Agenda item

Report of the Chief Executive

The Committee received the report of the Chief Executive to enable Members to consider the objections received to Tree Preservation Order No. 567 (2015) relating to a woodland area known as Long Plantation, established within Ashton Hall Estate, Off 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 29^th October 2015, following an assessment of trees and potential threats.  Trees within the site were unprotected.  Works had been completed in relation to Felling Licence No. 010/20/10-11, issued by the Forestry Commission in January 2011.  Trees had been removed to create a clearing within the woodland, and all associated tree stumps dug out and removed.  An informal access track had been created into the woodland to the northern aspect.  Any future intentions for the site were unclear. 

 

Two letters of objection had been received to Tree Preservation Order No. 567 (2015) from Mr. Roger Clark of Stodday Land Limited, and Mrs. Sarah Clark of Ripway Properties Ltd. 

 

In determining whether or not to confirm the Tree Preservation Order, Members heard representations from Mr. Roger Clark and Mrs. Sarah Clark, the Appellants, and a response from the Tree Protection Officer.

 

The Appellants

 

Mr. Clark

 

Mr. Clark advised that he was a director of Stodday Land Ltd, and reported that he had a document published by the Department for Communities and Local Government entitled Tree Preservation Orders:  A Guide to the Law and Good Practice, which, at paragraph 2.3, advised that a Tree Preservation Order may only be used to protect trees and could not be applied to bushes or shrubs.  Mr. Clark advised that he had been responsible for lopping and topping holly bushes and hedgerows as part of the housekeeping at the Ashton Hall Estate.

 

With reference to paragraph 3.2 of the said document, Mr. Clark reported that it was the Secretary of State’s view that it would be inappropriate to make a Tree Preservation Order in respect of a tree that was dead, dying or dangerous.  Mr. Clark advised that most of the felling, which he had undertaken, had fallen within this category. 

 

Mr. Clark referred to paragraph 6.41 of the official document at which the Secretary of State promoted ongoing beneficial Woodland Management Plans.  Mr. Clark advised that he had consulted with the Forestry Commission in 2007 regarding setting up a Woodland Management Plan, so that a method of organising the management of the woods could be established for the benefit of the Estate. 

 

The Tree Protection Officer had visited the Estate in October 2015 as a result of complaints received.  The Felling Licence, which was up-to-date, had been produced at that time.  Later, in November 2015, an officer from the Forestry Commission had visited, at which time no further felling had been carried out, only the cutting and clearing of the pruned and felled trees.  The Forestry Commission Officer had been advised of the situation and had examined Long Plantation and the Seafield Plantation.  The Forestry Commission Officer had agreed that Mr. Clark had been working strictly in accordance with his Felling Licence, and had also advised regarding the removal of  further dead trees and stumps that did not come under the remit of the Tree Protection Order or the Felling Licence.  The Forestry Commission Officer had said he would contact the Tree Protection Officer to confirm the same.

 

Mr. Clark advised Members that he was working with a Trees and Woodland Consultant who, in conjunction with the Forestry Commission, was helping him to prepare a Woodland Management Plan for the Long Plantation and Seafield Plantation.

 

Mr. Clark produced copies of documents and correspondence between himself and the Tree Protection Officer, which he advised would outline to Members the background to the Tree Preservation Order being issued.

 

The Appellant reported that he objected to the Tree Preservation Order, as it was too stringent an imposition considering the work he had done and the work that still needed to be carried out under his Felling Licence and the planned Woodland Management Scheme.  Mr. Clark advised that the Tree Preservation Order would leave him vulnerable to harassment from neighbours, and outlined in detail the events that had occurred previously on the Estate.

 

Following presentation of the Appellant’s case, Members asked questions of Mr. Clark.

 

Mrs. Clark

 

Mrs. Clark advised that she was a director of Ripway Properties Limited and the Ashton Hall Estate, and referred to the plan annexed to the Tree Preservation Order, which identified Long Plantation.  Mrs. Clark advised that the plan had not been prepared to sufficient a scale to give a clear indication of the position of Long Plantation and the extent to which the Tree Preservation Order related.

 

The Appellant referred to the serving of the Tree Preservation Order and Regulation 3 Notice, and advised that her records showed that Ripway Properties Limited had not been served at its registered office.

 

The Appellant informed Members that her grounds for objection to the Tree Preservation Order were as follows.

 

There would be an increase in the administrative and operational costs associated with following the constraints of the Tree Protection Order, and these would be borne by residents, who were liable to pay towards the cost of trimming back branches overhanging the roadway belonging to Ripway Properties Ltd. 

 

Long Plantation was situated in the heart of a private estate and a distance away from the public highway.  Long Plantation was not visible from a range of locations frequented by the public and, depending on the height of the hedge running alongside the A588 and the time of the year, the trees within Long Plantation were hardly visible from a public road at all.

 

The trees within Long Plantation were not under threat of removal.  The management of Long Plantation had been carried out properly through a Felling Licence with professional guidance under Lancashire Rural Futures.

 

No relevant photographs had been produced in connection with the allegations regarding burning of timber and tree stumps, nor had the Tree Protection Officer shown the whereabouts of the said burning in Long Plantation.

 

The Forestry Commission had said that Long Plantation was being properly managed and that the trees within Long Plantation were not under threat.     

 

The imposition of a Tree Protection Order would result in an increase in the false allegations, which had been made over many years.

 

Following presentation of the Appellant’s case, Members asked questions of Mrs. Clark.

 

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 the powers to make a Tree Preservation Order, in the interests of amenity if it appeared expedient to do so, for the purpose of protecting trees.

 

It was reported that Long Plantation was a woodland that lay approximately 500 m to the east of the River Lune.  The River Lune was a biologically sensitive location.  This was reflected in its designation as a Biological Heritage Site.  Trees included within Long Plantation formed an important backdrop to the river in a biologically sensitive locality.  In addition, Meldham Wood lay approximately 200 m to the North West of the Plantation and was recognised as an Ancient Woodland.  By definition, it had been present for 400 years, or longer, creating unique biological communities and associations not found in younger woodlands.

 

The woodland trees in question were generally in good overall condition with long periods of useful remaining life potential.  The presence of the wood was apparent when viewed from the A588 public highway to the east and south east, and also a public footpath adjacent to the River Lune to the west.  The aerial photograph shown in the reports pack had been taken in 2013 and showed locations from the wider public domain where parts of the large woodland area could be seen.  There was no requirement within existing legislation for all parts of a woodland or individual trees to be seen from a public domain.

 

The important amenity value of the woodland was supported by the Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO).  Even if the level of expediency was reduced from “foreseeable risk of partial loss” to that of “precautionary”, the total accumulative score was 21, which definitely merited a Tree Preservation Order.

 

In addition to important visual amenity, the woodland offered resources for wildlife and provided essential habitat and foraging opportunities, including the potential to support protected species, such as nesting birds and bats.  Both groups were protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended 2010).

 

It was reported that Lancaster City Council had received a complaint in October 2015 from a member of the public that trees were being felled within Long Plantation and that an access track had been created within the woodland.  During a subsequent site visit by the Council, it had become apparent that trees had been felled and their tree stumps removed to create a clearing to the northern aspect of the Plantation not previously present.  In addition, an informal dirt access track into the woodland had been created.

 

Members were advised that Mr. Clark had been on site during the visit and had presented a Felling Licence issued by the Forestry Commission, detailing 30 sycamore trees to be felled as thinning works granted under the Felling Licence, from January 2011 until mid-January 2016, when the Licence expired.   An officer from the Forestry Commission had subsequently conducted a site visit and had been satisfied at that time that the Felling Licence had been complied with.

 

It was reported that, in the absence of a Felling Licence, an individual could fell up to 5 m³ a year without the requirement of authorisation from the Forestry Commission or Local Planning Authority, which was a relatively large volume of timber.  Woodland areas could, over time, be gradually eroded, particularly in the absence of an agreed formal Woodland Management Plan.  In granting a Felling Licence, the Forestry Commission encouraged land owners to develop and implement a Management Plan for their woodland, in the interest of good woodland management and practice, to ensure woodlands were managed well and could remain sustainable, long-term entities.  Lancaster City Council was unaware of any such plan for Long Plantation.  It was unlikely that a Tree Preservation Order would be necessary where trees and woodlands were under good arboriculture/woodland control.  In this instance, a formal Woodland Management Plan, agreed in writing by the Forestry Commission and Local Planning Authority, had been implemented.  Five years on from issuing the Felling Licence, there was no formal plan agreed for the management of the woodland.

 

The creation of the clearing to the northern aspect of Long Plantation remained unclear to the Council.  The absence of a formal agreed Woodland Management Plan for the woodland underpinned the concerns of the Council.

 

Lancaster City Council had received a letter of objection from Mr. Clark of Stodday Land Ltd and from Mrs. Clark of Ripway Properties Ltd.  The objections of both parties were addressed. 

 

It was reported that Mr. and Mrs. Clark had expressed a range of views and comments at some length since Tree Preservation Order No. 567 (2015) had been served at the end of October last year.  Only those issues relating directly to their objection to Tree Preservation Order No. 567 (2015) would be addressed.

 

With reference to Mr. Clark’s objection, Members were advised that it would seem the main reasoning for his objection to the Tree Preservation Order was that its stringency would leave Mr. Clark vulnerable to misleading and vexatious allegations from members of the public, and that the Tree Preservation Order was inappropriate, given that Mr. Clark was actively managing the woodland.  Mr. Clark stated that he was in the process of developing a management plan for the woodland he had been managing for 8 years with professional help.  Whilst Mr. Clark conceded the plantation could be seen from a minority of areas around the estate, it was still very private, and he had no intention to clear, fell or decimate the area.

 

In response, to the representation, the Tree Protection Officer commented that, in the absence of a Tree Preservation Order, there was no other means of protecting the woodland, whether from inappropriate or ill-considered management, or any future development of the wider Ashton Hall Estate.

 

The Felling Licence previously issued by the Forestry Commission had expired mid-January 2016.  In its absence, and in the absence of a Tree Preservation Order, up to 5 m³ volume of timber/trees could be removed every 3 months, totalling 20 m³ per year, without a requirement for consultation.

 

A Tree Preservation Order protected trees that might otherwise be removed and whose loss may adversely impact upon the woodland and wider amenity and wildlife benefit that it conveyed.  Especially in the absence of a formal and agreed Woodland Management Plan.

 

Despite Mr. Clark having managed the woodland for 8 years, and having been issued with a Felling Licence for the last 5 of those years, the Council was unaware of an agreed and implemented Management Plan.  That would suggest that a planned and systematic approach to sustainable management of the woodland was a low priority.

 

Whilst Mr. Clark objected to Tree Preservation Order No. 565 (2015), an assessment of the trees and the making and serving of the Tree Preservation Order was an entirely appropriate and reasonable course of action.  The Council had conducted its investigation into the original complaint and subsequent assessment of the woodland in an entirely open and transparent manner.  Records and reports had been accurately detailed throughout. 

 

With reference to Mrs. Clark’s objection to Tree Preservation Order No. 567 (2015), this related to the entire woodland.  For clarification, Members were advised that the Tree Preservation Order did not include any areas of private amenity space.

 

It was reported that a Tree Preservation Order did not mean that a landowner was subject to increased cost for the management of protected trees.  There was no charge attached to the submission of a tree works application.  Lancaster City Council could not be held responsible for the administrative arrangements within any given company or organisation and how it chose to distribute its charges to its clients. 

 

The Lancaster City Council district contained almost 600 Tree Preservation Orders and 38 Conservation Areas, affecting thousands of individual households and public and private sector organisations, all of which were required to make written notifications and applications to the Local Planning Authority when works were required to protected trees.  A whole array of applications was received by the Local Planning Authority each year without the financial burden Mrs. Clark had suggested. 

 

It was likely that there would be a planning condition attached to a formal consent for work to ensure that all work undertaken met current standards of best practice.  It would not state that work had to be undertaken by a professional.

 

Trees within Long Plantation were visible from the east along the A588 and from the west along a public footpath.  There was no requirement within the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 for all trees or woodland to be seen from the public domain.  The woodland was a significant landscape and arboriculture feature.

 

The Council had investigated a legitimate complaint, and had conducted its investigation in an open and transparent manner, and recorded its findings accurately.  Whilst Mrs. Clark may choose not to accept the Council’s findings and subsequent action of making and serving Tree Preservation Order No. 567 (2015), the claim of inaccuracies, untruths and malicious allegations was entirely unacceptable.

 

It remained the view of Lancaster City Council that Tree Preservation Order No. 567 (2015) be confirmed without modification, in the interest of amenity and wildlife value and as a precaution, given recent tree works, and in the absence of an agreed formal Woodland Management Plan for the woodland.

 

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

 

The Appellants then had the opportunity to reply.

 

(The Tree Protection Officer and the Appellants 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. 567 (2015)

 

(a)        Without modification;

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

 

(2)        Not to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 567 (2015).

 

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

 

“That Tree Preservation Order No. 567 (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 Appellants returned to the meeting room for the decision to be announced.)

 

Resolved:

 

That Tree Preservation Order No. 567 (2015) be confirmed without modification.