Agenda item

The SLO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. He affirmed the affected site subject to the proposed TPO and its context within the development land. He advised that the trees were of a good mix and range of age, though noted that there were some in a poorer condition, and considered that the specified land had developed into natural scrubland which was very important for biodiversity. He highlighted specific trees and zones of interest including a line of Poplar trees which ran across the site, and large evergreens which were key features of the landscape and could be viewed from both Norwich road and from neighbouring housing developments. The SLO affirmed the importance of young scrubland and referred to an example of the Knepp Estate located in South East England, and surveys which concluded that young scrubland was one of the most biodiverse areas of the country, aside from ancient woodland.

He affirmed the key areas for consideration was the protection of biodiversity, ensuring appropriate mitigation of the site in future, and the amenity value of the trees. The SLO stressed that the intention was not to protect every tree, rather it was to protect the amenity and biodiversity. He advised that if individual trees or zones of trees were removed from an area that he would want to see replacement. He advised Members that the TPO had been made as there was a genuine threat to the trees and to the amenity and biodiversity they offered.

The SLO confirmed receipt of a recent legal letter and clarified that in determining amenity he had conducted a Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders known as a ‘TEMPO Assessment’, and that this was a national system used by all Tree Officers when considering the application of a TPO. He affirmed that whilst not all of the trees had received full marks by consequence of their age range and visibility, the overall subject area did receive a high enough score determined relative to serve a TPO. He advised that the trees were considered to be of amenity value and noted the petition submitted from local residents. He noted that biodiversity, whilst a factor in serving a TPO, could not be the core consideration in serving a TPO and that this was the amenity of the trees. The SLO responded to comments made within the legal letter which questioned the legality of applying an ‘Area Order’, and affirmed that this was a temporary measure which he considered could be applied for a couple of years, and noted that the Council had other TPO’s dating back to the 1940’s.

The SLO advised that the TPO had not served to stop development, rather it was to protect amenity and biodiversity and expressed the Council were more than willing to work with the developer. The ADP supported the representation and guidance offered by the SLO, and stated that the site still had development potential and that the Council was not anti-development and still want to see some form of development facilitated provided that it was the right form of development. He affirmed that the Council wanted to work with the Developer and Community to seek a resolution.

The PL stated that the Birkett’s letter of the 11th April raised two main concerns – firstly that they believe the Council was considering improper criteria for confirming the TPO and secondly, that they believe the Council’s use of an “area based” TPO to be inappropriate in these circumstances.

She advised, taking the first concern, that a TPO could only be made in the interests of “amenity” and that “Amenity” is not defined in the Town and Country Planning Act but that there is Secretary of State guidance which advises that TPO’s should be used to protect selected trees and woodlands if their removal would have a significant impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public. The value of trees may be from their intrinsic beauty or for their contribution to the landscape. Other factors such as their importance as a wildlife habitat may be taken into account but wouldn’t, alone, justify the TPO. So the test is “do the trees have a public amenity value?” So provided there is sufficient information before the members on the amenity value of the trees, then that is sufficient.

She further added, taking the second concern, (that the “area based” TPO is inappropriate) that it was fair to say that it was rarer for a TPO to cover an area of land. An area designation covers all the trees of whatever species in that area and it was usually introduced as a holding measure until proper survey work can be done. It was also normally considered good practice to review an area order and modify it with an order that specifies individual or groups of trees. However, there was no legal requirement to modify an area based TPO. The PL stated she understood that the Council officer’s view was that the trees within this TPO have a broad amenity value as a whole and therefore members are being asked to confirm the TPO without modification.

Public Speakers

Stephen Hayden – Objecting

1. Local Member – Cllr N Lloyd – expressed his support for the Officers recommendation. He affirmed that Hopkins Homes had, during phase 1 of their development in 2013-2014, felled many trees in the area, notably those of Mulberry and Hornbeam, and that these actions had resulted in widespread dismay, that such predominant and beautiful trees could be felled without consultation with the Town Council or wider public. He noted that in that instance a TPO had been confirmed but was later removed at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. A condition had been applied for mitigated planting, however Cllr N Lloyd stated that during a recent inspection of the site a large number of this planting was now dead, and the planned Wildflower Meadow was a patch of grass. He considered it unacceptable that Hopkins Homes would not ensure an appropriate maintenance strategy and that he was working with Officers on this matter. Cllr N Lloyd stated that the serving of a TPO was important to stop the removal of trees and hedgerows during pre-application. He reflected that the land served as an Island of Biodiversity and was home to a variety of flora and fauna and served as food source and roosting space for many species. He supplied images which were presented to Members, to show the existing habitat which he contended warranted protection and that it has a rich biodiversity value. He commented that he did not resist the sites designation as development land, and welcomed a scheme which would be sensitively designed in such a way that it would not result in the destruction of well-established scrubland and woodland. He was convinced that a compromise could be reached and which would ensure the best outcome for wildlife.

2. At the discretion of the Chairman, Cllr V Gay, Member for North Walsham Market Cross was permitted to speak as a representative for Local Member – Cllr D Birch.  She stated she was well acquainted with the sight and asked Members to consider the representations made from Cllr N Lloyd and Officers to confirm the TPO. She considered the site, and the trees and scrubland contained therein to be of significant amenity value to residents, and affirmed the Councils commitment to protecting biodiversity. She determined that the use of the TPO would not prevent development, and that is applications may ensure a better outcome for the town and its residents.

3. The PL advised in response to comments made that whether or not trees are removed subsequently from a site is not a relevant consideration as whether to confirm a TPO. The determining factor in this item was consideration and weighting of amenity value.

4. Cllr P Heinrich commented that the area was not a woodland in a traditional sense of the word but rather was an area of scrubland and natural re-wilding. He reflected that the land was designated as Development land and that those residents who were adjacent would have been aware of this. He surmised from the officers report, public representations and images supplied, as well as his own local knowledge of the site that there were many trees there which were worthy of preservation, and that the area as a whole was rich in biodiversity with a large range of mammals, birds, inspects and many native plant species. He expressed concern about the developer’s attitude, and questioned why they had not worked with the Council to include the area in part of the landscaping and wider amenity land for the site. Cllr P Heinrich stated his belief that if given the chance, the developer would simply remove everything on the site, and that the use of a TPO would prevent pre-emptive destruction. He hoped that through the confirmation of the TPO that this would provide opportunity for the developer to engage with the Council, and to establish a dialogue. He reflected that any development on the site would be delayed by result of the recent Habitat Regulations Assessment regarding Nutrient Neutrality.

5. Cllr A Brown reflected on the tone and contents of the Birketts Letter dated 11^th April, and stated that he considered the legal arguments contained therein to be left somewhat wanting. He commented that the contents of the letter was both disingenuous and extremely disappointing. He highlighted issues with the phrasing of the letter and of typographical errors. He affirmed that the consideration, as he determined, was whether the removal of the trees would have a significant negative impact on the local environment, amenity value and public enjoyment, and that protect of the trees would offer a reasonable degree of public benefit at the present time or in the future. He concluded that the Council, through the SLO, had carried out a detailed survey to determine that a blanket order was necessary as opposed to that of a specimen by specimen order, and that the loss of the trees would have a negative impact on biodiversity. He noted that Council had both an emerging local plan and that there would soon be an Environment Act which biodiversity net gain will be considered important.

6. In response to a questions from the Chairman, the SLO advised that it was an ‘Area Order’ which was proposed for the site. An ‘Area Order’ was a blanket order which is served with a view to modify at a later date. The SLO considered in serving the TPO that this would enable the Council to work with Hopkins Homes to create proportionate mitigations with a view to modify the TPO accordingly, but that the information requested from Hopkins Homes had not been received. He affirmed the recommendation of the ecological assessment that a biodiversity net gain metric was required, and that this was the key piece of information needed to know what biodiversity value was on the land and which could be mitigated across the site. He informed Members that a ‘Woodland Order’ could also be applied which if successfully granted would mean that every tree, seedling, and any future seeds would be protected in perpetuity until such a time that the Woodland Order was lifted, and that this would restrict any future development. He advised that the ‘Area Order’ rather than a ‘Woodland Order’ had been used as it demonstrated a willingness to work with the developer and to come up with a scheme which would be mutually beneficial.

7. Cllr N Pearce expressed his support for the Officers recommendation, and the willingness of Officers to negotiate with the developer. He concluded that Officers had been fair and that the Council could have sought to apply a ‘Woodland Order’ which would have been far more restrictive for the developer. He considered the tone of the Birketts letter to be deeply offensive, and affirmed that the Council was charged to protect the local environment which he considered the Council did very well.

8. Cllr R Kershaw stated that there had been a loss of trust which Hopkins Homes which had resulted in this situation. He concurred with Members assessment that the tone of the letter from Birkett’s was offensive. Cllr R Kershaw advised that he was very familiar with the site, and considered that there be an amenity value to the site, noting that is was an area people walk their dogs, bird watch, and that it was a fabulous site used from dawn to dusk. He agreed with the Officers assessment that the Council were not adverse to development and that Officers wanted to negotiate with the developer. He so proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation.

9. Cllr N Pearce seconded the proposal.

10. Cllr L Withington thanked the SLO and PL for their representations and guidance. She stated that that site served as an important habitat corridor, and reflected that where would be a lot of development coming to North Walsham and it was important to look at the bigger picture.  Such wildlife corridors provided amenity value to the community in knowing that the wildlife in their environment could live well in their natural environment.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 13 votes for.

That TPO 21 0985 be APPROVED in accordance with the officers recommendation.