AGENDA ITEM NO.
REPORT TO:
Planning Committee
REPORT NO.
HCWD/02/12
DATE:
REPORTING OFFICER:
CONTACT OFFICER:
SUBJECT:
WARD:
3 January 2012
Head of Community Wellbeing &
Development
Moray Simpson (Ext. 2529)
Tree Preservation Order: WCBC 185,
(2011)
Holt
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
To consider written representations made in respect of Tree Preservation
Order No.185 (2011) and to recommend whether to confirm the TPO with or
without modifications, or to not confirm the Order.
INFORMATION
1
The Council placed a Tree Preservation Order under section 198 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on one ash tree on land at
Meadow View, Sutton Green, Bowling Bank on 10 August 2011. It was
considered expedient when serving the TPO to include a section 201
direction to ensure that the Order took immediate effect.
2
The tree is important due to it exhibiting features of a veteran/ ancient
tree, and it was considered appropriate to protect the tree with a
temporary Tree Preservation Order due to the tree’s veteran/ ancient
status in order to protect it from a threat of premature felling. After the
Order was made, a check of the Woodland Trust’s Ancient Tree Hunt
(ATH) website, revealed that the tree was listed (no. 28,030) on this
database, which confirms the tree’s historical and ecological
importance not only at a local level, but also at a national level. There
are only five other ash trees with a stem girth equal or greater in size to
this tree listed on the ATH database in the Wrexham borough. The tree
was listed on ATH database in 2009.
3
The tree is a very large girthed (4 metres girth) ash tree and displays
many of the features associated with ancient trees, such as trunk
hollowing, fungal associations and dead wood habitat. It has a
reasonable visual amenity value, with it being possible to see the tree
from the adjacent public highway. The Council’s acting Ecologist has
looked at the tree and stated that the tree has bat habitat potential.
Bats are a European protected species and if the tree were to contain a
bat roost any works to the tree would have to be undertaken under
licence from the Countryside Council for Wales.
Map showing the location of the tree protected by TPO WCBC 185,
2011.
Aerial view showing the location of the ash tree protected by TPO
WCBC 185, 2011.
Picture showing the TPO Ash tree and the objector’s stable block.
Picture showing the ash tree and the objector’s stable block. Damage
to the walls can be seen.
Pictures showing recently felled trees to the rear of the stable block. A
structural root can be seen growing towards the direction of the rear wall in
the picture on the left, where a crack in the block work is evident.
Pictures showing damage to the wall of the stable block and cracked concrete
apron referred to by the objector. The stump of one of the felled trees is in the
background.
Written Representations
4
One letter of objection to the Order has been received from the owner
of the tree, which is summarised below. Additionally several pictures
showing damage to the property were submitted with the objection
letter.
Summary of Representation
Objection Letter
A. Request that the TPO be
revoked so as to allow us to cut
down the tree, which we regard
as dangerous and which has
caused serious damage to
property.
LPA Response
Objection Letter
A. There is no question that the
damage to the property has
been caused by tree roots;
however trees to the rear of
the stable block (recently
felled) may be implicated in
the damage as well as the
TPO tree. No evidence has
been submitted which shows
which of the trees may have
caused the damage.
Additionally, in order to
remediate the damage, it is
obvious that the stable block
will have to be rebuilt. It may
well be the case that the
stable block can be rebuilt,
without the TPO tree having
to be felled. It would be
expedient to investigate this
option, before condemning
what is a very important
veteran tree. If it transpires
that the TPO tree has to be
felled, an application can be
made to this effect. With
regards to the tree being
dangerous, even though the
tree has a hollowing trunk and
associated decay, there are
no indications that the tree is
at risk of failure. Works to
reduce the crown appropriate
to the level of trunk hollowing
could be applied for under the
formal TPO application
process.
B. We cannot accept that the tree
has a “high amenity value and
enhances the area” since it is
only one among many in our
neighbour’s garden, our garden,
along our boundary and on
adjacent farmland.
B. The tree is important from a
historical and ecological
perspective. It may also
contain a bat roost and it is
included on the national
database of important
notable, veteran and ancient
trees. Plus there are only five
other ash trees recorded in
the Wrexham area that are
comparable in size (Stem
girth) to this tree, which
makes the tree even more
important. Thus for these
reasons, the tree does have
an amenity value. The
presence of the other local
trees does not diminish the
amenity value of this tree.
C. We have four other ash trees
bordering the garden, a small
orchard behind the house and
four ancient oak trees in our
meadows as well as substantial
hedges. In addition, we have
planted 11 assorted trees
around a wildlife pond in the
field, which we restored about
10 years ago in co-operation
with the Wrexham Council. The
Barn Owl Conservation Network
erected a nesting box in one of
the oak trees. All this, we feel, is
evidence of our interest in the
biodiversity of the area.
C. The objector’s interest in the
biodiversity of the locality is
not in doubt. However, the
LPA believes that the objector
has not fully investigated
whether the stable block can
be repaired and the tree be
retained. Because of the
tree’s importance, it would be
appropriate to exhaust all
avenues, before condemning
the tree. The Arboricultural
Officer visited the objector to
give advice, which was to
refer the matter to their
insurers and to submit an
application under the TPO.
No application to fell or
remove the tree has been
submitted and the objector’s
insurer has not been in
contact with the LPA over the
tree and the damage to the
stable block. Until this is
looked at by the insurer’s
professional engineers and
arboriculturist, it would
expedient for the TPO
protection to remain on the
tree.
D. We contend that the tree is
dangerous. The main trunk is
hollow in places and one dead
branch has already fallen off.
We do not wish to be
responsible for damage to our
neighbour’s cars which are
parked beneath the tree, nor for
possible injury to their young son
and friends whilst playing in the
garden.
D. As previously stated the tree
does not exhibit any signs
that indicate that it is at an
elevated risk of failure, even
though the trunk is hollowing.
Advice on appropriate crown
reduction works to bring the
risk of failure down to as low
as reasonably practicable
(ALARP) and how to apply for
these works can be given by
the Arboricultural Officer.
E. The roots of the tree are shallow
and have seriously damaged a
bank of four stables. We are
also aware that they are
spreading beneath our
neighbour’s driveway and
garden, and we do not want to
be responsible for damage to
their property.
E. See response “A”. With
regards to the neighbour’s
driveway this is constructed
from compacted aggregate,
thus the potential for damage
is extremely low. The tree is
far enough away from the
neighbour’s dwelling not to be
a problem.
F. The stables have been up for 30
years and in recent years we
have repaired cracks in the
walls. However the damage is
now extensive to walls, the
stable floors and the concrete
apron in front. We cannot keep
more than one horse in the
building as the structure of three
of the stables is in a dangerous
state. We feel that the tree must
come down so that we can carry
out repairs.
F. With the damage occurring
relatively recently this may
indicate that the cause of the
damage is related to the
younger more vigorous trees
(now felled) to the rear of the
stable block. It may well be
the case when investigated
properly that the TPO tree is
not the cause of the damage
or if it has contributed to the
damage, that the building can
be repaired and the TPO tree
be retained.
G. We have received an estimate
from a building firm who quote
more than £6,000 to carry out
repairs to make the building
safe. The estimate states
“sections of the wall are
dangerous and require attention
before they collapse or further
damage occurs. The building
and the concrete base in front
G. The estimate from the
building company is not a
report from a properly
qualified engineer. The
estimate does not state which
trees the damage can be
attributed to. The objector has
been advised to refer the
matter to their insurer, who
can commission a structural
are undermined by the roots”.
H. We have discussed the situation
with three neighbouring
households who all have no
objection to the tree being felled.
engineer’s report. Once this
has been undertaken and a
methodology for the
rebuilding of the stable block
is in place, a decision on
whether the TPO tree can be
retained can be made.
H. The only objection to the TPO
was received from the owner
of the tree. The immediate
neighbour was served with a
copy of the TPO.
Conclusion
5
I have considered the specific objection to this Tree Preservation Order
and conclude that the reasons suggested for not confirming the Order
do not outweigh the benefits that protection gives to the tree.
6
In conclusion, it would be expedient to confirm the TPO to prevent the
premature felling of this important veteran tree. This would enable the
objector’s insurers to submit evidence to the LPA on the causes of the
damage to the stable block and the best method of remediating this.
Only then can a rational decision be made on whether the tree should
be removed, which if this is the case, can be applied for through the
normal TPO application process. Note, no liability for damage caused
by the TPO tree can be attributed to the Local Authority until a TPO
application is refused, thus the confirmation of the TPO does not confer
a financial liability onto the LPA.
Corporate Objectives
7
The Tree Preservation Order helps achieve the Community Strategy’s
Strategic Priorities in that it contributes to making the County Borough
“a place that cares for the environment”. It also accords with the
Corporate Priority of promoting sustainable development.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Wrexham County Borough Council: Tree Preservation Order No.185
(2011) Land at Meadow View, Bowling Bank, Wrexham be confirmed without
modification.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Tree Preservation Order.
One letter of objection.