Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

RESOLVED: That the existing area TPO be confirmed.

Audio recording 1 hour 52 minutes 38 seconds

The Development and Conservation Manager presented a report with plans and provided the following updates:

·                Members would have received a number of representations from local residents seeking the Committee’s agreement to confirm the area Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to cover all the trees within the orchard;

·                Apologies were given that there were no photographs due to the case officer being off and annual leave being taken the previous week;

·                The recommendation was to include only three trees in the TPO: a walnut and two sycamores as noted in the Appendix;

·                The TPO needed to be confirmed by 10 March 2021, six months after the provisional TPO was confirmed;

·                Area TPOs are discouraged and only seen as an emergency measure;

·                The government’s area category guidance and appeals procedure was explained in detail;

·                If Members were minded to confirm the TPO as originally envisaged that decision could not be challenged at appeal.

The following Members asked questions:

·                Councillor Ruth Brown;

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Tom Tyson;

·                Councillor Michael Muir;

·                Councillor Val Bryant.

The Development and Conservation Manager responded to questions as follows:

·                Just three trees and no others in the orchard would be able to be preserved if the Committee was minded to vote for the recommendation in the officer’s report;

·                If the Committee was minded to reconfirm the area TPO this would make it a criminal offence to fell any tree within the site without further consent;

·                If the area TPO was maintained and this site was then allocated in the Local Plan and a planning application for housing was submitted, in any pre-application discussion officers would advise the applicant that it would be in the best interests of the area to have a scheme that protected the trees and build around existing landscape features in line with best urban design practice rather than felling. The TPO would not stop the felling of the trees, but it would require consent to fell the trees and any refusal of consent could be appealed against;

·                Any conditions to replace felled trees with newly planted ones would be beyond the scope of this order which was simply to identify which trees ought to be protected;

·                The expert had noted that the area had been neglected however this was beyond the remit of the planning authority so further comment was not possible on this.

Mr Phil Davis thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in respect of TPO 199 (2020). Mr Davis included the following in his presentation:

·                He was speaking on behalf of local residents and also the Save Hitchin Greenbelt petition which started in December and now had 3000 signatures – all these were opposed to the removal of the TPO;

·                This woodland would not be there if not for the local residents who protested against the felling of the trees in September 2020 when the developer was ready to fell with the equipment;

·                The only reason not to grant the area TPO would be to allow the developer to build additional houses;

·                In the Local Plan this land was supposed to be retained and enhanced;

·                There was extremely strong support for this woodland which was a wildlife corridor;

·                The survey had been done in winter when there was no wildlife around but in spring and summer the area accommodated wildlife such as badgers, bats and deer;

·                It was a small but vital area for wildlife and the wood supported an incredible ecosystem.

The following Members asked a question:

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

Mr Davis replied to the question as follows:

·                Bats were nesting in the area and their food supply was being generated by the insects which lived in the woodland created by the trees.

The Development and Conservation Manager responded to points as follows:

·                To manage expectations, should the Committee confirm the area TPO, if planning received an application to fell one of the trees, they could not look at the biodiversity of the area but only the amenity value of the tree. Protected species would need a licence from DEFRA. It would not mean that the trees were protected for ever but that consent would be required to fell them;

·                The TPO would be permanent. It would only cover the trees that were already there.

Councillor Ruth Brown sought clarification on the procedure from the Development and Conservation Manager.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·                Councillor David Levett;

·                Councillor Val Bryant;

·                Councillor Tom Tyson;

·                Councillor Michael Muir.

The following points were made in the debate:

·                It was important to protect and enhance existing wildlife corridors and green lungs around urban areas in North Herts. There was no need to re-wild areas if existing ones were preserved;

·                It was an important area which needed to be looked after and hopefully there would be better management of the area in future;

·                If an application was made to fell any trees in the area TPO, reference could be made to HT5 in the Local Plan;

·                Members would rather see trees planted than felled.

Councillor David Levett proposed an amendment to the recommendation that the existing area TPO 199 (2020) be confirmed.

Councillor David Levett proposed, Councillor Val Bryant seconded, and upon being put to the vote it was:

RESOLVED: That the existing area TPO 199 (2020) be confirmed.