DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES PLANNING PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 18th May 2016 _________________________________________________________________________ FURTHER UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION FOLLOWING MAKING OF PROVISIONAL TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 01/16 IN RELATION LAND AT KINLOCHLAICH, APPIN _________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT No. 3 A) INTRODUCTION Members approved the making of a provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO 01/16) in relation to several trees on land at Kinlochlaich, Appin at the meeting on 16th December 2015. The provisional notice of the proposed formal TPO was duly published and notification given to the owner of the trees, as a result of which an objection to the confirmation of the Order was received within the statutory 28 day publicity period. Further relevant information was subsequently received and this formed the basis of ‘Supplementary Report No. 1’ which was presented to Members at the Meeting on 16th March 2016 and requested a period of continuance to enable the objection and the relevant details to be properly assessed. Members agreed to this request. This current and final supplementary report, which supersedes the recently issued Supplementary Report No. 2 in the light of the most recent information, is to re-appraise Members as to the broad content of the objection to the provisional TPO, to the findings of an independent arboriculture report prepared at the request of the objector (and owner of the trees/land), to the content of a recent letter from the original proposer of the TPO and to summarise the examination of these findings and to recommend that the provisional TPO be withdrawn pending re-evaluation and recommendation at a later date. B) REPRESENTATIONS SUBSEQUENT TO THE MAKING OF THE PROVISIONAL TPO The provisional TPO was made, following approval by Members on 15th January 2016. The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Orders and Trees in Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2010 provides that a provisional TPO will expire unless confirmed by the Planning Authority within 6 months from the date on which the provisional Order took effect; in this case by 15th July 2016. An e-mail communication from the owner of the affected trees, Mr Donald Hutchison of Kinlochlaich, Appin was received on the 25th January 2016. This communication registered an objection to the confirmation of the provisional Order and posed several questions of a procedural and evidential nature, all of which have now been discussed with Mr Hutchison and responded to directly. Mr Hutchison is a Chartered Member of the Institute of Horticulture and operates a local garden centre nursery. A further e-mail communication from Mr Hutchison was received on 23rd February 2016. This correspondence attached an initial arboriculture survey of the trees. Further discussions have since taken place and a finalised version of the arboriculture report has recently been submitted. The objections raised by Mr Hutchison together with the broad findings of the arboriculture report are summarised below: The proposed TPO is not appropriate. The trees within and immediately surrounding the site of the approved planning permission for a new dwellinghouse (permission reference 15/00788/PP) are controlled by a planning condition which seeks the submission of an independent tree survey, clearly indicating those trees to be retained and those to be removed. The arboriculture survey has since been prepared and submitted. The plan accompanying the provisional TPO contains factual errors in relation to the identification of trees, namely misidentification of several of the tree species and misrepresentation of the positions of several of the trees. An arboriculture survey has now been prepared and submitted to the Planning Authority. This report, by a qualified and experienced arboriculturist, identifies 14 trees towards the south and south east margins of the development site and arranged in three general groupings as being within the family Abies (‘fir’ trees). The plan prepared by the Planning Authority for the provisional TPO identifies the same trees as being ‘cedars’. This identification is refuted by the owner of the trees and appears to be substantiated by the findings of the arboriculture report. ‘Cedar’ trees can belong to several family groupings but are not, it is alleged, within the family Abies. The arboriculture survey has examined the health and condition of each of the trees within and surrounding the development site (including all of the trees within the provisional TPO). There appears to be no dispute regarding the provisional TPO in so far as it relates to the individual specimen trees to the north and north west of the development site. All of these trees have been assessed as healthy and undamaged and are proposed to be retained (and secured by planning condition). The ‘fir’ trees within the family Abies, on the other hand, have been assessed as exhibiting various issues that would immediately threaten their long-term viability and amenity value – The submitted report states that they are generally dead / part-dead / part-decayed and/or damaged, with several having suffered lightning strikes. The arboriculture report and the detailed objection to the provisional TPO have been examined in consultation with the Council’s Amenity Services Technical Officer who has verbally agreed with the report’s findings. On the basis of the arboriculture evidence summarised above it is the considered opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the original recommendation to make provisional TPO 01/16 was fundamentally flawed and, although well intentioned, following a request for tree protection by a member of the public, was presented to Members without sufficiently detailed examination of the numbers, positions, species or condition of the trees themselves as has subsequently been alleged and would appear to be substantiated following the submission of a detailed arboriculture report. Whilst the trees the subject of the provisional TPO, and many others outwith the provisional TPO area but within the same land ownership, do undoubtedly add to the general visual character and the perceived quality of the area, it is alleged that the majority of these are not worthy of legal protection due to their health and/or condition. In addition to the specimen trees referred to above, the provisional TPO included 17 individual trees identified as belonging to three distinct groups. All of these trees were identified in the provisional TPO as ‘cedars’ but are claimed within the arboriculture report to be ‘firs’. Of the 7 trees proposed in Group 1, the arboriculture report states that all of them (plus a further tree not identified by the provisional TPO) should be removed. All of the trees in the identified Group 1 are identified in the arboriculture report as ‘fir’ trees and all fall into one of two condition categories; either Category Ui, Trees that have a serious irremediable, structural defect, such that their early loss is expected due to collapse or Category Uii, Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate or irreversible overall decline. Of the 6 trees proposed in Group 2, the arboriculture report again states that all of them should be removed. All of the trees in the identified Group 2 are also identified in the arboriculture report as ‘fir’ trees and, again, all fall into one of the two condition categories, Ui or Uii as stated above. All of the Group 1 and Group 2 trees are therefore recommended for early felling in the submitted arboriculture report. Within Group 1, four of the trees are recommended for re-planting with appropriate native species and 1 of the trees in Group 2 is proposed for re-planting. These findings and conclusions have been verbally verified by the Council’s Amenity Services Technical Officer although further examination of the submitted detail is required. Of the 4 trees proposed in Group 3, the arboriculture report identifies only 2 existing trees; these being a ‘fir’ tree and a ‘lime’ tree. Of these, the ‘fir’ tree has been identified for early felling due to falling within Category Uii, Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate or irreversible overall decline. The ‘lime’ tree, however, is recommended for retention and future protection through the creation and maintenance of a ‘root protection area’ (RPA). These findings and conclusions have also been verbally verified by the Council’s Amenity Services Technical Officer. A further letter has also been received by the original proposer of the TPO, Mr. Allan J. Colthart. Mr Colthart makes the following comments in support of his request for a TPO: My reason behind [the request for a TPO] is that these trees are part of the integrity of the surrounding planned landscape (along with others not listed as part of the Tree Preservation Order process such as the Oak tree lined avenue and others) which frames the setting for Kinlochlaich House a Grade B -Listed building allied with the gardens being one of the visitor attractions in the area as listed in the Glorious Gardens of Argyll. The trees in question are significant to the site and were omitted by the applicant from the original site plans and then subsequently detailed in later drawings when I advised that the site plan was inaccurate. The applicant’s agent referred to the reason behind the omission of these trees was that they were going to be felled; there was no mention of this in the Design Statement. Since the temporary Tree Preservation Order was put in place earlier this year, I have followed up this issue for the retention of the TPO with my local councillors where I received a written notification that there has been a tree survey commissioned by the applicant. I ask were the details of this tree survey: 1. Checked by the appropriate qualified officer for accuracy? 2. Was there mitigation for alternative actions such as tree surgery for retention of same included in the survey report? Thus ensuring that the landscape integrity of the site is conserved.