What's the point of a Scottish Borders Council TPO?

EXCLUSIVE by EWAN LAMB

In 2016 Scottish Borders Council committed "environmental mayhem" by chopping down 150 mature trees at Tweedbank, many of them fine specimens and which were supposed to be shielded from destruction by one of the council's own Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). It was as though the TPO did not exist.

The clear felling was said to be necessary to make way for a £6 million gallery and visitor centre to accommodate the Great Tapestry of Scotland close to the Tweedbank rail terminal. But shortly after the chainsaws had completed their needless carnage it was decided to shift the tapestry gallery to a site in the centre of Galashiels. It meant the death of many fine trees had been in vain.

Two years on and concerns are being expressed over the potential destruction of dozens more mature sycamores, limes and rowans bordering the Tweedbank estate even though they too are supposed to be protected by the same council TPO Number 39 which failed so miserably to spare their near neighbours the axe.

This time the bulldozers are set to move in and facilitate the much trumpeted multi-million pound Borders Gateway retail park complete with hotel, shops and drive through coffee houses once councillors give the project planning approval.

And suddenly many of those trees previously deemed worthy of protection have been branded virtually worthless by consultants in landscape reports which support the development.

However, misgivings at the loss of so much tree cover close to the Gateway entrance has already been voiced in written submissions linked to the planning application from developers New Land Assets, of Edinburgh.

According to an Arboricultural Assessment by Tree Consultancy: The development  would necessitate the loss of all of the trees comprising Group 2 of SBC Tree Preservation Order  No.39, and the majority of Woodland 1. These trees would either be lost to enable construction  directly, or have to be removed due to the significant changes in the existing ground levels which  would be required across the site.

Group 2 was described in the 2016 report on the Tree Preservation Order as follows: "A group of 11 individual trees comprising mostly limes with several rowans and dominated by a  large 'A' category sycamore. The limes are mostly 'B' category in satisfactory condition but a  couple are poorer and only warrant 'C' category due to their limited future potential. The rowans are  useful group components but are of negligible long-term value. 

Woodland 1 was described in the 2016 report as follows: "A large and diverse woodland belt which, due to the choice of species planted, can be readily  identified as defined areas. All have  been densely planted with the component trees being mostly narrow and drawn due to competition,  with some groups of Corsican pines starting to blow over. However, there are many  trees with the potential to develop into worthwhile long-term trees if selective thinning is carried out.  The areas described in the survey as W1/A2 and W1/A3 are generally the best with the most  individual trees likely to make good long-term specimens...."

The re-assessment carried out in July 2018 confirmed the generally poor quality of the component  trees. The better quality trees tend to be on the outer edges where availability of sunlight and reduced  competition has allowed the trees to develop fuller crowns and root systems.

And Pritchett, the Edinburgh-based planning consultancy, in a Supporting Statement lodged with the planning application explain: "The subject site whilst relatively flat has a significant amount of vegetation particularly around the periphery where there are mature trees set within embankments and other raised ground. The trees are also the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) which means that they cannot be lopped or felled without prior approval from the local authority.

"The detailed landscape appraisal considers that the tree belt is too dense and has not been actively managed over the years. There is therefore a requirement to manage the trees to enable the better 

specimens to flourish. As stated earlier it is also important to seek to maximise the development potential of this site as it is costly land to develop for whatever end use. The site configuration has therefore been carefully considered to retain a substantial landscape buffer around the majority of the site whilst allowing views into the development and beyond. 

"This will enhance the gateway access into Tweedbank and also lead visitors towards Tweedbank Station. It will also allow road users to clearly see the services that are available on the site within a high quality landscape setting. It is therefore considered that an encroachment of development into the tree belt has been fully justified. 

"It should also be noted that there is precedent for the removal of TPO trees on the industrial estate with the site clearance that the council undertook on the proposed Scottish Tapestry Museum site in the north west corner of the industrial estate which is also covered by the same TPO."

But those views are not shared by Scottish Natural Heritage nor by Liz Hall, an ecology officer with the council.

In her written observations, Ms Hall says: "I note the woodland has a TPO. I do not agree that the trees have a negligible ecological value. The proposals for the site do not appear to offer like for like compensation or enhancement in terms of biodiversity, in conflict with [Scottish Borders Council's] Local Development Plan policy".

From an ecological perspective, Ms Hall says her recommendation would be to avoid removal of trees on site.

Her arguments are echoed by Stuart Macpherson, Scottish Natural Heritage's Operations Officer for the South of Scotland.

He has told SBC: "The site currently has a thick wooded boundary, making it very representative of the surrounding landscape. This wooded landscaping helps to screen and soften the view of buildings within Tweedbank Industrial Estate from the main road and when seen from elevated positions within the NSA (National Scenic Area).

"This woodland is protected by a TPO and its landscaping and screening qualities are important in the local setting. The proposal is to remove virtually all of this woodland and open up views into the application site. Whilst accepting the economic value of the proposed development, SNH would like to see further consideration given to maintaining a landscape structure around the proposal that fits with the traditions of the NSA. 

"This will ensure a continuity of landscape between the NSA, the proposal site and the wider countryside. There is a danger of setting a precedent, especially where loss of a TPO is concerned, that erodes the wooded character in and around Tweedbank. Woodland provides an important sense of place for the community, which will be damaged by piecemeal removal. We would also highlight the local biodiversity benefits of this woodland, on its own merits and as part of the wider wooded landscape of Tweedbank and Darnick.

"In this regard, Scottish Borders Council should consider the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal policy. This policy aims to maintain woodlands as an important aspect of the Scottish landscape, and places a presumption against the felling of woodland to facilitate development. Where woodland is felled, compensatory planting is required.

"SNH is not necessarily seeking retention of the existing woodland. However, if woodland is felled it is important to maintain its landscape qualities in any subsequent scheme: continuity of landscape; filtering and screening views of the industrial estate; biodiversity; sense of place. Any new landscape should adopt and reflect these principles, and compensatory planting should ideally benefit Tweedbank and Darnick directly."

So will council planning officers recommend retention of the trees or will yet another Borders local authority TPO not be worth the paper it's printed on?