Agenda item

The Chairman, with the agreement of the meeting, agreed to rearrange the agenda in order that the items for which appellants were attending the meeting could be considered first.

Present at the meeting to consider the matter were the appellants.

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 a group of trees located at land between 1 Highdale Place and 18 Hurstleigh Drive, Mossgate Park, Heysham. G1 was comprised of the report and the Tree Protection Order. G1 was comprised of semi-mature, and early-mature trees, including species of lime, birch, ash, rowan, hawthorn and sycamore.

Collectively, the trees provided important greening and screening between properties and the footpath. They were also considered an important wildlife resource. Lancaster City Council had received information from a concerned member of the public, reporting that a number of trees had been removed from the area.

The amenity value of the trees within the site had 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.

The appellants elected a representative to speak in relation to their objections to the Tree Preservation Order. The main points highlighted were as follows:

·         That, contrary to the claims made in the report, they had not removed any trees or shrubs from the group of trees identified as G1, only pruned the branches.

·         That their primary concern was for the group of 5 or 6 Hawthorns which only 5 feet away from the garden fence. These had been pruned every other year since the appellant had moved into the property and it was believed that they would have knocked down the fence had they been left untouched.

·         Some of the trees had grown taller than the house, and during high winds some of the branches would blow into the wall and roof of the properties.

·         That they had no intention of removing the trees, only pruning them to protect the fences surrounding their properties.

Members directed questions to the appellants.

The committee discussed who was responsible for the upkeep of the land, it was believed that the land remained the responsibility of the developer, Mack Construction. The land had not been tended to by Mack Construction for a period of 6 years, however adjacent land was tended to every two weeks and it was not clear as to why the area of land in question was not being tended to.

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 which provided greening and screening in a heavily urbanised area. The site also provided an important wildlife resource, and was considered to be under threat from removal.

It was the Tree Protection Officer’s view that further tree removals from within this site would have a detrimental impact on the amenity value of the local area and as such trees should be protected by serving a Tree Preservation Order.

The Tree Protection Officer addressed the concerns which the appellant had raised.

The Tree Protection Officer agreed that work was needed to maintain the trees, but that any work carried out on the trees would have to be of an appropriate standard. It was considered that the work which had been carried out was not of the appropriate standard.

It was the Tree Protection Officer’s view that should the TPO be confirmed by the committee this would assist the appellants case should they wish to approach the owner of the land and ask them to carry out appropriate maintenance work on the trees which met currently expected standards.

Members directed questions to the Tree Protection Officer.

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

Members considered the options before them:

(1)               To confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 470 (2010)

(a)        Without modification

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

(2)               Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 470 (2010)

It was proposed by Councillor Chris Coates and seconded by Councillor Janie Kirkman:

“That Tree Preservation Order No. 470 (2010) be confirmed without modification.”

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

Resolved:

That Tree Preservation Order No. 470 (2010) be confirmed without modification.  

(The Committee reconvened to give their decision. The Tree Protection Officer and the appellants returned to the meeting at this point.)

Summary of decision:

The committee have considered the report of the Council's Tree Protection Officer and the representations made this afternoon.  The Committee have voted in favour of confirming the TPO No 470 without modification.  The committee hopes this will give weight to persuade the landowner to agree a management plan with the Council which will address the concerns raised.