SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 6 NOVEMBER 2008
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
1.
FAKENHAM – Tree Preservation Order (Fakenham) 2008 35, 37, 39 and 41
Sculthorpe Road, Fakenham
To consider whether to confirm a Tree Preservation Order at the above site with a
modification to remove tree T1 from the Order.
Background
The Order was served in response to a planning application on land at the rear of 39
and 41 Sculthorpe Road to demolish a property and erect several houses in a small
close. It was clear from the plans that several trees on the site would be under threat
from the development.
After a survey by the Landscape Officer it was deemed sensible to include trees in
the gardens of 35 and 37 as these could also be under threat from future expansion
of any development.
Tree T1 was removed prior to the Order being served.
The Order was served on 1 July 2008.
Representations
Support for the Order
Fourteen letters were received from local residents in support of the Order and a
twenty seven signature petition to protect Sculthorpe Road from further development.
The letters of support were concerned with the impact on landscape and wildlife such
as owls, woodpeckers and bats which they feel are using the trees.
Objections to the Order
One letter of objection has been received from architects on behalf of their clients,
the owners of 37, 39 and 41 Sculthorpe Road and is based on a consultant’s report,
a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1.
The objector has excluded trees T4, T5, T6 and T7 from the report and assessment.
The first objection is that tree T1 does not exist, having been removed by the owner
prior to the Order being made.
The remaining trees T2, T3, T8, T9 and G1 were inspected and a full assessment
made of the landscape impact of the trees in relation to the TPO Regulations.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
6 November 2008
The Objector has stated that the principle of serving a Tree Preservation Order on
trees is fundamentally underpinned by the requirement that the trees have an
amenity value (Section 198 (1) of 1990 Town and Country Planning Act). This is
further defined by the Secretary of State and expressed in document “Tree
Preservation Orders – a Guide to the Law and Good Practice 2000” whereby TPO’s
should be ‘used to protect selected trees and woodlands if their removal would have
a significant impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public’.
Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 (1) state that if trees cannot be seen or just barely visible
from a public viewpoint, a TPO might only be justified in exceptional circumstances.
On this basis the serving of an Order requires any tree covered by the Order to be
able to demonstrate that it makes a significant contribution to the public amenity
value of an area.
The results of the consultant’s landscape assessment were that T2, T8 and the two
northern wings of G1 were barely visible from any public vantage points around the
site. In his opinion these trees would need to demonstrate other important attributes
such as historical or ecological amenity in order to justify inclusion in the Order. The
survey did not discover any other attributes that these trees demonstrated; indeed
they are very ordinary, relatively small trees of a very common species such as one
would find in rear gardens. Whilst some trees in the Order are clearly of high
amenity value, both for visual amenity and for additional ecological and historic (size)
factors, these trees (T2, T8 and two northern wings of G1) should be excluded from
the Order.
The issue of the condition of G1 was raised and the consultant considered that work
would be needed on these trees.
Appraisal
In response to the objections the following comments are made:
The removal of tree T1 demonstrates that the trees are under threat. It is proposed
that the Order be modified so that it does not include T1.
The consultant has used an extract from the document Tree Preservation Orders – A
Guide to the Law and Good Practice 2000. This document was updated in 2006
when responsibilities were transferred to the Department for Communities and Local
Government.
The new document states that the Act does not define “amenity” or the
circumstances in which it is in the interests of amenity to make a TPO. It does state
that a TPO should be used to protect trees if their removal would have a significant
impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public.
The Landscape Officer carried out a Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders
to assess the amenity value of the trees. This nationally recognised system scored
the trees as “definitely merits a TPO”. This result is supported by fourteen letters
from local people and clearly demonstrates that the trees have a significant impact
on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public.
The consultant appears not to have taken into account the future development and
visual amenity of the trees. When the semi-detached property 39 and 41 Sculthorpe
Road is demolished then all the trees included in the Order will be clearly visible from
Sculthorpe Road.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
6 November 2008
With regard to the condition of G1, the Order does not prevent works that promote
health and amenity to trees and the Officer would welcome any appropriate
management.
Human Rights Implications
It is considered that the serving of the Order may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The right to respect for private and family life, and
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual’s human rights, and the general
interest of the public, it is anticipated that the confirmation of this Order would be
proportionate, justified and in accordance with planning law
Main Issues for Consideration
1. Whether or not the Order was served correctly in accordance with the relevant
legislation and the Council’s adopted policy.
Officers are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed when serving the
Order.
2. Whether or not the Order has been served on trees of sufficient amenity value to
warrant a Preservation Order.
It is considered that the trees have a significant impact on the local environment and
its enjoyment by the public and this is supported by the fourteen letters of support for
the Order. The future development would mean that all the trees on the site would
be clearly visible by the public and therefore support their amenity. Under the
circumstances confirmation of the Order as modified is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:That the Order be confirmed with a modification to remove tree T1 from the
Order.
(Source: Simon Case, Extn 6267 - File Reference: TPO 2008 FAK)
Development Control Committee (West)
3
6 November 2008