Comment

Representation ID: 42

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust

- In point 4, clarity is sought in what is defined as 'appropriate' location for trees in this context
- In point 25, clarity is sought in what is defined as an 'ecologically important' area in this context

Comment

Representation ID: 357

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

DLP33 - Trees
5.1.
Draft Policy DLP33 of the draft Local Plan relates to trees, woodlands, Ancient Woodland, and Veteran Trees. The Policy requires that all new major developments must make a minimum contribution of 20% tree canopy cover across the development site (estimated growth 25-years from planting). Where existing levels of tree canopy cover are low, the policy notes that proposals incorporating additional tree planting above the minimum requirement will be considered positively, providing this will not adversely affect areas with recognised ecological or biodiversity value that would be damaged or destroyed by tree planting. Whilst the broad aspirations of this Policy are supported in principle, it is contended that this Policy requires substantial further refinement before it can be supported.
5.2.
Part 1 and 2 of the draft Policy relate to Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, establishing that development would not be permitted that would result in the loss or damage to trees that fall within those categories. It is not considered necessary for the Local Plan to include policy relating to this, as Paragraph 180(c) of the Framework already provides that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland or veteran trees should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.
As noted in Paragraph 16 of the Framework, policies should avoid unnecessary duplication of policies, including those covered by policies in the Framework.
5.3.
In respect of Part 3 of the draft Policy, this identifies a presumption against the removal of trees that contribute to public amenity and air quality, unless there are sound arboricultural reasons to support removal. It is generally acknowledged that when preparing development proposals, higher quality trees or those that contribute towards amenity are typically sought to be retained as these will contribute towards the green infrastructure framework for development. However, there are instances where poorer quality trees and/or specimens that are considered less appropriate, or are required to be removed to facilitate access or address other constraints are proposed to be removed. This will typically be required to be compensated through provision of new planting with suitable specimens in optimum locations, often further restricted in respect of matters such as age or size of specimen to ensure that the success of new planting is assured.
5.4.
References within the Policy text to the proposed safeguarding of trees which make a contribution to public amenity are not supported, as this is a subjective matter, and therefore fails to provide the clarity of application required to be achieved by Local Plan policies. Furthermore, it is not considered to be necessary for trees of public amenity value to be safeguarded through Policy DLP33 of the Local Plan, whereby Tree Protection Orders already provide a mechanism for the Council to protect trees of particular amenity value. Therefore it is not considered proportionate or appropriate for the Council to establish a blanket protection for trees of alleged public amenity value through Local Plan policies. Draft Policy DLP33 as currently drafted, is therefore not considered to be consistent with the requirements of national policy, as Paragraph 16 of the Framework also requires that Plans are prepared positively, in a way that is aspiration but deliverable, and are prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The Framework makes clear that sustainable development has multiple arms, with environmental objectives required to be balanced against social and economic matters as these are interdependent.
5.5.
The draft Policy reinforces the Council’s aim to achieve a minimum of 20% tree canopy cover on a Borough-wide basis, and as a result, part 5 of the Policy establishes that the Council will consider available data on extant canopy cover when making decisions on proposed loss of trees and woodland to accommodate infrastructure and other development proposals. Major developments are accordingly expected by the policy to deliver a minimum of 20% canopy cover, emphasising retention of existing established trees. Whilst the general aim to achieve 20% canopy cover across the Borough is recognised as a positive aspiration for the Council, it is considered that the requirement to achieve this on all major proposals is likely to be challenging and adversely impact viability, particularly in a Borough reliant on brownfield sites to deliver the majority of its housing needs. Policies DLP1 and DLP2 of the Local Plan establish that the Council does not consider it feasible for the Borough’s housing need to be met in full within the administrative boundaries of the Borough, with considerable reliance upon the delivery of housing within adjacent authority areas proposed. In light of this, it is considered critical for the Council to carefully balance their social and environmental aspirations for development to ensure that ultimately, aspirations to enhance tree planting within the Borough does not further undermine the Council’s ability to deliver new housing to meet identified needs. As such, it is suggested that the policy be re-framed to suggest this as an aspiration that is to be encouraged, rather than a requirement on all sites. This will ensure that it is consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 16 of the Framework, which requires policies to be aspirational but deliverable.
5.6.
Whilst these represent some concerns with specific parts of the draft Policy, overall, the Policy as currently drafted is considered to be verbose and protracted, such that it is not consistent with the Framework’s requirements for policies to be clear and unambiguous. The policy is repetitive, noting for example the presumption against removal of existing trees in part 3, part 9 requires developments to be designed around trees already present on site, whilst part 11 requires existing
mature trees to be retained and integrated into the proposed landscaping scheme. Similarly part 5 requires major developments to deliver 20% tree canopy cover, whilst part 21 repeats this requirement. In order to ensure soundness, the policy overall needs to be redrafted, removing unnecessary duplication from national policy or other guidance, as well as removing detailed policy elements that would be better contained within supplementary planning guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 404

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 532

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Churchill Retirement Living

Agent: Churchill Retirement Living

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 Page 2in 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. 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.

Object

Representation ID: 560

Received: 15/12/2023

Respondent: Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy DLP33 - Trees

5.4. This policy relates to trees, woodlands, Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, with the aim of securing the planting of new trees and protecting existing specimens. The supporting text references the Borough-wide aim to increase the urban canopy cover to at least 20% over the plan period. If on major development sites, canopy cover is less than 20%, it is expected that new canopy cover is provided. Whilst the aims of the policy are supported in principle, it is considered that the policy as currently drafted is unclear and imprecise, and is not in accordance with the plan-making requirements set out in the Framework.

5.5. Part 1 and 2 of the draft Policy relate to Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, establishing that development would not be permitted that would result in the loss or damage to trees that fall within those categories. It is not considered necessary for the Local Plan to include policy relating to this, as Paragraph 180(c) of the Framework already provides that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland or veteran trees should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. As noted in Paragraph 16 of the Framework, policies should avoid unnecessary duplication of policies, including those covered by policies in the Framework.

5.6. In respect of Part 3 of the draft Policy, this identifies a presumption against the removal of trees that contribute to public amenity and air quality, unless there are sound arboricultural reasons to support removal. It is generally acknowledged that when preparing development proposals, higher quality trees or those that contribute towards amenity are typically sought to be retained as these will contribute towards the green infrastructure framework for development. However, there are instances where poorer quality trees and/or specimens that are considered less appropriate, or are required to be removed to facilitate access or address other constraints are proposed to be removed. This will typically be required to be compensated through provision of new planting with suitable specimens in optimum locations, often further restricted in respect of matters such as age or size of specimen to ensure that new planting is most successful. It is suggested that caution should be used in respect of the reference to amenity, as this is a subjective matter. Additionally, Tree Preservation Orders already provide a mechanism for the Council to seek protection of trees, where they are considered to warrant this. It is considered that this criteria, as currently drafted, is not consistent with the requirements of national policy, as Paragraph 16 of the Framework also requires that Plans are prepared positively, in a way that is aspiration but deliverable, and are prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The Framework makes clear that sustainable development has multiple arms, with environmental objectives required to be balanced against social and economic matters as these are interdependent.

5.7. The draft Policy reinforces the Council’s aim to achieve a minimum of 20% tree canopy cover on a Borough-wide basis, and as a result, part 5 of the Policy establishes that the Council will consider available data on extant canopy cover when making decisions on proposed loss of trees and woodland to accommodate infrastructure and other development proposals. Major developments are accordingly expected by the policy to deliver a minimum of 20% canopy cover, emphasising retention of existing established trees. Whilst the general aim to achieve 20% canopy cover across the Borough is recognised as a positive aspiration for the Council, it is considered that the requirement to achieve this on all major proposals is likely to be challenging and adversely impact viability, particularly in a Borough reliant on brownfield sites to deliver the majority of its housing needs. On greenfield sites, there are also likely to be circumstances where other forms of green infrastructure may be required to be prioritised in order to maximise biodiversity net gain or meet other development requirements. As such, it is suggested that the policy be re-framed to suggest this as an aspiration that is to be encouraged, rather than a requirement on all sites. This will ensure that it is consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 16 of the Framework, which requires policies to be aspirational but deliverable.

5.8.
Whilst these represent some concerns with specific parts of the draft Policy, overall, the Policy as currently drafted is considered to be verbose and protracted, such that it is not consistent with the Framework’s requirements for policies to be clear and unambiguous. The policy is repetitive, noting for example the presumption against removal of existing trees in part 3, part 9 requires developments to be designed around trees already present on site, whilst part 11 requires existing mature trees to be retained and integrated into the proposed landscaping scheme. Similarly, part 5 requires major developments to deliver 20% tree canopy cover, whilst part 21 repeats this requirement. The policy overall needs to be redrafted, removing unnecessary duplication from national policy or other guidance, as well as removing detailed policy elements that would be better contained within supplementary planning guidance. Within this, it should be recognised that the Council faces significant challenges such as securing delivery of sufficient housing to meet local needs, which must be balanced against environmental aspirations in order to ensure that the emerging Plan as a whole contributes towards achieving sustainable development as required by the Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 576

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

5.4.
This policy relates to trees, woodlands, Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, with the aim of securing the planting of new trees and protecting existing specimens. The supporting text references the Borough-wide aim to increase the urban canopy cover to at least 20% over the plan period. If on major development sites, canopy cover is less than 20%, it is expected that new canopy cover is provided. Whilst the aims of the policy are supported in principle, it is considered that the policy as currently drafted is unclear and imprecise, and is not in accordance with the plan-making requirements set out in the Framework.
5.5.
Part 1 and 2 of the draft Policy relate to Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, establishing that development would not be permitted that would result in the loss or damage to trees that fall within those categories. It is not considered necessary for the Local Plan to include policy relating to this, as Paragraph 180(c) of the Framework already provides that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland or veteran trees should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. As noted in Paragraph 16 of the Framework, policies should avoid unnecessary duplication of policies, including those covered by policies in the Framework.
5.6.
In respect of Part 3 of the draft Policy, this identifies a presumption against the removal of trees that contribute to public amenity and air quality, unless there are sound arboricultural reasons to support removal. It is generally acknowledged that when preparing development proposals, higher quality trees or those that contribute towards amenity are typically sought to be retained as these will contribute towards the green infrastructure framework for development. However, there are instances where poorer quality trees and/or specimens that are considered less appropriate, or are required to be removed to facilitate access or address other constraints are proposed to be removed. This will typically be required to be compensated through provision of new planting with suitable specimens in optimum locations, often further restricted in respect of matters such as age or size of specimen to ensure that new planting is most successful. It is suggested that caution should be used in respect of the reference to amenity, as this is a subjective matter. Additionally, Tree Preservation Orders already provide a mechanism for the Council to seek protection of trees, where they are considered to warrant this. It is considered that this criteria, as currently drafted, is not consistent with the requirements of national policy, as Paragraph 16 of the Framework also requires that Plans are prepared positively, in a way that is aspiration but deliverable, and are prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The Framework makes clear that sustainable development has multiple arms, with environmental objectives required to be balanced against social and economic matters as these are interdependent.
5.7.
The draft Policy reinforces the Council’s aim to achieve a minimum of 20% tree canopy cover on a Borough-wide basis, and as a result, part 5 of the Policy establishes that the Council will consider available data on extant canopy cover when making decisions on proposed loss of trees and woodland to accommodate infrastructure and other development proposals. Major developments are accordingly expected by the policy to deliver a minimum of 20% canopy cover, emphasising retention of existing established trees. Whilst the general aim to achieve 20% canopy cover across the Borough is recognised as a positive aspiration for the Council, it is considered that the requirement to achieve this on all major proposals is likely to be challenging and adversely impact viability, particularly in a Borough reliant on brownfield sites to deliver the majority of its housing needs. On greenfield sites, there are also likely to be circumstances where other forms of green infrastructure may be required to be prioritised in order to maximise biodiversity net gain or meet other development requirements. As such, it is suggested that the policy be re-framed to suggest this as an aspiration that is to be encouraged, rather than a requirement on all sites. This will ensure that it is consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 16 of the Framework, which requires policies to be aspirational but deliverable.
5.8.
Whilst these represent some concerns with specific parts of the draft Policy, overall, the Policy as currently drafted is considered to be verbose and protracted, such that it is not consistent with the Framework’s requirements for policies to be clear and unambiguous. The policy is repetitive, noting for example the presumption against removal of existing trees in part 3, part 9 requires developments to be designed around trees already present on site, whilst part 11 requires existing mature trees to be retained and integrated into the proposed landscaping scheme. Similarly, part 5 requires major developments to deliver 20% tree canopy cover, whilst part 21 repeats this requirement. The policy overall needs to be redrafted, removing unnecessary duplication from national policy or other guidance, as well as removing detailed policy elements that would be better contained within supplementary planning guidance. Within this, it should be recognised that the Council faces significant challenges such as securing delivery of sufficient housing to meet local needs, which must be balanced against environmental aspirations in order to ensure that the emerging Plan as a whole contributes towards achieving sustainable development as required by the Framework.

Comment

Representation ID: 654

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Natural England

We welcome the inclusion of this policy, particularly the requirement to retain existing mature trees, the requirement for 20% canopy cover within major developments, street trees, the consideration of climate change and the enhancement of ecological networks and the Nature Recovery Network.
8. Opportunities for increasing tree provision through habitat creation and the enhancement of ecological networks, including connecting areas of ancient woodland, will be maximised, in particular by means of the biodiversity net gain and Nature Recovery Network initiatives (see Policy DLP32).
Reference should be made to the urban tree cover standards in NE’s GI Framework, which state:
• Urban Tree Canopy Cover is increased by agreed %.
• Major residential and commercial development is designed to meet these targets.
• New and existing trees are incorporated into new developments and new streets are tree lined.
Reference should be made to the Standing advice for ancient woodlands produced jointly by Natural England and the Forestry Commission: Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees: advice for making planning decisions - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

Comment

Representation ID: 710

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

both these polies to ensure appropriate application of policy in canal-specific cases (ACTION REQUEST). We also query whether it would be beneficial to separate out the tree retention and protection aspects of Policy DLP33 from the habitat creations elements to aid investigation and assessment within planning application submissions.

Support

Representation ID: 780

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: National Trust

Policy DLP33 Provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands, Ancient Woodland, and Veteran trees
We are supportive of policy DLP33 and are encouraged that so much focus has been placed on trees and the benefits that they can deliver for habitat creation, air quality management, public amenity and climate cooling. Enhancement and connectivity of the woodland network will be a priority of the regional park.

Comment

Representation ID: 860

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

The Council should delete DLP33 point 5