## Planning Committee 16 February 2017

 
Tree Preservation Order 2016/2 - Trees on land adjacent to The Old Post Office, Coxwold 

## 1. Purpose Of The Report

 1.1 
To seek Members' approval to confirm Tree Preservation Order 2016/2. 

## 2. Background

 2.1 
A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was made on the 19 August 2016 relating to trees on 
land adjacent to The Old Post Office, Coxwold. This order took provisional effect from the date it was made and requires to be confirmed within 6 months of this date. The 
protected trees are specified by reference to a group and therefore the Authority can 
take any of the following three actions; 
 
- 
Not confirm; 
- 
Confirm as served; 
- 
Confirm with modifications to specify individual or groups of trees. 
A plan showing the location and extent of the area is at **Appendix 1**. 2.2 
The site is a garden area within the curtilage of the Old Post Office, to the east of the 
property and fronting the main street.  The trees are readily viewed on passing the site and the roadside trees are prominent when approaching the site from the west along the village street. 2.3 
The initial consideration of a TPO was in response to information received from a 
member of the public who was concerned that trees were about to be imminently removed. The site was also subject to an ongoing planning application (NYM/2016/0576/FL) that could have had a potential impact on the trees. 2.4 
An external arboricultural consultant carried out a site assessment for the Authority on the 18 August 2016 with a recommendation that a provisional TPO be served to prevent trees being removed until the planning application is considered. The TPO was 
authorised by Andy Wilson CEO on the 19 August 2016. 

## 3. Site Details

 3.1 
The group contains 16 trees which are plotted on the plan and listed in the schedule at 
Appendix 2. The species are a mix of conifer and broadleaves typical of garden 
planting with the exception of the ash and sycamore which have most likely established through natural regeneration. Many of the trees have been planted in close proximity to each other and this is reflected in the unbalanced crowns of a number. 
3.2 
The arboricultural consultant contracted by the Authority reported that the overall 
amenity value of the trees as a group was sufficient to consider a TPO. The Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) was followed and a survey data sheet completed. The score was 15 where a score of 12 to 15 indicates a TPO is 
defensible and a score of 16 or more definitely merits a TPO. The consultant also reported that not all the trees on the site were likely to be appropriate for a TPO and that the provisional order may need to be modified at confirmation.  

## 4. Objections And Representations

 4.1 
The public have 28 days to comment on new Orders, which are publicised in 
accordance with Authority procedures and the TPO regulations. Objections and representations must be taken into account by planning authorities before they decide whether or not to confirm an order, or whether or not to modify it upon confirmation.  
 
4.2 
There have been three responses to the TPO and these are reproduced at Appendix 
3. These are from the landowner, planning applicant and the land owner's arboricultural 
consultant. Specific objections relevant to the order are described below along with a summary of officers' responses. 
 
1.  
The landowner states the he had received requests from a member of the parish council to prune the vegetation that was causing issue to the use of the telephone box. He had also received a letter from a local business whose vehicles were impeded by overhanging vegetation. In response to these concerns he had informed his tenant that he was about to trim the shrubs and saplings to address the issues. This was just prior to the contact made to the Authority concerning tree removal. It is not possible for officers to determine the reason the concern was raised and therefore officers acted correctly on the 
available evidence. The Woodland Officer has explained the circumstances to the landowner and has informed him that he can still carry out works to trees to maintain clearances over the highway and footpath as exemptions under the TPO regulations. 2. 
Subsequent to the TPO being served the landowner employed A Whitehead 
Associates Limited to carry out a tree survey and make comments in respect of 
the TPO. In respect of the TPO Mr Whitehead challenges the TEMPO score 
produced by the Authority. Mr Whitehead has carried out the same process on a number of trees on the site and his findings are that only the beech tree individually merits a score appropriate for a TPO. The Woodland Officer does 
not dispute the scores provided and therefore has not responded. 3. 
Mr Whitehead has also provided the tree survey required for the planning application and made some recommendations in respect of the planning application. He has acknowledged the value of the trees at the east and west of the frontage and has provided a revised plan showing how these trees could be successfully retained within the development. The Woodland Officer has submitted comments in respect of the planning application that the revised details would be acceptable in respect of the impact on trees.  

## 5. Comment

 
5.1 
The main grounds for objection to the TPO are the suitability of the trees. Mr Whitehead 
is correct in his assertion that a number of the trees would not score sufficient points 
under the TEMPO individually. This is principally due to the fact that many of the trees have been planted quite close together and not thinned out leading to unbalanced crowns and other dysfunctions. However from an amenity point of view this aspect does not entirely detract from the contribution they make at the edge of the village at 
this time. The TEMPO score is only provided as an aid to decision making and it is the 
Authority's responsibility to make its own assessment of amenity value. 5.2 
Appendix 4 provides images of the site from both the east and west. There is a 
wooded backdrop to the area and there clearly is an issue with trees encroaching over the road and path. It also shows how close some trees are to each other. Particularly for the conifers, thinning out the trees at this late stage will significantly reduce the 
amenity value. In the medium to long term felling and replanting of these would likely be required. It should be made clear that many of the trees here cannot be retained long term and therefore the effect of the TPO would only be to ensure that replanting could 
be conditioned and the amenity value of these trees retained. 5.3 
The expediency test was met at the time of serving the provisional TPO by the fact that a planning application to develop the site was under consideration and also an 
unconfirmed report that tree work was planned.  Subsequently the planning application was revised to accommodate acceptable tree retention, which could have been 
enforced by a planning condition. The application was later refused on grounds unrelated to trees. The current level of threat is lower, but planning officers advise that 
this site could be subject to an appeal or future development proposals. The area falls 
outside the village Conservation Area, and therefore without a TPO the trees could be 
legally removed. The land owner has stated in his letter that he had only intended to "trim the shrubs and saplings and tidy the place up". 5.4 
Officers are recommending that the TPO is confirmed with modifications to restrict trees protected to the two groups of trees G1 and G2 that contribute the most to the amenity 
of the location and shown on the modified plan at **Appendix 5.** The excluded trees 1, 2, 
3, 4 and 11 are not on balance considered to provide sufficient benefit and were not considered worthy of protection in relation to the recent planning application. The 
images at **Appendix 4** illustrate the visibility of the groups. G1, the group nearest the 
building contains no trees suitable for long term retention and it would be our expectation that they would require replacement in the future. G2 the group to the east contains several trees that can be retained in the long term, but it would again be our 
expectation that some trees will justify removal and their replacement assessed at the time. 

## 6. Financial And Staffing Implications

 6.1 
None. 

## 7. Contribution To National Park Management Plan

 7.1 
The relevant Management Plan policies are: 
 
- 
E40. Individual and groups of trees that are of amenity and conservation value will be protected and new tree planting will be encouraged, where appropriate. 

## 8. Legal Implications

 8.1 
An authority cannot confirm an Order unless they have first considered any duly made 
objections or other representations. 8.2 
The legislation provides no right of appeal to the Secretary of State against an authority either making or confirming an Order. 8.3 
The validity of an Order cannot be challenged in any legal proceedings except by way of application to the High Court on a point of law. 

## 9. Recommendation

 9.1 
That Tree Preservation Order 2016/2 - Trees on land adjacent to The Old Post Office, 
 
Coxwold is confirmed with modification to reduce the number of trees protected to the 
 
two groups G1 and G2 as shown on the modified plan at **Appendix 5**. 
 Contact Officers David Renwick Director of Conservation Mark Antcliff Woodland Officer 01439 772700 
 
Background papers to this Report  


File ref None. 

## A. Wilson North York Moors National Park Authority Tree Preservation Order.

No.

2016/2
Chief Executive (National Park Officer) The Old Vicarage Bondgate Helmsley York YO62 5BP
Chief Executive (National Park Officer)
 ©   Crown copyright and database rights 2016
You are not permitted to copy, sub-license, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form.

North York Moors National Park Authority

## Tree Schedule

Tree 
Species 
1 
Pear 
2 
Lawson Cypress 
3 
Lawson's Cypress 
4 
Golden Cypress 
5 
Apple 
6 
Beech 
7 
Cherry 
8 
Cherry 
9 
Lawson Cypress 
10 
Sycamore 
11 
Lawson Cypress 
12 
Lawson Cypress 
13 
Ash 
14 
Juniper 
15 
Lawson Cypress 
16 
Lawson Cypress 
G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1
G1 G1 G1 G1
G1 G1 G1
G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1
G1
G2 G2
G2 G2 G2 G2
G2 G2 G2 G2
G2 G2 G2 G2

## A. Wilson North York Moors National Park Authority Tree Preservation Order. No.

2016/2
Chief Executive (National Park Officer) The Old Vicarage Bondgate Helmsley York YO62 5BP

## Chief Executive (National Park Officer)

 ©   Crown copyright and database rights 2017
You are not permitted to copy, sub-license, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form.

Ordnance Survey 100021930
North York Moors National Park Authority