Agenda item

Question

Bearwood Park Planning Applications

On 1^st April 2015, Wokingham Borough Council gave the developer Reading Football Club planning approval with conditions attached to create a training ground at Bearwood Park.

Conditions included several areas around the Environment and Biodiversity including condition 28 which prohibits works or removal of trees, shrubs or hedges without written consent, and if any work is required, they should be replaced. 

The approved plans demonstrate that all the trees around the Bearwood Lake including on the dam are to be retained and covered by a TPO. 

On 8^th December 2020, the developer submitted another application for various works on TPO trees. 

The application was devoid of any detail on why any single tree needed to be felled and went against all the previous conditions related to the Environment, Biodiversity, Climate Change and Air Quality.

So why did this Council allow a developer to destroy between 400 and 500 protected trees without question?   The majority of which were mature and included at least 9 veteran trees listed by the Wokingham District Veteran Tree Association?

Question

Bearwood Park Planning Applications

On 1^st April 2015, Wokingham Borough Council gave the developer Reading Football Club planning approval with conditions attached to create a training ground at Bearwood Park.

Conditions included several areas around the Environment and Biodiversity including condition 28 which prohibits works or removal of trees, shrubs or hedges without written consent, and if any work is required, they should be replaced. 

The approved plans demonstrate that all the trees around the Bearwood Lake including on the dam are to be retained and covered by a TPO. 

On 8^th December 2020, the developer submitted another application for various works on TPO trees. 

The application was devoid of any detail on why any single tree needed to be felled and went against all the previous conditions related to the Environment, Biodiversity, Climate Change and Air Quality.

So why did this Council allow a developer to destroy between 400 and 500 protected trees without question?   The majority of which were mature and included at least 9 veteran trees listed by the Wokingham District Veteran Tree Association.

Answer

The felling of trees at this location was carried out by the landowner, as you rightly say, as part of the essential safety works to the dam, required under the Reservoirs Act 1975.  The Council were notified of these works via a 5 day notification, as they are required to do so, under regulation 14(2) of the Tree Regulations.  A 14(2) 5 day notification gives a landowner the ability to carry out works in order to comply with a statutory obligation or to carry out urgent safety works, and this was the case as there was health and safety issues in particular there, without needing consent from the Local Planning Authority.  It is an urgent notification, which the Council cannot determine, our hands are tied, nor can we condition the terms on which it was made, because it was purely a health and safety issue on the reservoir issue.

Supplementary Question:

I do disagree with quite a lot of things that you have said there but my supplementary is, this Council has allowed a developer to destroy an irreplaceable, historic parkland of semi mature, mature and veteran trees, some of which are up to 300 years old.  They were covered by a Tree Preservation Order, yet it claims that it is tackling climate change, protecting the environment, and wants to improve air quality and biodiversity.  It has taken 150 years from the creation of Bearwood Lake to where we were before the park was destroyed.  We do not have 150 years, we have less than 30 years.  Wokingham Borough Council has allowed this to happen.  What is it going to do to replace it, and it now requires an investigation by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, would you agree?

Supplementary Answer:

Paul, this was a health and safety issue.  I have checked it all the way through and we had to allow permission to be given to the owner.  They took the decision purely on health and safety grounds, and that is where we are at the moment.  Certainly, I can discuss it with you outside of this meeting, by all means on a one to one basis, and involve the relevant officers as well.  To be quite honest I do sympathise with what you say but we had to allow it on health and safety grounds, and we did so.