www.planningportal.gov.

uk/planninginspectorate



Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 3 June 2014
Site visit made on 3 June 2014
by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 15 August 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/TRN/T0355/3780
Blacknest Park, Whitmore Lane, Sunningdale, Ascot
The appeal is made under regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Tree
Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 against a tree replacement notice (TRN).
The appeal is made by Distinctive Properties (Ascot) Ltd against the issuing of the
notice by Council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.
The Council's reference is B05/CS/OF/02/13.
The notice was issued on 15 January 2014.
The requirements of the notice are:
Within the area shown edged red, plant trees at a uniform 2.5m x 2.5m spacing, which
provides for 1,280 trees in total. The species to be made up as follows: 40% Common
alder (Alnus glutinosa), 25% White willow (Salix alba), 25% Crack willow (salix
Fragilis), 5% English oak (Quercus robur) and 5% Common beech (Fagus sylvatica).
Major species (Alder, Willow) should be planted in groups of 20 and minor species in
groups of 7 (Oak, Beech). The trees to be planted in single species groups to allow for
some natural mortality during establishment (less than 15%) and to enhance the
probability of any species surviving until the woodland matures and natural successional
changes come about. The English oak and Common beech shall be planted running
adjacent to the north western boundary on the slightly higher ground which affords
drier conditions.
The trees must be 60-90cm in height. They shall be bare root, or container grown. All
trees must be nursery grown, of English provenance and planting shall be carried out in
accordance with the Code of practice for General Landscape Operations BS 4428 1989
and other industry standards applicable at the time. They must be maintained to ensure
establishment (up to 15% natural mortality allowed).
Each tree must be protected with an appropriate sized tree shelter, minimum 75cm tall,
until establishment.
Planting to be carried out within a planting season which is regarded as November
through to March inclusive.
The period of compliance within the notice is 10 months.
The appeal is proceeding on grounds set out in section 208(1) (a), (aa), and (b) of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The relevant Tree Preservation Order (TPO) is Tree Preservation Order 36 of 2004,
which was confirmed on 24 June 2004.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed on ground (b) insofar as it relates to the period for
compliance, and the Tree Replacement Notice is varied as follows: After the
heading Time for Compliance in Section 4 of the Notice, delete the words
Within 10 months from the date this notice takes effect and substitute
therefor the words Within 24 months of the date this notice takes effect.
Appeal Decision APP/TRN/T0355/3780


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2
2. Subject to this variation the Tree Replacement Notice (TRN) is upheld.
Application for Costs
3. At the Hearing an application for costs was made by the appellant against the
Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Reasons
4. The original Tree Preservation Order (TPO) covering the site is TPO 1 of 1957.
According to the Council, TPO 36 of 2004 was made in response to
development pressures to deter the removal of part of this woodland.
5. It is stretching credulity, in my view, to argue that at the time of confirmation,
there was no woodland in the area indicated on the TRN, in 1957, or 2004. It
seems to me reasonable to assume that the landowner(s) at the time(s) would
have sustained objections to the TPOs if the area proposed for coverage, did
not contain woodland.
6. Moreover, there is ample evidence in material submitted with previous
development proposals for the site, notably the Landscape Strategy for
Blacknest Park submitted with application ref.00/79399, and the Agreement
under Section 106 dated 20 October 2004 linked to planning permission
granted for three detached dwellings under ref.03/84675, that the area
covered by the TRN, has contained woodland.
7. The area highlighted in the TRN has no woodland in place currently and it is
agreed between the parties that said area was cleared in April/May 2012. There
is an issue raised on behalf of the appellant about precisely what was cleared
at that time which the appellant says was mainly rhododendron and cherry
laurel. However, there is an acceptance that the twenty seven stumps
identified and photographed by the Council shortly after the operations took
place give rise to a duty to replant replacement trees. That duty has not been
complied with hence the appeal on ground (a) cannot succeed.
8. Notwithstanding that, there was woodland in place when the TPO 36 of 2004
was confirmed, in the area covered by the TRN, and subsequently. This
woodland is no longer in place. The judgement in Palm Developments Ltd v
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Medway Council
[2009] EWHC 220 (Admin) held that with woodland TPOs there are no
limitations in terms of size for what is to be treated as a tree. In other words,
saplings are trees, and on top of that, a woodland TPO extends to all trees in a
woodland, even if not in existence at the time the Order is made.
9. In that context, the appellant is wrong to concentrate on the stumps identified
because that fails to have regard to any saplings or other potential trees that
might well have been removed as part of the clearance works too. The purpose
of the TRN is to secure the reinstatement of woodland in the area concerned. It
is difficult to see how that could be achieved other than through the use of
standard planting densities and in that context, the number of trees set out in
the TRN is not unreasonable. The appeal on ground (aa) fails, therefore.
10. While the TRN is reasonable in principle, therefore, there is a complication.
Clearance works took place in April/May 2012 but from October 2012 (that is
prior to the 2012/13 planting season), the appellant instigated discussions with
the Council about the potential for development of the area at issue.
Appeal Decision APP/TRN/T0355/3780


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3
11. An application for planning permission for a dwelling and ancillary works was
made in February 2013. Planning permission was refused by the Council in
June 2013 and an appeal was lodged in October 2013
1
. While they had been
aware of the clearance works for some time, the Council served the TRN on 15
January 2014, when this appeal process was already well in train. If that
appeal under Section 78 of the Act is allowed and planning permission is
granted for the dwelling and ancillary works, then the provisions of the TRN
and indeed, the TPOs, would be rendered otiose.
12. The Inquiry that is dealing with the parallel appeal under Section 78 is
programmed to resume in October 2014. While it is reasonable to expect the
Inquiry to be completed in the allotted time, the decision will take some time
afterwards to produce and there is the potential for subsequent challenge to be
catered for. In that context, the period of 10 months for compliance, set out in
the TRN, seems unreasonably short. It is very possible that the Section 78
appeal will not have run its course by the time 10 months has elapsed and it
would be perverse to require the appellant to replant trees as a consequence of
the TRN, when there is still the potential for the requirements of that TRN to be
overridden by the appeal under Section 78.
13. On that basis, it seems to me reasonable to extend the period for compliance
to 24 months. This I can do without prejudice to any party and the appeal on
ground (b) succeeds to that limited extent. I conclude, therefore, having
considered all other matters raised, that the TRN should be upheld, with that
variation.
Paul Griffiths
INSPECTOR

1
APP/T0355/A/13/2206888
Appeal Decision APP/TRN/T0355/3780


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4
APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:
Julian Forbes-Laird
Dip.Arb (RFS) M.Arbor.A
Director and Principal Consultant, Forbes-Laird
Arboricultural Consultancy

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Helen Leonard
MICFor F.Arbor.A Dip.Arb (RFS)
Arboricultural Co-ordinator, RBW&M
Nick Clark

INTERESTED PERSONS:
Dr Andrea Berardi Local Landowner
Councillor David Hilton Local Ward Member
Diana Tombs Local Resident
Christine Gadd Local Resident
Andrew Colebrook Member of the Public
Matthew Lucas Member of the Public
Douglas Bond Woolf Bond
Patrick Stileman
Dip.Arb (RFS) M.Arbor.A
Forbes-Laird Arboricultural Consultancy

DOCUMENTS

1 Statutory Declaration of Chris Logsdon
2 RBW&M response to the appellants costs application
3 Extracts from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990