'Unacceptable harm' to Maidenhead ancient woodland and trees sees flats appeal dismissed

Protected trees and ancient woodland in Maidenhead would suffer ‘unacceptable harm’ were a four-storey tall block of flats approved, a planning inspector has ruled.

Plans for the eight flats at Fairview, a detached home in Shoppenhangers Road, had been rejected by RBWM over the risk of harm to several trees at the site.

In an appeal decision, a Government planning inspector found that protected trees and ancient woodland backing onto Maidenhead Golf Course would likely be put at risk.

Developer Gill Capital Homes Limited submitted its plans for the Shoppenhangers Road site last year. The company planned to demolish Fairview and build eight one and two bedroom flats in its place.

An RBWM assessment of the plot described a protected mature oak tree at the roadside front of Fairview, and an ancient woodland by Maidenhead Golf Course to its rear.

The ancient woodland is registered in Natural England’s Inventory, which records woodland more than 400 years old and includes nearby Rushington Copse in the golf course.

A lawn around the oak tree would be dug up and replaced with a car park for the new flats, which council officers feared would cause harm to its roots.

Plans to use ‘hand tools’ to dig around the roots of the oak, instead of heavy machinery, had been proposed in the developer’s tree assessment of the site.

But RBWM’s assessment said hand-digging was ‘not a reliable form of mitigation’ and would still likely mean tree roots are ‘severed’. 

RBWM later refused the application and cited a failure ‘to demonstrate proper protection of ancient woodland and trees’.

The developer though, argued its plans were acceptable in an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate – a government organisation that resolves planning disputes.

A statement of case on its appeal said the developer ‘strongly believes that the proposed development provides a valuable opportunity to enhance the local housing stock’.

It said problems raised by the council could be ‘adequately addressed’ with ‘minor amendments and additional evidence’.

However, in a report published this month, the inspector found in favour of the council and dismissed the appeal. 

The inspector said the developer had given a ‘lack of detailed information’ about how it would protect the oak tree and not carried out an assessment for trees in the ancient woodland.

The inspector concluded, ‘the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to protected trees’.

Gill Capital had submitted a bid for RBWM to cover its appeal costs and for its reapplication fee to be waived.

It said this was because of ‘the belief that the resubmission will be for a starkly similar, if not almost identical scheme which has been supplemented with additional information’. The inspector also rejected this bid.

Since appeal proceedings began, the developer has submitted a new application for eight flats at the site.

The Woodlands Trust has submitted an objection to its plan and RBWM’s tree team said, ‘the current proposals are likely to cause deterioration of the ancient woodland’.