Protected Northop Hall woodland saved from housing plan

A woodland which features six protected oak trees in Northop Hall has been saved by councillors after an attempt by a housing developer to overturn a tree preservation order.

The six trees on The Gorsey at Llys Ben have been protected since 2012 as has a strip of nearby woodland. In 2014 Morris Homes had an application to build 36 houses on the land refused as a result of the protection orders.

Now the developer has formally objected to the TPO – which was due to lapse next month – in the hope it would clear the way for the site to be developed.

But Flintshire County Council’s planning committee has renewed the protection, safeguarding the landscape for residents for the forseeable future.

And it has extended the protection, as the woodland strip has expanded across much of the site owned by Morris Homes over the last decade.

Morris Homes submitted an eight-page objection document citing the ‘low value’ of the trees, which they claimed would not be suitable for retention in 20 years.

The objection also suggested the importance of the trees to the local area was overstated as it had never been flagged in pre-application meetings and argued that TPOs should be temporary.

But their claims were unanimously rejected by the planning committee, which accepted that in the time since the trees were first protected they have begun to regenerate the natural environment in the area, supporting new trees to come through and grow as what was a copse of trees begins to resesmble a woodand.

“This was a comprehensive report,” said Buckley Pentrobin councillor Mike Peers. “This TPO no. 350 has been requested by Northop Hall Community Council.

“The objector states that the woodland does not merit protection, however the planning inspector when they talk about the open countryside’s character says it is appreciated by the public and the trees have grown.

“I would consider from the evidence put forward by Steven Body, Flintshire Forestry Officer, that it does indeed meet the TPO criteria.

“The notice served with the Tree Preservation Order stated that the trees provide significant amenity to walkers, residents and users of the adjacent recreational area, and the trees are important for wildlife.

“Of course we have to look at both sides of this. I have looked at the comments made by the objector. They themselves say that TPOs should only be used where the removal of trees would have a significant effect on the environment.

“They also say that the trees must be important for a particular reason. I think we’ve already heard that is the case and we should support this.”

By Alec Doyle – Local Democracy Reporter