BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION
PLANNING COMMITTEE
WARD: SELLY OAK
2 APRIL 2015
The Birmingham (Land between 35 and 49 Raddlebarn Road)
Tree Preservation Order 2014
1. Subject And Brief Summary Of The Proposals
Consideration of the Tree Preservation Order at the above location in respect
of which one objection has been received.
2. Recommendation
That the Birmingham (Land between 35 and 49 Raddlebarn Road) Tree
Preservation Order 2014, be confirmed with modification (T4 removed from
the order)
3. Contact Officer
Richard Wood – Principal Arboricultural Officer – Planning (South)
Tel: 0121 464 0681
Email:
[email protected]
4. Background
4.1
The order protects four mature pine trees that are on the frontage of Selly
Wick Pre-School Playgroup on Raddlebarn Road in Selly Oak. The trees are
within a strip of soft landscape between the front boundary fence and the car
park.
4.2
My arboricultural officer became aware of enquiries to gain a private quote for
the removal of the trees and made the order to protect the high degree of
public visual amenity that they provide to this section of Raddlebarn Road and
so that the contribution of the trees to the area could be fully considered.
4.3
The order was served on the 28th October 2014.
4.4
A formal objection to the order in the form of a letter was sent as an email
attachment to BCC on the 11th Nov 2014. Before this time a formal objection
was received by email on the 4th Nov 2014. The email objection was from Gill
Gilbert, Director of Selly Wick Pre-School and the letter from Helen Appleby,
Deputy Manager of Selly Wick Pre-School. The objection refers to the pine
trees as ‘spruce.’
4.5
On the 11th of Nov 2014 my arboricultural officer met with Gill Gilbert at Selly
Wick Pre-School to discuss the objections and note any other factors arising
in preparation for this committee report.
5. Summary of the Objections
5.1
The main points of the objection are listed below:
5.2
The trees have been raised in the school’s risk assessments regarding:
1) The school has been advised that the trees are fairly shallow rooted.
2) The trees have large branches overhanging Raddlebarn Road and the
school pedestrian crossing (manned twice daily during term time.)
3) The largest tree leans towards the road and neighbouring [opposite]
properties.
4) The trees could incur storm damage that may not be visible [or easily
identified] by the school due to the size of the trees.
5) Considering the busy/highly populated street [and the use of the school
and car parking area] any failure of the trees could be fatal.
6) There is a health risk to children due to pigeons nesting in the trees and
defecating on the surrounding area.
7) Traffic passing the trees experience reduced visibility.
5.3
An example is given of an instance with another tree (shown in plan A) that
shed a branch over the ‘trim track area’ and reads as follows:
"The children were outside at the time in the adjoining playground. The only
reason that this branch did not land in the area of play was that it fell against
the metal railings between the trim track and the playground. We called out a
local tree surgeon who advised immediate removal including stump grinding
as the tree was rotting from the inside; we acted immediately to eliminate the
potential risk."”
5.4
Two examples of the trees causing a nuisance to neighbouring properties are
given:
1) Complaints have been received from the newsagents next door (No. 49
Raddlebarn Road) that the closest tree (T4) is interfering with their guttering
and filling it with pine needles.
2) Neighbouring properties suffer a reduction in light due to the size of the
trees.
5.5
Quoted from the objection:
“Works to the trees, including the removal of dead wood, require the adjacent
section of Raddlebarn Road to be closed. This involves associated costs and
disruption to the area that would only be incurred once if the trees were felled.
SellyWick Preschool is a non-profit making charity which serves the
community with affordable childcare and has done for nearly fifty years. We
approached the council as tenants to help us financially with regard to
deadwooding/ felling these trees. We were refused on the basis that it came
under our remit within the lease. We accept this and at the recent Directors
meeting agreed to fund a one off cost for the tree removal which at the time
had no preservation order on them. It was also minuted that we would be
unable to guarantee budgeting for bills such as dead wooding every few
years. You will note that in 2010 we successfully applied for capital funding to
a value of £165k which was spent on entirely on modernising the setting,
including coppicing the tree by the front entrance and dead wooding the four
spruce trees.””
5.6
The school wishes to redevelop the area (including planting of small flowering
trees) to make it a better area to enhance children’s learning and do not think
that this is possible while the large trees exist due to shading.
6. Response to the Objections
6.1
The pine trees are generally in good condition as a group. Two of the trees
(T2 and T4) are smaller and subdued by the other two larger trees (T1 and
T3.) T4 is in a confined space between the newsagents and T3 and is
growing out from under the canopy of T3 and over the roof of the property.
This tree is of little merit in itself and is too close to the newsagents for its
protection to be defended. For this reason it is recommended that T4 is
removed from the plan and schedule.
6.2
The trees lean to greater and lesser degrees out towards Raddlebarn Road.
This is particularly pronounced in T3 but there is no evidence or reason to
consider that they are not structurally well rooted into the available
landscape. T3 has the appearance of a tree that was displaced in the ground
when young and has since adapted to its position. Roots from this tree are
pronounced where they are close to the surface under the concrete kerb and
soft play area matting. The kerb shows no sign of movement in recent years
that would indicate a lack of structural integrity at the root plate.
6.2
The crowns of the trees contain some medium and small deadwood and one
hanging piece of deadwood was observed over the public footpath. The
proportion of deadwood was not high and generally the canopies of the trees
were well developed without any potentially significant structural defects that
could be observed from the ground.
6.3
The trees are situated in a busy urban environment. The Raddlebarn Road is
busy with both pedestrian and road traffic and the potential 'targets' of a tree
failure are increased to the highest level by the pedestrian crossing situated
directly under the road side canopies where both pedestrians (including
school parties) and traffic must wait to use the crossing. On the nursery side
there is car parking and at least some potential use as children’s play area
although most of the internal verge under the trees appears to be generally
unsuitable for daily learning or play activities. The potential to control risk
within the nursery boundary (for example in stormy weather) is much greater
than on the Raddlebarn Road outside the site.
6.4
If there were significant structural flaws identified in these trees then the need
for remedial pruning or removal would be of the highest priority.
6.5
The inspection of trees is not an activity that would be expected of the staff of
the nursery except to seek advice if a generally obvious risk developed. All
tree owners are advised to arrange a periodic inspection of their trees by a
qualified person. The period of the inspection varies according to the
circumstances but is generally a maximum of 5 years. In our opinion the pine
trees on the nursery frontage should be inspected each year due to their
surroundings.
6.6
Debris; leaves, sap and small deadwood will fall from any tree with no
substantial effect and should not be a factor in justifying removal of protected
trees. Pine trees are a favourite of roosting birds due to the horizontal branch
structure and evergreen cover. Our policy is not to accept the removal of
trees for reasons of bird roosting and their droppings and the trees are in an
area where the effects can be controlled i.e. they are not over main
playground and eating areas. The blocking of light and signals are also
factors that are not usually accepted as reasons for the pruning/removal of
protected trees.
6.7
There appears to be no justification in the claim that the trees obstruct lines of
sight for pedestrians or road traffic on the Raddlebarn Road.
6.8
It is beyond the remit or responsibility of the planning arboricultural office to
determine the way that tree inspection and works are privately financed but
there are issues in this regard that require comment as this is a point in the
objection.
My arboricultural officer is informed that work to the trees, including the
periodic removal of deadwood, would require traffic control and that this would
add to the cost of the operations. Certainly the road would need to be closed
if the trees were to be removed. Dead-wooding and other remedial pruning
would require traffic control for intermittent periods and the main special
requirement would be a minimum of four grounds persons to control both
pedestrian and road traffic.
The land is owned by BCC but is leased to the nursery with the assumption
that the tenant has responsibility for grounds maintenance.
6.9
In response to a request made by my arboricultural officer for further
information, Helen Appleby provided comments and an invoice for works
previously carried out. The invoice is not itemised and the works to the pine
trees (subject of this order) is reported as minimal at the time due to the lack
of available funding.
Details of the lease, including the reference No. CAS/KCS/10217/00046298 is
provided. The determination of the details of the lease is a legal matter,
unrelated to the consideration of confirmation of this Tree Preservation Order
6.10
The trees are a prominent visual amenity and landmark in Raddlebarn Road,
they are in good condition and with the exception of T4 would not normally be
considered to be out of context. It is the complication of unusually high
management cost and the nature of the leasehold that raises the main issue
of the ability of the nursery to appropriately manage the trees. This is a wider
issue that cannot be considered directly in relation to the suitability of the
trees for a Tree Preservation Order.
7. Financial Implications
7.1
It is unknown by my arboricultural officer whether the ultimate liability for the
trees is passed by the terms of the lease to the tenant or retained by the
owner (BCC Directorate – Children, Young People and Families.)
8. Implications for policy priorities
8.1
Strategic Themes
None
8.2
Implications for Women, People with Disabilities, Black and Minority Ethnic
People and Race Relations
None
9. Attachments
9.1
Photograph 1 (T1 to 4)
9.2
Plan and Schedule for The Birmingham (Land between 35 and 49 Raddlebarn
Road) Tree Preservation Order 2014 - Modified
9.3
Plan A (Tree previously removed due to failure)
………………………………………………………..
Director Planning and Regeneration