Agenda item

The Committee considered a report which detailed proposals to confirm, without modification, Tree Preservation Order (18) 2024, relating to a Tree on land at 2 The Coppice, Hagley, Worcestershire, DY8 2XZ.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer provided a detailed presentation referring to the presentation slides, as detailed on page 29 to 43 of the main agenda pack. Members’ attention was further drawn to the recommendation, as detailed on page 13 of the main agenda pack.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer further informed the Committee that the provisional order was raised on 19^th December 2024, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, in response to an indication received by the Council that the owner of the tree at 2 The Coppice, Hagley, had intended to fell the Cedar tree at that property.

A Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (T.E.M.P.O) survey was carried out on the tree within the order by a Tree Officer on 10^th December 2024, the findings were detailed in Appendix 2 (page 21 of the main agenda pack).

The Senior Arboricultural Officer further referred to the three objection letters received, and the officer’s response to the issues raised in objection to the TPO, namely:-

·       Public Amenity Value

·       Safety Issues

·       General Debris Fall Nuisance

·       Risk of Root Invasion

as detailed on pages 14 to 15 of the main agenda pack.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer drew Members’ attention to the conclusion and recommendations, as detailed on page 16 of the main agenda pack.

The Cedar tree within the order offered a valuable level of visual amenity value, being visible from the local public road network and pathways and added considerably to the character of the estate and landscaping of the area. It had a considerable future life span and although it may need periodic crown management due to the constraints of the growing position and existing bracing, it was sustainable in the longer term within the infrastructure of the estate.

During the recent planning application there was no mention of removing the tree to facilitate an extension and indeed, the extension was designed to work with the tree, with pile and beam foundations to protect the root system. The attached tree survey from this application categorised the Cedar as “B1” under BS 5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction). This classification also indicated that the tree was worthy of retention.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. P. Collins, on whose land the tree was on, addressed the Committee in objection to TPO (18) 2024.

Members then considered the TPO.

Members commented that having carried out a Site Visit, the impression was that the tree was a healthy, strong tree which had been braced. However, the tree did look out of place in a small cul-de-sac. There was considerable foliage at the top of the tree and Members questioned if this was a cause for concern during strong windy weather conditions. Members had noted that all three objectors had referred to the considerable violent storm in December 2024 which had caused damage, due to a  quantity of very large branches and debris being ripped from the tree, causing damage to property. Members further questioned if the height of the tree could be reduced?

In response the Senior Arboricultural Officer stated that some pruning could be carried out, however this was a typical Cedar tree with no branches on the lower end, and the crown spread out, which was not excessive. Any tree could be pruned within reason.

The Council’s Legal Advisor informed Members that should Members be minded to confirm the TPO without modification, then the landowner could apply to the Council for permission to reduce the height of the tree.

Members sought clarity regarding the damage caused during the violent storm in December and the Council’s liability in the future, with any potential damage or injury being caused during extreme weather conditions. Members were mindful that the objectors had indicated that major damage had been experienced during the storm in December, yet the Officer’s report had indicated that there had been minor damage.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer stated that extreme weather conditions were not the responsibility of the Council, as this was out of their control. Should an  application be made to manage a TPO tree with a disease issue or existing structural damage be refused by the Council they could be liable if a failure occurred associated to that cause.

The Council’s Legal Advisor informed the Committee that minor / major damage was a matter of judgement. The landowner could appeal if the Council refused  their request for work to be carried out. A dangerous tree was one that was an immediate risk of harm or injury, or a serious risk of immediate harm.

Members further commented that when considering climate change, further storms were more likely to happen and occur more frequently. Would any risk be reassessed with ongoing climate change?

In response the Senior Arboricultural Officer explained that climate change was a concern in certain tree species as was long dry spells. There was a set criteria for risk assessments with the condition of trees being assessed. With regards to some Members asking about removing the tree and replacing it. The Senior Arboricultural Officer highlighted that a TPO was being raised on a tree that was valuable in its own right, he would not consider removing and replacing the tree.

At the request of Members, the Senior Arboricultural Officer explained the reasons for bracing a tree and replacing a brace if required, however, Members were informed that Officers had never seen a modern brace fail.

Members considered the nearby residents, the proximately of the children’s play area and the concerns raised by the objectors with regard to the large items that fell from the tree during the severe storm in December 2024. Members expressed their concerns with the potential of other violent storms, with potential injury to people and /or property. Members further commented that such trees were massive and that these trees were prone to having major branches falling off.

On being put to the vote, there was no proposer or seconder for the recommendation, as detailed on page 13 of the main agenda pack.

The Council’s Legal Advisor drew Members’ attention to the (laminated) TPO Information Sheet provided.

Some Members commented that they were struggling as the tree was a lovely tree. However, Members were worried about the concerns raised and highlighted by Mr. P Collins, the landowner, with regard to the large branches that had previously fell from the tree, and the potential risk to neighbours. Some Members further commented that there was little amenity value.

Councillor P. M. McDonald proposed an alternative recommendation which was seconded by Councillor E. M. S. Gray, that the tree on land at 2 The Coppice, Hagley, Worcestershire, DY8 2XZ, should not be protected and that TPO (18) 2024 should not be confirmed.

On being put to the vote, the alternative recommendation was carried.

RESOLVED that provisional Tree Preservation Order (18) 2024, relating to the tree on land at 2 The Coppice, Hagley, Worcestershire, DY8 2XZ, not be confirmed.