Agenda item

Report of Head of Governance

The Committee considered appeals 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 to the north-eastern corner of Wray Primary School Field, Wray-with-Botton, being Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 488 (2011).

Councillor Joan Jackson, Ward Councillor representing the Appellants, advised Committee that Mr. and Mrs. Ingram had contacted Mr. Richard Wood, Area Support Officer, of Lancashire County Council concerning the two sycamore trees, which were growing on Wray Primary School Field.  The suggested plan of action agreed with the school and with the approval of Mr. Wood was to remove the 2 sycamore trees, which were causing a nuisance, and give space for the 2 oaks and the newly-planted rowan tree to develop.  He had advised that it would be acceptable for the two trees to be felled as there was no TPO on them. 

Committee was advised by Councillor Jackson that Mr. and Mrs. Ingram objected to TPO No. 488 (2011) on the grounds that it was stated that the trees were visible from Wray Primary School, when they were, in fact, on the school playing field, which was in another part of the village and separate from the school.  It was also stated that the trees were viewable from public areas, but the field could only be viewed from public land from a very small access road to a cluster of houses beyond the school field. 

It was stated that the trees made a significant contribution to the Conservation Area.  The school playing field had a total of 24 mature trees, 7 of which were newly-planted ‘woodland’ trees and 4 newly-planted fruit trees.   Sycamores were fast growing, common trees which, in Mr. and Mrs. Ingram’s opinion, would be less significant than many other trees without TPOs, such as oaks.  The trees were also growing in a cluster and therefore seemed less significant than isolated trees, which accounted for most of the trees on the school field.

Councillor Jackson reported that the trees were a nuisance and overhung both Mr. and Mrs. Ingram and their neighbour, Miss E. Garnett’s property.  Problems included aphid residues falling from the canopy and restriction of light.

Following Councillor Jackson’s representation, Members directed questions to her.

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 in question under Sections 198, 201 and 203 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as attached at Appendix 4 to the report).  The reasons cited were that the trees, the subject of the TPO, identified as T1 – T3, were an important visual amenity, provided greening, screening and shade, were an important wildlife resource and were under threat from removal.

Members were advised that all trees with a trunk diameter of 75 mm or greater when measured at 1.3 m above ground level were protected in law.  Under Section 211 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Local Planning Authority must be notified in writing and given a period of 6 weeks’ notice prior to undertaking intended works to trees growing within a Conservation Area.  The site was land used as a recreational facility for the school and was accessed from a number of points by members of the public. 

It was reported that Lancaster City Council had received a Section 211 notice detailing intentions to fell x2 sycamore trees from within the school field (as attached at Appendix 1 to the report).  The reasons for removal were not cited at that time.  However, reasons of encroachment and shading were subsequently identified.  Lancaster City Council’s Tree Policy (2010) did not support the removal of healthy trees for reasons such as shading to gardens, leaf or fruit litter or to reinstate lost views or establish new views. 

The amenity value of 2 sycamore trees and 2 oak trees 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 (as shown at Appendix 2 to the report). 

Committee was advised that the trees were clearly visible from within the boundary of the school field, from a number of dwellings that looked onto the field and from the public highway to the east, where the trees could be glimpsed between dwellings and over rooftops where they could be viewed as skyline features.  Three of the trees assessed were found to be in good overall condition, free from significant pests or disease and, as such, they had the potential to live beyond 100+ years with appropriate care and management.  A fourth tree, a sycamore, had been excluded from the TPO as a result of a large wound to the main stem, rendering it unsuitable.  This tree had since been removed by Lancashire County Council, reducing the issues of encroachment and shading in relation to the Appellants’ properties.

The Tree Protection Officer advised that the trees provided visible landscape features, greening and partial screening between the use of the field and private dwellings nearby, important shading for groups that used the school field, could be seen from a public vantage point, contributed to the character of the area and were an important wildlife resource.  The Council had received a letter of support for the retention and protection of the two sycamore trees which were used as a focal point for outdoor education and play sessions with a local play group leader; they provided valuable shade and a sense of the changing seasons.

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. 488 (2011).  A TPO did not prevent works from being undertaken that were appropriate and reasonable and in the interest of good arboriculture practice.

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

(The Committee adjourned at 4.42 p.m. to consider the evidence.  The
Tree Protection Officer and Councillor Jackson, Ward Councillor representing the Appellants, left the meeting at this point.)

Members considered the options before them:

(1)        To confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 488 (2011)

(a)               Without modification

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

(2)        Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 488 (2011).

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

“That Tree Preservation Order No. 488 (2011) be confirmed without modification.”

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

(The Committee reconvened at 4.48 p.m. to give its decision and the
Tree Protection Officer and Councillor Jackson, Ward Councillor representing the Appellants, returned to the meeting at this point.)

Resolved:

That Tree Preservation Order No. 488 (2011) be confirmed without modification.