THE COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF MILTON KEYNES (LAND ADJACENT TO ALBERT STREET AND SOUTH TERRACE, BLETCHLEY) TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 2007

Transcription

1 PS/540/15/306 THE COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF MILTON KEYNES (LAND ADJACENT TO ALBERT STREET AND SOUTH TERRACE, BLETCHLEY) TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 2007 INTRODUCTION The above Order was made on 15 February 2007 under the delegated powers of the Head of Planning & Transport, minute reference CL64/01 in accordance with instructions dated 9 February Notices of the making of the Order were served the same day. The Order covers fourteen individual Birch trees, three individual rowan trees and one Alder tree on land adjacent to Albert Street and South Terrace, Bletchley, Milton Keynes. A letter of objection has been received in relation to the Order. An Order was previously made on 20 October 2006 relating to three groups of trees on land at the above site. This order was not confirmed, following a decision to make the Order stated above, which specifies trees on an individual basis. BACKGROUND A detailed planning application (07/00033/FUL) was submitted for the relocation of trolley bay, removal of existing loading bay kerb and lift, increased car parking provision comprising 67 additional parking spaces, new entrance and glazed canopy at the above site. The proposed development would result in the removal of the trees in question which are considered to have a high amenity value and should be retained as part of any scheme, or replacements provided. OBJECTIONS An objection has been received from Turley Associates of 10 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT, the salient points of which are as follows: The objection is made on behalf of Aldi Stores Ltd who have been seeking to obtain planning permission for alterations to be made to the former Kwik Save store in this location to enable it to be operated as an Aldi foodstore. Background to the Objection Due to the established use as a retail foodstore no objection was raised by the Planning Department to the principle of the site s reuse as an Aldi foodstore. Observations were received from the Council s Highways Engineer and Aldi accordingly amended proposals to ensure matters of access, servicing and cycle and vehicular parking provision were agreed. We were advised that, subject to Highways agreeing to the changes, planning permission would be granted by 18 September.

2 2

3 3

4 A letter from the Planning Department dated 22 August 2006 confirmed the Highways engineer considered that adequate car parking was provided, no objection to the level of parking proposed was raised at this time or during subsequent correspondence. This was the position on 12 September 2006 and we were advised 4

5 that planning permission could be granted shortly thereafter. In a letter dated 23 September 2006 we were advised by the Council s Landscape Officer the increase in parking spaces and loss of trees along Albert Street was unacceptable. The trees were considered to form a continuation of the Albert Street car park tree line and provided good mitigation of the former Kwik Save car park and building when viewed from Albert Street. Also it was noted a number of trees were shown to be removed along South Terrrace adjacent to the side elevation of the building, and that these trees should be retained. A revised scheme was submitted on 11 October It showed the retention of two trees on the Albert Street frontage, with a further new tree being planted in this location in addition to the retention of trees adjacent to the car park on South Terrace as originally proposed, and as none of the trees were the subject of a TPO they were not considered to be of any particular value. On 23 October 2006 a TPO was received relating to trees on Albert Street and South Terrace; the trees adjacent to the building on South Terrace were not included. On 23 November an objection was made relating to a number of the trees not being suitable for protection under the Order. The planning application for the proposed alterations to the store was refused on 30 October On 18 December 2006, a revised application was submitted. The application in response to the reasons for refusal of the previous application did not propose an increase in parking numbers nor did it seek the removal of the trees the subject of the TPO at that time. In an from the Planning Department dated 31 January 2001 we were advised that the Landscape Officer condones the loss of trees along south Terrace which were not covered by the TPO. The trees are very prominent and continue to tree line and make a strong contribution to the wider tree structure. There is no reason why these trees cannot be retained as part of the scheme. We were subsequently verbally advised that the TPO was being amended to incorporate the trees adjacent to the store building on South Terrace and we responded on 5 February 2007: It is not possible for Aldi to agree to the retention of the trees. The removal of the trees is fundamental to Aldi s aspirations for the site. Their removal will facilitate the improvements needed to be made to the store building to modernise it and ensure it can operate as a high quality retain environment. The alterations to the access point are required to provide safe and efficient access to the site. This cannot be achieved without the removal of trees on South Terrace. The installation of a canopy is also a key feature of the store in achieving a user friendly environment and a high architectural standard. It would not be possible for Aldi to retain both the trees and the canopy. The trees also have a detrimental impact on the visibility of the store which is fundamental to its viability. The former 5

6 Kwik Save store in this location failed. Aldi must therefore ensure that an attractive retail environment can be created if the store is to be a success. I have considered your suggestion that planning permission could be granted in a situation where the trees are retained. Unfortunately, I did not consider this benefits Aldi, as it would essentially mean that my client has an unimplementable permission and would have foregone the right to appeal the proposals. Aldi are firmly of the view that having adapted their proposals for the site following the TPO issued on the trees further along South Terrace and on Albert Street, that the wider economic, environmental and job creation benefits which would be secured would outweigh the impact of the loss of the trees on South Terrace, adjacent to the store. The position is all the more frustrating for Aldi as the TPO is now being amended. The trees in question were omitted from the original TPO and were not surveyed by the Officer when considering the trees to which the TPO originally related. You are quite right to note that the trees on South Terrace are referenced in the reason for refusal of the first application. However, the revised application was prepared on the basis that line of trees referred to comprised those trees referred to in the TPO, and that as the site has been recently surveyed by an Officer in preparing the TPO, the trees not identified (in the TPO) were accordingly not of particular value. It was therefore disappointing to discover that these trees are now considered to be of sufficient quality to merit protection through a TPO, and that the importance of their retention is considered to outweigh the benefits to be secured in bringing a vacant site back into use and resultant job creation. I would therefore request that the Council reconsiders it position with regard to the trees on South Terrace which are the subject of the amended TPO. Taking all factors into account, the planning balance weighs firmly in favour of permitting the development as proposed, i.e. without the retention of the trees for which the TPO is being amended. The re-use of the site and the benefits this would bring are being impeded, unnecessarily in our view in order to retain trees of no immediate value, by the revised TPO. If the application is refused, I am instructed to inform you Aldi will pursue the proposals through the appeal process if necessary. The application was refused on 14 February 2007, the reason being: The loss of trees and shrubs along the Albert Street frontage and a line of trees along South Terrace frontage which have a high amenity value would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of this part of Albert Street and South Terrace. The development as proposed would therefore be consistent with policy D1 (c) of the adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan (2001). The reason for refusal is factually incorrect as there would be no loss of trees and shrubs along the Albert Street frontage as a result of the application proposals, which sought the removal of trees along South Terrace alone. On 19 February we received the amended TPO, which includes the trees adjacent to South Terrace, which were proposed to be removed. 6

7 The Objection Our objection to the amended TPO concerns the manner in which this matter has been addressed by the Council s Planning and Landscape Officers. The application proposals propose significant environmental improvement to a vacant site. The proposals would have brought a vacant site back into use, creating jobs, providing a valuable retail facility to replace that which was lost and make a substantial contribution to Bletchley s vitality and viability. The TPO in its current form restricts the ability of Aldi to secure a viable store operation on the site. Visibility is a key element of the viability of a store; it must be visible to potential customers to attract the required levels of trade. The removal of the trees as proposed would enable significant improvements to be made to the store building, which would in turn improve the contribution to the character of the built environment it makes. The removal of the trees would facilitate the installation of a canopy and hardstanding area to provide weather protected cycle parking and trolley bay and provide circulation space for shoppers. There would be significant improvement to the facilities provided by the existing store, and the proposed changes would enable Aldi to provide a high quality retail environment commensurate to its operations. The removal of several of the trees is also required to enable alterations to be made to the access point, in accordance with the Highway Department s recommendations. This alteration would ensure safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian access to the store can be achieved. We consider the proposed amendment to the TPO is not appropriate. It would stifle the re-use of an important retail facility which would secure substantial benefits to Bletchley in terms of environmental, economic and job creation gains. The TPO in its current form should not be confirmed. The original TPO, which excludes the trees on South Terrace adjacent to the store building, is the appropriate form in which the TPO should be confirmed. We consider that a significant economic development opportunity is being impeded for the sake of seven trees, not previously identified as being of sufficient quality to be the subject of a TPO, and overlooked for inclusion within the TPO in its original form when the survey of the site was undertaken. LANDSCAPE RESPONSE The Arboricultural Officer's response to the objection is as follows: In the background statement Turleys state that as the trees were not subject to a TPO originally it follows they were not considered to be of value. This is not the case; most trees do not have a TPO; this is purely due to the fact that it has not been seen as necessary to serve one. The decision to serve must be properly 7

8 considered. I submit the paradox that if all trees without TPOs are considered to be of little value then for that very reason it would follow that a TPO would never again be served. I would summarise the objection to the serving of the TPO is that Turleys assert that the serving of the order stifles development. A number of initiatives are described that they claim will enhance the area that fuel development. Whilst Turleys do not state it in as many words they seem to believe that the benefits they propose outweigh the benefits confer on the are, and that a choice of tree retention and their proposals is absolute in that there is no possible compromise. Balancing the needs and values of elements in the landscape is determined during the Planning application process. The TPO merely ensures that the trees remain in situ so that they can be assessed as a material consideration in that Planning process. The TPO itself is only a barrier to unauthorised felling of the trees themselves. The trees are clearly visible from the public domain and have an amenity value. For this reason the TPO is valid in my view based on advice from the Department of Communities and Local Government. PLANNING RESPONSES It is general practice for the Council to serve a Tree Preservation Order on trees that are under threat from various quarters but most usually from the threat of development. This ensures the retention of a tree or trees so that they can be considered in the planning and development of the site with the best trees being retained. There is no limit to the number of trees that can be covered by an Order. The trees along the South Terrace frontage were under threat from development as a result of planning application 07/00033/FUL which included the removal of seven silver birch trees, which are covered by the amended TPO. These trees are considered to be very prominent, they continue the tree line and generally make a strong contribution to the wider tree structure, and should be retained as part of any scheme. The application was refused as the loss of the trees along South Terrace frontage would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. It is reasonable to retain good quality trees within development sites. The Council s tree officer advised that the trees were suitable to be protected by an amended Order and that the seven silver birch trees scored 576 points under the Arboricultural Evaluation system. If all the trees were to be removed then the soft leafy character of this part of South Terrace would be changed forever to its detriment. Although the proposed development would bring back into use a vacant building and would assist with the regeneration of Bletchley it is considered that this does not outweigh the loss of the trees, which are considered to have a high amenity value in an otherwise built up area. Turley Associates have decided that their proposals are absolute and despite requests to compromise have chosen not to do so This Order is not considered to restrict Aldi s ability to secure a viable operation. Express advertisement consent has been granted for a non-illuminated free standing sign board on the corner of Albert Street and South Terrace which would inform the public about the operation taking place on the site. 8

9 RECOMMENDATION The Order may now be confirmed with or without modification under Section 199 of the Town and Country Planning Act It is recommended that the Order be confirmed without modification. 9