Agenda item

Officers introduced this report and made the following comments:

·         The Ash Tree in question was shown on a diagram displayed to the meeting, including an aerial photograph from 2016.

·         A photograph showed the footpath, as well as the ash tree, tower and fence

·         A rough drawing of the position of the tree highlighted its form

·         A wound on the branch of the tree was causing decay. Other branches were growing around the pavilion.

·         The benefit of pruning the tree is that it would only subsequently require a single further occurrence of pruning to recover. If the branches around were not removed, it would touch the branch due to future growth and cause damage

·         Regular pruning requires significant resources and will ensure the building does not damage the tree for several years. This would allow recovery over a 10 year period

·         Tree Management Policy (TMP) – Bristol City Council’s TMP did not authorise the removal of nuisance trees subject to proof that they were overhanging. However, the resident has a right in common law to prune the tree back to the boundary. In addition, it reduced the financial burden to Bristol City Council not to prune all the branches

·         The tree needed careful management

Officers made the following responses to Councillors’ questions:

·         There would be a very small proportion of the tree that needed to be pruned. Pruning back the trunk would allow the trees’ natural defences to seal over and for it to recover. This was urgently needed and would create a worse situation if the pruning did not take place

·         The Local Planning Authority received 3 to 4,000 applications under the Planning Act. In each case, an assessment had to be made and a judgement taken by officers under delegated authority. The Local Member, Councillor Goulandris, had exercised his right to refer this matter to Committee under the ward member referral system. Since the constitution uses the word application for Development Control Committees, it had been deemed that this does cover Tree Preservation Orders

·         In assessing whether or not a tree needed pruning, officers assessed the proportion of canopy that would need to be removed and the impact on the trees’ ability to photosynthesise. It was only a small amount in this case and in the professional opinion of the Tree Arboricultural Officer it would not be dangerous to the tree. However, when a branch was pruned, it took a lot of stored energy to callous over a wound and so reducing the amount of times that pruning took place was important

·          The Committee needed to consider the application in front of it and could not therefore request the one branch hitting the tree to be removed

·         Whilst there would not be any short term difficulty in just removing the one branch, the other branches would interact with the building and cause problems in five to ten years’ time

·         The assessment of each individual tree was done according to British Standard 399A and to prevent any further damage to the tree. The use of pruning was a means of carrying this out. There were on plans to change the status of this tree’s status operating under a Tree Preservation Order. If a tree needed to be felled, a replacement tree would be planted

·         There might be a marginal risk to the tree of ash die back as this did happen to trees which were already weak.

·         Although some of the Public Forum Statements had acknowledged that the policy only required works to a tree with a TPO if there was an actual nuisance, the TPM did nevertheless give a common law right to make an application to prune a tree back to the building line

·         The land was tenanted to the school which therefore had the common law right to carry out the works

·         If carried out, the works would take place in mid-winter (ie January 2021)

·         If the application was refused, the school could either apply for a fresh application or appeal the decision

·         There were approximately two to three branches that needed pruning on the pavilion side and two to three over the path. The largest branch was approximately 10 to 15 cm and the remaining branch was 7 to 8 cm

Committee members made the following comments:

·         The two comments from Councillor Goulandris should be noted. The works amounted to butchery if they went ahead and would make the trees look like a lollipop. They were very severe. The views of the Tree Forum and Tree Champion should also be considered. The Committee should vote against the application

·         The proposal was to cut a number of small branches and would not be butchery. Whilst the views of residents should be noted, the well being of the pavilion and students needed to be taken account of. Therefore, the application should be supported

·         It was disappointing to see that the Committee was being caught again in the ongoing dispute between Cotham School and nearby residents. The proposed works were not butchery. It was good that the tree only needed to be pruned once and tree surgeons should not be asked to keep pruning it back. It was also important that children should have access to sports facilities. The tree will not die and will grow back.

·         The objection seemed to be mainly due to the on going legal dispute between the school and residents. The application should be supported

·         The Arboricultural Officer comments were persuasive. It was important that this had come to Committee to ensure that the democratic process was followed and to allow members to have their say.

·         It would be good if a compromise could be found to this situation

Councillor Mike Davies moved, seconded by Councillor Olly Mead and upon being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED (7 for, 1 against, 1 abstention) – that the application be approved as set out in the report.