Sheffield Council has passed a tree protection order despite homeowners objections that the ‘unexpected’ recommendation would instead increase future risk against the trees.
In a Planning and Highways Committee last Tuesday, Sheffield Council was in agreement to pass a tree protection order (TPO) on Moorbank Road, with the understanding that the home ‘appeared unoccupied’’.
But this was not the case.
Community Tree Officer Vanessa Lyons, said: “The council was acting in good faith with information made available to them at the time.”
Objecting to the TPO, part-owners of the property disputed the home was in fact not undergoing a ‘change of ownership’, that they had not received notification of the TPO, and the order would add an ‘onerous layer of administration’.
The homeowners added that the trees on the property have always been ‘maintained to a high standard’ and they failed to see why the Council needed to ‘safeguard’ the trees against future risk.
The part-owners of the property said: “My sister and I currently care for our elderly mother who suffers from advanced dementia. As you can imagine, caring for her and maintaining the property is an onerous task.”
Any maintenance to protected trees must be granted consent by the Council for work where it is justified, with regard to its potential impact upon the ‘health and amenity’ of the trees.
A TPO may prohibit ‘the cutting, topping, lopping or uprooting’ of protected trees and carries a fine of up to £20,000.
Vanessa Lyons added: “Each intervention unless it was covered by exemption, i.e. the tree was dead, dangerous, would require consent.”
Despite this, Ms Lyons stated that the process was not considered ‘substantially onerous’.
The trees ‘form a visually striking part of the street scene’ and worries that the home was undergoing a change of ownership warranted a TPO recommendation.
Vanessa Lyons said: “There would be no form of protection as the house is not within a conservation area, meaning the trees could potentially be removed at some point and that would offer a significant loss of amenity to the area.”
A member of the public in favour of the TPO commented on the ‘beauty’ of the trees and importance of attracting ‘a wide variety of biodiversity’.
