Letters from angry residents are pouring onto ‘Your Waverley’s’ planning portal opposing a joint application by Crest Nicholson (CN) & Surrey County Council (SCC).
The furious townsfolk of our beleaguered town are calling on Waverley councillors to – “stand up and be counted” to prevent three heritage trees facing the chop.
They are calling on councillors to throw out plans by “unprofessional and deceitful” developers hellbent on destroying a part of Farnham’s heritage as they “wantonly attempt the destruction of anything that stands in the way of development”
The duo of CN and SCC wants to remove three mature trees near Brightwells House in East Street.
Here’s one – other pictures will follow tomorrow.
Here today – gone tomorrow?
The pair have put in an (NMA) a ‘non-material amendment’ to their planning application to vary Condition 20 to remove a further three trees – one of which is a memorial to Farnham resident Mr R Bide.
A Copper beech – a Cedar – and a London Plane Tree – all face the chain saw axe if the dynamic Duo get their evil way. Because, the reason given for the trees removal, all factored into the original development scheme – in their words not ours…
Tree No 30 – no doubt better to give it a number than a name?
‘Will not adjust to the changes around it and will become a maintenance concern and that tree 31 is of a species that is fragile.’
WW: Of course it is fragile – because the development made it so!
And – wait for it – yes you guessed –
‘Why trees 30 and 31 should be slashed and burned? `No 32 – will be incongruous in the new setting inhibiting a suitable landscape for the future.”
FUTURE? Exactly what future does Blightwells have as a retail and restaurant hub may we ask?
But fear not the developer duo (DD) has all the answers.
In their words.
Tree 31 – Cedar
‘Is of compromised form now that the adjoining horse chestnut has been removed. It is a typical Cedar with long lateral branches. These branches are highly prone to failure, especially in summer months. Failure in their proposed setting could result in harm to people and property.’
The developer is… ‘rightly mindful that placing people and property at harm from trees should be avoided if possible, especially when the risks are well known as in this case.
Consideration was given to crown reduction of the tree however that only leads to onerous maintenance over the coming decades. Again, replacement of the tree was thought to be the most prudent course of action. It removes the risk of failure but secures long term tree cover in this important landscape feature.
Its replacement will permit the extension of the proposed avenue of small-leaved lime trees to provide a complete avenue feature within the central gardens. These trees will be planted at a semi-mature size of 40-45cm girth and will make a significant contribution to the landscape.
As for Tree 32 the London Plane?
– well that can face the chop because lots of them are dying from the dreadful Massaria disease – so one more won’t hurt – will it? And its replacement...Their words:
“Its replacement will also permit the extension of the proposed avenue of small-leaved lime trees to provide a complete avenue feature within the central gardens. These trees will be planted at a semi-mature size of 40-45cm girth and will make a significant contribution to the landscape.”
Well – we have news for you DD’s – Farnham will not sit idly by and watch you take over our town and turn it into a disaster area. You may have ‘Gone too far this time Sir Percy.’ Because enough is enough – and this picture sums up what we all think of your Bum idea.
Just one objection taken from the reams on-line David Howells.OBJECTION to NMA/2020/0045: Brightwells, Land centred East Street, Farnham
Amendment to WA/2016/0268 for amending the wording of Condition 20.
We strongly object to the content of this application to fell these three trees, and to the use of an NMA as the means of achieving this end. The three trees are an intrinsic part of the historic appearance of Brightwell House and are much-loved by Farnham residents. The Condition requiring their retention was set for a good reason.
The main explicit argument put forward by the applicants appears to be a concern with safety because of the species of tree involved. But the trees have not changed species since 2016 when planning permission was granted including Condition 20.
Any potential problem should have been foreseen by the applicants back then. The Council’s Tree Officer clearly considered the position and condition of the trees as not being threatened or posing a risk. This application includes no proper assessment of the current state of the trees, far less detail than a householder wishing to cut back a protected tree would have to submit to gain approval.
Trying to use an NMA to amend Condition 20, implies, by definition, that the presence of the trees is not impeding the progress of the scheme in a material way, and that their removal would not affect the realisation of the final scheme. The latter implication is clearly not the case: the removal of the trees would greatly change the appearance of Brightwell House and its setting. If the trees are considered to be affecting some aspect of construction, a full planning application to change that aspect should be submitted.