BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL

LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE LICENSING AND APPEALS (TREES) COMMITTEE HELD IN THE CONSTABLE MEMORIAL HALL, EAST BERGHOLT ON THURSDAY 5 APRIL 2007

Quick Links

• 1 - Declaration of Interests,
• 2 - Questions from Members,
• 3 - Tree Preservation Order No. BT405 - White House, Rectory Hill, East Bergholt.

PRESENT: Mr B L Lazenby - Chairman

Mrs E F Bates
Mr D G Grutchfield
Mr J M Owen
Mr N MacMaster

1     DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

There were no declarations of interest.

Back to Top

2     QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

Back to Top

3     TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO. BT405 – WHITE HOUSE, RECTORY HILL, EAST BERGHOLT

Prior to the meeting of the Committee, Members met to view the tree covered by Tree Preservation Order No. BT405.

In addition to the members of the Committee, the following were present for the site visit:

Mr J R A Sayers (Reserve Member)
Mr and Mrs N Butterworth (Owners)
Mr D Carmichael (Arboricultural Officer)
Mr R Hyland (Building Control Surveyor)
Mrs L Pattle (Admin. Officer – Committees)
Mr M Tavernor (Horticultural and Countryside Manager)

Following the visit the Committee met to consider an objection to the order dated 17 November 2006. In addition to those persons listed above, Mrs K Saward, Solicitor to the Council, was in attendance at the meeting.

Members had before them Paper F208, including a copy of Tree Preservation Order No. BT405, and copies of emails and letters from interested parties (circulated at the meeting and subsequently numbered Appendix E to Paper F208).

The Chairman referred to the procedure to be followed at the meeting, a copy of which had been circulated with the agenda. It was confirmed that all interested parties had been served with a copy of the Tree Preservation Order. It was noted that one letter of objection to the making of TPO No. BT405 had been received from Mr N Best of Davies Chartered Loss Adjusters, the partnership acting as agents to the buildings insurers of White House. The Parish Council, and all other interested parties who had made representations, supported the confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order.

Members considered whether it would be in the interests of amenity to protect the tree in question. Having satisfied themselves that this was the case, they considered the human rights issues involved. Members were of the opinion that the need to protect the tree outweighed any possible violation of Articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

RESOLVED

That Tree Preservation Order No. BT405 be confirmed without modification.

Back to Top

The business of the meeting was concluded at 10.20 a.m.

Chairman