The report which came with the application, made out by the Council’s senior planner, cited the following objections:

1. An objection by the Ancient  Monument Society who felt the scheme would seriously damage Holly Mount House, a listed building.

2. An objection by the Georgian Group who seriously objected to the conversion of Holly Mount and building of other houses so close

3. Objection from Lancashire County Council who advised that the development was contributed ‘unacceptably to housing oversupply’ in the area. In addition LCC felt the proposal would have a ‘significant adverse affect on the appearance and internal arrangement of Holly Mount House’. They felt the proposal was ‘so unsympathetic as to warrant refusal’. Further, they felt the level of parking spaces did not accord with the locally adopted Parking Standards.

4. Strong objection from the Rossendale Civic Society who felt the development failed to respect the intrinsic character of the listed building.

5. Letters of objection from 15 properties in the vicinity of the site raisng issues such as the development did not accord with the Development Plan for this area, the size and scale of the development, loss of light and privacy and the presence of bats in the area amongst others.

The application only received one letter of support (HORRA members having ignored Daniel Hartley’s threats to make us support the application) from the local Chamber of Commerce, who welcomed the contribution of £10,000 Hurstwoods would make to providing CCTV in the town centre IF this application was approved. In addition to this £10,000, Hurstwoods offered the Council £32,000 for ‘regeneration projects in the Town Centre’ if the application was approved.

Despite the weight of objections clearly being on the side of refusing this proposal, the Councillors on the Development Control Committee decided to approve it. With comments such as ‘this proposal will clearly increase the value of surrounding properties’, they clearly either didn’t read or understand the objections that were raised by local residents and groups. Why the Councillors decided to approve the application against the advice of the County Council and numerous objections remains a mystery. It maybe because the pinstriped men from Hurstwoods were out in force that night and they felt intimidated or because Hurstwoods are currently threatening to sue the Council for £2m over another application and they  want to placate them? It surely has nothing to do with the fact that the Chair of the local ruling party in Rossendale and president of the Chamber of Commerce is also a paid ‘consultant’ of Hurstwoods. Nor can it be down to the £42,000 which Hurstwoods are offering to the Council if the application is approved. What we can be confident about is that once again the Council take the arrogant, but unethical, option. Ignoring the wishes of the people they are supposed to represent, the objections of national bodies and the advice of the County Council they believed they knew better and caved in to big business and bucks. The fact that on the same night they also ignored pleas from the residents of Cowpe, who had been subjected to a campaign of intimidation by Hurstwoods,  and once again approved an unpopular housing development demonstrates which side of the bed they lie on.

I have attached the planner’s report on the application to show how the objections stack up. Please tell me if you can phathom why this application was approved!

Planners Report

To find out more about these plans, and bring our concerns directly to Hurstwoods, we contacted Daniel Hartley to request a meeting with him. After some persuasion that we were rationale, normal people (he didn’t want to come to a meeting with thirty people all shouting at him!) he agreed to meet a small number of representatives from HORRA on Friday 21^st July. This is an account of that meeting for those members of HORRA who couldn’t attend and as a statement of what happened.

The HORRA representatives started by explaining why HORRA was formed and why we are campaigning for the return of the trees.

Mr Hartley explained that the trees had been cut down in response to a Planning Officer in Rossendale Borough Council (RBC) who had placed a Tree Protection Order on trees on another site Hurstwoods owned without consulting with Hurstwoods first.

He then went on to show the representatives a copy of the landscape plans for the area. (See Figure below). He stated the plan would be submitted to the Council for information only. When asked, he explained that the Council did not need to give permission for it to go ahead nor that Hurstwoods were committed to carrying out the landscaping. They may decide not to do it, but he would promise that the planting of the trees around the border would go ahead if HORRA were to write letters supporting the planned development at Holly Mount (This is against a background of HORRA members currently having all written objections against the development and leafleting the neighbourhood to also object).

He then pointed out that Hurstwoods are aware that some of the gardens belonging to some HORRA members encroach onto land belonging to Hurstwoods. He stated that their legal department were looking into this and some may be reclaimed, but that the company were prepared to be ‘flexible’ about this in some cases. When it was pointed out that these gardens had been in use for 20+ years, he said that was a matter for their legal team.

It was asked if there were any plans to develop the site where the trees used to be, given that in the landscaping plans this had been left deliberately clear, with trees only round the very edge. He said there were no immediate plans to develop this area, but he couldn’t rule it out.

When asked if he thought that the houses on the Holly Mount site would sell, given their proximity to ASDA, he believed they would, as these would be ‘low value houses’.

He was asked whether the offer of £10,000 for CCTV was part of the Section 106 agreement for this development. He said it wasn’t since Section 106 had to be a bilateral agreement with the Council and this was a unilateral offer by Hurstwoods who were trying to be proactive by making this as an offer of goodwill. It was, however, conditional on these plans being approved (See next posting).

Finally, he hoped that HORRA would support the planned development, since if the houses were not approved they ‘could revert to using the site as a depot for HGVs, with all the noise and pollution that meant’. He finished by saying that he believed the plans for re-landscaping would actually replant more trees than were removed, that the houses were the best option for the area and that HORRA should support the application.

The representatives for HORRA explained they could not make any decision for the group without consulting all the other members.

As this account shows, the meeting appeared to consist of a series of incentives or warnings designed to gain HORRA’s support for the Housing development. A number of things should be pointed out:

Plans for re-landscaping the area were not done in response to any pressure by HORRA but, according to the Forestry Commission, existed when the original trees were felled. Thus, any promise to carry out the work in response to HORRAs support seems hollow.

Given that Hurstwoods would not plant any trees until ‘the start of the planting season in October’ and that the plans are up for approval on the 12^th September, we only have Hurstwoods ‘promise’ that the planting would go ahead once the plans had been approved.

The tree planting is solely around the borders of the site in question, not in the centre, where the majority of the trees were felled. It is difficult to see how they can put back more trees around the edges, than existed across the whole site – And if they do, this runs counter to their ‘thinning policy’ to allow the trees to flourish.

If the houses are not approved, it would be highly unlikely this site is re-used as a HGV depot, since it already has approval for B1 business use and HGVs sharing the access road with ASDA seems equally unlikely.

HORRA will meet in mid-August to discuss Hurstwoods offer and decide whether we will support the development.

At the risk of being cynical, it appears that Hurstwoods are now keen to develop the remaining area for housing as they know that this will effectively triple the value of the land and property on it. In addition, the trees which they felled, directly behind the site would surely have created a more pleasing aspect for the residents and a natural barrier between them and the houses of Haslingden Old Road, further up the slope. Again, at the risk of being cynical, could it be that Hurstwoods removed the trees before submitting the plans to prevent the Council placing a TPO on these trees as a condition of the plans. It now leaves this land clear to extend the housing development should this plan be approved.

HORRA urges everyone living in the vicinity of this site to go and look at the plans and decide whether you are happy to have these three-story buildings developed on this site. HORRA believe the plan should not be approved by the Council on the grounds that:

The site is classified under the UDP as an Employment Zone and is therefore not suitable for housing.

The additional traffic (which will have to access the site via the road leading up to ASDA) is unacceptable.

The building of the planned underground car-park to service these houses will make the area less stable, particularly now the trees on the slope, which may have helped hold the ground together, have been removed.

The loss of privacy for surrounding properties (again particulary no the surrounding tree barrier has been removed) is unacceptable

If you feel the same regarding this development, please email your objections to Neil Birtles, Rossendale Planning department at neilbirtles@rossendalebc.gov.uk . The Ref. for these plans are 2006/320. All objections need to be submitted by the 7th July 2006.

Thank you

The second picture shows the same view following the removal of 79 trees. Now Holly Mount and the surrounding development is clearly on view. The shops and car park in the town centre are also fully exposed. In addition, the traffic onto the site can now plainly be seen (and heard) and the workers on the site (and later visitors to the store) have an uninterrupted view right into the houses on Haslingden Old Road. I am certain they would rather have view of a small wood as they approach Asda than of residents' living rooms.  However, Hurstwoods obviously believe that they, and the residents of Haslingden Old Road, are not befitting of such 'privileges' and have removed this natural, free and ancient barrier. But at least now we know why….as the next posting tells.

N.B. All images on this site are the copyright of Horra and cannot be used without permission

"On the weekend of 22/23rd April 2006, two surveyors appeared on Haslingden Old Rd, where I live, in the area behind the new Asda site.  They were obviously part of some plan but assured us, the residents, that whatever they were surveying would not affect us.  They even sought, and were granted permission, to enter some of my neighbours' back gardens in order to complete their survey.

Immediately behind our houses to the rear of our back gardens is (now, sadly, was) an area of some 100 mature trees which were home to a wide variety of wildlife including bats, birds, squirrels and owls.  When Asda put in a planning application for their new store, we, the residents, were assured that the trees would remain where they were.  If we had not received this assurance then I and others would certainly have objected that the store wouldn’t be hidden from our view by the trees.  We were also informed by the Hurstwood Group, by letter, that the land immediately behind our houses (where the trees were) had been sold by this group to Asda.

Imagine then, our horror when we returned home from work on Monday (24th April) evening, to find that two groups each of 4 to 6 mature trees, mainly horse chestnuts, had been felled without any warning or prior consultation.  On the next morning of the 25th April, I and some of my neighbours immediately made representation to the Planning Department of the council to find out who had authorised the removal of these trees.  I spoke to a Planning Officer who assured me that he would visit the site, find out what was going on and call me back.  By 16.40 that day he had still not contacted me (I was at work all day) so I rang his office.  He informed me that he had not visited the site yet but would call on his way home.

Unfortunately, during the day of Tuesday 25th April, most of the remaining trees were felled.  We were greeted by a scene of absolute devastation of the trees on Tuesday evening, plus an ugly view of the new Asda building.  Many of the neighbours gathered to share stories of who they had spoken to at the Council that day and it transpired that there was a great deal of uncertainty about who actually owned the land, with Asda denying that the land was theirs and also that they had not authorised any tree-felling.  Some neighbours had been down to speak to the men with the chainsaws and they had informed them that they were working for the Hurstwood Group.

On the morning of Wednesday 26th April I felt I could not stand idly by and do nothing so I phoned my boss and told him that I would have to take a day’s emergency annual leave from work in order to try to sort out this problem.  He was very understanding and granted me a day’s annual leave.  I then went down to the site and positioned myself in front of the few remaining trees.  At about 10am three men arrived with a chain saw.  We exchanged words and the men said that they had contacted their boss, to tell him that I was on the site, but had been told to carry on with their "job" of destroying trees.  However, I remained where I was, in front of the trees which had been marked with pink paint by someone as a sign that they were to be removed. My partner called me at about 10.30am to say that he had spoken to the Council Planning Department, who had received an email from Hurstwood Management saying that no more trees were to be cut down.  As I was having this conversation, two more trees on the site, at a distance from me, were being sawn down.

I was also visited by one of the site foremen for the RG group, who are in charge of the Asda Build.  He informed me that the land belonged to Hurstwood and that he felt as I did about the destruction of the trees, that he couldn't see the need for it.  He left, saying that if I needed anything to come down to his office.

I remained where I was until a Community Police Officer arrived at about 13.20 to threaten me with arrest unless I left the site peacefully.  I asked her what the charge would be be and she replied that I was preventing people from doing their work.  I replied that I did not believe that preventing people from working was a criminal offence and asked her again what the charge would be.  She did not reply but radioed for help saying, erroneously, that I was "refusing to move".  I pointed out that I had not said anything about refusing to move but had merely tried to find out on what grounds the police were proposing to arrest me, should it come to that.

We had a discussion about my reasons for being on the site whilst she waited for her Police Colleague to arrive.  I explained to her that although the Council Planning Department had an email from Hurstwoods saying that no more trees were to be felled, that Hurstwoods’ men were still standing by with chainsaws waiting me to be evicted from the site, and that I did not feel that the trees would be safe were I to move.  I also said that there appeared to be some doubt about whether planning permission had been put in to remove the trees and that we should really call a halt to any more tree destruction until it was clear whether or not permission had been granted.  She replied that Hurstwood were a "very big, important company" and that she "would imagine that they would have planning permission or they would not be doing this."  So much for police impartiality.

Her male Police Colleague then appeared accompanied by one of the site managers from the Asda site RG Group.  The site manager informed the three men with the chainsaw that he had received a message from Hurstwoods saying that they must not fell any more trees.  I felt then that agreement had been reached and that I had succeeded in protecting the few remaining trees, and I agreed to return home peacefully.

Imagine my horror then, about half an hour later, to hear the sound of a chainsaw rip through the air.  I watched from my bedroom window as the three men gleefully destroyed several trees, the same trees I that had been trying to protect.  I phoned the RG site manager who informed me that he was aware that the tree destruction had started again but that he did not have authority over the men, who were Hurstwood employees. 

I went next door to alert my neighbour and we both watched with horror and extreme sadness as a few more mature trees met their untimely end.  All of this took place in the middle of the nesting season and for what purpose we can only wonder.  All I know is that a lot of wildlife lost their homes over those three days, homes which cannot easily be replaced."

If you have any thoughts or feelings about this account, please leave a comment.

"Daniel Hartley, the group's senior planner said none of the trees was (sic) covered by a preservation order, the land was not a conservation area and, in planning terms the site was in the urban area. He said 'The thinning-out work will allow the remaining trees to flourish. On another Hurstwood site, Rossendale Council has placed a tree preservation order without counsulting the company. This unilateral  action is unusual and, in our view, quite unreasonable. But in the light of this action we felt we had no other option but to take proactive action with reference to trees at Holly Mount House.'"

So was this 'woodland management' or a pre-emptive strike against Rossendale Council?

According to wikipedia, thinning is "in forestry a type of selective cutting primarily undertaken to make the forest more profitable in an upcoming final felling. Most of the harvest in thinnings is pulpwood, as only mature trees are suitable for timber."

If Hurstwoods were thinning the tress, then removing 80% of the tree stock, mainly the mature trees, appears to indicate a return to woodland management school.

A pre-emptive strike – 'lets cut down the trees before the council try and save them'- seems the prime objective. But what was their real concern here? That the council didn't consult with them before previously placing TPOs? There is actually no requirement for councils to 'consult' with landowners before issuing a TPO, although they do have to issue a regulation 3 notice with the TPO which gives the landowner 28 days to object. So, even with the power to object, they had 'no-other option but to take proactive action' – i.e. fell the trees. Does this mean that all the trees on any land owned by Hurstwood's will now be felled? According to logic, they have 'no-other option'. Or is it just this site and if so, why?

The fact that the area was in an 'urban area' is irrelevant; the site is actually 200m from a countryside area and adjacent to a conservation area. Actually, I lie, its not irrelevant. Surely the fact that the site is in an urban area makes the trees even more precious. Even more special. They acted as a wildlife corrider to the countryside area and complemented the neighbouring conservation area. Surely the trees here should have more protection.

The article in the Free Press finishes with a quote from the council:

'We will be inviting (Hurstwoods) to discuss with us the replacement tree planting we would like them to undertake'

I am confident that an intelligent, caring company like Hurstwoods with its record of commitment to the community will fulfil such an obligation and ensure the trees are replaced. After all, what else are they going to do with that land, build on it?

Re. Request for Tree Preservation Order to be placed on trees near Holly Mount site

 I am writing on behalf of Haslingden Old Road Residents Association to request Tree Preservation Orders be placed on a number of trees which lie between Haslingden Old Road and the Holly Mount Site. I have enclosed a large-scale map showing the approximate position and species of the trees.  As you know, this area once contained over 100 trees providing a habitat for wildlife including bats, squirrels and a variety of birds, as well as a natural barrier between the new development on Lower Mills (Asda Superstore) and the housing stock to the North. Around 80 of these trees have now been felled by Hurstwoods and we feel strongly that this area should be protected from any further loss. All, or the majority, of the trees shown should be protected in the interest of amenity based on the following criteria:  

1.      Visibility and individual impact – The trees shown are clearly visible from the houses that line Haslingden Old Road, but even more so from St. Mary’s Way and the town centre. The trees partly screen the view of the houses from the town centre, providing a partial barrier and obscuring the houses from view. They also provide a natural backdrop to the current development on the Lower Mill site, breaking up the hard edges. They are therefore highly visible from an important public area and contribute significantly to the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation area, which includes St. Mary’s Church and the Clock Tower.

2.      Wider impact – The trees provide a significant contribution to the local surroundings. Not only do they provide a visual backdrop, but also a haven for wildlife. They are an important wildlife ‘corridor’, allowing the sustainability and viability of bird and small mammal populations in the area. They provide important protection against soil erosion on a steep incline and complement neighbouring trees in the vicinity.

3.      Risk of Development – Given the proximity of the near-by development and the unnecessary clearing of 80 trees in this area, we feel that the remaining trees are under immediate threat from further development. Their removal would have a severe negative impact on the amenity of the area by removing a natural screen and backdrop from a very public place as well as endangering local wildlife.

Although several of the trees in this area are saplings, they should also be protected given their future potential as an amenity and the scarcity of trees left. Given the immediate threat to all these trees from the owner, we suggest an Area Order is placed on this whole area, immediately protecting all the trees in the boundary. Subsequently, as recommended by the Secretary of State, all the trees can then be assessed for their individual merit and classified as necessary.

Both maps are from the Lancashire County Council UDP – the colours relate to how the land has been designated. The black circle shows the area in question – A small piece of land between Haslingden Old Road and the New Development (Superstore/Holly Mount) which is bounded by the purple section.

The Purple shading on the map designates an 'Employment Area' – and is therefore available for development.

The area in question falls outside the 'Employment Area' and is therefore not automatically available for development. This land forms a natural barrier between the employment development and the housing stock to the North – i.e. Haslingden Old Road

The second map shows the extent of clearing which has been carried out by Hurstwoods. Around 80 trees have been felled with around 20 left, the vast majority of these being small saplings around the edge of the site. This has effectively reduced the natural barrier which existed.

The members of HORRA are upset and bewildered by the removal of these tress and the subsequent loss of wildlife and shelter. The trees provided a haven for wildlife, shelter and a natural backdrop to the neighbouring superstore development  – not to mention protection against soil erosion and Carbon dioxide sinks.

The Association hopes that by working with the various authorities and companies involved, they are able to combine their resources and undoubted commitment to the community to restore the trees and the natural environment which the tress created.