A dispute over tree felling at a house in Orkney is due to be settled by councillors next week.
The situation arose last year when the owners of Grainbank House, in Kirkwall, were ordered to stop felling work adjacent to the property.
In early November, the council’s planning department put a six-month order in place protecting the trees under law.
It also means the developers, Albert and Eileen Bruce, would have to apply to the council if they wished to carry out any work on the trees.
The current, temporary order expires on May 7.
Councillors at next Wednesday’s development and infrastructure committee need to decide whether the order should become permanent, in line with officers’ recommendations.
The issue was due to be viewed by the committee last month, but the report was pulled from the agenda at the last minute.
The council said this was after more information was provided by the developers which it needed to consider and “if necessary, investigate”.
Council needed more time to consider new information
The council has also called the sharing of unredacted documents with councillors and the press during the process “unfortunate.”
The B-listed Grainbank House was bought by the Bruces in October 2022 with plans to make it their family home and create holiday accommodation.
The house hasn’t been used since 1998 and the owners are carrying out extensive renovations.
However, an order preventing them from carrying out felling work near the house was put in place by the council’s planning department after officers became aware of work taking place.
The home owners objected and later had their own arboriculture report carried out by a consultant.
Based on the report results, a local contractor was brought in and began felling work on October 31.
According to the Inverness-based arboriculture consultant, 16 trees were felled.
Orkney council’s planning department put tree preservation order in place
They said they were “very small and dead”, contrasting with the report from officers which calls the felled trees “mature.”
The temporary preservation order was put in place on November 8.
The council has received three objections to the order. These include letters from the Bruces and the contractor who undertook the felling work, Ewan MacKenzie.
They say the trees raise safety concerns for people and the on-site buildings.
But a letter of support for the order was submitted by a neighbour who said they were “bemused” with the works at the site.
In his objection, Mr MacKenzie claims that the order is “ridiculous and wholly unnecessary.”
He claims the area is not a woodland, as described by the council, but a town garden.
He also claims that all the felling work was completed prior to the preservation order being put in place.
Tree preservation order is ‘unnecessary’ and ‘ridiculous’ says contractor
Mr and Mrs Bruce said the council should carry out its own survey at the site and identify which trees specifically merit the preservation order.
The developers also questioned why the preservation of the trees wasn’t raised at previous points in the planning process.
They have indicated they will appeal if the order is upheld.
Officers say the order should be made permanent “in the interests of
amenity, as the woodland contributes to the character and attractiveness of the area.”
A report was due to be heard by the committee in March, but was removed at the last minute.
Sharing of unredacted documents is unfortunate says council
The council said this was due to late additional information from the developers.
It also said that the report contained objectors’ letters which included partly-redacted sections to “protect council staff.”
The council says these sections contained “unsubstantiated and uninvestigated statements and allegations which could be viewed as defamatory.”
A council spokeswoman said: “The follow-up decision by other parties to share copies of these unredacted letters with elected members and with the press, outside the normal committee process, was unfortunate as the redaction was done to protect those involved.”
“After consideration of the late submission, the content of the report for the forthcoming meeting is unaltered from that circulated before the previous committee.”
Conversation