Agenda item

To receive the report of the Cabinet Member for Environment which updates Members on the revised tree policy as it relates to City Council trees and requests to have works done to them.

The Chair welcomed Councillor Norman, Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources who was in attendance as a substitute for Councillor Porter, Cabinet Member for Environment; Mr Ross Cook, Head of Neighbourhood Services; and Mr Meyrick Brentnall, Environmental Planning Manager, to the meeting.

Members were presented with a report which updated them on the revised tree policy as it related to City Council trees and requests to have works carried out on  them.  Councillor Norman summarised the key points and advised the Committee that it was proposed to return to Overview and Scrutiny Committee when a full 12 months worth of data was available.  The Committee was asked to note the content of the report at this stage.

Members discussed the following matters:-

1.         A Member queried how category 2 works (paragraph 3.6) were assessed.  The Environmental Planning Manager acknowledged that this could sometimes be difficult and that it was at the discretion of the Tree Officer.  He added that 80% of jobs raised by the Tree Officer fell under category 2.

2.         It was recognised that whilst some residents would be keen to have trees removed which they considered to be a nuisance, but which were otherwise healthy, that others might not be.

3.         The Committee requested that there should be communication with residents when works were planned and instances were cited of crews turning up to carry out works to the surprise of residents.  The Environmental Planning Manager agreed with this comment and would look to improve communication.

4.         A Member reported that he had phoned in to the Contact Centre on 4 occasions on behalf of a constituent regarding a problem tree, but that he had not received a response from the Tree Officer.  The Environmental Planning Manager agreed to investigate this point.

5.         The Committee was advised that it was important to differentiate  between the work Amey carried out on behalf of the County Council which was largely planned maintenance work and the works carried out for the City Council. 

6.         Clarification was sought on the proposal to implement the ‘Confirm’ system (paragraph 3.9) which would track works using a GIS programme.  The Environmental Planning Manager explained that all City Council trees would be plotted on the system which would be introduced in the New Year.  A Member queried whether information on the existing tree database would be transferred to ‘Confirm’.  The Environmental Planning Manager confirmed that this was the case.  During the discussion on this matter, a Member referred to the 2009 Task and Finish Group on Trees which had recommended a full tree survey and asked what progress had been made in this regard.  The Head of Neighbourhood Services responded that an annual survey was carried out as part of Amey’s contractual obligations and that there was a rolling programme for an ongoing survey.  He reiterated that this was stored on a paper record which would be transferred to ‘Confirm’. 

7.         A Member asked if replacement of felled trees with new ones was a feature of the new policy.  The Environmental Planning Officer indicated that it was not and added that the ratio of new trees planted was higher than those removed.

8.         There was a discussion on issues regarding County Council owned trees in the City Centre and a query on whether any liaison existed between the City’s Tree Officer and the County’s Tree Officer.  The Environmental Planning Manager advised that the City Council had no jurisdiction over the County Council, but confirmed that the City’s Tree Officer communicated with his counterpart at Shire Hall.   A Member suggested that the City’s Cabinet Member might meet with his equivalent County Cabinet Member to discuss the issues.  The Head of Neighbourhood Services reminded the Committee that the City Council could not interfere with decision making at the County Council and added that the appointment of the Joint Commissioning Director would assist in cross authority matters of this type.

9.         A Member requested that weekly emails be sent to Councillors advising them of planned works, similar to those already received by Members relating to planning and licensing applications.

10.       Turning to paragraph 3.1 of the report, a Member commented that work requests were also submitted by Ward Councillors and considered that this should have been reflected in the report.

11.       A Member queried whether the new policy addressed the Council’s legal obligations as set out in paragraph 8.1.  The Environmental Planning Manager stated that he believed this to be the case.

12.       The Committee discussed the detrimental effect on mental health and wellbeing caused by overbearing trees which were close to buildings and which obscured light.  Such trees, if healthy, fell outside the new policy.  Members gave examples of elderly and housebound residents whose quality of life was reduced by the close proximity of such trees.  The Committee believed that the policy should be amended to reflect the fact that in exceptional circumstances, where a tree was seriously affecting the health and wellbeing of a resident, that the tree could be either removed or pruned accordingly.  Councillor Norman agreed to take this back to the Cabinet Member for Environment.

RESOLVED:

1.         That the report be noted.

2.         That the Cabinet Member for Environment be asked to amend the Tree Policy to allow removal or pruning of trees which were seriously affecting the health and wellbeing of residents.