Agenda item

The strategy for allocation of tree planting resources was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste.

The Strategy did not seek to commit the Council to a specific level of

expenditure: rather, it established a clear, evidence-based framework for

prioritising locations, communities and types of intervention once resources were allocated. Regardless of the eventual scale of funding approved, the same prioritisation principles would apply. Agreeing the Strategy ensured that any investment would be deployed efficiently, transparently and in alignment with the Council’s Tree and Woodland Strategy, without delay.

Opportunities to deliver additional tree planting through grant funding, public-

private partnerships, third-sector collaboration or in-kind contributions were

considered on a case-by-case basis and are not governed by this allocation

framework.

The strategy would be reviewed every three years, or sooner if circumstances

change significantly.

The strategy adopted the following principles:

-       Priority use of council-owned land

-       Focus on tree establishment rather than tree planting

-       Replacement planting as a first priority

-       Supporting public sector development

-       Maximising site potential and operational efficiency

-       Targeting areas of greatest benefit

-       Use of Tree Equity Scores within towns

Based on historic data, the average cost of watering an amenity tree for one

growing season was approximately £100 per tree. This figure was to be reviewed annually based on actual expenditure. Because budgets operated on an April–March basis, the estimated cost of summer watering must be deducted from the current year’s planting budget.

In addition:

-       £2,000 was allocated annually for other maintenance tasks (weeding, restaking, minor repairs).

-       £3,000 was set aside as a contingency fund.

Review of the previous two years of planting indicates an average planting cost of £225 per amenity tree. This figure would also be reviewed annually using real expenditure data.

During discussions, Members commented on the following:

-       A Member urged prioritising hardiness over attractiveness when selecting trees. They also sought clarity regarding the calculation of the Canopy Deficit Score. This was confirmed to be recorded as 0 if canopy cover exceeded 20%.

-       It was queried whether the tree canopy cover was offsetting the carbon emissions of new housing developments within the district. The Cabinet Member acknowledged the competing and conflicting pressures identified by the question and highlighted that the Council’s legal obligation was vested in the biodiversity net gain (BNG) rather than canopy cover. The Cabinet Member also noted the important role of Parish Councils in canopy cover maintenance and continuing dialogue with SKDC regarding developers that were not sufficiently maintaining their trees. In such instances, SKDC could take enforcement action.

-       It was confirmed that, under the strategy, there was planting of both clusters, and individual trees, depending on the project.

-       A Member urged public-facing clarity that the average planting cost of £225 per tree was due to the large size of the tree.

-       The Member also urged the use of trees as a tool to minimise flooding in Grantham. The Cabinet Member noted there was a Kesteven Forest Project which could consider this and sought to protect the character and health of the towns and villages within the district.

-       A Member advised caution about the potential for tree roots to undermine the structural foundations of buildings. The Tree Officer offered reassurance that any damage was indirectly due to shrinkage in the soil rather than the roots directly and this was considered when deciding planting locations and species choices. 

-       It was confirmed that Tree Planting Priority Index (TPPI) figures referred to all land, not just SKDC owned land.

-       The Chairman of the Council expressed disappointment in the delay to the Blessed Hugh Moore project but praised the delivery of the Princess Drive project. The Tree Officer confirmed that the trees used for the Princess Drive project were an upright form and would not impact the highway. The Cabinet Member noted that the Blessed Hugh Moore project now sat with the relevant Parish Council prior to wider consultation. Should the Parish Council not object, the Cabinet Member was confident the scheme would go ahead.

-       The suggestion was made to review the Adoption Policy to allow SKDC to take unwanted land from developers which could then be used for trees.

-       A Member asked to be sent a copy of the TPPI map of the Stamford. ACTION

Following discussions, it was proposed, seconded and AGREED to endorse the strategic approach to tree planting outlined within the strategy.