Trees in Peterborough narrowly win council protection despite questions over 'suspicious' timing

A tree preservation order (TPO) protecting five lombardy poplars in New England has narrowly won the approval of Peterborough City Council’s (PCC) planning committee, despite questions over its “suspicious” timing.

The TPO was provisionally put in place on 16th March this year, meaning that, from then on, permission has been needed from the council to cut the trees down or alter them in any way.

Just over a week later, on 24th March, a planning application to build a new house on Sheridan Road, adjacent to the trees on Fulbridge Road, was rejected.

Council officers freely say that the TPO came “as a consequence” of the planning application as they had concerns a new property there puts the trees at risk and that, with an appeal underway, this remains true.

Both public objectors to the TPO at PCC’s planning committee meeting this week and some councillors raised concerns about this, suggesting that if the trees needed to be protected, an order should already have been put in place by the time the application was made.

David Clark, an objector and the applicant behind the Sheridan Road planning application, said that it’s his “personal view” that the TPO was put in place to block his development and that it isn’t necessary as the trees aren’t at risk of removal.

'Serious concern about our process as a council'

Cllr Lindsay Sharp (Conservatives, Hampton Vale), meanwhile, said that he has “a serious concern about our process as a council” in that it may appear to be “trying to put TPOs in place to cover ourselves in case we lose an appeal”.

“Every time we have planning officers that don’t like a planning application, are we going to slap a TPO in place because there’s a tree in the garden?” he said.

“I’m not saying that’s going on here but it’s just a concern going forward.”

Cllr Sharp also said that it appears “suspicious that [the TPO was made] within days of the application being refused”, while Cllr Mohammed Jamil (Labour, Central) agreed that he was “very uncomfortable” with the process that led to the TPO being put in place.

Council officers say that the TPO did come about because of the planning application as future residents of the new house, proposed very close to the trees, could have concerns over their safety and wish to remove them.

The planning application was not, however, refused because of the presence of the trees, they added.

No 'subterranean conspiracy' to block development

Cllr Nick Sandford (Liberal Democrats, Paston and Walton) also came to officers’ defence, saying that there should be no suggestion of a “subterranean conspiracy” to use a TPO to frustrate the planning application and that the TPO may have coincided with it simply because it was that that brought the trees to officers’ attention (Cllr Sharp clarified that he wasn’t suggesting a “conspiracy”).

Cllr Chris Harper (Peterborough First, Stanground South) added that the planning committee would protect at- risk buildings with heritage value, and that it should be no different for trees which provide value to residents.

But this was also a subject of disagreement between objectors and officers.

Objector and former councillor Ray Palmer said that the trees are too tall, “stand out like a sore thumb” on Sheridan Road, that residents don’t want them and that they should be felled.

Mr Clark, also, said that his objections were not just due to his planning application but that the trees are too tall, out of keeping with the local area and could be dangerous.

But PCC officers said that they don’t consider the trees to be dangerous or to have reached maturity – points disputed by Mr Clark – and that they ought to be protected due to their “significant, public visual amenity value”.

They also said that no-one responded to their letters asking for residents’ views about the TPO.

Ultimately, the planning committee voted to keep in place the provisional TPO.

Four voted in favour of it, two voted against and one councillor abstained.