Agenda item

Lee George, Open Spaces Officer:

a.    presented a report in response to a request made by Planning Committee to set out the Council’s policy on tree replacements, and specifically to consider the planting of more trees, or larger replacement trees

b.    highlighted that as the benefits of trees were well known, the Council sought to find a way to balance the difficulties of growing trees in tight urban situations, and the inherent demands on space

c.    detailed within the report the defence of this policy, highlighting the reasons that larger trees would not bring proportionate benefits, and why to guarantee to plant more than one tree for each tree lost would be problematic

d.    referred to the Council’s tree planting policy for many years of planting ‘one for one’ for each tree removed as stated in the Council’s existing Open Space and Tree Management Policy which also gave priority to the planting of native species

e.    reported that in more recent years the Council had been asked to reconsider if ‘one for one’ was reasonable and if more trees or larger trees should be planted to offset the impacts of carbon footprint

f.     outlined the consideration of the options around whether we could plant more trees and larger trees together with the policy and challenges this presented in urban environments as detailed within paragraph 4 of the report

g.    reported on the Council’s practice to plant trees of species and sizes considered to be appropriate for the conditions, based on the judgement of the Arboricultural Officer, drawing on his knowledge and expertise

h.    referred to work on the introduction of a Tree Policy which would give specific mention to tree choice options and planting/aftercare arrangements with use of processes such as mycorrhizal fungi at planting stage to try to enhance survival rates

i.      summarised the reasons why it was not recommended that the Council moved to a blanket decision to plant larger trees and the real practical difficulties in terms of planting more than one tree each time a tree was lost

j.      requested members feedback on the content of the report.

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail, asked questions and received relevant responses as follows:

·         Question: Was it possible to identify suitable locations for additional tree planting schemes in the city, utilising appropriate bids to funding streams promoting reductions in carbon impact?

·         Response: Most tree planting was funded out of the Council’s own budget using local suppliers which offered best value for money.

·         Comment: The report implied there were not sufficient funds for larger trees. An increase in trees was good for the environment, therefore seeking external funding streams would be of benefit to the city.

·         Response: Additional funding was always sought as a matter of course as and when it became available. For example, recent collaboration work had taken place with Lincoln Community Trust to achieve funding for renovation work to Boultham Park. It was often the case that third parties were more successful in accessing funding streams and initiatives.

RESOLVED that the content of the report by Planning Committee be noted.