Agenda item

The Panel will consider a report giving an update on Trees Team Capacity and Tree Policy Review.

Contact:

Joe Robertson, Woodland Development Manager

The Panel considered the report Trees Team Capacity and Tree Policy Review, presented by Joe Robertson, Woodland Development Manager, who highlighted that:

·         There were several pieces of legislations that placed duties on the Council to manage its tree stock.

·         The Council owned an estimated 190,000 trees that they were responsible for, and that provided multiple benefits in terms of mental health, biodiversity, pollution absorption etc.

·         The Capital Asset Evaluation for Amenity Trees (CAVAT) was used to calculate the monetary value of trees, which totalled around £51m.

·         There was no budget for the trees team, and it was completely reliant on income generation.

·         There were 15 members of staff, which included:

o   8 Arborists (the tree surgeons who carried out the physical work to the trees).

o   4 Inspectors (who carried out safety evaluations).

·         There had been an increased in ad-hoc requests for inspections which were being triaged in terms of safety level and danger.

·         The challenges in the team were in relation to attracting and retaining staff, which had resulted in more engagement with private contractors for routine works. This was via tender which was significantly slower.

·         There was an imbalance of expectation and the actual resources available.

·         There was a need to increase repeat inspections due to gaps in not being able to carry out basic safety inspections.

·         Ash Dieback would increase the workload significantly and the team were drafting an action plan in relation to this.

·         One of the main impacts was on the team’s ability to carry out emergency responses as well as its statutory functions.

·         Health and Safety England (HSE) statistics identified 6 deaths a year from falling trees or branches, with half of them being in public spaces.

·         The risk was broadly acceptable, but the team needed to ensure it could deliver services as reasonably practical to ensure people were not exposed to risks.

·         The Policy review was to bring services in line with industry best practise, case law and capacity issues, and would include a New Policy Statement, Risk Framework, Management Standards and Service Standards.

·         Service Standards would include targeted timeframes for work to be completed and target times to meet enquiries through a standard proforma.

The Panel shared that the aims listed within the Policy were good but recommended that a target to increase tree numbers and tree cover be added, which was referenced throughout the policy.

In response to a comment raised by the Panel in relation to the accessibility of the proforma and policy document on the website, Joe Robertson advised that, the proforma would be based online with links to the policy document to make it as accessible as possible.

The Panel noted the response and further suggested that the development of the proforma be carried out in consultation with Councillor Enquiries. 

The Panel queried whether the HSE deaths were in relation to weather incidents recognising that in most cases they would have been difficult to predict, but equally acknowledged that having the right inspection regime in place was important.

Joe Robertson responded to advise that a lot of the deaths in public spaces had been due to storm damage but were also exacerbated by defects. Joe reiterated the importance of the need to have as safe as reasonably practical measure in place.

Joe Robertson responded to a question in relation to removing deadwood from parks and open spaces, and advised that, the wording in the policy needed to be clear in relation to the focus on biodiversity and that deadwood would only be removed if it was a hazard.

Graham West, Service Director, Highways and Streetscene responded to a question in relation to the impact the Council’s recruitment freeze would have on planned recruitment and advised that each case would be considered individually.

Joe Robertson further added that there were recruitment issues prior to the Council’s recruitment freeze, especially in relation to attracting skilled staff.

Joe Robertson responded to a question in relation to the outsourcing and procurement of services, and advised that, this has been carried out in batches to determine what work could be contracted and what work needed to be carried out more urgently by the team.

Graham West further advised that there were a variety of different frameworks and several contracts in place, but if there was a need to extend the offer, the team would work with other authorities to help speed work up.

Joe Robertson responded to a question in relation to public engagement and reassurance and advised that the focus was getting the policy in place and on the website but that the website needed some development work.

Joe Robertson responded to a question regarding trees blocking natural light and shared that because trees were a naturally entity that grew incrementally, the legislation surrounding the right to light act did not apply to trees, but that the policy did allow for discretion to alleviate issues where funding was available.

The Panel highlighted the Tree Risk Framework, in relation to ‘no routine inspections on all young tree generally below 5 meters’ and queried whether this included newly planted woodlands.

Joe Robertson responded to advise that the trees would be inspected but that trees that size were not generally seen as a risk and that it was added into the policy to ensure the team did not overcommit their resources.

Joe Robertson responded to a question in relation to legislation and the protection from imported trees and disease. Joe advised that this was covered by national biosecurity and that the team would not import any products. Joe also advised that the team had a partnership agreement with Leeds City Council in terms of sourcing whips (young tree stock).

Joe Robertson responded to a question regarding biodegradable guards and shared that biodegradable plastic guards were being used with a view to use NEXT GEN in the future, which were wool and resin based, and that any plastic or biodegradable plastic guards would be removed and recycled.

Joe Robertson responded to a question in relation to creating a tree nursery within Kirklees, and shared that, tree nurseries were commercially difficult in terms of capital costs to set up and the time needed to grow the first produce. Joe added that although there was a shortage of new trees nationally, by the time the nursery was up and running, other areas would also be up to capacity which would be a commercial risk to the Council.

Joe Robertson responded to a question regarding the Waste Strategy and composting and advised the team had worked with a national company called Jenkinson’s to transfer the Timber from Arboriculture into biomass, and that the team would continue to look at how it could better use wood waste going forward.

Joe Robertson responded to a question in relation to filling or replacing trees that had been removed. Joe advised it was difficult to set specific numbers and that work was being undertaken with planning in relation to canopy cover increase, which would also be considered when filing or replacing trees, as well as the diversity of trees.

Graham West shared that the policy was safety critical based on the level of funding and resource available. The amount of work would grow and put further pressure on the inspection regime to ensure people were safe across Kirklees.

Graham advised that Ash Dieback would require a funding stream and additional resources, noting that some Local Authorities had had to put in a dedicated team and resources to undertake inspections and where necessary remove trees that had disease.

Graham West responded to a question in relation to the triage system and identifying severity and advised that the policy would include clear standards and how they were triaged to meet safety critical requirements.

RESOLVED: The Panel noted the report, Trees Team Capacity and Tree Policy Review’ and recommended that:

1)    To add to the policy the aim to increase tree numbers and tree cover.

2)    For officers to speak to Councillor enquiries regarding the development of the proforma.

3)    The wording around removing deadwood in the policy be revised to reflect that deadwood would only to be removed when deemed hazardous.

4)    The wording on point 8.3 be revised to better reflect the procedure in relation to the right to light and the discretion around alleviating problems where funding was available.

5)    It was important to ensure the diversity of trees when growing and forming woodlands.

6)    The wording in the policy be amended to make clear that the procurement of trees was sourced locally through Leeds City Council.

7)    More information relating to Ash dieback be presented to the Panel at a future meeting in terms of funding and resources.

8)    The Policy be presented back to scrutiny prior to Cabinet.