Agenda item

Report of Head of Democratic Services (incorporating the report of the Tree Protection Officer)

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 individual trees identified as T1-T3 and groups G1 and G2 established on land within the curtilage of St. John’s Church, Emesgate Lane, Silverdale.

It was reported that the trees comprised two main groups of trees to the north, east and south of the property (G1 and G2) and a number of individual trees to the west of the site (T1-T3).  The site was established within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the trees were clearly visible from the public highway of Emesgate Lane and a number of local residential properties, and to users of the church and its grounds.

Site development works had been undertaken to the front of the church site, including resurfacing works and reconstruction of planted areas.  During the works, there had been no identifiable tree protection systems in place, and damaged and exposed tree roots could clearly be identified. 

Any such development that involved disturbance of the ground, whether changes in ground levels, surfacing and/or excavation works, had significant potential to cause damage to trees within the vicinity of such works.  Damage to root systems had the real potential to limit the life, potential health, vigour and stability of affected trees.

A planning application had been submitted for the redevelopment of an existing building to the north of the site, an area that was heavily wooded with trees.  The application would be considered as a separate planning matter.

The trees in question were T1, a young horse chestnut, T2 a young birch and T3 an early-mature yew tree.  All three trees were established to the front of the property, close to the western boundary.  The recent development works in the area had resulted in damage to the root systems likely to belong to T2 and possibly other trees.  Such root damage had the potential of adversely affecting the long-term sustainability of affected trees resulting in impaired health, vigour and the potential for loss of stability.

G1 and G2 were groups of young to mature trees, including species of holly, sycamore, birch, ash, cherry yew and beech, which were generally of good condition and state of health and vigour.

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order) Regulations 1999, objections had been received to Tree Preservation Order No. 422 (2007).  The objections were from the occupant of St. John’s Church, Emesgate Lane, Silverdale and the Diocese of Blackburn on the grounds that a blanket Tree Preservation Order was an unnecessary imposition which could only serve to inhibit the sensible development and maintenance of the church grounds, and they challenged the idea that areas of self-seeded overgrowth where trees were growing into each other, and in some cases had outgrown their context, enhanced the amenity of the site.

The Tree Protection Officer advised Members that the amenity value of trees had been gathered by means of a preliminary visual tree assessment restricted to ground level observations and inspection.  A systematic and objective appraisal of the amenity value of the trees had been undertaken using the Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO).  A score of 15+ (22) had been achieved, supporting the action of serving a Tree Preservation Order.

The trees within the site contributed significantly to the local amenity by providing:

• Important visual amenity

• Improvements in air quality, screening, privacy and noise abatement from the public highway

• An important wildlife resource.

Lancaster 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:

• The trees provided important public amenity benefits

• The potential threat from future site development

•  They provided an important wildlife resource.

The Council considered that damage or removal of such trees would have a detrimental impact on the amenity value of the local area and, as such, the trees should be afforded protection by serving a Tree Preservation Order.

(The Committee passed a resolution to exclude the press and public on the basis that, in making its decision, exempt information would be received in the form of legal advice.)

(The Committee adjourned at 3.07 p.m. to consider the evidence.  The Tree Protection Officer left the meeting at this point.)

Members considered the options before them:

(1)        To confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 422 (2007):

(a)               Without modification;

(b)               Subject to such modifications as considered expedient.

(2)        Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 422 (2007).

It was proposed by Councillor Kirkman and seconded by Councillor Burns:

“That the appeal be refused and the Tree Preservation Order confirmed without modification, subject to an advice note that the City Council welcomes good tree management on-site.”

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

(The Committee reconvened at 3.15 p.m. to give their decision and the Tree Protection Officer, press and public returned to the meeting at this point.)

The Chairman advised those present of the Committee’s decision.

Resolved:

That the appeal be refused and the Tree Preservation Order confirmed without modification, subject to an advice note that the City Council welcomes good tree management on-site.