Agenda item

Report of Head of Governance

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 trees established at Bay View Holiday Park, Detron Gate, Bolton-le-Sands, being Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No 485 (2011).

The trees in question were identified as T1 – sycamore; G1 – a group of x3 hawthorn; G2 – a group of x12 hawthorn; G3 – a group of x6 sycamore and W1 – a woodland/scrubland belt of mainly hawthorn, sycamore and occasional ash.  The objection received was in connection with G3.

The Appellant’s representative, Mr. Roger Cartwright, advised Members that he was employed by Holgates Caravan and Leisure Parks in connection with the management of their trees and woodlands.  He reported that to maintain the amenity of the sites, properly conduct their business and reduce danger and possible nuisance to customers, Holgates Caravan and Leisure Parks’ trees and woodlands were responsibly managed.

Mr. Cartwright reported that his client objected only to the TPO in relation to G3.  In his opinion, these trees were clearly neither of special amenity value, nor exceptional specimens in good condition, requiring little attention in years to come.  Rather, they were growing very near to caravans in an exposed, windy situation and would continue to require expensive and difficult tree surgery and eventual removal. 

A TPO on G3 would place an unnecessary extra burden on the management of Holgates Caravan and Leisure Parks because of the frequent bureaucratic procedures that would be necessary to deal with the unpredictable situations that were likely to develop in relation to the safety of those trees.  To undertake essential tree work, such as thinning, pruning and coppicing, they would have to make a written application to the Local Planning Authority on the standard application form published by the Secretary of State to carry out work on protected trees, as required by Chapter 6 of the Addendum to ‘Tree Preservation Orders – A Guide to the Law and Good Practice’.

Mr. Cartwright reported that Holgates Caravan and Leisure Parks had responsibly managed trees during the 35 years or so that he had known them.  In his opinion, they were exemplary clients, who provided proper silvicultural care of their trees and woodlands without detailed supervision.  They made hard decisions to fell and prune trees that were potentially dangerous, thinning woodlands, including reluctantly removing conifers that they themselves had planted as nurse trees and taking the advice of specialists on woodland and habitat management for wildlife.  They had received David Bellamy awards for this work.

Members were informed by Mr. Cartwright that Holgates Caravan and Leisure Parks had planted more than 400 new trees in Bay View Holiday Park during the last planting season, and they intended to plant many more, including trees and hedges in the new area this winter, which would eventually improve the overall amenity out of all proportion to the amenity value of the 6 sycamore trees known as G3.

Following Mr. Cartwright’s representation, Members directed questions to Mr. Cartwright and the Appellant, Mr. Michael Holgate.

Following questions, the Tree Protection Officer, on behalf of the City Council, advised Members that the Council considered it expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of the trees referred to as T1, G1, G2, G3 and W1 under sections 198, 201 and 203 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as attached at Appendix 2 to the report).  The reasons cited were that the trees, the subject of the TPO, contributed to the character of their locality, were an important visual amenity, provided greening, were an important wildlife resource, and there was a perceived threat of future removal or inappropriate management.

Members were advised that it had been brought to the City Council’s attention that trees established along the coastal frontage and outside Bay View Holiday Park had been inappropriately managed and had the upper sections of their canopies removed.  This had improved the view from a number of static caravans established within the site. 

It was reported that managing trees by ‘topping’ them did not comply with current standards of best practice (BS 3998 (2010)) Tree works – recommendations.  The City Council’s Tree Policy 2010 did not support the removal or inappropriate pruning of trees to reinstate views or establish new views.  Such management was likely to have an adverse impact on tree health, vitality and long-term sustainability.  As a result, the visual amenity of affected trees was significantly reduced.  Trees damaged in this way were not the subject of a TPO because of their poor structural condition.

Members were advised that there were trees established along the coastline beyond the boundary of the caravan park and a group of x6 large, mature sycamore growing within the cartilage of the caravan park.  The amenity values of these trees had been assessed using an objective and systematic approach (Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders – TEMPO system).  A score of 14 had been achieved supporting the action of serving a TPO.

It was reported that the trees along the coastline were clearly visible from within the caravan site and from public land along the coastal footpath and beyond.  The trees within the caravan site were clearly visible to users visiting and staying at the site.  Glimpses of the trees were also visible from the public domain beyond the western boundary of the site.  The natural topography of land within the site meant it was difficult to see the trees from the public highway to the east, the A6.  This view was limited to a view of the tree tops within the wider landscape.

The trees were generally in good overall condition and were free from significant pests or disease and had the potential to live beyond 20 to 40 years with appropriate care and management.  Trees within the site provided visible landscape features, contributed to the character of their locality, were seen from a public vantage point, provided important greening and were an important wildlife resource. 

It was reported that the trees were important features within their locality, and had sufficient amenity value and importance within the landscape to justify their protection with TPO No. 485 (2011).  A TPO did not prevent works being undertaken that were appropriate, reasonable and in the interest of good arboriculture practice.

The Tree Protection Officer advised that the City Council had received a formal written objection to the TPO affecting G3, which was a group of x6 mature sycamore trees established within the cartilage of the holiday park opposite existing stone buildings.  They could be seen from outside the holiday park and made an important contribution to the character of the local landscape.  No significant pests or disease had been identified.  They were the few remaining mature trees within the site, which had undergone recent development works.  The clear public visibility of the trees, their condition, suitability and remaining potential longevity provided sufficient public amenity value to justify their inclusion within TPO No. 485 (2011).  They were also an important wildlife resource in the coastal location.

A further question and answer session followed the Tree Protection Officer’s presentation.

(The Committee adjourned at 3.58 p.m. to consider the evidence.  The
Tree Protection Officer, the Appellant and the Appellant’s representative left the meeting at this point.)

Members considered the options before them:

(1)        To confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 485 (2011)

(a)               Without modification

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

(2)        Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 485 (2011).

It was proposed by Councillor Leytham and seconded by Councillor Hanson:

“That Tree Preservation Order No. 485 (2011) be confirmed in respect of T1, G1, G2 and W1, subject to modification to exclude G3 from the Order.”

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 4.10 p.m. to give its decision and the
Tree Protection Officer, Appellant and Appellant’s representative returned to the meeting at this point.)

Resolved:

That Tree Preservation Order No. 485 (2011) be confirmed in respect of T1, G1, G2 and W1, subject to modification to exclude G3 from the Order.