Trees and Planning

AT THE END of August considerable concern was raised by residents about the felling of trees in a retained area of land. Neighbours believed that the felling was to facilitate an anticipated planning application for back-garden infill with housing.

In this case there were several requests for Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), and concern about damage to the habitat of roosting bats. I asked borough council officers to urgently review whether any trees on site, or overhanging the site from neighbouring gardens, were of sufficient standard to qualify for emergency/temporary TPOs (as we had already imposed on a cedar tree in Warren Road threatened by back-garden infill development).

DAMAGING THE HABITAT OF BATS

Planning officers visited the site and determined that no trees qualified for this level of protection, and further advised residents that if the tree clearance was believed to be damaging the habitat of bats, then, as bats are a protected species, residents should contact the police as this would be a criminal, not civil, matter under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and Schedule 2 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994.

RESPONSE FROM HEAD OF PLANNING,

The following responses were also sent by Andrew Benson, RBBC’s Head of Planning, which explain the reasoning behind this:

“The site was subject to planning applications a few years ago, in 2013 and 2014 for redevelopment and the trees were assessed at that stage.

There were no trees of the highest quality identified (Category A) that warranted a TPO at that time but there were some trees worthy of retention around the site boundaries. These were shown to be retained in the application although the scheme was refused. The situation doesn’t appear to be significantly different now than back in 2014 and it does not seem that a TPO could be justified.

If the rumours are correct I expect the lower quality trees would be removed as is the landowner’s right to do so. We could not serve a TPO to protect the site from development or to prevent harm to protected species which is covered by separate legislation.

”....... ......”For the last ten years or so we have had around 1.5 FTE tree officers within planning and that remains the case now with Guy Stephens working two days a week and Jim Melllor working full time. These Officers are exclusively involved with trees on private land rather than tree officers within Green spaces who are responsible for trees on RBBC land and those at County responsible for trees on SCC land. Our 1.5 Planning Tree Officers deal with all requests for TPO, advise on planning applications and consider all applications for tree works on protected trees. It is not usually the case that trees under imminent threat cannot be protected because of tree officer unavailability and more often than not it is simply that the trees are not sufficiently worthy of TPO. We only strive to protect the trees of highest value to the amenity of the wider area. This is not only because these are the ones that are most easily justified but also because each TPO carries with it a significant resource cost. This is not just the oneoff costs of serving the TPO but the ongoing costs thereafter associated with tree works applications which will often be made annually for pruning and attract no fee to the Council. Each year on average we protect between 30-50 trees via TPO and lose only around 5-10 TPO trees to disease etc meaning there is an ever-increasing number of trees protected by TPO. We have many hundreds of TPO trees across the Borough but there will be many thousands more that are not subject to TPO. Whilst it is disappointing that some of these trees will be felled, this is to some extent inevitable, and we have to accept that our reach in terms of protection can only go so far. Increasingly we seem to see people requesting TPOs to stop development from occurring which is not their intended purpose. We therefore seek to protect the highest quality trees through TPO whilst aiming to seek replacements through the planning process where trees are lost to development. For the next local plan we will explore the potential for a tree canopy policy to ensure that new developments provide a minimum level of tree canopy cover to ensure there is a net gain (or at least no net loss) of tree canopy cover across the Borough. The introduction of biodiversity net gain may also offer hope for the retention of trees in developments if their biodiversity loss has to be compensated for. Currently we secure replacement trees through conditions and are more stringent in our requirements for replacements where there has been pre-emptive felling... Whilst it is true that the only legal requirement for a replacement of a tree is where it has a TPO, that does not mean that we cannot pursue a robust replacement landscaping strategy through planning conditions. In strict terms this is not to penalise the preemptive felling (which of course is perfectly legal) but to mitigate and compensate for its loss. I am happy for you to explain this approach to residents if it would be helpful.”

Andrew Benson Head of Planning, Reigate & Banstead Borough Council