Agenda item

Present at the meeting to consider the matter was the appellant Mr Cottam, Churchwarden for St John’s Church Gressingham and Councillor Peter Williamson, Lancaster City Councillor for Upper Lune Valley Ward.

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 an individual tree located on land within the cutilage of St John’s Church Gressingham, identified as T1 for the purpose of the Tree Preservation Order. T1 was a single, mature lime tree.

There was a second, mature lime tree (T2) established in close proximity to T1 and a mature group of Portuguese laurel (G1) growing immediately adjacent to the church building. After an initial period of consultation with the Parochial Church Council, it had been agreed that T2 and G1 would be removed from Tree Preservation Order No. 456 (2009) because of their poor overall condition and limited remaining life potential.

The site was established within Gressingham Conservation Area, within the village of Gressingham.

The amenity value of trees within the site has been assessed using an objective and systematic approach (Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders – TEMPO system). A score of 15+ was achieved supporting the action of serving a Tree Preservation Order.

Mr. Cottam spoke in relation to his objection to the Tree Preservation Order. The main points highlighted were as follows:

• That the trees could cause damage to the church tower or members of the public if they were to collapse or shed branches onto the adjacent road or the church itself.
• That the roots of tree T1 were damaging the pathway into the church grounds, causing ridges and cracks that were causing problems for the elderly members of the congregation.
• That the Parochial Church Council had received 112 objections to the Tree Protection Order, including 98 from local residents and a further 14 from church attendees. This represented over 70% of the electorate of Gressingham. 
• That the Parochial Church Council had received quotes from two tree surgeons, who both said that if the roots of the trees were cut the stems would become unstable and likely to split off.
• That due to the graveyard surrounding the entrance path to the Church it was unfeasible to relocate the path.
• That the City Council had not followed correct procedure and as such the Tree Protection Order placed on tree T1 was invalid.
• That the Parochial Church Council had conducted their own TEMPO evaluation and had reached different conclusions to those of the Tree Protection Officer.

Members directed questions to Mr. Cottam.

The Tree Protection Officer informed the Committee that it was considered 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 & Country Planning Act 1990. The Tree Protection Officer stated that the site was an important visual amenity and landscape feature which could be seen from the public highway and a number of private residential properties, providing screening and greening. The site also provided an important wildlife resource.

The Committee were advised that the presence of a Tree Preservation Order does not prevent appropriate and reasonable maintenance works being undertaken, however removal of a high value tree should not be seen as the first management option. The Tree Protection Officer reported root pruning could be effective without affecting the stability of the tree, and that this option should be explored. It was not considered essential that the tree would have to be removed to carry out work on the pathway.

The Committee were advised that the Parochial Church Council should consult with appropriate professionals to consider engineering solutions that would allow for the repair and re-surfacing of the footpath and retention of the tree.

The Tree Protection Officer advised that the TEMPO system was designed to be used as a tool by trained arboriculturalists, and that anyone else attempting to use the system was unlikely to reach the same conclusions.

It was reported that although the petition arranged by the Parochial Church Council had been acknowledged, it had been received outside of the 28 day period within which representations must be submitted, and as such had not been considered under the terms of the Tree Preservation Order.

Members directed questions to the Tree Protection Officer.

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

Members considered the options before them:

(1)               To confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 456 (2009)

(a)        Without modification

(b)        Subject to such modification as is considered expedient.

(2)               Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 456 (2009)

It was proposed by Councillor Helen Helme and seconded by Councillor Janice Hanson:

“That Tree Preservation Order No. 456 (2009) not be confirmed.”

Upon being put to the vote 5 members voted in favour of the proposition, 1 member voted against and 1 member abstained whereupon the Chairman declared the proposition to be carried.

(The Committee reconvened to give their decision. The Tree Protection Officer, Mr. Cottam and Councillor Williamson returned to the meeting at this point.)

Resolved:

That Tree Preservation Order No. 455 (2009) not be confirmed.