tree works application 0010 - East Lindsey District Council

EAST LINDSEY DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORT
COMMITTEE:
PLANNING COMMITTEE
DATE:
20TH FEBRUARY 2014
SUBJECT:
TREE WORKS APPLICATION 0010/14/TPA:
WOODLAND DRIVE, WOODHALL SPA
PORTFOLIO HOLDER
ENVIRONMENT
Ward(s) affected:
WOODHALL SPA
Brief description of report content and the decision being asked for:
Summary:
This report asks committee to determine an application to carry out work to
trees protected by the Woodhall Spa Tree Preservation Order of 2011
(215.21). The application proposes felling two trees, due to concerns over
safety.
Recommendations:
That consent is granted, subject to a condition requiring replacement planting,
details of which to be delegated to the Neighbourhoods Manager
This report has been prepared by:
Robert Taylor - Tel: 01507 601111 ext.3533
e-mail: [email protected]
This report was prepared after consultation with:
Woodhall Spa Parish Council, Parish Tree Wardens (x2) and publicised on the
Council’s website.
This report is number 1 in a series of 1.
This report has been signed off by:
Victoria Burgess, Neighbourhoods Manager
The following policies form a context to this report:
‘Trees – East Lindsey’ Part One (ELDC Tree Policy document) and Part Two
(ELDC Tree Management Guidelines)
This report is not a key decision included in the Forward Plan.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(papers relied on to write the report which are published but do not contain
exempt information)
1.
2.
3.
Application Case: EZY/0010/14/TPA
TPO File: D/T/2/215.21 & EZY/215.21/TPO
Mattheck, C., 2007. Updated Field Guide for Visual Tree Assessment.
Karlsruhe: Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe
OTHER HELPFUL PAPERS
(papers which the report author considers might be helpful – this might include
published material)
1.
2.
3.
4.
D.E.T.R., 2000. Tree Preservation Orders: A guide to the Law and Good
Practice. London: HMSO.
Helliwell, D.R., 2008. Visual Amenity Valuation of Trees and Woodlands –
The Helliwell System. Romsey: Arboricultural Association.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990. London: HMSO
Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations
2012. London: HMSO.
Local Government (Access to Information Act) 1985
Is the report Exempt – No
Please contact the person who has written this report or Robert Taylor
Tel. No. 01507 601111 ext 3533
e-mail: [email protected], if you want more information about
this report or the background papers.
1.0.
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
This report asks the committee to determine an application to carry out
work to two trees on the highway verge outside no.8 Woodland Drive,
Woodhall Spa. These trees are part of the avenue of trees lining
Woodland Drive and are protected as part of this avenue by group G.2
of the Woodhall Spa Tree Preservation Order of 2011 (215.21). The
trees to the north of Woodland Drive are within private gardens, while
those to the south are primarily in the highway verge. All of the trees
are Pine in late maturity.
1.2.
The trees subject of this application (trees 2 and 3) are mature Scots
Pine within the ownership of Lincolnshire County Council, who have
applied to remove them due to concerns about their safety, following
the recent failure of an adjacent tree.
2.0.
BACKGROUND
2.1.
In the early hours of 24th December 2013 a mature Scots Pine tree
(marked with an ‘X’ on the attached photos and plan) uprooted, fell
due North, over the road and across the driveway of no.5 Woodland
Drive. Following this failure the County Council inspected the two
adjacent highway trees to the south-west (trees 2 and 3) and
recommended their removal on safety grounds.
3.0.
SUBJECT INFORMATION AND ISSUES/FACTS AND FIGURES
3.1.
Both trees subject of this application are mature Scots Pine. Tree 2 is a
tree of approximately 20 metres(m) height and has a single clear stem
to 4m above ground level, whereupon it divides into 2 stems at a
forked union. The main crown of the tree starts at around 10m above
ground level, with a maximum crownspread of 11m.
3.2.
Tree 3 is approximately 18m height and has a single clear stem to
where the main crown forms at approximately 12m above ground level,
with a crownspread of 7m. This tree is slightly subordinated to tree 2,
given tree 2’s close proximity (4 metres) and greater overall size.
3.3.
The avenue of pines is a remnant of the former woodland on which
Woodland Drive was built. Trees are more likely to fail in a storm event
if a change in their surroundings has resulted in increased exposure to
wind. These particular trees were suitable for retention as part of the
development despite removal of many neighbouring trees because they
lined an existing forest track (now Woodland Drive), and so were
already subject to significant wind exposure.
3.4.
The recent loss of the Pine to the north-east of tree 2 has however
exposed this tree to winds from directions it hasn’t previously
experienced. If tree 2 was a good specimen this might still be judged to
be a tolerable increase in risk, but this tree also has an inherent
structural weakness at the forked union where the main stem divides
into two, and for this reason the County Council considers it necessary
to remove the tree.
3.5.
If removal of tree 2 is allowed then the domino effect unfortunately
then comes into play, with this prompting removal of tree 3, which is
subordinate to it and which would be left rather exposed. After tree 3
there is a gap in tree cover of approximately 10 metres to a large Pine
of decent structure, so LCC haven’t proposed work to any further trees.
3.6.
Public Amenity Value: When assessing trees and groups for their
amenity, preference should primarily be given to the largest and
densest tree that the available site will conveniently contain. However,
the suitability, health, age and character of the tree or tree group are
also taken into consideration. This evaluation is summarised in “The
Helliwell System” of scoring the amenity value of trees.
3.7.
The Council’s scoring system is based on The Helliwell System and
gives a score out of 10, with a score of 3 currently adopted as normally
being the minimum score needed to consider a tree, group, woodland
or area suitable for protection.
3.8.
While trees 2 and 3 individually score 1 on the scale, tree group G.2 as
a whole (of which these trees are a part) scores 6 on the scale,
indicating that it’s has high public amenity value and is worthy of
continued protection. This demonstrates the importance of planting
suitable replacements for any trees within the group that are removed,
to secure retention of the overall landscape feature.
4.0.
SUPPLEMENTARY FACTS
4.1.
At the time of writing the report no consultation comments had been
received. Any received subsequently will be presented to the meeting
via the supplementary agenda.
5.0.
COUNCILLOR COMMENTS – If no comments are received from
one or more of the Ward Members consulted state which
Councillor(s) did not respond
5.1.
N/A
6.0.
DISCUSSION / CONSIDERATION – ISSUES / CONCLUSION –
including reasons for recommendation(s)
6.1.
Tree 2 is a tree of moderate quality with a structural weakness that,
combined with the recent loss of an adjacent tree, is considered to
pose significant risk of future failure. It is therefore recommended that
the application to remove both trees is granted, subject to a condition
requiring replacement planting.
7.0.
OTHER OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION (drawn from previous
sections)
7.1.
The committee may decide to refuse consent for the work. If this is the
decision reached, the applicant will be notified of the decision and the
reason(s) for it, as well as their right to appeal to the Planning
Inspectorate. For a period of 12 months following refusal the Council
may be liable to pay compensation for any loss or damage shown to
result from the Council’s decision.
8.0.
PERFORMANCE MONITORING
Subject
Deadline
8.1.
APPLICATION 0010/14/TPA
9.0.
RISK ASSESSMENT
9.1.
N/A
10.0.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS/IMPLICATIONS. PLEASE ALSO
INCLUDE NAME OF OFFICER RESPONDING
10.1.
None
11.0.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/IMPLICATIONS. PLEASE ALSO
INCLUDE NAME OF OFFICER RESPONDING
11.1.
None
12.0.
INCLUDE IF APPROPRIATE AND ONLY BRIEF EXPLANATION OF
ISSUE. PLEASE ALSO INCLUDE NAME OF OFFICER RESPONDING
12.1.
Environmental issues -
12.2.
Human Resources -
12.3.
Section 17 -
12.4.
FOI/Human Rights/Data Protection -
12.5.
Equality and Diversity -
13.0.
HOW DO THE ACTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN
THIS REPORT DELIVER OUR COMMUNITY AND CORPORATE
STRATEGIES?
13.1.
Community Strategy
•
13.2.
5/2/14
Responsible Officer
R TAYLOR
The district to be a valued and attractive place to live, work and play
Corporate Strategy
•
•
•
Developing and nurturing the character and viability of our towns,
villages and rural areas
A high quality and clean local environment
Built and natural environments are enjoyed and valued by residents
and visitors

Download Report