Agenda item

Simon Cousins, Planning Team Leader:

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

2. provided details of the individual tree to be covered by the order and the contribution it made to the area

3. 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

4. reported that the initial 6 months of protection for this tree would come to an end for the Tree Preservation Order on 16 February 2024

5. confirmed that the reason for making a Tree Preservation Order on this site was as a result of an application from the owners of 11 Cross O’Cliff Hill to fell the tree

6. reported that the property was located within a Conservation Area which was the reason why consent was required

7. reported that the Arboricultural Officer’s site visit identified the tree to be suitable for protection under a Tree Preservation Order, having a high amenity value, and that its removal would have a harmful effect on the aesthetic appearance of the area

8. advised that consultation had been carried out with the landowner as well as with neighbouring properties who may have an interest in this matter, resulting in 3 objections received from:

9. added that a letter of support had been received from:

10. reported that the primary concerns raised within the 3 letters of objection related to alleged damage to an adjacent boundary wall, nearby drains, driveways and guttering and concerns about the general health of the tree following limb breakages

11. advised that following an external inspection of the tree on site, our Arboricultural Officer found no current or clear signs of dieback or failure and as such requested the temporary Tree Preservation Order to allow for further analysis of the health and integrity of the tree

12. referred to photographs submitted with the letters of objection as detailed within the appendices to the officers report which did show cracks to the adjacent boundary wall, however despite a request, no evidence of the alleged drainage damage, nor a PICUS tomograph to assess the integrity of the tree had been provided by the landowner, apparently due to the cost involved

13. highlighted that the landowner did not disagree that the tree had a significant positive impact on the visual amenity of the area, however the request to fell the tree was made to mitigate alleged damage being done to neighbouring properties

14. advised that confirmation of Tree Preservation Order 178 would ensure that the tree could not be removed or worked on without the expressed 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.

Members asked:

·         For reassurance that the issue of obstruction to the public highway in high winds as mentioned by the objector at Appendix 2 of the officer’s report had been dealt with.

·         For clarification of the meaning of a PICUS tomograph procedure on the tree.

·         Whether with permission, remedial work could be carried out on the tree by the owners of the land if subjected to a Tree Preservation Order, and who was responsible for picking up the costs involved, bearing in mind the owner had stated that he would hold the council liable for any damages should the tree not be removed.

·         Whether there was any evidence of water leaks being caused by the tree.

One member highlighted that a site visit of the tree in question had shown that although the neighbours wall at No 9 was cracked, this didn’t seem to be attributed to the tree in question.

The Planning Team Leader offered the following points of clarification to members:

·         Visibility from the existing driveway was considered to be satisfactory and unobstructed. A wide footpath provided public access across the driveway beyond.

·         Any works required to the tree resulting from overgrown branches causing an obstruction to traffic would be carried out by the Highway Authority, although it would expect the owner of the land to pay.

·         In terms of liability for damage caused by the tree, the Planning Authority had sought information regarding the source of the damage being caused, however the owner of the property had failed to provide this. Should the information be supplied to us in the future, the liability element could be revisited with appropriate evidence.

·         There was the potential for the City of Lincoln Council to take responsibility for a tree specimen the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, although this was an arguable case based on individual merits.

·         No evidence had been put forward to substantiate water leaks being caused by the tree.

Lee George, Open Spaces Officer described a tree PICUS as a scan of a cross section of the tree trunk to establish the health of the tree. It was an expensive but valuable way to test the status of the tree.

RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 178 be confirmed without modification and that delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to carry out the requisite procedures for confirmation.