Agenda and minutes

Prior to commencement of the meeting, site visits were undertaken as follows in response to objections received to:

Tree Preservation Order No. 485 (2011)

The following Members were present on the site visit:

Councillors Helen Helme (Chairman), Mike Greenall and Karen Leytham

Officers in Attendance:

Tree Preservation Order No. 488 (2011)

The following Members were present on the site visit:

Councillors Helen Helme (Chairman), Mike Greenall, Andrew Kay and Karen Leytham

Officers in Attendance:

It was proposed by Councillor Greenall and seconded by Councillor Leytham that Councillor Denwood be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Appeals Committee for the Municipal Year 2011/12.  There being no further nominations, the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That Councillor Denwood be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Appeals Committee for the Municipal Year 2011/12.

Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 December 2010 (previously circulated) 

The Minutes of the meeting held on 9^th December 2010 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 trees established at Bay View Holiday Park, Detron Gate, Bolton-le-Sands, being Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No 485 (2011).

The trees in question were identified as T1 – sycamore; G1 – a group of x3 hawthorn; G2 – a group of x12 hawthorn; G3 – a group of x6 sycamore and W1 – a woodland/scrubland belt of mainly hawthorn, sycamore and occasional ash.  The objection received was in connection with G3.

The Appellant’s representative, Mr. Roger Cartwright, advised Members that he was employed by Holgates Caravan and Leisure Parks in connection with the management of their trees and woodlands.  He reported that to maintain the amenity of the sites, properly conduct their business and reduce danger and possible nuisance to customers, Holgates Caravan and Leisure Parks’ trees and woodlands were responsibly managed.

Mr. Cartwright reported that his client objected only to the TPO in relation to G3.  In his opinion, these trees were clearly neither of special amenity value, nor exceptional specimens in good condition, requiring little attention in years to come.  Rather, they were growing very near to caravans in an exposed, windy situation and would continue to require expensive and difficult tree surgery and eventual removal. 

A TPO on G3 would place an unnecessary extra burden on the management of Holgates Caravan and Leisure Parks because of the frequent bureaucratic procedures that would be necessary to deal with the unpredictable situations that were likely to develop in relation to the safety of those trees.  To undertake essential tree work, such as thinning, pruning and coppicing, they would have to make a written application to the Local Planning Authority on the standard application form published by the Secretary of State to carry out work on protected trees, as required by Chapter 6 of the Addendum to ‘Tree Preservation Orders – A Guide to the Law and Good Practice’.

Mr. Cartwright reported that Holgates Caravan and Leisure Parks had responsibly managed trees during the 35 years or so that he had known them.  In his opinion, they were exemplary clients, who provided proper silvicultural care of their trees and woodlands without detailed supervision.  They made hard decisions to fell and prune trees that were potentially dangerous, thinning woodlands, including reluctantly removing conifers that they themselves had planted as nurse trees and taking the advice of specialists on woodland and habitat management for wildlife.  They had received David Bellamy awards for this work.

Members were informed by Mr. Cartwright that Holgates Caravan and Leisure Parks had planted more than 400 new trees in Bay View Holiday Park during the last planting season, and they intended to plant many more, including trees and hedges in the new area this winter, which would eventually improve the overall amenity out of all proportion to the amenity value of the 6 sycamore trees known as G3.

Following Mr.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report of Head of Governance

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 trees established to the north-eastern corner of Wray Primary School Field, Wray-with-Botton, being Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 488 (2011).

Councillor Joan Jackson, Ward Councillor representing the Appellants, advised Committee that Mr. and Mrs. Ingram had contacted Mr. Richard Wood, Area Support Officer, of Lancashire County Council concerning the two sycamore trees, which were growing on Wray Primary School Field.  The suggested plan of action agreed with the school and with the approval of Mr. Wood was to remove the 2 sycamore trees, which were causing a nuisance, and give space for the 2 oaks and the newly-planted rowan tree to develop.  He had advised that it would be acceptable for the two trees to be felled as there was no TPO on them. 

Committee was advised by Councillor Jackson that Mr. and Mrs. Ingram objected to TPO No. 488 (2011) on the grounds that it was stated that the trees were visible from Wray Primary School, when they were, in fact, on the school playing field, which was in another part of the village and separate from the school.  It was also stated that the trees were viewable from public areas, but the field could only be viewed from public land from a very small access road to a cluster of houses beyond the school field. 

It was stated that the trees made a significant contribution to the Conservation Area.  The school playing field had a total of 24 mature trees, 7 of which were newly-planted ‘woodland’ trees and 4 newly-planted fruit trees.   Sycamores were fast growing, common trees which, in Mr. and Mrs. Ingram’s opinion, would be less significant than many other trees without TPOs, such as oaks.  The trees were also growing in a cluster and therefore seemed less significant than isolated trees, which accounted for most of the trees on the school field.

Councillor Jackson reported that the trees were a nuisance and overhung both Mr. and Mrs. Ingram and their neighbour, Miss E. Garnett’s property.  Problems included aphid residues falling from the canopy and restriction of light.

Following Councillor Jackson’s representation, Members directed questions to her.

Following questions, the Tree Protection Officer, on behalf of the City Council, advised Members that the 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 (as attached at Appendix 4 to the report).  The reasons cited were that the trees, the subject of the TPO, identified as T1 – T3, were an important visual amenity, provided greening, screening and shade, were an important wildlife resource and were under threat from removal.

Members were advised that all trees with a trunk diameter of 75 mm or greater when measured at 1.3 m above ground level  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.