‘Precious’ woodland is to be protected after an objection which claimed an tree preservation order could ‘hinder development’.
The trees at Templecombe Drive are now subject to a preservation order meaning they cannot be cut down, topped, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed without the local planning authority’s written consent.
An objection was registered against the order from Antony Ratcliff on the grounds that it would hinder management of the land, but this was dismissed by the planning committee.
Templecombe Drive is in Astley Bridge, where residential streets give way to open fields.
Bolton’s planning committee heard the objection had been made to a tree protection order recently applied to the open woodland just off Belmont Road, at the junction of Templecombe Drive in the far north of the borough.
Councillors heard that last year a tree protection order (TPO) was made to protect woodland consisting mainly of Cherry, Lawson Cypress, Field Maple, Hawthorn, Silver Birch, Willow, Norway Maple, Horse Chestnut, Hazel and Holly.
In letters of support locals described the woods as ‘an important landmark’ and that it was home to various birds, bats, owls, deer and hedgehogs.
Councillors heard that the TPO was a ‘precautionary measure’ to safeguard the trees.
The measures to protect the trees were supported by 73 residents who wrote to the authority, with a single objection.
An objector, Mr Ali addressed the meeting.
He said: “This is not an argument against trees or against appropriate protection. “It’s about ensuring that any protection is proportionate and evidence based and does not overly restrict the future use of the land.
“Many of the trees are young to semi-mature and largely self-seeded and are of mixed quality individually.
“They do not meet the threshold for protection.
“The justification relies on their collective value
“A blanket woodland TPO on an entire site including open areas and low quality growth is a blunt tool.
“The TPO in it’s current form pre-empts any future planning considerations.”
Long-standing Astley Bridge ward councillor John Walsh, who was chairing the meeting said that in 1987 when the application for homes near the site was approved, the woodland in question was highlighted as being of amenity value and so was not developed.
He added: “if you travel from the very south of the borough though Kearsley, up the A666 and up Belmont Road, this is the first woodland area adjacent to the highway, there are no others along the whole of that stretch.
“That’s one of the reason why it’s important that it’s preserved.
“The junction of Templecombe Drive was actually dog-legged to preserve the woodland in 1987. “Nothing has changed in that sense.”
Cllr David Grant, said: “The objector’s comments say it would be ‘unhelpful for a future planning application’.
“That outlines clearly what the intentions are.
“The residents were right in bringing this TPO request to us.
“Ordinarily, residents’ first notion of a planning application is when trees are being cut down one morning at 6am”
The meeting heard that if or when development proposals came forward for the land they would be considered ‘at that stage’ and the council didn’t believe the current TPO placed any restrictions on the landowner in terms of maintenance and other matters.
A Templecombe Drive resident, said: “I’m glad this has happened. The trees, the woodland are precious to this neighbourhood.
“I’d much rather look at them that new houses.”
Astley Bridge councillor Hilary Fairclough said: "I'm absolutely delighted the full order has been upheld.
"It is something that was very much wanted by the community, and they have all helped support it.
"The trees are a huge focal point for the area.
"Ever since the estate went up I drive past them daily - you don't really how much they add to the area until you try to imagine them not being there."
The trees in question are located at the top of Templecombe Drive, at the junction with Belmont Road.
Cllr Fairclough was active in helping gather local support for the preservation order.
The protection order was first put forward last September, after which the objection was received.
There were 72 comments submitted in favour of the protection order.
One noted that the trees help 'disguise the relay station and electricity substation' in the area.
Others noted the importance of the trees in preserving 'woodland and the wildlife habitat.'
The objections to the TPO order focused on the potential difficulties of managing the land while the TPO is in place, and how 'unhelpful' it would be for future planning on the site.
The preservation order was unanimously upheld by the planning committee during a meeting on March 26.
Share