Yes

Representation ID: 95969

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Yes. Would a ‘two for one’ tree replacement scheme where a tree is being removed be a useful tool to increase tree coverage?

No

Representation ID: 96071

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Edward Wilson

Isn't it incredibly naive to talk about carbon sequestration improvements when you are encouraging the stripping of grass fields for housing and solar panels which will release massive amounts of carbon and destroying the sequestration opportunities.

No

Representation ID: 96089

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Tamsin Kashap

No, the plan should set out a tree canopy target, as other Councils have done, to be more ambitious at a wider scale.

Other

Representation ID: 96125

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Judith Palmer

The devil is in the detail as to who implements this - e.g. are they objective in their decision making on the health of the tree for example. Too often ‘mistakes’ have been made, by which point it is too late as viable trees and hedgerows have been destroyed.

No

Representation ID: 96130

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Collier

No, the plan should set out a tree canopy target, as other Councils have done, to be more ambitious at a wider scale.

Yes

Representation ID: 96365

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

Southam Town, District and County elected representatives support this Policy Direction.

Other

Representation ID: 96482

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adam Ledger

I welcome a plan to increase canopy cover. However this must protect existing ancient trees. New trees cannot provide the same environmental benefits as established trees. Protections need to be in place to preserve all hedgerows. The plans should seek to improve on existing green belt value rather than destroy it.

Yes

Representation ID: 96509

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

A ‘two for one’ tree replacement scheme where a tree is being removed would be a useful tool to increase tree coverage.
(This has been adopted locally in Shipston on Stour.)

No

Representation ID: 96645

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Nixon

There should be tree canopy targets and hedgegrow retention policy to minimise continued developer destruction.

Yes

Representation ID: 96711

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Janet Gee

no further comment

Other

Representation ID: 96872

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

As stated in DPD42, "Trees, hedge and woodlands provide valuable habitats for wild life and contribute to the character of the wider landscape and the overall amenity.... They provide an important roll in sequestering and storing carbon dioxide..." In the case of site BW what is planned goes completely against this as the settlement would result in the destruction of hedges and mature trees.

Yes

Representation ID: 97080

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Roger Horsfall

The principles of tree protection are essential. Unfortunately, there are instances where veteran trees have been felled (SEGRO PARK COVENTRY) and very few trees in conservation areas are saved from perceived nuisance felling. There must be a stronger commitment to preserve or at least replace trees in all areas - planting before felling.

Yes

Representation ID: 97082

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

This approach is agreed by Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council (together referred to as Alcester Parishes Group or ‘APG’).

Yes

Representation ID: 97121

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

Policies that support, encourage and enable canopy development within Neighbourhood Plans would be appreciated. It would also be beneficial if such schemes could be open to the public.

Yes

Representation ID: 97150

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs R Douce

The use of Tree Preservation Orders within new developments will ensure that as much existing natural character is retained. However, specifying new tree planting in itself does not mean that tree canopy cover will be increased. Developers can plant the required number of trees in Spring and they can be dead by Autumn. There needs to be a longer term plan and commitment to trees and hedges becoming established. This will have a better outcome in the long run both in terms of the visual environment and investment.

Yes

Representation ID: 97182

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Emily Morris

I agree

No

Representation ID: 97188

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Sir Thomas White’s Charity and The King Henry VIII Endowed Trust, Warwick

Agent: Stansgate Planning

This Draft Policy Direction states that development will be expected to increase tree canopy cover, supported by a tree canopy assessment, with further guidance to be developed. No justification has been provided for including this within policy, nor has any information been provided regarding how such a policy would function in practice. There are no other examples of adopted Local Plan policies requiring an increase in tree canopies, and the matter is not covered by national planning guidance. This requirement may harm viability, cause longer lead-in times and the uncertainty could delay the deliverability of sites. Sites with many existing trees (and canopies) will be treated different to sites with few or no trees. Sites with native trees will be treated differently to sites with non-native trees. More tree canopy is not necessarily beneficial or necessary. More overshading could harm residential amenity. This Policy Direction should be deleted from the Plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 97217

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes

Other

Representation ID: 97411

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Godwin Developments

Godwin Developments acknowledge and accept the approach taken in Draft Policy 42 which seeks to resist the loss of trees of value based on amenity, historic and ecological value except in certain circumstances.

With regards to Godwin Developments land interests at Aylesbury Road, the supporting Vision Document notes that there are two principal groupings of trees on site. The first comprises an assemblage of established parkland trees associated with Aylesbury House which are located along the eastern boundary of the site. Collectively they hold a noteworthy visual presence within views from the site interior and make a positive and important contribution to the site’s setting.

The second group comprises a number of early-mature and mature oak trees located along the hedgerows defining the north and western boundaries. Collectively, they
provide the boundaries with a strong degree of containment and maturity that contributes positively to the site’s character and setting.

The Masterplan supporting this site would seek to retain and enhance those features (where possible) to help screen the development from the existing development at the boundary whilst also preserving the setting of neighbouring Aylesbury House.

Yes

Representation ID: 97720

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr HUGH KEEP

Hedgerows are of considerable value to biodiversity provided they are not cut too often or too low.

Yes

Representation ID: 97773

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

Proposed site BW would require the destruction of hedges and trees on the agricultural land in the Green Belt on which the settlement would be developed. This would clearly conflict with this Policy.

Yes

Representation ID: 97896

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Stafford-scott

Agree with the statements made

Yes

Representation ID: 97944

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

Trees should also be valued for carbon sequestration and storage.

Yes

Representation ID: 98018

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Helen Little

B

No

Representation ID: 98030

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barnabas Harrison

This Policy Direction is not sufficiently stringent, as SG24 appears to propose to construct infrastructure over multiple ancient oaks and other species of trees, particularly in the SG24 area between Stratford Road, Aylesbury Road, Box Trees Road, and Grange Road. Additionally, construction appears to be proposed over areas where trees are covered with Tree Preservation Orders, including rare ancient, large, holly trees.

Yes

Representation ID: 98314

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barry Elkington

In particular we should protect all existing hedgerows for their biodiversity and the fact that they provide both the homes and a safe means of movement for wildlife. In particular, the hedgerows and mature hedgerow oaks in the Forest of Arden Special Landscape Area (including that which was designated as such by WDC prior to 2006) need to be fully protected. No productive open farmland, with biodiverse hedgerows and ancient trees in an ancient landscape, should be released for development.

No

Representation ID: 98513

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Flynn

Agent: Stansgate Planning

This Draft Policy Direction states that development will be expected to increase tree canopy cover, supported by a tree canopy assessment, with further guidance to be developed. No justification has been provided for including this within policy, nor has any information been provided regarding how such a policy would function in practice. There are no other examples of adopted Local Plan policies requiring an increase in tree canopies, and the matter is not covered by national planning guidance. This requirement may harm viability, cause longer lead-in times and the uncertainty could delay the deliverability of sites. Sites with many existing trees (and canopies) will be treated different to sites with few or no trees. Sites with native trees will be treated differently to sites with non-native trees. More tree canopy is not necessarily beneficial or necessary. More over shading could harm residential amenity. This Policy Direction should be deleted from the Plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 98521

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Newbould

So many hedges destroyed around Southam (and across Warks no doubt) for HS2 & many long before it's really necessary.

Other

Representation ID: 98682

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alice Hibbert

The plan should set out a tree canopy target, as other Councils have done, to be more ambitious at a wider scale.

No

Representation ID: 98698

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ginny White

The plan should set out a tree canopy target, as other Councils have done, to be more ambitious at a wider scale.