Consultation Question 41

Support

Representation ID: 311

Received: 19/02/2021

Respondent: Ms Mel Frances

I agree that existing and ancient woodland needs to be protected. I can take 1000 of years for these conditions to evolve and they cannot be replaced.
I think 12% woodland cover by 2060 is not ambitious enough.

Support

Representation ID: 1922

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Burley Parish Council

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Preemptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Object

Representation ID: 3705

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Sutcliffe

he green belt was set up to stop urban expansion. In the case of
Bradford, to stop it becoming part of Leeds. Bradford planning office
being completely undemocratic wishes to pour cement and tarmac all
over the green belt in Tong. The reason I say undemocratic is as
follows. ~There has not been one survey, or opinion poll taken in
Bradford, which agrees with Bradford councils views on building on
green belt. In fact approx 90 % of population of Bradford totally
disagree with Bradford councils housing and road plans. However, the council which claims
represents the people is acting like a fascist state.

Your new road and housing plans directly effect my Grade II house and
land. However, you have not had the decency to contact me over the
last 10 years. I doubt you care less about me than the environment and
the creatures that need it.

Support

Representation ID: 3860

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Jenny Woodward

I support the proposals for enhanced trees and woodlands - assuming they are native trees, good for wildlife. I think the ratio of 3 new trees to 1 felled tree is too low however - the benefit of one large mature tree is far greater than 3 new ones. Please could that be increased to 10. New developments should be planned around existing trees.

Comment

Representation ID: 15774

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA)

Under Policy EN3: Trees and Woodlands, the role of the White Rose Forest (WRF) Community forest proposal should be considered, in particular the contribution that development can make to achieving any future tree planting targets identified by the WRF partnership for the region.

The proposed policies under EN3 will help contribute to the WRF targets but there is currently no recognition in the supporting text of the WRF partnership, which Bradford are a member.

Support

Representation ID: 19868

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes this policy and note that it is in accordance with NPPF paragraph 175 c) in seeking the strongest protection for ancient woodland and veteran trees.

Comment

Representation ID: 19936

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Climate Action Ilkley

Number of people: 7

5. Existing mature green infrastructure should always be retained, for example, areas of mature trees on designated development sites, such as the copse on the proposed housing development site IL1/H.

Support

Representation ID: 21814

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Duncan Watson

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 21897

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Starling

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 21926

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Samantha Cook

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 21955

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Birgit Almond

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 21984

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Corrie Hardaker

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22013

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Carly Mitchell

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22042

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Ross

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22074

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Spencer

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22103

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Lucy Ashton

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22132

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Turner

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22161

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Judy Breckett

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22201

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Hardaker

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22230

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Taylor

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22259

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Dr Ceri Pitches

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22288

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sonya Hampton

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22317

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Vivienne McCabe

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22346

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John McCabe

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22375

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Natalie Shaw

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22486

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Harri Pitches

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22515

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Teresa McDonell

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22544

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vicky Gordon

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22573

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin McDonell

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.

Support

Representation ID: 22611

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Alastair Gordon

We support the enhancement, protection and expansion of trees and woodland. We agree that development proposals which result in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused. We would like to see more clarity on what constitutes “wholly exceptional reasons” (B). How can we realistically compensate for something which has been deemed “irreplaceable”? Pre-emptive felling can create a fait-accompli scenario and we would like to see more enforcement and deterrence against such actions. As such, we broadly support EN3 but would like more clarity on some items.