Comment

Representation ID: 1252

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Churchill Retirement Living

Agent: Planning Issues Ltd

The benefits of tree planting and their role in the Government's target to reach net zero by 2050 has been widely publicised. 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. 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 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 DLP2 Growth Network: Regeneration Corridors and Centres 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 reduces greenfield land-take and is a highly sustainable outcome accordingly. Large, landscaped areas are not always feasible, or desirable in higher density urban environments, such as town centre or edge of centre locations. A reduced tree standard for sites in urban areas would be more appropriate.

Given the significant requirement for tree planting an appropriate allowance should be 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 making 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" (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 10-002-20190509).

From reviewing the November 2023 Viability Study, it is clear to see an assumption has been made for the provision of trees and protection of trees, woodland and Ancient Woodland is to be included in the professional fee budget. However, there is no consideration of the cost to development in providing a 20% tree canopy coverage on site, especially on constrained brownfield sites of which both McCarthy Stone and Churchill Living are almost exclusively modelled on.

Object

Representation ID: 1312

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This proposed policy seeks to establish a requirement for major development to provide a minimum of 20% canopy tree cover across the development site. Whilst these aspirations are positive and the principle of securing planting of new trees is supported, the policy fails to acknowledge the implications of delivering this requirement on the capacity, and resultant viability, of development sites. This is particularly critical given that much of the Borough’s housing requirement is proposed to be met on brownfield sites within the existing urban area, and the failure within the Plan to identify sufficient sites to meet the housing need. Other considerations including mandatory biodiversity net gain should also be recognised, with competing requirements likely to impact the amount of development that can realistically be achieved on sites.

It is therefore considered that if the authority wants to continue to request this through policy, this should identified as aspirational and to be delivered where feasible and deliverable. Given the constraints presented to housing delivery within Dudley, the Council should recognise the imperative to ensure that an effective use of land is made and that the delivery of sites is not unduly constrained by arbitrary policy requirements. This policy should also be streamlined, removing unnecessary items that are covered through existing national policy or legislation such as relating to ancient woodland or veteran trees. National policy set out in Paragraph 16 of the Framework requires policy to be clearly written and unambiguous, and serve a clear purpose, whilst some of the requirements set out in this policy as currently drafted would be better placed within supporting text or supplementary planning guidance, to ensure that the Plan is drafted in an appropriate way.

Comment

Representation ID: 1325

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Policy DLP33: Provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands,
Ancient Woodland, and Veteran trees
The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in
line with national policy.
140. HBF are keen to understand how this policy interacts with other policies
on BNG and nature conservation, and viability. HBF suggests that the Council
needs to fully consider if and how the tree policy could impact on the land uptake for any development and the implications this may have for the density of developments, which in turn has the potential to have an impact on the viability. As currently written the Plan is not clear, as is therefore ineffective.

Object

Representation ID: 1381

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This proposed policy seeks to establish a requirement for major development to provide a minimum of 20% canopy tree cover across the development site. Whilst these aspirations are positive and the principle of securing planting of new trees is supported, the policy fails to acknowledge the implications of delivering this requirement on the capacity, and resultant viability, of development sites. This is particularly critical given that much of the Borough’s housing requirement is proposed to be met on brownfield sites within the existing urban area, and the failure within the Plan to identify sufficient sites to meet the housing need. Other considerations including mandatory biodiversity net gain should also be recognised, with competing requirements likely to impact the amount of development that can realistically be achieved on sites.

It is therefore considered that if the authority wants to continue to request this through policy, this should identified as aspirational and to be delivered where feasible and deliverable. Given the constraints presented to housing delivery within Dudley, the Council should recognise the imperative to ensure that an effective use of land is made and that the delivery of sites is not unduly constrained by arbitrary policy requirements. This policy should also be streamlined, removing unnecessary items that are covered through existing national policy or legislation such as relating to ancient woodland or veteran trees. National policy set out in Paragraph 16 of the Framework requires policy to be clearly written and unambiguous, and serve a clear purpose, whilst some of the requirements set out in this policy as currently drafted would be better placed within supporting text or supplementary planning guidance, to ensure that the Plan is drafted in an appropriate way.

Support

Representation ID: 1406

Received: 21/11/2024

Respondent: National Trust

We remain supportive of policy DLP33 and consider that in the context of the National Trust’s recent development of a bid for a woodland creation project in the wider area, there are likely to be many opportunities where the National Trust can contribute to and support the ambition of Dudley Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 1449

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

**Summary:**

The proposed policy requires major developments to provide at least 20% canopy tree cover across the site. While the principle of planting new trees is supported, the policy does not consider the impact this requirement could have on the capacity and viability of development sites, especially on brownfield sites within urban areas, like DLP H017, where achieving such a high level of tree planting may be challenging. Other factors, such as mandatory biodiversity net gain, could further limit development potential.

It is suggested that the tree planting requirement be made aspirational, to be delivered where feasible. The Council should ensure that development is not unduly constrained by policy requirements, especially given the challenges in housing delivery in Dudley. Additionally, the policy should be streamlined by removing elements already covered by national policy, such as those related to ancient woodland or veteran trees, and some requirements should be moved to supporting text or supplementary guidance. This would make the policy clearer and more aligned with the principles of effective planning as outlined in Paragraph 16 of the Framework.

Comment

Representation ID: 1482

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

Stress the need for policies to protect trees, woodlands, and hedgerows, specifically asking for cross-referencing to Canal Policy DLP36 to ensure proper policy application for canals. Suggest separating tree retention from habitat creation aspects to aid planning assessments.