Issue - meetings

Motion Submitted by Councillor Irving - Tree Preservation Orders - Removal of Trees for Financial Gain

Meeting: 03/03/2022 - Council (Item 109)

109 Motion Submitted by Councillor Irving - Tree Preservation Orders - Removal of Trees for Financial Gain pdf icon PDF 64 KB

Minutes:

It was moved by Councillor Irving, seconded by Councillor Bennett:

 

In May 2021 Sefton Council amended the constitution for dealing with applications for works under Tree Preservation Orders or for tree works in Conservation Areas.  This means that all applications are excluded from the Planning Committee irrespective of any member’s written request.  We agree up to a point with this ruling, however, when an application is received which could be considered as a reason for financial gain, we believe that for transparency any such application should be considered by the Planning Committee at the request of the ward councilor.

This anomaly was highlighted recently when a Planning Application was received from a Golf Club in Formby requesting to remove eleven healthy mature trees all with tree preservation orders.  This was to make one of the fair-ways longer on the course by forty yards.   The applicant claimed it would create a new championship tee for members and visitors to enjoy.  In light of the current concern over climate change and the detrimental effect that the removal of so many mature trees would have on the environment we believe such applications that appear to be for financial gain to be inappropriate.  We believe that the application should have been heard by the Planning Committee in order for them to make the ultimate decision as it was obvious that the application was for financial reasons.   I therefore ask this council to support this motion,

Council Resolution:

That Planning Applications received for the removal of Trees, which have tree preservation orders on them for financial gain should be heard by a Planning Committee if requested by the Ward Councilor.

Following a debate on the Motion the Chief Legal and Democratic Officer officiated a vote and the Mayor declared that the Motion was lost by 43 votes to 3 with 6 abstentions.