Agenda and minutes

Prior to commencement of the meeting, a site visit was undertaken in response to objections received.

The following Members were present on the site visit:

Councillor Helen Helme (Chairman), Sheila Denwood (Vice-Chairman), Kathleen Graham, Mike Greenall, Janice Hanson, Andrew Kay and Karen Leytham.

Officers in Attendance:

Minutes of the meeting held on 30 September 2011 (previously circulated)

The minutes of the meeting held on 30^th September 2011 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.     

There were no items of urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.

Report of Head of Governance

The Committee considered an appeal against a decision of the Council under Section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 making an Order in respect  of an area of woodland established to the west of Lune Industrial Estate, Lancaster, being Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 496 (2011).

The area of woodland established on land west of Lune Industrial Estate was known locally as Freeman’s Wood and comprised a number of tree species, including sycamore, hawthorn, ash, elder, willow and poplar.  The woodland had been identified and referenced as W1.  The site in question encompassed land under the control of a private company known as The Property Trust Plc.  In addition there was a relatively small triangular piece of land to the south which was under the control of Lancaster City Council.

The Appellant’s Representative

The Appellant’s representative, Mr. Mark Mackworth-Praed, Senior Consultant with Simon Jones Associates Ltd., Arboricultural Planning Consultants, and a Fellow and Registered Consultant of the Arboricultural Association, advised Members that he was instructed by Mr. Nelson Chan, Director of the Property Trust Group plc, which owned the major part of the land affected by the TPO, and also appeared on behalf of Satnam Ltd, a company which had an agreement with his client in connection with the development of the land through the planning process.

Mr. Mackworth-Praed advised that he was aware that his client’s actions in erecting fencing around the perimeter of their land had been the cause of concern, and that the possibility of future development taking place on the land was not one that was viewed favourably by residents in the local area.  He noted that a large proportion of the representations received referred to these issues, but advised that neither was for consideration by the Committee.

Committee was asked by the Appellant to consider two issues, namely:

(1)        Whether the Order had been correctly made and served in accordance with the procedural requirements set out in the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999; and

(2)        Whether the Order was appropriate in terms of what it was actually protecting or intended to protect, as defined by Central Government’s document ‘TPOs – A Guide to the Law and Good Practice’ known generally as the ‘Blue Book’.

Mr. Mackworth-Praed referred to the second issue and asked Committee to have in mind three particular points within the Blue Book when considering the TPO, as follows:

(1)        Paragraph 3.2 – Purpose of TPOs.  ‘In the Secretary of State’s view, TPOs should be used to protect selected trees and woodlands if their removal would have a significant impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public…  The trees, or at least part of them, should therefore normally be visible from a public place, such as a road or a footpath although, exceptionally, the inclusion of other trees may be justified.’

(2)        Paragraph 2.3 – Application of TPOs.  ‘A TPO may only be used to protect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.