Does HBC’s tree officer understand Government guidance for Tree Preservation Orders?

In 2021, an area of the Clive Vale Local Wildlife Site (LWS) was recovering from being cleared prior to an unsuccessful planning-in-principle (PIP) planning application. To protect the site, Hastings Borough Council (HBC)’s tree officer was asked to submit a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). He refused. Local ecologist Richard Price questions this decision.

The response to the request for a TPO was in an email of April 2022.  The Arboricultural Officer, to use his proper title, stated:

The trees had been cleared therefore they were no longer present.

The trees had been planted randomly.

That the area consisted of low amenity trees.

That they are only stumps and roots therefore have no value.

That the remains of the trees do not make a positive contribution in terms of amenity to the local landscape.

Therefore, he refused to make a TPO. He added:

I am familiar with the site, and I’m aware that the trees recently removed were unexceptional in terms of their landscape value. The now cleared trees had been planted randomly across the site. This was a collection of low amenity trees rather than established woodland.

Had the trees still been standing, it is questionable whether their collective or individual quality would have merited preservation. The remaining parts of the removed trees amount only to stumps and roots, neither make a positive contribution in terms of amenity to the local landscape.

In conclusion and considering the facts outlined, at present the council would not consider placing a tree preservation order on what remains of the now removed trees.

The HBC Environment and Natural Resources Manager told Old Hastings ward member Cllr Julia Hilton that if an LWS is in private ownership, the owner can do as s/he likes: it cannot be protected on that basis. Here this is because the tree officer will not issue a TPO to protect the LWS.

The trees have grown back and the site now looks much as when it was designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) in 2004. SNCIs became LWSs in a later administrative change. Over the last 20 years the site has been cleared twice.  The first time was prior to an attempt to get it listed as housing in the Local Development Plan: this failed and the site is not allocated for housing.

When the 2021 application (HS/PIP/22/00163) was made, the tree officer noted there was

no accompanying arboricultural information. I therefore assume that the site has no existing trees on site. 

If of course there are trees on site, then an arboricultural report will be required in order that the impact of the proposal upon trees can be assessed.

Why did he assume in favour of the developer rather than establishing the facts? His gist was that if the trees have been removed, they are no longer present, and therefore cannot be protected or commented on.

The part of the site (near Barley Lane) under threat from the developer was designated as a LWS because the trees and shrubs make it impenetrable for people without thornproof clothing, but provide a wildlife corridor for animals wanting to reach the rest of the Clive Vale LWS.

When cleared the site became temporarily open and accessible, essentially empty of wildlife. Birds nest there every year (except years where it’s been cleared) and move throughout the rest of the Clive Vale LWS site.

ELF and safety

In May 2023, the Environmental Law Foundation gave a detailed statement on the trees and the site in a letter objecting to a new planning application, HS/PIP/23/00242 (just as they had done for the previous one):

We also ask HBC to provide a blanket TPO over the Clive Vale LWS to conserve the wildlife corridor to local SACs and SSSIs.

The objection is on the HBC case file.

Similarly the Sussex Wildlife Trust and the Woodland Trust have guidance stating that when an LWS consists of trees and shrubs, the best protection is an Area TPO. This accords with government TPO guidance, as explained below.

Amenity

The subjective word that lets councils ignore their duty to protect trees on Local Wildlife Sites is ‘amenity’ — often defined as ‘a desirable or useful feature or facility of a building or place’. Government guidance  states that TPOs can be made by local authorities to protect specific groups – trees or woodlands – in the interests of amenity. With a TPO in place the owner cannot wilfully damage or destroy the trees.  The guidance also explains what ‘amenity’ means in practice, as it’s not defined in law: councils have to exercise judgement, as best they can. What a local authority might take into account regarding amenity value includes these criteria:

visibility: 

the extent to which the trees or woodland can be seen by the public will inform the authorities assessment of whether that impact on the local environment is significant. The trees, or at least part of them, should normally be visible from a public place, such as a road or footpath, or accessible by the public.

The site in question is bordered on two sides by footpaths and easily seen by people who often take photographs of Hastings as they walk to and from the Country Park. So, visibility is met. 

individual, collective and wider impact: 

public visibility alone will not be sufficient to warrant an order. 

Councils have also to assess the importance of individual trees, groups of trees or woodland by taking account of the characteristics of size 

and form, future potential as an amenity, rarity, cultural or historic value, contribution to a relationship with the landscape, contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area.

The size and form of the trees was the very reason for the area’s designation within the LWS. The map below shows that the site was woodland in 1938. Therefore, it has historical and cultural value. The contribution that the trees here make in their relationship with the landscape is shown in their being designated as an LWS and an important wildlife corridor. The many objection comments sent to the council about permission-in-principle applications show that people really care about this site. The trees are an appreciated feature of both the landscape and the LWS.

The guidance states that other factors such as “the importance to nature conservation or response to climate change” should also be taken into account. It’s a LWS!

What tree strategy?

Government guidance refers to the tree strategies that councils are supposed to have. HBC does not have a tree strategy. It has a TPO list, which does not constitute a strategy. The trees on an LWS ought to form part of the tree strategy.

Government guidance also clarifies priorities:

It may be expedient to make an Order if the authority believes there is a risk of trees being felled, pruned or damaged in ways which would have a significant impact on the amenity of an area. But it is not necessary for there to be immediate risk for there to be a need to protect trees. In some cases the authority may believe that certain trees are at risk of development pressures and may consider, where this is in the interest of amenity, that it is expedient to make an Order.

The owner has twice cleared the trees just prior to planning applications. There is a clear risk they will be cut down again.

The trees don’t have to be exactly specified for a tree preservation order to be carried out. Guidance on TPO categorisation states that ‘the group category should be used to protect groups of trees when the individual category would not be appropriate and the group’s overall impact and quality merits protection’.

Complacency and inertia

Protection of biodiversity in Hastings requires that people in key positions such as the tree officer or Natural Resources Manager take appropriate action where necessary. Instead, there seem to be a cumulative preference for the course of action that means the least effort for them. Organisational laziness leads on to self-fulfilling prophecies. People in such positions need to care about the biodiversity and protect LWSs and Local Nature Reserves rather than seeing themselves as part of a system that inclines to the same developer-friendly approach: doing nothing.

Protecting the hillside

In the Local Development Framework the LWS is not designated for housing. On the occasion of the last attempt at development, in the 1980s, the land slid and Barley Lane was closed for more than six months. HBC’s planning department should refuse to accept future applications for this site. A TPO for the area would show a level of care for biodiversity that the council officers tasked with protecting biodiversity have yet to show.  

The site was cleared prior to Shaping Hastings, and again in 2021 prior to the first  application for permission-in-principle (PIP). Application HS/PIP/22/00163 (99 objectors) was refused.  Application HS/PIP/23/00242 (149 objectors) was near-identical and also refused, again on the basis of environmental damage. Local residents and visitors appreciate the view. Tree protection for this wildlife site is long overdue.

 

Also in: Home Ground

« Hastings’ house-building struggles
HBC’s affordable housing target in question »