SUMMARY

1. The trees are 2 common limes and a holm oak.

2. A TPO was made on 8th October 2002. An objection has been made to the Order.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Confirm TPO/2002/26 without modifications.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3. 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

4. Removal of the trees would be a loss for the local landscape.

BACKGROUND

5. Previous protection

St Anne=s is within the Ryde Conservation Area, and consent is therefore needed to remove or carry out works to any tree bigger than 75mm in diameter (measured at 1.5 m above ground level).

The southern half of the site, including most of the garden, is also within G4 of The County of The Isle of Wight (Borough of Ryde) Tree Preservation Order, 1952, which protects "deciduous" trees (reference TPO/1952/1). However neither the number of trees protected, nor their positions, were given on the plan or schedule for Group 4, so this group was in effect an area.

6. Making of Order

An application was received from the owner to remove several trees. Consent was granted in December 2001 to remove a lime tree growing less than 2 m from the house because of possible damage; and in January 2002 to remove a lime growing further from the house, because it was suppressed by another lime growing nearby; 3 dead or dangerous elms were also to be removed. Following a query a further site visit was made and consent was granted in January 2003 to remove a further lime tree which had been pollarded in the past and grown since into a poor shape; and to remove a false acacia because of decay at the base.

Planning permission (reference TCP/24512) had been granted on 4^th March 2003. This included building a new garage and access drive within the garden. The Tree & Landscape Officer was in the area on 12^th July 2002 and visited the site to see what progress had been made, and was concerned to see that the boundary wall to the south of the new drive was being built in such a way that it had damaged the roots of a lime tree to the south of the drive. Builders on site were given a copy of a leaflet on "Trees on Building Sites" leaflet, and a letter was written to the owner on 15th July 2003 drawing attention to this. A further letter was sent on 10th September 2002 following a site visit on 20th August 2002 to check the state of the lime tree next to the rebuilt wall.

To ensure more specific protection than a group order, which was in effect an area order, for the remaining trees on site, a new Tree Preservation Order was made on 8th October 2003. The trees protected were the two remaining limes from the original line along the eastern boundary, plus a holm oak along the western boundary. The northern lime is the one potentially damaged during the rebuilding of the boundary wall, while the southern lime is a magnificent tree at the SE corner of the site. The holm oak, although given some protection by the Conservation Area, was not protected by the 1952 TPO, since that protected deciduous trees, and holm oaks are evergreen.

The grounds for making the Order were: 'The trees are of very high present and future amenity value and are visible from Augusta Road, which is a private road to which the public have access, from Ryde Pier, and from the sea including Ryde ferry.'

7. Objections

A letter was received from the owner's solicitor on 5th November 2002. The letter stated that

"two further lime trees ... are ... in line with the current eastern wall boundary. These need to be removed in order for the building of the wall to be completed. We would advise that Mr Kerr is simply replacing an existing wall that had become dangerous at his property. We understand that ... it is impossible to re-build the wall without them being removed. Even if the original wall had been left and not taken down, they would have created a danger and hazard to the public.

"It is our view that these trees cannot be seen from Ryde Pier and sea. The reason for this is because these trees are largely obscured by our client's property and Wellington Lodge and also is surrounded by woodland. The trees on this property have not been maintained for, at least, 50 years. Consequently, this is the reason why a problem has now arisen.

"We would also point out that in our client's title deeds there is a covenant that the trees must be a certain height and not interfere with the light to the surrounding properties. At the moment these trees breach that covenant."

8. Comments on objections - rebuilding of wall

The length of wall affected by the two lime trees is no longer a wall but a jumble of stones. The original wall would have been an attractive feature and it would enhance the local landscape if it were rebuilt, but not at the cost of losing the lime trees.

9. Comments on objections - trees allegedly a danger and hazard

No evidence has been provided to suggest that the lime trees are dangerous.

10. Comments on objections - view of trees from Ryde Pier and sea

The trees can be seen from the sea and from the ferry, and contribute to the excellent view of the Island when arriving at Ryde. They can be seen both above the rooflines of buildings, and in the angle between the two buildings. There is no woodland at either St Anne's or Wellington Lodge. Although the area is well treed, the three trees covered by the Order are in the foreground of the view from the sea, rather than being lost in the background as implied.

11. Comments on objections - lack of maintenance

It is probably precisely the fact that the limes have not been "maintained" that has allowed them to become the magnificent trees they are now, rather than the stumps resembling toilet brushes that pass for lime trees throughout most of the Island elsewhere. There is a common and completely mistaken belief that trees "need" "maintaining", and that "maintaining" means mutilation by chopping the top of the tree off every now and again. Lime trees have traditionally been mutilated in this fashion more often than any other species, except perhaps planes, simply because they survive the treatment better than most. This does not however make it good practice. There is absolutely no excuse for such treatment here where the trees are well away from any buildings.

12. Comments on objections - covenant and loss of light

No copy of the covenant has been provided. In any case since the trees are to the south of St Anne's, it is St Anne's itself, rather than any other properties, which might be most affected by the trees. However as the nearest tree is over 20 m from the house the loss of light will be minimal. No objections have been received to the TPO from owners or occupiers of any other properties.

13. Further communication

The Tree & Landscape Officer replied to the objection letter on 7th November 2002, refusing consent to remove the two lime trees; pointing out that the letter was the first indication she had had that the owner intended to rebuild the wall in its entirety, and that the trees are arguably as important a part of the local landscape as the boundary wall; that although it is to their client's credit that he wishes to rebuild it, if this is done it should be in such a way that it allows the trees to remain; and that the trees are visible from the sea and Ryde Pier, and that they are visible from Augusta Road itself.

The owner's solicitor appealed to GOSE against the decision on 3rd December 2002. The appeal has yet to be determined.

RECOMMENDATIONS

14. Confirm TPO/2002/26.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

1. Plan and schedule from Tree Preservation Order TPO/1952/1, G4.

2. Letters dated 18th December 2001, 3rd January 2002, and 25th January 2002, granting consent to remove 3 lime trees and 1 false acacia, and to prune 1 lime.

3. Planning permission reference TCP / 24512 granted 4^th March 2002.

4. Letter dated 15th July 2002 drawing attention to damage to lime tree.

5. Letter dated 10th September 2002 drawing attention to need to protect trees during building works.

6. Copied extracts from Tree Preservation Order TPO/2002/26 made 8th October 2002.

7. Letter from owner's solicitor, dated 1st November 2002, received 5th November 2002.

8. Letter in reply to solicitor dated 7th November 2002.

9. Letter from solicitor, dated 18th November 2002, received 20th November 2002.

10. Letter from solicitor dated 3rd December 2002, received 5th December 2002, and including copy of appeal to GOSE dated 3rd December 2002.

11. Letter from GOSE about appeal received 6th December 2002.

12. GOSE TPO appeal questionnaire dated 5th February 2003.

Contact Point : Rowan Adams F 823559

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director of Environment Services