Evidence Note on Trees and Large Shrubs in Conservation Areas / Setting of Heritage Assets

EVIDENCE NOTE ON TREES AND LARGE SHRUBS IN CONSERVATION AREAS / SETTING OF HERITAGE ASSETS

1. Consultation Response C55 1.1 C55 is that ‘I have a concern that planning rules protecting Conservation Areas and the settings of heritage assets such as Listed Buildings with regard to the integration of trees and shrubs into development are unclear and ineffective, leading to excessive loss of trees and degradation of the Conservation Area/Listed Building. This is a particularly Cornish and Falmouth issue, where the good climate leads to shrubs growing to far greater proportions than elsewhere in England. The result is that too many ‘trees’ are excluded from protection because they are perceived to be shrubs and fall outside the rules governing the protection of trees. This is despite a High Court ruling that a tree is ‘anything that would ordinarily be regarded as a tree’. In other words, if a large shrub is big enough to be seen as a tree by the public, it should also be seen as a tree so far as Planning is concerned. The Falmouth Neighbourhood Plan, as a very local planning tool, would be a good place to clear this anomaly up so far as the local area is concerned, and I suggest that a policy be put into the Plan which extends protection to large ‘tree-like’ shrubs.’

1.2 The stakeholder Group have agreed to insert an appropriately worded policy and guidance note into the NDP. This document presents the evidence material supporting that policy.

2. Definition of Tree for Planning Purposes

2.1 Tree preservation orders (TPO’s) can be used to prohibit the cutting down, uprooting, topping, lopping, willful damage to, or willful destruction of protected trees or woodlands. This applies to roots as well as stems and branches.

2.2 In addition, in conservation areas, the cutting down, lopping or topping of trees must be notified to the local authority 6 weeks in advance so they can consider whether the tree contributes to the character of the conservation area and whether to impose a tree preservation order.

2.3 However, in the case of protected areas, rather than specifically identified trees, or in the case of conservation areas, this raises the question as to what precisely constitutes a tree?

2.4 In the case of Palm Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in 2009, Mr Justice Cranston took an amazing 12,000 words to consider the issue. He decided that “There is no statutory definition of a tree. I conclude that with tree preservation orders there are no limitations in terms of size for what is to be treated as a tree. In other words, saplings are trees… “Tree” must therefore mean anything that would ordinarily be regarded as a tree. Thus it would not include a shrub, a bush or scrub.”

2.5 This represents a change from a previous judgment by Lord Denning MR in the Batchelor case, who concluded “..many saplings were not trees and would need to be of over 180- 200mm diameter before they could be…”.

2.6 However, despite the very broad interpretation by Mr Justice Cranston a number of exceptions are set out in The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012.

2.7 In relation to trees preservation orders, exceptions apply to: • Dead trees. • Where works are required on the operational land of a statutory undertaker. • For national security reasons. • Fruit trees that are part of a business. • In relation to the implementation of a planning permission. • At the request of the Environment Agency or a drainage body. • Works required for safety.

2.8 See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/605/regulation/14/made for more information.

2.9 In relation to conservation areas, exceptions apply to: The cutting down or uprooting: • of a tree whose diameter does not exceed 75 millimetres; or • where carried out for the sole purpose of improving the growth of other trees, of a tree whose diameter does not exceed 100 millimetres; or The topping or lopping of a tree whose diameter does not exceed 75 millimetres. For the purpose of this regulation: • where a tree has more than one stem at a point 1.5 metres above the natural ground level its diameter shall be treated … as exceeding 75 millimetres or 100 millimetres respectively, if any stem when measured over its bark at that point exceeds 75 millimetres or 100 millimetres respectively; and • In any other case, the diameter of a tree shall be ascertained by measurement, over the bark of the tree, at a point 1.5 metres above the natural ground level.

3. Expert Views 3.1 Many experts agree that the legal and technical differentiation of tree and shrub is problematic and support the view that if ‘it looks like a tree, it is a tree’, as can be seen from the extract from the UK Tree Care Forum at Appendix A

3. 2 Many Shrubs are considered by botanists to be cable of being in both shrub and tree form. See Appendix B.

4. Example of Issues 4.1 An example of the issues created by the lack of clarity on this matter can be seen as Appendix 3, relating to Grove Hill House, an important Grade II LB in the Falmouth Conservation Area.

5. Proposed POLICY DG 9: Trees and large tree-like shrubs in the Conservation Area

5.1 To meet the representation, the following policy is proposed, which should be supported by a small guidance note.

Reasoned Justification: Falmouth’s Conservation Area includes many residential curtilages which have been formed from the grounds of larger Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian mansions and villas, the gardens of which contain trees and planted areas which contribute to the historic setting of the Area and nearby heritage assets. These often include shrubs which because of the favourable climate have grown to a substantial height and a tree-like form and make as significant a contribution to historic setting as do trees.

Policy DG9: ‘Development in Conservation Areas should carefully integrate existing trees and large tree-like shrubs into the design and layout of proposals, taking care to ensure that their relationship to the historic context and setting of the Area and any heritage assets within it is adequately preserved and enhanced. Loss of trees and large tree-like shrubs which make a contribution to the historic context and setting will not be supported Definition of tree for planning purposes’

Guidance Note:

Appendix A: Extract from the UK Tree Care Forum http://www.tree-care.info/uktc/archive/2015/msg03203

______

Or maybe....

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck

Chris Hudson Principal Forestry and Arboricultural Officer Environmental Planning Office Base: Town Hall, Macclesfield, Cheshire Direct Dial : (01625) XXXXXX

Postal Address: Development Management PO Box 606 Municipal Buildings Earle Street Crewe CW1 9HP Tel: 0300 XXX XXXX Website; http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/environment/heritage_natural_environment/

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charles Mynors Sent: 08 October 2015 10:57 To: UK Tree Care Subject: RE: RE: anything that ordinarily one would call a tree

That is correct. Most statutes define "tree" to include "shrub" - because, for example, it does not matter whether the green, leafy thing causing problems to the highway or the railway is a tree or a shrub; it just needs to be dealt with. One notable exception is the Airports Act, which enables airport authorities to get rid of trees that are getting in the way of incoming aircraft - for obvious reasons that does not include shrubs. Which rather makes the point. By contrast the Plant Health Orders rightly have a very wide definition, as they are designed to prevent the spread of disease, in whatever type of plant it occurs.

The other exception is the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which simply relates to preserving a "tree". Given that it is possible for a tree to be preserved from the moment of its planting (where it is planted in replacement for another one that has been removed), it is not surprising that "tree" includes sapling, or even seedling.

But that does not mean that it is automatically sensible (even if arguably lawful) to preserve anything that is, at least in theory, a tree. The key, as pointed out by others, is whether it is expedient to preserve the particular plant in question. I entirely agree that it is right to focus on protecting proper trees, not on regulating gardening activity.

As for conservation areas, in the event of a prosecution, it is for the authority to prove - beyond reasonable doubt - that the object removed was indeed a tree. Which leaves the way open for the punter to argue that he or she thought it was a shrub. And of course there is a minimum size limit, which will remove many shrubs - and which should cause over-zealous authorities to pause before prosecuting for felling "trees" just over the size limit.

Best wishes,

Charles Mynors

______

Dr Charles Mynors FRTPI FRICS IHBC Barrister Francis Taylor Building Inner Temple London, EC4Y 7BY

Tel: 020-7353 8415 Fax: 020-7353 7622 Web: www.ftb.eu.com

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jon Heuch Sent: 08 October 2015 10:20 To: UK Tree Care Subject: RE: RE: anything that ordinarily one would call a tree

______

In the context of the Electricity Act it is specified that shrubs are trees

And The Plant Health (Forestry) Order 2005 defines

"tree" means a living tree or shrub, or a living part of a tree or shrub, at any stage of growth; and living parts of a tree shall include-

(a)fruit or seed,

(b)branches with or without foliage,

(c)a tree or shrub that has been cut and which retains any foliage,

(d)leaves or foliage,

(e)a tree or shrub in tissue culture, and

(f)bud wood, cuttings or scions;

So we're just wasting our time if we want one definition to fit all circumstances. One difficulty is that the law defines words for particular acts and you have no right to rely on a definition for another act. You can of course always try!

Anything one would ordinarily call a tree. M'lord this leafless branch I would normally call a tree (as I am a plant pathologist and use the Plant Health Order all the time) so, other than for the fact it is dead, I want to serve a TPO..the Order says a leafless branch can be described as a "living part". That's an argument obvious in its ridiculousness.

As for whether trees are defined by species or by individual specimens there are too many species (not so many in the UK) that are described by botanists as "tree or shrub" for use by species to be of much use. It's probably why many "tree" books include the word "shrub" in their title.

Jon

We can't proffer a definition wherre the legislation has failed to do nso, but context is everything and I think this debate overlooks an important point. In the context of a TPO it has to be (a) a tree and (b) one whose preservation is in the interests of the amenity of the area. One could also infer (and that is perceived to eb under threat, but that's not important here. The amenity argument ties into the government guidance and aspects of public visibility. So through size or prominence, or lacks therof, a shrub could be deemed protectable, giving it the formal status of a tree, and a nearby tree by its diminutive stature deemed not worthy of protection, giving the illusion that it was considered not to be a tree.

Amenity trumps treeness within the broad parameters oif what could ordinarily be called a tree.

Julian A. Morris Professional Tree Services jamtrees.co.uk highhedgesscotland.com 0141 XXX XXXX - 0778 XXX XXXX

Definitions are good, but rarely satisfy. Even the SI definition of the metre had to be changed in 1986 from "equal to 1 650 763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum" to "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second" because it was too uncertain. Good luck mto anyne trying to pin down 'tree'. For now I maintain that really what would be needed for occasional marginal cases would be a definition of TPOableness, because the issues of treeness and amenity are inseparable. What is important about whether they are trees or shrubs, if the potential for height is overlooked as being more of a visibility and therefore amenity issue? I suspect it is the semi-permanent nature of woody perennials. They are long-lasting in the landscape just as buildings are. As such,whether they are trees or tree-like shrubs or shrubs that have uncharacteristically achieved tree-like stature is surely irrelevant? Or shoudl I say, wuld be, to a judge or an ordinary person.

Julian A. Morris Professional Tree Services jamtrees.co.uk highhedgesscotland.com 0141 XXX XXXX - 0778 XXX XXXX

I hate to disagree with you of all people Jon, but a definitive description of the loose term 'Tree' is never going to happen and I don't think it is necessary. There are too many variables.

So, what From my position it looks as if you first need to do to refine what you seek to define. At the moment I think you seek to define what a tree is for the purposes of amenity in the interests of a Tree Preservation Order? You then still have major problems in that this can vary from one area to another depending on the landscape and locality ... rural urban and so on, your criteria. So, what it all boils down to is your subjective opinion, each case on its own merits ... ultimately, what that plant contributes to the visual amenities of the locality in the interests of the wider public, bearing in mind that an LPA has to do what it does at public expense. A tree, is a plant that has grown to a point where ordinary people call it a tree ... not what us pedantic experts trying to find a perfect definitive description to pigeon hole think. As said before, I will not TPO laurels and large shrubs as a rule but you know what ...... if it was special enough and, if the location was sparsely tree covered I could! I think we have something here that is more complex than, Fermat's Last Theorem ...

Ron Howe Principal Tree Officer (Planning) Mole Valley District Council Tel. 01306 XXX XXX

Appendix B

Shrub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of shrubs (bushes)

Those marked with * can also develop into tree form.

Abelia (Abelia) Acer (Maple) * Actinidia (Actinidia) Aloe (Aloe) Aralia (Angelica Tree, Hercules' Club) * Arctostaphylos (Bearberry, Manzanita) * Aronia (Chokeberry) Artemisia (Sagebrush) Aucuba (Aucuba)

Berberis (Barberry) Bougainvillea (Bougainvillea) Brugmansia (Angel's trumpet) Buddleja (Butterfly bush) Buxus (Box) *

Calia (Mescalbean) Callicarpa (Beautyberry) * Callistemon (Bottlebrush) * Calluna (Heather) Calycanthus (Sweetshrub) Camellia (Camellia, Tea) * Caragana (Pea-tree) * Carpenteria (Carpenteria) Caryopteris (Blue Spiraea) Cassiope (Moss-heather) Ceanothus (Ceanothus) * Celastrus (Staff vine) * Ceratostigma (Hardy Plumbago) Cercocarpus (Mountain-mahogany) * Chaenomeles (Japanese Quince) Chamaebatiaria (Fernbush) Chamaedaphne (Leatherleaf) Chimonanthus (Wintersweet) Chionanthus (Fringe-tree) * Choisya (Mexican-orange Blossom) * Cistus (Rockrose) Clerodendrum (Clerodendrum) Clethra (Summersweet, Pepperbush) * Clianthus (Glory Pea) Colletia (Colletia) Colutea (Bladder Senna) Comptonia (Sweetfern) Cornus (Dogwood) * Corylopsis (Winter-hazel) * Cotinus (Smoketree) * Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster) * Cowania (Cliffrose) Crataegus (Hawthorn) * Crinodendron (Crinodendron) * Cytisus and allied genera (Broom) *

Daboecia (Heath) Danae (Alexandrian laurel) Daphne (Daphne) Decaisnea (Decaisnea) Dasiphora (Shrubby Cinquefoil) Dendromecon (Tree poppy) Desfontainea (Desfontainea) Deutzia (Deutzia) Diervilla (Bush honeysuckle) Dipelta (Dipelta) Dirca (Leatherwood) Dracaena (Dragon tree) * Drimys (Winter's Bark) * Dryas (Mountain Avens)

Edgeworthia (Paper Bush) * Elaeagnus (Elaeagnus) * Embothrium (Chilean Firebush) * Empetrum (Crowberry) Enkianthus (Pagoda Bush) Ephedra (Ephedra) Epigaea (Trailing Arbutus) Erica (Heath) Eriobotrya (Loquat) * Escallonia (Escallonia) Eucryphia (Eucryphia) * Euonymus (Spindle) * Exochorda (Pearl Bush)

Fabiana (Fabiana) Fallugia (Apache Plume) Fatsia (Fatsia) Forsythia (Forsythia) Fothergilla (Fothergilla) Franklinia (Franklinia) * Fremontodendron (Flannelbush) Fuchsia (Fuchsia) *

Garrya (Silk-tassel) * Gaultheria (Salal) Gaylussacia (Huckleberry) Genista (Broom) * Gordonia (Loblolly-bay) * Grevillea (Grevillea) Griselinia (Griselinia) *

Hakea (Hakea) * Halesia (Silverbell) * Halimium (Rockrose) Hamamelis (Witch-hazel) * Hebe (Hebe) Hedera (Ivy) Helianthemum (Rockrose) Hibiscus (Hibiscus) * Hippophae (Sea-buckthorn) * Hoheria (Lacebark) * Holodiscus (Creambush) Hudsonia (Hudsonia) Hydrangea (Hydrangea) Hypericum (Rose of Sharon) Hyssopus (Hyssop)

Ilex (Holly) * Illicium (Star Anise) * Indigofera (Indigo) Itea (Sweetspire)

Jamesia (Cliffbush) Jasminum (Jasmine) Juniperus (Juniper) *

Kalmia (Mountain-laurel) Kerria (Kerria) Kolkwitzia (Beauty-bush)

Lagerstroemia (Crape-myrtle) * Lapageria (Copihue) Lantana (Lantana) Lavandula (Lavender) Lavatera (Tree Mallow) Ledum (Ledum) Leitneria (Corkwood) * Lespedeza (Bush Clover) * Leptospermum (Manuka) * Leucothoe (Doghobble) Leycesteria (Leycesteria) Ligustrum (Privet) * Lindera (Spicebush) * Linnaea (Twinflower) Lonicera (Honeysuckle) Lupinus (Tree Lupin) Lycium (Boxthorn)

Magnolia (Magnolia) Mahonia (Mahonia) Malpighia (Acerola) Menispermum (Moonseed) Menziesia (Menziesia) Mespilus (Medlar) * Microcachrys (Microcachrys) Myrica (Bayberry) * Myricaria (Myricaria) Myrtus and allied genera (Myrtle) *

Neillia (Neillia) Nerium (Oleander)

Olearia (Daisy bush) * Osmanthus (Osmanthus)

Pachysandra (Pachysandra) Paeonia (Tree-peony) Perovskia (Russian Sage) Persoonia (Geebungs) Philadelphus (Mock orange) * Phlomis (Jerusalem Sage) Photinia (Photinia) * Physocarpus (Ninebark) * Pieris (Pieris) Pistacia (Pistachio, Mastic) * Pittosporum (Pittosporum) * Plumbago (Leadwort) Polygala (Milkwort) Poncirus * Prunus (Cherry) * Purshia (Antelope Bush) Pyracantha (Firethorn)

Quassia (Quassia) * Quercus (Oak) * Quillaja (Quillay) Quintinia (Tawheowheo) *

Rhamnus (Buckthorn) * Rhododendron (Rhododendron, Azalea) * Rhus (Sumac) * Ribes (Currant) Romneya (Tree poppy) Rosa (Rose) Rosmarinus (Rosemary) Rubus (Bramble) Ruta (Rue)

Sabia * Salix (Willow) * Salvia (Sage) Sambucus (Elder) * Santolina (Lavender Cotton) Sapindus (Soapberry) * Senecio (Senecio) Simmondsia (Jojoba) Skimmia (Skimmia) Smilax (Smilax) Sophora (Kowhai) * Sorbaria (Sorbaria) Spartium (Spanish Broom) Spiraea (Spiraea) * Staphylea (Bladdernut) * Stephanandra (Stephanandra) Styrax * Symphoricarpos (Snowberry) Syringa (Lilac) *

Tamarix (Tamarix) * Taxus (Yew) * Telopea (Waratah) * Thuja cvs. (Arborvitae) * Thymelaea Thymus (Thyme) Trochodendron *

Ulex (Gorse) Ulmus pumila celer (Turkestan elm – Wonder Hedge)] Ungnadia (Mexican Buckeye)

Vaccinium (Bilberry, Blueberry, Cranberry) Verbena (Vervain) Viburnum (Viburnum) * Vinca (Periwinkle) Viscum (Mistletoe)

Weigela (Weigela)

Xanthoceras Xanthorhiza (Yellowroot) Xylosma

Yucca (Yucca, Joshua tree) *

Zanthoxylum * Zauschneria Zenobia Ziziphus *

References

Anna Lawrence; William Hawthorne (2006). Plant Identification: Creating User-friendly Field Guides for Biodiversity Management. Routledge. pp. 138–. ISBN 978-1-84407-079-4. Peggy Fischer (1990). Essential shrubs: the 100 best for design and cultivation. Friedman/Fairfax Publishers. pp. 9–. ISBN 978-1-56799-319-6. "... Examples of subshrubs include candytuft, lavender, and rosemary. These broad definitions are ..." Patrick Whitefield (2002). How to Make a Forest Garden. Permanent Publications. pp. 113–. ISBN 978-1-85623-008-7. Costermans, L. F. (1993) Native trees and shrubs of South-Eastern Australia. rev. ed. ISBN 0- 947116-76-1

Appendix 3: Grove Hill House Trees and Tree-Like Shrubs Grove Hill House

The house is one of the most significant Georgian houses in Falmouth. Although its grounds were sold for development in 1937 and the House converted into flats in 1960, the appearance of the House externally remains unchanged. It is prominent in its setting.

These old photographs give an idea of what it was like when occupied as a family home, owned by the Fox family. From the House, the view is of mature trees and landscaped grounds. 1903 1905 While little remains of the gardens, Grove Hill House (Falmouth) Ltd has done everything possible to maintain the House and enhance the setting with tree planting and landscaping to keep the feeling of a quiet green haven, and to give something of the feel of the setting in which the House originally sat (see map of 1868).

We think it is vitally important that this setting is not compromised, and that the House and its grounds befits the Grade II listing and Conservation Area status, now and for future generations. 1909 1921

Site Plan (not to scale) showing Grove Hill House and No 14 Grovehill Drive, and the location of the mature trees on the boundary between the two properties Excavation work at 14 Grovehill Drive against the boundary with Grove Hill House

26 March 2017 (work started in the previous week) 2 April 2017 (roots further cut back) Diagram showing the position of a retaining wall. The roots have been exposed to the air for over a month, and no back-filling has been carried out. The roots have been cut back to less than 0.5m from the tree trunks. Diagram showing the approximate area of trees and landscape affected if the damage to the tree roots causes any die back.

View from Melvill Road

View of landscaped boundary from Grove Hill House Impact of extension on the setting of Grove Hill House, and potential conflict of an out-of-character design, a contrast made starker and even more damaging if the trees are lost. The conflict will appear even worse moving West along Melvill Road. A sketch of the impact of the potential loss of trees viewed from Grove Hill House

An unacceptable and out of character intrusion and an affront to the setting of a Grade II listed building and grounds in the Conservation Area.

It will mean that permanent, high and dense screening will be required for the life-time of the extension in order to mitigate the considerable harm caused. Existing trees and landscaped boundary

Likely visual impact of extension if boundary trees are lost or die back due to root damage caused by excavations carried out by 14 Grovehill Drive Glenn Humphries Landscaping

Office 01872 560388 • Mobile 07973 406779

19 April 2017

By email to: [email protected]

Mr Jenks Grove Hill House Grove Hill Crescent

Falmouth TR11 3HR

Dear Mr Jenks

Further to our telephone conversation and my subsequent site visit please see the following initial report regarding the earthworks and movements within the tree canopy boundary of the Grove Hill Estate as a consequence of the building work in progress in the neighbouring property.

Initially there are 6 major high canopy trees affected along with several smaller large growing amenity shrubs. These trees are as follows: 1 no. eucryphria 1 no. embothrium coccineum, 3 no. large myrtles, 1 no. large griselinia. Shrubs include skimmia, spirea and senecio.

The neighbouring boundary has been cut flush to the existing boundary wall, cutting away some of the tension and fibrous roots. These have been left exposed and are subject to drying out causing additional stress to the trees and shrubs. From a horticultural point of view, we would recommend that the area is

covered with either a geotextile membrane or ideally with a soil and compost mix to avoid additional water loss and drying out. We would not advocate any further cutting back as we believe that this would be detrimental to the sustainability of the trees. This should be backed up by regular watering and hygiene over the coming summer months.

Due to the trees being within a conservation area adequate tree barriers should have been placed around the root zone to ensure reduce dig was kept out of these areas.

If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Glenn

Glenn Humphries RHS Dip.Hort M I Hort

Creegmeor Farm, Callestick, Truro TR4 9NF

email: [email protected] • www.glennhumphries.co.uk

Glenn Humphries Landscaping Ltd Registered No. 5782544 VAT No. 846427703

Grove Hill House, Falmouth

20 August 2017

Ref: 14 Grovehill Drive, EN17/00595

We (Grove Hill House (Falmouth) Ltd)i would like some consideration given to the points raised below, concerning the work carried out to the roots of our trees.

We are guided by our obligation to apply for consent under the 1999 Tree Regulations to undertake work on the trees within our grounds, and to carry out any work ‘in accordance with good arboricultural practice’. This we do, and consider it our responsibility to maintain the visual amenity of the Conservation Area and our Listed Building and its grounds and setting.

We were advised by Glen Humphries (horticulturist and landscape gardener) that the work affecting the roots of our trees on the boundaryii left them subject to drying out, causing stress to the trees and suggesting that their future sustainability might be at risk, unless proper remediation and watering was carried out. No such remediation was carried out, and the roots were exposed for over two months. Thereafter there was a partial coverage with spoil from the excavations leaving much of the root system exposed for around another two months (see Timeline below).

As our Company is obliged to seek consent and conform to best practice, we can see no reason why such a condition was not imposed in the planning consent for PA14/03338 requiring that the trees be properly protected during construction, or adjustments made to the positioning and design of the development to mitigate the impact, or why 14 Grovehill Crescent did not apply under the Tree Regulations for consent to work affecting our trees, protected under the Falmouth Conservation Order.

Our concern is that it may take a year or more for the weakening and/or loss of these trees to become apparent, as it is unlikely that visible signs of any die back or other weakening would be apparent in the 4-5 months since the roots were cut. These trees, although not specimen varieties, are typical of some trees that were historically in the Grove Hill groundsiii, and now provide a canopy and important setting to Grove Hill House, and enhance views from outside back into the Conservation Area. These trees are of a high value to Grove Hill House in maintaining its setting, amenity, privacy and for screening against an unsympathetic and out of character extension. And they are of conservation value to the wider community in relation to the setting and views they give to Grove Hill House and the Conservation Area.

We consider that it cannot validly be claimed that the trees will not be adversely affected by the damage caused to the roots. There is clearly a risk that they are weakened, and a possibility that the root damage could affect their longer term sustainability or cause them to die.

Our trees are within the Conservation Area, and immediately border the site, and are of considerable value to their setting. They should have been protected from damage by construction machinery by a root protection area (see Tree sizes below), or by adjustments to the proposed development. This was not done. Roots were excavated well within the area that should have been protected. Once the damage was done, the length of exposure to drying out and possible disease was lengthy. When the retaining wall was eventually backfilled with spoil, the soil was degraded and not improved, nor was any watering done. The addition of a small amount of topsoil at a late stage was not sufficient to improve the soil environment. In short, neither a single part of best arboricultural practice, nor the recommendations in the relevant British Standards were followed, either within the process or in practice that would be expected when work to trees within a Conservation area is proposed or carried outiv.

We therefore face a potential loss of trees and amenity that we will need to take action to recover in the future.

Timeline

 Week commencing 20th March 2017. Excavation work began.  26 March. Photographic evidence of extent of roots torn through by mechanical digger.  2 April. Photographic evidence of further cutting back of roots.  3 April. Glenn Humphries inspection and assessment of root damage  Mid-April. Retaining wall constructed. Roots left exposed.  16 May. Retaining wall partly backfilled with spoil from excavations. 100- 300mm of roots still left exposed.  No further action noticed, except at some point additional soil was added and some plants. It is possible this was to disguise the damage, as the planting will get insufficient light to survive when the extension is built.

Tree sizes

The six trees mentioned in Glenn Humphries report were measured. The stem diameters (at 1.5m height) included two single stem trees of 150mm and 180mm, and four multiple stems with mean diameters of 110mm – 160mm. These should have had a root protection area of between 1.2m – 2.1m. The excavations tore them back to less than half a metre.

Prof. M Jenks, DipArch, PhD, FRSA Company Secretary Grove Hill House (Falmouth) Ltd i Grove Hill House (Falmouth) Ltd owns the freehold of Grove Hill House, and is also the management company that looks after the House and grounds. There are 7 Directors representing the 7 flats in the House. Grove Hill House is a listed building – Grade II. ii In connection with the development permitted under PA14/03338 iii Grove Hill, built in 1788-9 and owned by the Fox family, was a renowned and Banksian prize- winning garden in the 19th century. Similar trees can now be found in the other Fox gardens of Penjerrick, Glendurgan and Trebah. iv Sources included: BS 5837, BS 3998, The Arboricultural Association, and various professional consultants. Cornwall Council: Decision on damage to tree roots From: White Adrian Sent: 25 August 2017 14:08 To: Mike Jenks Subject: RE: 14 Grovehill Drive EN17/00595

Dear Mr Jenks,

Thank you for the additional email you have sent and the information that was received earlier this week.

With reference to your statement below the covenant issue is not something that will have an effect on EN17/00595 and is only a civil matter between yourselves and the neighbours.

Consideration has been made of the reports you have submitted and from the council arborist Alan Rowe BSc, M.Arbor.A. His conclusion is below;

The shrubs along the boundary on the Grove Hill House side will have been impacted but without knowing the volume of soil that has been removed or exactly where the original ground levels were it is impossible to state exactly how significant that impact has been.

The Eucryphia, Myrtles, Griselinia and Embothrium are not trees rather they are multi stemmed shrubs and so will not be protected by the Conservation Area.

There is a Lawson Cypress opposite the gable end of the property at 14 Grovehill Crescent within the grounds of Grove Hill House but soil levels at this point have not been altered recently and the s tem of this tree is several metres from the ground level changes so the impact is likely to be insignificant as the change has occurred in only a small section of this tree’s likely rooting zone.

Alan Rowe BSc, M.Arbor.A.

In view that the effected hedge line is defined as shrubs, as stated by Mr Rowe they are not protected by C1/20 Grove Hill Estate Tree Preservation Order, nor DC0170 Falmouth Conservation Area. As there is no breach of planning there is no further enforcement action the council can take.

In view of this I will be closing the case, thank you for drawing my attention to this matter.

Kind regards

Adrian White Planning and Sustainable Development Service Economic Growth and Development Directorate Cornwall Council

Internal Tel: 423389 External Tel: 01726 223389 [email protected]

Chy Trevail, Beacon Technology Park, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL31 2FR (First Floor, South Wing). www.cornwall.gov.uk

Cornwall Council: extracts of Adrian White’s ‘decision’ report (25/08/17) MJ’s notes

“Consideration has been made of the reports you have submitted and from the council arborist Alan Rowe BSc, M.Arbor.A.

In view of this I will be closing the case, thank you for drawing my attention to this matter.”

Note: Another convenient conclusion. But, Mr Rowe’s report indicates the excavation work had an ‘impact’ on our plants. Glenn Humphries report shows that our ‘trees’ are at risk, and our monitoring of the root damage shows that Glenn’s recommendations that would have been needed to protect the plants did not happen – quite the reverse.

Note: The loss of our trees will have a negative visual impact on the Conservation Area. This is a planning issue, whether our trees are directly protected by law, or not.

Note: It seems ridiculous that in permitting an inappropriate and unnecessary extension of no architectural merit, that Planning can allow visual damage to the Conservation Area and compromise Falmouth’s most significant Listed Georgian building and deny any responsibility for it. Tree Officer, A Rowe’s report MJ’s notes

“The shrubs along the boundary on the Grove Hill House side will have been impacted but without knowing the volume of soil that has been removed or exactly where the original ground levels were it is impossible to state exactly how significant that impact has been.”

Note: Our photographic evidence shows the original ground level, and the sloping land. Mr Rowe was invited to inspect on our side of the fence, where the original ground level could be seen. It is not difficult to measure the depth of the excavation, or the depth of the roots impacted. It would certainly be possible to estimate whether the ‘impact’ was serious or not, even if an ‘exact’ estimate to the neares cubic millimetre could not be made. This is an inadequate assessment.

“The Eucryphia, Myrtles, Griselinia and Embothrium are not trees rather they are multi stemmed shrubs and so will not be protected by the Conservation Area.”

Note. It is very convenient to the Council to categorise these species as just shrubs, as it means they can avoid being found at fault. However the RHS categorises all, except the Griselina as ‘shrubs or small trees’. Ours are clearly small trees in terms of stem size, height, etc. It is not clear when legally shrubs become trees, and what the position about their protection in a Conservation Area might be. Again, had Mr Rowe visited GHH to inspect them he could have seen for himself the size of the ‘trees’ and not made generalisations in the absence of a proper survey.

“There is a Lawson Cypress opposite the gable end of the property at 14 Grovehill Crescent within the grounds of Grove Hill House but soil levels at this point have not been altered recently and the s tem of this tree is several metres from the ground level changes so the impact is likely to be insignificant as the change has occurred in only a small section of this tree’s likely rooting zone.”

Note: This is irrelevant, as it was unaffected by the excavation.

RHS catalogue of our plants below:

Myrtus communis common myrtle

 Other common names common myrtle myrtle  Family Myrtaceae  Genus Myrtus are evergreen shrubs or small trees with aromatic, leathery leaves and solitary, bowl-shaped white flowers followed by fleshy, often edible berries  Details M. communis is a bushy medium-sized evergreen shrub with small, aromatic, ovate leaves and profuse white flowers 2cm in width, followed by purplish-black berries  Plant range Mediterranean

Eucryphia × intermedia 'Rostrevor' eucryphia 'Rostrevor'

 Other common names eucryphia 'Rostrevor'  Family Cunoniaceae  Genus Eucryphia can be evergreen or deciduous shrubs or trees, with simple or pinnate leaves and solitary bowl-shaped white flowers in the leaf axils in summer or autumn  Details 'Rostrevor' is a strong-growing, broadly columnar evergreen shrub or tree, with both simple and trifoliate leaves, glaucous beneath. Flowers to 4cm in width, white, abundant, in late summer and autumn

Eucryphia × nymansensis Nymans eucryphia

 Other common names Nymans eucryphia  Family Cunoniaceae  Genus Eucryphia can be evergreen or deciduous shrubs or trees, with simple or pinnate leaves and solitary bowl-shaped white flowers in the leaf axils in summer or autumn  Details E. x nymansensis is an evergreen tree of dense, broadly columnar habit, with dark green leaves composed of 1 - 3 oblong leaflets, and rose-like white flowers 6cm wide in late summer and autumn Embothrium coccineum Chilean fire bush

 Other common names Chilean fire bush Chilean flame flower  Family Proteaceae  Genus Embothrium are evergreen trees or shrubs, with simple leaves and showy tubular flowers with four recurved lobes  Details E. coccineum is an upright evergreen shrub or small tree, with leathery, lance-shaped leaves and clusters of narrowly tubular scarlet flowers in late spring and early summer  Plant range Chile

Griselinia littoralis broadleaf

 Other common names broadleaf New Zealand broadleaf  Family Griseliniaceae  Genus Griselinia are upright evergreen shrubs with simple, ovate leaves and tiny yellow-green flowers, male and female on separate plants  Details G. littoralis is a fast-growing large evergreen shrub with light green, broadly oval leaves. Flowers yellow-green, very small and inconspicuous, followed by purple fruits on female plants, where both sexes are grown together  Plant range New Zealand