CALDERDALE MBC ITEM 8

WARDS AFFECTED: WARD NO 4 – GREETLAND AND STAINLAND

PLANNING COMMITTEE

5 June 2007

CALDERDALE TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO C1343 2007P

TREES AT 2 DENE ROYD, STAINLAND, HALIFAX.

Report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Issue

1.1 To consider the confirmation of a provisional Tree Preservation Order

(TPO) affecting trees at 2 Dene Royd, Stainland, Halifax.

2. Need for Decision

2.1 The constitution requires confirmation of opposed TPOs by Committee.

2.2 An objection to the Order has been received from the owner of the
above property. Objections are principally on the grounds that the trees
are causing problems, damaging adjacent properties, preventing works
from being undertaken to reduce damage to the properties, and that
the are not visible by the public and therefore not of amenity.

2.3 The trees subject to this order are considered to be of public amenity
value, to warrant retention.

3 Recommendation

3.1 Members are requested to confirm the Order without modification.

TPO C1343 2007P

4. Background

4.1 In January 2007, a Notification of Intent to undertake works to trees

within the Stainland Conservation Area was received. The Notification
advised that two trees were to be felled as the owner considered that
the tree roots were infiltrating the drains, as well as the foundations of
the adjacent properties. They also commented that the trees were in
soft soil and building waste, which was left when the house was built,
and the ground can no longer support the trees. The owner also hoped
to excavate the soil, which was adjacent to the neighbouring dwellings
to alleviate the damp, but the removal of soil will affect the stability of
the trees.

Following the inspection of the trees it was considered that they were
of amenity value to the area, and as the trees appeared to be in a
reasonably healthy condition with no major defects visible, it was
considered appropriate to protect the trees, especially as no supporting
evidence had been submitted by the owner.

4.2 On 20 March 2007, Provisional Order C1343 2007P was served

protecting two Sycamore trees, (see Map 1). Photographs of the trees
are available for inspection and will be presented at the meeting as
necessary.

4.3 The reason for the Order is as follows:-

“The two trees are readily visible from the adjacent highway and from
nearby properties, and it is the view of the Local Planning Authority that
the trees make a pleasing contribution to both the street scene and the
conservation area, by providing an attractive green amenity feature in a
generally built up area. Therefore the loss of these trees would be
detrimental to the amenity of the conservation area”.

5. Objections

5.1 One letter of objection has been received from Mr T Mear, of 2 Dene
Royd, Stainland. The objection is still outstanding, and is summarised
below:-

(i) The trees are not readily visible from the road, and will be
virtually rendered invisible as the other trees in the garden come
into leaf.

(ii) The neighbours have commented that the “sap covers

everything”, “crows in the trees keep the family awake”, and
“can’t get Sky TV”. Clearly then the trees constitute “an
attractive green amenity feature” only if you live elsewhere.

(iii) The trees grow larger each year and are rooted in soft earth and
builders waste. The trees have begun to lean towards the
neighbouring hoses, and are being pushed by the prevailing

TPO C1343 2007P

 winds in the winter, and on a stormy night the trees will be
pushed on to the neighbours house with possible loss of life and
considerable damage.

Also as soil is piled up against the houses it needs excavating to

alleviate damp. The removal of the soil will make the tees
unstable, and therefore the trees should be removed before this
is undertaken.

(iv) If the trees are to be retained would the Council provide a letter
stating that my fears for the trees are completely unfounded and
that the trees are completely safe, and will remain so for the
foreseeable future. Such a letter will then be passed to my
neighbours and insurers. Perhaps the letter could also state
though we must live in fear of these monsters, the Council has,
as from now, accepted full responsibility for any future tragedy
that occurs.

A full copy of the objection letter is available for inspection.

6. Officer Comments

(i) When the Notification of Intent was submitted, the Council had
six weeks to assess the trees and make a decision on whether
the loss of the trees was acceptable, or whether the trees were
of amenity value to both the immediate area and the
Conservation Area in general, and whether the proposed works
would affect this. On inspection of the trees it was considered
they were of amenity vale, and with no supporting information
being submitted by the owner the provisional TPO was served. It
is considered that the trees are visible from a number of
locations, although in places only the tops of the crowns are
visible.

(ii) With reference to the problems caused by the trees such as sap
falling from the trees, and crows nesting, these are not
considered to be suitable reasons to allow the removal of
healthy amenity trees. Debris from trees and birds nesting will
cause some inconvenience and create extra maintenance, but
this is considered to be seasonal and minor. The removal of the
trees will not necessarily remove the problem. It should also
noted that “amenity” is not an exact science, and it is up to
Officers to assess the trees and consider whether their removal
would have a significant impact on the local environment, and
the enjoyment of the area, both now and in the future.

(iii) Although concerns have been raised over possible damage to

the adjacent properties, no supporting evidence has been
submitted which identifies that the trees are affecting the

TPO C1343 2007P

 buildings, and that the trees have to be removed in order to
resolve the problems. If in the future evidence is provided which
demonstrates that the trees are causing substantial problems,
which cannot be resolved without the removal of the trees, then
the matter can be reconsidered.

(iv) The making of the TPO does not imply any assumption of
responsibility, either practically or legally by the Council, this
continues to rest with the owner of the trees. If however an
application to fell the trees is submitted, and subsequently
refused the owner can seek compensation from the Local
Planning Authority for any loss or damage, which results within
12 months from the date of refusal. It should be noted however
that compensation is only payable if the cause has been clearly
identified in the application as the justification for the works.

If the owner has the trees inspected by a suitably qualified

person who can provide a report on the overall health of the
trees, and major defects or concerns are noted, a copy of the
subsequent report should be submitted as part of a formal
application, and an assessment will be made.

7. Financial Implications

7.1 There are no immediate financial implications within this report, but
should any subsequent appeal give rise to an award of costs against
the Council, they would have to be met from existing budgets and/or
compensatory savings to be found.

8. Equal Opportunities Implications

8.1 The retention of this tree in this locality will enhance the amenities of
the area for the benefit and enjoyment of all sections of the community.

9. Sustainability Implications

9.1 In addition to their amenity value, trees play a vital physical role as an
environmental resource. In particular they:-

(a) Operate as a natural air filter, absorbing harmful greenhouse

gas and producing oxygen;

(b) Replenish nutrients in the soil and help to maintain the water
cycle;

(c) Provide food and habitat cover for a wealth of flora and fauna.

9.2 The protection of the trees therefore complement the Council’s

commitment of improving the quality of life for all citizens through the
provision of a clean and healthy environment for both present and

TPO C1343 2007P

 future generations.

9.3 This commitment was taken further by the Environment Committee on

1 April 1999 in adopting a new procedure to secure replacement
planting for all trees on development sites lost as a result of site
operations.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The trees are considered to be in a healthy condition and of public

amenity value to warrant being protected by a TPO. Members are
therefore requested to confirm the provisional Order without
modification.

Reference: DC/KSG/3/05/C1343 Andy Edwards

Date: 10 May 2007 Acting Head of Planning and Regeneration

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS REPORT CONTACT:

K Grady TELEPHONE:- 01422 392218

DOCUMENTS USED IN THE PREPERATION OF THIS REPORT:

1. TPO File C1343 2007P

NON EXEMPT DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT:

Planning Services, Northgate House, Halifax.

Twenty-four hours’ notice (excluding holidays and weekends) may be required

in order to make the material available.

Please contact : Ext No 2237 to make arrangements for inspection.

TPO C1343 2007P

TPO C1343 2007P