Agenda item

Purpose of Report

To propose a policy for the maintenance of Council owned trees.

Decision

That a policy for the care of City Council owned trees in public open spaces be adopted as detailed at Appendix A to the officer’s report, subject to minor amendments agreed with the Director of Communities and Environment.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

To decide not to adopt the policy.

Reasons for the Decision

The trees in the city had many owners. Private property, businesses, and both tiers of local authorities all had tree assets that were all vital to contributing to the tree canopy we enjoyed. This policy related only to trees growing on land owned by the City Council, or for which it had responsibility (such as parks, gardens, amenity grass areas, and common land).

The trees in the city were considered to be a major asset. Expanding knowledge about trees in recent years had highlighted their value to the wider environment in terms of biodiversity, but especially to the wider beneficial health contributions they could make for people living in an urban setting.

Managing trees in close proximity to development and high rates of footfall could be problematic in ways that were not encountered in a more natural setting, and not everyone was as accommodating as those who recognised and accepted the compromises often required.

It was therefore right that the Council took steps now to put in place a clear and transparent policy on how it would care for its tree assets, so as to make sure that resources were properly attributed, that everyone understood the standards that were to be applied, and that ultimately the tree asset was suitably maintained.

Growing trees in a city usually meant compromises at some level, for both residents who were affected, and the trees themselves. Managing these compromises was a task undertaken by the City Council’s arboricultural officers, who handled hundreds of complaints/enquiries each year.

As each complaint/enquiry was different they usually had to use their knowledge of trees to map a route to an outcome that was acceptable to a resident, whilst not adversely impacting the health of the tree. In some circumstances, where a request was excessive, and there was no basis for the extent of work being asked for, the officer may have to refuse a request in part or completely. The potential for conflict was therefore constant and relatively high.

The development of this policy was intended to both aid the public in being able to provide them with clear statements on the Council’s corporate position on tree care, but also to assist officers when making judgements.

The premise for the policy was intentionally simple.

To have in place a system that cared for City Council owned trees, so as to:

·       prioritise public safety.

·       protect property and infrastructure appropriately.

·       ensure that all trees were looked after appropriately, having reference to their species, age, condition, and setting.

It made clear the value of trees, the intention to work to recognised industry standards as a default, to abide by legally required practices, to replant where there were tree loses, the need to educate people that they were an organic asset that had a life cycle, and to promote the importance of trees in the city.The City Council would never remove more trees than it planted in any given year.

As trees were assets in the public domain, the Council had a legal duty to maintain them, in so far as reasonably practicable in a safe condition.

The policy, as detailed within Appendix A to the officer’s report was intended to aid the long-term health of Lincoln’s tree stocks, and thereby contribute to the provision of a healthy environment.