Agenda item

Report of the Democratic Services Manager

The Committee received the report of the Democratic Services Manager to enable Members to consider the objection received to Tree Preservation Order No. 595 (2017) in relation to a single Beech tree (T1) established within the curtilage of 51 Meadow Park, Galgate, and thereafter whether or not to confirm the Order. 

Members were advised that 51 Meadow Park backed onto Lancaster Canal, which was designated a Biological Heritage Site (BHS).  T1 was growing at the furthest point from the main dwelling and sat immediately adjacent to the Canal.  The Beech tree could be seen from the wider public domain, notably from the waterway and its associated towpath.

The tree owner had made Lancaster City Council aware of concerns that the tree could be under threat from injudicial pruning to control overhanging branches.  Following an assessment, Tree Preservation Order No. 595 (2017) had been made on 7^th February 2017.

The Council had received a letter of objection to the Tree Preservation Order, dated 2^nd March 2017, from Mr. A. J. Hargreaves.  A further letter, dated 14^th April 2017, had been received from Mr. Hargreaves, advising that he was unable to attend the hearing and reiterating his objections to the Order.  The letter had been circulated to Members prior to the hearing.

In determining whether or not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 595 (2017), Members considered the points raised in Mr. Hargreaves’ letters, and had the opportunity to raise questions regarding them.

Lancaster City Council’s Tree Protection Officer

The Tree Protection Officer reported that T1 was a large, mature Beech tree established within the curtilage of 51 Meadow Park, Galgate, to the rear of the property and close to the Canal. 

Members were advised that the tree was an important element of the BHS, contributing to the development and maintenance of the green corridor along the canal and the creation of important opportunities for wildlife.  T1 had the potential to provide habitat and foraging opportunities for protected species, such as nesting birds and bats, both groups being protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended (2010).

The tree was highly visible from the wider public domain, notably the foot and towpaths along the Canal.  The tree had grown to attain large proportions, such that it was now a dominant landscape feature.

T1 had been assessed using a TEMPO system and had attained a score of 14 - Tree Preservation Order defensible.

Lancaster City Council had considered it expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of T1 under Sections 198, 201 and 203 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.  The Order had been made to ensure the safe retention and protection of T1 long into the future, subject to its good health, vitality and stability, and it was recommended that the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed without modification. 

Following the Tree Protection Officer’s representation on behalf of Lancaster City Council, Members of the Committee had the opportunity to question the Tree Protection Officer on her representation.

 (The Tree Protection Officer left the meeting room whilst the Committee made its decision in private.)

Members considered the options before them:

(1)        To confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 595 (2017)

(a)        Without modification;

(b)        Subject to such modification as was considered expedient.

(2)        Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 595 (2017).

It was proposed by Councillor Brown and seconded by Councillor Yates:

“That Tree Preservation Order No. 595 (2017) be confirmed without modification.”

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

(The Tree Protection Officer returned to the meeting room for the decision to be announced.)

Resolved:

That Tree Preservation Order No. 595 (2017) be confirmed without modification.