Agenda item

Report of the Interim Head of Legal and Governance Services

The Committee received the report of the Interim Head of Legal and Governance Services to enable Members to consider the objection received to Tree Preservation Order No. 641 (2018) relating to trees located on land at Home Farm, Main Road, Galgate, and thereafter whether or not to confirm the Order.

 

It was reported that the land in question was privately owned by the Appellant.  It was a site that the Council was aware of, insomuch as it may come forward for possible future development.  It was understood that the site had, as yet, not been assessed with regard to its potential for future development. 

 

Lancaster City Council had received concerns from a member of the public that the trees within the site may be removed or inappropriately managed prior to the submission of a future planning application for development of the site.  The trees at that time were not protected in law and, as such, could have been removed without the requirement for prior consultation with the Council.

 

In determining whether or not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 641 (2018) Members considered the written representations of the Appellant, Mrs. S. Charles, and the Tree Protection Officer, on behalf of Lancaster City Council.

 

Representation of Mrs. S. Charles, Appellant

 

The Council had received a letter of objection to the Tree Preservation Order, dated
13^th February 2018, from Mrs. S. Charles’s solicitors, Oglethorpe, Sturton and Gillibrand.  This, and the Council’s letter in response, dated 5^th April 2018, were set out in the report. 

 

An email, dated 26^th June 2018, had been received from Mrs. Charles advising that she was unable to attend the hearing.  Attached to the email was a copy of a letter from her solicitor, giving the reasons why it was thought that the Tree Preservation Order was unnecessary.  Also attached was a copy of the proposed plan for building on the estate.  The email and attachments had been circulated to Members prior to the hearing.

 

In determining whether or not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 641 (2018), Members considered the points raised in Mrs. Charles’s letter/email and enclosures.  The points raised in the solicitor’s letter were:

 

(1)        The making of a Tree Preservation Order over such a large area and without prior consultation had taken their client by surprise.  The areas outlined included large areas of rural working farm and woodland and it was extremely cumbersome to have a blanket Tree Preservation Order over such large areas of woodland.  It would be impractical to have to request permission for lopping and managing the woodland on every occasion.

 

(2)        Their client was not aware of any visits by the Tree Protection Officer on to the land to survey the woodlands and inspect the trees.

 

(3)        The purpose of Tree Preservation Orders was to preserve and protect woodland and trees of particular value, not large areas of land in rural areas.

 

(4)        Their client was willing to work co-operatively with the Council in relation to particular trees or areas, but the blanket nature of the Tree Preservation Order would make the proper management of the woodland difficult. 

 

The solicitor’s letter attached to the email dated 26^th June 2018 repeated the objections outlined in their letter of 13^th February 2018, and queried whether the Council was being consistent in its approach to such matters.  Details of the steps taken to protect trees in relation to the development known as Bailrigg Garden Village were requested.

 

Following consideration of Mrs. Charles’s written representation, Members of the Committee had the opportunity to raise questions on the representation.

 

Once there were no further questions, the Chairman asked the Tree Protection Officer to give her representation.

 

Lancaster City Council’s Tree Protection Officer

 

The Tree Protection Officer informed Members that Tree Preservation Order No. 641 (2018) related to trees established at Home Farm, Ellel.

 

Background

 

It was reported that Lancaster City Council had received a concern from a member of the public that trees and woodland may be removed or inappropriately managed, prior to the submission of a planning application for development of the “Artisan Village” at the site.

 

At that time (January 2018), the trees had not been protected in law. 

 

Members were advised that the Council had powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning Regulations (Tree Preservation) (England) Act 2012 to protect trees where it was considered expedient to do so, and where trees or woodlands had sufficient amenity value.

 

The Council could protect trees with an “Emergency Order” on a Provisional Basis without the requirement to first survey the trees in question.  In this instance, all trees within the identified location became protected under an “Area” designation.

 

There was, however, a requirement to assess the trees in more detail, providing a more appropriate designation prior to confirmation of the Order.

 

Lancaster City Council had received two initial letters of objection relating to the boundary of the Area designation.  The owners/occupants of Cragg Hill Farm and Ellel Grange had requested an amendment to the boundary of the Order, in effect to remove their land.  Lancaster City Council had considered this request and agreed that the boundary should be amended to remove land that was not included within the area identified for future potential development.  These two initial objections to the Order had subsequently been withdrawn.

 

The objection to be considered by Members had been submitted by agents acting on behalf of the landowner, Mrs. Charles.  A copy of the letter of objection and the Council’s full response could be read at Appendices 5 and 6 in the Agenda.

 

It was reported that the priority in a situation where trees may be at potential risk of removal or inappropriate management was to protect them as quickly as possible to avoid loss or damage.  In this instance, an Area designation was the most appropriate way of protecting trees on land which may be proposed for future development.  Once protected, time could be taken to consult with interested parties and address any objections that may be raised, and to assess the trees in more detail to identify a more appropriate designation.

 

A Tree Preservation Order did not prevent or obstruct development.  It did, however, ensure trees were a material consideration within any future planning applications.

 

A Tree Preservation Order did not prevent works to trees or management of woodlands being undertaken.  Owners of protected trees were required to obtain written authorisation from the Council prior to carrying out works to protected trees, except for the removal of dead branches or dead trees, which could be removed without prior consent.

 

It was reported that the Council supported the development and implementation of Management Plans for all woodland areas – protected or otherwise – in the interest of good woodland management.  Typically, a Woodland Management Plan may span 15 years.  Where a Management Plan was in place and approved by the Local Authority, ongoing woodland management could be approved and, in part, eliminated the requirement for the regular submission of tree work applications.  The Forestry Commission offered assistance and financial support to help woodland owners develop formal Woodland Management Plans.

 

The Tree Protection Officer advised that she had met with the landowner on 10^th May 2018 to consider the trees, the subject of the Order, in more detail.  Following assessment, she recommended that trees implicated and threatened by the potential future development of the site continue to be protected by TPO No. 641 (2018).  However, it was further recommended that the initial “Emergency Area” designation be replaced with a new designation to include a total of x13 individual trees (T1 – T13), x 3 groups (G1 – G3) and x20 woodland compartments.  A draft version of this recommendation could be seen in detail at Appendices 7 and 8 of the Agenda pack.

 

It was further recommended that TPO No. 641 (2018) be confirmed with the aforementioned modification, in the interest of public amenity and wildlife benefit.

 

The trees in question made a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the site, the rural setting and the wider public domain.

 

The site may be brought forward for development in the future, threatening trees and woodlands.

 

The extensive number of trees and woodlands on-site offered important habitat and foraging opportunities for a potential range of wildlife, including protected species, such as nesting birds and bats.  Both groups were protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1982 (as amended 2010).

 

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. 641 (2018) -

 

(a)  Without modification;

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

 

(2)        Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 641 (2018).

 

It was proposed by Councillor Metcalfe and seconded by Councillor Biddulph:

 

“That TPO No. 641 (2018) be confirmed with a modification to change the designation from the Temporary Emergency Area (A1) designation to that of individual trees T1 – T13, groups G1 – G3 and woodland compartments W1, W2, W3, W3A, W4 - W19, in the interest of public amenity benefit and wildlife value.”

 

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

 

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

 

That TPO No. 641 (2018) be confirmed with a modification to change the designation from the Temporary Emergency Area (A1) designation to that of individual trees T1 – T13, groups G1 – G3 and woodland compartments W1, W2, W3, W3A, W4 – W19, in the interest of public amenity benefit and wildlife value.