MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE LICENSING AND APPEALS (TREES) COMMITTEE HELD IN THE VILLAGE HALL LAVENHAM ON THURSDAY 9 JULY 2009.
Mr L H Young was unable to be present. Mr R C Smith, reserve Member, attended in his place.
Prior to the meeting of the Committee, Members met to view the Group of Scots Pine trees (G1) covered by Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. BT 414, to which an objection had been received from an adjacent landowner. Members were aware that an application to fell one of the trees within G1 had prompted the serving of the TPO, and they looked at this particular tree from the garden of the objector (at 10 The Glebe) in addition to viewing it from the Cemetery in the context of the Group.
The following were present for the site visit together with the Members of the Committee:-
Mr D Pizzey (Arboricultural Officer)
Mrs K Saward (Solicitor to the Council)
Mrs L Sheppard (Senior Democratic Services Officer)
Mr Pizzey responded to Members’ questions on site relating to the physical condition and situation of the trees covered by G1. Members noted the objector’s comment about the variety, condition and position of trees on the various boundaries of the site along with the condition of the trees covered by G1. They further noted the trees subject to TPO BT166 referred to in the letter of objection. In response to a question, Mr Pizzey confirmed that the trees in G1 would not be adversely affected by the presence of ivy on them.
Following the site visit the Committee met to consider the objection to Tree Preservation Order No BT 414, when they had before them the following papers:–
1. Circulated with the agenda for the meeting
a. Copy of Tree Preservation Order No. BT 414.
b. Copy of objection letter and attachment from Mr C Rockall dated 14 April 2009.
c. Copy of application to fell tree and related correspondence
- The Council’s ‘Procedure for Hearing and Determining Objections to Tree Preservation Orders’
2. Circulated prior to the commencement of the meeting
The Chairman of the Committee introduced the Members and Officers, together with Mr B Riley, who attended as an observer. Mrs L Girling, Chairman of Lavenham Parish Council, was present at the meeting as a member of the public.
Members were aware that following their consideration of Paper J52 and the objection, the Committee would be asked to make its decision in the form of a resolution to determine the objection in one of the following ways, as stated in item 9 of the Council’s Procedure:-
-
The order is confirmed in its original form
-
The order is not confirmed
-
The order is confirmed subject to modification(s)
Prior to opening the discussion, the Chairman made reference to the third paragraph of Appendix d. and asked Mrs Girling to clarify whether the Parish Council had in fact withdrawn its application to fell the tree adjacent to the rear garden of 10 The Glebe. Following Mrs Girling’s response, together with information provided by Mr Pizzey, the Solicitor to the Council confirmed that the application to fell had not formally been withdrawn and the position therefore remained as stated in the Parish Clerk’s email of 14 March 2009 which was included in Appendix c. to Paper J52.
All Members of the Committee then asked questions relating to the matters set out below, to which Mr Pizzey responded as indicated:-
-
The estimated life of the trees covered by BT 414?
Minimum of 10 years for some, 20-30 years for others.
-
Effect of hawthorn tree on the Scots Pine subject of the objection?
The two trees have grown side by side for a period of years with no ill effects on either.
-
Are there signs of the tree in question being unsafe?
No, and in any event a TPO does not prevent appropriate work being carried out to remove dead wood, small amounts of which would occur naturally with a tree of this age.
-
Confirmation of the position on the replacement of trees covered by TPOs. There is a legal requirement to replace. However, the two trees felled recently (ie before TPO No BT 414 was in place) do not have to be replaced, although the landowner could choose to do so. The position was that at the time of felling, it was thought an existing TPO covered the two trees but it was subsequently established that no such TPO was in place.
At this point in the meeting, the Chairman reminded Members of the Human Rights implications to be taken into account in this instance, as referred to in paragraph 6 of Paper J52.
The Solicitor to the Council put to Mr Pizzey the following points in order to clarify the Officer comments on the issues raised by the objector, which were responded to as indicated:-
-
Why are the trees subject of TPO No BT 414 covered as a Group (G1)?
The trees stand along a single boundary and have a shared value as a group.
-
How do you determine which trees should be included in a group?
In accordance with the criteria for TPO designations. In the case of G1 specifically, the proximity of the trees to each other and because they read as a linear feature rather than individual, ‘dotted’ specimens.
-
With reference to amenity value referred to in paragraph 5.3 of Paper J52 – what considerations were taken into account to establish the amenity, form and vitality of the trees? In particular, was regard had to the condition or form of individual trees and what conclusions were drawn?
All the trees on this boundary were looked at and assessed individually, including the health and safety aspects in relation to the age and type of tree. Two poorer specimens were not included.
-
Why was the 1989 TPO served?
This was because of the development of The Glebe and represented the standard practice of serving a TPO in response to the threat and pressure of development.
-
Can you explain what is meant by the ‘cohesive and collective value of the trees’?
Because the trees are side by side in a line, their value is considerably higher collectively than individually. They also give a sense of enclosure in a public setting/place.
-
What would be the impact on the scoring of any tree which had an estimated life of less than 10 years?
There are two poorer specimens along the boundary where this could be the case: as such they have not been included within G1 in the TPO.
-
Has the condition and suitability rating of 3 (fair) been arrived at on a collective assessment?
Yes – one of the Group could be a 5 but others are not as good individually so an average is shown for the Group.
-
How did you conclude that the importance of the cohesion aspect warranted a 4 rating?
This relates to the collective value of the belt of trees as a linear feature, the importance of which should not be diminished.
-
Please explain the reasons for the ‘immediate threat’ score of 5. If Lavenham Parish Council had withdrawn the application to fell, how would it affect the scoring?
The score reflects the application by the Parish Council to fell one of the trees proposed for protection. If there had been no application to fell, the score would still have been within the ‘defensible’ range and therefore could have been served for precautionary reasons because the trees are adjacent to domestic properties, the ownership of which is subject to change at any time. In addition, there have been previous applications to remove trees on this boundary, which increases the threat level to ‘foreseeable.’
In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr Pizzey stated his qualifications in relation to his current position as the Council’s Arboricultural Officer.
Further questions were then put to Mr Pizzey as follows:-
-
Please confirm that, if Members were minded to confirm the Order, you would be happy for small pieces of dead wood to be removed as necessary. Absolutely, and the TPO allows for such work.
-
Bearing in mind that the tree subject of the objection could reach the objector’s house were it to topple in that direction, is it likely that there would be considerable warning signs of its failing condition, and are there currently any such signs?
Early warning of severe failure of the tree would be apparent from dieback of the crown together with other signs, none of which are present.
-
Are there any other points from what you have heard that you think require clarification?
The placing of a TPO on these large and prominent trees will not be unduly restrictive to their good management in a public area.
- In your professional capacity – is there a situation in which you would check your scoring with another professional?
Only where the circumstances were unclear or where further testing was clearly required. On this occasion I was satisfied that there were no obvious indications requiring a second opinion.
Having established that there were no further questions, the Members then proceeded to determine the objection having regard to:-
-
the points made by the objector
-
the contents of Paper J52
-
the answers to the questions put to Mr Pizzey
Members were aware of the Human Rights implications to be taken into account in this instance, as referred to in paragraph 6 of Paper J52, and reiterated by the Chairman. In this case they accepted the conclusion in paragraph 6.3 of the report, that the protection of the trees should prevail.
The Chairman made reference to all relevant tests having been applied, and asked the Committee to indicate its decision. All Members accepted that it was in the interests of amenity to confirm the Order for the reasons (below), as set out in Paper J52 and amplified by the answers given during the meeting. Members voted unanimously in favour of confirming the Order in its original form in accordance with the Head of Contract and Asset Management’s recommendation in paragraph 2.1 of the report:-
-
The trees included in TPO No BT 414 as G1 comprise important amenity specimens that appear of generally good form and vitality for trees of this type. They provide screening, shelter and a sense of enclosure for the Cemetery, and afford good visual amenity to local residents and visitors to the area. Other nearby trees of a similar nature already benefit from formal protection. The trees in G1 have recently been identified as unprotected, contrary to what has seemingly long been considered to be the case. Although all the trees on the boundaries of the Cemetery are in the ownership of a public body, ie the Parish Council, trees on sections of the Cemetery boundary not adjacent to residential property are currently not seen as being in need of the same level of protection as those alongside existing development. TPO No BT 414 extends the partial protection currently enjoyed by the boundary of the Cemetery and seen in this context, the objector’s point that it is illogical and unnecessary to protect a small section of it now was not accepted.
-
There are no signs to indicate that the Scots Pine tree subject of the application to fell which prompted the serving of TPO No BT 414, is unsafe or unstable at the present time. This tree is considered to be under threat because it stands adjacent to residential property together with other Scots Pine trees, various of which have been the subject of previous applications to fell. These trees are therefore in need of statutory protection but this would not prevent any appropriate management works or additional planting from being undertaken. This would include the removal of dead wood, small amounts of which are a natural occurrence, and which were of concern to the objector. The Committee accepted the Officer view that confirming the TPO would prevent the carrying out of unnecessary felling and works likely to compromise the health and safety of the trees. The objector’s view that a TPO would be counter-productive to maintaining the overall integrity of the boundary in an appropriate manner and securing a managed transition to a high amenity new boundary was therefore not accepted.
-
Although the other trees identified in G1 are not subject of an application to fell at this time and therefore not considered to be under a current threat, they should be included in G1 because the overall group is important for its cohesion and collective value, and trees within the group have been under threat in the past from applications to fell. Pressure of development was also identified as being relevant to trees adjacent to residential property.
-
The individual assessments carried out on the trees in G1 show that they meet the established criteria for protection, and satisfy the relevant tests both individually and as a valuable and cohesive group in a public setting. Members were satisfied from the responses given by the Council’s Arboricultural Officer during the course of the Committee meeting that the scores were merited and that it was in the interests of amenity for the TPO to be confirmed. The TPO criteria is applied to any relevant trees, which in G1 happen to be Scots Pines, but the objector’s inference that they had been identified as warranting special protection was not accepted, nor were his comments relating to the way in which the Tree Evaluation method was carried out by the Officer or the effect of ivy on host trees.
RESOLVED
That Tree Preservation Order No BT 414 be confirmed without modification.
Note – the meeting commenced at 11.30am.
The business of the meeting was concluded at 12 noon.