Tescos Ashtead Trees Proof Final

8/9/2019 Tescos Ashtead Trees Proof Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tescos-ashtead-trees-proof-final 1/22



2

SECTION PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. THE SITE 3

3. THE APPLICATIONS 4

4. ARBORICULTURAL INFORMATION 5

SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATIONS

5. THE POLICY FRAMEWORK, GOVERNMENT 6

GUIDANCE AND BS5837

6. THE TREES 9

7. KEY ARBORICULTURAL ISSUES 12

8. PRINCIPAL CONCERNS RELATING TO 16

THE TWO APPLICATIONS

9. CONCLUSION 20

APPENDIX 1 – CORE DOCUMENTS 21

1. INTRODUCTION

1 I am Andrew Pinchin, principal arboricultural consultant at APArboriculture. I

have over 20 years’ experience within the arboricultural profession, both as a

APArboriculture



3

Local Authority Tree Officer and a Consultant. I spent fourteen years as a Tree

Officer at three different Local Authorities and was the Tree Officer at Mole

Valley District Council for over 10 years. I was a Director of a Surrey based

Arboricultural Consultancy for a year and a half, prior to establishing my own

company (APArboriculture) in December 2009. I was Chairman of the Surrey

Tree Officers’ Group from 2005 to 2008.

2 I have an Honours Degree and hold the Royal Forestry Society Professional

Diploma in Arboriculture. I am a Fellow of the Arboricultural Association and a

Chartered Arboriculturist with the Institute of Chartered Foresters.

3 I have been instructed by Ashtead Residents’ Association to offer an objective

opinion regarding the arboricultural issues connected with two planningapplications to redevelop the site. The proposal in both applications is to

provide a TESCO supermarket with residential accommodation above. An

increased provision for parking is also proposed, as are some ancillary highway

works.

2. THE SITE

2.1 The site comprises a former Esso petrol filling station at 53-57 The Street, the

car parking area to the rear, Hobsons Choice in The Marld and, where the

second application is concerned, parts of 18 and 20 Woodfield Lane. The exact

site boundary varies between the two applications (MO/08/1127/PLAMAJ

covering a larger area than MO/09/1322/PLAMAJ).

2.2 Ashtead is a relatively large village and as such is vulnerable to the potential

landscape impacts of major developments. Trees in and around the village

centre fulfil a vital function in softening the impact of the built environment and

providing a pleasant backcloth which serves to enhance the amenities of the

locality. In a village such as this it is not only the loss of key landscape trees

that can have an impact, but also the collective loss of smaller, lower quality

trees.

2.3 Having covered this area for over 10 years as the Tree Officer at Mole Valley

District Council, I am well aware of the importance local residents place on

trees and of the contentious nature of development proposals that result in a

loss of existing tree cover. It is very easy in villages such as Ashtead for the

APArboriculture



4

insidious erosion of the tree stock to have a negative impact on environmental

quality and the landscape.

2.4 Many large supermarket developments are situated on the fringes of villages

where the potential landscape impacts are lower. In a case such as this where

the site is situated in the heart of a village, the requirement for good design is

more acute and there is a need for locally sensitive schemes that coexist

harmoniously with existing infrastructure and do not result in a net loss of

amenity.

3. THE APPLICATIONS

KEY DETAILS OF THE TWO APPLICATIONS

3.1 MO/2008/1127/PLAMAJ:

Proposal: Redevelopment of site to provide a supermarket on ground floor and

9 No. Two bedroom flats on first and second floors. Re-aligned and enlarged

car park with repositioned recycling centre. Highway improvements to junction

of Woodfield Lane and The Street. Demolition of Hobsons Choice, The Marld.

Site: Former Esso Service Station (53-57 The Street), Hobsons Choice, The

Marld and land to rear of 18 & 20 Woodfield Lane, Ashtead.

Planning consent refused on: 9th March 2009

Arboricultural reasons for refusal:

Reason 7. The proposal would result in the loss of some large trees of public

amenity value detrimental to the character of the area and contrary to Mole

Valley Local Plan Policy ENV25 – Landscape Design of New Developments.

.2 MO/2009/1322/PLAMAJ:

Proposal: Redevelopment of site to provide a supermarket on ground floor and

2 No. one bedroom, 4 No. two bedroom & 3 No. three bedroom flats on first

and second floors. Realigned and enlarged car park with repositioned recycling

APArboriculture



5

centre. Highway improvements to junction of Woodfield Lane and The Street.

Demolition of Hobsons Choice, The Marld.

Site: Former Esso Service Station (53-57 The Street) and Hobsons Choice,

The Marld, Ashtead.

Planning consent refused on: 5th February 2010.

The LPA did not use any arboricultural reasons for refusal in relation to this

application.

THE THIRD APPLICATION

3.3 There is a third planning application relevant to this Inquiry (application ref. MO/

2009/1474). The proposal in this application was to increase the provision for

car parking on land to the rear of 18 Woodfield Lane. Planning consent was

granted by the LPA on 10th February 2010.

4. ARBORICULTURAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATIONS

APPLICATION REF. MO/2008/1127/PLAMAJ:

4.1 A Landscape Supporting Statement was submitted in connection with this

application, produced by Aspect Landscape Planning (document ref. 4533.LSS.

004, July 2008). This included a Tree Survey Schedule and a Tree Protection

Plan produced by Simon Jones Associates Arboricultural Consultants.

4.2 Although some basic information relating to tree protection was provided on the

Tree Protection Plan, an Arboricultural Method Statement detailing exactly how

the retained trees would be afforded an adequate degree of physical protection

during the development was not provided.


4.3 As with application ref. MO/2008/1127/PLAMAJ, a Landscape Supporting

Statement produced by Aspect Landscape Planning was submitted in

connection with this application (document ref. 4533.LSS.005, November

2009). Additional landscape information was subsequently submitted in

December 2009 (Aspect Landscape Planning document ref. 4533.ALI.001).

APArboriculture



6

These documents included a Tree Survey Schedule and a Tree Protection Plan

produced by Simon Jones Associates Arboricultural Consultants.

4.4 Again, an Arboricultural Method Statement detailing exactly how the retained

trees would be afforded an adequate degree of physical protection during the

development was not provided in connection with this application.

5. THE POLICY FRAMEWORK, GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE AND BS5837

NATIONAL POLICY

5.1 In terms of national policy, the key documents in-so-far as the arboricultural

issues are concerned are PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development).

5.2 Paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20 of PPS1 specifically refer to the need to protect

the environment, townscapes and landscapes and the importance of taking into

account the impact of development on landscape quality. Paragraphs 34 and

35 are concerned with good design and indicate that design which is

inappropriate in context or which fails to take available opportunities for

retaining and enhancing the character and quality of an area should not be

accepted.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

5.3 On a national level, the Town & Country Planning Act at section 197 itself

places a duty on LPAs, where appropriate, to ensure they make adequate

provision for the preservation and planting of trees when granting planning

permission.

LOCAL POLICY

5.4 As regards local policy, The Mole Valley Core Strategy was adopted in 2009

and forms an integral part of the Local Development Framework. The Core

Strategy is used, along with saved policies from the Mole Valley Local Plan

2000, to guide the LPA in determining planning applications within the Mole

Valley District.

MOLE VALLEY CORE STRATEGY

APArboriculture



7

5.5 As concerns the Mole Valley Core Strategy, the two key policies relevant to this

case are as follows:

5.6 Policy CS13 (Landscape Character):

Landscape Character

1.All new development must respect and, where appropriate, enhance the character

and distinctiveness of the landscape character area in which it is proposed.

Landscape enhancement works may be required to avoid adverse impacts

associated with new developments.

2.The Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is of national

significance, and as such, the conservation of the natural beauty of the

landscape will be a priority in this area. The AONB will be protected inaccordance with the objectives in Planning Policy Statement 7 (Sustainable

Development in Rural Areas) and the Surrey Hills Management Plan, with

particular focus on the impact of development on ridgelines, significant views,

peace, tranquillity and levels of artificial light.

3.The AGLV (Area of Great Landscape Value) will be retained until such time as

there has been a review of the AONB boundary. Development in the AGLV

area will be required to be supported by evidence to demonstrate that it would

not result in harm to the AONB, particularly views from and into the AONB and

the key features identified in point 2 above.

4.Small scale development for the reasonable needs of the rural economy, outdoor

recreation as well as that for the local community in the AONB or AGLV, will be

supported subject to meeting other relevant criteria within the LDF.

5.7 Policy CS 14 (Townscape, Urban Design and the Historic Environment).

Townscape, Urban Design and the Historic Environment

1.All new development must respect and enhance the character of the area in which

it is proposed whilst making the best possible use of the land available. This

will be assisted through the work on Built-Up Area Character Appraisals.

2.The Council will resist development of a poor quality of design and will expect to

see sufficient detail set out in the Design and Access Statements, where

required, to enable planning applications to be properly determined.

3.Development must incorporate appropriate landscaping with particular attention to

the use of trees and hedges native to the locality.

4.Areas and sites of historic or architectural importance will be protected and, where

appropriate enhanced in accordance with the legislation, national and regional

guidance.

APArboriculture



8

SAVED POLICIES FROM MOLE VALLEY LOCAL PLAN

5.8 The key saved policies from the Mole Valley Local Plan which are relevant to

this case are as follows:

5.9 Policy ENV25 (Landscape design of New Developments):

POLICY ENV25 – LANDSCAPE DESIGN OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS

Proposals for development should demonstrate that particular care has been taken in

the provision, use and design of spaces between buildings and that the hard

and soft landscape design is suitable for the site and form of development.

Sufficient space should be allowed to enable existing trees of significant publicamenity value to be retained.

This policy refers to development design and spatial layout, stressing that

particular care should be taken and sufficient space allowed to enable existing

trees of significant public amenity value to be retained and to continue to grow,

so that shading and overhanging of adjacent dwellings is avoided. It also

concerns the intrinsic value placed upon existing trees in softening the impact

of development and the importance of accurate survey drawings of any existing

trees, and substantial shrubs, as well as placing importance on the design of

the development in relation to the character of the local landscape and the

need to sensitively integrate development into the wider landscape.

5.10 Policy ENV 53 (Trees in the Built-up-Areas):

POLICY ENV53 - TREES IN THE BUILT-UP AREAS

The Council will continue to preserve and enhance existing tree cover in the built-up

areas through the use of development control powers and the making of Tree

Preservation Orders particularly where important trees are under threat.

This policy refers to the need to preserve and enhance existing tree cover in

the built up areas which makes a substantial contribution to their amenities. It

stresses the need to maintain and where possible supplement this valuable

resource.

CURRENT GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE

APArboriculture



9

5.11 Current government guidance is contained within the document entitled Tree

Preservation Orders – A Guide to the Law and Good Practice 2000 (as

amended). I accept that none of the trees on site are subject to a TPO. Whilst

this guide is largely concerned with the legal protection of trees, it contains

information on the concept of amenity and on trees and development which is

very useful in relation to development proposals such as these. It also makes

references to the future value of trees (Section 3.2). In the context of proposed

development, the future visibility and value of the trees is an important

consideration.

5.12 There is no doubt in my mind that several of the key trees on and immediately

adjacent to the site comfortably meet the criteria for protection with a Tree

Preservation Order.

THE CURRENT BRITISH STANDARD

5.13 BS5837 2005 (Trees in relation to Construction – Recommendations) is the

current British Standard relating to trees and construction. It provides for the

categorisation of trees on development sites and gives recommendations

regarding tree retention and protection.

6. THE TREES

6.1 For clarity and ease of reference, I have set out below details of the key trees

and tree groups on and immediately adjacent to the site. These are as follows

(Tree numbers correspond to those in the Tree Survey Schedule provided by

Simon Jones Associates Arboricultural Consultants):

6.2 London Plane T17, Scots Pines T21 & T25 and Corsican Pine T26: This is a

key group of trees, situated just to the north of the proposed Tesco

Supermarket. The trees are clearly visible from surrounding roads and

properties (including The Marld and Pound Court to the north) and make a

significant contribution to the character and amenities of the locality. In the

Landscape Supporting Statement submitted with application MO/2008/1127/

PLAMAJ, all of these trees were denoted as Category B trees in accordance

with BS5837. In the Landscape Supporting Statement submitted with

application MO/2009/1322/PLAMAJ, Scots Pine T25 was denoted as a

APArboriculture



10

Category C tree. My perception is that the trees need to be considered

holistically as a group and that the group clearly falls within Category B.

6.3 Horse Chestnut T37: This is a significant tree in the local landscape, again

visible from surrounding roads and properties. The tree has been denoted as a

C Category tree in the Landscape Supporting Statements submitted with the

two applications. The view is expressed in the Tree Survey Schedules within

the Landscape Supporting Statements that the tree is of short term potential

only. On the basis of the information currently available, I do not feel that this is

necessarily the case. Whilst it has some areas of dead bark on the trunk and

main scaffold branches (which may have been caused by a lightning strike) and

minor die-back of one or two branches in the upper crown, my inspection of the

tree on 9th

June 2010 revealed it to be in good physiological health and of normal vigour. My perception is that the tree may well have a safe useful life

expectancy in excess of 20 years and that as such it could with justification be

allocated to Category B.

6.4 Group of trees to rear of 16 Woodfield Lane (T44, T45, T46, T47, T54, T55,

T56 and T57): This group comprises a mixture of trees of different species and

ages, situated partly within the site and partly within the curtilage of 16

Woodfield Lane (but all essentially on/immediately adjacent to the boundary).

Some of the trees have been denoted as B Category trees within the

Landscape Supporting Statements submitted by the applicant; others have

been denoted as C Category trees. In this instance, I would not seek to differ

from these assessments. This group of trees has been the subject of some

discussions between the LPA, the owner of 16 Woodfield Lane and those

acting on behalf of the applicant. The group provides much valued screening

and the trees would collectively help soften the visual impact of any

development of the site. Indeed, amendments to application MO/2008/1127/

PLAMAJ (in the form of a widened ‘buffer strip’) were made specifically to

facilitate retention and protection of these trees.

6.5 Scots Pine T74: This tree is a Scots pine, situated within the rear garden of 22

Woodfield Lane. It has been denoted as a B Category Tree within the

Landscape Supporting Statement submitted with application MO/2009/1322/

PLAMAJ. Having examined the tree, I agree with this categorisation. For

reasons that are not entirely clear, this tree appears to be missing from the

Tree Survey Schedule within the Landscape Supporting Statement submitted

with application MO/2008/1127/PLAMAJ, although is shown on the

APArboriculture



11

accompanying Tree Protection Plan as T74. As noted in the Tree Survey

Schedule, it is visible for some distance from surrounding properties. This tree

would also become more prominent within the context of a development such

as those that are proposed.

6.6 Other trees that fulfil a vital screening function and provide an important

backcloth of greenery to the site: These include the boundary trees (tree group

G6) within and adjacent to Whitehayes in The Marld and tree group G4

adjacent to 15 Pound Court. They also include the row of trees adjacent to the

northern boundary of the existing car parking area (comprising T38, T39, T40,

T41, T42, T43, T43a-d, T52, T53, T60 & T61) and trees on the inside corner of

the service road access to the delivery area (T28 and G29).

6.7 Aerial view of site showing key trees and tree groups referred to in text:

APArboriculture



12

APArboriculture

Tree group to r/o 16Woodfield Lane

Tree group G4

Row of trees includingT17, T21, T25 & T26

Horse Chestnut T37

Tree group G6

Row of trees to north of existing car park, includingAsh T42 and Sycamore T53

Scots pine T74

Ash T28 and treegroup G29



13

7. KEY ARBORICULTURAL ISSUES

POOR DESIGN

7.1 My assessment is that these two applications are somewhat ill conceived from

an arboricultural perspective and do not accord with the principles of good

design embodied in national and local policy. The arboricultural constraints

have not been properly identified, with the result that valuable trees would be

removed or potentially damaged during the development works. Furthermore,

suitable separation distances have not been observed between retained trees

and the proposed development, contrary to good design and Section 6.3 of

BS5837. This would inevitably lead to future conflicts if the development(s) as

proposed were to proceed.

7.2 A balance does of course have to be struck between commercial viability, the

desirability of a given development proposal and the negative impact that may

arise from it. In this case, however, the proposals have all the hallmarks of

those developments that have sacrificed the principles of good design on the

altar of commercial inertia and an overzealous approach to maximising

development potential.

INADEQUATE PROVISION FOR TREE RETENTION

7.3 It is often the case with large supermarket developments that the majority of

existing trees are removed, which are then replaced with young trees during

the landscaping phase of the development. Whilst this approach may be

acceptable on out-of town sites with relatively few trees of landscape value, my

view is that it is not appropriate on this particular site. The proposed schemes

are not sensitive to the existing landscape character and would result in

significant attenuation of amenity.

7.4 The key trees and tree groups on this site are relatively localised. Through

proper identification (and heeding) of the arboricultural constraints, it appears

to me that a scheme for development could be devised which respects the

existing landscape character and facilitates retention and protection of the

principal trees.

7.5 The site (and land immediately adjacent) is not situated within a Conservation

Area and no Tree Preservation Orders currently apply. My view is that the LPA

could reasonably have protected some of the trees on and adjacent to the site

APArboriculture



14

with a Tree Preservation Order. Indeed, my experience as a Principal Tree

Officer at three local authorities suggests that it would have been prudent to do

so. Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the current government guidance on the making of

Tree Preservation Orders (Section..... above) concern the expediency of

making such Orders. It is effectively stated that, where trees are at risk

generally from development pressures, the protection of trees with a

precautionary TPO might sometimes be considered expedient. Section 3.2 of

the same document states that trees may be worthy of preservation for their

contribution to the landscape or because they serve to screen an eyesore or

future development.

7.6 Legal protection of some of the trees on/adjacent to the site would be very

much within the spirit of the Town and Country Planning Act and currentgovernment guidance. As a minimum, my view is that it would be appropriate to

protect London Plane T17, Scots Pines T21 & T25, Corsican Pine T26, Horse

Chestnut T37 and Scots Pine T74. Tree Preservation Orders are not intended

to preclude reasonable development or act as an obstacle in the planning

process. What they effectively do, however, is give the LPA an element of

control over removal of/works on trees that are of public amenity value.

7.7 On a site such as this, it is also the collective value of smaller/lower quality

trees that makes a significant difference to local amenities. Whilst BS5837

states that C Category trees will not usually be retained where they would

impose a significant constraint on development, it is often the case in practice

that C Category trees make a significant contribution to environmental quality.

Retention of such trees is important on sites such as this where they provide an

important screening and visual impact softening function.

7.8 The case is often presented by applicants that new planting will compensate for

the loss of trees to be removed. The reality, even with the current availability of

larger, semi-mature trees for planting, is that new landscaping typically takes

decades to provide a commensurate degree of amenity/landscape contribution.

INSUFFICIENT PROVISION FOR PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF AND SPACE

AROUND RETAINED TREES

7.9 My assessment is that the two applications fail to make proper provision for the

physical protection of retained trees and that trees shown as being retained on

APArboriculture



15

the approved plans could be lost in the short/medium term (within 10 years).

Other trees will be vulnerable to being heavily pruned.

7.10 It is becoming common practice amongst local authorities for full tree protection

information to be required at the application stage (in the form of an

Arboricultural Method Statement). Only then can the potential impact on trees

be properly assessed and informed decisions made. My experience within local

authorities is that this is essential if trees are to be afforded an adequate

degree of physical protection during development works.

7.11 As of 6th April 2008, changes to the planning legislation enabled local

authorities to adopt local validation checklists, which can now be used

alongside the national checklist when validating and determining planningapplications. On the recommended national list of local requirements for

adoption by local authorities is the following item relating to trees:

Tree Survey/Arboricultural Implications:

Information will be required on which trees are to be retained and on the means

of protecting these during construction works. Full guidance on the survey

information, protection plan and Method Statement that should be provided

with an application is set out in the current BS5837.

This is a clear indication that the importance of providing a Method Statement

at the application stage has been recognised by central government.

7.12 No Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted in relation to either of

the two planning applications. This in itself is a matter of concern, as the LPA

simply does not have enough information at its disposal relating to tree

protection to be satisfied that the retained trees would be adequately protected

during the development works. The proposals for development include new

hard surfacing and foundations within the Root Protection Areas of retained

trees, along with substantial level changes. The issues involved are relatively

complex and the technical matters will need to be examined in more detail to

ascertain whether it would actually be practicable to retain those trees shown

as being retained on the approved plans.

7.13 As regards tree pruning, Section 8.1 of BS5837 clearly states that ‘Once a final

layout for the development area has been approved, an arboriculturist should

APArboriculture



16

review the relationship of the development to the trees and prepare a schedule

of tree works listing all the trees that require work by number, accompanied by

a plan showing where each tree is located. The schedule should include all the

trees to be removed to clear the main development area and those remaining

that require remedial works. Remedial tree works should be based on what is

required to establish acceptable levels of risk and management in the context

of the proposed land use. The schedule of works should be accompanied by a

detailed specification describing each work operation.

7.14 No schedule of tree works has been submitted with either application, despite

the fact that significant tree works will be necessary. In relation to application

MO/2009/1322/PLAMAJ, it is clear that one of the key trees on the site (London

Plane T17) will need to be pruned owing to the location of the proposedbuilding. No mention of this is made in the Landscape Supporting Statement or

the accompanying Tree Survey Schedule.

7.15 If developments accord with the principles of good design, there should not be

a need to prune retained trees. Paragraph 6.3.3 of BS5837: 2005 specifically

states that ‘trees should not be retained on the basis, that their ultimate branch

spread can be significantly controlled by periodic pruning’.

7.16 The paucity of submitted arboricultural information is in itself an indication that

insufficient consideration has been given to the arboricultural constraints and

that there has been a lack of attention to detail.

LANDSCAPE DESIGN

7.17 Landscape design is concerned with the judicious retention and protection of

existing trees, but also with providing sufficient space for new landscaping and

ensuring a continuity of tree cover that will provide for future amenity. It is my

view that the two schemes do not make the most of opportunities to provide for

future landscaping. This applies in particular to the provision of boundary

screening and the creation of suitable ‘buffer zones’ between the site and the

adjacent residential properties.

8. PRINCIPAL CONCERNS RELATING TO THE TWO APPLICATIONS


APArboriculture



17

8.1 The principal group of trees on the site in landscape terms (comprising London

Plane T17, Scots Pines T21 & T25 and Corsican Pine T26) is to be removed as

part of this application.

8.2 It appears that there is now agreement between the parties concerned that this

group of trees is important and needs to be safeguarded. In the Additional

Landscape Information report (December 2009, ref. 4553.ALI.001) by Aspect

Landscape Planning, submitted in connection with application ref. MO/

2009/1322/PLAMAJ, it is stated that ‘the trees to the rear of the store (nos. 17,

21, 22, 23, 25 & 26) have been identified as important trees within the site and

as such their retention has been a primary focus within the development of the

proposals’.

8.3 These trees are visually prominent and the level of amenity they provide could

not be adequately compensated for with new planting. It is my view that this

application would be unacceptable purely on the basis of loss of these trees.

Indeed, it was the potential loss of these trees that led to the LPA using an

arboricultural reason for refusal in relation to this application (reason for refusal

7).

8.4 Removal of Horse Chestnut T37: No evidence has been presented to suggest

that this tree needs to be removed on grounds of safety or for other reasons. It

is a prominent tree which is clearly visible from neighbouring roads and

properties. On the basis of the information currently available, my view is that

this tree should be retained and incorporated within any development of the

site. Removal of the tree would detract from the character and amenities of the

locality and relatively minor modifications to the proposals would be necessary

to facilitate its retention.

8.5 Removal of the entire row of trees to the north of the existing car parking area,

including Ash T42 and Sycamore T53 (a B and a C category tree respectively)

and removal of tree group G4 adjacent to 15 Pound Court. The fact that T42,

T53 and G4 are indicated as being retained as part of application ref. MO/

2009/1322/PLAMAJ suggests that it is feasible to retain at least some of these

trees.

8.6 Removal of Ash T28 and a group of trees (G29) on the inside corner of the

service road access to the delivery area.

APArboriculture



18

8.7 Whilst the trees referred to in Sections 8.5 and 8.6 above are not all of the

highest quality, it is the collective value of such trees and tree groups (and the

space that they occupy to provide for future landscaping) that needs to be

considered within the context of these development proposals. Retention of

more of the existing trees within the site – including those which in isolation

may be of relatively modest overall quality – would give welcome visual relief to

the built form and impart some structural diversity to the landscaping element

of the scheme.

8.8 Impact upon Scots Pine T74: New car parking is proposed well within the Root

Protection Area of this tree, involving significant changes in levels. Insufficient

information has been provided with the application to indicate how this tree

would be safeguarded during the development works.


8.9 Notwithstanding the fact that the LPA did not use an arboricultural reason for

refusal in relation to this application, it is my belief that the application fails to

make adequate provision for tree retention and protection. Furthermore, the

proposed scheme does not constitute good design in that insufficient space

has been provided for structural landscaping and buildings are situated at

inappropriate distances from retained trees.

8.10 Removal of Horse Chestnut T37: As with application MO/2008/1127/PLAMAJ,

my view is that this tree should be retained within the context of any suitable

development of the site. Information relating to this tree is provided in Section

9.4 above.

8.11 Concerns over physical protection of London Plane T17, Scots Pines T21 &

T25 and Corsican Pine T26 and the separation distances between the

proposed building and the trees: Detailed information on how these trees would

be afforded an adequate degree of protection during the development works

has not been submitted. These trees already have compromised rooting

environments and will not be tolerant of further disturbance. As detailed in the

Tree Survey Schedule contained within the Additional Landscape Information,

T25 is exhibiting some symptoms of lower than normal vigour.

8.12 Changes to the hard landscaping layout, including new hard surfacing, level

changes and retaining walls are proposed well within the Root Protection Areas

of the trees. Although it is indicated on the Tree Protection Plan produced by

APArboriculture



19

Simon Jones Associates that precautions would be taken to minimise the

degree of root damage (including the use of low invasive methods for new hard

surfacing and pile and beam foundations for retaining walls), such methods do

not eliminate the impact and there is no doubt that some damage to the rooting

systems of the trees would be caused

8.13 The proposed building itself is within the Root Protection Areas of Scots Pines

T21 & T25 and Corsican Pine T26. The actual foundation line where excavation

would occur would be closer to the trees than the line of the building and

construction of the foundations would be likely to cause significant damage to

the roots of the trees.

8.14 My assessment is that the combined impact on these trees of the developmentworks proposed would be likely to lead to their subsequent decline and that

there would be an attendant risk of them needing to be removed within a period

of 10 years.

8.15 The separation distances between these trees and the proposed building are

inadequate and do not accord with national or local policy or BS5837. It is clear

that significant pruning of T17 would be required to accommodate the building

and the tree would need to be pruned on a regular basis to prevent problems

being experienced. This does not constitute good design. Contrary to the

recommendations given in BS5837, no schedule of tree works has been

provided with the application. This, to say the least, is a significant oversight

and illustrative of a lack of attention to detail where the trees are concerned.

8.16 An amendment to application MO/2008/1127/PLAMAJ provided a significant

‘buffer strip’ between the site and 16 Woodfield Lane. The fact that the

application was amended in this way suggests that the importance of such a

strip to enable the existing trees to be retained and for new landscaping to be

planted was appreciated by the applicant. In application ref. MO/2009/1322/

PLAMAJ, this strip was substantially reduced in width, thereby restricting the

opportunities for new planting.

8.17 Substantial level changes are proposed within the Root Protection Areas of the

trees on/adjacent to the boundary (T44, T45, T46, T47, T54, T55, T56 and

T57). Detailed information on how damage to the trees during the development

works would be prevented has not been submitted. In terms of the potential

impact on these trees and the provision of suitable space for new planting, this

APArboriculture



20

application constitutes a step backwards from the revised scheme presented

under application ref. MO/2008/1127/PLAMAJ. This seems somewhat at odds

with the assertion made in Section 4.3 of the Landscape Supporting Statement

that ‘the proposals have been developed to create an enhanced scheme which

addresses the concerns highlighted in relation to the previous development.’

8.18 Impact on boundary screening adjacent to Whitehayes, The Marld: Although it

is indicated on the Tree Protection Plan contained within the Additional

Landscape Information that tree group G6 (a row of Cypress trees) is to be

retained and Section 1.5 of the Additional Landscape Information indicates that

the existing Laurel screening is also to be retained, this does not appear to be

feasible with reference to cross sectional drawing ASP5 (Indicative Cross

Sections Rev. B) given at Appendix 4 of the Additional Landscape Information.This drawing appears to show a substantial degree of excavation up to the

boundary of Whitehayes which would necessitate removal of all of the existing

vegetation.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 In my professional opinion, the two applications are ill conceived from an

arboricultural perspective and simply do not accord with basic principles of

good design. A lack of attention to detail is apparent in both submissions and in

my view the arboricultural constraints have not been properly heeded. Key

trees are indicated as being removed where both applications are concerned

and insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the retained

trees could be adequately protected during the development works. The layout

in-so-far as the spatial relationship between trees and buildings is concerned is

poor.

9.2 Furthermore, provision for new landscaping is weak and opportunities to utilise

larger areas for tree planting have not to my mind been taken. My assessment

is that a more considered proposal could seek to retain the key trees on the

site, integrate appropriate areas for structural tree planting into the scheme in

APArboriculture



21

strategic locations and make adequate provision for the retention and

enhancement of important boundary screening. This would lead to a lower

overall impact on local character and amenity.

9.3 From an arboricultural perspective, the proposals are not consistent with

national or local planning policy and do not accord with the recommendations

given in BS5837.

9.4 In the light of the above, I would respectfully request that the Inspector dismiss

both appeals.

APPENDIX 1

CORE DOCUMENTS:

Below are the universal references for the key documents referred to in this Proof of

Evidence that will be used by the LPA and Tesco representatives during the Inquiry:

CD 1 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (31 January 2005)

CD 15 Mole Valley District Council Local Plan (October 2000) (Amended

September 2007)

CD 16 Mole Valley District Council Core Strategy (October 2009)


CD 34 Landscape Supporting Statement by Aspect Landscape Planning

APArboriculture




CD 61 Landscape Supporting Statement by Aspect Landscape Planning

CD 74 Additional Landscape Information by Aspect Landscape

Planning

APArboriculture

Documents

Tescos Ashtead Trees Proof Final