Dear Sir,

Objection to the proposal to fell and irreparably damage more than 240 trees at Poynton Pool (planning ref. 23/4152M)

I write in strong objection to the proposed felling of and damage to trees at Poynton Pool.

The evidence against such action is substantial and supported by statements made by the Council’s officers and engineers, and demonstrates that your proposals are neither necessary nor legally justifiable.

1. Lack of Evidential Justification

There are no records of Poynton Pool ever having overtopped the dam embankment since construction in the mid-1760s despite severe storms when local flooding has been widespread. The absence of such events undermines any claim that felling mature trees is required to enable a flood-prevention or safety measure.

The reported risk from release of the reservoir has been shown to be based on flawed data, including a reservoir volume overestimated by almost 100%, an outflow capacity underestimated by almost 100%, and inflow from a direct catchment that is artificially directed into the reservoir by a device that can be closed at any time. The risk originally reported to the council as high and unacceptable has been shown to be within tolerable limits based on the assessment provided by your engineers, who, on our advice, have since acknowledged that the risk is not high.

The precautionary principle, embedded in both UK and EU environmental law, requires that interventions with significant ecological impact be supported by compelling and proportionate evidence, and this has not been presented

Friends of Poynton Pool Ltd. Company Number16090322

2. Independent Expert Opinions

Independent professional engineers and arboriculturists have confirmed that there is no technical necessity for the removal of these trees and this has been acknowledged by the Council and its engineers. Furthermore, alternative, less destructive mitigation measures have already been proposed, which would adequately address any concerns while conserving the natural environment. Under the principle of proportionality, enshrined in administrative law, a public authority is obliged to consider less intrusive alternatives before proceeding with actions that cause environmental harm.

3. Statutory Duties to Protect the Environment

As a public body, you are bound by multiple legal obligations, including:

Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which places a duty on public authorities to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.
Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to ensure, whenever it is appropriate, that in granting planning permission for any development adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation of trees.
The Environment Act 2021, which introduced a strengthened framework for biodiversity net gain and environmental protection.

Proceeding with mass tree felling in disregard of these duties may constitute an unlawful decision and expose the authority to legal challenge by way of judicial review.

4. Public Interest and Community Impact

The overwhelming objection of residents demonstrates not only widespread environmental concern but also a potential breach of your duty to consider the views of the community. Continuing in the face of such opposition risks undermining public trust and may be construed as a failure to act reasonably, a ground for challenge under administrative law.

In direct contravention of your policy ENV 6, ‘Where the loss of significant trees is unavoidable, replacement tree planting should be provided, of a commensurate amenity value to the trees that are lost and to secure environmental net gain.’ The projects cost benefit analysis takes no account of the amenity value of the trees to the local community. Instead, you are claiming that it is sufficient to account for the loss of biodiversity alone. Not only does the scheme cost benefit analysis undervalue the trees, but it grossly over values the benefits of the proposal by applying a disproportion factor of 5.

5. Climate Change and Carbon Reduction Commitments

The felling of mature trees directly contradicts local and national commitments to combat climate change. Trees are a vital carbon sink and a key part of climate adaptation strategies. The Climate Change Act 2008, alongside the UK’s net-zero targets, reinforces the duty on public authorities to avoid actions that exacerbate emissions or reduce natural carbon storage.

Conclusion

In light of the above, the proposed felling of trees at Poynton Pool is not supported by evidence, contrary to statutory duties, and it is disproportionate in its environmental impact. Should this matter proceed without lawful justification and without serious consideration of alternative solutions, we reserve the right to pursue all available legal remedies, including judicial review.

Yours sincerely,

M J Ellison (Chair)

Friends of Poynton Pool Ltd