Agenda item

The Committee considered a report which detailed proposals to consider the confirmation without modification Tree Preservation Order (TPO) (12) 2024, relating to trees on land at 98 New Road, Bromsgrove, B60 2LB.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer provided a detailed presentation and in doing so drew Members’ attention to the recommendation, as detailed on page11 of the main agenda pack.

Members were asked to note that the tree referenced in the objection, as detailed at Appendix 3 to the report, referred to a Sycamore tree.  T1 of  the provisional order was a Lime tree and not a Sycamore tree.

Members were informed that the provisional order was raised on 17^th May 2024, as shown at Appendix 1 to the report; in response to the site being offered for sale.  The site was formally a family support centre owned by Worcestershire County Council (WCC).  The concern being that once the site was sold, the site might be redeveloped, which could represent a potential risk to the trees on the site being damaged or removed.

A Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) was carried out on the trees, as detailed at Appendix 2 to the report. The TEMPO showed that the assessment of the trees had achieved a suitable score to justify consideration for TPO protection.

One objection had been received in respect of the provisional TPO having been raised, as detailed at Appendix 3 to the report.

The officers’ comments in relation to the points raised in the objection were detailed on page 12 of the main agenda pack and referred to: -

• Safety Risk Represented by Tree
• Blockage of Light
• Seed and Leaf Fall

Three letters in support of the TPO, one accompanied by a signed petition (with 35 signatures) has also been received, as detailed at Appendix 4 to the report and on page 13 of the main agenda pack.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer concluded that the trees included within the order were visible from a public perspective as shown by the photos within the report.  The trees contributed to the character of the area and that in his opinion he felt that any nuisance they may cause was greatly outweighed by the amenity and landscape benefits the trees brought to the area and site.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. Bernthal, who had submitted an objection to the provisional TPO addressed the Committee. Mrs. Bernthal confirmed that the tree was a Lime tree and not a Sycamore tree, as stated in their letter of objection to the provisional TPO. 

Members then considered the TPO.

Members commented that Mrs. Bernthal had stated that they did not want the tree cut down, just suitable maintained and trimmed therefore less risk to their property should the tree come down during adverse weather conditions. Members asked if the tree was in a good condition with no concerns from officers.

In response the Senior Arboricultural Officer explained that the tree was in a good condition, however it could not be 100% guaranteed that the tree could be affected by adverse weather conditions, but in his opinion the probability was low.

In response to Members, the Senior Arboricultural Officer explained that should Members be minded to approve the TPO that anyone purchasing the site would be fully aware of any TPO, as this was included on the Land Registry Land Charge documentation.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer further explained that any trees with TPO’s on private land were the responsibility of the property owner.  Any excessive debris (seed and leaf fall) onto the street could be scheduled into a street cleansing routine.

In response to further questions from the Committee with regard to maintaining trees that were subject to a TPO, the Senior Arboricultural Officer explained that maintenance / management could be permitted and would be dependent on the tree type and species, with any proposed maintenance / management being agreed with the Council.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer stated that other residents could not request that the trees be pruned or crowned to a smaller acceptable size; only the landowner of the site could apply to the Local Authority for such works to be agreed and carried out. The current landowners WCC were still responsible until the site was sold.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer stated that officers could work with the current landowner in order to consider a level of management of the trees that was justified. The tree was nearly in full maturity, but could still gain another 5 metres in height, and this could be achieved without any safety issues or concerns. With regards to risk to the highway, WCC had a limit of a 5.2 metre canopy height over the highway.

In response to further questions from the Committee with regards to safety, the Senior Arboricultural Officer commented that it was difficult to assess the strength of the trees roots, however, there was no evidence of recent root base damage and no reasons to suggest that the roots had been compromised.  

On being put to the vote, it was 

RESOLVED that provisional Tree Preservation Order (12) 2024 relating to trees on land at 98 New Road, Bromsgrove, B60 2LB, be confirmed without modification and made permanent, as detailed at Appendix 1 to the report.