Councillors reject ‘vandalous’ felling of Scots pine cut down in Scarborough more than six months ago
The ‘vandalous’ removal of a large tree near Scarborough that was cut down more than six months ago has been officially rejected.
A retrospective application for the removal of a ‘healthy’ Scots Pine tree in Newby has been blocked by councillors who described its felling as an “act of vandalism”.
Dr Gaafar’s proposal at 79 Cross Lane had sought to officially vary planning conditions to create a driveway and “regularise” the tree’s removal, but members on the Scarborough and Whitby Area Planning Committee said approving the scheme would set a “dangerous precedent”.
Officers said the tree’s removal had resulted in “quite a significant change in the streetscene,” leaving “quite a gap,” and that enforcement action would take place.
In a report to the committee, planners said the tree’s “unacceptable” removal had resulted in “significant harm to the biodiversity and natural species of the area, resulting in a harmful net loss of biodiversity”.
Speaking at the meeting, Coun Rich Maw said: “I think there’s a potential of setting a dangerous precedent if you allow things like this to happen without some compensatory measures.
“So, I think granting permission would permanently reduce green infrastructure and set an unhelpful precedent.”
According to the council, an original condition for the new-build housing scheme at the site stated that all trees should be maintained by the owner of the land for five years following completion of the project.
The construction of the six three-bed semi-detached dwellings was approved in December 2022.
Coun Derek Bastiman stated: “When the [previous] dwelling was there, it was almost surrounded by Scots pine trees, I remember very well.
“I think it is nothing but developer vandalism – it formed a very important part of the street scene – it’s something I’ve seen for many years.
“We should really work on getting a mature tree reinstated there.”
Officers said that following the rejection of the application, they would ask the council’s enforcement team to take formal action to seek the replanting of a mature tree.
“We will take that further with the enforcement team,” an officer assured the committee.
Coun Subash Sharma said: “Cross Lane is a tree-lined avenue, and it’s something that should be maintained.
“It’s really disappointing that they decided to cut it down and seek retrospective permission.”
Councillors asked whether the developer or the owner of the property was responsible for the tree’s removal.
Planners said they were not certain, adding that “if it was the developer, they should have been well aware of any conditions.
“Given it was a recent conveyance, I would have expected any requirements to be flagged up by the purchaser’s solicitor, so there’s no excuse anyway.”
Councillors rejected the application over “impact on the character of the street scene, danger to users of the highway, and being prejudicial to nature and conservation”.