Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence received.

To receive any disclosure of interests from Councillors or Officers in matters to be discussed.

Note: Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs), other registerable interests (ORIs), non-registerable interests (NRIs) and on Pre-determination or Bias in accordance with legislation and the Council’s Code of Conduct.

If you require advice, please contact the appropriate Democratic Services Officer, prior to the meeting.

Councillor Williams declared a disclosable pecuniary interest due to his role as Hampshire County Councillor.  However, as there was no material conflict of interest, he remained in the room, spoke and voted under the dispensation granted on behalf of the Audit and Governance Committee to participate and vote in all matters        which might have a County Council involvement.

Furthermore, Councillor Williams announced that Item 6 (20 Hazel Close, Colden Common – case number: 24/02006/TPO – Deferred) was within his county council division. However, he had taken no part on discussions regarding the application, therefore he took part in the consideration of the item and voted thereon.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday, 20 January 2026.

          RESOLVED:

                     That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 20 January    2026 (supplementary agenda), be approved and adopted.

The committee agreed to receive the Update Sheet as an addendum to the report.

A copy of each planning application decision is available to view on the council’s website under the respective planning application.

The committee considered the following item.

Proposal Description: Item 6: T6 – Oak (Remove) (Amended)

The application was introduced. During public participation, Diana Watts and Councillor Maggie Hill (Colden Common Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Bailey-Morgan and Councillor Cook spoke as Ward Members in objection to the application.

In summary, Councillor Bailey-Morgan raised the following points:

1.       He stated that this case served as a test of whether Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) are being applied as a safeguard of last resort or if their        protection was being incrementally eroded under financial pressure.

2.       He acknowledged the reality of building movement and the clear need         to stabilise the property.

3.       He questioned whether felling the specific protected oak tree was truly          unavoidable and whether all reasonable alternatives had been                   genuinely exhausted.

4.       Councillor Bailey-Morgan highlighted a significant anomaly in the                   evidence, noting that while one part of the house was affected by                  subsidence and had not been underpinned, another section near an           even larger oak tree was underpinned and was not experiencing             comparable movement.

5.       He argued that seasonal movement in clay soils did not, on its own,    prove that a protected tree must be removed, especially when                 structural solutions have not yet been implemented.

6.       He emphasised that the sequencing of works was critical in this case.

7.       He noted that due to the severity of clay desiccation, the immediate     removal of vegetation posed a well-recognised risk of clay heave and        associated structural damage.

8.       He considered that underpinning prior to tree removal was the only            method to stabilise the property against both further subsidence and         rebound movement.

9.       Councillor Bailey-Morgan expressed concern that the current proposal      suggested underpinning only after the tree was removed, despite a               lack of evidence that the work could not be undertaken while the tree   was retained.

10.      He suggested that implementing structural stabilisation first may arrest        movement without the permanent loss of the protected oak, whereas          felling the tree removed the opportunity to test its necessity.

11.      In conclusion, Councillor Bailey-Morgan reminded the committee that        TPOs existed to set a high bar for removal, requiring that felling be                 genuinely unavoidable rather than merely preferable, cheaper, or                  procedurally simpler.

In summary, Councillor Cook raised the following points:

1.       Councillor Cook urged the committee to consider who benefits from the     tree, noting that T6 was not incidental to a single property but sits                 within Avondale Park where it provided direct public amenity to nearby         residents.

2.       She considered that the tree contributed significantly to the character of       the park, providing shade during periods of extreme heat. It supported wildlife and was valued daily by the community.

3.       She stated that public amenity was the specific reason the                          Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was created. However, the officer's               report described the tree as having only moderate value based on              views from Hazel Close, failing to assess the amenity from within the           Avondale Mobile Home Park itself where it was experienced most              directly.

4.       The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

RESOLVED:

1.             That in all the circumstances, the public interest In maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

2.             That the public be excluded from the meeting during  consideration (or part thereof) of the following item(s) of business because it is likely that, if members of the public were present, there would be disclosure to them of ‘exempt information’ as defined by Section 100I and Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

(Application Item 6 (Minute 6) above refers)

          RESOLVED:

                     That the exempt information received from the council’s Senior       Planning and Litigation Lawyer in respect of the above application be          received and noted.