2 weeks Ago By Paul Faulkner
Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Lancashire Evening Post, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. The 15 metre-high trees that HBS Group removed from the edge of the site – at the junction of Eastway and D’Urton Lane in Fulwood – would have helped screen the three giant warehouses the firm built on the plot. However, it is estimated their replacements – branded ‘broom handles’ by one angry local councillor – will take around 30 years to provide the same level of coverage.
They are currently dwarfed by the 12 metre-tall buildings that stand behind them. Advertisement Advertisement Nevertheless, Preston City Council’s planning committee has now rubberstamped the new planting – exactly four years after the established trees, along Eastway and at the D’Urton Lane roundabout, were felled. HBS Group did not require permission to remove them as they were not covered by tree protection orders.
That meant the firm was not in breach of the planning approval granted by the authority, in April 2021, for the trio of grey structures – which have since been described as an “eyesore” by locals. However, the company’s original landscaping plan had indicated that the trees surrounding the site would remain in place – not be chopped down. A revised version of that planting scheme – which includes the 12 infant trees subsequently put in the ground as replacements – was given the nod by a majority of planning committee members at a meeting earlier this month.
Advertisement Advertisement The authority’s planning officials recommended approval of the new landscape proposal after attempts to persuade the company to improve it were rebuffed. The committee had been advised at a previous gathering in December that the redesigned planting plan was considered sufficient – notwithstanding the fact it did not “compensate for the loss” of the mature trees in the short term. Members had deferred their decision on the revised blueprint on that occasion, amid attempts to strengthen the conditions they wanted to attach to it.
When the matter was brought back before them this month, they stipulated that “heavy standard trees” must be used to replace any of the new saplings that die within 15 years of being planted – but gave the green light to the company’s fresh landscaping plan. Advertisement Advertisement Sharoe Green ward councillor Maxwell Green – who had previously called for the planting of mature like-for-like replacements for the lost trees – said he was disappointed by that decision, but more so by the company. “They are just not good neighbours, they have never shown any respect to the [area].
“You [pass] by and what’s the best you see? A few little shrubs and [some] broom handles sticking out the ground. “It’s [been] a case of, ‘Just do nothing for as long as possible and then hope we get something passed’ – which seems to have [worked]. Advertisement Advertisement “We’ve waited years for them to put proper plans together – and I feel like, ultimately, we are still waiting on a proper plan,” Cllr Green said.
The Lancashire Post approached the planning agent acting on behalf of HBS Group in order to offer the firm the opportunity to respond to the criticism made of it. Broughton Parish Council had objected to the revised application, stating that the warehouses should be “adequately screened by landscaping to keep an aesthetically pleasing appearance to our parish”. Twenty-three residents also registered their opposition.
The now approved landscaping plan provides for the planting of 22 trees – including the dozen saplings already placed around the edge of the site – almost 600 shrubs and nearly 1,300 herbs. Separately, more than 1,100 plants and shrubs, almost 400 trees and over 12,000 bulbs will be planted in and around a nearby woodland area. Advertisement Advertisement City council planning case officer Patrick Marfleet told committee members that while it “would be nice” to have secured enhanced planting, “the scheme itself is considered acceptable.
..to the point where we wouldn’t be able to reuse it [for reasons of] inadequacy”.
‘Second bite of the cherry’ A report presented to the meeting revealed Preston City Council had begun enforcement action against HBS Group in June 2022 after previously learning the firm had started work on the site before so-called ‘pre-commencement’ conditions – attached to the original planning permission – had been satisfied. The authority issued a planning contravention notice and invited the company to outline how its breaches of what is known as ‘planning control’ could be rectified. Members heard that the applicant had chosen to try to “regularise” the development by applying to vary 13 out of the total 21 original conditions that had not been fulfilled, including its original landscaping plan.
Advertisement Advertisement However, the meeting was told that some of the information requested from HBS Group about issues including drainage and ground gas monitoring had still not been provided, in spite of efforts by the city council to obtain it since the variation application was first considered – and deferred – in December. As a result, Lancashire County Council – in its capacity as the lead local flood authority for the area – maintained a previous objection to the plans. It highlighted “deficiencies” in the blueprint for how surface water will be managed on the site – but acknowledged that some attempt had been made to address its concerns and suggested they could ultimately be overcome.
Preston City Council’s head of development management and building control, Natalie Somers, told committee members that they were being advised to approve the revised conditions both to secure the strengthened re-planting rule that had been pegged to the landscaping plan in the event of sapling death – and also to give the firm a “reasonable amount of time” to supply the outstanding drainage and ground gas details being demanded. However, acting committee chair Cllr Sara Holmes suggested the authority was offering the company “a second bite of the cherry”, when it had already had “sufficient” opportunity to comply with the request. Advertisement Advertisement Meanwhile, committee member Cllr Nweeda Khan asked whether there was “a guarantee” that enforcement action would be taken if the pending information was not provided in the three-month timeframe the city council was intending to set.
Natalie Somers said consideration would have to be given as to whether it was “expedient” to go down that route – but stressed that unless the application for a variation was determined one way or the other, there would be nothing for the council to enforce. That prompted committee member Cllr Daniel Guise to suggest the revised bid should be refused – but Ms. Somers disputed the idea, telling him that the outstanding details were “not necessary to make [the] development acceptable”.
She said around 80 percent of the required drainage information had now been submitted. Advertisement Advertisement No formal proposal to refuse the application was put forward – and members ultimately approved the amended conditions by seven votes to two. However, former planning committee member Fiona Duke rounded on those who approved the various revisions.
Speaking to the Post, she said residents had been “badly let down”. “So many established trees were felled, which should have remained – they needed to be properly replaced. That meant planting more trees – and a better variety of species – than the developer did.
Advertisement Advertisement “But there are concerns about drainage, too. The experts objected, but too many councillors gave up and ignored them. “I’m grateful that the Lib Dem councillors on the committee voted against this, but I’m saddened and angry that the rest displayed so little backbone,” said Cllr Duke, herself a Liberal Democrat.
Preston City Council was approached for comment on the criticism of the planning committee’s decision, while HBS Group was also offered the chance – via its planning agent – to explain the ongoing absence of the requested drainage and ground gas monitoring information..
