Purpose

To consider the report of the Cabinet Member
for Economic Development following a formal request by Southampton
International Airport for tree management of council trees, within
the area of the South Stoneham Cemetery.  The proposals have come forward after an
assessment by the Civil Aviation Authority and will involve works
to trees on council-owned land and will include tree felling for
airport operational reasons.

Decision

(i) 
To approve the updated Tree Policy as set out at Appendix 3 of the
report.
(ii) 
To consider the request by Southampton International Airport Ltd to
carry out further tree works as set out in their formal request,
and non-technical summary, at Appendix 1 and discussed in the
report.
(iii) 
To form a decision on (ii) and identify what, if any, officer
delegations (as contemplated in the report) are needed to be given
as part of the decision and to delegate accordingly.

Reasons for the decision

1. 
Trees on council owned land are currently managed by the
Council’s Arboricultural Team on
behalf of the relevant department or team which is responsible for
the land.  There are occasions, however,
where a third party may seek approval to undertake work to these
trees under licence.  In this case a
formal request has been made by SIAL for operational reasons.
2. 
The request from SIAL for tree works at South Stoneham Cemetery
follows unsuccessful applications to undertake works to TPO
protected trees in a nearby area called Marhill Copse, which
sits directly south of the cemetery and within the flightpath of
the airport runway.  In order to satisfy
the CAA, SIAL is exploring alternative areas where works to
existing obstacles, such as trees, could be undertaken to achieve
safe routes should the need arise. 
Officers have already agreed with SIAL that (subject to the grant
of a licence) works to a number of trees around South Stoneham
Cemetery can be carried out for good arboricultural reasons where they have previously
been reduced for airport safety reasons, but now require additional
approvals (with an agreement for ongoing management) for a further
29 trees, with 19 of these trees identified for
felling.  The request is also for an
ongoing management plan to avoid the need for repeat requests for
these trees.
3. 
SIAL advise that if works to obstacles at either South Stoneham
Cemetery or Marlhill Copse cannot be undertaken, in agreement with the
Council, they will need to then explore a formal request to
Government (that the Secretary of State make an order under s.46)
to enable them to directly manage the issue.  This process would make the Council a consultee
rather than the decision-maker.
4. 
The Council protects its own trees as though they have the benefit
of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). 
This is set out in the Council’s adopted Tree Policy (2023),
which is attached for reference at Appendix 3.  This approach has been in place across Southampton
since at least 1957. It has been identified however that the Policy
requires updating to change the decision maker from Planning &
Rights of Way Committee (‘PROW’) to Cabinet. The
decision to manage trees on Council land is an Executive function
that can only be determined by Cabinet (or officers acting under
delegation from Cabinet) unlike Trees on third party land protected
by TPO legislation (which is a non-executive function and will
remain with PROW). Further updates have also been introduced to
reflect current practice within the Council.
5. 
The Tree Policy explains that approval by elected members is needed
where the arboricultural Head of
Service considers that the proposal falls outside of certain
categories.
6. 
The categories are that the proposed works to trees:
 
a. 
meet a relevant, corresponding exception in the TPO
Regulations;
b. 
relate to trees that are dying or dangerous;
c. 
 are necessary in connection with
seasonal pruning;
d. 
are in the course of good arboricultural or woodland management.
 
7. 
Where the Council’s Tree Team agree that works to council
trees meet a  criterion in a-d then
officers whose functions relate to the management of the land on
which the trees sit are authorised to make such
decisions.  This approach is currently
used successfully to manage other areas in the city, including land
around the Airport.
8. 
In this current case the Tree Team do not consider that the
proposed works to these 29 affected trees fully meet any of the
criteria.  An executive decision is
therefore needed where the impact of the proposal on the amenity
and the reasons and additional information from SIAL, together with
the wider environmental, ecological, economic and other matters can
be considered.

Alternative options considered

1. 
Do nothing
SIAL has the option to request that
the Secretary of State make an order to mandate and authorise SIAL
to undertake these works under s.46 Civil Aviation Act
1982.  SIAL have confirmed that
they would prefer to work with the Council than escalate the issue
in this way.
 
2. 
Partial implementation.
 
Likely to result in the same outcome
as a ‘Do Nothing’ approach.