Agenda item

Present at the meeting to consider was the appellant.

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 on land adjacent to Escow Beck, off Low Road, Halton, identified as T1, T2 and G1 for the purpose of the report and the Tree Protection Order. T1 and T2 were oak trees, G1 was a group comprised of 4 hawthorn trees. The trees appeared to be in good condition, leaves were of normal size, shape and colour.

There was evidence that a single oak tree had been felled recently. Lancaster City Council had received information from a concerned member of the public, that a mature oak tree had recently been felled and that they were concerned that further tree works may be undertaken.

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 appellant spoke in relation to his objections to the Tree Preservation Order. The main points highlighted were as follows:

·         That he had lived in the house for 26 years and had always strived to maintain the garden for the benefit of his family and others.

·         That he was aware of the amenity value of the land and the house, which was over 300 years old and in itself a historical landmark.

·         That he understood the importance of allowing trees to grow in a controlled way and had always attempted to manage trees on his land.

·         That he had conducted his own evaluation of the trees using the TEMPO system, and having sought expert advice, believed that the score awarded could be much lower.

·         Although the trees did contribute to the amenity of the area, they did not contribute significantly as they were only visible from within his land and from a single public highway.

·         That there were a number of dead branches on the trees.

·         That he was concerned that the roots of the trees could damage the septic tank an pipes, which provided for three properties in the area.

·         That the TPO should not have covered both the oak trees and the hawthorn trees, they should be considered separately.

·         That he had very real concerns about the security of the banking. The banking had collapsed in the past and the cost of repair had been considerable.

·         That it was not his intention to fell the trees, but he wished to have the permission to manage them appropriately.

Members directed questions to the appellant.

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 could be seen from the public highway, and provided links to trees adjacent to the River Lune. 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 TEMPO system was a tool which was used to document the process of evaluation. It was agreed that to a degree the outcome depended on the assessor but reiterated that the system was designed to be used by an expert, and would expect that a layman using the system would not produce the same scores as a trained arboriculturalist. Even if the TEMPO system produced a low score, a TPO could still be issued if it was deemed appropriate by the assessor.

The trees were considered to contribute significantly to the amenity of the area, and were biologically important, it could be seen from aerial images of the area that the trees fit with the character of the wider area.

Without details, it was difficult to know exactly what had caused the previous collapse of the banking; however it was generally considered that trees would help to protect the structure and reduce erosion of the embankment.

Regarding dead branches, this was expected of a tree of this age, and provided important benefits to wildlife. The tree T1 could be seen to contain many crevices, which were very important for wildlife, particularly birds.

It was unlikely that the roots from the trees could damage the septic tank and pipes, as they would be rooting on the other side of the beck and would not root up to the height of the tank.

It was considered that because of the felling of an oak tree, all the trees within the site were under threat, and it had been not been deemed appropriate to serve the TPO only on the oak remaining oak trees.

Members directed questions to the Tree Protection Officer.

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

Members considered the options before them:

(1)               To confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 472 (2010)

(a)        Without modification

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

(2)               Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 472 (2010)

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

“(1)      That Tree Preservation Order No. 472 (2010) be confirmed with modification.

(2)        That the trees identified as G1 be excluded from the Tree Preservation Order.”

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

Resolved:

(1)                 That Tree Preservation Order No. 472 (2010) be confirmed with modification.

(2)                 That the trees identified as G1 be excluded from the Tree Preservation Order.

(The Committee reconvened to give their decision. The Tree Protection Officer, and the appellant 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 with modifications. The Order is confirmed with regard to Trees T1 and T2 but the Order is rejected in respect of G1.