in a high-risk location is not in the public interest. She made the point that removing the tree is not in her aesthetic interest as at present this tree screens the properties across the road and its removal would open up that view and she also has other trees on her property that include a Cherry and Laburnum that are currently stunted because of the Eucalyptus’ size and dominance and if this tree were removed those trees would finally be able to grow and flourish, improving the long-term character and greenery of the area.

Ms Barwell stated that her position is not about convenience or preference, it is about safety, suitability and responsible management and if deemed appropriate, she would be willing to replace the Eucalyptus with a more appropriate species, subject to guidance, that would provide genuine amenity without posing a risk. She asked members for the reasons she has outlined to withdraw or decline to confirm the TPO.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Marks asked if the tree officer visited the site to look at the tree? David Rowen responded in the affirmative and that as part of the assessment of the application for works to various trees within the site, which included the felling of the Eucalyptus tree, the Council’s Arboricultural Officer has undertaken what is known as a tree valuation method for preservation orders which is an industry standard series of assessments of the tree including its health and general condition, coming to the conclusion that it is worthy of a TPO.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Marks stated that committee has heard from the objector who obviously owns the tree and one thing she did say was about upkeep and safety but questioned why the tree not been maintained, with safety being of paramount importance through the years. He queried why all of a sudden the tree has become an issue if it has been maintained. Councillor Marks made the point that the Tree Officer has been out to site and members need to support the report of the Tree Officer, who is the professional and, on this occasion, he will be supporting the TPO.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that the house has been sold several times, but Eucalyptus trees do grow, the branches do fall off them, and they are not a native species. He feels from listening to the objector she is more than happy to replace this tree with another tree and personally he would prefer to see it replaced with a native UK species. Councillor Benney stated that it is a big tree, trees need management and they do not last forever, it is a lovely garden, and it is very dominant and he can understand why the other trees are not thriving. He expressed the opinion that the Tree Officer by the nature of his job is always going to support trees, but he will not be supporting this TPO.

·       Councillor Mrs French questioned how old the tree is? The Chairman allowed Ms Barwell to respond to say she believes it was planted in the 1960s.

·       Councillor Purser questioned, with all due respect to the Tree Officer who is obviously the professional, if the tree is getting into a bit of a dangerous state why has it not been pollarded previously. He feels if a TPO is placed on the tree now and it did get into an even more dangerous state and injured or killed someone, would members forgive themselves for allowing it to go forward.

·       Matthew Leigh stated that the responsibility of the tree management sits with the owner of the tree, it does not sit with the Council, and the applicant has come into remove the tree, they have not come in with works to reduce it or for any maintenance. He added that the Tree Officer has been on site and undertaken an assessment, with part of the Tempo scoring system being about the long-term health and it takes into account quite a number of different criteria, including the condition and suitability of the tree, remaining longevity, how visible it is in the public domain and arboricultural features, ie whether it is unusual. Matthew Leigh stated that the Planning Officer’s report says in paragraph 4.2 definite merit is level 15 and this scored 16 so the Tree Officer considers it has merit. He referred to a point being made about health and risk in the future, but officers are not saying they would not allow any works as a substantial part of a LPAs caseload is applications for work to trees with TPOs and generally they are allowed if it can be demonstrated there are health issues with the tree, with sometimes management resolving the issue but sometimes they will need to be removed. Matthew Leigh made the point that the only way to require a tree to be replaced is to impose a TPO, which is standard practice if a tree is relatively unhealthy and it is a borderline case to impose a TPO to allow them to remove it so that the harm can be mitigated against for the loss of the tree so even if members say that it adds to the character of the area and has value but are concerned about the principle of this tree his advice would be to still confirm the TPO and then a subsequent application could come in to remove it and to replace it with a different tree, which if members consider to be more appropriate, safer, etc, is the correct way to do this as it is about installing officers with the legal powers to affect it. He added that the tree not being native or ecology issues are not considerations.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he had a Horse Chestnut tree at his former home and the Tree Officer came and looked at it as he was looking to get some work undertaken to it as it was getting too tall and dangerous and he agreed with the work saying that it was a healthy specimen of a tree but when the tree surgeon came to undertake the works he said the tree was unsafe, with the Tree Officer advising to take whatever action the tree surgeon recommended but the Tree Officer did not see that the tree was dangerous in parts. Matthew Leigh stated that he would not want to bring any question into the capabilities of the Tree Officer, particularly as it probably is not the same Tree Officer as now and the Council’s current Tree Officer is a commercial entity with a lot of experience and this should not be given any weight in the consideration of this proposal. Councillor Benney stated he was not questioning his ability but making the point that until the tree is climbed up it is not always visible what condition it is in.

·       Councillor Imafidon expressed the opinion that what is important from his perspective is public safety and whilst the Tree Officer has been out to look at it, the objector lives there and has seen the tree branches fall off. He added that it can be seen from the photos that there is a great lean on it and the root system is shallow so no one knows when that is going to come down and like Councillor Benney said without someone undertaking some work on the tree it would not be known what state of health it is in. Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that he does not think the objector is after just removing the tree as she offered to plant another tree there and he feels personally he is looking at it from a public safety point of view and if the species of this tree is known to shed branches without warning he thinks members should consider the objector’s point of view.

·       David Rowen stated that there was an application to fell the tree which is why the TPO come around so clearly there is an intention to fell it and branches do fall off trees, even healthy trees. He added that as Matthew Leigh indicated there is a responsibility on the owner of any tree to make sure it is in as safe a condition as possible and just imposing a TPO does not preclude any further work being undertaken to that tree, it just gives a degree of control to the works that are taking place. David Rowen made the point that if members do accept the TPO there is nothing stopping the owner of the tree making an application tomorrow to undertake significant works to the tree and that will be considered on its merits. He continued that while the speaker has indicated that they would be willing to plant a replacement tree the only way to legally ensure that is to place a TPO on the tree as if the Council just accepts the felling of the tree there is no legal requirement to ensure that this tree is replaced, with the only mechanism to do that being the imposition of the TPO.

·       Matthew Leigh added that an initial consideration of a tree can be undertaken and it could look healthy or unhealthy and if someone started works it could be worse, but the Council does not have an initial report saying it is unhealthy, it is just anecdotal that occasionally branches fall and it is not known if there is or is not any health risks or issues with the tree. He continued that it is not known if a slight reduction of the tree would mitigate some of the issues as none of this information is with the Council and all that is known is that sometimes the tree loses branches and they want to remove it, with there being no arboricultural report in front of the Council backing up that this tree needs to be removed for health and safety reasons.

·       Councillor Marks acknowledged what Councillor Benney has said as well as officers, he feels that if the route of TPO is followed the tree is safeguarded instead of just removing it, however, if by reducing the size of the tree it is found to be in a poor state and needs to be removed then with advice from the Tree Officer it could be taken down and a replacement tree safeguarded. He added that if it is not in bad condition and it can be pollarded to a safe condition then there is a 60 year old tree still standing there, which, in his view, does add to the street scene. Councillor Marks expressed the view that the objector has made a good presentation and agreed that health and safety has to be of paramount importance but just cutting it down because of health and safety he is uncomfortable about, however, should it be found to be rotten inside then at least the future of a replacement has been safeguarded. He added that the objector may move next week and if that tree is felled there is no guarantee that it will be replaced but at least with a TPO there will be that guarantee.

·       Councillor Mrs French thanked to David Rowen for explaining the situation and she feels it makes sense to place a TPO on the tree and then the owner can apply to undertake works, if it is dangerous or in a bad condition a replacement tree can be conditioned.

·       Councillor Connor expressed the opinion that the TPO should be placed on the tree, the owner can submit an application for works to the tree and if it found to be unsafe appropriate action can be taken.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the TPO be confirmed in respect of 1 x Eucalyptus tree.

(Councillor Benney registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning)

(Councillor Marks registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he attends meetings of Chatteris Town Council but takes no part in planning)