COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL

MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING

Thursday, June 17, 2021

MOTION NO. 248

MOTION: Councillor F. Timmons

That this council adopt a SLO that a third-party reputable company will carry out a tree survey in the next 2 years of all mature trees in the County and to impose Tree Preservation Orders on trees considered by local representatives or the County Council to be under threat for any reason.

REPORT:

The CE Draft contains a number of objectives which relate directly to this motion. Most specifically:

Policy 11:

Tree Preservation Orders and other Tree Protections: ‘Review Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) within the County and maintain the conservation value of trees and groups of trees that are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order while also recognising the value of and protecting trees and hedgerows which are not subject to a TPO.’

NCBH 11 Objective 1: To review Tree Preservation Orders within the County and maintain the conservation value of trees and groups of trees that are the subject of any Tree Preservation Order.

CBH 11 Objective 2: To identify trees of amenity value within the County and use whatever mechanism is available for their protection.

The CE Draft Plan includes a clear commitment through the inclusion of NCBH 11 Policy and Objectives to review TPO’s within the County while also recognising the value of trees and hedgerows which are not subject to TPO’s. The County Development Plan is a strategic policy document and while it is appropriate for it to include strategic objectives relating to relevant issues such as the review of and protection of trees etc. it is not the role of the County Development Plan to determine the brief or the manner through which the objective is achieved. In this instance it is the role of the Public Realm Department to manage projects and studies related to trees and to assess whether a third party is required or otherwise. It is considered inappropriate for the County Development Plan to include such details.

In addition, the motion may be contradictory in that it requires a third party to assess trees for TPOs but also requires the imposition of TPOs on trees identified by local representatives or the County Council. It may be that the recommendations do not align.

There is no requirement for an SLO to reassert the need for TPOs given the existing policy and objectives contained in the plan for TPO review. In addition, the use of a specific local objective (SLO), which is more appropriately used for map-based identification of a local objective, for what is in effect a county wide proposal is inappropriate.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the motion is not adopted.