TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

CONSULTATION ON APPLICATION

From: Michael Roberts – Countryside Development And Woodlands Officer	
Tel:     01744 676221	Email: mikeroberts-urb@sthelens.gov.uk	Date: 13/01/21	
								
Application Number:	P/2021/0026	
	Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) on approval P/2018/0848/FUL to alter the internal arrangement and elevational changes. | Land At Former Thatto Heath Royal British Region Club Scholes Lane Thatto Heath St Helens WA10 3NU	

Core Strategy policies relating to trees and landscape that are relevant to this development are: -

CQL2 Trees and Woodlands

Retained UDP policies related to tree issues that are relevant to this development include: -

ENV11 Tree Surveys
ENV12A + 12B Development Affecting Existing Trees
ENV13 New Tree Planting on Development Sites

Whilst I do not object to the principle of these changes I have to object at this stage as the applicant has not considered any impacts por changes that will be required to deliver an effective tree protection plan or the impacts of the changes on approved landscape plans.  Significant work went into getting the original tree protection plan designed as did the work on the tree planting / landscaping plan.  It is therefore vital that any proposed changes include full consideration of the impact on both tree protection and tree planting landscaping.  As its stands the proposal will make some additional ingress inti the root protection areas of protected trees and it will also mean the tree planting plan approved cannot be practically delivered as shown on approved plans with the changes proposed.  Up until the Christmas break the builders had failed to deliver the approved tree protection plan (It is my hope it is now in place but I do not have any evidence that this is now in place).

The changes to the location of the pedestrian entrance from Scholes Lane are practical, without going any further into the root protection areas.  The changes to car parking bays, whilst not ideal only makes a small additional ingress into the Root Protection Area of Tree T1 and the entrance changes at the north end also only make small additional ingresses into root protection areas.  It should therefore be acceptable to accept these changes subject to the Arboricultural Method Statement Dwg No P.557.15.02 Rev C and the Tree Planting Plan Dwg No P.557.15.04C Rev C is updated and modified in line with the amended layout.  In relation to the Planting Plan it is probably a case of moving the tree ‘SOR SEE’ on the plan closer to Tree T1 and putting an additional ‘Aln Cor’ tree on the east side to line up with the other trees.  At the north end it is probably amendment of the shrub bed.  The Arboricultural Method statement needs to make clear there are no significant changes and the retaining wall built will be built as originally approved and illustrated in previous plans.

The presence of protected trees, high visibility of the site and eth fact that to date tree protection has not been implemented as approved mean that to support this application I believe it is essential the issue of the Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Planting Plan must be addressed as part of these changes.  They were produced by the same company (Acerta) and I would have thought they could relatively easily amend both pans in line with the proposed changes.

Michael Roberts

Countryside Development and Woodlands Officer