Agenda item

To give long-term protection to the Silver Birch tree shown as T1 on the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) map and schedule the tree is considered to enhance the amenity of the area

Cllr Murcer addressed the Committee as the Local Ward Member. Following his representation, he withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the debate or vote on the application.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, including site location plans, aerial photographs and site photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning considerations to Members. Officers explained that the item before the Committee related to the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Members were advised that, where a tree in a Conservation Area was subject to a notification of proposed works, the Local Planning Authority had six weeks in which to determine whether to allow the works to proceed or to make a Tree Preservation Order to protect the tree. It was noted that the TPO had been made following a proposal to fell a silver birch tree.

 

The Committee was informed that the tree was located within the grounds of the Church of the Holy Rood, Shillingstone, and was situated within the Conservation Area. The surrounding context was outlined, including the church building, a number of other mature trees within the churchyard and the convergence of two public rights of way. Photographs showing the tree in front of the church and views facing north were presented.

 

Officers advised that the silver birch was a low water-demand species and that there was no available evidence regarding the specific soil conditions at the site. It was explained that no factual evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that the tree was causing structural damage to the church. Officers further advised that they did not consider there to be sufficient evidence to conclude that the tree was responsible for any damage to the church building.

 

Members were informed that the tree was mature and no longer in its most vigorous growth stage. As a result, it was not considered likely to be actively seeking significant quantities of water. Officers noted that there was no evidence to establish whether cracks within the church building were progressive, seasonal in nature or the result of a single historic event.

 

Officers advised that they did not support the removal of a mature tree solely as a means of determining whether it might be contributing to structural issues. It was suggested that further investigation of other potential causes, including the condition of drainage infrastructure and the possibility of leaking drains affecting ground conditions, should be undertaken.

The amenity value of the tree was highlighted, and officers advised that the loss of the tree could have a detrimental impact on the character of the area whilst potentially failing to resolve the concerns that had been raised.

Members were reminded that confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order would not prevent future applications for works to the tree. Any such applications would be assessed on their individual merits based on the evidence submitted at that time.

 

Public Participation

 

Anne Powell

 

She addressed the Committee in objection to the proposed Tree Preservation Order.

Mrs Powell emphasised that the Church did not seek the removal of trees lightly and recognised the important contribution that trees made to biodiversity, the environment and the character of the churchyard. She advised that the Church had been pursuing a green space and wildlife plan since 2020 and highlighted recent biodiversity initiatives within the churchyard, including nesting kestrels in the church tower. However, she stated that the Church also had a responsibility as custodian of a Grade I listed building to protect and preserve an important national heritage asset.

She explained that the application to remove the silver birch tree had followed concerns regarding cracking within the church building, particularly to the medieval chancel arch. A conservation architect had recommended further investigation, which led to the appointment of a structural engineer. She advised that the engineer’s report had identified the tree as a possible contributing factor to structural movement affecting the church and had recommended its removal alongside other remedial works and ongoing monitoring.

 

Mrs Powell informed Members that part of the church roof had collapsed three years previously, leading to the need for a comprehensive reroofing project. She stated that approximately £147,000 had been raised locally through donations and fundraising, excluding grant funding, and that the reroofing works were nearing completion. In her view, this demonstrated the importance of the church to the local community. She further advised that additional funds and grants would be required to undertake works necessary to address the structural cracking within the church. She expressed concern that, if the tree remained in place and continued to be identified as a potential cause of the damage, it could adversely affect the Church’s ability to secure future grant funding for repair works.

 

Mrs Powell stated that the Church was not advocating the unnecessary loss of trees and remained committed to biodiversity. She advised that the Church would be willing to replace the tree with a new specimen in a more appropriate location, working with the Council and Tree Officer to agree a suitable species and position.

In conclusion, she argued that the issue was not a choice between heritage and nature but one of balancing both interests through proportionate management. She contended that it would not be in the public interest to retain a single tree if doing so could place a nationally significant Grade I listed building at risk. She therefore urged the Committee not to confirm the Tree Preservation Order.

 

Cllr Steve Murcer (Ward Member)

He expressed support for the work of the Council's Tree Protection Team in preserving Dorset's rural landscape. However, it was argued that insufficient weight had been given to the protection of the Grade I listed church, which has stood on the site for over 900 years. The speaker noted that Grade I listed buildings are defined by Historic England as being of exceptional architectural or historic interest, of national importance, and afforded the highest level of protection. It was contended that the preservation of a building of national significance should take precedence over the retention of a silver birch tree, which was described as unremarkable and having a comparatively limited lifespan.

 

Reference was made to a structural report prepared by Derek Williamson on behalf of the Parochial Church Council (PCC). The report concluded that cracking within the church building was attributable to the proximity of the silver birch tree and the drying effects on soil conditions. The speaker stated that, on a precautionary basis, the tree should therefore be removed. The Cllr advised that the PCC had committed to planting a replacement tree elsewhere within the churchyard. This was presented as a means of maintaining biodiversity and preserving the natural landscape, whilst providing a more suitable long-term location for a tree with a potentially longer lifespan than the existing specimen. It was noted that only the upper third of the tree is visible from the Church Centre in Shillingstone and that it is largely screened from other viewpoints by the church building and surrounding mature trees. Within the churchyard, the speaker stated that the tree is one of approximately 15 trees and is not considered a particularly notable feature.

 

He advised that they had been unable to locate guidance on the Council's website regarding recommended distances between trees and buildings. Reference was made to NHBC standards, which identify the zone of influence of a silver birch as extending to approximately half the height of the tree. He explained that this relates to the area within which roots may affect soil moisture levels and the stability of nearby foundations.

 

It was further noted that guidance from Leeds City Council recommends that silver birch trees should not be planted within approximately 6–8 metres of buildings, whereas the tree in question is situated approximately 3.65 metres from the church buttress. He reiterated that, when balancing the risks and benefits, greater weight should be given to safeguarding an 11th-century Grade I listed building than to retaining a tree which, in their view, has a limited remaining lifespan and is not of particular landscape significance.

 

 

Members questions and comments

• A Member asked about the age of the tree and its expected lifespan.
• A Member commented that they were surprised the silver birch was considered to be 65 years old given its apparent good condition. It was raised that birch trees can thrive in healthy, well-watered soils. The Member further observed that silver birch trees typically have relatively shallow root systems and suggested that such roots would not usually extend deeply into drains. Reference was made to guidance from insurance companies, which often recommend that trees are planted at least eight metres from buildings. It was also noted that the spread of the tree’s crown can be a useful indication of the extent of the root system. It was highlighted that if the TPO was removed, the tree would still benefit from protection by virtue of its location within a Conservation Area, meaning that consent would still be required before felling. It was further noted that the TPO would not lapse until 2 August, and suggested that drainage issues could be investigated and addressed before the matter was reconsidered at that time.
• A Member stated that it should be possible to establish the cause of the drainage problems through further investigation without removing the tree in the first instance.
• A Member expressed agreement with the Tree Officer’s recommendation, noting the absence of monitoring evidence and the need for further supporting information. The Member referred to the Conservation Officer’s comments and considered that additional assessment was required before a decision could be reached. It was suggested that the tree should be given the benefit of the doubt, as retaining the TPO would not prevent future applications for tree works if further evidence became available. The Member supported further investigation, including drainage management measures and consideration of root containment solutions. The Member then proposed that the TPO be retained.
• A Member commented that the potential risk to the church building could not be ignored and stressed the need for the Committee to act responsibly in protecting the structure.
• A Member referred to the request to remove the tree and questioned the level of communication that had taken place between the Tree Officer, the church and the Parish Council. Concern was expressed that, despite the issue having been ongoing for approximately five months, greater dialogue and investigation had not already taken place. The Member noted that no reference to such discussions was included within the report and expressed the view that the Committee should proceed to a vote.
• A Member noted that the proximity of burial grounds to the church could make investigations into the drainage system more difficult to undertake.

In response to Members’ questions, officers provided the following clarifications:

• The Tree Officer advised that the church and the tree had coexisted for approximately 60 years. It was noted that historical planting practices often placed trees closer to buildings than would be considered acceptable today, and that a silver birch would not ordinarily be planted so close to a listed building under current guidance.
• The Officer explained that the cause of the subsidence had not been conclusively established and that leaking drains could be a contributing factor. It remained unclear whether the roots of the tree extended as far as the church buttress. The Officer emphasised that there was currently insufficient evidence to demonstrate a direct causal link between the tree and the structural issues affecting the church.
• The Conservation Officer, Lucie Bruce, advised that her primary concern was the preservation of the church. She expressed the view that drainage issues should be addressed and investigated before considering the removal of the tree, rather than removing the tree first and subsequently discovering that the underlying problem remained unresolved. She noted that damage continued to be evident on the eastern side of the church, including damage to the internal fabric of the building, some of which had not been visible while scaffolding was in place. For this reason, she advocated a cautious and evidence-based approach.
• Officers advised that a trial-and-error approach would not be appropriate in this case. It was noted that neither the Tree Officer nor the Conservation Officer were drainage or structural engineering specialists, and that expert input from the relevant disciplines would be beneficial before a final conclusion was reached.
• In response to questions regarding the tree itself, Members were advised that the silver birch was approximately 60–65 years old and could potentially live for up to 100 years. The tree was confirmed as the only tree on the site protected by a Tree Preservation Order and was situated approximately six to seven metres from the church buttress.
• The Officer further advised that retaining the TPO would not prevent applications being made for works to the tree in the future, should further evidence justify such action. However, if the TPO were allowed to lapse, it would not be possible to make a further TPO on the tree. Officers therefore considered that a precautionary approach was appropriate unless it could be demonstrated that the tree could not be retained.
• Officers noted that, although concerns had been raised regarding the relationship between the tree and the church, they had not seen any expert assessment which considered both the arboricultural and structural implications together. It was suggested that where issues span multiple disciplines, a coordinated assessment involving the relevant specialists would provide a stronger evidential basis for decision-making.
• Officers advised that discussions had taken place regarding the condition of the drainage system and possible repairs. However, Dorset Council was not currently involved in any active plans to undertake drainage works. It was also noted that alternative mitigation measures, such as the installation of root barriers, could be explored as part of any future investigation into the matter.

 

Cllr Fry proposed that the Tree Protection Order should not be confirmed, seconded by Cllr Pothecary.

 

The motion to not confirm the TPO was NOT CARRIED. 

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Ridout, and seconded by Cllr Brenton.

 

Decision: To grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.