Consultation Question 41

Support

Representation ID: 29617

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Summerson

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 29633

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Kirklees Metropolitan Council

• Greater reference to cross-boundary working within policies – the council believes that there could be greater reference to cross-boundary working including within policies relating to the highway network (Policy SP1, SP3), White Rose Forest (Policy EN3), Mass Transit (Policy SP6) and strategic green infrastructure (Policy SP10).

Object

Representation ID: 29711

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Keyland Developments Ltd

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 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: 30016

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Daniel 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: 30097

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Savia Lorain Hughes

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: 30180

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Terry

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.