Consultation Question 41

Support

Representation ID: 27020

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Rosie Eccles

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: 27049

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Clare Butland

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: 27078

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nabil Basharat

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: 27131

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Sunderland

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: 27160

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Marianne Clarke

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: 27189

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Carole Wheeler

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: 27218

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Julie Sunderland

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: 27247

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Gary Scott

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: 27279

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Jane 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: 27308

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Lovell

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: 27337

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Marjorie Rogan

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: 27366

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Cryer

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: 27395

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Wendy Barton

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: 27424

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Bardsley

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: 27453

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Warren

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: 27575

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Danny Thompson

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: 27660

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Whilst the thrust of Policy EN3 in retaining trees wherever possible and providing for additional
trees and planting as part of new development is supported, the requirement for all new
developments to provide a fruit tree in every garden cannot be supported. Such trees provided within earlier phases cannot necessarily be protected during the construction of later phases, and trees provided within private gardens cannot be secured in perpetuity. There are also practical difficulties with tree planting in rear gardens which often also accommodate underground utility infrastructure inconsistent with the planting of trees.

This requirement is therefore considered to be unduly onerous and unjustified given the requirements for biodiversity covered in other draft plan policies and environmental legislation, and are unlikely to contribute to meaningful or long term biodiversity gains.

Section C: Hedgerows contains trees, but the policy is for Trees and Woodland, not hedgerows. Suggest that ‘and hedgerow cover’ is removed. Hedgerows are legally protected and inclusion in this policy is not necessary to ensure protection.
Section D: Application of this policy could cause potential problems for properties with relatively small gardens. The policy should be amended to specify planting in gardens above a particular size.
Section E: Application of this policy is problematic because there may not be sufficient space to accommodate three new trees for every tree that is lost, particularly on smaller development sites. Developers also risk planting trees onto semi-natural habitats that have equal if not greater value than planted trees in order to fulfil the requirements of the policy. The policy needs to be reworded to provide flexibility and indicate that planting will be expected unless there are over-riding reasons.
Section G: Could CBMDC serve notice of a TPO at any time before, during and after the period of a planning application? If mitigation or compensation significantly outweighs the loss of trees within a development site, for example to create other, more appropriate semi-natural habitats, then there is a risk of protecting trees of an inferior quality to what is being proposed in order to secure short-term objectives.

Support

Representation ID: 27700

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Cartwright

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: 27734

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ann Todd

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: 27807

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Briggs

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: 27838

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Claire Shouler

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: 27902

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Samantha 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.

Object

Representation ID: 27923

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: E.M. Farming & Leisure Ltd

Agent: McLoughlin Planning

New trees and woodland should be planted on all new developments in both public and private areas, including a fruit tree in every garden. EMFL consider this policy should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 27964

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Limited

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Our client understands and agrees with the aspirations of the policy to protect and retain trees where possible. However, there are occasions where trees need to be removed in order to access development sites.

Part C of the policy proposed a presumption in favour of the retention and enhancement of trees, woodland and hedgerow cover – particularly those which contribute towards – the character of a settlement or its setting, or the amenity of the built-up area; an area’s sense of place or local distinctiveness; valued landscapes; biodiversity and wildlife habitats. Such an approach is not advocated within the NPPF and we would question the need for such a policy. The policy is flawed in that whilst a tree may hold some biodiversity value, its loss and replacement with other enhancements could lead to an overall gain and the policy does not allow for such consideration. This part of the policy is unnecessary as it is covered by Policy DS2 and should be deleted.

Support

Representation ID: 28201

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Lucas

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: 28291

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Mould

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: 28529

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chartford Homes

Agent: Barton Wilmore

Our client understands and agrees with the aspirations of the policy to protect and retain trees where possible.

However, there are occasions where trees need to be removed in order to access development sites.

Part C of the policy proposed a presumption in favour of the retention and enhancement of trees, woodland and hedgerow cover – particularly those which contribute towards – the character of a settlement or its setting, or the amenity of the built -up area; an area’s sense of place or local distinctiveness; valued landscapes; biodiversity and wildlife habitats. Such an approach is not advocated within the NPPF and we would question the need for such a policy. The policy is flawed in that whilst a tree may hold some biodiversity value, its loss and replacement with other enhancements could lead to an overall gain and the policy does not allow for such consideration. This part of the policy is unnecessary as it is covered by Policy DS2 and should be deleted.

Support

Representation ID: 29072

Received: 29/03/2021

Respondent: Historic England

We support this policy which will protect and enhance the
contribution that trees and woodland make to the character of the District. In particular we welcome the inclusion of Criterion C which applies a presumption in favour of the retention of trees, woodland and hedgerow which contributes towards the character of a settlement or its setting, or the amenity of the built-up area, and an area's sense of place or local distinctiveness.

Support

Representation ID: 29224

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel Wood

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: 29577

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Harvey Bosomworth

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.