Object

Representation ID: 44951

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy ENV4 – Provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands and hedgerows

20.1 Taylor Wimpey recognises the important contribution that trees make to the character and quality of urban environments and mitigating climate change. However, this needs to be balanced with the need to make efficient use of land as advocated by the Framework [§124].

20.2 Part 1 of the policy requires development adjacent to ancient woodland to provide an appropriate landscaping buffer, with a minimum depth of 15m and a preferred depth of 50m. However, there is no clear justification for the preferred 50m buffer in the BCP and Taylor Wimpey considers that this preferred depth should be deleted from the policy.

20.3 Part 13 of the Policy ENV4 states that new developments should make a minimum contribution of 20% canopy cover across the development site and a recommended contribution of 30% canopy cover across the development site. We note that this requirement is based upon recommendations prepared by the Woodland Trust33 rather than being informed by Government policy and guidance so is not based around any national policy requirement. We consider that this minimum contribution and recommended contribution are completely unrealistic.

20.4 It would be necessary to ensure that this level of planting would not cause unacceptable harm in terms of shading and the need to distance dwellings accordingly would have a resultant impact upon the areas within site where homes can be located. As a result, we consider that the policy requirement would prejudice the ability for developers to make the efficient use of land as required by the Framework [§124]. It also fails to take into account other policy requirements which need to be considered in the development of sites and have a further impact upon density, such as the provision of open space and highways infrastructure. Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that Part 13 of the policy should be deleted.

20.5 Part 14 of the policy states that new houses and other buildings must be carefully designed and located to prevent an incompatible degree of shade being cast by both existing and new trees that might result in future pressure for them to be removed. Taylor Wimpey agrees with this approach and considers that the requirements of Part 13 of the policy are completely at odds with this aim as the canopy cover sought would undoubtedly lead to pressure for trees to be removed in the future.

20.6 Part 15 of the policy suggests that the positioning of trees in relation to streets and buildings should not worsen air quality for people using and living in them by allowing street level ventilation to occur. It is not clear how this could be accurately assessed or achieved in practice and we do not consider that Part 15 would be effective. On this basis we consider that Part 15 should be deleted.

20.7 Part 18 of the policy requires trees proposed for removal during development to be replaced at a ratio of at least three for one. There is no clear justification in the Policy or explanatory text for the additional replacement trees. Taylor Wimpey is concerned that this requirement would place unnecessary burdens upon developers and could limit the development potential of residential sites if land is lost to facilitate the additional planting of trees and hedgerows.

20.8 As the wording of the policy states “a ratio of at least 3 for one” this indicates that the Council could seek a higher provision than the three to one ratio. The justification text to the policy notes that there will be circumstances where the ratio of replacement planting will be greater than this – especially in cases where significant / mature trees contributing to the visual and ecological amenity of an area and its character are to be removed.


20.9 As this will vary on a site by site basis, it is not possible to ascertain the impact the Policy would have upon the development potential and viability of sites.

20.10 The justification text to the policy states that where a development site cannot accommodate additional planting, replacement trees will be expected to be planted in an appropriate off-site location. It is that this approach would be practical and whether it would actually be implementable in practice as there may be no additional land available within the developers ownership to provide this off-site mitigation.

20.11 The financial and practical burdens placed on developers by the requirements of Part 18 could impact on the development potential of sites and therefore cannot be seen to be positively prepared. In addition, the impacts of this policy requirement do not appear to have been fully considered in the BCP Viability Assessment. The replacement of trees on a ratio of one for one
is therefore considered to be appropriate and the policy should be amended to reflect this.