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
© Copyright 2024