MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
6 June 2013
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CHANGE, PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
REFERENCE: Tree Preservation Order No. 11 of 2012 Date made: 20/12/12
TITLE: Tree at 26 Sittingbourne Road, Maidstone
CASE OFFICER: Nick Gallavin
Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No.11 of 2012 was made under section Regulation 4 of The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 to protect one Pine tree. One objection to the order has been received and the Planning Committee is, therefore, required to consider this before deciding whether the Order should be confirmed.
The recommendation on whether to confirm this TPO is being reported to Committee for decision because:
- One objection has been received
POLICIES
Maidstone Borough Council, Landscape Character Assessment published 2012 & Landscape Guidelines, 2000
Government Policy: ODPM, ‘Tree Preservation Orders: A Guide to the Law and Good Practice’
National Planning Policy Framework
BACKGROUND
In November 2012 Landscape Officers received a request to consider the tree for protection. The tree owner stated that there has been pressure from the neighbour to prune the tree over the last 12 years and the owner was concerned that the neighbour at 24 Sittingbourne Road may remove a large branch from the tree that overhangs their garden, which they would be legally permitted to do without the owner’s consent. The owner was concerned that, following advice from tree surgeons, such action would unbalance the tree, perhaps seriously enough to require further works on the opposite side, leaving the tree open to disease.
As a result, it was considered expedient to protect the tree by the making of a TPO.
The grounds for the making of the order were stated as follows: -
‘The Pine tree is a mature, prominent specimen, highly visible from Sittingbourne Road and makes a valuable contribution to the character and amenity of the area. It overhangs an adjacent garden and is under threat of works that would be detrimental to its long term health and amenity value It is therefore considered expedient to make the tree the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.’
The six month provisional Order expires on 20 June 2013, after which the Order automatically lapses if not confirmed. The order cannot be confirmed after this date.
OBJECTIONS
The TPO was served on the owner/occupier of the land in question and any other parties with a legal interest in the land.
One objection has been received to the order, within the statutory 28 day period from its making by the owner/occupiers of 24 Sittingbourne Road. The text of the objection is reproduced here:
“I am in receipt of your letter dated 23 January regarding the above tree. I would like to make you aware of some issues relating to this tree and the owner living at 26 Sittingbourne Road.
The owner has lived at 26 Sittingbourne Road since the house was built in the 1970s. I moved into number 24 (next door) 11 years ago and this tree has been a ‘bone of contention’ between us for all of this time. As you are obviously aware it is a huge Scots Pine tree. You state in your correspondence that it makes a valuable contribution to the character and amenity of the area. From my point of view it certainly does not. It greatly overhangs my front garden and when we have strong winds and bad weather it becomes quite threatening to my property. Its branches shed pine cones and unsightly 5 inch needles all the time into my garden and endlessly clog up my gutters. The grass refuses to grow either because it is smothered in these needles or because its roots are taking all the nutrients. The needles get in between my plants and it is an extremely time consuming, irritating, thankless job clearing up all the mess they create.
The owner periodically over the years has had the tree lopped on her side (presumably to alleviate the mess in her own garden). Towards the end of 2012 I once again approached her with a tree surgeon who I had consulted. He told her that he could trim off some of the offending branches on my side which he said would not affect the stability or health of the tree. I was quite prepared to pay for this as the owner point blank refused to contribute any costs involved...[personal information omitted]... I said I would be arranging this early in 2013. The owner obviously then contacted Maidstone Borough Council and then I received your letter.
As you can appreciate I do not therefore agree with the decision to grant a Tree Preservation Order on this tree. The tree may be a thing of beauty to others but if they had it overhanging their garden they would soon change their minds. It has been nothing but a nuisance to me for the last 11 years”
The grounds of the objection/s are summarised as follows: -
- The tree does not make a valuable contribution to the character and amenity of the area
- Fears that the tree might break or fall.
- That the tree has been a nuisance for 11 years, with cones and needles from the tree being unsightly, creating inconvenience, preventing grass growth and blocking gutters
CONSIDERATIONS
SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
The tree is growing in the front garden of the domestic property 26 Sittingbourne Road. The site is located on the A249 Sittingbourne Road, at the junction with Claremont Road. It is within the urban area on one of the main routes into the town centre. The immediate area is generally urban in feel. Other mature trees are present in the road, including Lime and other Pines.
DESCRIPTION OF TREE
The Pine tree is a mature, prominent specimen, highly visible from Sittingbourne Road. It reaches an estimated height of 11 metres and crown spread of 8 metres. The main stem forks at 3 metres, giving rise to a balanced crown of average form and structure. Visual ground level inspection from the Sittingbourne Road did not reveal any defects to suggest that the tree is unhealthy or unsafe at this time. It overhangs the adjacent garden of 24 Sittingbourne Road.
LEGAL CONTEXT
Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) may make a TPO if it appears to them to be:
'expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area'.
The Act does not define 'amenity', nor does it prescribe the circumstances in which it is in the interests of amenity to make a TPO. In the Secretary of State's view, TPOs 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. LPAs should be able to show that a reasonable degree of public benefit would accrue before TPOs are made or confirmed. The trees should therefore normally be visible from a public place, such as a road or footpath. The benefit may be present or future. It is, however, considered inappropriate to make a TPO in respect of a tree which is dead, dying or dangerous.
LPAs are advised to develop ways of assessing the 'amenity value' of trees in a structured and consistent way, taking into account the following key criteria:
(1) visibility
(2) individual impact
(3) wider impact
Officers use an amenity evaluation assessment form based on Government guidance and an industry recognized system which enables Arboricultural Officers to make an objective decision on whether trees fulfill the criteria for protection under a TPO.
However, although a tree may merit protection on amenity grounds, it may not be expedient to make it the subject of a TPO. For example, it is unlikely to be expedient to make a TPO in respect of trees which are under good arboricultural management. It may, however, be expedient to make a TPO if the LPA believe there is a risk of the tree being cut down or pruned in ways which would have a significant impact on the amenity of the area. It is not necessary for the risk to be immediate.
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION/S
The response to the principle points of objection set out above is as follows:-
Tree Preservation Orders are concerned with public amenity, not private amenity. In public amenity terms, the tree meets the criteria for protection, scoring 18 against a benchmark of 17 in the Council’s standard amenity evaluation assessment.
The private amenity considerations relate to the other issues raised, fears that the tree might break or fall and nuisance. There is currently no evidence to suggest that the tree represents an abnormal risk of failure. Should such evidence be found, this can be addressed via an application under the Tree Preservation Order or as exception to the Tree Preservation Order Regulations if there is an immediate risk.
The nuisance issues could be considered reason to confirm the Tree Preservation Order. Whether pruning works might be appropriate to address the specific issues could be dealt with via an application, allowing control over the type and extent of works by the Local Planning Authority and enabling the use of conditions to ensure that works are carried out to an appropriate standard, if permitted. Without such control, there is a risk that works to alleviate the problems cited could result in unbalancing of the crown and significant pruning wounds, to the detriment to the character and amenity of the area and potentially leading to structurally significant decay.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons set out above it is considered that:
There are no grounds of objection above which are sufficient to throw the making of the Order into doubt. Continued protection of the tree by a Tree Preservation Order will give the Council some control over the nature and extent of any works proposed, in the interests of public amenity
RECOMMENDATION:
CONFIRM WITHOUT MODIFICATION Tree Preservation Order No. 11 of 2012.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
TPO No. 11 of 2012