Development Management Ref. No. Parish Ward TPO 141412012 Finchampstead Finchampstead South Location Land at Manor Farm, Finchampstead Proposal Objection to the making of Tree Preservation Order 141412012 Officer Coralie Ramsey -Tree and Landscape Officer Pages 11

FOR CONSIDERATION BY Planning Committee on 25Ih ~ u l y 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY Head of Development Management.

SUMMARY

Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 1414i2012 was served to protect significant trees that form a boundary to west side of the permissive footpath (open at the time of the TPO review) that traverses the area known as Manor Farm. Finchampstead. Berkshire.

In January 2012. Council Officers were made aware of development proposals being considered for the area known as Manor Farm. Following receipt of this information, Council Tree Officers considered that the trees were of significant risk from potential damage or removal. The Council also received requests from local residents concerned that significant trees on the site could be removed and asked that they be protected. In view of this it was considered expedient to include the trees in a Tree Preservation Order.

Manor Farm is situated within a designated Area of Special Landscape Importance, in countlyside. The strip of trees is clearly visible in views from the public highways of the Lower Sandhurst Road. The Ridges, Dell Road and Jubilee Road. The trees are a prominent landscape feature and contribute to the wider visual amenity provided by mature trees in the area. Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) policy WEE5 includes a commitment to protect existing publicly significant trees.

In view of this, it was considered expedient to include the trees at risk of harm in a Tree Prcsewar~on Order so Inat only appropr ate words c o ~ l o be .noeria<en lo them vt rn the wr~lten consent of the Boro-gh Co~nc i

Tree Presewation Order 141412012 is valid until 3" August 2012 following which date it will cease to be valid unless otherwise confirmed.

RECOMMENDATION

Officer recommendation is that Tree Preservation Order 1414R012 is confirmed without modification.

REPRESENTATIONS

Council Officers have received correspondence from a total of 21 residents, in support of the making of this Tree Preservation Order.

One letter of objection against the making of the order has been received, this is summarised below.

Full copies of all correspondence regarding this Tree Preservation Order are attached with this report.

Letter of objection dated 3'd April 2012 raises the following concerns

Clearlv Visible The objection considers that the trees are "virtually invisible" when viewed from a public place and as such their public visibility is not sufficient to warrant a TPO.

Safetv and Requests A number of the trees are not safe and healthy or capable of reasonably long life and are contributing damage to buildings (eg subsidence damage). Some trees are damaaino ditches. - - he objection requests that Goat Willows should not be included in the Order as they block the ditch. Nor should Birches, Ash or Sycamore as they are small, self sown trees in poor condition. The Holly trees have low amenity value and will overpower adjacent trees. The order should just include Field Maple and Oak, or not be confirmed. Council Officers failed to visit the site and speak to the owner, or their representative, as 1 per The Blue Book.

Exoediency Change of ownership is not normally an acceptable criterion to protect trees at individual properties. ' The proposed development planning application AG/2012/0174 seeks to protect the roots of the trees. The Tree Preservation Order is contrary to Government guidelines which state 'It is unlikely to be expedient to make a TPO in respect of trees ... under good arboricultural or silvicultural management'.

Notification The owner was not notified until 22 days after the TPO was first served, so did not have 8 weeks to seek legal and expert advice before submitting his objections.

There has been no tree felling at Manor Farm therefore there is nothing to suggest that these trees will befelled.

No surfacinq on the track If the track is lefi without any kind of surfacing, it would be more detrimental to the trees.

New road surface The owner wishes to install a load spreading surface in accordance with 855837 which would reduce the impact on the trees. Planning application AG/2012/0859 was received on 18'~~pr i l2012.

Confirmins an order The number of applications for works on the trees may be relatively high. Public resources would be required to assess applications "to trim the hedge". Area orders should only be used in emergencies. Is it in the public interest to confirm the order?

PLANNING POLICY

Wokingham District Local Plan - WBE5 and accompanying text states as follows:-

"4.15 The Council considers it is imoortant to orotect trees and hedaes in the olan area / that make a fundamental contribution to ' its character and -appearance. Tree Preservation Orders have already been applied to many individual and groups of trees and areas of woodland, and this approachwill be continued as appropriate. I WBE5: TREES AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS In considering proposals for development the effect on existing trees and areas of woodland will be taken into account. Trees that are to be retained will be properly orotected durina the course of construction in accordance with a scheme to be first approved rhro~gh appropr ate cond tions attacheo to me plannlng permlsslon Wnere appropr arc Tree Preservar on Orders wll be appllca and the oss or damage of trees protcctca oy new or ex sung 1 ree Prese~at on Oracrs w I be res steo "

PLANNING ISSUES

Visibilitv of the trees Having viewed the trees in the surrounding landscape, Council Tree Officers can confirm the trees are visible in views from Lower Sandhurst Road, Jubilee Road and The Ridaes and from Dell Road. The trees make an imoortant contribution to the mature - tree cover in the local area

Safetv and Requests Trees that are considered as dead or dangerous are exempt from TPO legislation. All other applications for tree work can be made by using the application for works form and once granted, consent will be valid for two years. In this way, the protected trees can still be appropriately managed within the Tree Preservation Order Legislation and confirmina the Tree Preservation Order will not orevent aoorooriate health and safetv tree worn; being undertanen n the f ~ l - r e . f conf imed, the i r e d Preservation Oroer can ' be ~.sed to ensure that on y approprate work s dent fed and "naertaken lo 1ne tree / with the written consent of the Borough Council I Expediency Tree Preservation Orders provide statutory protection of trees under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Local Authorities are given the power to make Tree Preservation Orders if it appears to them to be "expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the presen/ation of trees or woodlands in their area" (Section 198(1) of the Act).

Change of land ownersnlp s not ~ s ~ a l l y a crireriol lo create TPOs, b ~ t n rhls case rile new owner was a b ~ s ness proposing and aemonstrating a cnange n Morklng pracrlces on tne ste, hence ncluslon of lhe trees in a TPO s us1 f ca

Where trees are considered to be under sound arboricultural management and not subject to any known threat (such as from inappropriate pruning work, development proposals or are being considered for removal) then a TPO is not usually considered to be either expedient or justified. However, Council Tree Officers are aware that trees 3 cuts are evident as

lno t being in accordance with the British Standard 399812010 (Tree Work/ ~econim'noat,ons). Phorographs attached v,rh tn's report sn0.v e. oenci of or-nlng works "tideriaken 'o rraes , ~ s r prior to ;ne rnalqing of rh~s Oroer.

Notification The TPO was served on the occupier of Manor Farm on 3'd February. It came to light that the land owner did not live at the site address. To remedy this, the notice was sent to the land owner on ?Ih arch 2012 with an extension to 4Ih April 2012, giving 28 days to appeal. First representations were received dated 13Ih arch which clarified a point regarding the TPO format. Further representations of a 36 page objections document were received on 11" April 2012. This was accepted even though it was more that 28 days after the service. Under Regulation 3 of the 1999 TPO Regulations, the Borough Council must give 28 days for any objections to be received.

Crown Consultants state that "no trees have been felled other than self sown trees". It is rarelv aoorooriate to aive different value to trees based on whether thev are considered to b i p.&ted or .se iso$$n'. Tne means of estab snrnent for many lrees is ofien d f f c ~ l t ro darermne and has no weighting on thc ..lrimare v i s ~ a slgll fcance of tne matLre tree. For rhe ourooses of ine TPO eolslar on. tne t ian Co~r r nas dcrcrmned rnat a 'tree is anyihlng whlcn ord rlarly one tvould call a tree ?his .voud incl~dc sc f sown trccs The statcrnent from Crovtn Cons-lianr rhereforc conf rms that trees riavc bcen remogcd lnLs I underlining the expediency of the Tree Preservation Order. I No surfacins on the track The purpose of the Tree Presewation Order is not to prevent any development in this area; but is to ensure that any road that may be constructed is built so as to minimise impact on the trees in accordance with industry best practice.

Confirmins the Order Under the new TPO regulations (which came into effect on 6Ih ~pr i l2012) a scheme of works can be agreed so that it applies over a specified period of time, therefore avoiding the need for repeated applications. The applicant might like to consider proposing a scheme of works so that repeat applications are not necessary.

WBC nas s ~ c c o s s f ~ ly ~ s e d Area' dcslgnai on lype TPOs to aominlsler nany sltes, for examp e Eogc~inoc Parn Fstate n Croivinorne

TP01414/2012 is considered to be an appropriate Order and has drawn the public support included with this presentation.

CONCLUSION

The making of Tree Preservation Order 141412012 is considered expedient, as it is to ensure the retention and appropriate management of highly visible field-boundary trees within the property of Manor Farm, Finchampstead, Berkshire.

The expediency of this Tree Preservation Order has been demonstrated by prior works to the trees, which are not considered to be in accordance with best arboricuitural practice. Confirming this Tree Preservation Order will ensure that only appropriate work is undertaken to the trees and that their removal can only be undertaken with written

permission from the Borough Council. It will also enable replacement planting to be undertaken, when appropriate, for any trees that may be removed in the future.

NB Ail reports seek to identify environmental, community safety, customer care and equal opportunities implications. Consultation with residents and organisations which has or is about to take place, will also be reported CONTACT DETAILS

Email treesandlandscape@wokingham.gov.uk

Service 1 Telephone Development Management (Trees

01 18 974 646416767

Prunincl Cuts

Photograph 1 -Showing recent pruning cub. January 2OI2

Photograpll 2- Showing recent pruning cut. Janualy 2012

Photograph 3-Showing recent pruning cut, January 2012

Google Maps Aerial View of tlie start and end of the TPO area.

photagraph4-showing the view from 83348

Photograph 6-showingviews from Lower Sandhurst Road Gaogle Maps

Photograph 7-showing views from Lower Sandhurst Road Gaogle Maps

Photograph 8 -showing theview from Dell Road

T H R I N G S

CASE OFFICE:! 1 i 5 -2 PLANNING

FAO: Anne Ballard and Jon Matthews Wokingham Borough Council

Also via emaii 3 April 2012

Your Reference: Our Reference: llMlE1614.2

Direct Line: 0117 9309575 Direct Fax: 01 17 9293369 Email: amadden@thrings.com

Dear Sirs

Our client: Mr S Siavchev of EU Plants Ltd, Manor Farm, Finchampstead

Tree Preservation Order No. 141412012

Thank you for your ietter dated 21 March 2012

As you are aware, we represent the above named in this matter and we enclose copy of our client's formal objection letter to the above Tree Preservation Order (the "TPO") at Manor Farm, Finchampstead which has been prepared by Crown Consultants for your consideration.

In addition to the attached ietter we wish to make the foliowing representations:

1. We note that the Council's Guidance Note for including treer in Tree Prere~ation Orders ("CGN") provides that "The tree(s) must be highly significont when viewed from o public ploce such or o rood or faotpoth. Trees thot can only be viewed from a oeighbounngproperty and ore not significont in the wider londrcape connot be included ..." In our view, the treer subiect to the above mentioned TPO are virtually invisible when viewed from a public place and, therefore, by including the same in the TPO, we rubmit that the Council's Tree Officer has misdirected himself on the operation of the criteria set out in the CGN when considering the same for TPO purposes. it follawr that his decision in this regard is Wednesbory

unreasonable;

2. We also note that the CGN prescribes that "The tree must be sofe ond heolthy, copoble of reoson(lb1y long l i fe and not be contribrtinq to ony known domoge building leg . subsidence

~ -~ - -

damage)." W e submit that a certain number of the treer within the TPO do not satisfy this condition and the Council's Tree Officer has, by including such treer within the TPO, reached a decision that is, on any view, erroneourly derived. The decision to include such trees in the

TPO is, therefore, irrational;

3. We are also aware that CGN states " i t must be expedient t o include the trees in the TPO. This usually meons that they ore under some farm of threat such os proposed deveiopment. We wil l not normally protect trees ot individual properties which are perceived os being under

me Paragon 0 CovnteriBp o Btiitol o BSl 6BX o TeB 01179309SW ii Fa: 01179293369 - OX 7895Biiila1

Email: roliclbn@fhdnw.rom * w.thrinpi.rom Ako in London, Bath md 5Mnd.n

M i 5 Slavchev 2 3 April 2Ot2

threat from more geneiol risks such as chonges of ownership ..." That said, the Council's Tree Officer has stated as reasons for makine the TPO, both the chanqe of ownenhip of the above proJerry atla the orapliea ueierpxent notn.l~?rrel..!lilq cwr '.:IL. :ilpoleo def~.opmc?t reeh rn prorccr -i>r. r . ,or \ ul ill:! I r e i ! ~ nll8~0 are the r ~ b j e c t of toe TPO. Wc., tilerciore, >zorci t l h 2 r

the Council's Tree Officer has misinterpreted the ctiteria set out in the CGN when considering the same for TPO purposes. If faiiowr, therefore, that the basis for making the TPO is self- evidently misconceived; and

4. We also understand that the TPO was made on 3 Februaly 2012 although our client war not notified of the same until 6 March 2012 some 22 working days after the making of the raid TPO which is, on any view, manifestly unreasonable since our client has had a shortened period (4 weeks as opposed to 8 weeks) in which to seek legal and expert advice before submitting his objections. Such delay constitutes procedural impropriety on any view.

In the circumstances, we submit that the TPO should not be confirmed and we would be grateful i f you could please confirm your position once you have the opportunity to consider the contents of this ~. letter and its ericlosuies.

Kindly acknowledge safe receipt.

yours faithfully

Eric. Crown Conrultantr letter dated 3 Apnl20i2