Agenda and minutes

Appeals Committee
Thursday, 9th December 2010 2.30 p.m.

Venue: Lancaster Town Hall

Contact: Jane Glenton, Democratic Services - telephone (01524) 582068, or email 

No. Item


Site Visit: Tree Preservation Order No. 474 (2010) - Trees Established within Low Mill, Caton


Prior to commencement of the meeting, a site visit was undertaken to Low Mill, Caton in response to objections received to Tree Preservation Order No. 474 (2010).


The Following Members were present on the site visit:


Councillors Sheila Denwood (Chairman), Chris Coates, Janie Kirkman and Bob Roe.


Officers in Attendance:


Maxine Knagg


Tree Protection Officer

Jane Glenton


Democratic Support Officer



Appointment of Vice-Chairman


It was proposed by Councillor Denwood and seconded by Councillor Coates that Councillor Kirkman be Vice-Chairman of the Appeals Committee for the Municipal Year.  There being no further nominations, the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.




That Councillor Kirkman be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Appeals Committee for the Municipal Year.



Minutes of the Meeting held on 22 September 2010 (previously circulated). 


The Minutes of the meeting held on 8th September 2010 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.


Items of Urgent Business authorised by the Chairman


There were no items of urgent business.


Declarations of Interest


There were no declarations of interest.


Tree Preservation Order No. 474 (2010) - Trees established within Low Mill, Caton pdf icon PDF 76 KB

Report of Head of Governance

Additional documents:


The Committee considered appeals against a decision of the Council under Section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 making an Order in respect of a group of trees located at Low Mill, Caton, being Tree Preservation Order No. 474 (2010).


The Tree Protection Officer advised Members that the City Council had been asked to consider trees within Low Mill, Caton for protection with a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), following concerns that healthy trees had been removed in the past and that more trees were under consideration for removal. 


It was reported that the trees in question were identified as T1 – T5, G1 – G10, comprising a wide range of deciduous and evergreen tree species, including redwood, pine, cherry, birch, willow, lime, oak, holly, maiden hair tree and walnut, many of which were young, semi-mature and early-mature in good overall condition, free from major pests or disease.  Collectively, the trees provided a range of important greening and intermittent screening between different components of the residential complex and were an important resource for a range of wildlife.


The amenity value of the trees had been assessed using an objective and systematic approach (Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders – TEMPO system).  A score of 16 had been achieved, which supported the action of serving a Tree Preservation Order.


Members were advised that the site could be seen from a public vantage point to the north, and the canopies of trees linked to wider tree populations and were an integral part of the local landscape that made a significant contribution to the amenity value of the complex.  The trees contributed to the character of the area beyond the boundary lines of the site, and provided visible landscape features, greening and intermittent screening within the residential complex.  They could be seen from a public vantage point, made an important contribution to the character of the area and were an important wildlife resource.


It was reported that the City Council considered it expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of the trees in question under Sections 198, 201 and 203 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the following reasons:




-                      are an important visual amenity

-                      provide greening and screening

-                      are an important wildlife resource

-                      are under threat from removal.


Members were informed that the trees were a hugely important component within the site and had sufficient amenity value and importance within the landscape to justify their protection with TPO No. 474 (2010).  It was noted that a Tree Preservation Order did not prevent works that were appropriate and reasonable and in the interest of good arboriculture practice being undertaken.


It was reported that the City Council had received eight letters in objection to TPO No. 474 (2010) and eight letters in support.  Following publication of the Agenda, two further representations objecting to TPO No. 474 (2010) had been received from V. and M. Williams and W. R. Scott  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.