PAPER A6
Purpose: For Decision
Committee: REGULATORY
APPEALS COMMITTEE
Date: 12
DECEMBER 2002
Title: WOOD
TO WEST AND NORTH OF MIRABLES, UNDERCLIFFE DRIVE, ST LAWRENCE, VENTNOR -
TREE
PRESERVATION ORDER NO. 17, 2002
REPORT OF
THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
SUMMARY
A TPO was made on 22 July 2002. An
objection has been received. If the Order is to be confirmed this must be done
by 21 January 2003.
BACKGROUND
Making of Order
Mirables is within A1 of the Isle of
Wight Council (Urban District of Ventnor) Tree Preservation Order, 1954.
As part of the initial revisions of
TPOs discussed in the report to the Economic Development, Planning, Tourism and
Leisure Services Select Committee on 22 July 2002, surveys have been carried
out of woods within the Undercliff which are worth protecting.
A new TPO was therefore made on 22
July 2002.
The grounds for making the Order
were that "this is a partial
revision of A1 of the Isle of Wight Council (Urban District of Ventnor) Tree
Preservation Order, 1954; the wood is of very high present and future amenity
value and is visible from Undercliff Drive and from coastal footpath N28. It is
also important as a wildlife habitat, especially for dormice, badgers and red
squirrels. The wood may also contribute to land stability in the
Undercliff."
Objection
An objections was received on 19
August from the landowner.
The grounds for objection were that
the boundary of the wood had not been plotted accurately in several places;
that sycamore is included; and that the boundary of the protected wood be
placed Asome distance from the road@ be excluded because Athis would
enable us to remove without permission any trees or branches which looked as if
they might fall on the road@.
Comments on objections
Unfortunately a further site visit
to check the accuracy of the woodland boundary has not yet been made, so a
revised plan, if necessary, cannot yet be made.
The protection of sycamore is a
contentious issue, similar to that of other invasive exotic species such as
holm oak. 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.
Sycamores produce seed very
prolifically and most of the seeds germinate, so that sycamore is not
considered by conservationists to be welcome 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.
However sycamore is well-adapted to
exposed coastal sites, and can be useful to provide shelter to other trees and
other plants.
The protection of sycamores can
therefore be justified within a wood if its removal would result in a
substantial loss of tree cover. It would be good woodland management within the
Undercliff to gradually remove sycamore and encourage indigenous woodland
species, and suitable exotic species which pose fewer problems. Most woods
within the Undercliff are currently dominated by sycamore, and if all sycamores
were removed at once there would be substantial loss in tree cover. The
increased exposure might be damaging to the remaining trees, other plants, and
animals. In the short to medium term, therefore, sycamore is included within
TPOs until (and if) good management ensures its replacement by more suitable
species.
The request to exclude trees near
the road is an understandable one. However works to dangerous trees are exempt
from the need to obtain consent (although the onus of proof is still on the
owner to show that they are dangerous), so this exclusion is unnecessary.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
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
Removal of the wood would be a loss
for the local landscape and for local wildlife.
OPTIONS
A further survey to check the
boundaries of the wood has not yet been made. It would be prudent to confirm
TPO / 2002 / 17 until such a survey can be made and a more accurate new Order
made, to which the owner would then have the right to object.
If the order is confirmed it will
ensure the continued existence of the wood for the foreseeable future.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
Confirm TPO / 2002 / 17.
|
BACKGROUND PAPERS
1.
Paper B, Agenda item 5, presented to the Economic
Development, Planning, Tourism and Leisure Services Select Committee on Monday,
22 July 2002.
2.
Plan from TPO/2002/17 made 22 July 2002.
3.
Letter of objection from landowner, dated 16 August 2002, received 19
August 2002.
