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

Support

Representation ID: 11882

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr. Dennis R Whittaker

The overall policy is more or less in line with my basic thinking.

Object

Representation ID: 12016

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Emma Thompson

Woodland planting should be removed and replaced with habitat creation appropriate to the location as defined in the Draft Black Country Local Nature Recovery Strategy (WTBBC and EcoRecord 2021). The planting of trees and woodland may not be the most ecologically appropriate form of habitat creation, and any habitat enhancements should be informed by the Priority habitats selected as focus actions in the Draft LNRS. Furthermore, the inclusion of tree planting here is likely to influence masterplanners and developers to propose this as habitat loss mitigation whereas they should be directed by the evidence provided in the Draft LNRS.

Support

Representation ID: 12031

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Emma Thompson

The evidence used to calculate the target increase in canopy cover to at least 18% over the plan period should be published in the BCP. In new developments minimum contribution of canopy cover should be caveated to state that this will not be required if this would lead to damage or loss of existing habitats of value that may otherwise be retained. Replacement trees of a suitable species must be provided on site where planning permission has been granted that involves the removal.

Support

Representation ID: 12166

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

We strongly support most aspects of this policy, with just a few qualifications on the percentage of tree canopy cover required in new development and depth of buffers required around ancient woodland.

Comment

Representation ID: 12732

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Dr Gill Pearce

Stop cutting down trees and leave the urban currents alone because they house wildlife eg squirrels and hedgehogs. Stop cutting the floor habitats of urban Forrests which are the habitat of wildlife such as hedgehogs.

Object

Representation ID: 14501

Received: 05/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Lucy Fletcher

We need to protect and sustain our health and natural environment and this all depends on the health of the planet which we live. Air pollution is the top environmental risk to human health in the UK. Although the argument for more homes is valid, I strongly feel that the health of our planet is more important and even the thought of building on green belt land is immoral.

The loss of important trees and hedges which also impact on the loss of wildlife. Hedgerows are extremely important for 130 of the wildlife species listed as priorities under the governments biodiversity action plan these include the harvest mouse, foraging bats and roosting birds. hedgehogs are the nations favourite animal that call hedges their home. Hedgehogs are an important 'indicator species' meaning that their health is reflective of our ecosystems health in general. A decline in hedgehogs is, in turn, likely to reflect a reduction in vital habitats and the insect population. The very importance of hedgerows for birds is clear from the following facts. No less than 21 priority BAP bird species are associate with hedgerows, and for 13 of these, hedgerows are a Primary habitat and refuge. as many as 16 out of the 19 birds used by Government to assess the state of farmland wildlife are associated with hedgerows. also some hedgerows are so important that no amount of planting could replace them.

Hedgerows also play a considerable role in helping to conserve essential natural resources such as preventing soil loss, reducing pollution and their potential to regulate water supply and to reduce flooding. One inch of soil takes over 500 years to form, the UK has lost 84% of its fertile topsoil since 1850. Hedgerows act as a barrier at the margins of farmers fields to prevent this soil being lost. There is growing consensus that hedgerows can make a real contribution to the UK's target of producing net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Hedgerows may even have a role to play in taking greenhouse gases out of circulation through carbon storage. Certainly any loss exacerbates climate change to some extent.

With just over 450,000km of hedgerows left in the uk, it's vital that we begin protecting and replanting them.

Comment

Representation ID: 14846

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Alison Wilkes

Policy EN4
8
Comment: Tree planting may not be the most ecologically appropriate form of habitat creation for a location - the choice should be informed by survey work and by landscape scale planning. It should also be noted that 'tree planting' is not the same as woodland creation: once (appropriate) trees have been planted, it takes years of further monitoring, maintenance and additional work to create something approaching a woodland.

12
Comment: The inclusion of planting of large-canopied street trees should go further and encourage the planting of new street trees in existing residential and employment areas. My own area has no street trees in the part of the estate where I live and recently, a number of trees in the gardens of houses have been felled, with the loss of this resource to the entire street and estate.

13
Comment: A caveat that tree planting will not be required where it would damage or lead to the loss of existing habitats of value should be added. Tree planting may not be the most ecologically appropriate form of habitat creation for a location.

25
Comment: Replacement hedgerows should be of an appropriate diverse mix of locally sourced native species and include an appropriate buffer. A resourced maintenance and management programme, undertaken with conservation management aims should be required. This should include the replacement of trees that fail within a specified period by plants of a suitable size, species and quality. It should also include consideration of field layer species and appropriate management of the edge/buffer.

26
Comment: The protection of hedgerows should include a buffer of 50m.

27
Comment: Creation of new hedgerows should be of an appropriate diverse mix of locally sourced native species and include an appropriate buffer. A resourced maintenance and management programme, undertaken with conservation management aims should be required. This should include the replacement of trees that fail within a specified period by plants of a suitable size, species and quality. It should also include consideration of field layer species and appropriate management of the edge/buffer.

Support

Representation ID: 15300

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

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

We welcome the inclusion of this policy within the plan.
We would suggest that you split paragraph 1 and put the text specifically about ancient woodland as a separate paragraph.

We would advise you to expand on the buffers, explaining that the size of the buffer will depend on the type of the development proposed and the type of the woodland/tree.

Comment

Representation ID: 18431

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Richard Brooks

Policy ENV4 – I agree there must be much tree planting including in streets where wide verges and also odd corners can often be found.
Also there must be serious control on the paving over of front gardens which has a detrimental effect on wildlife, the street scene and flooding. . Removing ‘greenery’ from the street scene must be damaging for people’s health. Perhaps the Councils should start a best kept (for biodiversity) front garden competition to encourage planting in front gardens rather than paving!
I support moves to reduce climate change and pollution.

Support

Representation ID: 19411

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 10.8 - "Supportive of the principles set out in the policy and to delivering new tree planting in association with development proposals."

Object

Representation ID: 19412

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 10.8 - The requirement for large canopy trees a minimum contribution of 20% tree canopy cover and recommended 30% tree canopy cover would have a significant impact on the capacity for development, could conflict with highway requirements and sports/recreation spaces.

Comment

Representation ID: 19413

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 10.9 - Criterion 14 needs more justification and clarification.

Object

Representation ID: 19414

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 10.10 - Objection identifies that the size and number of replacement trees required to be commensurate with the size, stature, rarity and amenity of the tree to be removed is not practical. Criterion 18 is unreasonable and unjustified.

Comment

Representation ID: 19415

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 10.11 - Both criterion 22 and 23 may not be enforceable and trees may be difficult to resource during the planting season.

Support

Representation ID: 20676

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 10.12 - The principle of protecting hedges is supported.

Object

Representation ID: 20677

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 10.12 - Criterion 24 should be amended because "it is inevitable that some hedgerows will need
to be removed to facilitate other requirements such as access, circulation routes, drainages etc" " to reflect that there are occasions where hedgerows can legitimately be removed to secure other planning objectives."

Object

Representation ID: 20822

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 10.12 - Criterion 27 seeks hedgerows as part of site layouts and landscaping schemes however this should be revised as this would not be suitable for all sites, for instance urban/town sites.

Object

Representation ID: 21208

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Avison Young

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

Whilst our Client recognises and supports the BCA’s aspirations to increase tree canopy cover across the Black Country, it expresses reservations around the obligations of Policy ENV4 in this regard, specifically parts 2 and 13 of this policy which require:
• a buffer around individual veteran or ancient trees likely to be impacted by development of a minimum of 15 times the diameter of the tree, approximately 5m from the edge of the tree’s canopy if that area is larger than 15 times its diameter; and
• new developments to 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 understand that these requirements stem from recommendations contained within the Emergency Tree Plan for the UK (2020), prepared by The Woodland Trust. We would note that, whilst useful, this piece of guidance is not statutory in nature, nor has it been produced for or by the Government. In such instances, it would be unrealistic to expect developments to adhere to such guidance. Moreover, by necessitating a ‘one size fits all approach’ for the contribution developments make to canopy cover, this part of the policy fails to take into account on-site conditions which could mean this cannot be achieved. Such conditions should not jeopardise future development across the Black Country, particularly in the context of such an acute need for housing and employment land. We therefore recommend that the policy wording be revised so that canopy cover is determined on a site-by-site basis.

Comment

Representation ID: 21270

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Savills

Policy ENV4 – Provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands and hedgerows
Point 3 of the Policy states that there is a presumption against the removal of trees unless there are sound arboricultural reasons to support their removal. We assume that ‘arboricultural reasons’ will include tree categorisations (Categories A, B, C and U). The NPPF only places a presumption in favour of protecting Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees (paragraph 180). We therefore consider that this policy should not seek to protect all trees on a site and lower quality trees (Category C and U) should not be afforded the same weight as a veteran or Category A tree. Additionally, we consider that site constraints / layout should also be noted as potential reason for removal subject to replacement planting.

Point 10 should state where possible in regards to designing a scheme to incorporate existing trees already present on site.

Point 11 states that mature / ancient / veteran trees should be retained on site. In order to comply with national policy, we consider that the policy should state “subject to wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy” (NPPF paragraph 180d).

Point 12 states that new developments should use ‘large canopied species’ and street trees will be pursued. The PPG sets out guidance on what should be considered when assessing tree proposals and “the selection of street trees needs to consider which species will best suit the highway environment in the long term, including associated infrastructure and utilities” (Reference ID: 8-029-20190721). We consider that these considerations are important to the delivery of a site and should be added as a consideration within Policy ENV4. Further confirmation is also sought as to whether the cost of the Highways Authority maintaining tree lined streets has been factored into the viability appraisal as from Savills’ experience elsewhere in the country it could be as much as £30,000 per tree.

Point 13 states that 20-30% tree canopy cover will be sought on site. We object to this requirement for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is unclear how canopy cover will be calculated across the site and how this can be deliverable for residential sites which will include private gardens where there is limited / no control on what is planted or removed unless the site is within a Conservation Area. Additionally, we consider that this requirement, in combination with others proposed in the plan (e.g. 10% net gain, national requirement for tree lined streets and 3 to 1 replacement tree planting) will have serious implications on the net developable area of the site and as the BCA cannot currently meet its housing needs, this may result in an even greater shortfall and additional sites will be required to meet this shortfall.

Point 18 states that a ratio of at least 3 to 1 for tree planting will be sought. It is unclear how this requirement will work with Point 13 which seeks to require large canopy trees which you would expect would limit the number of trees that could be delivered across a site. We consider that trees which have been assessed as low quality (Category C and U) should not be afforded the same weight as higher quality trees and similarly, should not be required to be mitigated by a ratio of 3 to 1. Additionally, this is a significant replanting figure and we consider it will have implications of the net developable area of a site which in turn could impact on the potential yield of strategic allocations.

Comment

Representation ID: 21300

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Owl Homes

Agent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy ENV4 seeks to support and protect trees, woodland and hedgerow within the BCA. Whilst Owl Homes are supportive of the principle of the provision of new trees and the protection of existing ones, it is considered that the policy is too wordy, and goes beyond what is required by National Policy. Paragraph 131 of the NPPF sets out the planning policy expectations in relation to trees. This includes ensuring that trees are incorporated within developments, that measures are in place to secure the long-term maintenance of newly planted trees, and that trees are retained where possible. In light of the above, it is considered that the policy should be rationalised in order to be more clearly written and consistent with National Policy, and to serve a clear purpose.
As set out within the Vision Document at Appendix 2, and in line with the aspirations of this Policy, the proposed layout for the Site has been sensitively designed in order to retain the existing trees and hedgerow where possible. Further supporting information including a tree survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) will be undertaken to support the proposal, with appropriate mitigation where required.

Comment

Representation ID: 21350

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

POLICY ENV4 – PROVISION, RETENTION AND PROTECTION OF TREES, WOODLANDS AND HEDGEROWS
Whilst the intention of Policy ENV4 to provide, retain and protect trees, woodlands and hedgerows is recognised, it is noted that the policy is particularly lengthy. It would instead be more suitable for this guidance to be included in a Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) or an appendix to the plan. Indeed, that would align with the Government’s PPG on plan-making that specifies that SPDs “should build upon and provide more detailed advice or guidance on policies in an adopted local plan.”

Notwithstanding that, it is suggested that more flexibility be built into the policy. In particular, whilst the overarching aim to retain existing vegetation is recognised, in some cases small-scale removal of trees and hedgerows subject to arboricultural considerations is necessary – for example to facilitate access on greenfield sites. As such, it is suggested that the policy should be amended to require that trees and hedgerows are retained “wherever possible”, which would be a more sensible approach to protecting existing vegetation whilst not restricting development.

Object

Representation ID: 21483

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy ENV4 – Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

6.5. The requirement within this emerging policy is that replacement tree planting should be provided on a three for one basis as a minimum. This is not considered to be an appropriate requirement for every site as there may be instances where removal of trees is justified, for example due to the poor condition of particular tree specimen, and where the particular specimens does not justify such a level of replacement planting. The replacement of poor specimen trees on a development site should not be absolutely required at this level, particularly if it would harm the development capacity. In such circumstances funding toward off-site provision should be equally supported.

6.6. The level of detail proposed within Policy ENV4 is also considered to be unnecessary and inappropriate. Whilst it is important to ensure that appropriate provisions are included within the policy, it is considered that there are provisions within the policy that area already covered by best practice guidance and/or other regulations. For example, the detail regarding tree planting on site, and the need to ensure the protection of trees during development. The policy should not reproduce such requirements unless it is considered specifically necessary and justified in accordance with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 21494

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy ENV4 – Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

6.5. The requirement within this emerging policy is that replacement tree planting should be provided on a three for one basis as a minimum. This is not considered to be an appropriate requirement for every site as there may be instances where removal of trees is justified, for example due to the poor condition of particular tree specimen, and where the particular specimens does not justify such a level of replacement planting. The replacement of poor specimen trees on a development site should not be absolutely required at this level, particularly if it would harm the development capacity. In such circumstances funding toward off-site provision should be equally supported.

6.6. The level of detail proposed within Policy ENV4 is also considered to be unnecessary and inappropriate. Whilst it is important to ensure that appropriate provisions are included within the policy, it is considered that there are provisions within the policy that area already covered by best practice guidance and/or other regulations. For example, the detail regarding tree planting on site, and the need to ensure the protection of trees during development. The policy should not reproduce such requirements unless it is considered specifically necessary and justified in accordance with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Support

Representation ID: 21674

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country

Support: WTBBC support the inclusion of Policy ENV4 and the level of detail that is included in the wording of both the policy and the justification. Whilst supporting all the points in Policy ENV4, we have suggested changes and additions to a number of these, and have given explicit support to those which are of particular significance and which WTBBC consider to be innovative in the context of Local Plan policy.
10.53
Support: WTBBC support the recognition of the importance of encouraging and supporting the delivery of green infrastructure and ecological networks through urban areas, especially in relation to their role in climate change mitigation and adaptation and to mitigate the health problems associated with air pollution.

Comment

Representation ID: 21676

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country

10.54
Comment: WTBBC request that the evidence used to calculate the target increase in canopy cover to at least 18% over the plan period is published in the BCP.

Support

Representation ID: 21682

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country

10.54
Support: WTBBC support the recognition of the importance of identifying the opportunities for tree planting by following the evidence provided in the Draft Black Country Local Nature Recovery Strategy. It should be added to the paragraph that that ecosystem services evidence should be produced and followed in order to maximise the benefits of tree planting for biodiversity and climate change mitigation, and also recognised that tree planting is often not ecologically appropriate.
1
Support: WTBBC support that development that would result in the loss of or damage to ancient trees, ancient woodland or veteran trees will not be permitted.
17
Support: WTBBC support that replacement trees located off-site should not be planted where they would impact on areas designated as ecologically important unless this has been specifically agreed with the relevant authority and its ecological officers / advisers.
24
Support: WTBBC support that there will be a presumption against the wholesale removal of hedgerows for development purposes, especially where ecological surveys have identified them to be species-rich and where they exist on previously undeveloped land.

Comment

Representation ID: 21684

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country

1
Comment: WTBBC support that development adjacent to ancient woodland will be required to provide an appropriate landscaping buffer, but request that a larger minimum depth of 25m be required, and that the policy state that only in exceptional circumstances would a buffer of less than 50m be permitted. Furthermore, it should be added that developments adjacent to ancient woodland will be required to be orientated so as to face these in order to reduce negative impacts associated with proximity to residential developments such as the introduction of non-native plant species.
4
Comment: WTBBC request that the evidence used to calculate the target increase in canopy cover to at least 18% over the plan period is published in the BCP.


8
Comment: WTBBC request the wording of this point is changed to reflect and reinforce the importance of following the evidence provided by the Draft Local Nature Recovery Strategy, recognising that tree planting is often not the most ecologically appropriate action. Furthermore, it should be stated that ecosystem services evidence should be produced and followed in order to maximise the benefits of tree planting for biodiversity and climate change mitigation by ensuring this is undertaken in the most appropriate locations.
12
Comment: WTBBC support the recognition of the value of large canopied street trees and that the planting of these should be included in all new residential developments and other significant proposals. This should go further, however, and encourage the planting of new street trees in existing residential and employment areas to maximise the wide range of health, biodiversity and climate change mitigation and adaptation benefits. The opportunity to fund the retro-fitting of street trees through Biodiversity Net Gain contributions should be explored, especially as this is expected to provide resources to manage these for a period of 30 years.
13
Comment: Whilst supporting the minimum contribution of 20% canopy cover across the development site and a recommended contribution of 30% canopy cover across the development site in new developments, this should be caveated to state that this will not be required if this would lead to damage or loss of existing habitats of value that may otherwise be retained.
16
Comment: WTBBC support that replacement trees of a suitable species must be provided on site where planning permission has been granted that involves the removal of these, and that where sufficient and suitable onsite replacements cannot be provided, off-site planting or woodland enhancement must be provided in the near vicinity of the removed tree(s). Off-site street trees of large-canopied species should be added to the options for delivering this compensation.
25
Comment: WTBBC request that it is added to this point that replacement hedgerows should be of a suitable diverse mix of locally sourced native species, and that a resourced maintenance and management programme will be required that will include the replacement of plants that fail within a specified period by plants of a suitable size, species and quality.

26
Comment: Whilst supporting that the protection of hedgerows before and during development must be undertaken, WTBBC request that the policy states a minimum landscape buffer of 25m will be required, and that only in exceptional circumstances would a buffer of less than 50m be permitted.
27
Comment: Whilst supporting the creation of new hedgerows as part of site layouts and landscaping schemes, WTBBC request that it be added that these should be of a suitable diverse mix of locally sourced native species, and that a resourced maintenance and management programme will be required that will include the replacement of plants that fail within a specified period by plants of a suitable size, species and quality.

Comment

Representation ID: 22194

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

Part 5 of the policy states that “Tree Preservation Orders will be used to protect individual(s) or groups of trees that contribute to the visual amenity and / or the character of an area and that are under threat of damage or removal”. Guidance on the use of TPO’s is set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance. It should not be repeated in Local Planning policies

Comment

Representation ID: 22226

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Steve Crutchley

Policy ENV4 – Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees, Woodlands and Hedges

Part 5 of the policy states that “Tree Preservation Orders will be used to protect individual(s) or groups of trees that contribute to the visual amenity and / or the character of an area and that are under threat of damage or removal”. Guidance on the use of TPO’s is set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance. It should not be repeated in Local Planning policies.

Support

Representation ID: 22284

Received: 21/01/2022

Respondent: Miss Jodi Stokes

Provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands, and hedgerows

9.4 Part 10 of draft Policy ENV4 (Provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands, and hedgerows) requires that development should be designed around the need to incorporate trees already present on site, using sensitive and well-designed site layouts to maximise their retention. Part 13 goes on to require 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. This reflects the requirements of paragraph 131 of the NPPF, which sets out that “trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments, and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined, that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as parks and community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to secure the longterm maintenance of newly-planted trees, and that existing trees are retained wherever possible”. We therefore agree that draft Policy ENV4 is reasonable, and would seek to meet this policy requirements at Highfields North.