Agenda item

The report of the Head of Community Services

The Head of Community Services presented the report, with support from the Parks Team Leader.

Members commended the above average tree coverage within the district but felt the aims of the strategy were quite modest in the targeted expansion of tree cover. The Head of Community Services accepted this, but noted that the Council was developing action plans for each site they owned, though this process was considerably more advanced with trees at sites in the General Fund portfolio compared to the Housing Revenue Account portfolio. The management of trees under the Housing Revenue Account portfolio was also complicated by the division between trees the Council were responsible for, and those which were the responsibility of Council tenants.

Members asked about the various situations where trees might need to be cut down, such as sprawling roots and blocking light. Concern was expressed that the proposed responses to these challenges were possibly flawed and sometimes potentially contravened building regulations. Members also asked whether in such circumstances the policy was to replace trees with local species.

Officers advised that the strategy was to save trees and expand coverage, but also provide a clear framework for when trees should and shouldn’t be cut down. Officers accepted the concerns of the Committee and confirmed  that the relevant sections of the report would be refreshed before it was presented to the Cabinet. The policy was to replace trees with local species as had been done when the Whitwick and Coalville Leisure Centre had been built a couple of years ago and the Hermitage Ecopark. With reference to the High Hedges legislation, Officers also clarified the distinction between high hedges and trees which blocked light at a property and associated enforcement powers.

In response to a Member, the Head of Housing clarified that there was currently no central database detailing tree coverage at sites within the Housing Revenue Account. She stressed that auditing the sites and creating an accurate database was a complex and bespoke piece of work which would require collaboration between the Parks Team, the Housing Service, and external experts. Her team was also currently responding to other pressures, such as clearing the repairs backlog and responding to significant regulatory changes, and so whilst she recognised the importance of the audit, it had to be balanced against competing priorities.

The Chair asked about the synergy between the Tree Strategy, the Local Plan and the work of the Planning Enforcement Team. Officers advised that the tree strategy was an aspirational document, and Planning Enforcement were responsible for responding to trees being removed without appropriate consent.

The Chair invited the Portfolio Holder for Communities and Climate Change to address the Committee.

The Portfolio Holder said that increasing coverage was a key aim and the 20% target was a minimum aspiration which he wanted to exceed. He encouraged Members to approach the Portfolio Holder or officers if they had specific plots in their wards where they wanted trees planting.

The Chair thanked Members for their comments, which would be presented to the Cabinet on 25 March.