Forum topic: Local groups determined to save mature oak

The hearing of the appeal against Enfield's rejection of the application to fell this tree was held on 5th March at the Civic Centre and subsequently on site. This was a long and complicated process and what follows is my gloss on the proceedings and arguments and I apologise for any errors in my account.

The Planning Inspector held an informal meeting at which the appellant's representative, the Council arboriculturist Stephen Downing, Ward Councillor Martin Prescott (and very local resident), Andy Barker Chair of the Fox Lane and District Residents Association, and Colin Younger Chair of the Lakes Estate Conservation Area Study Group and members of the public were all able to speak, answer the Inspector's fact finding questions and discuss the issues.

There was extensive exploration of the community appreciation of the tree, the history of the problem, technical discussion of soil structure, soil dessication, the potential impact of "heave" should the tree be felled on the garages and the neighbouring flats, and the ecological value of a 400 (?) year old protected tree.

What is clear that once such matters involve insurance claims, whatever the wider arguments, it boils down to the balance the Inspector has to draw between the amenity value of the tree and the cost of remedial action needed to repair and protect any affected structure.

Though these figures are disputed by the opposing sides, they were presented by the appellant as £70,000 to underpin the garages and reinstate them in the original (uncracked) condition, and £140,000 as calculated by the tree officer as the tree's amenity value.

On site there was further discussion of the ecological value of the tree and the precise extent of damage to the garages.

The process is that should the appellant be given consent to fell the tree, only at that stage will a full bat survey be required, and depending on its results it is possible that this would prevent felling.

We now await the Inspector's report.

Colin Younger

I'm pleased to report that the Planning Inspector has dismissed the appeal against the LBE refusal to allow the oak tree in Lady Shaw Court to be felled.

The full decision is attached.

It is now open for the appellants to seek compensation from Enfield. In their case they argued that only a full piled raft, which they estimated at costing £70,000, could reinstate the garages. I'm seeking views on this, because it seems to open the prospect of planning permission being sought for demolition and rebuilding the garages on the raft, which might put the health of the tree at risk. Of course LBE could reject such an application, which could lead to another appeal....

The battle over this tree continued after the Inspector ruled against felling. An application to insert supporting piles around th garages was made and has now been approved. The attached report notes that there will be minor damage to the trees root system but that this will not be significantly damaging or harmful to the tree.

It is instructive to note the reservations noted about the applicant's plan, which also forms part of the formal decision granting permission for the work. It remains to be seen whether this expensive work will be undertaken and if attempts are made to claim against Enfield.

Latest on this, as reported by Fox Lane Residents' Association , is that a new application has been submitted to fell the oak.

To recap, the original application to fell failed after an appeal heard by a Planning Inspector. The applicant then appiled to support the garages by an extensive and expensive scheme of supporting piles. This was approved even though it might damage some tree roots.

However, there was a delay in sending the approval notice and the second application to fell was made before it was recieved. There is therefore no reason to continue with the application to fell, but who knows what the applicant will do next. In the end this seems to be heading for an argument about the costs of the piles, and perhaps whether this proposal is justified, versus the value of the tree.

Could this result in unjustifiable costs being levied on the Council so that they are forced to agree to the tree being felled?