Agenda item

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published elsewhere)

Contact Officer:

annie.sommazzi@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Cllr N Lloyd introduced the report and informed Members that the Strategy would outline how, where, and when the trees would be planted and any legal implications that would need to be considered throughout the process.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr H Blathwayt stated that he was supportive of the Strategy, but asked whether there would be any further work on carbon sequestration projects beyond tree planting, such as considering the impact of peat. The CEPM replied that the Council was planting trees for three reasons, and whilst this did include carbon sequestration, it was also about increasing biodiversity and improving natural habitats. She added that the Council’s Net Zero Strategy would consider how any residual carbon emissions could be offset, and this would include consideration of natural solutions such as the further development of local eco systems.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing stated that the Strategy appeared to be a good starting point, though he expected to see more information on where the trees would be planted, how they would be maintained, and whether this would incur any additional cost to the Council. He added that from his own experience, trees required a substantial amount of work to maintain. The CEPM replied that she was working with the GIS Team to develop a mapping layer to show where planting had taken place. She added that ongoing maintenance would generally be covered by legal agreements with third party landowners, which would explicitly stipulate the landowner’s responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of any trees planted on their property. It was suggested that landowners could also be given advice on how to maintain trees, if required. In respect of trees planted on the Council’s own land, it was reported that the Countryside Team had given upkeep and maintenance careful consideration when undertaking the planting projects.

     iii.          The Chairman reiterated concerns that the Strategy only covered the initial stages of tree planting which included acquisition of or access to land, obtaining trees and having them planted, but did not cover maintenance. He added that whilst this was clear in the case of third party land owners, more guidance appeared to be required to maintain the trees over an extended timeframe. It was suggested that hedgerows may also be worthy of greater mention, as they were crucial for supporting biodiversity. The CEPM replied that the legal agreements required with third party land owners would include a commitment to take on the ongoing maintenance of the trees. She added that she could also include more detail and advice to people planting trees to ensure that they would be properly maintained.

    iv.          The CE suggested that it was important to determine whether the Committee were happy with the targets outlined within the Strategy, as they would form the basis for measuring performance of the project going forward.

      v.          Cllr A Brown noted that a significant percentage of trees planted around the NDR had failed, and it was crucial that lessons were learnt from this process to ensure that an adequate maintenance plan be put in place. He added that he supported comments on hedgerows and stressed the importance of other sources for supporting biodiversity and carbon sequestration, such as seaweed and saltmarshes. The Chairman noted that whilst these issues may not be directly relevant to the Tree Planting Strategy, they were still important ecosystems for the District that could be considered separately.

    vi.          Cllr H Blathwayt noted that hedgerows should not be cut more than once every three years to support biodiversity and provide vital green corridors for wildlife.

   vii.          The ADSG noted that whilst greater mention of hedgerows was laudable, the Strategy itself was only an internal document to guide the Council’s tree planting project and could not be used to control how private landowners and neighbouring authorities managed existing trees and hedgerows. He added that through events such as Greenbuild the Council could promote certain messages and share best practice, but the Strategy could not be used to exert influence.

  viii.          The CEPM noted that several issues raised related more to wider biodiversity than tree planting, and could potentially be covered by a separate strategy in the future.

    ix.          The CE summarised comments made regarding increased attention being paid to the maintenance of trees planted, the importance of hedgerows with the possibility for inclusion in the Strategy’s title, and for wider consideration to be given to the potential for a Biodiversity Strategy covering ecosystems containing peat, saltmarsh and seaweed.

      x.          It was proposed by Cllr A Brown and seconded by Cllr H Blathwayt that greater consideration be given to the future management and maintenance of trees planted as a result of the strategy, and that the importance of hedgerows be given greater consideration, with the potential for their inclusion in the Strategy’s title. They also proposed and seconded that consideration be given to the potential development of a separate Biodiversity Strategy, with special reference to ecosystems dependent on peat, salt marsh, and seaweed.

RESOLVED

1.     To note the content of the draft Tree Planting Strategy.

2.     To recommend to Cabinet that greater consideration be given to the future management and maintenance of trees planted as a result of the strategy, and that the importance of hedgerows be given greater consideration, with the potential for their inclusion in the Strategy’s title.

3.     To recommend to Cabinet that consideration be given to the potential development of a separate Biodiversity Strategy, with special reference to ecosystems dependent on peat, salt marsh, and seaweed.