Question

I have had two planning applications to fell a beach tree in my front garden refused by Wokingham Borough Council, despite my willingness to replace the tree in another part of my garden. After the second refusal, my health deteriorated further and I could not appeal due to my health. Before the appeal deadline I asked for an extension of the deadline but I had zero response from Claire Lawrence. As such the appeal deadline passed.

Due to the position of the tree, pigeons and other large birds perching on the tree chronically foul up my drive with their droppings. My wife and I are elderly, in our eighties, and suffer from heart and cancerous diseases and cannot keep up with daily cleansing of the drive as these bird droppings, especially from the pigeons, are a serious danger to our health. I have provided medical reports from medical specialist professionals to the Council to evidence that the pigeon droppings can further deteriorate our health due to our low immunity.

The Council’s decision is that the tree is protected and that the health of the tree is more important than my and my wife’s health! This is a bizarre and unjust conclusion on the part of the Council. Would the Executive Member please explain why the health of the tree is more important than the health of two very elderly and sick people? As far as general understanding goes, it is the responsibility of the local and central government to look after the elderly and vulnerable people of society.  The environment is very important.  I wish when hundreds of mature oak, beech and other trees were felled along the railway line, the Council should have stopped. There should be one rule for everybody.

I have had two planning applications to fell a beach tree in my front garden refused by Wokingham Borough Council, despite my willingness to replace the tree in another part of my garden. After the second refusal, my health deteriorated further and I could not appeal due to my health. Before the appeal deadline I asked for an extension of the deadline but I had zero response from Claire Lawrence. As such the appeal deadline passed.

Due to the position of the tree, pigeons and other large birds perching on the tree chronically foul up my drive with their droppings. My wife and I are elderly, in our eighties, and suffer from heart and cancerous diseases and cannot keep up with daily cleansing of the drive as these bird droppings, especially from the pigeons, are a serious danger to our health. I have provided medical reports from medical specialist professionals to the Council to evidence that the pigeon droppings can further deteriorate our health due to our low immunity.

The Council’s decision is that the tree is protected and that the health of the tree is more important than my health and my wife’s health! This is a bizarre and unjust conclusion on the part of the Council. Would the Executive Member please explain why the health of the tree is more important than the health of two very elderly and sick people? As far as general understanding goes, it is the responsibility of the local and central government to look after the elderly and vulnerable people of society. The environment is very important. When hundreds of trees were felled along the railway line the Council could have stopped it. There should have been one rule for everybody.

Answer

On behalf of the Council, I am sorry that you, Dr Sharma and Mrs Sharma are experiencing health issues.

As we have previously explained, Tree Preservation Orders are regulated by legislation and policies set by Central Government and the main issues that can be taken into account in determining applications for works to protected trees are the amenity value and health of the tree. Unfortunately, Government policy does not enable the health of the applicant to be taken into account to outweigh these issues.

The decision to refuse the application for tree works was made in line with the national policy, on the basis that the tree is considered to be a good specimen of high amenity value, and that the proposed works to the tree would be harmful and lead to its decline. Supporting harmful works on the basis of personal circumstances would set an unacceptable precedent which could lead to a cumulative loss of trees in the Borough. I believe that the Council would have found itself in a very difficult position justifying going against Government guidance.

As you have stated, you have lost your opportunity to appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse the previous application for works to the protected tree, as the appeal was not lodged within one month of the decision. Unfortunately the Council has no discretion to extend the appeal deadline which is set by the Planning Inspectorate and contained within the appeal regulations.

If you do wish to pursue this matter, then you can reapply to the Council for permission to carry out the work and if that is refused, you could then exercise your right of appeal.  I realise that this would take up more time. However, I would also like to point out that any appeal inspector would have to apply the Government’s policies and guidance in the consideration of this case in the same way as the Council. 

I would just add that I do understand your dilemma but that it is not within my power to alter related policies.  I can only suggest that some means is found to deter the pigeons from visiting the area of this tree.

Supplementary Question

Thank you for your answer to my specific question.   With respect I humbly disagree with your answer because in terms of your planning policy related to trees it is seriously flawed.  As the responsible authority Wokingham Borough Council should review its TPO policy to cater for sick and elderly people so that the health of trees does not override the health of sick and elderly owners of the tree, especially if they can provide medical evidence to support their case.  Would the Executive Member please give me an assurance that you will instigate an inquiry into my case and initiate a review of your flawed tree policy so that other sick and elderly people like us will not suffer any further?  Please also assure me that you will let me know the outcome of your enquiry and subject of your review?  It is difficult for anybody to argue that the health of a tree is more important than the health of a human being.

Supplementary Answer

I do have enormous sympathy with the situation you described. I do undertake that we will make representations to central Government as it is not within our powers under local regulations to counter that which is set nationally.

I understand entirely the basis of what you are saying Dr Sharma and I do undertake to do that action but, as everyone knows, to change Government regulations doesn’t happen overnight and I do hope that we can work with you to try and find some local solution, as I suggested before, in terms of the birds in the tree rather than the tree itself. And I also take your fundamental point.