Agenda item

Proposal: Remove dead wood (T1), remove epicormic growth from main stem and remove basal growth (T2 and T17), remove epicormic growth from main stem, remove basal growth and remove dead wood (T6, T9, T12, T16 and T18), remove epicormic growth from main stem, remove basal growth, remove dead wood and prune branch tips (T7 and T8), remove ivy, remove epicormic growth from main stem, remove basal growth, remove dead wood, crown lift to 5m (T10) (All Lime trees) (TPO-123).

Location: Land Between The Pines and Manor View , Casthorpe Road, Barrowby, Lincolnshire, NG32 1DW

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT Consent, subject to conditions.

 

Proposal: Remove dead wood (T1), remove epicormic growth from main stem and remove basal growth (T2 and T17), remove epicormic growth from main stem, remove basal growth and remove dead wood (T6, T9, T12, T16 and T18), remove epicormic growth from main stem, remove basal growth, remove dead wood and prune branch tips (T7 and T8), remove ivy, remove epicormic growth from main stem, remove basal growth, remove dead wood, crown lift to 5m (T10) (All Lime trees) (TPO-123).

Location: Land Between The Pines and Manor View , Casthorpe Road, Barrowby, Lincolnshire, NG32 1DW

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT Consent, subject to conditions.

 

Noting comments in the public speaking by:

 

District Ward Councillor              Councillor Robert Leadenham

Barrowby Parish Council            Jean-Pierre Durrand and Tim Lees

Against                                       Katherine Kinnear

On behalf of Applicant               Steven Weber (Associate Director – Ecology)

 

Together with:

 

-       Comments received from Barrowby Parish Council

 

The following comments were made by public speakers:

 

-       2 videos were shown to the Committee to evidence the presence of bats on the proposed site.

-       That lime trees acted as habitats to local wildlife.

-       Preconception between residents and applicants that the application process lacked transparency and was misleading.

-       An ecological report was requested.

-       Residents felt these trees were being cleared to make space for development on the land and not for arboricultural use.

-       The Public Speaker welcomed the additional ecology condition. It was felt the application needed to be micro-managed to ensure the works were carried out correctly.

-       It was noted there had been no maintenance of the trees in the last 20 years.

-       Concern was raised that some trees could be damaged and would need to be dealt with carefully.

-       The bat surveys completed did not report any bats, however, residents had recorded their activity in the area. The individuals conducting the survey were not registered bat professionals.

-       It was requested that the bat survey take place once they have emerged from hibernation, next Spring.

 

 

-       The speaker on behalf of the Applicant held a level 2 bat license which meant a bat survey could take place any time of the year with the correct qualifications.

 

During questions to public speakers, Members commented on the following:

 

-       A query was raised on what time of year the 2 videos were taken of the bats.

 

The videos were sent to the Tree Officer on 30 September 2025.

 

(Councillor Max Sawyer left the room, he was therefore unable to participate in the debate or vote of the application).

 

-       It was queried whether roosting bat surveys should be completed between May and end of August.

 

The agent clarified that the ground level tree assessment was completed in April to assess potential roosting features within the trees. If roosting features were identified, aerial tree climbing surveys would be undertaken.

 

-       Whether the agent would be undertaking the bat survey or a third-party company.

 

The agent confirmed he would be undertaking the survey.

 

The Committee were assured that there had not been a bat survey submitted as part of the application. There was reference to survey work within the additional items paper.

 

-       One Member queried what species and population of bats had been identified.

 

The data was still being reviewed at present in terms of the survey. Within similar areas, Common Pipistrelle had been a prominent species alongside Sprano Pipistrelle. These species were known for flying along wooden edges, and tree lines. The population characterisation was difficult to specify.

 

-       Clarification was sought around the area that was covered in the survey.

 

(It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to extend the meeting to 17:30, the Committee would still be quorate).

 

(Councillor Paul Fellows left the meeting at 16:30).

 

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

 

-       One Member queried whether a different professional to the applicant could undertake the survey. 

 

It was not deemed appropriate for the Committee to challenge the suitability of the specialist present however, the Council as a Local Planning Authority would verify the results of the survey to ensure compliance with appropriate regulations.

 

-       A further query was made as why the Committee initially had an informative on the bats and a bat survey had not taken place prior to the application being brought to the Committee.

-       It was noted that the agent had changed later on in the planning process and the new agent worked for a party who had a known interest in the site.  Officers were asked to confirm whether the law was being abided by, all relevant paperwork was with the Officers and signed by the owner of the land and still met the legal requirements under Regulation 16.

-       One Member sought clarification on the arboricultural evidence that demonstrated works were justified under the original TPO.

 

The application had been accompanied on behalf of the applicant to justify the works. There were comments in the officer report from the Council’s Tree Officer who had made their own independent assessment on the suitability of the works in terms of TPO regulations.

 

It was clarified that the person applying for an application was not a material consideration. The works through preservation orders was ultimately whether they were in the interest of good arboricultural practice and whether it would harm the amenity of the area.

 

Members raised a concern regarding when surveys should be carried out in order to protect bats. Officers stated that an additional condition for a bat survey could be imposed, however, it was not necessary for all works on tree preservation orders, if anything was to potentially harm a protected species, or habitat was covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which can be subject to prosecution if not abided by.

 

The Tree Officer clarified the epicormic growth that exists on lime trees was obscuring the stem and buttress roots which were the most critical parts for assessment when undertaking a duty of care inspection in assessing structural stability. When the growth is removed, it allows visual inspection for defects and internal weaknesses.

 

-       It was queried at what height the growth would be cut back too.

 

It was common that lime trees had growth around the base and could carry on up the stem depending on the form and character of the trees. The report stated that any works proposed were proportionate and reasonable.

 

-       It was suggested that a condition be added to ensure the trees are not cut higher than 2.2 metres from the ground level.

 

The Committee could include a requirement that a consultation process is undertaken to ensure any evidence put forward by the applicant goes through separate independent expert review.

 

-       One Member requested that the survey also included birds.

 

It was unusual for the Council to use a condition in respect of tree works. The standard approach was an informative. Set out in the additional items paper was the approach advocated through National Planning Practice Guidance.

 

-       The legalities of sudden change of agent late in the process were further questioned.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth clarified the Officers had the relevant paperwork. The agent was required to certify on behalf of the applicant around the land ownership and serve notice on a planning application. In respect of an application for works to protected trees, anyone could put an application forward to protect a tree, there was no requirement to serve notice.

 

In this instance, the Council had direct communication from the Applicant to notify them of the change of agent.

 

Final Decision:

 

To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT Consent, subject to conditions:

 

1)    All works should be completed within two years of the date of this notice.

 

2)    All works must be carried out in accordance with the British Standard BS 3998:2010 – (Tree Work -– Recommendations). and the European Tree pruning Standard (2024).

 

3)     Pruning cuts from the removal of epicormic growth must not exceed 50mm in diameter. Works must not exceed of height 2.2m when measured from the ground level to the stem.

 

Reason: To ensure the preservation of the amenity value and health of the tree(s).

 

4) The reduction of (T7) must only include the removal of secondary and tertiary branches - no primary branches. The reduction cut, (removal of the main axis (leader) of the branch/limb) must  leave a living side (lateral) branch to sustain the remaining branch with a diameter of at least ? the diameter of the pruning wound. The retained lateral branch should form a logical extension of the parent stem, avoiding significant changes in the direction of the branch axis and biomechanically unstable joints (e.g. “dog leg”).

 

Reason: To ensure the preservation of the amenity value and health of the tree(s).

 

5)    Seven days written notice must be given to the Council of the date of the commencement of the tree works hereby agreed.

 

Reason: In order to allow the work to be monitored.

 

6)    On completion of the granted tree works an image of the completed tree works must be submitted to the Council within 7 working days.

 

Reason: In order to allow the work to be monitored

 

Additional Condition:

 

No works, hereby approved, must take place until an ecological survey in accordance with CIEEM guidance (including birds and bats) of the trees has been carried out and submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consulttaion with Lincolnshire Bat Group (Bat Conservation Trust). In the event that any protected species or suitable habitat are identified, then the report must include a scheme of mitigation. The works must only be carried out in accordance with those recommended mitigation measures.

 

Reason: In the interests of avoiding any harm to protetcted species and in accordance with Local Plan Policy EN2.

 

(Councillor Tim Harrison voted against the proposal).

 

The following Councillors left the meeting at 5pm: Councillors Paul Wood, Vanessa Smith, Sarah Trotter, Gloria Johnson and Tim Harrison.