Agenda item

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No 174

Minutes:

Simon Cousins, Planning Team Leader:

 

  1. advised members of the reasons why a temporary tree preservation order made by the Assistant Director for Planning under delegated powers should be confirmed at the following site:

 

  • Tree Preservation Order 174: Two areas of identified woodland made up of mixed trees consisting mainly of Betula pendula (silver birch), Prunus avium (sweet cherry), quercus robur (english oak), fraxinus excelsior (European ash), acer campestre (field maple) and alnus glutinosa (black alder).

 

  1. provided details of the individual trees to be covered by the order and the contribution they made to the area

 

  1. reported that the making of any Tree Preservation Order was likely to result in further demands on staff time to deal with any applications submitted for consent to carry out tree work and to provide advice and assistance to owners and others regarding protected trees, however, this was contained within existing staffing resources

 

  1. highlighted that the making of Tree Preservation Orders reduced the risk of losing important trees, groups of trees and woodlands and further allowed the Council to protect trees that contributed to local environment quality

 

  1. advised that it was proposed to modify the boundary of the temporary TPO as detailed within the officer’s report to take account of policy decisions whilst also retaining significant areas of woodland

 

  1. reported that the initial 6 months of protection for these trees would come to an end for the Tree Preservation Order on 2 May 2023

 

  1. detailed the background to the consideration of this matter as follows:

 

  • The reason for making a Tree Preservation Order on this site was a result of a request from local residents who wanted to ensure no loss of trees from any future development on the site.
  • The Arboricultural Officer had carried out a site visit and identified the trees and areas of woodland to be suitable for protection under a Tree Preservation Order stating that the trees had a significant amenity value, forming a prominent feature of the area and their removal would have a harmful effect on the appearance and amenity of the area.
  • Following a four-week consultation period with local residents a copy of the Tree Preservation Order was sent to the registered land-owners.
  • Representations were received from the landowners, from their partners in a potential development of the site and from residents adjacent to the site.
  • The site was still the subject of restoration conditions from its time as a quarry which meant that, the County Council was the planning authority.
  • The planning application itself was therefore a matter for Lincolnshire County Council determination.
  • The detailed survey of the site was reviewed as part of the consultation process and this also took account of the application for outline planning permission that the applicants had made to Lincolnshire County Council for the erection of houses within the quarry.
  • This application, together with the imminent allocation of the site for housing was detailed in the newly prepared Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.
  • The application proposed to use the material located within the bunds on the east and west sides of the quarry as fill prior to housebuilding.
  • Trees had been planted on and beyond bunds created from material taken from the quarry in the first instance to protect local residents from quarrying activity.
  • Trees were planted on and beyond  these bunds at the same time however, these trees had since grown unmanaged.
  • The Local Plan proposed at the draft stage that the bunds around the quarry were retained to protect the amenities of local residents when the new houses were developed. Since the Examination in Public for the Local Plan, the wording of the policy had been considered further by the Inspector who led the Examination in Public with comments as follows:

 

Land at Cathedral Quarry, Riseholme Road (COL/MIN/005) includes requirements to retain the bunds around the site and the enhancement of biodiversity. However, keeping the bunds is not the only way of achieving the necessary separation between existing and proposed new housing or of enhancing biodiversity on the site. The bunds could also be reused to help fill the former quarry and a new landscaping scheme could help ensure an overall net gain in biodiversity, potentially including any existing wildlife corridors and protected trees. To ensure that the allocation is effective and justified, both requirements are therefore modified by MM47.

 

·         This statement would form the basis of the wording of a revision to the Local Plan

 

  1. advised that confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order here would ensure that the tree could not be removed or worked on without the express permission of the Council which would be considered detrimental to visual amenity and as such the protection of the tree would contribute to one of the Councils priorities of enhancing our remarkable place.

 

Councillor J Wells addressed Planning Committee as Ward Advocate on behalf of local residents, covering the following main points:

 

·         He represented Minster Ward as Ward Councillor.

·         He had been approached by local residents whose gardens backed on to the woodland.

·         Planning Committee members did not have a say on the planning application going forward which was to be determined by Lincolnshire County Council.

·         The Local Plan ring-fenced the area for housing.

·         The modifications to the Tree Preservation Order detailed at Appendix 2 of the officer’s report did not inhibit plans for houses on the site.

·         The proposed modifications to the existing temporary Tree Preservation Order as permanent pleased residents as it was reduced in size.

·         The revisions also protected the woodland and biodiversity.

·         It was crucial that residents voices who came to him for support were heard.

·         It was hoped the modifications to the Tree Preservation Order would be approved.

 

Susan Nock, local resident, addressed Planning Committee in support of the modified Tree Preservation Order, covering the following main points:

 

·         She had lived in Riseholme Road for 30 years, her house backed up to the woodland area.

·         She herself put forward the application for a Tree Preservation Order at the site the previous year.

·         She was pleased the Planning Authority wanted it to be made permanent.

·         Objections had been received from Lindum Construction Group, having submitted an application to develop the site, and Lincoln Cathedral, owner of the quarry.

·         The objection was based on incorrect information and was a misrepresentation. The Tree Preservation Order was not premature as the planning application submitted was for Outline permission only.

·         The objection suggested the land in question was not woodland. However, the objector’s own tree report included within their planning submission identified it as woodland.

·         The objection questioned whether the trees had any great amenity value, being of limited quality. However, 27 of the categories were classified as moderate quality and only 6 unclassified.

·         The planning process was robust. Planning decisions since 1995 had protected the bund and its associated woodland.

·         The Tree Preservation Order ensured that protection would continue for the benefit of the local population, wildlife and the environment.

·         She was surprised and shocked by the objection, facts needed to be checked and residents views listened to here.

 

Members considered the content of the report in further detail.

 

The following comments emerged from discussions held:

 

·         Who would be responsible for the maintenance of the trees?

·         It was pleasing to see local residents coming forward in a legitimate way to protect their local environment.

·         Members were also pleased that intelligent conversations between residents and the Planning Authority had resulted in a compromise solution being reached.

·         The health of the trees would be enhanced, following discussions with any potential developer.

·         The potential developer had suggested a reduced Tree Preservation Order, which was perhaps the reason why they had chosen not to attend to speak this evening.

 

The Arboricultural Officer offered the following points of clarification:

 

·         He had visited the site.

·         Many of the trees included within the Tree Preservation Order were on level ground and unlikely to suffer from destabilisation of root systems.

·         The trees had grown together over a period of years and had much greater value as a collective group.

 

Simon Cousins, Planning Team Leader added the following points of clarification:

 

·         Any damage to the roots of the trees would be protected by the Tree Preservation Order.

·         Most of the trees were on private land and as such their maintenance was the responsibility of the individual that owned the land, not the Council.

·         Many of the trees were quite young and would be covered by a landscaping scheme as determined by the Planning Authority in the event that future planning permission be granted for the site.

 

Members asked whether the trees would be pruned to enhance their growth.

 

The Arboricultural Officer responded that any development would need to be linked to wildlife areas. Pruning to the collective canopies at the current time would be detrimental to their health.

 

RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 174 be confirmed with the suggested modifications as detailed at Appendix 2 of the officers report and that delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to carry out the requisite procedures for confirmation.

Supporting documents: