By Hannah Brown
Two horse chestnut trees in Lode have been saved from being cut down, after a councillor said it would be 鈥渟acrilege鈥 to fell them. An application was submitted to cut down the two protected trees in Lode Road, due to subsidence damage being caused to a neighbouring home.
Planning officers at East Cambridgeshire District Council had recommended that this application should be refused, but highlighted the authority could face a compensation claim by doing so. They explained that if the district council stopped the trees from being cut down and further damage was caused to the home, the authority could face a potential compensation claim of around 拢90,000 to 拢130,000 for repair work. The proposal to cut down the trees was considered by councillors at a planning committee meeting this week (July 2).
A letter was read out to the meeting from an independent expert who had reviewed the evidence and concluded in their professional view that there was tree related subsidence at the neighbouring property. They said due to the close proximity of the trees to the home, a root barrier could not be safely installed in the ground. They added that if the authority refused the application then the 鈥減ublic purse will be liable for a claim of full costs鈥.
Councillor Lucy Wells, from Lode Parish Council, said they 鈥渟trongly objected鈥 to the trees being cut down. She said the parish council was “sympathetic” to the homeowner, however, she said the village had already lost other trees and hedgerows and raised concerns about further loss if these trees were cut down.
She said the trees had been there for over 100 years, and were there before the home in question was built. Cllr Wells said: 鈥淲e are concerned that the felling of these trees will create a precedent for easy agreement for felling applications in the future.鈥
‘Why on god’s green earth could the council be liable to pay for repair work’
Councillor Julia Huffer asked why 鈥渙n god鈥檚 green earth鈥 the district council could be liable to pay for the repair work to the home rather than the insurance company. Officers explained that the council would only be liable if it refused the application. They said cutting the trees down was the solution to the subsidence issues being proposed by the insurance company.
They added that if the district council refused to allow them to do this, then the authority would become liable for a compensation claim. Cllr Huffer said it should not be the district council鈥檚 responsibility to pay for the underpinning work for the property, and that this should be paid for by the insurance company.
She said: 鈥淚 would like to propose that we accept the officers recommendation to refuse the felling of these beautiful trees, and I would ask that our legal department fight the insurance company, if necessary with handbags out on the green, to make sure that the weasel insurance company do the right thing and put their hands in their pockets and pay up, as they should to look after this house.鈥
Councillor Alan Sharp said he believed it would be “sacrilege” to cut the trees down that had been there for so long. Councillor Bill Hunt said it could be argued that it was 鈥渋rresponsible鈥 to build the home next to the trees. He said: 鈥淚t was quite clear from my visit to Lode they have got a beautiful village, a small old fashioned beautiful village, the parish council are quite rightly trying to protect it.鈥
Councillor Keith Horgan said he understood the opposition to cutting the trees down, but said he was struggling to ignore the advice of the independent professional who had said the subsidence problems were being caused by the two trees. When a decision was put to a vote the majority of the committee agreed to refuse the application.
For more planning notices in your area visit publicnoticeportal.uk .