The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing concerning the background and issues involved in the making of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on 18 April 2023 and to recommend the confirmation of this Tree Preservation Order.

The Director of Planning recommends that the Planning and Highways Committee instruct the City Solicitor to confirm the Tree Preservation Order on land at Wynnstay Grove/Sherwood Street, under Section 199 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and that the Order should cover the woodland as plotted T1 on the plan attached to this report.

The Planning Officer did not have anything to add to the printed report.

An objector addressed the Committee, stating that he was here as Head of Estate Management for the charity, Railway Paths who own this land and 350km of other property attached to disused railway lines, lots of which are public access, such as Manchester’s Fallowfield Loop Line which adjoins this site. This was in conjunction with sister charity group, Sustrans.

The charity do not receive external funding so rely on construction projects on and around their sites. The charity needed to generate £750,000/£1million per year to keep running. The objector expressed his concern at how this TPO had been brought forward. No trees were at risk and there was a proposal made to the city council for potential social housing on this site. He believed the TPO application was flawed stating “one high quality tree” but added that this was not high quality woodland, and not accessible to the public. The site was used for fly-tipping, ASB and attracted rats and, regarding its visual amenity, its value was questionable. The charity had not had any discussions with the city council on this piece of land and the TPO may halt some much needed development. The TPO was premature and this site could be enhanced via the planning process. There was access to the Fallowfield Loop Line through Sherwood Street. Sustrans would like to enhance this area and the city council were supportive but unable to fund. Confirmation of this TPO would make any enhancements more expensive to deliver which would be contrary to aims of the charities efforts for the loop line and for the benefit of the public. In his closing statement, the objector requested that the Committee do not confirm this TPO and stated his desire to engage with the council on a proposal for social housing.

The Planning Officer stated that this process had been difficult. An arborist had been consulted and found 1 good quality tree on site. The application may have been pre-emptive to have control over what happens with the site in future. The Planning Team would work with the charity to give the trees any credence that may be deserved.

The Chair invited the Committee to make comments or ask questions.

Councillor Curley stated that this was an unusual TPO that could stop development on a brownfield site. It was the first time Councillor Curley could recall that a TPO did not feel necessary and he expressed the need to have discussions.

Councillor Riasat enquired as to why there had been a TPO over a piece of land, how many trees were on the site and why the site was chosen.

The Planning Officer stated that this TPO came from a number of agents/consultants who felt the site was being marketed. This was a former railway site with some trees of scale and the general setting had been taken into account. The arborist’s view was that there was a group value to the site. The council would have control over any development in future and were willing to speak with charities, having not had that approach previously for this site.

Councillor Lovecy stated that she was generally supportive of saving trees and groups of trees. She asked, if supportive of the TPO, how could someone propose to use the land for a worthy project, such as affordable housing.

The Director of Planning stated that there were numerous approaches and that a TPO does not preclude developers if the benefit of the scheme is seen as more worthy then the scheme could be approved.

Councillor Lovecy was satisfied that she could support the recommendation after hearing the Director’s comments.

Councillor Curley stated that the Committee may need to know if the land is included in development land pockets as, if there was a housing partner interested, they would have to back away from any project if the site was not within a developmental plot.

Councillor Curley felt that the Committee would need to see partnership out of

courtesy and accountability and asked how urgent a decision was and whether this could come back to the next Planning & Highways meeting.

Councillor Curley then proposed the application be deferred.

The Director of Planning stated that there was a set period to confirm a TPO and made checks with Planning Team members. Following making checks, the Director stated that the TPO would have to be determined at the next Committee meeting on 31 August 2023.

Councillor S Ali seconded Councillor Curley’s deferral proposal.

Decision

To defer the TPO until the next Committee meeting on 31 August 2023.