REFERENCE NO. TPO/082/014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Site Address 1 Furze Hill, London Road, Shipston-on-Stour, Warwickshire Proposals Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order Case Officer David Wyatt/Ruth Rose Presenting Officer Richard Gardner Committee Date 15 March 2011 Type of Application Tree Preservation Order Owner Mrs S E Gardner Ward Member(s) Cllr R Cheney Cllr P Vial Parish Council Shipston Town Council Referral to Planning and Regulation Committee No Previous Committee No Description of Proposals Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order covering one individual tree Reason for Referral to APC Planning Constraints Key Issues Recommendation Objection to serving of the Order by the tree owner Tree Preservation Order Statutory duty Policy Confirmation of the Order as made
SUMMARY OF POLICY AND BACKGROUND PAPERS POLICY The Development Plan Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996 2011 (saved Policies) No policies considered to be relevant Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 (saved policies) EF.10 Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows Other Material Considerations Central Government Guidance Circular 36/78 Trees and Forestry Town & Country Planning Act 1990 sections 197-201 Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Trees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2008 DETR Tree Preservation Orders A Guide to the Law and Good Practice 2000 and Addendum May 2009 Forestry Commission policy 'A Strategy for England's Trees, Woods and Forests' Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6 : Right of a fair trial Article 8 : Right to respect for private and family life Article 1 of the First Protocol : Protection of Property STATUTORY DUTY Planning Acts have made provision for the securing of amenity, explicitly including the protection of trees. This provision is to be found in Section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and this allows the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to make a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) if it appears to be expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area. The Act places a duty on LPA s to secure the natural beauty and amenity of the land by making adequate provision for the preservation and planting of trees. The administration of the TPO process is therefore a vital part of the LPA s function. BACKGROUND In November 2010, the Local Planning Authority received a number of telephone calls from concerned Arboricultural Contractors about the proposed felling of a large; approximately 22m high coast redwood tree situated on a small grass circle approximately 6m from the front of the property, 1 Furze Hill, London Road, Shipston-on-Stour. A private drive leads from London Road into a small exclusive estate containing
seven detached properties which share the main driveway. Along this drive are several mature trees with a variety of under storey species making the area a densely covered and secluded location. Each of the properties supports mature trees, some of which are rare but not unusual including a mature cork oak, albeit diseased from a stem and root decaying fungus. The site known as Furze Hill was originally a small arboretum garden belonging to Furze Hill House situated on the left hand side of the drive and containing a selection of unusual trees, many of which still remain. Most of the properties within the site are of a low level design, not detracting from the arboretum character of the site. Initial concern regarding the possible loss of trees at this site was raised when well known and respected Arboricultural Contractors contacted the LPA to express their concerns regarding instructions from the home owner. This was for the removal of a large coast redwood tree, as it had become a nuisance to her property with alleged root damage to her drains and for the removal of other trees within her garden which she considered dangerous. One particular contractor contacted the LPA explaining that he did not wish to fell the coast redwood due to its location and its quality, the tree having no apparent visual defects present at the time of his inspection. Whilst he agreed that occasionally branches may break off, which is to be expected, this was not considered as justification to remove the tree. He therefore declined to provide the owner with any further information regarding her request. Following this telephone conversation, the LPA received a letter from the owner of 1 Furze Hill enquiring as to whether or not there were any Tree Preservation Orders on trees within her garden. Whilst her daughter had been informed the previous day by the Contact Centre that no Tree Preservation Orders existed to that date on her property, she asked for this to be put in writing to to protect me from being fined as I have to have three dangerous trees felled. This series of events alerted the Arboricultural Assistant to make an immediate site visit to assess the condition of the trees and to evaluate the situation before any felling works were undertaken. The Local Planning Authority was somewhat concerned about the possibility of felling a large and prominent tree without being given the opportunity to offer it some form of legal protection. After an extensive discussion with the home owner, it became apparent that she considered that the coast redwood tree was the cause for some minor blockages to her drains and wished for the tree to be removed so as to repair the drains. During this discussion, the Officer explained that trees rarely caused drains to break but can sometimes exploit the damage that could have been caused by any number of reasons such as shrinkage of the soil, natural settlement or vehicular compaction etc. During this discussion it became apparent that the owner intended to fell the trees as soon as reasonably practicable. Two other trees which were assessed on site were not considered to be worthy of Tree Preservation Order status due to their low amenity value and diseased condition one being the cork oak. However, the coast redwood was considered to be worthy of retention due to its high amenity value and subsequently, a Tree Preservation Order was served on this tree.
OBJECTIONS TO THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDER Following the serving of the TPO, objection to the Order was submitted by the owner s daughter on behalf of her mother. My mother has had a stroke and is registered chronically sick and disabled. She found the tree officers visit very upsetting particularly after not having a TPO on any of her trees, having one put on the very tree that is causing her the most anxiety. The tree officer said that he liked the American redwood tree and that it was an amenity. My mother agrees and thinks it is beautiful but in the wrong place as it is one of the world s largest trees- every foot in height it grows up it sends roots, not down, but three times the distance out. The following reasons are why my mother wants to have the American redwood tree felled: Furze Hill is a cul-de-sac of 6 properties built in the garden of Furze Hill House in the 1960 s. A deep wide ditch has been dug in what is left of the Furze Hill House garden presumably to keep out tree roots. My mother s bungalow is the first on the right of Furze Hill, to access the other properties residents and visitors must pass under the branches of the American redwood tree. Falling Branches Large branches have fallen off the redwood tree blocking access to the other properties. Neighbours have pulled the fallen branches out of the way on more than one occasion. There is a strong possibility of further branches falling on people- injuring or killing them. Snow has fallen and more is forecast- the weight on the branches could bring more branches down at anytime. Roots blocking drains The tree officer told my mother that the tree roots should be pruned. Please see attached sheet re: Redwood Tree Roots Pruning from the University of British Columbia Botanical Garden and Centre for Plant Research. The heave of the ground from the roots is obvious around the tree. There is a drain cover in the tarmac driveway close to the front door of my mother s bungalow which when lifted shows that the drain runs through the heave area. A neighbour has had trouble with blocked drains- she blamed my mother for the blockage. My mother had a tree felled some years ago- with your permission- this should be on your records.
Responsibility My mother cannot take responsibility for the American redwood tree any longer- the worry of it is making her ill. If the Tree Preservation Order cannot be lifted- my mother must have it in writing that you take full responsibility for any deaths, injuries and damage that it cause. It should be noted that the 28 day period for objection to the Tree Preservation Order was extended to allow for Mrs Gardner s daughter to provide further supporting information should she wish to do so. To date, 23.02.2011, no further supporting information has been lodged. SUPPORTING COMMENTS FOR THE SERVING OF THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDER Tree Preservation Orders are copied to adjoining land owners and these owners have the right to submit objections/comments on the Order. A neighbouring property owner supports the serving of the Order and states: Thank you for your letter regarding the Tree Preservation Order and I would confirm that we have no objection to such an order being made. Unfortunately there have already been too many trees cut down without regard to the general landscape of the area. ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES With reference to the objection relating to branch failure and wind firmness, the branch structure of these trees is brittle although the overall mechanical structure of the tree is highly durable, flexible and can withstand some extreme weather conditions such as, strong winds. The coast redwood is considered to be a species which is very strong, resilient and generally less likely to succumb to decay pathogens. With reference to the objection relating to alleged roots blocking drains, it was noted that there are two large conifers (8-10m in height) adjacent to the boundary fence between the property with the coast redwood and an adjacent property Sandhurst. These trees appear to be situated directly next to the shared drains and could also be a contributory factor to the alleged damage. There are several small undulations within the tarmac drive area that could be associated with root development radiating toward the two properties. The raised tarmac near to the boundary fence could be associated with the two smaller conifers as well as the coast redwood. The tarmac drive appears to be quite thin in its construction and this would allow movement from seasonal shrinkage and swelling of the subsoil to exacerbate the relatively minor surface damage. Having large mature trees close to built structures and surfaces, one would expect to see an element of visible damage albeit, slight. During the conversation with the owner, the Arboricultural Assistant suggested that if she was concerned that the drains were being damaged by the tree, the drain should be examined using a CCTV camera to ascertain the extent of any root damage and any obstructions within the drain. Unfortunately, the owner did not wish to pursue this suggestion.
During the site visit, the Officer discussed the options available to the owner should roots from the coast redwood be found within the drain e.g. the possibility of carefully pruning the roots away from the drain line to alleviate any pressures which may be caused by the tree roots. This option would require a considerable amount of disruption to the tarmac drive so as to expose the roots, enabling a suitable course of action to be found. However, this process could have a detrimental effect on the tree s system leading to possible dysfunction and associated dieback within the tree s canopy. As with all trees, any disruption within the tree rooting area will inevitably lead to the structural integrity of the tree being compromised. The root system of this particular species is known to be extensive with an abundance of fibrous roots close to the surface of the soil. The exact distance and radial spread of the root system of this tree would not be known without further investigation either by hand digging trial pits on the edge of the side garden or the use of an air spade which reveals the roots without actual damage to the fibrous root tips. The Officer also explained that, if the roots were exposed and it was possible to prune them, a flexible geo textile root barrier could also be installed to help divert the roots away from the drains and allowing the roots to establish new growth and further stability. These suggestions were made to the tree owner to allow her to consider alternatives to the felling of a healthy, dominant tree in the local landscape. A brief visual inspection of the front wall of the house did not reveal any signs of staircase cracking associated with subsidence of low rise buildings on clay soils, considering the distance of the tree to the property. Subsidence of buildings often results from soil shrinkage beneath the foundations and this is dependent on the shrinkability of the soil i.e. the clay content. It is not possible to comment on whether or not the dwelling would experience heave after the removal of this tree as the depth of the existing foundations and the shrinkability of the soil is not known. This would be for an engineer to advise following investigations on site. If the drains are found to be defective from tree roots (not necessarily from the coast redwood as other trees are within the vicinity), then consideration could be given to re-lining the drains so that they become a sealed unit. It is often defective clay pipes and joints which allow access to fine roots which then proliferate once inside the pipe work. The tree remains the responsibility of the tree owner. The Tree Preservation Order was served in order to safeguard this specimen and the Order allows the Local Planning Authority to ensure that it is managed in a sensitive and appropriate manner. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 places a duty on LPA s to secure the natural beauty and amenity of the land by making adequate provision for the preservation and planting of trees. As this tree was highlighted as being under threat from felling, it was the LPA s duty under the Act to secure its retention by a Tree Preservation Order. Failure to do so would have been contrary to the spirit of the Act and also contrary to District Local Plan Review Policy EF10.
RECOMMENDATION The objection duly made to the Order has been considered above; however I have found nothing of sufficient weight in the objection to warrant the non-confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order served on one coast redwood at 1 Furze Hill Road, Shipston-on-Stour. The tree on this land is considered to be of high amenity value and contributes to the landscape character of the area and is worthy of retention. The making of a Tree Preservation Order under section 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is delegated to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services and the Head of Corporate Policy. Confirmation of opposed Tree Preservation Orders is a matter for the Planning Committee. Planning Committee Members can either: - (i) (ii) (iii) Confirm the Order as made. Confirm the Order with modifications (change name of the TPO, amend location of tree on the plan etc). Refuse to confirm the Order (allowing the tree to be removed). I would recommend that Members decide to choose option (i) and CONFIRM the Order as made.