ITEM 6 Planning Committee 16th January 2018 Application No : 17/05198/TPO Works to trees subject to a TPO Location : 41 Canewdon Gardens Runwell Wickford Essex SS11 7BJ Proposal : T2 - Oak of MWA Arboricultural report; works - REMOVE; reason: the above tree is considered to be responsible for root induced clay shrinkage subsidence damage to the subject property. TPO Reference : TPO/1987/007 Case Officer : Lynn Cameron Applicant : Owner/Occupier Agent : MWA Arboriculture Ltd Date Valid : 18th September 2017 01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 1 09_OFFRPT_2 REPORT This application was considered by the Planning Committee at the meeting on 28th November. The Committee resolved to defer a decision on the application to enable officers to consider whether further information can be obtained to substantiate the conclusions of the consultants mentioned in the report, the findings to be discussed with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Councillor Mountain before being brought back to the Committee. Officers have instructed an independent loss adjuster to review the case and advise accordingly. Once received, officers will discuss the findings with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Councillor Mountain as instructed and provide an update at the meeting. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The application is referred to the Planning Committee as there is significant local opposition to the removal of a preserved tree and the Council would need to accept liability for compensation if permission to remove the tree is refused. 1.2 The application seeks permission to fell one preserved Oak tree which has been implicated in subsidence at an adjacent property, 32 Canewdon Gardens. The Oak tree is part of an established tree belt which is on the bank of Runwell Brook and provides a natural barrier between Canewdon Gardens and three newer properties on the other side of the brook. The tree is situated on land outside the curtilage of No 41 Canewdon Gardens which is recorded as “Unregistered” by the Land Registry. 1.3 The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Appraisal Report and an Engineers report that implicate the tree in damage to the property related to clay shrinkage subsidence. 1.4 Although the tree is an attractive feature and provides an important natural boundary on the bank of the brook, its implication in subsidence at 32 Canewdon Gardens means that permission to fell cannot be withheld without the Council assuming liability for any subsequent loss or damage to the property from the preserved tree. 1.5 In the circumstances the application is recommended for approval. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The oak tree, protected by TPO 1987/007, is situated on land outside the curtilage of 41 Canewdon Gardens on land which is unregistered. It probably formed part of an old hedgerow, along the brook. 2.3 Immediately to the left of the tree, on the other side of the driveway, is a smaller Oak tree which is not protected by TPO but is also implicated in the subsidence claim at No 32 Canewdon Gardens. 2.4 The protected tree is approximately 20m from the corner elevation of 32 Canewdon Gardens, the property with alleged subsidence damage. The highway and driveway across a bridge to 34, 36 and 38 Canewdon Gardens is situated between the tree and the property. 2.5 There is a stream immediately to the north of the protected tree. Local residents have indicated that this area is liable to flooding during heavy rain. 01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 2 09_OFFRPT_2 2.6 The owner of the property has advised that the property has recently sustained flooding internally from a damaged pipe in the bathroom. Internal water damage was seen at the time of the site inspection. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF TREE 3.1 The preserved Oak tree has an estimated diameter of 740mm at breast height which gives it an approximate age of 100 years. The tree is approximately 20m tall, with a canopy spread of 9m, extending over the driveway leading to Nos 34, 36 and 28. 3.2 On the other side of the driveway and closer to No 32 (16m), is a younger Oak tree that is not the subject of a TPO. When viewed from the junction of Egbert Gardens with Canewdon Gardens, the trees appear as one canopy. 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 4.1 The proposal seeks permission to fell the preserved oak tree (T1), as it is considered to be responsible for root induced clay shrinkage subsidence damage to the subject property. The unprotected tree is also proposed to be removed. 4.2 The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Appraisal Report by MWA Arboriculture Ltd and an Engineers report that considers the damage to the property to be related to clay shrinkage subsidence. 5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY TPO/1987/007 – TPO to protect 1 x Oak tree – from the details on the file, it would appear that the TPO was served as a result of the proposed development of 34, 36 and 38 Canewdon Gardens 10/05241/TPO - Oak (T1 1987/007) - within road - reduce lateral spread towards 41 Canewdon Gardens by 2m max, cutting to suitable growing points (suitable growing points are side branches that are at least one third the diameter of the originating branch); crown clean – made by the owner of No 41 Canewdon Gardens 6.0 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS • Parish Council: Strongly object to the loss of the tree. • Anglian Water: No response received • Local Residents: 16 letters of objection. Two letters supporting the application. The Parish Council and other objectors raise a number of other possible causes for the damage to 32 Canewdon Gardens, and raise concern about damage to other properties from heave if the trees are removed. These are discussed below. 7.0 AMENITY CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Both trees have high amenity value as they can be clearly seen from the junction of Canewdon Gardens and Egbert Gardens, forming a backdrop to the residential properties. The road is well used as it provides access to Runwell County Primary School. The school use the tree as an educational tool. In addition, it provides an important linear wildlife habitat ambiance to the adjacent residential properties. Due to the age of T1 there is evidence to show this was part of a historic hedgerow on the edge of Runwell Brook and therefore has importance to the Parish of Runwell. The proposal would mean the loss of an historic tree and open up views to 34, 36 and 38 Canewdon Gardens, across the brook. 01DCOMTP 17/05198/TPOItem 6 Page 3 09_OFFRPT_2 7.2 The documentation supporting the application states that the main area of damage is on the left- hand side of the dwelling. 7.3 Given the strength of local feeling supporting the amenity the tree provides, an exercise has been carried out to place a value on the trees using the recognised tool of CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees). This system provides a basis for managing trees in the UK as public assets rather than liabilities. It is designed not only to be a strategic tool and aid to decision-making in relation to the tree stock, but also to be applicable to individual cases, where the value of a single tree needs to be expressed in monetary terms. 7.4 It is intended particularly for Councils and primarily for publicly owned trees. It is established in UK law, in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Section 198, that trees have value as a public amenity and therefore local planning authorities are given a duty to protect trees in the public interest. The legislation itself does not specify how amenity is to be assessed, leaving it open for the value of trees to be expressed in the most appropriate way. CAVAT works by calculating the unit value for each square centimetre of tree stem, by extrapolation from the average cost of a range of newly planted trees. 7.5 The system has been in use since 2008 when it was approved as fit for purpose and has been promoted by the London Tree Officers Association (LTOA). The first major recognition was its inclusion in the Joint Mitigation Protocol, agreed between the LTOA and the insurance industry, published 2008. The calculation for these trees has been discussed with the author of the system to confirm the figures are correct. 7.6 Using this method the tree has a value of £62,287. The cost of repairs to the property if the tree remains is likely to be significantly higher. 7.7 As Members will be aware the other form of assessment that is used to assess trees for consideration for a Tree Preservation Order is TEMPO. Under this method of assessment, the tree scored 23 justifying the TPO. 8.0 ASSESSMENT 8.1 The site investigation report shows the building to be shallow founded at 450mm below ground level on London Clay. The laboratory tests show the clay to be of high shrinkage potential. 8.2 Roots were noted to a depth of 1.8m. Those to 1.5m were identified as oak and a shrub. 8.3 The Arboriculturists report concludes that two oaks (T1 and T2 on their plans) are potentially the cause of the subsidence, and recommends that they both be removed. T2 is the protected tree and is furthest from the building. Both are capable of laying roots beneath the building. 8.4 Consulting structural engineers, engaged by the Council, have assessed the information supplied with the application. They accept there is clear evidence of seasonal and progressive movement in the building most probably caused by tree root action, but consider that the data does not conclusively show which tree is responsible, or whether both are to blame.