H5: Grant of permission.
Development proposal involving felling of ancient oak tree -
differing evaluations from tree experts - failure to consult the appropriate council
officer.
1. Mr and Mrs Wood complained on behalf of themselves and 18 other
members of a residents' association. They said there was fault in the way a council
reached its decision to grant planning permission for the demolition of the old village
hall and construction of a new village hall near their homes.
What happened
2. The old village hall was situated under the shadow of two large oak
trees which were known to be at least 150 years old. Mr and Mrs Wood said that the
decisions to permit the felling of one oak tree and not to make a tree preservation order
in respect of the other tree were unreasonable and were based on insufficient or
inaccurate information about the health of the trees. They said that, because of the
council's maladministration, the village lost a magnificent tree which was a particularly
attractive feature.
3. The planning application included a proposal that one tree should be
felled. The planning officer considered the trees had a very high amenity value. He
therefore told the architect for the scheme that an expert assessment of the health of the
trees was needed. He also asked the council's parks client officer to inspect the two
trees with a view to preparing a tree preservation order. The parks client officer was a
qualified horticulturalist who was generally consulted by the council's planning officers
when they needed advice on trees.
4. The parks client officer reported that both trees had an estimated
safe useful life expectancy of at least 40 years.
5. In the meantime the developers engaged a consultant to provide an
assessment. That assessment contradicted the findings of the parks client officer, so it
was forwarded to him by the planning officer for his further comments. The planning
officer also asked the developers to commission additional work from a different expert.
6. The developers' architect sent the council the report from the second
expert and a further comment from the first expert. The opinions of the two experts
differed. The planning officer did not refer these further documents to the parks client
officer for comment. He said this was because there was little time before the planning
committee's site visit; because the developers' expert was better qualified than the parks
client officer; and because he thought he understood the content of the documents himself
and therefore did not need his colleague's opinion.
7. The planning officer told committee members that the developers said
there was real concern over the condition of one tree. The committee agreed to the felling
of that tree and granted planning permission for the proposal. The council did not make a
tree preservation order for the other tree.
8. After the first tree was felled, Mr Wood produced a report from an
arboricultural consultant who inspected the stump. The consultant said he could find no
significant rot in the stump which would class the tree as being dangerous or likely to
collapse. The consultant said the tree would have lived for at least a further century.
Expert evidence
9. The Ombudsman commented: "Councils which are local planning
authorities must be prepared to scrutinise any expert evidence presented to them in
connection with an application for planning permission. I would not expect every council
to be in a position to employ its own arboriculturist in order to look critically at
expert advice on trees. But local planning authorities need to have some arrangements in
place whereby their officers know when it is appropriate to seek advice; and they need to
have suitably qualified resources to call on for that advice."
10. The council did have such arrangements in place. But those
arrangements were not followed. The reasons given by planning officers for not consulting
the council's expert when the final reports were submitted were not sufficient in the
Ombudsman's view to justify the decision not to consult him. The failure to consult the
council's expert was maladministration.
Outcome
11. The Ombudsman was satisfied that if the council's expert had been
consulted he would have made his concerns known to the planning officers and they in turn
would have explained them to the planning committee. The Ombudsman accepted that if that
had been done the planning committee might have rejected the application for planning
permission. The Ombudsman also accepted, however, that the council might nonetheless have
granted permission after considering information about the trees and other factors such as
the difficulties of the site. But the residents who complained would never know whether,
if the council had properly scrutinised the expert evidence presented to it by the
developers, the oak tree might have continued to be a focal point
in the village.
12. To remedy that injustice, the council was recommended to identify a
suitable site in the village, in consultation with the residents' association, the parish
council and the village hall trust, and plant two oak trees there.
13. The Ombudsman also recommended that the council should provide more
detailed written guidance to its planning officers about when the parks client officer
should be consulted, and when it might be appropriate for external advice to be obtained.
(Report 98/C/3652)
|