1. Please confirm the procedure you follow for determining whether a Tree Preservation Order is appropriate prior to service and how the Council process objections to Tree Preservation Orders.
The following response is provided by the Trees and Landscape Manager:
The procedure the Council follows is that detailed in Government guidance: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-preservation-orders-and-trees-in-conservation-areas and Annex A, Flowchart 1

2. Please then confirm, with all relevant officer emails and reports what process was followed in considering the objection to Tree Preservation Order 1855/2022 relating to Trees at and adjacent to Hurst Bowling Club, Castle Inn, Church Hill, Hurst, RG10 0SJ.
The following response is provided by the Trees and Landscape Manager:
The TPO was discussed by tree officers and the Tree and Landscape Team Manager at the monthly TPO Prioritisation meeting on 4th April 2022. The minutes of that meeting in relation to this TPO state:

Sycamore Hurst Bowls Club, Hurst – CH req. KN req. do all as development expected to impact trees

For clarity ‘CH’ are the initials of the Trees and Landscape Team Manager (with delegated authority to make TPOs – the proper officer) and ‘KN’ are those of the Senior Tree Officer. The minute taker was the Tree Officer. For the avoidance of doubt then, the TPO was considered by three appropriately qualified officers.

TPO 1855/2022 was served 19/04/2022.

I am not aware of any emails or reports relating to this process other than those that are publicly available through the Council’s planning website. My understanding is that the Council is not required to provide duplicates of publicly available information in response to a FOI request. However, by way of narrative, and so that the applicant can see that the process was robust, particularly so in this case, I give the following information.

The TPO was made and confirmed in response to, and in the light of, various tree works notifications and a planning application. These applications included two tree reports and proposals for mitigation works. Officer site visits also informed the decisions to serve and ultimately to confirm the TPO. No appeal against the TPO was lodged by the landowner.

A 6-week notification of works to a tree in a Conservation Area, 221057, was received on 31st March 2022.

The reasons given for the proposed works were:

Reasons stated for works:

The tree is situated in the access to our site. See photo 1. During the recent storm a large limb from a chestnut tree in the Castle Inn garden fell and badly damaged our toilet block putting it out of action.

As we now have no toilets we will need a portaloo onsite for the start of the bowls season on
April 17 while work on our toilet block is planned and carried out. Currently their delivery
vehicle has difficulty accessing our site owing to the position of the sycamore tree.

In addition the builders we have spoken to for initial scoping of the required work indicated that the sycamore would seriously impede any work to restore/rebuild our toilet block as the site entrance is narrow anyway and the tree leans across it. Building work plans to be finalised and submitted at a later date.

As this is the only vehicular access to the site we would like to widen it such that both of the
above activities can be carried out.

A second 6-week notification of works to a tree in a Conservation Area was received on 12th April. The reasons given for the proposed works were the same.

The officer comments in both decision letters stated that the Council considered the proposed works to be:

…excessive and detrimental to the amenity the tree currently provides within the
Hurst Conservation Area therefore, WBC considers it expedient to include the Sycamore in a
TPO.

A Tree Preservation Order TPO 1855/2022 was served 19th April 2022 the TPO protected three trees: T1 yew, T2 sycamore and T3 horse chestnut. The time allowed for the landowner to appeal the TPO ended 28 days after the TPO was served. I know of no appeal against this Order being lodged with the Planning Inspectorate.

I see from the planning file that a tree survey was included with planning application 222083 received by the Council on 7th July 2022. The Fulford Dobson tree survey was dated June 2020 and received by the Council on 13th July. The tree survey categorised the yew and horse chestnut as category B1 trees and the sycamore as a C1 tree. The Fulford Dobson report identified the yew and the horse chestnut as late mature trees in good physiological condition. The report stated that the horse chestnut was a ‘Large prominent tree downgraded to category B due to structural defects’. Of the sycamore the report stated that this was a mature tree in fair physiological condition. The report included photographs that clearly demonstrated the amenity of all the trees protected by the TPO. The report concluded that ‘No trees are proposed to be removed’ and it proposed mitigation works and conditions. The planning application is still pending, and a revised determination date of 30th November has been agreed between the Council and the Applicant.

On 11th August 2022 the Tree and Landscape Team’s Senior Landscape Architect assessed the tree again, from a landscape amenity perspective and wrote in her response to the Planning Officer:

The site is located within Hurst Conservation Area with three trees (Yew, Sycamore and Horse Chestnut) protected by TPO 1855/2022.

The Planning Statement indicates that the Sycamore by the main access gate is to be removed, however no justification is provided especially that this is now protected by a TPO. We would not support the removal of this tree unless there are good arboricultural reasons for its removal.

The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Report by Fulford-Dobson Associates dated June 2020, however this relates to the construction of the replacement club house and does not specifically relate to this application for a new toilet block. We will need a new Arboricultural Report to be submitted to consider the impacts of the proposed works on the Horse Chestnut and Sycamore which will need to be retained. If this document is not provided I would object to the application as the correct information has not been provided in order to comply with Local Plan policy CC03.

An addition tree report and Arboricultural Mitigation Strategy, Implications Survey and Tree Protection Report (with a tree protection plan), was submitted to the Council on 21 October. Discussing the sycamore, T2, and whilst giving the opinion that the author, Nichola van Pelt did not consider that ‘this tree’s retention with the scheme is worth the potential additional cost’, the report did make provision for the sustained retention of this tree. Discussing the horse chestnut, T3, the author did not consider that it was worthy of a TPO on health and safety grounds, however, the report did make provision for the sustained retention of all trees protected by the TPO. No further tree works applications or Regulation 14 notifications (for works immediately required to abate a cause of serious harm) have been received by the Council.

In addition, a Honey Arboricultural Consultancy Tree Protection Plan, dated 7th October 2022, was submitted to the Council on 21st October. This plan shows positions for tree protection fencing and ‘suitable ground protection’ for the protection of the trees to British Standard 5837 (2012).

In the light of the above - and following discussion between the T&L Team Manager (the proper officer), the Snr Tree Officer and the Tree Officer - the TPO was confirmed on 14th November.

3. If not included in the reponse to the above, please confirm if any officer visited to assess the trees included in TPO 1855/2022 before serving the TPO and after receiving objections to the TPO and which officers have been involved in processing the objection.
The following response is provided by the Trees and Landscape Manager:
I see from the Tree Officer, Coralie Ramsey’s diary that she visited the site on 19th April and again on 13th October. These dates were, firstly, just prior to the TPO Prioritisation meeting and, secondly, just prior to confirmation of the TPO.