Agenda item

Report of the Chief Executive

The Committee received the report of the Chief Executive to enable Members to consider the objection received to Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015) relating to an area of trees established on land adjacent to Ashton Road, Lancaster, and thereafter whether or not to confirm the Order.

 

It was reported that the Council had made Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015) on 20^th October 2015, following land adjacent to Ashton Road, Lancaster being identified for potential development by Story Homes.  The trees within the site had been unprotected and, in the opinion of the Tree Protection Officer, threatened by potential development.  The trees included a group of ash (G1) and two woodland compartments comprising a range of tree species identified as W1 and W2.

 

One letter of objection had been received to Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015) from Barton Willmore, Planning Consultants, acting on behalf of the Appellant, Story Homes. 

 

In determining whether or not to confirm the Tree Preservation Order, Members heard representations from Joshua Corbett of Urban Green, who had prepared an Arboricultural Impact Assessment for Story Homes, and a response from the Tree Protection Officer.

 

Appellant’s Representative

 

The Appellant’s representative presented the case on behalf of Story Homes and advised Members that an assessment of the quantity and quality of existing trees located on and near to the application site had been carried out by Urban Green through the Arboricultural Impact Assessment.  Groups of trees had been identified according to their character, quality or role in defining the site and its features. 

 

It was reported that Story Homes’ objection to Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015) was that the submitted planning application would not result in the loss of any trees of quality or value in or around the site.  Not all of the area identified within the Tree Preservation Order was necessary for inclusion to safeguard the existing tree belt along Lancaster Canal for reasons of amenity, wildlife or quality, as outlined by the Local Planning Authority in the Tree Preservation Order.  Story Homes believed that if a Tree Preservation Order was necessary (to which they disagreed), the areas defined as G56, T43 and G44 within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment should be omitted.

 

The Appellant’s representative advised that the proposed development would not have a detrimental effect on existing trees on or near to the site.  An adequate buffer would be provided between the proposed development and trees, and root protection areas would be identified for those trees which defined the character of the site and its surroundings.  An Arboricultural Method Statement had been submitted as part of the outline application, and any works would be carried out in compliance with this.

 

The area defined as G56 was a group of early mature hawthorn trees, which were situated in a raised bund and acted as a buffer between the larger trees adjacent to the Canal.  G56 had been identified as being distinctly different and of slightly less value to the remainder of the woodland located between the application site and Lancaster Canal.  The loss of this group would have little impact on the character of the area, as the larger and more significant trees behind would be retained.  Their loss would not be visible from the Canal towpath and would not significantly change the character of the area observable from the public right-of-way running along Carr Lane to the south.  G56 was not visible from the windows of properties in nearby Pinewood Close.

 

T43 and G44 had also been assessed separately and defined as Category C trees in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment.  Both were semi-mature ash and causing damage to the adjacent pathway. 

 

Story Homes’ landscape strategy would result in additional trees, which would provide valuable amenity.

 

The Appellant’s representative advised that, should a Tree Preservation Order be deemed necessary (which was disputed by Story Homes), G56, T43 and G44 should be omitted from the Order.

 

Following presentation of the Appellant’s representative’s 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 under Section 198 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, a Local Planning Authority had powers to make a Tree Preservation Order in the interests of amenity if it appeared that it was expedient to do so for the purpose of protecting trees.

 

It was reported that the trees in question included two large belts of trees and one group comprising 3 individual trees.  The land was currently the subject of an outline planning application (reference no. 15/01342/OUT) for the development of new housing.

 

The purpose of the Appeals hearing was to consider the amenity value of the trees and whether it was expedient in the interests of amenity to continue the protection of the trees, the subject of Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015), and not to consider the merits of the proposed development.

 

Development of land had significant potential to threaten trees, resulting in their direct loss to accommodate the overall design but, importantly, also by a range of indirect means that may result from operations and practices associated with the construction phase of development, and also indirect pressures as a result of a change in land use. 

 

It may be expedient for the Local Planning Authority to make a Tree Preservation Order if it was believed there was a risk of a tree being cut down or pruned in ways which would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area.  Once new housing units were sold and occupied, pressures increased on trees, which could lead to trees being inappropriately managed or felled in the absence of protection.  For the purposes of a Tree Preservation Order, it was not necessary for the threat to be immediate.

 

In the view of the Secretary of State, a threat may be in the present or in the future.  It was important to note that a Tree Preservation Order did not obstruct or prevent development.  It did, however, ensure that trees were a material consideration within any existing or future planning application.

 

A Tree Preservation Order prohibited the cutting down, uprooting, lopping, topping, wilful damage, or wilful destruction of trees without the Local Planning Authority’s consent.  Anyone found guilty of an offence in a Magistrates’ Court was liable to a maximum fine of £20,000.

 

Where full planning permission was granted, the powers of a Tree Preservation Order were overridden where tree removal or pruning works were required to implement that full permission.  All other trees remained protected, and written authorisation from the Local Planning Authority would have to be obtained prior to carrying out works to any additional tree.

 

Trees, the subject of Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015), included two woodland compartments, W1 and W2, and a group of three ash trees, G1.  All were clearly visible from the public domain.  W1 and W2 were established on a raised embankment immediately adjacent to Lancaster Canal.  The canal was recognised for its biological importance through its designation as a Biological Heritage Site.  Trees were recognised for their contribution to this biologically important location.  Existing trees also made an important contribution to local wildlife communities, including the potential to provide habitat and foraging opportunities for species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended 2010), such as nesting birds and bats. 

 

Trees within W1 and W2 were essential to the continuity of the wildlife corridor along the canal.  Hawthorn trees, identified by the Appellant as G56 within the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment, were integral to the woodland compartment.  They provided an important under-storey element to the woodland.  Furthermore, they were identified within the Appellant’s report as Category B+, being trees of moderate quality and with a life expectancy of 40+ years.  Further description within the report included, “Group of predominantly hawthorn acting as a buffer between the larger trees adjacent to the Canal.  Roots from neighbouring trees may be affected if removal occurs in this area.” 

 

In the view of Lancaster City Council, this group of trees was an integral component of the woodland compartment.  Exclusion of trees identified as G56 from the Tree Preservation Order would have the potential to result in erosion of this important woodland compartment and buffer zone.   In effect, this would bring any future development of the site closer to the much larger landscape trees established adjacent to the Canal, increasing the future pressure to inappropriately manage, prune or remove these important trees, as lung spaces and outdoor amenity spaces encroached ever nearer.

 

The trees, the subject of Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015), were generally in good overall condition, with long periods of useful remaining life potential.  For younger trees in G1, their amenity value would only increase with continued maturity and growth.

 

Outline planning application no. 15/013421/OUT had not, as yet, been determined.  It was understood from the Planning Case Officer that it was likely to go to the Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee in April 2016 for due consideration and determination.

 

It was the view of Lancaster City Council that woodland areas W1, W2 and Group G1 had important amenity value and were under sufficient threat from proposed development, now and in the future, to justify their protection through Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015), in the interests of public amenity value and wildlife benefit.

 

The Council had received one letter of objection to Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015) from Mr. Craig Barnes, representing the developer, Story Homes.

 

There were two main points for objection detailed in the letter:

 

(i)                  The submitted planning application would not result in the loss of any trees of any value or quality in or around the site, and therefore a Tree Preservation Order was not required;

(ii)                 Not all of the area identified within the Tree Preservation Order was considered necessary for inclusion to safeguard the existing tree belt along Lancaster Canal for reasons of amenity, wildlife or quality.  The Appellant, Story Homes, was of the view that if the Tree Preservation Order was deemed to be necessary (to which they disagreed), the area defined as G56, as well as T43 and G44, should be omitted.

 

In summary, Lancaster City Council’s response to the Appellant’s objection was:

 

(i)                  Whilst an outline application had been received by the Local Authority, it had not been determined.  There was no current permission to develop the land in question.  As such, there was no formal written agreement to retain and protect existing trees and woodland, other than through the controls of a Tree Preservation Order.  Trees would be vulnerable to loss.

(ii)                 Lancaster City Council had a duty to protect trees where development was proposed.  The Local Authority would be failing in its duty if a Tree Preservation Order was not made and confirmed, particularly given the significance of the trees in question and the biologically sensitive nature of the wider area and proposed development.

(iii)                The trees in question formed a highly visible landscape feature, clearly seen from the public domain.  The trees were also an important resource for a potential range of wildlife, including protected species.

(iv)               A Tree Preservation Order ensured that existing trees were a material consideration within a planning application and, importantly, continued their protection through the post-development phase and future use of the site.

(v)                The Appellant’s Arboricultural Impact Assessment identified trees G56 as valued trees, and, as such, the Appellant proposed their removal.

(vi)               Trees were threatened by the potential development of the site and by the future change of use of the wider landscape, should planning consent be granted.  This only served to support the need to maintain the existing protection status of the trees, in line with Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015).  Trees identified as G56, T43 and G44 should remain the subject of Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015) to ensure their full consideration within the existing and any future planning application.  These trees made an important contribution to the amenity and wildlife.

(vii)              Full planning permission overrides the powers of a Tree Preservation Order where trees would be required to be removed or pruned in order to implement a planning consent.  As such, the existence of the Tree Preservation Order would not prevent or obstruct development, should full planning consent be granted at some point.  It would safeguard important existing trees, now and in the future.

 

Lancaster City Council considered it expedient in the interests of public amenity value and wildlife benefit to make provision for the preservation of trees identified as G1, W1 and W2 under Section 198 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

 

As such, it was recommended that Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015) be confirmed without modification.

 

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

 

The Appellant’s representative then had the opportunity to reply.

 

(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. 565 (2015)

 

(a)        Without modification;

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

 

(2)        Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015).

 

It was proposed by Councillor Metcalfe and seconded by Councillor Pattison:

 

“That Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015) be confirmed without modification.”

 

Upon being put to the vote, 5 Members voted in favour of the proposition, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

 

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

 

Resolved:

 

That Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015) be confirmed without modification.