Agenda item

To pre-scrutinise the attached report on the Council’s new policy, prior to Cabinet’s decision that is due on 21 June 2021.

The Council had a dual responsibility, to protect trees in the interests of public amenity, but also to try and ensure that no individual suffered undue loss, distress or damage resulting from Council owned and managed trees. The Council’s current approach was ad-hoc and some residents were experiencing issues, such as not being able to open windows or keep properties warm due to tree root damage. The proposed policy took a structured approach and would enable the Council to take a consistent approach to the challenges of tree root damage. It also defined the decision-making process. The report author, D Fenton (Director of Housing and Property), had been unable to attend this meeting. The Strategic Director, A Small, professed to having a limited knowledge but would try to answer questions.

Many technical questions were raised and a selection of these included those below.

·       Appendices 1 and 2 although referred to in the report were not detailed as such in the report.

·       How long would the key evidence take to collate – days, a month or longer?

·       The process of evaluating the cost of replacing trees as trees could attract high premiums if trees were very old and sometimes this could involve large sums.

·       What was ‘Contact trees’?

·       There was support for a minimum of two replacement trees for every tree removed preferably within the locality, but what size trees would be used as replacements? The more mature the replacement tree the better the take up.

·       If a tree did fail would the contractor that supplied the tree be asked to replace it, for example within the first year?

·       Would not want to see the Council’s responsibility had ended if a tree died after six months.

·       What, if any, was the Council’s role about trees on pavements? Loughton Roding ward had disastrous pavements caused by the roots of many trees that had been planted there by Chigwell Urban District Council.

·       Were trees on grass verges the responsibility of Essex County Council?

·       There were grammatical errors in the report and policy that needed correcting.

·       The draft policy was based on damage of trees, but did the Council have a parallel policy of damage of our trees on people?

·       Use of ‘likely to be viable’ was too litigious as it implied the causation was already proven but better to use ‘may be viable’.

·       Suggestion to use, ‘failing mediation landowners could be compelled through court action…’

·       If mature trees were being felled, could the person doing the tree works cut the tree into the biggest sizes possible as these were worth a fortune as timber.

·       As an authority we had a lot of tree specialists but did the Council need to recruit more?

A Small commented that trees on highway verges were usually the responsibility of Essex County Council and there was some commonality between the two policies as the draft tree policy was based on County’s. The Council would deal with cases as quickly as possible but there could be delays with third parties. Technical software was used to determine the value of trees and ‘Contact trees’ was an officer email address. Councillor H Whitbread, Housing Services Portfolio Holder, replied that she would ensure the Director of Housing and Property responded to members’ questions after the meeting.

Councillor D Wixley was a tree warden and tree enthusiast. The software used to assess the values of trees had been devised by C Neilan, a former Council tree officer. The policy should be reviewed annually in his opinion not every five years. Various responsible persons were stated in the draft policy but were tree officers a responsible person. What about damage to drains by trees not just damage to buildings? Council tenants had a responsibility for looking after trees under a tenancy but the cost of sorting a tree out could be expensive. In his opinion there needed to be some leeway on trees in tenants’ gardens as it could be difficult for a tenant to afford. Cllr H Whitbread replied that a one-year review might be sensible. The draft policy in relation to garden trees would be looked into further. A Small added that there had been a lack of consistency in the past and having a policy would help.

Councillor S Rackham asked if residents would report trees in the same way as previously and what if officers were inundated with cases under the new policy, would there be a points system? What would the costs be to the Council? Councillor H Whitbread replied the Council was unlikely to be inundated with cases. A Small added that the Council did not anticipate lots of new cases just consistency.

Councillor A Lion asked if this could be made more customer friendly to use as it was a technical document. Was there a database of preserved trees? Was there a way of identifying a tree of being at risk of causing damage? The way the flowchart was looking at this was that it was damage to Council properties, not private, although this was picked up in the report. Residents should be given the opportunity to use this document. Councillor H Whitbread replied that the Council had good relations with housing tenants and held Housing webinars.

Councillor M Sartin asked if the District had any mines or swallow/sink holes? Councillor J Philip affirmed there were sink holes.

Councillor M Sartin asked for the responses to members’ questions to be circulated to all members.

            RESOLVED:

(1)          That the Council’s approach to dealing with trees which were causing structural damage to its assets was reviewed and recommended that the policy be presented to Cabinet for approval; and

(2)          That responses to members’ questions be circulated to all members (see post meeting update below).

(Post meeting update: Responses to members queries were detailed, as below.

Regarding a general query on the scope of the Policy and guidance and what trees were included – Additional information had been added in the introduction for clarity.

A general query on ‘contact trees’ that was included in the Policy and guidance  – 

This had been altered to the full contacttrees@eppingforestdc.gov.uk email address for clarity.

Councillor M Sartin – regarding Appendix title request – this had been done.

Replace reference to mines with sinkholes – this had been done.

Councillor B Jennings – regarding slight wording alteration requests – these had been done.

Did we have a timescale for undertaking a Key Evidence Review?

That would depend on the results of the level of monitoring undertaken (minimum 12-months).

Did we know the monetary value of high amenity value trees?

This was currently not known and would be part of the individual tree assessment. 

Requested more detail on replacement trees especially size and warranties against early tree failure.

These had been referenced in the Policy and guidance.

Councillor S Murray – regarding questions on street trees – please see Countryside and Landscape response below:

1. The role of the Council for trees planted on the pavement;

There was an agreement between EFDC and Essex County Council that the Local Authority managed the street trees on behalf of ECC and paid us a fee for this. EFDC could make decisions regarding works to trees (thinning, pruning etc) but an actual fell would have to be decided and instructed by ECC.

2. Did the Council have any influence on the type of tree being planted?

The EFDC Tree Officers recommended what species was to be planted where taking into account rate of growth, eventual size, proximity to buildings etc. This had to be agreed by ECC but that was really more of a formality as County did not pay for replacements.

Councillor D Wixley – requested the review date to be changed to annual – this had been done.

Error in item 11.2 – this had been rectified.

Damage to drains would be identified early in the Property Subsidence Investigation.

Expressed concern over trees being the tenant’s responsibility especially when tenants were elderly and requested the Tenancy Agreement was reviewed.

Councillor J H Whitehouse – enquired about the Council’s Plain English Officer and grammatical errors in the Policy – details would be provided out of the meeting.

Councillor S Heap – requested that approved contractors were used for any tree works – this had been added to the Policy and guidance.

Councillor P Bhanot – slight wording alteration requests – these had been done.

Councillor I Hadley – enquired about trees causing damage to people and whether the Council had Policy and guidance on this?

Injuries to the public from dangerous trees would be subject to a Health and Safety Executive investigation.

For information: Internal consultation queries were received from:

• Countryside and Landscape
• Corporate Insurance
• Planning Services (Trees and Landscape)