Tree Preservation Order - Tetney - East Lindsey District Council

EAST LINDSEY DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORTPLANNING COMMITTEE 26 TH JULY 2007SUBJECT:REPORT BY:PART:REFERENCE:TREE PRESERVATION ORDER – TETNEYHead of Leisure and Community Development(contact officer: Mr. R.Taylor, ext. 389)ID/RT/T/2.178.8MinuteOBJECT OF REPORTTo inform Committee of the making of a Tree Preservation Order in Tetney.RECOMMENDATIONThat the Tetney No.1 2007 Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONSNot quantifiable.1.0. REPORT/INTRODUCTION1.1. This report is to inform the Committee that an Emergency Tree PreservationOrder was made on 9 th May 2007 under delegated powers. The Order affectsproperties in Church Lane and Thoresby Road, Tetney.1.2. The Tree Preservation Order covers 17 individual trees and 3 groups of trees,some of which are covered by existing older Tree Preservation Orders. This orderis the result of a comprehensive resurvey of this part of the village and will, ifconfirmed, pave the way for the existing orders covering this area to be revoked.These are the Tetney Tree Preservation Orders: 1972, 1975, No.3 1976, 1985. Italso replaces the emergency TPO: Tetney No.1 2006 which covered theChurchyard on a temporary basis in response to concerns over felling. Theattached schedule and plan show the locations and details of the trees includedin the order.2.0. CONSIDERATIONS2.1. In Autumn 2006 local objections were raised to the felling of trees on theboundary of St. Peter & St. Paul’s churchyard and a neighbouring developmentsite. As a result, other trees in the churchyard were considered to be under threatand so a temporary ‘Area’ Tree Preservation Order was placed on the wholechurchyard on 18 th October 2006.2.2. Rather than confirm this order, it was considered an ideal opportunity to reviewthe older orders in this part of the village and incorporate them into onecomprehensive new Tree Preservation Order. The 2006 ‘Area’ TPO was thereforeallowed to lapse and the new, comprehensive order was served on 9 th May 2007.

2.3. The advantage of this process is that it will result in the Council holding more upto date, accurate, and enforceable legal orders, which will enable them to be moreefficiently managed.2.4. Once this order is confirmed it is the intention to revoke the Tetney TreePreservation Orders: 1972, 1975, No.3 1976, and 1985, as all trees consideredsuitable for continued protection have been included in the new order.2.5. Only one tree currently covered by a TPO is not included in the new order. This isa large Oak tree in the rear garden of ‘Woodlands’, Thoresby Road, Tetney, and isTree T.14 of the Tetney 1972 TPO. This tree was not considered suitable forcontinued protection due to decay at the base of the tree.2.6. This process has also provided an opportunity to survey this area of the village forother trees worthy of protection under the new order. All individual and groups oftrees were considered, with only those that scored 3 or above on the Council’sadopted amenity evaluation scale being included in the Preservation Order. Thisscore indicates their suitability for protection by a Tree Preservation Order. Intotal, thirteen individual trees and 2 groups of trees will be brought under theprotection of a Preservation Order for the first time.2.7. AmenityWhen scoring trees for their amenity, primarily consideration must be given to thelargest and densest tree that the available site will conveniently contain.However, the suitability, health, age and character of the tree are also taken intoconsideration. This evaluation is summarised in the “Helliwell System” of scoringthe amenity value of trees. Under the District Council’s scoring system, based onthe Helliwell system the trees described in this Order all score between 3 and 10out of 10. This Council has adopted a level of 3 out of 10 as being the minimumscore needed to consider a tree suitable for protection.2.8. ConsultationsThe landowners, neighbours, Parish Council, and statutory consultees have beensent a copy of the Tree Preservation Order and the following comments have beenreceived:Received via email: John H & Mary E Thompson, Tower Farm, Church Lane,Tetney (re: tree T.3 – Turkey Oak)“We ask that you note that large branches of the tree overhang Church Lane.Please confirm that if necessary for safety reasons, we could cut down, lop or topthe tree without obtaining prior authority.” – R.Taylor responded to confirm thatwhere there is an immediate danger this is the case.3.0. CONCLUSION3.1. The trees identified are all of important amenity value, with many judged to beunder threat, and on the grounds of expediency should be protected to preventunnecessary felling, damage or lopping.BACKGROUND DOCUMENTSFile D/T/2.178.8