‘Irreplaceable’ English Oaks survive new homes bid by historic countryside village

Protections for two historic English oak trees of ‘exceptional biodiversity value’ supersede the ‘benefits’ of a plan for nine new homes in Hurst, a planning inspector has ruled.

Developer Shorewood Homes has appealed to the Government Planning Inspectorate over its bid for land west of Hogmoor Lane, refused by Wokingham Borough Council.

A Government inspector has now thrown Shorewood Homes’ plans out and said that there were ‘clear reasons for refusing the development proposed’.

Green fields next to Broadwater Lane and bordered by a range of ash, beech, oak and sycamore trees are situated at the appeal site, which is mainly used for livestock grazing. There are two English oak trees – protected by tree preservation orders – grow to the south-west boundary of the site and near to four historic buildings, including a thatched roof cottage.

One of the trees has an estimated age of almost 300 years, believed to have been planted in 1735, and measures almost 5m around its trunk.

The planning inspector considered that the pair of oaks met the criteria to be classed as veteran trees, which gives stronger protection for their crown and roots.

Government planning advice said: “A veteran tree may not be very old, but it has significant decay features, such as branch death and hollowing.

“These features contribute to its exceptional biodiversity, cultural and heritage value.

“All ancient trees are veteran trees, but not all veteran trees are ancient. The age at which a tree becomes ancient or veteran will vary by species because each species ages at a different rate.”

During the appeal, Shorewood Homes had argued only one of the two trees should be classed as veteran – and it proposed a ‘buffer zone’ plan to lessen potential damage to it.

But, in a decision notice, the planning inspector said the developer’s scheme did not go far enough to protect the ‘irreplaceable’ veteran trees.

The inspector said: “Development resulting in the deterioration of irreplaceable habitats such as veteran trees should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.”

The inspector added: “Those are not before me.”

Further problems with the plans included ‘harm’ to several historic buildings near the appeal site, although the inspector cautioned this was considered ‘less than substantial’.

Two Grade II-listed timber framed century homes lie near the appeal site, as well a cottage dating back to the 16th century and another with a thatched roof from the 18th century.

The inspector said in the report: “Considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings.

“Harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.”

Weighing in favour of the scheme, the inspector said, was a £250,000 payment to Wokingham council through an affordable housing contribution.

However, the inspector concluded: “Given my findings with regard to irreplaceable habitats and designated heritage assets, the application of [planning law]… provide clear reasons for refusing the development proposed.”