Agenda item

Rainham South East Ward

T1- Oak - fell to ground and treat the stem to stop regrowth.

Discussion:

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

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

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. The moisture content showed the soil was very dry, however, there was no evidence that this was due to the tree, it could have been from other factors.  Compared to London clay standards, the soil was very dry but as only one reading was submitted, that could be due to other factors including gravel underneath.  She confirmed that the applicant, as a non-tree expert, may not have been aware of the requirement to provide multiple samples.  The basic level information was likely provided by a loss adjuster.  Often insurers recommend the removal of a tree as they considered that was the only way to protect the property.  She explained that only at the point that the planning application was refused, would the Council be responsible for costs. 

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.

The Tree Specialist Consultant advised that once Members determined this application and if they decided to refuse the planning application, the applicant may not be able to sell their property and would struggle to re-mortgage if underpinning was required and while the works were taking place, they would have to move out.  Although it may be that underpinning would not be required.

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

The Chief Planning Officer clarified that if the application was refused and the applicant claimed against the decision, the Council would require more information as part of any insurance claim as only the basic information was provided.

The Tree Specialist Consultant confirmed that if the applicant had submitted their planning application on the planning portal, the Planning Team would not have been able to change the planning application.  Members asked whether advice could be added to the Medway website which could inform applicants on what evidence would be necessary to substantiate an application to fell due to subsidence caused by surrounding trees.  

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.  The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that if another tree was planted, it would take a long period of time for the tree to grow to the size of the existing oak tree and thereby provide the same level of environmental benefits. 

Evidence had not been provided that fully substantiated the relationship of the oak tree had caused the reported damage.  The level monitoring data was within a normal seasonal range of 2mm, which did not support the severe foundation movement and the removal of a prominent tree.

Decision:      

REFUSE the application on the following grounds:

Lack of Substantiated Evidence: The application fails to demonstrate

a relationship between the oak tree (as a primary agent) and the reported damage. No progressive drying profile or multi-depth desiccation evidence has been provided.

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.

BRE Classification and Damage Thresholds: According to BRE Digest 251, the observed damage is Category 2 (slight), and tree removal is not typically justified at this threshold.

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.

Amenity and Environmental Loss: The tree makes a positive contribution to the local character and streetscape. Its removal would result in the unnecessary loss of an important tree, contrary to Local Plan and Tree Management policies.