Agenda item

The Tree Protection Officer presented a report that enabled Members to consider 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 Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 445 (2008): tree established to the front of 27 Belle Vue Terrace, Greaves Road, Lancaster identified as T1.

It was noted that T1 fell within the city conservation area and therefore an application had to be made in order to fell or alter the tree in any way. T1 was a mature silver birch, of a single stem form. T1 was in overall good condition and in a good state of health and vigour. The tree was highly visible from the public highway and was an appropriate species for its location making a significant contribution to local amenity.

It was reported that another tree identified as T2 was situated in close proximity to T1 and that T2 was considered to be unbalanced due to its closeness to T1. The remaining life potential of T1 was in excess of 100 years and had the potential to triple its size during this period. T1 was unlikely to increase in size much in its remaining life span of 10 to 20 years.

Lancaster City Council had received a notification to fell T1 whilst retaining T2.

The amenity of the tree (T1) had been assessed using an objective and systematic approach (Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders – TEMPO). A score of 15+ had been achieved which supported the action of serving a TPO.

The Tree Protection Officer advised that both trees had significant amenity value to justify serving a TPO, however, given the location of T2 so close to the boundary retaining wall, its growth and life potential, it was not considered appropriate to serve T2 with a TPO. T1 was considered to be worthy of retaining and serving with a TPO.

It was reported that a letter had been received in objection to the TPO. The main points for objection were outlined and the Tree Protection Officer addressed the objections raised.

Members directed questions to the Tree Protection Officer.

The Tree Protection Officer advised the Committee that it was difficult to know whether the roots of T1 were to blame for the crack in the stairway without a structural report provided as supporting evidence. It was noted that the owners had been requested to provide a structural assessment to prove that the damage had been caused by T1, but that nothing had been received. It was not acceptable to assume that it was T1 causing the damage.

(The Committee adjourned to consider the evidence. The Tree Protection Officer and Councillor Denwood left the meeting at this point.)

Members considered the options before them:

(1)               To confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 445 (2008)

(a)               Without modification

(b)        Subject to such modification as is considered expedient

(2)               Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 445 (2008)

It was proposed that Tree Preservation Order No. 445 (2008) be confirmed.

Members felt that there was no evidence to support the claim that T1 was causing any damage.

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 to give their decision. The Tree Protection Order and Councillor Denwood returned to the meeting at this point.)

Resolved:

That Tree Preservation Order No. 445 (2008) be confirmed.