tree preservation order - East Lindsey District Council

EAST LINDSEY DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORTCOMMITTEE:PLANNING COMMITTEEDATE: 17 TH JANUARY 2013SUBJECT:PORTFOLIO HOLDERWard(s) affected:TREE PRESERVATION ORDER: ENGINEGATE, LOUTH1966 (105.01)COUNCILLOR BRIDGESST JAMES (LOUTH)Brief description of report content and the decision being asked for:Summary:This report asks committee to determine an application to carry out works to atree protected by the ‘Enginegate, Louth’ Tree Preservation Order of 1966. Theapplication proposes the felling of a mature Atlas Cedar (tree T.5 of the Order)due to structural damage identified to a nearby property.Recommendations:That the application be refused.Reason: The application and supporting information has not provided reliableevidence to implicate vegetation, or specifically tree T.5 in contributing to thereported subsidence damage.This report has been prepared by:Robert Taylor - Tel: 01507 601111 – ext 3533e-mail: trees@e-lindsey.gov.ukThis report was prepared after consultation with:Louth Town Council and Tree Wardens (x2) and publicised on the Council’swebsite.This report is number 1 in a series of 1.This report has been signed off by:Victoria Burgess, Neighbourhoods ManagerThe following policies form a context to this report:‘Trees – East Lindsey’ Part One (ELDC Tree Policy document)

This report is not a key decision included in the Forward Plan.LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW(papers relied on to write the report which are published but do not containexempt information)1. File: App.Mey.5.12.12OTHER HELPFUL PAPERS(papers which the report author considers might be helpful – this might includepublished material)1. D.E.T.R., 2000. Tree Preservation Orders: A guide to the Law and GoodPractice. London: HMSO.2. Helliwell, D.R., 2008. Visual Amenity Valuation of Trees and Woodlands –The Helliwell System. Romsey: Arboricultural Association.3. Town and Country Planning Act 1990. London: HMSO4. Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations2012. London: HMSO.5. Roberts, Jackson & Smith (2006), “Tree Roots in the Built Environment”,HMSO6. N.H.B.C., 2003. “NHBC Standards – 4.2 Buildings Near Trees”7. B.R.E., 1995. Assessment of damage in low-rise buildingsLocal Government (Access to Information Act) 1985Is the report Exempt – NoPlease contact the person who has written this report or Robert TaylorTel. No. 01507 601111 ext 3533e-mail: trees@e-lindsey.gov.uk, if you want more information aboutthis report or the background papers.1.0. INTRODUCTION1.1. This report asks the committee to determine an application to fell atree protected as tree T.5 of the Louth TPO 1966 (105.01). The tree issituated within the garden of no.38 Broadbank, Louth.1.2. The application has been submitted by an Arboriculture company actingon behalf of the insurer of no.1 Cedar Close, Louth, with the reasonsgiven for the application relating to subsidence damage noted at theproperty.

2.0. BACKGROUND2.1. Tree T.5 is a mature Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica) of approximately 20metres(m) height and 18m crownspread. The tree is located in the sidegarden of no.38 Cedar Close and is approximately 6m from thisproperty. It is a healthy tree and has significant amenity value, due toit’s size, town centre location and visibility within this area of the town.A further protected tree (a Coast Redwood – T.4) is located adjacent toT.6, but is not affected by this application.2.2. The property affected by subsidence is no.1 Cedar Close, Louth. This isa two storey semi-detached house built in 1969 on a steeply slopingsite and is located to the North West of the tree, on the opposite sideof the Cedar Close estate road. The distance between the tree and thefront elevation of the affected dwelling is 15m.3.0. SUBJECT INFORMATION AND ISSUES/FACTS AND FIGURES3.1. The submitted application is accompanied by an Engineers Report, aSite Investigation Factual Report and an Arboricultural AssessmentReport. These reports detail the structural damage and recommendremoval of the Cedar tree T.5.3.2. Engineers Report: This was prepared in 2011 and reports damage tono.1 Cedar Close, with the formation of cracks that indicate rotationaland outward movement of the flat-roofed element of the single garage,which protrudes forward from the main mass of the house. Thedamage has been classified as ‘Slight’ (Category 2) based on BREDigest 251.3.3. The engineers report summarises that the evidence “points towards thepossibility of clay shrinkage subsidence” and after noting the presenceof 2 large trees nearby, adds that this “further increases thelikelihood”.3.4. The next paragraph then states categorically that “the adjacentvegetation has caused the reduced moisture content of the claybeneath the foundations…...has caused the clay to shrink which in turnhas resulted in foundation movement”.3.5. Factual Report: the main findings relate to the digging of 2 Trial Pitsand confirm that the underlying soil is clay based, with moderateplasticity (potential for volume change) and that foundations vary indepth from 750mm to 600mm.3.6. From the trial pit on the property frontage, a total of 25 root sampleswere sent away for analysis, with the results stating that one of theroot samples was “a conifer, could well be CEDRUS (Cedar)”, butnoting that “this was a very THIN sample”. It was recorded that a

12.2. Human Resources -12.3. Section 17 -12.4. FOI/Human Rights/Data Protection -12.5. Equality and Diversity -13.0. HOW DO THE ACTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED INTHIS REPORT DELIVER OUR COMMUNITY AND CORPORATESTRATEGIES?13.1. Community Strategy• The district to be a valued and attractive place to live, work and play13.2. Corporate Strategy• Developing and nurturing the character and viability of our towns,villages and rural areas• A high quality and clean local environment• Built and natural environments are enjoyed and valued by residentsand visitors