From:	Michelle Jarvis
Sent:	13 February 2008 12:59
To:	Stephanie Betts
Subject:	FW: Planning Application Ref: 07/02291/OUT (Former RAF Upper Heyford)
______________________________________________ 
From: 	Ian Braddock  
Sent:	13 February 2008 12:11
To:	Michelle Jarvis
Subject:	Planning Application Ref: 07/02291/OUT (Former RAF Upper Heyford)

Michelle

My comments on the above application are as follows:

•	The tree survey submitted with the above application is considered to be detailed and thorough; despite a difference of professional opinion on some minor details.

•	It appears that the retention of trees has been determined by, what appears to be, a very uniformed design; rather than basing a design on the information provided in the tree survey, which categorises the trees on their quality and value. Consequently, current groups of trees, which I and the tree survey consider to be important, have been identified for removal, i.e. T4193, T4195-T4197 and T4328-T4333 (Drwg 1802/66 Rev L13f); and current tree features will be lost as they are incorporated into the proposed layout, i.e. T5107-T5103 - T5305-T5320 and T5281-T5295 (Drwg 1802/62 Rev L13b).

•	I am very concerned that the design layout has failed to identify all the trees which will require removal, which will be significantly more than currently proposed.

•	I do not agree with blanket removal of all 'alien' conifers. I can appreciate that it may be desirable to remove some in order to favour the development of surrounding broadleaf trees, i.e. T4011 - T4025 (Drwg 1802/66 Rev L13f), but there are others throughout the site which are considered specimen trees i.e. T257 (Drwg 1802/66 Rev L13f) and they should warrant retention. Similarly, their presence is not 'alien' to the district; which is only too evident when viewing the surrounding villages, especially to the west from Kirtlington Road. Therefore I think the removal of these trees needs to be considered on an individual basis, and based on the information provided in the tree survey. I would also highlight that, due to miss-identification, not all the 'alien' conifers have been shown to be removed, i.e. T32 - T35, T4048 - T4051 (Drwg 1802/66 Rev L13f).

•	In conclusion, I do not think the above application has successfully demonstrated a scheme compatible with the existing treescape, and therefore I object to the application.

If you have any further questions on the above please contact me.

Regards

Ian

Ian Braddock
Arboricultural Officer - South
Landscape Services
Cherwell District Council

Direct dial: 01295 221708
Fax: 01295 263155
Email: ian.braddock@cherwell-dc.gov.uk
www.cherwell-dc.gov.uk