SUMMARY

1. Two trees have been protected within a development site by a TPO made on 22nd November 2002. Objections have been received. If the Order is to be confirmed this must be done by 22nd May 2003.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Confirm TPO/2002/37.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

2. As with any TPO, compensation could be claimed by an applicant if consent to remove trees or for works to the trees were refused, and the refusal resulted in loss or damage.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

3. Removal of the trees would be a loss for the local landscape and for wildlife.

BACKGROUND

4. Making of Order

A planning application was made to develop 55 Fishbourne Lane, for which permission was granted on 8^th October 2002.

The owner called the Tree & Landscape Officer on 16th September 2002 to ask for a site visit to look at trees he wished to remove. He followed this with a letter dated 29th September received on 30th September 2002 about trees to be removed or retained at the site. He stated "As far as I am aware the trees are not the subject of a tree preservation order, not in a conservation area and not the subject of a condition on a planning approval. Therefore, I do nor believe a formal consent is necessary. However, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the area, I wish to notify you of the work I wish to carry out."

A site visit was made on 23rd October 2002. The owner and the Tree & Landscape Officer discussed the trees on site, and the Tree & Landscape Officer said that she only considered 3 trees to be significantly attractive enough to be worth retention and protection: a Monterey pine, white poplar and beech along the NW boundary of the site, adjoining 'Sea Breezes' and 'Green Dolphin' in Ashlake Copse Road. However the owner had a copy of a Southern Water plan showing the location of sewage pipes, which showed that there was a pipe very close to this boundary, and said that he expected Southern Water would require the largest trees closest to this pipe to be removed. The Tree & Landscape Officer agreed that if the pipes were very close to the trees there might be a problem, especially with the white poplar which is a vigorous suckering species.

The Tree & Landscape Officer therefore wrote a memo to the Planning Officer advising that the owner be allowed to remove the white poplar, 8 cypress, and possibly the Monterey pine, all along the NW boundary, if required by Southern Water. She also advised that it would be acceptable to remove 14 other trees shown to be removed, because they were not significantly attractive enough, or because they were too close to existing buildings; and that 5 other trees shown to be retained were not significantly attractive enough to be worth protecting by a Tree Preservation Order, although one of these, a holly, she considered to be attractive enough to be worth keeping, but not visible enough to justify a TPO. She advised that "if consent is granted, that it is conditional on the retention of the beech and the holly and on a planting plan being approved, and on the retention of the Monterey pine if Southern Water will agree to this."

The owner rang on 6th November 2002 to say that Southern Water would be happy for the Monterey pine to be retained as long as somebody else gave an undertaking to repair the pipe if it was damaged by the tree. However the Tree & Landscape Officer was unable to find any confirmation of this, following telephone enquiries to Southern Water on 11th November and 15th November 2002. There appeared to be no record of any such conversation or written request, and enquiries had to be made internally within Southern Water to check the owner's statement.

An Order was therefore made on 22nd November 2002 to protect 2 trees, the beech and the Monterey pine.

The grounds for making the Order were: 'The trees are of high present and future amenity value and are visible from Fishbourne Lane and Ashlake Copse Road. They are also important as a wildlife habitat, especially for red squirrels and birds.'

5. Applications for works and objections from owner

The owner proposed on 26th November 2002 to compromise by retaining the Monterey pine and white poplar, but felling the beech. He submitted an application to fell the beech dated 26th November and received 28th November 2002.

However he then came into the office on 29th November and saw the Senior Countryside Officer, to complain that a TPO had been made on his land, and that he needed approval to be given quickly for the beech to be removed to make removing the adjoining cypresses easier and cheaper.

He then wrote a letter dated 12th December 2002, received 20th December 2002, and enclosing a copy of a Southern Water plan showing the position of the sewer, their land search results, and a copy of their "Guide to Tree Planting near Water Mains and Sewers". The letter stated that

"There are two reasons Southern Water do not want trees on their sewers, the roots cause damage to their clay pipes, and the most important is the health and safety of their workers working under trees so close.

"We have been advised by Southern Water that if the tree is not removed then any damage now or in the future or injury caused by the tree will be our responsibility.

".... May I remind you that I did not have to contact you over the removal of the trees. It would have been just easier removing them, but at the time I believed that I did the right thing, I believe you should do the right thing, and allow me to remove the Monterey pine especially as you have been made aware of the potential problems."

The Senior Countryside Officer responded to this letter on 20th December 2002, because the Tree & Landscape Officer was on leave, stating "I note that you are now requesting consent to fell both these trees. ... To simplify matters, unless you request otherwise I intend to regard that first application as withdrawn, and will deem your letter dated 12/12 to be a formal application to fell both trees together..."

The owner replied in a letter dated 21st December 2002 received 6th January 2003, outlining events to date.

However Southern Water had replied to the Tree & Landscape Officer's enquiry in an email on 12th December, stating "I have now had a response from my operations colleagues regarding these trees and we have no wish to see them removed. We have checked our records and there doesn't appear to be any problems with the drains in the area." This was confirmed in another email on 8th January 2003, which stated "Southern Water have no requirement to remove the Pine, see my email to you of 12 December 2002."

The Tree & Landscape Officer therefore wrote to the owner on 6th March 2003 refusing consent to remove T1 beech or T2 Monterey pine, and repeating the reasons for this, essentially that Southern Water had no record of anybody making a request that the pine be removed.

If consent is refused at this stage, and the Order is confirmed, it would still be open to the owner to apply for removal of the trees, and if clear evidence and reasoning for removal were provided, consent could still be granted at that stage.

6. Objections from adjoining properties

Two objections have also been received from neighbours adjoining the site, in letters dated 25th and 27th November 2002.

The grounds listed by the first objector were blocking of light, falling branches, and pine needle debris, and they also stated "I am sure the squirrels will find other routes in no time".

The other objector gave as grounds for objection that the trees block sunlight from their garden winter and summer; that there are "more than enough trees in the area" and that nobody would miss them; "wildlife I am sure would find another habitat (as they would if the trees were blown down)"; the proximity to a sewer could pose a problem; and that the trees are not there naturally but were planted.

The trees are to the south-east of both objectors' properties, and will therefore block light in the morning, to a lesser extent at midday, and hardly at all in the afternoon and evening. They are more than 20 m from both properties, so the risk from falling branches will be non-existent to the buildings, though there may be a minimal risk in the garden as the trees are close to the boundary; however no evidence has been provided that the trees are unsound and likely to drop branches. Pine needle debris is not an adequate reason for not protecting a tree which contributes significantly to the local landscape and wildlife. Whether the trees were planted or arose naturally makes no difference to their value in the local landscape. While it is arguable that squirrels and other wildlife might well find other routes and sources of food in such a relatively well-treed area, it is not ethically justifiable for one landowner to remove all trees from their site on the basis that other landowners are retaining theirs: such a position would in essence be opting out from the responsibility we all share to protect our local environment. If it is acceptable for any one person to opt out then the environment could be eroded very quickly.

RECOMMENDATIONS

7. Refuse consent to remove T1-T2, and confirm TPO/2002/37.

8. If the order is not confirmed, trees might be under threat.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

1. Copied extracts from Tree Preservation Order TPO/1991/28 made 21^st June 1991.

2. Letter from owner dated 29th September 2002 received 30th September 2002.

3. Planning permission for 55 Fishbourne Lane reference TCP/02947/D granted 8^th October 2002.

4. Tree survey drawing number FL/103 dated Sept '02 received at site visit 23rd October 2002 with notes made on site.

5. Southern Water Services Guide to Tree Planting near Water Mains and Sewers (undated) received from owner at site visit 23rd October 2002 (see also 12. below).

6. Memorandum dated 24th October 2002.

7. Copied extracts from Tree Preservation Order TPO/2002/37 made 22nd November 2002.

8. Letter from adjoining property dated 25th November 2002 received 27th November 2002.

9. Application to remove beech T1 dated 26th November 2002 received 28th November 2002.

10. Letter from adjoining property dated 27th November 2002 received 2nd December 2002.

11. Email from Southern Water 12th December 2002.

12. Letter from owner dated 12th December 2002 received 20th December 2002, and with attached copy of Southern Water drawing title JL 55 Fishbourne Lane dated 25th July 2002; Southern Water Land Search Results for 55 Fishbourne Lane dated 1st August 2002; and Southern Water Services Guide to Tree Planting near Water Mains and Sewers (undated) (see also 5. above).

13. Letter to owner dated 20th December 2002.

14. Letter from owner dated 21st December 2002 received 6th January 2003.

15. Email from Southern Water 8th January 2003.

16. Planning permission for conservatory at 55 Fishbourne Lane granted 20^th January 2003.

17. Letter to owner dated 6th March 2003.

Contact Point : Contact Name, Rowan Adams F 823559