A.! Forestry Commission ~England

3D Eagle Wing Direct Line: 0303 444 5634 Temple Quay House Customer Services: 2 The Square 0303 444 5000 Bristol BS1 6PN Email: [email protected]

www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Wiltshire Council Your Ref: Planning Appeals Our Ref: APP/Y3940/W/18/3202433 Monkton Park Office Chippenham Wiltshire SN5 1ER

17 December 2018

Dear Sir/Madam,

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Appeal by Mr R Beale Site Address: Quary Farm, Ansty, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP3 5PS

I enclose for your information a copy of the third party correspondence on the above appeal(s).

If you have any comments on the points raised, please send 2 copies to me no later than 31 December 2018. You should comment solely on the representations enclosed with this letter.

You cannot introduce new material or put forward arguments that should have been included in your earlier statement. If you do, your comments will not be accepted and will be returned to you.

Comments submitted after the deadline will not be seen by the Inspector unless there are extraordinary circumstances for the late submission.

Yours faithfully,

Pauline Dun Pauline Dun

Where applicable, you can use the internet to submit documents, to see information and to check the progress of cases through the Planning Portal. The address of our search page is - www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/ appeals/online/search To: West1[[email protected]] From: West 2 Sent: Wed 28/11/2018 10:23:33 AM Importance: Normal Subject: FW: Land at Quarry Farm Ansty, Salisbury, APP/Y3940/W/18/3202433. [Scanned] MAIL_RECEIVED: Wed 28/11/2018 10:23:35 AM Attachment 2018 11 27 3202433 Quarry Farm Ansty.docx

FAO Pauline!

Sean Ernsting Case Officer

Team West 2, Room 3D The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN

Direct Line: 0303 444 5120 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected]

Web: infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk (National Infrastructure Planning)

Web: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/planning-inspectorate (The Planning Inspectorate)

Twitter: @PINSgov

This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Information Charter before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

Customers are at the heart of everything we do – view our Customer Charter.

From: Shirley Merrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 November 2018 09:31 To: West 2 Subject: Land at Quarry Farm Ansty, Salisbury, APP/Y3940/W/18/3202433. [Scanned]

Dear Sirs

Please see the attached response from the Cranborne Chase AONB to the appeal at Quarry Farm, Ansty, Salisbury.

Appeal number APP/Y3940/W/18/3202433, Wiltshire Council.

I have been unable to access your website search function for two days so I am unable to check the correct email address for this response.

Regards

Shirley

Shirley Merrick Team Support Officer

I work part time, Monday to Wednesday 9am - 5pm Cranborne Chase AONB Shears Building Stone Lane Industrial Estate Wimborne BH21 1HB Tel: 01725 517417

Follow us: on Facebook • on Twitter • on Blogger AONB Web Links: Management Plan • Farmland Birds Project • Historic Landscape Project

______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______For official use only (date received): 11/12/2018 11:47:48

The Planning Inspectorate

COMMENTS ON CASE (Online Version)

Please note that comments about this case need to be made within the timetable. This can be found in the notification letter sent by the local planning authority or the start date letter. Comments submitted after the deadline may be considered invalid and returned to sender.

Appeal Reference: APP/Y3940/W/18/3202433

DETAILS OF THE CASE

Appeal Reference APP/Y3940/W/18/3202433

Appeal By MR R BEALE

Site Address Quary Farm Ansty Salisbury Wiltshire SP3 5PS

SENDER DETAILS

Name DR S KEENE

Address 3 jacksons Terrace The Quarry Tisbury SP3 6HN

Campaign to Protect Rural England: Wiltshire: South Company/Group/Organisation Name Wiltshire Group

ABOUT YOUR COMMENTS

In what capacity do you wish to make representations on this case?

Appellant Agent Interested Party / Person Land Owner Rule 6 (6)

What kind of representation are you making?

Final Comments Proof of Evidence Statement Statement of Common Ground

Page 1 of 3 Interested Party/Person Correspondence Other

Page 2 of 3 COMMENT DOCUMENTS

The documents listed below were uploaded with this form:

Relates to Section: REPRESENTATION Document Description: Your comments on the appeal. File name: CPRE_objection.doc File name: CPRE_photos.docx

PLEASE ENSURE THAT A COPY OF THIS SHEET IS ENCLOSED WHEN POSTING THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS TO US

Page 3 of 3

SOUTH WILTSHIRE GROUP

The Planning Inspectorate Contact: S. Keene 3D Eagle Wing 3 Jacksons Terrace Temple Quay House The Quarry, Tisbury 2 The Square Bristol Wilts SP3 6HN BS1 6PN

Preferred contact – email

11 December 2018

Dear Inspector,

Appeal APP/Y3940/W/18/3202433

Retrospective planning application 17/07360/FUL. Land at Quarry Farm, Ansty. Re-profiling of ground and provision of hard surfaces (retrospective)

I write on behalf of the Campaign for Rural England, South Wiltshire Group. The CPRE campaigns for a beautiful and thriving countryside that’s valued and enjoyed by everyone.

I wish to expand on my letter of objection dated 12th October 2017 to the retrospective planning application, 17/07360/FUL. I regularly drive along this stretch of the A30 and I have observed the work on this site continuously. Planning policies and use of the site It is not clear that this development is intended for agricultural use. We can find no evidence that the development is for agricultural purposes, as the officer’s report sets out, 1. Principle and agricultural justification for the development. We note that the appellant does operate a portable toilet business from the adjacent Copseside Farm site and has not disputed the statement in the officer’s report that he does not engage in farming.  The appellant gives storage and use of agricultural machinery as the main purpose of the development  But the appellant’s Appeal application form (I, part two) states that none of the land relates to or is part of an agricultural holding, and none is shown on the (very uninformative) plans submitted with the application. If the land is not part of or related to such a holding why it should be needed for this purpose?

CPRE Wiltshire, Renelec House, 46 New Park St, Devizes, Wiltshire, SN10 1DT  The Grounds of Appeal (6.1) also claim that the development is for agricultural use and (7.2) states that the site is to be hard standing for agricultural equipment and machinery. The appellant claims that he is unable to farm an adjacent site (not shown on the application or appeal plans) without the hard standing. However, the farmland to the west that was said in the 2017 Copseside Farm application to be owned by the appellant (16/07990/FUL, Plan 11) is now being actively farmed and therefore there must be provision elsewhere for equipment and machinery, as none is visible in the appeal site. The only evidence of use of the appeal site to date is for Wessex Water equipment and machinery, noted in the officer’s report. Planning policy: the Core Plan and the Revised NPPF

Since there is no evidence that the development is intended for agricultural use, the application is covered by the Revised NPPF, Para. 172, which states that: Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection …. The NPPF goes on to stress that such areas should be protected from development.

Wiltshire Core Policies 50, Biodiversity and geodiversity; 51, Landscape; and 57, Ensuring high quality design and place shaping, in the Wiltshire Core Plan comply with the Revised NPPF, and they also fully apply to this application.

Clauses in the GPDO 2015 Part 6 Class A, referred to in the officer’s report, do not permit the development: Clause A.1: Development is not permitted by Class A if – (d) it it would involve the provision of a building, structure or works not designed for agricultural purposes

This provision clearly applies to this retrospective application. No overriding public benefit from this development is shown in either the application or the Grounds for Appeal. Visibility and effects on landscape The development is contrary to Wiltshire Core Policy 51, Landscape. The site is highly visible from the A30, as is clearly shown in photos in the officer’s report. It is also visible through trees from the adjacent public footpath. The established woodland herbaceous species that clothed the bank before the works took place (Photo 2, August 2016) may be compared to its stark appearance now. The vegetation now partly covering the reprofiled bank (Photo, Officer’s report,) does nothing to disguise the development. The appeal site is visually associated with the extensive works on the adjacent site to the south east, Application 16/07990/FUL, Copseside Farm. Both sites are within the AONB. The Copseside Farm site was previously an attractive green field bordered by species rich woodland copses, now partly destroyed.

2 We appreciate that the Copseside Farm site is not part of this appeal case. However, the evidence suggests that further trees will be felled and both sites will eventually be extended and used in conjunction (for example, Photos 4, 5 and 6). Currently (December 2018) considerable earth moving is taking place (without planning permission) on the Copseside Farm site near the entrance from the A30, close to the appeal site (Photo 5). The Copseside Farm site is being extensively developed with a hard track (outwith the planning permission granted for it) (Photos 5 and 6) and large, very obtrusive, bunds and access. This site is highly visible from popular public rights of way on the high downland to the south as well as from the adjacent diverted public footpath and also from the A30 road and the road from Ansty to the north. This was part of the basis for objections by the AONB and the CPRE, among others, to that earlier application. Ecology and woodland Satellite images show that in 2011 the appeal site was established woodland, a large area of which has now been destroyed and converted to hard standing with large and obtrusive banks and bunds, now largely grass covered (Photos 1 - 4). CPRE notes and concurs with the comments in the objection by C. Watkin. Our observations and photos support this objection. The Grounds of Appeal document states (2.3) that trees were felled some time ago. The felling took place in summer 2016 (photo, dated Google Street View), a short time before the works to the site began, and were clearly intended to facilitate the development. The site was badly affected visually. The Grounds for appeal claim that the trees felled were diseased ash and larch. No evidence of tree disease has been produced, nor has any felling license. Highway safety We are very surprised that the highways officer has raised no objection. CPRE members have seen two serious accidents close to this site in recent years, one even before the development took place. There may well have been others. This was already a dangerous junction. The A30 road past the site slopes east downhill to the well used crossroads junction with the road to Ansty (to the north) and a small lane to the downland to the south. Caution is needed when exiting from either of these side roads, because of fast moving downhill traffic. For large slow moving vehicles exiting the site, the view of the road to their right, down towards the crossroads junction, is obscured by the now enlarged bank. A mirror has been installed opposite the site access to give a better view for exiting vehicles. Is this permitted practice? The entrance is also almost hidden from view to cars driving up the A30 from the crossroads (Photo 7). Conclusion If the appellant did not include facilties for agricultural machinery storage and use when he bought the farmland, (Appellant Grounds for Appeal, 7.4) the CPRE does not see why this should be constructed to the detriment of the public enjoyment of the natural beauty of this highly protected landscape.

3 The CPRE argues that the site should be reinstated to its previous contours, the hard standing deposits removed, and replanted and allowed to regenerate with native species as identified in the Ecology Report.

With kind regards

Suzanne Keene (Dr) For the CPRE South Wiltshire Group

4 CPRE Wiltshire, Renelec House, 46 New Park St, Devizes, Wiltshire, SN10 1DT CPRE - Appeal APP/Y3940/W/18/3202433 Retrospective planning application 17/07360/FUL. Land at Quarry Farm, Ansty.

Appeal site Copseside Farm site

Photo 1: 2011: Google Maps satellite view dated 4/7/2011. The Photo 2: 2016: Screenshot from Google Earth Street View dated August 2016. The appeal site is covered with well grown regenerated trees and appeal site clear felled. Existing herbaceous vegetation from the felled copse can be vegetation, as described in the Ecology report. seen on the bank towards the A30.

Appeal Appeal site site Copseside Farm Copseside site Farm site

Photo 3: 2017? Screenshot from Apple Maps satellite view, Photo 4: 2018: Screenshot from Google Earth satellite view. The appeal area now undated, but between August 2016 and May 2018. The area clear grass covered. A hard track has been laid down the adjacent Copseside Farm felled, covered in hard standing and profiled. development field. Dated 20/052018 Photo 5: 2018: Copseside Farm site, works near entrance, facing Photo 6: 2018: From the entrance to the Copseside Farm development field, hard towards the A30. The Quarry Farm appeal site is on the left, track. 22/11.2018 towards which mounds of earth have been formed. 22/11/2018

Photo 7: Site entrance (just behind the red car) from the A30 Google Earth© street view, August 2016. Vehicles exiting the site are concealed to vehicles driving up the road from the junction by the newly enlarged bank. For official use only (date received): 11/12/2018 11:13:04

The Planning Inspectorate

COMMENTS ON CASE (Online Version)

Appeal Reference: APP/Y3940/W/18/3202433

DETAILS OF THE CASE

Appeal Reference APP/Y3940/W/18/3202433

Appeal By MR R BEALE

Site Address Quary Farm Ansty Salisbury Wiltshire SP3 5PS

SENDER DETAILS

Name MISS ELLIE LITTLEJOHN

Address Forestry Commission 620 Bristol Business Park BRISTOL BS16 1EJ

Company/Group/Organisation Name Forestry Commission

ABOUT YOUR COMMENTS

In what capacity do you wish to make representations on this case?

Appellant Agent Interested Party / Person Land Owner Rule 6 (6)

What kind of representation are you making?

Final Comments Proof of Evidence Statement Statement of Common Ground Interested Party/Person Correspondence

Page 1 of 3 Other

Page 2 of 3 COMMENT DOCUMENTS

The documents listed below were uploaded with this form:

Relates to Section: REPRESENTATION Document Description: Your comments on the appeal. File name: 181211 Planning appeal response.pdf File name: 181211 Aerial images.pdf File name: 180417 Restocking Notice - Redacted - Denmead Copse.pdf File name: 180417 RN Covering Letter - Redacted - Denmead Copse.pdf File name: 180417 RN Map - Signed - Denmead Copse.pdf

PLEASE ENSURE THAT A COPY OF THIS SHEET IS ENCLOSED WHEN POSTING THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS TO US

Page 3 of 3 Forestry Commission NOTICE NO: RN34/17-18 FILE REF: AIF/018/2/17-18

FORESTRY ACT 1967

NOTICE REQUIRING THE RESTOCKING OR STOCKING OF LAND WITH TREES

Name and address of the person on Address of Issuing Office: whom the notice is serv-e--d: ----, Forestry Commission England National Office 620 Bristol Business Park Coldharbour Lane BRISTO.L BS16 1EJ

1. It has been established that you felled trees on land at Denmead Copse, Ansty, Salisbury, without a felling licence jn contravention of the provisions of the Forestry Act 1967. The Forestry Commissioners, in pursuance of their powers under Section 17A of that Act, hereby give notice requiring you to carry out the restocking specified in the schedule below.

Date: .~.18::..P.4- 1-=J E Calcott for the Forestry Commissioners

SCHEDULE

1. Before 30th June 2019 the felled area outlined in GREEN and YELLOW on the map attached to this Notice must be restocked with broadleaf species to achieve no less than 1,100 equally spaced stems per hectare. This equates to 682 trees at this site. 2. The following species are to be planted to achieve the restocking requirements under (1): 20% beech, 10% hornbeam, 10% field maple, 20% Norway maple, 20% alder, 15% wild cherry, 5% western red cedar. 3. For a period of 10 years from planting the trees must be properly protected against damage, adequately weeded and maintained in accordance with good forestry practice. 4. Any trees which fail, die or are otherwise lost during the 10 year period under (3) must be replaced by 30th June the following year to provide satisfactory restocking (see 1), and done so in accordance with .the rules and practice of good forestry.

5. If damaged or dislodged, any fences or individual tree guards deployed to maintain the trees must be replaced within the 10 year period under (3), within 31 days of that damage or dislodgement taking place, and done so in accordance with the rules and practice of good forestry.

Form PW25 (5/87) Forestry Commission Notice No.: RN34/17-18 File Ref: Alf /018/2/17-18

NOTES i. If the person to whom this notice is given objects to the notice or to the conditions contained in it, he may, by notice served on the appropriate Minister in the manner and within the period (three months) prescribed in Regulation BA of the Forestry (Felling of Trees) Regulations, 1979 (SI 1979 No 791) - as amended by the Forestry (Felling of Trees) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No 632) - request the appropriate Minister to refer the matter to a Committee appointed in accordance with Section 27 of t~e Forestry Act 1967. ii. If, after the expiration of the time specified in this notice, any of the steps required by the notice have not been taken, the Forestry Commissioners may, in accordance with the powers granted to them by Section 24 of the Forestry Act 1967, give notice to the owner of the land requiring such steps as may be specified in the notice to be taken to remedy the default. ·

Form PW25 (5/87) A.! Forestry Commission ~England

England National Office 620 Bristol Business Park, Coldharbour Lane Bristol BS16 lEJ

Tel: 0300 067 4130 [email protected] ..g ov.uk

17th April 2018

NOTICE NO: RN34/17-18 FILE REF: AIF/018/2/17-18.

Unlicenced Tree Felling: Denmead Copse, Ansty, Salisbury

FORESTRY ACT 1967 - SECTION 17A (AS AMENDED BY THE REGULATORY REFORM ORDER DATED MARCH 2006) - RESTOCKING NOTICE RN34/17-18

As you may be aware, the Forestry Commissioners have powers under Section 17A of the Forestry Act 1967 to require trees to be replaced on land (or any such other land as may be agreed), via a restockinq notice, where it appears that unlicensed tree felling has taken place, and where a responsible person has such an estate or interest in the land in question.

We normally seek to discuss restocking requirements and detailed prescriptions with owners before we issue a formal restocking notice with the aim of reaching agreement. In this regard I understand that we have been unable to reach agreement on this occasion because your agent was unable to work, within our timescales. As result I am issuing the Notice on the basis of the industry standard requirements for restocking woodland with broadleaves/conifers.

To ensure successful establishment, and therefore compliance with the Restock Notice, it is recommended that you undertake adequate ground preparation. Importing top soil would be of benefit once the hardstanding has been removed. Should you require any advice please do contact our Woodland Officer, Ian Briscoe as detailed below.

Therefore, in relation to the above mentioned powers, I am now enclosing Restocking Notice ref: RN34/17-18, dated 17th April 2018, which requires that the restocking specified in the notice, is carried out by 30th June 2019 and the trees maintained for a period of ten years from the tree planting having been completed.

Protecting and expanding England's forests and woodlands, and increasing their value to society and the environment. www.forestry.gov.uk/england If you should need any advice in relation to the work that you are required to carry out to meet the statutory obligations of the Notice, or on subsequent maintenance and/or protection, then please do not hesitate to contact Ian Briscoe at your local Forestry Commission Office. The address and telephone number is:

The Forestry Commission South West Area Office Bullers Hill Kennford Exeter EX6 7XR

Tel: 07831 732239

It would be helpful if you could advise the local Office once you have completed the tree planting, so that arrangements can be 'made with you for the necessary post planting inspection. Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation in this.

Finally, should you have any questions on any aspect of the Notice itself, or procedures associated with it, then contact me on the number shown below.

Yours sincerely,

Ellie Littlejohn Regulations Manager Direct Tel: 0300 067 5831 E-mail: [email protected] .uk

Copy to: Mr J Fry, Field Manager, Forestry Commission (by e-mail) Mr I Briscoe, Woodland Officer, Forestry Commission (by e-mail)

Page 2 ......

......

. .. D Area felled stumps remain in situ ......

Felling Boundary . . .

,ff ~I Scale 1 :870 on A4 paper England f~· Copyright Forestry Commission, Ordnance Survey (,. Printed: Oct 17, 2017 1 :08:07 PM Aerial image from https://latlngfinder.com/b.php (date unknown):

Aerial image from Google maps (date unknown):

England National Office 620 Bristol Business Park, Coldharbour Lane Bristol BS16 1EJ

Tel: 0300 067 4000

Planning Inspectorate Fax: 0117 931 2859 Room 3/10b Kite Wing [email protected] 2 The Square Temple Quay House Bristol BS1 6PN

11 December 2018

Inspectorate reference: APP/Y3940/W/18/3202433 Appellants name: Mr R Beale Appeal site: Land at Quarry Farm, Ansty, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP3 59S Proposed development: Re-profiling of ground and provision of hard surfaces (Retrospective)

Dear Sir/Madam

I write with regards to the appeal against a refusal in respect of the above site.

The Forestry Commission is the government department and regulator responsible for forestry in England. The Commission protects England’s woodland and forests and encourages best practise by setting standards, giving advice and issuing grants. As the government’s forestry experts the Commission is also responsible for the control of tree felling through the provision of felling licences.

Ordinarily the Forestry Commission does not comment on planning proposals; however the aforementioned site is subject to a Restocking Notice following what appeared to the Forestry Commission to be illegal tree felling, which facilitated the installation of the hardstanding. Whilst planning decisions are exclusively the preserve of the local planning authority, I would bring your attention to the legal and environmental effects of upholding this appeal.

Due to data protection we will not name the person served with the Restocking Notice.

Case Overview

Located 1.5km south west of a small rural village called Swallowcliffe, in the Cranborne Chase & West Wiltshire Downs AONB, the site is adjacent to the A30, and part of the felled site is visible from the road. The established woodland known as Denmead Copse is identified within Natural England’s Priority Habitat Inventory as deciduous woodland. The site is also listed on the National Forest Inventory.

The Forestry Commission was notified that tree felling had occurred on the site. The initial site visit in July 2016 confirmed the felling of a number of roadside trees. The Forestry Commission Woodland Officer felt the felling was acceptable, as trees may have been dangerous and therefore exempt from the requirement for a licence. No further action was taken.

In October 2017 our Woodland Officer was notified of a retrospective planning application on the aforementioned site. This prompted a subsequent site visit, which revealed a far larger area had been felled since the initial site visit. Following this second visit, an alleged illegal felling investigation was conducted by the Forestry Commission, which confirmed that over 67m3 across 0.62 hectares had been felled between July 2016 and April 2017. Tree felling of that volume, where no exemptions apply, requires a felling licence. When felling licences are issued by the Forestry Commission, typically they require restocking of the land post felling as a condition of the licence.

The requirement for a felling licence is set out in section 9 of the Forestry Act 1967. Unless an exemption applies, all tree felling in England must be authorised by a felling licence in order to avoid committing a criminal offence.

Legal objection

Unlicenced tree felling, where a licence is required, is an offence under section 17 of the Forestry Act 1967, of which section 17A empowers the Forestry Commission to issue a Restocking Notice where it appears to the Commission that an offence has been committed. The Notice places a duty on the landowner to restock the land with trees (or any such other land as may be agreed), where it appears that illegal tree felling has taken place, and where a responsible person has an interest in the land in question (freehold, leasehold, tenant, etc.). The purpose of the Notice is to restore the land to as close a condition as it was previously, prior to the unauthorised action being taken. Once served, a Notice cannot be retracted or amended.

Our case investigation established that no exemptions to the requirement for a felling licence applied, therefore the felling was unlawful. I wrote to the landowner on the 29 November 2017, providing him with a six week window, within which time he could meet with the Forestry Commission Woodland Officer, so he could contribute to the conditions of the Restocking Notice. The letter clearly stated that if no agreement was made in this time that the Forestry Commission may issue a Notice based on guidelines for sustainable woodland management for the original felled area. The landowner confirmed that he had employed the services of an agent, who would work with the Forestry Commission to agree the conditions of the Notice.

Unfortunately the agent in question failed to work with our Woodland Officer to agree the Notice prescription, despite our offering an extension to the deadline. A site meeting, attended by the Forestry Commission, landowner and agent had been held on the 8 February 2018, after which the agent failed to continue correspondence to reach a satisfactory outcome. The six week window was extended by nearly five months, by

Page 2

the end of which time the Forestry Commission bought the matter to a close by serving a Notice containing conditions based on industry standards.

It should be noted that during the site meeting on 8 February 2018, restocking an alternative site was discussed, and subsequently refused on the grounds that there was no silvicultural justification for the proposal. The fact that the landowner proceeded with the felling and installation of ground works without the correct permissions in place is not sufficient reasoning for an alternative restock location. As mentioned previously, the purpose of the Notice is to restore the land to as close a condition as it was previously, prior to the unauthorised action being taken.

As such, Restocking Notice RN34/17-18 was served on the 19 April 2018, and requires the landowner to restock the land with no less than 682 broadleaved trees by 30 June 2019. The trees should then be maintained for a period of ten years from planting. The area where the roadside trees were located, which may have constituted a danger, has been excluded from the conditions of the Notice. A copy of the Restocking Notice and map is enclosed for your information.

Some weeks after the issuance of the Notice, the landowner served with the Restocking Notice then tried to claim an exemption from the requirement for a felling licence as some of the ash trees were displaying symptoms of Chalara. However, our Woodland Officer reported no signs of any pests or diseases on his previous site visit. Furthermore, it should be noted that the presence of tree diseases does not grant the authority to fell those trees. The Forestry Act does not detail tree diseases as an exemption to the requirement for a felling licence. In fact, premature felling can accelerate the presence of some symptoms as young trees/coppice regrowth are less reliant to infection than more mature specimens. Current tree health advice produced by the Forestry Commission states that diseased ash should not be felled (unless posing a danger to life, such as roadside trees), so that they may continue to live out the rest of their natural life, and potentially resistant specimens identified for the future. Note, the landowner was unable to provide any photographic evidence or arboricultural report to substantiate his claim that the trees were diseased to the point of being dangerous.

The landowner went on to claim that he refuted the Notice because the land was not identified as woodland on historic maps. The Forestry Commission rejects this premise based on the fact that land type is irrelevant in the application of the Forestry Act. The requirement for a felling licence as set out in section 9 of the Act refers to growing trees, not whether the trees are located in woodland.

It is worth noting that the Restocking Notice which was served in this case clearly outlines the formal appeal process. The landowner chose not to submit an appeal to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

For the landowner to achieve his vision for the site, he could have chosen to adhere to the legislative routes available to him. Utilising the planning regime the landowner could have applied for planning permission including the requirement to fell trees, a condition of which, could have stipulated compensatory planting in balance of the loss

Page 3

of woodland cover. Entering into a section 106 agreement could have secured similar environmental compensation.

Alternatively, the landowner could have applied to the Forestry Commission for approval of permanent woodland removal utilising the Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) Regulations 1999. Government policy would have required compensatory planting in an alternative location to minimise significant environmental effect. Assessing this case post felling, the Forestry Commission cannot say with any certainty whether or not an application made under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations would have been approved, however, the point remains that the landowner had an alternative, legal route to achieving his vision for the site, which he chose not to use.

Should the Planning Inspectorate chose to uphold the appeal, the landowner will have been allowed to disregard legislation which is designed to monitor tree felling and protect valuable woodland habitats and preserve local and national bio-diversity.

Environmental objection

Aside from the legal aspect, the Forestry Commission would respectfully request that you consider the environmental impact of the loss of woodland, and the adverse effect that this will have on the wildlife and biodiversity of the locality. Additionally, the Commission requests that you continue to consider the land to be woodland, which will result, via the Restocking Notice, in the land being restored to woodland.

The site in question is located in the Cranborne Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which is a landscape of national significance. Adjacent to the side of the road, the site is visible to passing traffic.

England’s trees, woods and forests are a vital national asset providing multiple economic, social and environmental benefits. Our objective is to ensure that this asset is protected, managed and enhanced so that these benefits can be both maximised now and realised in the future.

There is a long established and clear public policy that recognises and supports the value of trees and woodlands across the country. Notably, in 2013 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published the “Government Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement”, an extract of which is below, and is reinforced within Forestry Commission England’s Corporate Plan 2015/16.

This commitment is further expanded upon in the 25 Year Environment Plan, published January 2018. It commits to increasing woodland cover in England in line with the government’s aspiration of 12% cover by 2060: this would involve planting 180,000 hectares of new woodland by the end of 2042. Additionally the plan aspires to making sure that there are high quality, accessible, natural spaces close to where people live and work, particularly in urban areas, and encouraging more people to spend time in them to benefit their health and wellbeing.

Page 4

Without question therefore, there is strong public support and recognition that trees and woodlands have a benefit across society, that these benefits need to be protected, and that there is political will to add to these benefits now and in the future.

The Forestry Commission believes that approximately a third of all alleged illegal felling cases which it investigates are initiated with the intent to develop the land in question. The Commission understands that many landowners/developers believe that Local Authorities are more likely to grant planning permission for open areas than wooded areas, and developers can reduce costs by clearing land ahead of expected permissions being granted in order to commence construction works that much quicker.

The Forestry Commission would ask you to consider the affect that upholding the appeal will have on future illegal felling.

The Forestry Commission would respectfully request that the Planning Inspectorate consider the above when determining the appeal.

Please confirm receipt of this document, and notify me of the appeal outcome.

Yours faithfully

Ellie Littlejohn Regulations Manager Direct Tel: 0300 067 5831 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 5