Agenda item

Report of Chief Officer (Governance)

The Committee considered a formal written objection to a decision of Lancaster City Council under Section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 making an Order in respect of an area of trees established within the Riverside Caravan Park, Lancaster Road, Heaton-with-Oxliffe, identified as A1 and being Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 559 (2015), and thereafter whether or not to confirm the Order.

 

It was reported that the Council had made the said TPO on 28^th September 2015, following Riverside Caravan Park being identified for potential development.  Trees within the site had been unprotected and at risk of removal prior to the submission of Planning Application No. 15/00626/FUL for the siting of static caravans for holiday occupation for 12 months of the year.  The application proposed the felling of swathes of trees to accommodate the proposed development.  The Planning Application had been refused by the Council.  Two reasons had been given for refusal, both of which related to the adverse impact of the proposed tree losses on the wider public domain and inadequate mitigation measures.

 

The written objection had been received from Ms. Rachel Whaley of GVA Leeds, Planning Agents acting on behalf of the landowner, Britaniacrest Limited (the Appellant).  Ms. Whaley was present at the meeting.

 

In determining whether or not to confirm the Order, Members heard representations from Ms. Whaley on behalf of the Appellant.

 

Appellant’s Representative

 

The Appellant’s representative advised Members that, in her opinion, TPO No. 559 (2015) had been wrongly served.  Planning application no. 15/00626/FUL would not have resulted in the large-scale loss of important trees that made a significant contribution to the character of the area.  It would have been appropriate to protect those trees through conditions imposed on the planning application, had it been granted, for example conditions relating to landscaping and an arboricultural method statement.  

 

AWA Tree Consultants had been commissioned by the Appellant to carry out a full tree survey and tree constraints plan for the site, which had shown that none of the trees on site was considered to be of high amenity value, but of low or moderate value.  

 

With reference to the trees and groups of trees identified on AWA’s tree constraints plan, G39, G38, T40 and T41 could not be seen from outside the site.  G4, G5, T7, G8, G9, G10, T11 and G12 did not feature on views outside the site.  There was already planning permission in place on this part of the site for the siting of static caravans and it was felt that a TPO should not be served on this part of the site.

 

Other groups of trees around the site boundary were not under threat from development proposals.  None of these trees had been identified as being of high amenity value.  The landowner intended to retain them for landscape screening around the site.

 

In the Appellant’s representative’s opinion, the methodology used in the Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) to assess the amenity value of trees contained within A1 was flawed.  Trees and groups of trees could not be seen from outside the site and therefore their loss would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity value of trees on-site.

 

Confirmation of the TPO was therefore unnecessary and unreasonable, and an inappropriate way in which to control development on the site.  The retention and protection of the trees could be secured through planning conditions on any planning application granted.

 

Following presentation of her case, Members asked questions of the Appellant’s representative.

 

Lancaster City Council’s Tree Protection Officer

 

The Tree Protection Officer presented the case on behalf of Lancaster City Council, and reported that the Council had authority under Section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to make an Order in respect of a tree or group of trees if it appeared that it was expedient, in the interests of amenity, to make provision for the protection of trees in its area.

 

The amenity value of the trees contained within A1 had been assessed using a TEMPO, and a score of 15+ had been achieved, which definitely merited a TPO.

 

Members were advised that Riverside Caravan Park benefited from extensive mature hedgerow trees to its boundaries and within areas internal to the site.  Species included hawthorn, alder, ash, willow, cherry and eucalyptus.  Many of the trees made an important contribution to the character and appearance of the site and significantly also that of the wider public domain.

 

The site lay less than 100 metres to the north of the River Lune, which was designated a Biological Heritage Site.  Trees and hedgerows were recognised for their contribution to the Biological Heritage Site in a range of locations along its length.

 

The trees within the Caravan Park could be clearly seen from a range of public vantage points.  These included the public footpath along the southern bank of the River Lune and in both easterly and westerly directions when travelling along the main public highway to the north.

 

The trees within the site made a clear visual impact upon the character and appearance of the site and that of the wider public domain.  The loss of any of these trees had significant potential for harm which, given their age and size, could not be reasonably mitigated with new planting in the next 20 to 30 years.

 

It was the view of the Secretary of State that a TPO should be used to protect selected trees or woodland if their removal would have a significant impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public.

 

In addition, the Secretary of State considered that it may be expedient to make a TPO if the Local Planning Authority believed there was a risk of the trees or woodland being cut down or pruned in ways which had a significant impact on the amenity of the area.  It was not necessary for the risk to be immediate.  In some cases, the Local Planning Authority may believe that certain trees were at risk from development pressure.

 

Members were advised that Riverside Caravan Park had been subject to a recent planning application for development (reference no. 15/00626/FUL) for the siting of static caravans.  Large swathes of trees were proposed to be felled to facilitate the development, effectively removing important mature hedgerow trees from within the site.  The application had been refused planning consent.  The two reasons given for refusal were relating to the loss of existing trees and inadequate measures to mitigate the proposed tree losses.

 

It was reported that trees could be adversely impacted in a number of ways by development, directly with their removal, indirectly through practices associated with the construction phase of development, and by increased pressure to inappropriately manage trees associated with the change of use of any given site that inevitably came with a new planning permission.

 

Trees within the site had an important role in the provision of habitat and foraging opportunities for wildlife, including protected species, such as nesting birds and bats.  Both groups were protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended 2010).  The largescale loss of trees and hedgerows would result in a net loss of habitat in this biologically sensitive location adjacent to the River Lune.

 

It was reported that there had been recent development within the site, which had resulted in the loss of a section of trees to the north-eastern boundary where new caravan units were sited.  TPO 559 (2015) had been made when it had become apparent that the Caravan Park was likely to be the subject of an application for development.

 

Trees within the site were found to have sufficient amenity and wildlife benefit, coupled with the very real threat from development, to warrant and justify their inclusion and protection by a TPO.  A TPO did not obstruct or prevent development.  It did, however, ensure trees were a material consideration within any future application. 

 

Trees within the site had been protected on a provisional basis by an ‘Area’ designation.  This was commonly viewed as an ‘emergency’ or ‘blanket’ TPO, providing protection to all trees within the curtilage of the designated area. 

 

With regard to the Council’s response to the main points contained in the written objection to TPO 559 (2015), the Council was entirely appropriate in designating an Area of protection in the original provisional order.  It was now appropriate to modify this designation to identify individual trees and groups or woodland compartments to provide a greater level of detail (as shown at Appendix 7 to the Tree Protection Officer’s report).

 

It was reported that planning conditions alone would be an inadequate method of protecting existing trees against removal or inappropriate management.  Conditions could only be applied to a planning consent and there was currently no planning permission.  As such, on this basis, the trees would be unprotected and could be removed or inappropriately managed at any point.  Amenity and wildlife benefit could be lost.  There were sufficient pressures and threat from development of the site to warrant and justify a TPO.  Whilst there were a number of significant individual trees within the site that conveyed individual merits, the majority of trees had the greatest benefit as a collective, generating significant arboricultural and landscape features.

 

Trees internal to the site and those established along boundary lines had sufficient visual impact on the site and wider locality to justify their inclusion within TPO No. 559 (2015).  They were clearly visible from a range of public vantage points, which had been demonstrated.  Members noted that there was no requirement within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for all trees to be clearly seen from a public vantage point.  The loss of trees from particular areas would have the potential to impact upon the remaining trees.  There was sufficient potential to retain trees previously identified for removal by opting for only ‘tree and root friendly’ materials and methods of construction, thus avoiding any potential for an adverse impact upon the wider domain.

 

The Council supported the applicant’s ‘intention’ to retain boundary trees.  However, an intention alone did not safeguard trees.  It remained the Tree Protection Officer’s view that TPO 559 (2015) should be confirmed, with modifications as set out at Appendix 7 to her report (subject to a final tree count), in the interests of public amenity value and wildlife benefit.

 

Following presentation of her case, Members asked questions of the Tree Protection Officer.

 

(The Tree Protection Officer and the Appellant’s representative left the meeting room whilst the Committee made its decision in private.)

 

Members considered the options before them:

 

(1)        To confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 559 (2015)

 

(a)          Without modification;

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

 

(2)        Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 559 (2015).

 

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

 

“That Tree Preservation Order No. 559 (2015) be confirmed, as modified by Appendix 7 of the Tree Protection Officer’s report.”

 

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 Tree Protection Officer and the Appellant’s representative returned to the meeting for the decision to be announced.)

 

Resolved:

 

That Tree Preservation Order No. 559 (2015) be confirmed, as modified by Appendix 7 of the Tree Protection Officer’s report.