Venue: Lancaster Town Hall
Contact: Jane Glenton, Democratic Services: telephone (01524) 582068 or email email@example.com
Prior to commencement of the meeting, site visits were undertaken in response to objections received to Tree Preservation Order No. 621 (2017) – Land South of Bank Well, The Row, Silverdale and Tree Preservation Order No. 622 (2017) – 57 Thirlmere Road, Lancaster.
The following Members were present on the site visits:
Councillors Claire Cozler (Chairman), Terrie Metcalfe (Vice-Chairman), Tracy Brown, Mel Guilding and Joan Jackson.
Officers in Attendance:
Minutes of the meeting held on 26 October 2017 (previously circulated).
The Minutes of the meeting held on 26th October 2017 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
To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda.
Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting.)
Whilst not a legal requirement, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9 and in the interests of clarity and transparency, Members should declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register at this point in the meeting.
In accordance with Part B Section 2 of the Code of Conduct, Members are required to declare the existence and nature of any other interests as defined in paragraphs 8(1) or 9(2) of the Code of Conduct.
There were no declarations of interest.
Matters for Decision
Report of the Chief Officer (Legal and Governance)
The Committee received the report of the Chief Officer (Legal and Governance) to enable Members to consider the objection received to Tree Preservation Order No. 621 (2017) relating to an area of woodland trees located at land south of Bank Well, The Row, Silverdale and identified as A4, and thereafter whether or not to confirm the Order.
It was reported that Tree Preservation Order No. 621 (2017) had been made following a concern being reported to the Council that trees had recently been removed from the land in question, to the detriment of the site and wider locality.
In determining whether or not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 621 (2017), Members heard the representations of Mr. Wales, the Appellant, and the Tree Protection Officer, on behalf of Lancaster City Council.
Mr. S. P. Wales, the Appellant
Mr. Wales informed Members that the area in question was the private garden to his property, 12 The Row, and not part of Burton Well Limestone Pavement Biological Heritage Site, as stated. As such, there was no public amenity to the land.
He had no objection to a Tree Preservation Order being made on named, individual trees within his garden, or to meeting with a Council representative to agree which trees needed protection.
A blanket Tree Preservation Order on the land would deprive him of the right to enjoy his garden and give him less rights than his neighbours, who could remove or cut back trees in their gardens without permission.
Mr. Wales advised Members that the five trees recently removed from his garden had been felled by North West Electricity to clear a safe path for their mains electricity cable, which ran from two posts within his grounds.
Over the last four to five years, he had removed a number of trees from his garden, most of which were either dead, or with little evidence of new growth, or in a poor state.
Some of the trees currently in his garden were growing at an angle, and overhanging The Row and thus interfering with traffic. The branches of the oak by the garage were dangerous and several other trees had suffered storm damage and required work.
Following Mr. Wales’s representation, Members of the Committee had the opportunity to question Mr. Wales on his 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 under Section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Local Planning Authority may make a Tree Preservation Order in respect of a tree or group of trees if it appeared that it was expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the protection of trees in their area.
Following a concern having been reported to the Council regarding trees having recently been removed from the said land, upon inspection it had been apparent that a small number of large, mature trees had recently ... view the full minutes text for item 12.
Report of the Chief Officer (Legal and Governance)
The Committee received the report of the Chief Officer (Legal and Governance) to enable Members to consider the objection received to Tree Preservation Order No. 622 (2017) located at 57 Thirlmere Road, Lancaster, and thereafter whether or not to confirm the Order.
It was reported that the tree in question was a single mature cherry tree established within the rear garden of 57 Thirlmere Road, Lancaster, identified as T1. T1 was close to the boundary line with 55 Thirlmere Road and the branches extended beyond the boundary line.
In determining whether or not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 622 (2017), Members heard representations from Mr. and Mrs. McDonnell, the Appellants, Mr. Fitton, the Supporter, and the Tree Protection Officer, on behalf of Lancaster City Council.
Mr. and Mrs. McDonnell, the Appellants
Mr. and Mrs. McDonnell informed Members that Mr. Fitton had installed a new perimeter fence between the boundary of their two properties, and undertaken extensive landscaping to his garden. During this time, the branches and roots of T1 had been chopped and cut, and put on the path throughout the garden of 57 Thirlmere Road.
Members were advised that the stump to T1 was approximately nine yards from their house. Part of it was based on their property. The new fence had been adapted to fit around the tree because of the tree’s size and location. The branches from T1 were within a yard from their house wall and overhung the boundary fence by approximately six yards, which caused them concern, due to fears regarding the branches becoming unstable and causing damage to their property and injury to residents, their young grandchildren and pet dog.
T1 had caused damage to their garden by lifting their flagging by three inches and causing many of the flag stones to crack. The tree roots could cause subsidence issues to their property if not dealt with.
Mr. and Mrs. McDonnell advised that they had been looking for a new shed over the past few years, but had been unable to purchase one due to not being able to position it where they would like to in their garden, due to the roots and branches from T1. Also, renovation to their garden had been almost impossible owing to the roots from T1 lifting the ground.
The branches of T1 were close to their two telephone wires, which they felt was unsafe and affected the quality of the sound of their landline. The roots were very near to two manholes and drain systems, and had possibly invaded them, which they felt needed consideration. T1 also affected the quality of light from their rear windows.
Following consultation with the Chairman and with the agreement of the Committee, the Appellants, Mr. and Mrs. McDonnell, circulated papers to Members and the Supporter, Mr. Fitton, in support of their objection, which were considered by the parties.
After Mr. and Mrs. McDonnell’s representation, Members of the Committee had the opportunity to question Mr. and Mrs. McDonnell on their representation. ... view the full minutes text for item 13.