PAPER A2

Purpose: For Decision

Committee: REGULATORY APPEALS COMMITTEE

Date: 12 DECEMBER 2002

Title: WOODINGTON, TIMBER, RONDEBOSCH, CHEVIOT COTTAGE, FLEET HOUSE AND WOODLANDS, UNDERCLIFF DRIVE, ST LAWRENCE -

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO. 23, 2002

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

SUMMARY

Woodington, Timber, Rondebosch, Cheviot Cottage, Fleet House and Woodlands are properties within Area 1 of the Isle of Wight Council (Urban District of Ventnor) Tree Preservation Order, 1954.

A TPO (No. 17, 2001) was made on 19 June 2001 covering 19 individual trees at Timber. A petition was received asking for a further 16 trees to be protected; and the owner asked for another additional tree to be protected. Due to the level of local concern, an Area Order (No. 26, 2001) was therefore made on 13 July 2001 pending further surveys being made to reassess the trees.

The Regulatory Appeals Committee on 30 November 2001 decided not to confirm No. 26, 2001; to confirm No. 17, 2001 but with two deletions; and to make a new Order to cover a further 9 trees.

A TPO (No. 32, 2001) was made on 12 September 2001 to protect a group of 4 trees at Rondebosch. An objection was received.

A new TPO was made on 11 September 2002 which included the 26 trees at ATimber@, the 4 trees at Rondebosch, and a further 7 trees at Woodington, Rondebosch, Cheviot Cottage, Fleet House and Woodlands.

A letter was received on 9 October pointing out 3 mistakes at Timber and Rondebosch.

A letter and report was received on 9 October objecting to the inclusion of 14 of the 26 trees at Timber.

65 submissions were received on 9 October which were copies of an objection letter but signed by different people.

If the Order is to be confirmed, this must be done by 11 March 2003.

BACKGROUND

TPO 2001 / 17

Following reports of tree felling at ATimber@, a new Order, TPO / 2001 / 17 was made on 19 June 2001, covering 19 trees. The grounds for making the TPO were that Athe trees are of high present and future public amenity value and are visible from Undercliff Drive and from public footpath V79, the coastal path. They are also important as a wildlife habitat, especially for birds and squirrels. They form part of a green corridor along the Undercliff. The trees also help to maintain soil stability in the area.@

TPO / 2001 / 26

Local people felt that this cover was inadequate, and on 25 June 2001 a petition was presented requesting protection for 16 more trees. A letter was also received from the owner requesting an additional tree to be protected.

Because of this level of local concern about the status of the trees, and until a further site visit could be made to assess these trees, an Area Order TPO / 2001 / 26 was made on 13 July 2001, to effectively safeguard all the trees on the site until a comprehensive survey could be undertaken. The owner=s solicitor wrote a letter objecting to TPO / 2001 / 26.

TPO / 2001 / 32

A TPO was made on 12 September 2001 to protect a group of 4 trees at Rondebosch. An objection was received.

TPO / 2002 / 7

An Order was made on 11h June 2002 to protect woodland to the NW of all the properties included within TPO/2002/23, and properties either side of them. Unlike trees within TPO/2001/17 and TPO/2001/32, the wood was not included within TPO/2002/23 because other properties were also included in TPO/2002/7.

TPO / 2002 / 23

The Regulatory Appeals Committee visited Timber on 23 November 2001, and on 30 November 2001 they decided not to confirm No. 26, 2001; to confirm No. 17, 2001 but with two deletions; and to make a new Order to cover a further 9 trees.

The new TPO was made on 11 September 2002 and included the 26 trees at ATimber@ from TPO/2001/17, the 4 trees at Rondebosch from TPO/2001/32, and a further 7 trees at Woodington, Rondebosch, Cheviot Cottage, Fleet House and Woodlands identified in a survey carried out in August 2002. (This work was part of surveys throughout the Undercliff, as the first part of the revision of inadequate Orders discussed in the report to the Economic Development, Planning, Tourism and Leisure Services Select Committee on Monday, 22 July 2002.)

The grounds for making the TPO were that Athis is a partial revision of A1 of The County of the Isle of Wight (Urban District of Ventnor) TPO, 1954; and a revision of the Isle of Wight Council Timber, Undercliff Drive, St Lawrence, Isle of Wight TPO No. 17, 2001; and of the Isle of Wight Council Timber, Undercliff Drive, St Lawrence, Isle of Wight TPO No. 26, 2001; and of Isle of Wight Council Rondebosch, Undercliff Drive, St Lawrence, Isle of Wight TPO No. 32, 2001. The trees are of high present and future public amenity value and are visible from Undercliff Drive and from public footpath V79, the coastal path. They are also important as a wildlife habitat, especially for birds and squirrels. They may also contribute to land stability in the Undercliff.@

Objections to TPO/2002/23

A letter was received on 9 October pointing out 3 mistakes at Timber and Rondebosch: T18 and T19 are not shown on the plan; there are two T9s on the plan; and T28 is not a deodar but a cedar of Lebanon.

A letter and report were received on 9 October from a consultant acting for the owner and objecting to the inclusion of 14 of the 26 trees at Timber. These objections are detailed in Appendix A.

65 letters were received on 9 October which were identically worded but from separate signatories at separate addresses. The letter objected to the protection at Timber of sycamores on the grounds that they are "close growing self sown weed trees shunned by birds and red squirrels"; that they "deny reasonable growing conditions to all other garden plants in their vicinity"; that they are "not a native species" and that they "detract from and obscure the native mature trees" and that their protection "can only prejudice our native fauna and flora".

A letter was received on 10 October objecting to the inclusion of G1 because Athey have had the leading shoot removed many years ago and will never make a specimen group@; alleged nuisance on the grounds that the branches overhang, interfere with enjoyment, cast a rainshadow Acausing the death of seventeen of twenty plants ... to form a conservation hedge@, and that the roots dry out the land; damage to a wall, path and summer house; telephone wires run through the trees.

Comments on objections

The 3 mistakes can be corrected in a modified confirmed Order, except the omission of T18 from the plan.

The detailed objections in the consultant's report are dealt with in detail in Appendix A.

The generalised objections to the inclusion of sycamore reveal the strength of feeling around the contentious issue of invasive exotic species such as sycamore and holm oak.

Whether or not a tree is self-sown is not relevant to its protection, because this should be on the basis of its "amenity value", irrespective of how it came to be there. (Self-sown trees may indeed be more suitable for protection than planted ones, because they are more likely to be suited to the site and to be windfirm, while planted trees may not be considered worthy of protection because an unsuitable species for the site has been chosen.)

A weed may be defined as a plant in the wrong place, in which case whether a particular tree is perceived as a weed or not will depend on the preference of the landowner. What is presumably meant is rather that sycamores produce seed very prolifically and most of the seeds germinate, so that sycamore is not welcomed by most gardeners. It is also often seen as a problem within or near semi-natural habitats such as woods, heathland, or species-rich grassland, because it can be invasive, especially where there is enough light for its seeds to germinate (in shaded sites such as many woods it may be far less invasive). However sycamore is well-adapted to exposed coastal sites, and can be useful to provide shelter to other trees and other plants. It can also form a very attractive tree especially when it is old. Its protection can therefore be justified if there are few other more suitable trees to be protected nearby, and if its removal would result in a substantial loss of tree cover.

Many gardeners believe that trees stop them from growing other plants, and this objection could apply to any species of tree, not just sycamore. But this is simply a matter of good gardening, of choosing plants which will flourish below trees rather than those which require full sun.

Whether or not a tree is native is irrelevant to whether or not it merits protection, except in or near a semi-natural habitat. Inclusion in a TPO should be on the basis of "amenity value" whether the tree is native or exotic. If all exotic trees on the Island were removed it would be a great loss to the landscape.

The trees at Timber have been thinned in recent years, with many young sycamores already removed. This has left many of the native trees such as the ash (and the non-invasive exotic trees such as the palm) suddenly more exposed than they were. It is arguable that the remaining sycamores are actually protecting the other trees from even greater exposure. Even if a case could be made for their removal in the longer term, it is arguable that it would be detrimental to all the other trees on site, and to any wildlife dependent on them, if the remaining sycamores were removed now.

The grounds for the objection to G1 are not sufficient to warrant the deletion of the trees from the Order. If the trees are causing the damage claimed then there would be reasons to apply for the removal of the trees or their pruning, and an application for works backed up by convincing evidence could be favourably received. In the interim it would be prudent to retain the protection, since unprotected trees on or near the boundary have been cut in the past.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

As with any TPO, the owners could claim compensation if any application to remove trees, or for works to protected trees, were refused, and which resulted in loss or damage.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

Removal of these trees would reduce the tree cover in the area, and remove trees visible from Undercliff Drive and from the public footpath at the top of the cliff.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

A site visit was made to Timber on 26th November to reassess the trees in the light of the comments received. The list below gives the specific recommendations for each tree.

Trees to be included in confirmed Order:

Trees to which no objection has been made:

T2, T16, T17, T24, T25, T26, T27, T28, T29, T30, T31, T32, T33.

A letter has been received stating that T28 is not a deodar but a cedar of Lebanon, so when confirmed this should be protected as just "cedar".

Trees to which an objection has been made, but which still merit protection:

T1, T3, T4, T5, T8, T9, T10, T13, T21, T22, G1.

Trees to which an objection has been made as individuals, though not as part of a group, but which still merit protection:

T7, T12, T14, T15, T20, T23

Trees to be excluded from confirmed Order:

T6, T11, T19.

Tree which was not shown on plan and therefore would have to be protected by a new Order:

T18.

The full details are given in appendix A.

OTHER PARALLEL PROCESSES

The owner of Timber has applied for consent to remove 3 trees. A date for a site visit was agreed with the Tree & Landscape Officer, but the owner then had to postpone it. The Tree & Landscape Officer agreed a later date, but then also had to postpone it. The owner then appealed to the Secretary of State for non-determination of the application, and this appeal has not yet been dealt with. In the interim it is considered that the trees should remain protected.

A local resident has complained to the Local Government Ombudsman about the protection of trees at Timber. The investigator has interviewed the complainant and officers, and looked at the files, but the Ombudsman=s finding has not yet been received.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Confirm TPO / 2001 / 23 with modifications to delete T6, T11, T19; and to identify T28 just as "cedar".

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Plan from TPO/2001/17 made on 19 June 2001.

Paper A, Agenda item 2, presented to the Regulatory Appeals Committee 30 November 2001.

Plan presented on overhead projector to Regulatory Appeals Committee 30 November 2001, including corrections to numbering.

Minutes of Regulatory Appeals Committee 30 November 2001.

Plan from TPO/2002/7 made on 11 June 2002.

Paper B, Agenda item 5, presented to the Economic Development, Planning, Tourism and Leisure Services Select Committee on Monday, 22 July 2002.

Plan from TPO/2002/23 made on 11 September 2002.

Letter from owner of Rondebosch received on 9 October 2002.

Objection letter from consultant acting for owner of Timber, and attached report, received 9 October 2002.

65 letters of objection received 9 October 2002, identical text but from 65 different addresses.

Letter from owner of Timber received on 10 October 2002.

Contact Name Rowan Adams tel 4559

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director

Corporate and Environment Services

APPENDIX 1

no.	no. in 17	no. in Arc=s report	species	extracts from consultant=s report objecting to 14 trees at Timber	amenity assessment	condition assessment	continue to protect ? or delete when TPO confirmed ?
T1	T1	1	deodar	>hardly any live crown: poor extension growth ... distorted crown habit=	Prominent young tree next to roadside with potential to be very significant.	Unbalanced because nearby tree recently removed, but will rebalance; extension growth actually 20-25 cm and foliage healthy.	protect
T2	T2	2	ash	>merits protection=	Large well-shaped tree clearly visible from road.	Appears sound.	protect
T3	T3	3	sweet gum	>stunted and deformed ... 2m tall with an open AY@ as main leaders... Without a defined central lead, this will only ever become a large, spreading shrub=	Close to road and clearly visible, with potential to be significant, especially in autumn with good autumn colour.	Pruning could correct shape and allow leader to develop.	protect
T4	T4	4	Persian ironwood	>it will take many decades before it has any significance ... limited impact on the landscape=	Close to road and clearly visible, and autumn colour already significant.	Expected to become a sizable specimen within a decade.	protect
T5	T5	5	ash	>outwardly a large specimen tree, free-standing and of good shape and form. However, when viewed from ... the North-east ... it is clear that the crown was once comprised of three main ascending structural stems. One of these has been removed leaving a large open wound ... Decay and a cavity have formed in a crucial position just below the main fork, which will undermine the safety of the entire crown area=	Large attractive well-shaped tree clearly visible from road.	Cavity is indeed present. It is not possible to assess from a ground level inspection whether there is decay within the cavity extensive enough to compromise the structural soundness of the tree.	protect - climbing inspection to investigate cavity should be carried out if and when resources permit
T6	T6	6	ash	>stability ... in question ... I would definitely place it in the same category of Adangerous@ ...=	Tree noticeable from road though not as well-shaped as others eg T5.	Torn branch on SE side of trunk at about 4 m above ground level; cavity on NW side from old branch scar extends over 10 cm into trunk, and above and below cavity.	delete
T7	T7	7	ash	>not an individual specimen by any means but it is safe and healthy and contributes to the group effect=	Twin-stemmed tree from about 2.5 m above ground level; canopy mostly to SE side, but quite good shape and visible from road.	Apears sound.	protect
T8	T9	9	ash	'one of the oldest and most significant specimen trees on the site. However ... There is considerable weight in the two main trunks and crown, which will be applying severe pressure on the weak and weeping fork at ground level. Added to this there is a noted point ofd top rotting decay fungus (Inonotus hispidus) in the upper crown of the mian upright trunk...'	Large and very attractive tree visible from road.	There is indeed a fork where the trunk divides into two main stems NW & SE, and there is some weeping on the NE side. However this fork appears to date back many years, possibly even to the beginning of the tree';s life - it is probably two trees thast have grown together rather than one tree with a divided stem. There is little to suggest that the fork is likely to split in the forseeable future. The two stems then split furher, and the SE stem itself splits into two, and there is indeed evidence of decay about 5 m above ground level in the NE stem. This could be investigated further.	protect
T9	T10	10	ash	[Consultants' report comments on T19 and make no comment on T9.]	[This is the W of the two trees marked as T9 on the plan.] Attractive tree clearly visible froam road.	Tree leans slightly to NW at base, and this is of concern to neighbour. Most of the canopy is on the N / NW side, but pruning could redress this to some extent. There is an old wound on the N side of the trunk but woundwood is growing around it and the exposed wood appears sound.	protect
T10	T11	11	ash	[Consultant's report refers to T11 of Arc's report but they have actually commented on T22 of Arc's report. This tree is not protected by TPO/2002/23, and has since snapped and beenfelled, with clear signs of decay within the stem. Thus consultants's report does not comment on T10 of TPO/2002/23.]	Reasonably attractive shape, and tree clearly visible from road.	Twin-stemmed tree from about 0.5 m above ground level, but fork rounded suggesting it is not a structural weakness.	protect
T11	T12	12	ash	'Once twin trunked, and one trunk has been removed ... risk of introducing decay and weakening the barrier walls between this stump and the living trunk...'	Reasonably well-shaped tree, visible from road.	Bark is dying around cut stem, and there is no regrowth as you would expect with a live healthy cut stem. This suggests that decay is quite far advanced within the stump and probably within the remaining stem.	delete
T12	T13	13	ash	' ... not ... an individual specimen ...'	Reasonably attractive tree, visible from road.	Appears sound.	protect
T13	T14	14	ash	' ... a tall and etiolated tree ... [the owner] has witnessed this tree lifting byt the rootplate in windy conditions... This tree requires monmitoring in windy conditions ... any excess of movement would render it a dangerous structure...'	Reasonably attractive tree, visible from road.	Certainly this tree has a far thinner stem than would be expected for its height, but this is proably the result of thinning too heavily around it, and it is possible that the trunk will thicken in future. There is little sign of ground heave, and the tree appears sound. It was not windy enough on 26th November when the site visit was nade to assess the claim. However an offer has been made to view the tree in more windy conditions.	protect
T14	T15	15	ash	' ... appears outwardly sound and healthy with no obvious sign of defects. It exhibits the same shape and form as T13 and is also positioned at the top of a steep bank ... should have been included only as part of a Group classification.'	Better shape than T13, with more extensive crown.	Appears sound.	protect
T15	T16	16	ash	'... should have been included only as part of a Group classification.'	Also better shape than T13, with more extensive crown.	3 m from top of bank. 2 stems from 3 m above ground level, but fork appears sound. Whole tree leans NEwards. Bark dead on SW side 0.3 - 1.5 m above ground level but wood below appears sound, and woundwood is growing around edges.	protect
T16	T17	17	ash	' ... a free-standing tree of reasonably good form... does merit protection ...'	Large attractive tree. Visible from coastal path at top of cliff and can be glimpsed from road.	Appears sound.	protect
T17	T18	18	ash	' ... a free-standing tree of reasonably good form... does merit protection ...'	Attractive tree, visible from road.	Tight fork at about 0.5 m above gorund level, but it appears to date back some time and does not appear to be likely to fail in forseeable future.	protect
T18	-	24	ash	'This tree does not exist ... ... the map does not show a T18'			[This tree was 24 in Arc's report and it is S of T14 and W of T9. But unfortunately it was missed from the plan when TPO/2002/23 was made, so it is not protected.]
T19	-	25	sycamore	'This tree does not exist ... the map does not show a T19'	[This is the E of the two trees marked on the plan as T9.] Fairly large tree, fairly well balanced crown.	Decay in trunk at base and at 0.5 m above ground level on north side, ie upside of steep bank.	delete
T20	-	27	sycamore	' ... nothing special as an individual but it is outwardly sound and healthy ...'	Reasonably large and attractive tree.	Apears sound.	protect
T21	-	28 [but shown as one of two 22s marked on plan]	sycamore	[Consultant appears to have commented on a different tree?]	[reasonably large and attractive tree]	[drilled and poisoned, between ending of protection by TPO/2001/26 and start of protection by TPO/2002/23, but still appears to be alive]	[protect - subject to appeal to GOSE]
T22	-	29 [but shown as 23 on plan]	sycamore	[Consultant appears to have commented on a different tree?]	[reasonably large and attractive tree]	[drilled and poisoned, between ending of protection by TPO/2001/26 and start of protection by TPO/2002/23, but still appears to be alive]	[protect - subject to appeal to GOSE]
T23	-	30	sycamore	' ... nothing special as an individual but it is outwardly sound and healthy ...'	Fairly large tree, but not as significantly noticeable as other trees.	[Ubalanced crown and is competing with the large beech which was protected as T8 of TPO/2001/17 and is now unprotected but is still present and is still the more attractive tree.]	[protect because beech may not have long useful life; subject to appeal to GOSE]
T24	-	32	palm	' ... outwardly sound and healthy and in a prominent location. ASn exotic species, which is quite common in gardens on this part of the island with a suitable temperate climate. This tree would be appropriate to preserve ...'	Clearly visble from road. Contributes to special "subtropical" appearance of the Undercliff.	Appears sound.	protect
T25	-	33	sycamore	' ... A subsidiary stem has been removed on the East side of the tree and the resulting wound has decayed. I was able to insert a probe to 40 cm depth without resistance, although the residual wall between thsi zone and the adjacent liv e trunk appears sound. This is a highly prominent tree, which I believe would merit protection as an individual. Ongoing monitoring of the decay pocket would be essential as part of a management programme in view of its location adjacent to a major road.'	Large attractive well-shaped tree on Undercliff Drive frontage, and significantly visible from Undercliff Drive to east of site.	Overhanging road and crown tending towards road; cavity at base as noted by CBA.	protect
T26	-	38	ash	' ... suitable for preservation as an individual.'	Large attractive tree, well set back from road, but because fairly isolated tree it has potential to become much more significantly noticeable and can be seen from coastal path.	S - shaped trunk in first 4 m, but appears stable above.	protect
T27	-	-	Turkey oak	[not at Timber]			protect
T28	-	-	deodar	[not at Timber] Letter from local resident says it is a cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani) not a deodar (Cedrus deodara).			protect as "cedar - Cedrus species"
T29	-	-	ash	[not at Timber]			protect
T30	-	-	horse chestnut	[not at Timber]			protect
T31	-	-	wild cherry	[not at Timber]			protect
T32	-	-	beech	[not at Timber]			protect
T33	-	-	horse chestnut	[not at Timber]			protect
G1	[G1 in TPO/2001/32]	-		Objection received - see main text.	Only of medium amenity value at present, but if best of trees retained long-term have potential to contribute to local landscape.		protect

Notes on confusions in numbering:

T9 - the plan in TPO/2002/23 shows two T9s. The W of these is T9. This tree was protected as T10 in TPO/2001/17 and is also referred to as 10 in Arc's report.

T18 - the plan in TPO/2002/23 omits T18, which was 24 in Arc's report, but not numbered on the Arc report plan. This was marked as 24 on the plan shown on overhead projector to the Regulatory Appeals Committee on 30th November 2001.

T19 - the plan in TPO/2002/23 shows two T9s. The E of these is T19. This tree was not protected by TPO/2001/17. It was referred to as 25 in Arc's report.

T21 was listed as 28 in the schedule in Arc's report but shown as one of two 22s on the plan in Arc's report. This was marked as 28 on the plan shown on overhead projector to the Regulatory Appeals Committee on 30th November 2001.

T22 was listed as 29 in the schedule in Arc's report but shown as 23 on the plan in Arc's report. This was marked as 29 on the plan shown on overhead projector to the Regulatory Appeals Committee on 30th November 2001.