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 trees identified in a single woodland belt (W1) on land within the curtilage of Park Cottage, Deer Park Lane, Hornby. 

 

It was reported that the trees comprised of semi-mature and mature species of beech, yew, sycamore, sweet chestnut, oak, horse chestnut and lime.  A number of the trees had the potential to develop into important veteran trees; trees that because of their age, size or condition were of exceptional value culturally in the landscape or for their wildlife value.  Generally, the woodland trees were of a good condition, health and state of vigour with the potential to continue to provide significant amenity value long into the future.

 

The site was established in an elevated position and in a rural location within the village of Hornby, several miles to the east of Lancaster City.  To the west of the main dwellinghouse was a substantial belt of woodland trees providing significant tree cover and links to other groups and belts of trees in the vicinity.  The trees could be seen from the main public highway in the village, from other residential properties and visitors utilizing Deer Park Lane.

 

The owners of Park Cottage had advised that works were proposed to develop a new access drive to the western most aspect of the woodland belt off Deer Park Lane.  Any development that involved the disturbance of the ground, whether chances 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 number of the trees in question, identified as W1, had the potential to develop into important veteran trees which, because of their age, size or condition were of exceptional value culturally in the landscape, or for their wildlife value. 

 

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order) Regulations 1999, objections had been received to Tree Preservation Order No. 425 (2007).  The objections were from:

 

(1)        The owners of Lorelei, Deer Park Lane, Hornby, who objected to a Preservation Order being placed on the young beech tree just inside the boundary wall in the southwest corner of the property for the following reasons:

 

·                    The tree was a young tree (approximately 20 years old) which had been    planted too near to the boundary walls and would severely    encroach over the lane.  Large lorries used the land and therefore             branches would need             to be lopped to a significant height.

 

·                    The tree was very close to the overhead telephone cable to Lorelei             and other properties further up Deer Park Lane.

 

·                    Lopping or pruning of the tree to avoid the above would result in a   misshapen tree.

 

·                    When the tree reached full maturity, it would reach a height of over             100 feet and would have a similar spread.  It would severely restrict       the view of the Lune Valley from Lorelei, which was one of the main    reasons for the owners buying the house 22 years ago.

 

(2)        The owners of Park Cottage, Deer Park Lane, Hornby, who objected to the            aid Tree Preservation Order for the following reasons:

 

·                    Redevelopment was not a ground upon which a Tree Preservation             Order could be made.

 

·                    The proposed development was by virtue of existing planning          consents (07/00278/FUL and 07/00279/LB).

 

·                    The purple beech in question had been planted within the last 15     years or so and had been planted out of context and character with       the established tree stock, and it had been a serious error of judgment             to plant a ‘foreigner’, and had been exacerbated by the location       selected.

 

·                    The imposition of a Tree Preservation Order would prevent an        alternative, better and safer access to the property than the existing         dangerously steep driveway being constructed, which required the       removal of the purple beech.

 

·                    The purple beech was a complete stranger to the existing mature tree        stock and therefore wholly inappropriate, and had been planted without any foresight into what it would grow into.

 

·                    The size of the tree’s roots would further encroach on, over and about        water, gas and electricity services buried under the surface of Deer     Park Lane and, being only 2 to 3 feet away from the perimeter dry       stone wall, would disturb the wall and interfere with a nearby           substantial surface water drain.

 

·                    The tree’s branches would grow over the land and become and      remain an obstruction to lawful users of the land and, in legal terms,             would be a nuisance to the highway.

 

·                    The tree’s upper branches already threatened the overhead telephone        cables.

 

·                    If afforded protection by a Tree Preservation Order, the tree would occasion a constant source of continued administrative time-wasting           to keep it under control.

 

The Tree Protection Officer advised Members that the amenity value of trees within W1 had been assessed using an objective and systematic approach using the Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO).  A score of 15+ (25) had been achieved, supporting the action of serving a Tree Preservation Order.

 

The trees within the single woodland belt contributed significantly to the local amenity by providing the following:

 

·                    Important visual amenity

·                    Improvements in air quality, screening and privacy

·                    Cohesion, linking other groups and stands of trees within the vicinity

·                    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 site development in future

·                    An important wildlife resource.

 

The Council considered that damage or removal of the trees would have a detrimental impact on the amenity value of the local area and, as such, they should be afforded protection by the serving of Tree Preservation Order No. 425 (2007).

 

(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 3.23 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. 425 (2007)

 

(a)               Without modification;

(b)               Subject to such modifications as considered expedient.

 

(2)        Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 425 (2007).

 

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

 

“That the appeal be refused and the Tree Preservation Order confirmed without modification.”

 

Upon being put to the vote, 4 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

 

(The Committee reconvened at 3.28 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.