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

Comment

Representation ID: 22359

Received: 24/01/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Avison Young

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: 22361

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

The Trust welcomes the support given to the retention of the most important trees and hedgerows within the Black Country. The proposed requirement for landscape buffers alongside these natural assets is consistent with the suggestion outlined by the Trust in our comments on ENV7. We also welcome the ambitions for new tree planting (point 4). Our proposals for a 'Great Canal Orchard' explained in our
comments on policy ENV7) could make a valuable contribution to this and we suggest that a reference to it in the plan would increase the likelihood of developers contributing to the initiative.

Object

Representation ID: 22500

Received: 24/01/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Avison Young

Paragraph 3.55-3.56 Part 2 and 13 of the policy, the veteran or ancient tree buffer and proposed between 20 and 30% canopy coverage over development sites is challenged. On site conditions could mean that this policy puts into jeopardy development sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 22597

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: MH No. 1 Limited Partnership and Ellandi

Agent: Williams Gallagher

I write in respect of the above public consultation regarding the emerging Black Country Plan (the ‘Plan’)
published for consultation between 16 August 2021 and 11 October 2021 and covering the four Black Country
Authorities of Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton.

These representations have been prepared and submitted on behalf of MH No. 1 Limited and Ellandi in respect of Merry Hill Shopping Centre. MH No. 1
Limited are the owners of Merry Hill and Ellandi are the assets managers of the centre on behalf of the wners.

Ellandi was appointed as asset manager for Merry Hill in September 2020 and are currently leading a process of reinvigoration and re-positioning of the centre following the turbulent recent period in the retail sector. This includes a focus on Merry Hill shopping centre itself as the priority but also a wider strategic consideration of the additional land holdings around the centre.

Merry Hill Shopping Centre is situated within Brierley Hill Strategic Centre and accommodates over 200 stores and 150,000 sq. m of floorspace in addition to over 9,000 car parking spaces. The centre includes a dedicated bus station with almost 100 local and regional routes serving the centre and Merry Hill will soon benefit from access via the 11km Midland Metro line 2 extension from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill which is anticipated to open in 2023.

The wider area is anchored by the regional shopping centre with the area of ownership covered by these
representations also including a retail park, Odeon cinema and additional underutilised land around the
centre. Overall Merry Hill provides the largest agglomeration of floorspace within unified management in the West Midlands and includes key retailers such as M&S, Next, Boots, TK Maxx, H&M, Sports Direct / Flannels, Primark, Superdrug, JD Sports and Asda. As a result of this, Merry Hill provides thousands of jobs and is of fundamental importance to the Black Country’s economy.

The Plan retains Merry Hill’s inclusion as part of the Brierley Hill Strategic Centre. This is strongly supported
as it recognises the crucial role Merry Hill plays in the sub-regional economy and will help to facilitate the
continued regeneration and improvement of the centre and wider Strategic Centre of which it forms a part.

The overall approach of the Plan is to direct new residential and employment development across the Black Country to support the existing centres and to contribute to their regeneration rather than in supporting
new centres. The Plan recognises that recent changes in the retail sector have led to an oversupply of retail
floorspace therefore the shopping and service needs of existing and future residents can be met by the
existing centre hierarchy. Furthermore, the Plan recognises that in certain circumstances, there may need to be a reduction in retail floorspace in some centres and a shift in concentration on retail uses to ensure they
remain viable.

This approach is strongly supported as it represents a realistic reflection of the challenges faced by the
retail sector and provides the best opportunity to deliver the regeneration and continued health of the Black
Country’s centres. Notwithstanding this, it is recommended that this approach is strengthened and that the Plan makes it clear that its focus is that appropriate investment should be directed to the Strategic Centres in the first instance in accordance with the centre hierarchy.

Aligned to this, there should also be a more explicit recognition within the Plan of the need for flexibility in
respect of the range of uses within the Strategic Centres. This would reflect the dynamic nature of the retail
market where fast paced change through disruptive processes requires responsive policies and planning
decisions that allow centres to benefit from this pace of change. The Strategic Centres are the key drivers
of the Black Country economy and it is crucial that they are able to quickly adapt and respond to ever
quicker market changes. Planning policies at the sub-regional and local level should therefore include in-built
flexibility recognising that the pace of updating Development Plan policies to respond to market changes can often be undertaken quick enough to keep up with this fast-paced change. This approach would be
consistent with Paragraph 82 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that planning
policies should:
“d) be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan, allow for new and flexible working
practices, and to enable a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances.”

Leading on from this, the Plan suggests that the existing Area Action Plans (AAPs) for the Strategic Centres
will be subject to review following the adoption of the Black Country Plan to reflect the updated
development targets and strategic objectives of the Plan. Whilst there is obviously a need for additional policy at the local level to supplement the strategic policies of the Black Country Plan, it is not considered that an updated Area Action Plan is the best mechanism to provide this for Brierley Hill and the other Strategic Centres.

As noted above, the current nature of the market for retail and other town centre uses is changing at an
unprecedented pace. It is unlikely that Development Plan policy is able to be prepared and updated fast enough to remain relevant in this context. It is therefore considered that there are planning policy mechanisms that would be more efficient and responsive than an AAP in helping to shape the future regeneration of Brierley Hill Strategic Centre. This could more appropriately include either a Supplementary Planning Document or Development Framework that would help to guide future development but could be produced much quicker and therefore be more flexible than an updated AAP forming part of the
Development Plan.

To put this into the context of the current AAP, Policy 20 envisages a large scale extension to Merry Hill to
provide an additional 56,500 sq. m of comparison goods floorspace. The plan was adopted in August 2011
following work commencing on the plan in 2006. Over this five year period the global financial crisis occurred
and the development encouraged by Policy 20 was extremely unlikely to be delivered and therefore
arguably already out-of-date at the point of adoption.

Following the global financial crisis, the retail and leisure markets then saw an increase in the development of
large format foodstores with demand for these subsequently declining and supermarket operators
subsequently closing stores. Following this, there has been increases and subsidence in demand for chain
restaurant casual dining and more recently following the Covid-19 pandemic, uncertainty regarding the way
in which people may continue to work more flexibly and increasingly from home part of the time and the
impact this could have on the demand for and the characteristics of office floorspace. This highlights the
speed at which priorities in the retail and leisure markets can change and as a result of this, the difficulty
planning policy has in keeping up with these changes.

As a result of the above and the even more recent acceleration in the rate at which the retail market is
changing it is not considered that an updated AAP is necessarily the best option for provision of more
locational specific guidance below the strategic level of the Black Country Plan. This is due to the length of
time it will take to produce an update to the Strategic Centre AAPs and the likelihood that following this, it
will not be possible for the plans to remain sufficiently up to date.

To resolve this issue, the Black Country Plan should include the suggested option that each Local Authority
could either update the AAP for each Strategic Centre or produce Supplementary Planning Documents
(SPDs) or Development Frameworks to provide local guidance for the Strategic Centres. This will allow for
the more efficient production of relevant policy and in turn allow it to more quickly adapt to any future
trends in the retail and leisure sectors.

The Plan should also make clear that either of these options should be sufficiently flexible and proactive (as
it is considered the policies within the Black Country Plan are) to support the evolution and regeneration of the Strategic Centres without the need for more prescriptive policies that could become out-of-date quickly.

Policy TRAN1 of the Plan covers priorities for the development of the transport network and sets out a
range of specific improvements that are intended to be delivered over the plan period including the
extension of the Midland Metro network from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill. These improvements are
supported to increase accessibility across the Black Country to boost economic activity and increase the
proportion of journeys made by sustainable transport modes.

Policy CSP5 relates to Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy and seeks to protect, enhance and expand
such facilities in the Black Country. This aspiration is strongly supported to increase the attractiveness of the
Black Country as a visitor destination building on its distinct character, history and many other strengths. It is
recommended that this policy is adjusted however to specifically note that where such cultural and visitor
facilities are town centre uses, they will be subject to the sequential test.

Paragraph 4.11 includes a list of infrastructure investment required to support development including public
open space, transport provision, school places, health facilities, affordable housing, sustainable drainage
systems, wastewater treatment, and waste management facilities. It is considered that town centre and
public realm improvements be added to this list to help facilitate the regeneration of centres and where
required provide mitigation for out-of-centre proposals.

Policy ENV4 relates to the provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands and hedgerows. Whilst
the policy is positive in that it intends to increase the provision of trees across the Black Country, clause 13
requires that new developments should make a minimum contribution of 20% canopy cover across the
development site. It should be noted that this will be sought ‘where practical’ reflecting the reality that some
development sites will not practically be able to achieve this aspiration on site.

I trust the above will be taken into account in the progression of the Plan to the next stage. As noted, overall it is considered that the Plan is positive and realistic in its future aspirations for supporting development in the Black Country and subject to the changes identified above will be a sound basis for the future growth of the sub-region. Please contact me on the details provided if there are any questions or if any further information is required.

Object

Representation ID: 23068

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

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.
The interaction of trees and tree roots with built infrastructure, transport networks, buildings and utility services is complex and requires detailed inter-disciplinary co-operation, with expert arboricultural or forestry advice. 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
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 street trees 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 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: 23129

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 5.19 - 5.23 - Objection to criteria 1 and 11. ENV4 is contrary to the NPPF paragraph 180c which states: “…development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists..." (RPS emphasis)."

Support

Representation ID: 23262

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Policy ENV4 we are supportive of a policy that seeks to retain and enhance tree cover within the wider Black Country area. We do request that there is reference within the policy to heritage assets and the historic landscape to ensure that appropriate design and species are chosen to complement/ enhance the historic environment and that consideration is given to ensure there is no harm for the historic environment or heritage landscapes. The insertion of a clause into the policy could safeguard this issue. We support clause 25) and the retention of hedgerows.

Comment

Representation ID: 23314

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

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.

Support

Representation ID: 23429

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

9.6 L&Q Estates are supportive of Draft Policy ENV4 for the provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands and hedgerows. Part 3 of Draft Policy ENV4 advises that where removal of trees is unavoidable, replacement trees should be provided to compensate for their loss, on a minimum basis of three for one.

9.7 Part 6 of Draft Policy ENV4 states that all available data on extant tree cover and associated habitat will be considered when making decisions on the proposed loss of trees and woodland to accommodate infrastructure and other development proposals. In areas where evidence demonstrates that current levels of tree cover are low, proposals that incorporate additional tree planting, to increase existing levels of habitat and canopy cover, will be considered positively, as part of the wider contribution to biodiversity net gain. We are supportive of this pragmatic approach to loss of trees in the context of biodiversity net gain. However, it is considered that Part 6 of Draft Policy ENV4 conflicts with the aims of Part 3 within the same policy, which specifically requires replacement tree planting to compensate for any trees removed, as opposed to assessing the wider opportunities for biodiversity net gain. Therefore, further clarification is required in relation to which part of Draft Policy ENV4 would be applicable to strategic allocations, including the Site (Draft Policy WSA4).
9.8 Part 12 of Draft Policy ENV4 requires new tree planting to be included in all new residential developments, as street trees or as part of landscaping schemes. We support this requirement and can confirm that the development of Site would provide significant tree planting.

9.9 Part 13 of Draft Policy ENV4 requires 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. Whilst it is important to ensure that development proposals include new tree planting, this cannot result in schemes becoming unviable. We would therefore recommend that Part 13 of Draft Policy ENV4 is amended to confirm that this contribution can be reduced subject to viability considerations or confirm that the Black Country Authorities would accept tree planting in an appropriate off-site location.

9.10 Part 24 of Draft Policy ENV4 identifies 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. Whilst L&Q Estates appreciate the aims of this policy, it should be noted that some developments will require the loss of some hedgerows to gain access. As set out in the Vision Document (Appendix 2), access to the Site will be taken from the A34 Stafford Road. Map 3 of the Birmingham & Black Country Local Sites Assessment Report for the Site identifies that the Site’s western boundary along the A34 comprises hedgerow with trees. Where access to the Site and the associated visibility splays are required, some of this hedgerow will need to be removed. Given the access would not result in the wholesale removal of the hedgerow, it is considered that this would be in accordance with Part 24 of Draft Policy ENV4

Object

Representation ID: 43878

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

11.10 Policy ENV4 seeks to provide, retain and protect trees, woodlands and hedgerows. Taylor Wimpey supports the principles set out in the policy and to delivering new tree planting in association with development proposals. However, there are certain specific elements of it that raise concern. In particular Criterion 12 states that development proposals should use large canopy species where possible. This is not support as it will often cause conflict with Highway Authorities, where they be located along new streets, particularly where they are likely to be frequented by high sided vehicles. Similarly, the policy refers to making a ‘minimum’ contribution of 20% canopy cover across a development site and a ‘recommended’ contribution of 30% canopy cover across a development site. Such an approach would have a significant impact on the capacity of any new development site. Furthermore, these specific figures are arbitrary and have not been justified. Consideration has not been given to its implications for delivery of housing or employment development. This element of the Policy should be deleted as it is not properly evidenced and it would sterilise large tracts of land which has development potential. It would also be in addition to requirements of other open space typologies- areas for sport and recreate cannot accommodate tree cover as envisaged.
11.11 Criterion 14 refers to new houses and buildings being carefully designed to avoid shade cast by both existing and new trees. As creating shade with trees is one response to climate change and combating the urban heat island effect, the inclusion of this criterion needs further clarification and justification.
11.12 Criterion 18 refers to trees proposed for removal during development being replaced at a ratio of at least 3 trees for 1 removed tree. It goes on to state the size and number of replacement trees would be commensurate with the size, stature, rarity and amenity of the tree to be removed. This approach is unreasonable, not justified by evidence and does not properly consider the practicalities of providing replacement trees particularly when larger specimens can be difficult to establish. This criterion should be deleted.
11.13 Criterion 22 refers to utilisation of planning conditions to require an arboricultural Clerk of Works being required on sites where development will potentially impact on trees. It is unclear how this requirement will be enforced on the ground. Similarly, Criterion 23 states a presumption will be applied to replacement trees being from the UK and Ireland to negate the spread of tree pests and diseases whilst supporting regional nurseries. The evidence base for this requirement is questioned. Similarly, it is difficult to understand how this would be enforced via planning conditions or through a planning permission. It could also mean trees are difficult to resource in the planting season.
11.14 Criterion 24 states there will be a presumption against the wholesale removal of hedgerows for development purposes. Taylor Wimpey supports the principle that established hedgerows should be protected in development proposals. However, particularly when dealing with greenfield sites such as those in the Neighbourhood Growth Areas, it is inevitable that some hedgerows will need to be removed to facilitate other requirements such as access, circulation routes, drainages etc and the policy should be amended to reflect that there are occasions where hedgerows can legitimately be removed to secure other planning objectives. Criterion 27 states new hedgerows would be sought as part of site layouts and landscaping schemes. This policy should be revised to reflect differing circumstances within the Black Country whereby not in every occurrence would it be appropriate to plant a hedge particularly in urban/town centre locations.

Object

Representation ID: 44764

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Churchill Retirement Living and McCarthy Stone Retirement Lifestyles

Agent: Planning Issues

The benefits of tree planting and their role in the Government’s target to reach net zero by 2050 has been widely publicized. It is commendable that the Council is looking to engage proactively with this matter in the Local Plan.

We note that there is a requirement for all sites to provide a minimum tree canopy cover of 20% of the site area and a recommended level of canopy cover of 30%. It is also noted that the tree planting requirements are expected to be met within the development site and there appears to be no opportunity to provide tree planting off site.
The aim of the replacement tree planting standards would appear to be a long term increase in tree cover rather than like-for-like replacement which will be an impediment to building at higher densities, particularly on previously developed sites in urban areas. This appears to run contrary to Policy HOU2 which encourages the efficient use of land in sustainable, urban environments. While we appreciate there are benefits to providing trees in urban areas, building at higher densities in these locations greatly reduces greenfield land-take and is a highly sustainable outcome accordingly. A reduced tree standard for sites in urban areas would be more appropriate.
Given the significant requirement for tree planting we are surprised that there was no allowance made for tree planting within the Local Plan Viability Assessment. We would respectfully remind the Council that the PPG states that “The role for viability assessment is primarily at the plan make stage. Viability assessment should not compromise sustainable development but should be used to ensure that policies are realistic and that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the Plan.” Para 002 Ref ID: 10-002-20190509
Recommendation:
3) Reduce the requirement for additional tree planting in urban areas
4) To include an allowance for tree planting, green walls/roofs in the Local Plan Viability Assessment.

Support

Representation ID: 44848

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

The provision of street trees within developments is supported in principle but this raises concerns in terms of technical approval and the adoption of highways with most Highway Authorities currently reluctant to adopt trees within highways and for the potential for large, commuted sums to be endured by the developer if they are accepted.

Comment

Representation ID: 44849

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

but this raises concerns in terms of technical approval and the adoption of highways with most Highway Authorities currently reluctant to adopt trees within highways and for the potential for large, commuted sums to be endured by the developer if they are accepted.
The draft policy states that large canopied species should be used ‘where possible’. It needs to be recognised that these types of species may not always be appropriate to the front of rear of houses with issues arising from long-term protection due to liveability issues.
It is unclear how the request for a minimum of 20% canopy cover across a development site has been factored in overall in terms of the mounting costs of developments, particularly on brownfield sites. Would the 20% canopy tree cover form part of BNG or is this criterion in addition to BNG? It is often the case that tree planting does not significantly contribute towards an increase in BNG. Has the provision of 10% BNG and 20% tree cover been factored into viability and the percentage provision of affordable housing put forward within Policy HOU3? Have these policy requirements been tested on existing schemes to consider impacts on the delivery of development on sites that are often going to be at the margins of viability?

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.

Object

Representation ID: 44982

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

ENV4 — Provision, retention and
protection of trees, woodlands and
hedgerows
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 (51241.
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, theræ 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.
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 Trust" 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Emergency Tree plan for the — The 2020
th n this — especially in cases where significant / mature trees contributing to the vi
ecological amenity of an area and its character are to be removed.
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.
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.
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. 'Ille 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 46191

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Policy ENV4 includes a blanket statement 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’.

There should be acknowledgement that there will not be the justification for the retention of some trees, particularly in the context of poor specimens and wider development benefit. The policy text should be consistent with the Framework, which says planning policies should ensure ‘…that existing trees are retained wherever possible’ (paragraph 131).

The policy also sets out at ENV4 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’. It is noted that this is based upon the Emergency Tree Plan for the UK – The Woodland Trust 2020 but there is no basis in the Framework or Planning Practice Guidance for the introduction of blanket thresholds for canopy cover. The same observation is made in respect of ENV4 (18) and its requirement that ‘Trees proposed for removal during development should be replaced at a ratio of at least three for one’. The requirement for replacement trees and the number to be provided should be the subject of site-by-site assessments, alongside a measured consideration of biodiversity net gain.