Decision details

'Save Bretton Oak Tree' Petition - Action to be Taken - FEB22/CAB/73

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to determine whether or not to implement the felling consent for an oak tree in Bretton.For the avoidance of doubt, the consent to fell already lawfully exists, and Cabinet is not being asked to redetermine such consent. Cabinet is simply being asked whether to implement the consent, or, if it determines not to implement the consent, indicate what alternative form of action is considered most appropriate. 

Decision:

Cabinet considered the report and the recommendation of the Growth, Resources and Environment Scrutiny Committee and RESOLVED to:

  1. Delegate authority to the Cabinet Member for Waste, Street Scene and the Environment to determine whether the consent to fell the tree at 9 Barnard Way, Bretton be implemented or not, subject to:
  • Obtaining a further independent expert assessment (i.e. not from the experts who have already provided assessments) of the issues relating to the mature oak tree and the property of 9 Barnard Way, Bretton, with such an assessment reviewing the existing reports and clarifying any inconsistencies; and
  • Ensuring the effectiveness, cost and implications of providing root barrier treatment have been properly considered.

Reasons for the decision:

Cabinet needs to decide whether proceeding to fell the tree is the most appropriate course of action, when considering all options and taking account of all harm and costs of such options. 

Alternative options considered:

The options are set out in the attached appendices, but in summary:? 

? 

1. to install root barriers – high risk of failure, despite considerable cost, and not under the control of the council to implement.? 

2. to prune the tree (and regularly prune thereafter) - not generally effective, unless extensive and frequent, negating the amenity value of the tree. Even with frequent pruning, risk remains. Relatively low cost, albeit ongoing annual (or so) costs.? 

3. to do nothing – not legally an available option. We are duty bound to abate the nuisance.? 

4.to accept liability and costs associated with underpinning properties affected. Effective, but very expensive, and not covered by insurance.? 

5. to fell the tree – effective at abating the nuisance, and low cost, though obviously the tree is lost in its entirety? 

 

Interests and Nature of Interests Declared:

None.

Background Documents:

Report to Full Council 8 December 2021 – Petition for Debate ‘Save Bretton Oak Tree’ 

Publication date: 21/02/2022

Date of decision: 21/02/2022

Decided at meeting: 21/02/2022 - Cabinet

Effective from: 25/02/2022

Accompanying Documents: