Councillor Briars-Delve (Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change), supported by Andy Sharp (Interim Service Director for Street Scene & Waste), Kat Deeney (Head of Environmental Planning) and Chris Avent (Green Estate Manager) introduced the item and highlighted:

a)    It was noted that Plymouth was an incredibly green city with hundreds of thousands of trees and that trees brought wide benefits including flood resilience, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, urban cooling, air quality and improved wellbeing;

b)    It was noted that there were real challenges in ensuring environmental values were embedded across all teams and that the tree management principles document would help improve transparency, safety, engagement and sustainability;

c)    The document continued to be rooted in expert feedback from tree officers, environmental groups and the plan for trees steering group, which included passionate community representatives;

d)    It was noted that the background to the document had been influenced by contributions from opposition councillors through planning, which had shaped thinking on how to continue improving practice;

e)    The Council was responsible for approximately 70,000 trees and had duties relating to tree protection orders (TPOs) and planning which all interrelated;

f)     It was confirmed that the document recognised the importance of trees to the identity of Plymouth and updated the original 2019 version to reflect new legislation, new context and new standards;

g)    The scope had been expanded to include management of Council trees, TPOs, trees in the planning process and plans for planting more trees across the city;

h)    Engagement and consultation were embedded throughout the document and that safety considerations were clearly set out for the public and stakeholders;

i)     It was reported that the new Environment Act had introduced duties to consult on removing street trees and that learning from the Armada Way review had strengthened the focus on communication and public engagement;

j)     Internal and external working groups, including trusted external partners, had reviewed the document and comments from the meeting would be considered in the final version;

k)    It was confirmed that the document would be reviewed every five years to respond to changes in legislation, context and the needs of the city;

l)     Key changes included expanded definitions of how Council trees were managed, clearer explanations for the public and new sections on tree planting and the relationship with planning;

m)  The document set out a clear process for consultation on trees, drawing on learning from other authorities, and included an appendix covering consultation steps;

n)    It was noted that the revised document provided a framework for working with partners and the public to make sensible decisions on tree management across planning, Council owned trees and future tree planting.

In response to questions, the Panel discussed:

o)    The legislation did not set out how assessments had to be carried out and there were no prerequisites about what information had to be included;

p)    The duty was to consult for removal of trees, display notices, inform the public, publish information on the website and communicate with local residents;

q)    Appendix one included an options assessment report to help identify what the public would need to know and understand, and officers would use this to inform communications;

r)    The flow chart made the decision-making process incredibly clear, showing reasons why tree removal might be necessary, such as public safety risks or road safety requirements, and who would be involved;

s)     It explained how transparency with communities would be achieved and represented a big step forward compared to previous processes;

t)     It was recognised that trees were a sensitive subject and it was important that policies ensured transparency in any decision making around any particular tree;

u)    The Tree Equity UK map provided clear neighbourhood boundaries and could apply mapping on health inequalities and socioeconomic data. Two major Council commissioned reports also explored this canopy data in more depth, details of which would be shared with Panel members ACTION;

v)    Feedback had been broadly positive with some technical points raised, particularly around where trees were planted. The document had principles, not detailed definition, and final comments were still being collected;

w)   Kings Road had been used as a pilot to test the process. The scheme responded to multiple fatalities and included crossings and traffic calming, and tree felling had been identified as essential. Zero tree loss was an option, but it would mean not installing sustainable transport infrastructure and choosing the life of four trees over the life of potential road users and pedestrians. Twenty trees would be planted nearby and three of the four trees planned for removal were category C;

                      i.        The Council had to balance different priorities and in this case there were compelling factors for tree felling;

x)    Planting in deprived communities was already ongoing;

y)    There were 45 schemes for the 2025/26 winter season and Community Forest funding would likely to continue for another four years, allowing quicker progress;

z)    Nature was being integrated into place-making and biodiversity considerations;

aa)  The planning team used nature as part of solutions such as flooding. The new local plan provided an opportunity to tie this together and support more trees in new developments;

bb) A TPO did not block all tree felling but gave extra protection for trees of amenity value at risk;

cc)  Wilmot Gardens had been considered when developing the document;

dd) Plymouth City Council could not TPO all 60,000 trees but would prioritise the highest value. National methodology would ensure consistency.

The Panel agreed:

1. To endorse the updated Tree Management Principles 2025 document.