Ref No TPO 121412007

Parish Ward Wokingham Wescott

Location Chadmore Dene and Chadmore Close, Gipsy Lane, Wokingham Proposal Objection to the making of a Tree Preservation Order Officer Sarah Duckworth - Tree Preservation Officer Pages 6

FOR CONSIDERATION BY Planning Committee on 15 October 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY Head of Development Management.

SUMMARY

Council Officers made Tree Preservation Order 121412007 in response to proposals to redevelop land at Chadmore Dene and Chadmore Close, Gipsy Lane, Wokingham, as detailed in planning application Fl200712812.

The exiting properties are substantial detached bungalows on generous plots, which contain a number of well-established trees. The planning application proposed the removal of over half the trees on the site, many of which are mature specimens of exceptional quality. The mature trees on the properties are highly significant within the local area. Council Officers consider the removal of this number of mature trees will be detrimental to the character and visual amenity of Gipsy Lane.

Tree Preservation Order 121412007 was served to ensure that the trees on and adjacent to the site could not be removed prior to any planning application being determined. The planning application has since been refused and an appeal decision is pending.

If confirmed Tree Preservation Order 121412007 will also allow further control via negotiation between Council Officers and the applicant regarding the retention of trees as part of any future planning applications. Removal of protected trees if permitted under planning permission would then be subject to substantial replacement planting to ensure continued tree cover in the area.

Tree Preservation Order 1214/2007 was served on 3oth November 2007 and was valid for 6 months. One objection was received to the making of the Order, therefore after E months a temporary TPO 125012008 was served to provide continued protection for trees until Council Members could consider the objection at Committee. The temporary Tree Preservation Order 1250/2008 will not be confirmed and will be allowed to lapse.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Tree Preservation Order 1214/2007 be CONFIRMED with modification as follows:-

To remove 4 trees comprising l x Sycamore (GI), l x Red oak (G2) and T5 Sycamore - which have been identified as structurally poor specimens also T3 Red Oak which has a limited healthy life expectancy due to its age and species.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01200011000 Conditional approval Outline application for demolition of Chadmore 22.1 0.2000 Dene and Chadmore Close and erection of five

dwellings.

01200310792 Withdrawn Renewal of 01200011000 09.02.2004

F1200712812 Refused Erection of six detached dwellings and an apartment block containing five flats with ancillary

(Appeal decision works, plus access and parking and demolition of pending) Chadmore Close and part of Chadmore Dene.

I REPRESENTATIONS

One objection has been received to the making of this Order. A full copy of the objection is attached.

The objection to the Tree Preservation Order 121412007 raises the following considerations.

. Many of the trees included in the Order are in the rear gardens or behind existing vegetation and are not significant from public viewpoints. The trees are not significant and even if they were removed this would not result on any significant impact on the environment or it's enjoyment by the public.

Any proposed development in proximity to the trees would be required to demonstrate that the retained trees on both the site and adjoining land would not be damaged as a result. It is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary to make a TPO for the purpose of protecting the health of any retained trees where planning permission has been granted this can be secured by a planning condition.

Five letters in support of the Tree Preservation Order have been received from local residents.

PLANNING POLICY Wokingham District Local Plan - WBE5

4.15 The Council considers it is important to protect trees and hedges in the plan area that make a fundamental contribution to its character and appearance. Tree Preservation Orders have already been applied to many individual and groups of trees and areas of woodland, and this approach will be continued as appropriate.

/ WBE5: TREES AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS I In considering proposals for Development the effect on existing trees and areas of woodland will be taken into account. Trees that are to be retained will be properly protected during the course of construction in accordance with a scheme to be first approved throuclh a~propriate conditions attached to the planning permission. where appropriate, ~ r e e Preservation Orders will be applied and the loss or damage of trees protected by new or existing Tree Preservation Orders will be resisted.

1. The DETR ~ublication: Tree Preservation Orders - A Guide to the Law and Good Practice states that the amenity value of trees 'may be present or future, trees may be worfhy of preservation ... for fheir contribufion to the landscape, or because they serve to screen an eyesore or future development.'

2. Council officers consider the trees at Chadmore Dene and Chadmore Close are significant within the local area. Those to the rear of the properties will become visually more significant following proposed removal of vegetation at the front of the site. It is desirable to retain trees where possible to the front of the site in order to screen and to integrate any new development into the street scene.

3. Planning Application ref: Fl200712812 was refused due to the proposed removal of a large number of protected trees (Reason 3 - an appeal decision on this refusal is pending). Council officers consider that the loss of the trees would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. If Tree Preservation Order 121412007 is confirmed it will ensure significant trees cannot be felled in order to overcome this planning objection.

4. Using Tree Preservation Orders on proposed development sites is expedient and in line with Government guidelines. DETR publication states that "Tree Preservation Orders, a guide to the Law and Good Pracfice" section 5.19 states that:-

"In the Secretary of States view, [...], it is not reasonable to use conditions as a means of securing the long-term protection of trees when TPO's are available for this purpose."

5. Should development commence on the site and the agreed tree protection measures are not adhered to then Council Officers can serve a 28-day notice in order to rectify the situation. This does not provide adequate protection for key trees. In 28 days sufficient damage could occur that will cause the tree to go intc terminal decline.

6. In view of this Local Authority Policy (WBE5) is to include significant trees subjeci of planning applications in a Tree Preservation Order where appropriate so tha' they can be adequately protected throughout development. The Tree Preservation Order can be used as a means of enforcement if necessary shoulc planning permission be granted in the future.

CONCLUSION

The Council considers that amending the Order to remove 3 poorer specimen trees and confirming the remaining trees in Tree Preservation Order I21412007 is expedient and justified.

A planning proposal for redevelopment has been refused due to the potential impact on the tree cover on the properties. An appeal decision on this refusal is pending. It is expedient to confirm the Tree Preservation Order to prevent trees being removed in order to overcome the planning objection.

The inclusion of these trees in the Tree Preservation Order is a reflection of their significance within the local landscape, and recognition of the amenity value they

CONCLUSION (continued) r provide both now and in the future. The Tree Preservation Order will ensure the trees remain protected and any trees that are agreed to be removed under any future planning consent for the site, can be replaced with substantial replacement planting.

Confirming this Tree Preservation Order is in line with the Government Guidelines on Tree Preservation Orders and is in accordance with the policy WBES in the Wokingham District Local Plan.

I I

NB All reports seek to identify environmental, and equal opportunities implications. Consultation with residents and organisations which has or is about to take

Photographs

Picture 1 Trees viewed from Gipsy Lane looking south

Picture 2 Site viewed from Gipsy Lane looking south.

Picture 3 Shared driveway for Ashley House, Westfield and Oakley House. Chadmore Dene is beyond the brick wall on the right hand side of the property.

I 20

Picture 3 Trees viewed from Erica Drive looking south

MAP REFERF93D TO IN THE WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (PARISH OF WOKINGHAM) TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO: 121412007

C - u "---,

his map tr based upon Oidnance Sunreymteriatwith the pemrsion of OdnanceSuwey on behalf of the Conmller ofHMSO.@Cmrm Copm@,ht. JnauViOtiQed mpiodunioninm'nges Cmwn Copw.ghtand may lead (o prosecution or civil pmceedin?s.Woklngham Bornugh Caundl Ucence 10001?592

-andscape Section, Environmental Services, Wok~ngham Borough Counc~l. Scale: 1 : 1250 s

FIRST SCHEDULE

TREES SPECLFIED INDIVIDUALLY (Encircled in black on the map)

No. on Map Description Situation

London Plane (Platanus x hispanica) Walnut (Juglans regia)

Turkey Oak (Quercus cerris) Silver Birch (Betula pendula)

Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Blue Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca')

Oak (Quercus robur) Copper Beech (Fagus syl. 'Purpurea)

Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus)

Chadmore Dene, Gipsy Lane, Wokingham Chadmore Dene, Gipsy Lane, Wokingham Chadmore Dene, Gipsy Lane, Wokingham Chadmore Close, Gipsy Lane, Wokingham Chadmore Close, Gipsy Lane, Wokingham Twin Pines, Southlands Road, Wokingham Chadmore Dene, Gipsy Lane, Wokingham Chadmore Dene, Gipsy Lane, Wokingham Chadmore Dene, Gipsy Lane, Wokingham

No. on Map

TREES SPECIFlFD BY RFFERENCE TO AN AREA (Within a dotted black line on the map)

Description

NONE

Situation

-GROWS OF TREES (Within a broken black line on the map)

No. on Map ' ' Description Situation

GI 1 x Silver Birch (Betpla pendula), 1 x Chadmore Close, Gipsy Lane, Wokingham Sycamore (Acer pse;doplatanus) and 1 x Oak

(Quercus robur)

G2 3 x Red Oak (Quercus mbra) Chadmore Dene, Gipsy Lane, Wokingham

Grid Ref : SU 818 679

No. on Map

WOODLANDS (Within a continuous black line on the map)

Description Situation

NONE

Tree Management Consulting LLP 21 Burpham Lane

Guildford

Telephone: 01483 532786 Fa: 01483 534836

E-mail: rdg@tmcilp.co.uk Senior Arboriculturist ~ ~~

Environmental Services PO Box 153 ~ - - - ~ .

Shute End Wokingham RG40 1 WL

Our Ref: 07034L2 7 January 2007

- For the attention of ~r J Matthews

e

Dear Sirs

Tree Presewation Order No. 121412007

We are instructed by VR Developments Ltd to object to the above tree preservation order dated 30 November 2007. We note the council's reasons for making this order as set out in the Regulation 3 notice attached to the TPO.

We object to the order on the following grounds:

1 Tree Presetvation Orders A Guide to the Law and Good Practice (March 2400). which replaces parts of Circular 36/78, states (para. 3.2) that: i.

'...In the Secretary of State's view, TPOs should be used to protect selected trees and woodland if their removal would have a significant impact on the environment an% & eniovment bv the public. LPAs should be able to show that 2 reasonable dearee of public benefit would accrue before TPOs are made or confirmed. The trees. or at least part of them. should therefore normally be visible from a public place such as a road or footpath ...' (my underlining)

It further states at 3.3:

'LPAs should be able fo explain to landowners why their trees or woodlands have been proteaed by a TPO. They are advised to develop ways of assessing the "amenity value" of trees in a structured and consistent way, taking into account the following key criteria:

(I) visibility: the extent to which the trees or woodlands can be seen by the general public will inform the LPAs assessment of whether its impact on the local

Senior Partner: R D D Grainger DipArb(RFS) MlCFor FArborA Registered Consultant - Arboricultural Association Partner : D C Grainger Limited Liability Paitnership No. OC302657

I

Tree Preservation Order No. 121412007 7 January 2008

environment is significant If fhev cannof be seen or are just barely visible from a public place, a TPO mishf onlv be justified in excepfional circumstances;

(2) individual impacf: the mere fact fhaf a free is publiclv visible will not itself be sufficient fo warrant a TPO. The LPA should also assess the free's particular importance by reference fo ifs size and form, iis fufure pofenfial as an amenity, faking info accounf any special factors such as rarity, value as a screen o r confribufion fo fhe character or appearance o f a conservation area. As noted in paragraph 3.2 above, in relation to a group of frees or woodland, an assessment should be made of its collecfive impacf;

(3) wider impacf: the significance o f fhe frees in their local surroundings should also be assessed, faking info account how suitable they are to their particular setting, as well as the presence o f ofher trees in the vicinity. (my underlining)

Many of the trees included in this TPO are in the rear gardens of the existing properties and are not significant from public viewpoints. These include trees scheduled as TI , T2 and T3. Furthermore, many of the other trees at the site are located to the rear of existing trees and vegetation and again are not significant from public viewpoints. These include trees specified individually as T4, T5 and T7 and groups G I and G2. The Secretary of State clearly advises that some public benefit should accrue from the inclusion of trees in a TPO. In this case the trees are not significant and even if they were removed this would not result in a significant impact on the environment or its enjoyment by the public.

Secondly, any proposed development in proximity to these trees would be required to demonstrate that retained trees on both the site and adjoining land would not be damaged as a result. The Council normally require an arboricultural method statement (AMS) to be submitted as part of any application for planning permission, in accordance with the recommendations of BS5837:2005 which is the appropriate Standard with regard to the protection of trees on development sites. When granting planning permission the Council normally impose a condition to this effect. It is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary to make a TPO for the purpose of protecting the health of any retained trees where planning permission has been granted when this can be secured by a planning condition.

On these grounds we request the Council not to confirm this TPO.

Yours faithfully

& R D D Grainger

cc VR Developments Limited

APPEAL MONITORING INFORMATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 15 OCTOBER 2008

ITEM NO: 79.00

Public Inquiries with confirmed dates on or after 1 5 ~ ~ October 2008

PARISH: SWALLOWFIELD Application Number : F/2007/2197 Appeal Officer : JENNY SEAMAN Appeal Hearing Date : 21/10/2008 Appellant : Meakins Building Supplies Ltd Site Location; Balcombe Nurseries Basingstoke Road Swallowfield Proposal : Proposed change of use of land from Garden Centre to Builders Merchant

with demolition of existing sales building and erection of new building for builders merchants.

PARISH: SHINFIELD Application Number : 0/2008/0756 Appeal Officer : LAURA CALLEN Appeal Hearing Date : 21/10/2008 Appellant : Meakins Building Supplies Ltd Site Location; Land at Blanke Villa Lambs Lane Spencers Wood Proposal : Outline application for the Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment

for 36 residential units with parking and access road.

PARISH: HURST Application Number : F/200810002 Appeal Officer : JONATHON BISHOP Appeal Hearing Date : 1311 112008 Appellant : Mrs S. Dunn Site Location; Magpies Nelsons Lane Hurst Proposal : Proposed Change of Use from an equestrian stud farm to residential (C3) for

the siting of two mobile homes (one of which is retrospective) with alterations to access onto A321.

PARISH: WOODLEY Application Number : F/2007/1690 Appeal Officer : JONATHON BISHOP Appeal Hearing Date : 02/12/2008 Appellant : Sandford Farm Properties Ltd Site Location; Sandford Farm Land at Mohawk Way Woodley Proposal : Proposed erection of 150 unit retirement village (Outline) and 8 class Bl(a)

office buildings (9 290 sq m) 7 class B8 storage and distribution units (18 580 sq m) 5 class Bl(c) light industrial buildings to provide 23 small units (9 290 sq m) a sui generis Data centre (9 290 sq m) children's nursery 29 hectare countryside amenity space and visitors centre access car parkinglse~icing and landscaping (Full).

Informal Hearinqs with confirmed dates on or after 1 5 ~ ~ October 2008

PARISH: WARGRAVE Application Number : F/2007/3116 Appeal Officer : ASHLEY SMITH Appeal Hearing Date : 16/10/2008 Appellant : Willowside Developments Ltd Site Location; 144 Victoria Road Wargrave Proposal : Proposed erection of 3 new dwellings plus demolition of existing dwelling

APPEAL MONITORING INFORMATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 15 OCTOBER 2008

PARISH: FINCHAMPSTEAD Application Number : 0/2007/2046 Appeal Officer : EMY CIRCUIT Appeal Hearing Date : 23/10/2008 Appellant : Mr & Mrs S lngham Site Location; Monks Hall Lower Sandhurst Road Finchampstead Wokingham Proposal : Outline application fro the proposed erection of a building to cover existing

outdoor riding arena.

PARISH: RUSCOMBE Application Number : 0/2008/0653 Appeal Officer : JONATHON BISHOP Appeal Hearing Date : 1111 112008 Appellant : Banner Homes Site Location; Land rear of 122 - 130 London Road Ruscombe Proposal : Outline application for the erection of 11 dwellings with associated parking

and garaging (means of acess external appearance layout and scale to be considered).

PARISH: FINCHAMPSTEAD Application Number : F/2008/0598 Appeal Officer : EMILY HAYWARD Appeal Hearing Date : 2611 112008 Appellant : S Brant Esq Site Location; Broughton Heath Ride Finchampstead Wokingham Proposal : Proposed erection of one dwelling. Demolition of existing dwelling.

PARISH: WOKINGHAM WITHOUT Application Number : Fl200810783 Appeal Officer : EMILY HAYWARD Appeal Hearing Date : 09/12/2008 Appellant : Banner Homes Ltd Site Location; 85 and 87 Ellis Road Crowthorne Proposal : Proposed erection of 5 detached dwellings with associated parking garaging

and access onto Ellis Road. Demolition of existing dwellings.

PARISH: FINCHAMPSTEAD Application Number : F1200712932 Appeal Officer : JENl JACKSON Appeal Hearing Date : 17/02/2009 Appellant : The New Mill Riverside Restaurant Site Location; New Mill Restaurant New Mill Lane Eversley Proposal : Proposed application for the erection of a semi permanent siting of a marquee with

the retention of the raised timber base.

APPEAL MONITORING INFORMATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 15 OCTOBER 2008

Appeal Results for the period 01.09.2008 - 30.09.2008

Written Representations

Written Representations -Appeal Results for the period 01.09.2008 - 30.09.2008

PARISH: EARLEY Application Number : Fl200810232 Officer : PAUL GARDNER Appeal Decision Date: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 30/09/2008 Applicant (and agent if any): lsobelle Doughty Site Location; 7 Springdale Earley Proposal : Proposed change of use from amenity land to residential plus the erection of

fence to boundary with creation of new parking area.

PARISH: FINCHAMPSTEAD Application Number : F/2007/2131 Officer : EMILY HAYWARD Appeal Decision Date: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 05/09/2008 Applicant (and agent if any): Mrs A. McDonald Site Location; Meadowside Park Lane Finchampstead Wokingham Proposal : Proposed erection of detached dwelling with parking facilities to replace

existing mobile home.

PARISH: FINCHAMPSTEAD Application Number : F/2007/2165 Officer : EMILY HAYWARD Appeal Decision Date: APPEAL ALLOWED Appeal Decision Date : 09/09/2008 Applicant (and agent if any): Lawrence White Site Location; Amber Lodge Heath Ride Finchampstead Wokingham Proposal : Proposed erection of single storey detached garage.

APPEAL MONITORING INFORMATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 15 OCTOBER 2008

PARISH: SHINFIELD Application Number : Fl200810326 Officer : CHRISTINE PHILLIPS Appeal Decision Date: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 10109/2008 Applicant (and agent if any): Mr L Moss Site Location; Sarum Basingstoke Road Spencers Wood Proposal : Application for a double garage in rear garden (Retrospective).

PARISH: SHINFIELD Application Number : F/2007/2844 Officer : JENNY SEAMAN Appeal Decision Date: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 15/09/2008 Applicant (and agent if any): Mr F Islam Site Location; Miahs Restaurant Tankerton House Basingstoke Road Spencers Wood Proposal : Proposed change of use of ground floor residential flat (C3) to Restaurant and

take-away (A3 and A5)

PARISH: TWYFORD Application Number : FI2007l2853 Officer : HANNAH WILSON Appeal Decision Date: APPEAL DlSMlSSED Appeal Decision Date : 18/09/2008 Applicant (and agent if any): Magenta Homes (UK) Ltd Site Location; 7 New Road Twyford Proposal : Proposed erection of one new dwelling with detatched garage.

PARISH: WARGRAVE Application Number : Fl200712694 Officer : NICK CLARK Appeal Decision Date: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 03/09/2008 Applicant (and agent if any): Mr R. G. Smee Site Location; Crazies Hall Crazies Hill Wargrave Proposal : Proposed retention of gate columns fronting Worleys Lane

PARISH: WOKINGHAM Application Number : F/2007/1795 Officer : EMILY HAYWARD Appeal Decision Date: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 05/09/2008 Applicant (and agent if any): Mr & Mrs Cowling Site Location; 36 Budges Road Wokingham Proposal : Proposed ererection of two storeylfirst storey side extension above and to the

rear of existing garage

PARISH: WOODLEY Application Number : F/2007/3018 Officer : HANNAH WILSON Appeal Decision Date: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 16/09/2008 Applicant (and agent if any): Mr P Mason Site Location; 9 Vauxhall Drive Woodley Proposal : Proposed erection of first floor front extension plus part two storey side extension over

existing garage.

ITEM NO: 80.00

QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT MONITORING INFORMATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 15 OCTOBER 2008

RFS CASES 1 July - 30 September 2008

Number received 184

Number closed 215

% closed in 8 weeks 48%

[Officer comment: More have been closed than received and the speed appears slow because officers are still clearing the backlog caused by enforcement officer vacancies.]

[Officer comment: There are so many in the "Other" category because in clearing the backlog a number of duplicate complaints were identified.]

Reasons for closure Other No breach of planning control Not expedient to pursue Voluntary compliance Details submitted (eg minor amendment, details pursuant to conditions, planning application)

SUMMARY OF NOTICESIPROSECUTION for period 1 July - 30 September 2008

Number 52 101 18 22

22

% 24% 47% 8%

10.5%

10.5%

Notice Type

Enforcement Notices

Stop Notices

Number Served

4

0

Temporary Stop Notices

Breach of Condition Notices

Section 21 5 Notices

I Planning Contravention Notices 7

0

7

1

Prosecutions

Direct Action

Injunctions

0

0

0

APPEALS AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICES 1 July - 30 Se~tember 2008

Number of appeals lodged 5

Number of appeals determined 4

SUMMARY OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEAL DECISIONS

(Since only four have been received this year all four are summarised)

Reference: RFS/2006/00621 Address: 6 Hudson Road, Woodley Breach of planning control: Change of use of land from communal parking area to use for the siting of a storage container and enclosed working area. Appeal outcome: Appeal dismissed and enforcement notice upheld. Notice requirements: Stop using the land for the siting of a container (and remove the container) and stop using the land as an enclosed area and remove the means of enclosure. Date for compliance: 16 September 2008 Outcome: The container has been removed and the owner has indicated that the enclosure (fence) will be removed shortly.

Inspector's findings: The lnspector concluded that the loss of two communal parking spaces is unacceptable and that the container is detrimental to visual amenities.

Reference: RFS/2004/00519 Address: 8 Bathurst Road. Winnersh Breach of planning control: Erection of A 1.8m high close boarded fence. Appeal outcome: Appeal dismissed and enforcement notice upheld (and varied). Notice requirements: Remove the fence or reduce it to l m in height. Date for compliance: 8 October 2008.

Inspector's findings: The Inspector concluded that the fence damages the character and appearance of the area and has a harmful effect on highway safety.

Reference: RFS/2006/00886 Address: Lane End Cottage, Thames Terrace, Sonning. Breach of planning control: Change of use of dwelling house to a mixed use of dwelling and separate office for business use. Appeal outcome: Appeal dismissed and enforcement notice upheld. Notice requirements: Cease the business use. Date for compliance: 8 July 2008. Outcome: The business use has ceased.

Inspector's findings: The lack of off-street parking causes vehicles to park on the narrow highway which is detrimental to vehicular and pedestrian convenience and safety. The use fails to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Reference: RFS/2007/00112 Address: DG Rixon Plant Hire, Lower Rivermead Farm, Willow Lane, Wargrave. Breach of planning control: The erection of a dwelling house. Appeal outcome: Appeal dismissed and enforcement upheld (and varied). Notice requirements: Demolish the dwelling. Date for compliance: 11 October 2008.

Inspector's findings: The material considerations do not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the structure has an adverse impact upon the openness of the Green Belt and the rural location. In the absence of a flood risk assessment the development is contrary to PPG25. The dwelling has an adverse impact on neighbouring living conditions.

Report Author: Marcia Head ext 6447