Agenda item

Agenda dated 1 August 2012

http://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=768&MId=5704&Ver=4

Agenda dated 5 September 2012

http://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=768&MId=5705&Ver=4

The Committee agreed to revoke Tree Preservation Order 01/12/SC relating to one Cedar tree and one Wellingtonia tree at the Old Rectory, Little Gransden because potential compensation for the cost of underpinning the property, for which South Cambridgeshire District Council would otherwise be liable, had now risen to a level that Members considered outweighed the amenity value of the trees.

Victoria Seabright (landowner), Rachel Bolt (Legal Advisor to Mrs. Seabright), Margaret MacQueen (representing Mrs. Seabright’s property insurer’s), Lance Gill (Structural Engineer advising the insurers) and Councillor Bridget Smith (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

The Committee considered a report on the claim for compensation received on 6 June 2013 following the confirmation on 5 September 2012 (Minute 50 refers) of Tree Preservation Order 01/12/SC and refusal of Application to Fell C/11/17/063/01–9424.

Following private advice given by him to a Councillor in relation to a complaint of bias, the Senior Lawyer addressed the Committee about its composition.  The concern here arose not from an Interest, but related to an “exchange of views” between the Councillor and the landowner during a site visit last year, which had then resulted in formal complaints having been made by both parties.  The Senior Lawyer, citing the Case of R (Berky) v Newport City Council, advised that the law on predetermination and bias had developed such that the participation of one member who might be adjudged not to have an open mind would not necessarily, of itself, render the committee’s decision vulnerable to challenge, but might do so if the vote was extremely close or if it could be shown an inappropriately participating member had materially influenced the voting of others. Councillors were reminded that the majority had been just two votes when the Tree Preservation Order was confirmed and a similarly close vote today could expose the committee to risk where a perception of possible bias had been notified.    The Senior Lawyer told the Committee that he wanted its decision to be safe in legal terms but it was a matter for the committee as to whether it considered its composition to be safe in the circumstances.

Councillor Deborah Roberts informed the Committee that she was the Councillor to whom the Senior Lawyer had referred.  She said she would not withdraw willingly to the public gallery. Councillor Roberts denied any allegation of bias, stated that the events concerned had been some time ago and had not been initiated by her in any event; further, she could judge the matter on its merits.  Following further statements, Councillor Roberts called upon her fellow Committee members to determine whether or not she should remain a full voting member for this agenda item. 

The Senior Lawyer advised the Committee that it mattered not who had initiated the confrontation that gave rise to the concern; the issue was that the confrontation had occurred and whether, and to what extent, this fact meant that the business could not be decided fairly by an involved member. 

Councillor Nick Wright proposed that Councillor Roberts withdraw to the public gallery, on the basis she had argued with the landowner during the site visit.  This proposal was not seconded.

Councillor Ben Shelton concluded that Councillor Roberts would be able to consider the matter afresh and should remain in her seat as a full Committee member.  Councillor Val Barrett agreed with this view.

Upon a show of hands, members of the Committee voted to allow Councillor Roberts to take a full and active part in considering Tree Preservation Order 01/12/SC in Little Gransden, and to vote.

The Committee was addressed by the property owner, Mrs Victoria Seabright, and by her solicitor, Ms Rachel Bolt. Additionally, members heard from Mr Lance Gill, a structural engineer who had designed an underpinning scheme for the house that he estimated could be installed for approximately £110,000 plus VAT and professional fees, subject to securing the necessary listed building consent. All speakers were questioned by members. 

During debate, the Senior Lawyer informed the Committee that a key issue for consideration at this meeting was the material change in circumstances represented by the significantly increased level of costs reflected in the formal claim for compensation submitted by the landowner.  Members discussed the level of costs now indicated in comparison with those estimated at the time the Tree Preservation Order was confirmed and felling consent refused.

Councillor Roberts proposed that the matter be deferred in the interests of democracy to allow time for the Council to seek professional advice from its own structural engineer in order to corroborate the claim or otherwise comment upon it.  This proposal was not seconded.

The Conservation Manager referred to the update report and public representations received and circulated to Committee members.  Nine further public representations had been received so recently that it had not been possible to circulate them – the Conservation Manager summarised these, including one from Councillor Robin Page.  He also referred to correspondence between South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Senior Lawyer and Richard Buxton (a Solicitor representing unnamed clients).

Councillor Bridget Smith (a local Member) said that there had been no change in the trees’ importance.  The Committee should now be considering an application to fell.  There had been undue haste in presenting this item to Committee.  As a result, Little Gransden Parish Council had not had time to convene a meeting to consider its response.  This was not the action of a ‘Listening Council’.  Councillor Smith asked that further consideration be deferred to allow full consultation to take place. 

Councillor Brian Burling called on the Committee to revoke the TPO.  In itself, this would not lead to removal of the trees – it would be for the landowner to decide whether or not to fell the trees. 

Councillor Wright said that the claim now formally made represented a significant risk to the Authority.

The Senior Lawyer summarised the legal process involved.

Following some other brief comments, the Committee agreed to revoke Tree Preservation Order 01/12/SC relating to one Cedar tree and one Wellingtonia tree at the Old Rectory, Little Gransden because potential compensation for the cost of underpinning the property, for which South Cambridgeshire District Council would otherwise be liable, had now risen to a level that Members considered outweighed the amenity value of the trees.