Minutes:
Consideration was given to a report of the Assistant Director of Planning, Regeneration and Transport concerning the proposed confirmation and serving of a Tree Preservation Order with modification with regard to the Sycamore (as opposed to a Norway Maple) which was the subject of this report, situated at Ulley Recreation Ground, Poynton Way, Ulley, Rotherham, under Section 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
On 10th July, 2019, Ulley Parish Council applied under a Six Weeks Notice of intent application to fell 2 No. Sycamore trees within Ulley Conservation Area at Ulley Recreation Ground. The Parish Council considered that the trees needed to be felled for safety reasons.
The Council’s Tree Officer inspected the trees and considered that the eastern most tree was in poor health with limited future prospects and, therefore, the felling of the tree was acceptable.
In terms of the western most tree, whilst it had suffered some minor storm damage, it was not considered detrimental to the overall health of the tree and warranted protection.
7 letters in support of the Tree Protection Order had been submitted.
The report detailed the objections made by Anderson Tree Care, appointed by Ulley Parish Council, to the making of this Tree Preservation Order who felt that the TPO had been very badly served with the plan insufficiently accurate, the identification of the tree incorrect and that the TPO was not justified; the Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) system was not a system of amenity valuation and had it been applied properly the tree would not have reached TEMPO’s protection justification-threshold.
In accordance with the right to speak procedure, 2 objectors attended the meeting and spoke about this proposed Order.
The report detailed the comments by the Tree Service Manager who had considered the objections raised. It was accepted that the species of the tree had been mis-identified and would be updated if the TPO was confirmed. However, it did not alter the appropriateness of the TPO as the tree still provided excellent levels of amenity and inadequate justification had been provided for its removal.
The location of the Sycamore tree to be protected was accurately marked on the TOP plan and, given the linear formation of the tree row, there could be no confusion as to the tree selected.
It was industry standard to use TEMPO; currently there was no widely recognised alternative and misuse was subjective.
No evidence of damage to the property had been presented/suggested. The crown was within 2m of the property, however, an acceptable clearance could be maintained through appropriate pruning.
The tree was a community asset of significant amenity value that passed the Council’s criteria for protection.
The tree on site was of good quality and provided a good level of amenity to the local area. The objections to the Order have been carefully considered and considered that the Order had been made in accordance with Government guidelines. In this instance, it was recommended that the Order be confirmed following modification by way of identifying the tree as a Sycamore as opposed to a Norway Maple.
Resolved:- (1) That the report be received and its contents noted.
(2) That the serving of Tree Preservation Order No. 6, 2019, be confirmed following modification by way of identifying the tree as a Sycamore as opposed to a Norway Maple at Ulley Recreation Ground, Poynton Way, Ulley, Rotherham, under Section 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.