Consultation Question 41

Support

Representation ID: 24215

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ellie Keighley

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: 24328

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Benjamin Statham

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: 24357

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Katrina Kennedy

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: 24386

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Corbett

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: 24415

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: James Stocker

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: 24446

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janine Ward

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: 24475

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Hinchliffe

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: 24560

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lyndsey Lloyd

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: 24589

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Steven Langford

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: 24638

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Michelle Schofield

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: 24713

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Danny Schofield

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: 24751

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Hamish Logan

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: 24780

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ashera Grande

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: 24858

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Knowles

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: 24945

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bridget Day

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: 24974

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Rob Pawson

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: 25003

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Anil Mander

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: 25033

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Louise Judd

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: 25063

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Richard 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: 25097

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Tina Collins

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: 25148

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Donna Radcliffe

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.

Object

Representation ID: 25173

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

New trees and woodland should be planted on all new developments in both public and private areas, including a fruit tree in every garden. The HBF would like to know what the justification and evidence is for the requirement for a fruit tree in every garden, this is an additional cost, that a new resident may not want and may remove once moved into the property. The HBF recommends that this part of the policy is deleted.

Where existing trees have been identified as suitable for removal at pre-application stage, then replacements should be planted within public areas of the development at a ratio of three new trees for every tree lost. The HBF would like to know what the justification and evidence is for this ratio of replacement. It is considered that if the Council are seeking a ‘net environmental’ gain that this could be achieved in many other ways than seeking a 3:1 tree ratio. The HBF recommends that this part of the policy is deleted.

Support

Representation ID: 25202

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Radcliffe

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: 25231

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Denise Stanford

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: 25443

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Stokes

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: 25492

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mary Pawson

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: 25721

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Penny Price

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: 25750

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sue Bell

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: 25779

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs M Armitage

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: 25808

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stuart Bell

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.