Human Resources and Appeals Panel Sub-Committee Minutes: 13 January 2011

Present:

HRA/4/1/11 Election of Chairman

RESOLVED that Councillor S Simpson be elected Chairman for the duration of this meeting.

HRA/5/1/11 Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest made.

HRA/6/1/11 Exclusion of the Press and Public

RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, members of the public (including the press) be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

The following minute HRA/7/1/11 contains exempt information as described in the relevant paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and is excluded from this document by virtue of Section 100A of the Act. Below is a summary of those proceedings.

Complaint (Paragraph 1) (HRA/7/1/11)

The Sub-Committee considered report CLS1/11 of the Director of Corporate and Legal Services setting out the details of a complaint submitted by Mr and Mrs B of Penrith relating to the unauthorised lopping of a cypress tree. Mr and Mrs B were dissatisfied with the result of an internal inquiry into the reasons for the Council not prosecuting in respect of the lopping of the tree which was protected within the Penrith 'New Streets' Conservation Area.

The areas of dissatisfaction outlined by Mr and Mrs B were:

1. That the Council's arboriculturist was of the view that he would have withheld consent to lop or fell if a prior application had been made;
2. The tree had amenity value;
3. Irrespective of actual or constructive knowledge of the culprit, ignorance of the law is no excuse; and
4. that it would be in the public interest to prosecute.

The Sub-Committee received a presentation by the Council's Enforcement Officer and he answered a number of questions from Mr and Mrs B and from the Members of the Sub-Committee. Mr McNally circulated a copy of the arboriculturist’s assessment.

The Complainants made representations to the sub-committee and received questions from Members. They circulated ‘before and after’ photographs of the tree.

Following withdrawal of the Enforcement Officer and Complainants at 2.43pm, the Sub-Committee considered the complaint documentation, the presentations by the Enforcement Officer and Complainants, and took legal advice on the options available.

The Sub Committee decided that:

1. the Complaint be not upheld,
2. a letter be requested to be written by the Council to the relevant Government Department to seek the immediate review of the legislation to plug the loophole regarding enforcement of the Conservation Area regime as regards trees.
3. the Planning Department be requested to consider issuing guidance on the protection of trees covered by either Tree Preservation Orders or by being in a designated Conservation Area, and such guidance be brought to the public's attention.
4. a letter be sent to Mr W (the owner of the tree) and Mr S (the contractor) expressing grave concern about the unauthorised interference with a tree protected by being in a designated Conservation Area, pointing out that the Council will not hesitate to use its powers in the future should such exercise of powers be appropriate.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Council officers had properly exercised the Council's discretion in deciding not to prosecute in this matter, in respect of assessing evidential requirements and the public interest.
2. In order to ensure consistency between the two tree preservation regimes and to restore public confidence.
3. In order to raise awareness of the protection afforded to some trees so as to prevent re-occurrence of the circumstances of this case.
4. In order to advise and discourage future unauthorised tree works by the individuals in this case.

The Enforcement Officer and the Complainants were re-admitted to the meeting at 3.05pm and were advised of the Sub-Committee's decision.

The meeting closed at 3.10pm