Agenda item

(Councillor Strengiel left the room during the consideration of this item having declared a predetermined interest in the matter to be decided. He took no part in the discussion or vote on the planning application)

The Planning Team Leader:

1. advised that permission was sought for demolition of trees/tree works; itemised within the Arboricultural Officer’s and Planning Officer’s report at the Blue Lagoon, a lake situated off Farrington Crescent to the south-west of Lincoln

2. reported that the site had been designated as an amenity space when the area was developed for housing in the 1970’s, having two planning conditions imposed requiring consent to be obtained from the City Council prior to carrying out any work to the remaining trees on the site and the retention of the largest lake the Blue Lagoon as an amenity area

3. highlighted that the lake was surrounded by narrow banks containing mostly self-set indigenous tree species and dense undergrowth, the tree cover remained very dense around the lake with some trees being suppressed

4. reported that local residents had reported issues at the site

5. reported that only the trees were protected by the planning condition

6. confirmed that the site had been in private ownership since the completion of the development, however, the land remained open for public benefit and was used frequently by local residents

7. reported that numerous properties backed onto the area and benefitted from the view it provided

8. reported that the lake seemed to have been used as a small-scale private fishing venue since the 1970’s

9. advised that the new owner received a grant in 2020 for improvement works and had started carrying out the work including pruning and felling of trees without planning consent

10. informed members that the site had been inspected by the Enforcement Officer and the Arboricultural Officer, who concluded that he would have been unlikely to agree the works as they were not up to British Standards, therefore, the owner was advised not to carry out further work, which was complied with immediately

11. highlighted that the owner wished to continue to manage the area for the benefit of the lake and to submit a request for further works to be carried out with the City Council’s consent; the landowner was very apologetic when notified a breach had occurred and explained that works had proceeded on account of a misunderstanding around whether the trees were protected

12. advised that although there was no formal consultation process for this type of application, local residents had submitted objections to the Enforcement Officer on the work carried out without consent, impact on wildlife and the use of the area as a fishing venue

13. confirmed that the planning application before Committee included the Arboricultural Officer’s assessment of the site and requested further proposed works to trees and details of work already completed in breach of previous planning consent

14. advised that officers were of the view that not all of the proposed works were appropriate or necessary, and also did not propose that retrospective approval be given to the unauthorised work as it was not likely it would have received consent in its original format

15. concluded that:

The Committee discussed the content of the report in further detail.

The Arboricultural Officer/Enforcement Officer responded to questions from members in relation to the planning application as follows:

·         Question: Was the Arboricultural Officer happy with the officer recommendation?

·         Response: Yes the report he had submitted was in the best interest of the trees on site’

·         Question: The applicant wasn’t being asked to replace those trees felled without permission?

·         Response: It was no benefit to request the applicant to request retrospective planning permission. The Management Plan would allow all works to be monitored, with any additional works requiring Council consent.

·         Question: Would there be any benefit from the trees being replaced?

·         Response: Management of the site had been restricted over the last 10-20 years. A lot of the trees removed may be of benefit to the site in terms of biodiversity and the overall appearance of the area. Natural regeneration was of ecological benefit.

The Chair thanked local residents for highlighting the issues. This was a valuable amenity space. It was unfortunate that unauthorised tree work had taken place and had not been suitably dealt with, however, he believed officers now held a ‘trigger’ response over any future works.

RESOLVED that the application be split:

That partial consent be granted to carry out certain works as detailed in the extract below from the City Council's tree report and that consent be refused for those works identified by the City Council's Arboricultural officer as not being appropriate.

Additional works

T018 Goat Willow- Coppice for highway clearance       approve

Retrospective works

Various tree species- Silver Birch, Willow. - Fell (Removing no more than 5m3 of timber) no replacements required

Standard Conditions

01)      The approved works must be carried out within two years of the date of this letter, any additional works, repeat works or works beyond this date will require a new application. All works must comply with British Standard BS3998:2010 Tree work - Recommendations.