Currently being reviewed by Forestry Commission
Tom Williams will be offering tours of the woodland at the Friends of Memorial Park’s 2019 Party in the Park.
More details on our Facebook page.
The Woodland
The Existing Hut
A picture of the existing hut in the woodland.
Diagrams of the Existing Hut
A sheet containing two diagrams of the existing hut, one in bird’s-eye view and the other showing the exterior, as well as details on the height and volume of the hut.
Hut Location – Option 1
“[The Woodland Trust’s] preferred option would be the one locating the new development as far away as possible from the borders of the ancient woodland, as this would have the lowest ecological impact, and would help to alleviate some of the damage already being done to tree roots by the old building, but [they] fully accept it may not be ideal in landscape terms.”
Hut Location – Option 2
“Failing this is would be better to site the new building in the existing footprint of the old one, though the old building will undoubtedly be having an impact on the tree roots underneath it, putting a new building there wouldn’t create any additional impact above and beyond what is already happening.”
Hut Location – Option 3
“Siting the new building on the gravel terraces is the least favoured option, though there is little woodland ground flora there at present, there may be other important species using the habitats in this area that would potentially be affected and there also the potential to cause new disturbance and damage to the tree roots that will be in the area.”
Woodland Improvement and Conservation Dispatch Form
A list of plants dispatched, including the quantity, name, and height of the plants.
Letter, 18/04/1983
Page 1
Describes where the woodland is, as well as listing some of the primary tree species.
Page 2
Discusses four compartments, including the trees in each and the invasion by R. Ponticum.
Page 3
Discusses the importance and potential uses of the woodland.
Page 4
Includes suggestions for the upkeep and development of the woodland.
Page 5
Discusses Mr Satters’ intention to live on the land.
Ecological Report, 19/07/1983
Cover Letter
A letter from Penny Anderson introducing the report to Mr Satters, as well as drawing his attention to the possibility of selling seeds from the land and indicating that a Mr John Chambers is willing to purchase some of these seeds.
Cover Page
The cover to the report, indicating that it was created by Penny Anderson for Bob Satters, and concerns Scarwood.
Page 1
Provides the introduction to the report, stating the size of the Scarwood holding, the intentions for the land, and the purpose of the ecology report itself.
Page 2
Examines the ecological value of the fields, looking at their purpose and the species diversity. Sets out the background information needed to examine the fields individually.
Page 3
Looks in detail at Field 0084, splitting it into three sections (A, B, and C) for ease of description. This page focusses on areas A and B, looking at the soil quality, plant communities, and overall ecological value.
Page 4
Continues the in-depth description of Field 0084, area B.
Page 5
Completes the in-depth description of Field 0084, area B, gives recommendations on how to best treat the field in order to maintain its high ecological value, and begins discussions of the potential creation of two ponds in area B.
Page 6
Continues discussion of creating two ponds in area B.
Page 7
Completes the discussion of creating two ponds in area B before describing Field 7976 and presenting it as another, more practical location for three ponds to be created.
Page 8
Continues and completes the discussion of Field 7976 as a potential location for three ponds and begins an in-depth discussion of the fields used for hay, that is, Fields 7281, 5877, 5970, and Field 0084, area C.
Page 9
Continues the in-depth discussion of the hay meadows and brings up the possibility of harvesting and selling seeds as well as hay. Begins discussion of creating a tree nursery in Field 5970.
Page 10
Dismisses the possibility of work on the barn damaging Field 7281 and moves onto discussing the woodland, covering soil quality, the species diversity of trees, shrubs, and ground flora, and the bird life. Also begins discussions on the invasive species sycamore and rhododendron.
Page 11
Continues and completes the discussion on the woodland, deciding that it needs little management other than gradually removing sycamore and rhododendron and potentially extending into Field 0084, area C. Begins a discussion on tree planting.
Page 12
Continues and completes the discussion on tree planting and moves onto the hedges. Establishes the current state of the hedges, describes how to maintain and improve them, and recommends species to thicken the hedges with.
Page 13
Continues and completes the discussion on hedges, including fencing the bank of Field 5877 in order to thicken trees, before summarising the previous pages.
Addendum
Includes three addendums: the discovery of a badger sett and the necessity of leaving the rhododendron; the discovery of a colony of Sand Martins and how this might affect planning permission; and the suitability of different trees for a wood-burning stove.
References
The references made throughout the report.
Appendix I, Part 1
Includes the plant species suitable for wet and seasonally flooded soils, species suitable for shallow water, and species that root at the bottom of ponds.
Appendix I, Part 2
Includes free-floating plant species.
Appendix II, Part 1
Includes the trees and shrubs native to Scarwood and additional native plants that could be introduced on suitable soils.
Appendix II, Part 2
Includes the other species that could be grown.
Appendix III, Part 1
Includes seeds from in Scarwood that John Chambers would purchase, as well as plants that could be put in to sell seeds to him.
Appendix III, Part 2
Describes how to harvest seeds and John Chambers’ address.
Toddbrook Wood Ancient Woodland Assessment, August 2019
Cover Page
The cover to the report, indicating that it was created by Jonathan Hulson.
Page 1
Introduces the report, setting out who the Woodland Trust is and what they do, as well as the aims of the report.
Page 2
Continues the introduction, explaining the woodland classifications.
Page 3
Continues the introduction, giving the site overview.
Page 4
Continues the introduction, showing maps of the site.
Page 5
Shows two more maps.
Page 6
Begins the woodland assessment by setting out the survey methodology, explaining ground flora, deadwood, archaeology, and notable trees.
Page 7
Continues the woodland assessment by explaining how threats are rated, and explaining the context of the: local landscape; access, climate, geology and soils; hydrology; ecology.
Page 8
Continues the woodland assessment by summarising woodland features. Covers ground flora, fauna, deadwood, and history and archaeology.
Page 9
Summarises the woodland features of notable tress before moving onto a summary of the woodland condition and threats to the features. Covers non-native invasive species, conifer competition, pests and diseases, and a lack of management.
Page 10
A map of identified features within Toddbrook wood.
Page 11
A map showing woodland zones and identified threats.
Page 12
Lists the full survey findings with zone 1 and 2.
Page 13
Pictures of: notable oak coppice stool; remnant hazel coppice coupe; a patch of yellow pimpernel ancient woodland indicator; possible spring botanical hotspot; pre-plantation fallen deadwood; pre-plantation oak stump.
Page 14
Pictures of: dense understorey of Rhododendron in zone 1; remaining mature conifer species; excellent eco-tone of woodland into the scrub woodland edge and hay meadow.
Page 15
Begins summarising prescriptions, explaining the principles and setting out three phases of restoration.
Page 16
Sets out the full prescriptions in zone 1 and 2, with differing levels of priority (1-5). Also discusses woodland and hedgerow planting, grassland and wetland, and pets, diseases, and invasive non-native species.
Page 17
A blank page.
Page 18
Discusses the next steps based on the report, including monitoring and further research and data sharing.
Page 19
Appendices, i.e. the glossary.
Page 20
A reference page with titles regarding ancient woodland restoration and woodland management, ecology, and funding.
Page 21
A second reference page with titles regarding invasive and ruderal species, legislation, the local landscape, geology, and archaeology, managing veteran trees, maps, and pests and diseases.
Page 22
A blank Woodland Trust ancient woodland restoration survey form.
Page 23
Continues the blank Woodland Trust ancient woodland restoration survey form.
First Planning Application – 2018/19
Application Form
The planning application submitted by Tom Williams to High Peak Borough Council
Biodiversity Survey and Report
The survey and report covering a description of the area and woodland and wildlife protection.
Management Plan
A management plan covering the property details, the vision for the land, the long-term objective, as well as what had been achieved so far.
Phase 1 Accommodation Plan
Includes multiple diagrams of the phase 1 building, as well as the proposed proportions.
Block Plan
Includes a map with the existing accommodation.
Parking Provision
Includes a map with the existing parking zone.
Site Plan Phase 1
Includes a map with existing and proposed aspects of the site.
Site Plan Phase 2
Includes an updated map with existing and proposed aspects of the site.
Proposed Building Phase 2
Includes multiple plans for the proposed building, as well as a map showing its proposed location.
Site Plan Engineering Work
Includes a map showing the engineering work.
Site Sections
Includes comparisons of the proposed and existing site sections.
Revised Accommodation Phase 2 Plan
Includes the revised diagrams and location of the proposed building.
Revised Phase 2 Site Plan
Includes a revised map with existing and proposed aspects of the site.
Tool List
Includes a list of the number, size, nature, and purpose of all tools required.
Woodland Management Project Timeline
The proposed timeline for woodland management.
Supporting Information, Part 1
The first part of the powerpoint providing extra information on plans for Tom Wood.
Supporting Information, Part 2
The second part of the powerpoint providing extra information on plans for Tom Wood.
Supporting Information, Part 3
The third part of the powerpoint providing extra information on plans for Tom Wood.
Supporting Information Part 4
The fourth part of the powerpoint providing extra information on plans for Tom Wood.
Supporting Information, Part 5
The fifth part of the powerpoint providing extra information on plans for Tom Wood.
Supporting Information, Part 6
The sixth and final part of the powerpoint providing extra information on plans for Tom Wood.
Letter of Support from Doug Don
A letter of support from Doug Don, including his experience regarding Rhododendron and the advice given to Tom Williams.
Letter of Support from Dr Vanessa Speight
A letter of support from Dr Vanessa Speight including her knowledge of Tom Williams’ experience in the water industry.
Letter of Support from Professor David Polya
A letter of support from Prof. David Polya including his interest in the Peak District and the plans for a research centre.
Letter of Support from Alexander Cochrane
A letter of support from Alexander Cochrane including their visit to the land and Hope Valley Pathways’ interest in the area, including the opportunities for their students.
Public Comment from Mr C. B. Kirkwood
An objection to the proposed plans including: his witnessing wildlife on his walks; the access to the site being a safety issue; his fears of contamination of Toddbrook river; and his not knowing exactly why the work was wanted.
Second Public Comment from Mr and Mrs C. B. Kirkwood
An objection to the proposed plans including there not needing to be buildings and disruption to wildlife.
Public Comment from R. B. and M. A. Huddy
An objection to the proposed plans including: the land next to their garden being for agricultural use only; the site being visible from a footpath that Tom Williams did not mention; a potential collaboration with Prof. Polya not being mentioned; a fear that treatment of the rhododendron will contaminate the river; a fear that wildlife would be affected; a bridge being damaged.
Public Comment from Whaley Bridge Amenity Society
A comment on the proposed plans suggesting that a site visit be made.
Public Comment from Councillor John Pritchard
An objection to the proposed plans stating that he agrees with Whaley Bridge Town Council.
Public Comment from Roger Wood
An objection to the proposed plans including: the name change required by the contract of sale is confusing; his belief that some illegal structures were put up; camping over the May Bank Holiday weekend; the tin shed being a visible “eyesore”; potential long term plans; access and damage to a bridge.
Public Comment from Simon and Julie Perry
An objection to the proposed plans including: a lack of planning notifications; building over the spring/summer of 2018; the tool shed and hut being visible; camping over the summer; potential damage to a bridge; a lack of details regarding a research centre; suspecting a “planning creep”; the name change required by the contract of sale.
Public Comment from Mr and Mrs Aspinall
An objection to the proposed plans including: suspecting a “planning creep”; a lack of notice; the site’s visibility; disruption to wildlife; damage to a bridge; the lane being unsuitable for motors; potential contamination of the water; issues with the application form.
Public Comment from R. Wilson
An objection to the proposed plans including: the site’s visibility; the need for a shower and toilet block; the lane being unsuitable for motors; “inappropriate” long-term proposals; the name change required by the contract of sale; disruption to wildlife.
Second Public Comment from R. Wilson
An objection to the proposed plans including: the revised plans including material amendments; the structure being unnecessary; the time-scale being longer than needed.
Public Comment from C. Gillies
An objection to the proposed plans including: access to the site being unsuitable for motors; a “probable intention for a commercial venture”; a lack of notice; the long-term proposals.
Public comment from Jonathan and Viv Cross
An objection to the proposed plans including: inconsistencies in the application; the supporting information; the long-term proposals; support from Dr Speight coming before the land was purchased; support from Prof. Polya not specifying which project he means; a lack of notice.
Second Public Comment from Jonathan Cross
An objection to the proposed plans as the revised plans include material amendments.
Public Comment from Dr William David Lord
An objection to the proposed plans including: the land being designated as agricultural; a lack of running water; disruption to wildlife; future plans being inappropriate.
Public Comment from Mr M. and Mrs P. Foster
An objection to the proposed plans including: a lack of notice; the possibility of business on green belt land; the size of the shed; access to the site; a “potential planning creep”.
Public Comment from Mr and Mrs Withworth
An objection to the proposed plans including: access to the site; keeping the site undeveloped; it being a “business venture wrapped up as something very different”.
Public Comment from John Barnes
A comment on the proposed plans including: a lack of notice; a septic tank; errors on the application; requiring a survey; non-specific details on the material of the shed; the requirement of a shower; the removal of buildings; a lack of accurate drawings; a suggestion that a condition of only proposed works taking place being put in.
Public Comment from Mrs Stella Whitehurst
An objection to the proposed plans including: the name change required by the sale contract; the shed being “ugly”; long-term plans; access to the site being unsuitable for motors.
Public Comment from James McPeake
An objection to the proposed plans including: visibility of the site; disruption to wildlife; its an “unnecessary development”.
Public Comment from Peter Lancaster
An objection to the proposed plans including: the visibility of the site; access to the site being unsuitable for motors; disruption to wildlife.
Public Comment from Jonathon Carnall
Support for the proposed plans including: the danger of Rhodododendron and the need for infrastructure.
Public Comment from Councillor Allison Fox
An objection to the proposed plans stating that she agrees with Whaley Bridge Town Council.
Public Comment from Valerie Lisle
An objection to the proposed plans because of access issues.
Public Comment from Mr S. Wignall
An objection to the proposed plans because of access issues.
Public Comment from Mr and Mrs Timothy
An objection to the proposed plans because of access issues.
Public Comment from Dorothy Lumb
An objection to the proposed plans including: lack of notice; access issues; the building being unnecessary; the size of the shed; the timeline; camping over the summer; the shed built.
Second Public Comment from Dorothy Lumb
An objection to the proposed plans regarding the suggestion of educational activities on the site.
Public Comment from J. and S. Blackwell
An objection to the proposed plans including: building starting without permission; visibility of the site; the possibility of noise; the change of name required by the contract of sale; lack of notice; a “planning creep”; not believing there to be an environmental benefit; Tom Williams’ address being a campsite; access issues; the potential noise; the letters of support.
Public Comment from T. and V. Brentnall
An objection to the proposed plans because of access issues.
Public Comment from B. Thomlinson
An objection to the proposed plans including: potential “planning creep”; access issues; lack of water; the size of structures; lack of notice.
Public Comment from J. Lomas-Fletcher
An objection to the proposed plans including: sheds being unnecessary; disruption of wildlife; access issues; previous applications were refused; the hut has been on site for too long.
Public Comment from Robert Thomlinson
An objection to the proposed plans including list has too much equipment and access issues.
Public Comment from C. and A. Aspinall
An objection to the proposed plans including: the building being too large; the shed; the location changing; access issues.
Public Comment from Stella Whitehurst
An objection to the proposed plans because of the amendments on the plans and the shed.
Anonymous Public Comment
An objection to the proposed plans including: lack of notice; potential business ventures; the removal of rhododendron; a lack of checks for badgers; the potential of badgers with T.B. settling; the size of the hut; access issues; it being a “planning creep”.
Consultation Response from Whaley Bridge Town Council
Opposition to the application because of the buildings.
Consultation Response from Derbyshire Wildlife Trust
Largely supports proposals, so long as proper checks are undertaken.
Second Consultation Response from Derbyshire Wildlife Trust
Requests photos of the building’s proposed location and suggests a site visit.
Additional Comments from Derbyshire Wildlife Trust
Notes that locals are unhappy.
Consultation Response from High Peak Borough Council
No objections.
Consultation Response from Environmental Health
No objections, so long as any water is suitable and sufficient, and the septic tank is adequate.
Consultation Response from the Environment Agency
No environmental constraints.
Consultation Response from Woodland Trust
Objects to the application on the basis of damage to the wood.
Consultation Response from Whaley Bridge Town Council
Supports the woodland management but believe that the equipment is disproportionate.
Comment on Revised Plans from Tree Officer
Objects based on equipment.
Decision Notice
Refuses planning permission based on damage to the green belt, harm to ancient woodland, and a lack of information.
Enebio 