Tree Preservation Order Sub Group

OBJECTION TO TREE PRESERVATION ORDER L/TPO/343

Medway Court, Medway Road, Huntingdon, PE29 1SF

(Report by Planning Policy Manager)

1. Purpose of Report 1.1 To consider an objection to the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and determine if the order

should be confirmed or confirmed subject to modifications. 2. Description 2.1 The protected tree is a large mature oak within the grounds of Medway Court, a three

storey block of sheltered accommodation off Medway Road in Huntingdon. The area is predominantly residential with a church and community centre in close proximity to Medway Court.

3. Reason for TPO 3.1 The Arboricultural Officer was contacted by Luminus Group, owners of the property

enquiring about the protected status of the oak. Their insurers allege that the oak is the probable cause of damage to the property. Site investigations have been carried out which found roots, identified as coming from an oak, beneath the foundations of the property. The insurers have recommended the felling and removal of the tree.

3.2 Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 places a duty on local planning

authorities when granting planning permission to include appropriate provision for the preservation and planting of trees:

It shall be the duty of the local planning authority— (a) to ensure, whenever it is appropriate, that in granting planning permission for any development adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees; and (b) to make such orders under section 198 as appear to the authority to be necessary in connection with the grant of such permission, whether for giving effect to such conditions or otherwise.

3.3 Paragraph 3.30 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010 and

the Draft Local Plan to 2036 currently under consultation, states that:

“Where specific trees or groups of trees are of particular value (such that their removal would have a significant impact upon the local environment and its enjoyment by the public), and are potentially under threat, the Council will make Tree Preservation Orders to protect them.” Policy EN19 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan states that:

“The district council will make tree preservation orders where it considers that trees which contribute to the local amenity and/or the landscape are at risk.”

3.5 An Amenity Evaluation Checklist is used by your officers, which provides a systematic approach of determining whether or not a Tree Preservation Order should protect a tree or trees. The trees were assessed as having amenity value to the area and Tree Preservation Order L/TPO/342 was made on the 11th March 2013 to ensure the protection and retention of these trees. A copy of the checklist is appended for your information

3.3 The Arboricultural Officer considers that the evidence provided to justify the felling and

removal of this tree fails to demonstrate that the tree is causing the damage. There is not enough information for us to be able to make a decision whether or not the tree is contributing to the damage. The loss of this fine mature oak tree would be of significant detriment to the amenity value of the area and a Tree Preservation Order L/TPO/343 was made on 11 March 2013.

3.4 A letter dated 28 March 2013 objecting to the Tree Preservation Order was received via email 15 April 2013.

4. Outline of objection 4.1 Oriel Services have been appointed by the Loss Adjusters acting on behalf of the insurers

of Medway Court. They are representing the wishes of the insurers who are requesting that the Order is not confirmed. They allege that the tree is implicated in subsidence damage to the property.

4.2 The property had previously suffered from subsidence damage in 2010 and the oak was

implicated. Removal of the tree was recommended but at the time the owners did not wish to remove the tree. Repairs which included structural reinforcements were carried out. At that time Luminus sought the advice of the District Council’s Arboricultural Officer. The Engineering Appraisal Report at that time concluded that the damage was slight, category 1 to 2 in accordance to BRE Digest 251- Assessment of low rise buildings, and that the adjacent oak had caused indirect damage due to removal of moisture from highly shrinkable clay soil beneath the foundations of this part of the property.

4.3 In the autumn of 2012 damage was noted to have returned and again the oak was

implicated. As the previous repairs do not appear to have resolved the problem, if the tree remains the only option would be to underpin the property. The insurers claim the full cost of these repairs would be in excess of £50,000.-The engineering report contained no level distortion or monitoring survey results, both of which are vital to implicate a tree as being contributory to subsidence damage.

5. Response to objection 5.1 The oak is mature but would have an expected useful future life expectancy in excess of

30-40 years. There is also sufficient space for the tree to reach maturity without the need for drastic tree surgery.

5.2 The tree makes a significant contribution to the surrounding urban area where there are few trees of comparative size. Your Arboricultural Officer considers that the evidence provided to support this objection does not implicate this tree as being a contributory factor to the damage of this property.

5.3 When a tree is implicated as contributing to, or causing structural damage to a property reports are required usually from a structural engineer including technical analysis from other experts. The report submitted to support the proposed removal of this tree does not include any distortion of the building, any monitoring of the vertical movement, the sub soil beneath the foundations have not been tested to determine their plasticity, or whether or not the soil is desiccated, the proposals and estimated costs of options to repair the damage, nor an arboricultural assessment, including options for avoidance or remediation of indirect tree-related damage.

5.4 The level of information supplied falls way short of what is required to accurately implicate

this tree as a contributory factor to the building damage, and this is clearly a case of correlation being made between the tree and the damage without any evidence of the real cause.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Oak is large, mature and has a future life expectancy of more than 20-40 years. The

reasons put forward do not justify the removal of this tree. On the basis of the submitted evidence, which contains no building distortion or level monitoring survey information, it does not appear that the tree is directly contributing to the damage to the property.

7. Recommendation 7.1 That the Panel confirms Tree Preservation Order L/TPO/343 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Tree Preservation Order file No 878 Contact Officer: Mr Brian Ogden, Arboricultural Officer

01480 388437 Contributor: Mr Mike Barber, Assistant Arboricultural Officer 01480 388439

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 1, Letter of Objection 2, Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders – TEMPO 3, Copy of Engineering Appraisal Report 4, Site Location Plan 5, Tree Preservation Order Plan 6, Photographs of views of T1, Oak 7, Plan showing the locations of the viewpoints where the photographs were taken.

Colin Bashford Associates Ltd 2003

TREE EVALUATION METHOD FOR PRESERVATION ORDERS (TEMPO):

SURVEY DATA SHEET & DECISION GUIDE

Part 1: Amenity assessment

a) Condition & suitability for TPO:

Refer to Guidance Note for definitions

5) Good Highly suitable

3) Fair Suitable

1) Poor Unlikely to be suitable

0) Unsafe Unsuitable

0) Dead Unsuitable

b) Remaining longevity (in years) & suitability for TPO:

Refer to ‘Species Guide’ section in Guidance Note

5) 100+ highly suitable

4) 40-100 Very suitable

2) 20-40 Suitable

1) 10-20 Just suitable

0) <10 Unsuitable

c) Relative public visibility & suitability for TPO:

Consider realistic potential for future visibility with changed land use; refer to Guidance Note

5) Very large trees, or large trees that are prominent landscape features Highly suitable

4) Large trees, or medium trees clearly visible to the public Suitable

3) Medium trees, or larger trees with limited view only Just suitable

2) Small trees, or larger trees visible only with difficulty Unlikely to be suitable

1) Young, v. small, or trees not visible to the public, regardless of size Probably unsuitable

d) Other factors

Trees must have accrued 7 or more points (with no zero score) to qualify

5) Principal components of arboricultural features, or veteran trees

4) Members of groups of trees that are important for their cohesion

3) Trees with significant historical or commemorative importance

2) Trees of particularly good form, especially if rare or unusual

1) Trees with none of the above additional redeeming features

Part 2: Expediency assessment Trees must have accrued 9 or more points to qualify; refer to Guidance Note

5) Known threat to tree

3) Foreseeable threat to tree

2) Perceived threat to tree

1) Precautionary only

0) Tree known to be an actionable nuisance

Part 3: Decision guide

Any 0 Do not apply TPO

1-6 TPO indefensible

7-10 Does not merit TPO

11-13 Possibly merits TPO

14+ Definitely merits TPO

Tree details

TPO Ref:L/TPO/343 Tree/Group No: T1 Species: Oak Owner (if known):

Luminus Group

Location: Medway Court, Medway Road, Huntingdon

Score & Notes

5 large tree in apparent good health

Score & Notes

4

Score & Notes

2

Score & Notes

4

Add Scores for Total:

20

Date October 2012 Surveyor: Brian Ogden

Score & Notes:

5 Proposed felling of tree due to alleged subsidence

damage

Decision:

Definitely merits TPO

Site

ROAD

COURT

NENE ROAD

LUCAS COURT

THONGSLEY

SELBY COURT

BEALE COURT

CHESTNUT CLOSE

OAK DRIVEGARNER COURTCOTTON COURT

FOSTER COURT

POPLAR CLOSE

HUMBER ROAD

SANDWICH CLOSE

BEATON CRESCENT

CONEYGEAR COURT

THACKRAY CLOSE

ARMSTRONG COURT

MOOR

HOUS

E DRIV

E

MEDWAY ROAD

CONEYGEAR ROAD

OAK DRIVE

COURT

BEATON CRESCENT

Unau thorise d re produ ction infringe s Crown Copyright and may le ad to prose cu tion or civil proce e dings. HDC LA 100022322 Re produ ce d from Ordnance Su rve y Mapping with the pe rmission of He r Maje sty’s Stationary Office © Crown Copyright.

1:2,500

±Tree Preservation Order L/TPO/343Medway CourtMedway RoadHuntingdonDate: 07/03/2013

Pathfinder HouseSt Mary's StreetHuntingdonPE29 3TN Planning Services

#!T1

St Barnabas

Church Centre

15

Co urt

Medway

Unautho rised repro ductio n infringes Cro wn Co pyright and may lead to pro secutio n o r civil pro ceedings. HDC LA 100022322 Repro duced fro m Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permissio n o f Her Majesty’s Statio nary Office © Cro wn Co pyright.

1:200

±Tree Preservation Order L/TPO/343Medway CourtMedway RoadHuntingdonDate: 07/03/2013 Pathfinder House

St Mary's StreetHuntingdonPE29 3TN Planning Services

A

C

D

B

4

6

1

St Barnabas

Ch urch Centre

11

15

1 to 25

Court

26 to 40

Vicarage

Medway

Court

4

Court

26 to 40

1St Barnabas

Vicarage

Vicarage

MEDWAY ROAD

Unauth orised reproduction infringes Crown Copy righ t and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. HDC LA 100022322 Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Mapping with th e permission of Her Majesty ’s Stationary Office © Crown Copy righ t.

1:500

±Tree Preservation Order L/TPO/343Medway CourtMedway RoadHuntingdonDate: 01/07/2013

Photograph viewpoints

Pathfinder HouseSt Mary's StreetHuntingdonPE29 3TN Planning Services

Tree Preservation Order L/TPO/343Medway CourtMedway RoadHuntingdon

T1 Oak

T1 Oak

View from Medway Road

View from car park of St Barnabas

Photo A

Photo B

T1 OakPhoto C

Photo D

Views from grounds of Medway Court