No

Representation ID: 98891

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Friends of Radfords Green Environment (FORGE)

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: 98988

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswold District Council

Support

Yes

Representation ID: 99153

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Kennedy

There should be encouragement to developers to design plans around valuable trees and hedgerows rather than making the plans and then looking at impact on trees.

No

Representation ID: 99212

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline West

Not all trees are equal!
Should promote NATIVE species and variants more resistant to disease or climate change but be allowed to remove leyandi.

Yes

Representation ID: 99671

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

yes agree

Other

Representation ID: 99692

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Bedford

Existing building projects show that protecting current woodland is not prioritised and neither is their ongoing management once the land has been bought. This needs to be determined before land is sold.

Yes

Representation ID: 99759

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waller

I agree with this policy and i assume hedgerows and mature trees will be retained and not felled in possible development areas

No

Representation ID: 99782

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Stone -Johnston

While the policy to protect valuable trees & promote canopy cover is positive, it may fail to adequately address the challenges of urbanization&the complexities of land use. Simply prioritizing tree retention without considering the broader ecological impact or the long-term sustainability of the landscape may lead to mismanaged spaces. Additionally, relying on guidelines like the UK Forestry Standard and the England Trees Action Plan, while useful, may overlook local environmental nuances or existing pressures, resulting in generic solutions that don't fully address the diverse needs of different ecosystems. A more adaptable, context-specific approach is necessary for truly effective tree preservation.

Yes

Representation ID: 99999

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Coulsting

Protection and enhancement of Trees, Hedges and Woodland is ecologcally essential

No

Representation ID: 100145

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Mary Addyman

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: 100221

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anna Taylor

Preserving trees, hedgerows, and woodlands is crucial for biodiversity, heritage, and climate resilience. Existing Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), ancient woodlands, and protected hedgerows must be safeguarded against unnecessary loss. Development near Welcombe Hills and Clopton Quarter threatens vital green corridors, fragmenting habitats and reducing wildlife connectivity. Increased canopy cover supports carbon capture, improves air quality, and protects local ecosystems. Tree loss should only occur where absolutely necessary, with mandatory replanting guided by UK Forestry Standards. Strategic tree and hedgerow preservation ensures sustainable development, maintaining South Warwickshire’s rural character and environmental integrity for future generations.

Yes

Representation ID: 100433

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Parsons

I agree with the approach laid out

Yes

Representation ID: 100443

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

Totally agreed. Trees, hedgerows and woodland must be protected. Please seriously consider the proximity of the potential development near Oakley Wood - it is very concerning.

Yes

Representation ID: 100476

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Aimee Carter

There have been many improvements in the recognition and protection of hedgerows via DEFRA and transacted into policy. These should be protected and enhanced to ensure we protect the biodiversity of our hedgerows.

Yes

Representation ID: 100486

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

na

Yes

Representation ID: 100599

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diana Heinrich

Woodland should be preserved at all cost particularly ancient woodland as will take hundreds of years to replace.

No

Representation ID: 100716

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Drayton Manor Farms Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

No.
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

No

Representation ID: 100747

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Beausale, Hasely, Honiley & Wroxall Parish Council

This statement makes no mention of the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines, which is an omission. The SWLP should strive to maintain and enhance the Arden Landscape, otherwise it will be lost if it is omitted.
Reference to tree cover in the draft policy direction is welcome, but should also include hedgerows.
Without a strong policy initiative in this section, it is questionable whether the environmental objectives of SWLP can be achieved.
The Arden Landscape is distinctive to our region and should be actively promoted, not omitted.

No

Representation ID: 100801

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Garry Rollason

The policy does not go far enough. Rather than saying the councils will resist the loss of trees the policy should be to not allow the loss of trees, hedges and woodland other than in very exceptional circumstances. In particular trees, hedges and woodland in the ancient Arden landscape / forest must be preserved.

Other

Representation ID: 100827

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Judy Steele

It looks hopeful. 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: 101024

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Stacey Wall

Hedges and trees being removed unnecessarily

Yes

Representation ID: 101128

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

The landowner consortium generally agrees with the approach. However, any detailed policies relating to this policy direction should have consideration of the quality of the trees, hedges and woodland, with a requirement for tree surveys and arboricultural impact assessments for developments that have potential impacts on existing trees. Should a development lead to a loss of trees, policies should be supportive if appropriate mitigation measures are proposed, including the provision of replacement vegetation or additional vegetation.

Yes

Representation ID: 101295

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: H Crook

See evidence from "woodland trust' on preservation.
Replanting will take 100+ years to replace old trees and and hedgerows, for carbon capture and habitat for native species.
All south warwickshire , not just new developments must have this protection. An 80-year-old house-owner moved in, cut down a 200 year old beach tree because it dropped autumn leaves on his lawn. (can provide evidence).
Air pollution and climate change means all areas need protecting
It takes a lot of water to keep young trees and hedges alive - best leave mature ones.
Climate heating will impact newly planted trees and hedges.

No

Representation ID: 101335

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ashberry Strategic Land Ltd

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 uncertainty could delay the deliverability of sites. Sites with many existing trees (and canopies) will be treated differently 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.

No

Representation ID: 101392

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Strategic Land / Ashberry Strategic Land

Agent: Marrons

The Policy does not provide clear guidance on what the Council consider as ‘trees of value’. In addition, the policy should be in line with paragraph 193 of the NPPF which only protects irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees. Bellway / Ashberry Strategic Land request that the policy is amended to reflect this.

No

Representation ID: 101618

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Homes Ltd

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: 101631

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Zoe Leventhal

Support but would add that trees which fall outside of these criteria in the bullet points should be assessed where possible for retention and protection according to their wider contribution to biodiversity, even if not already subject to TPO etc

Yes

Representation ID: 101697

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Bart Slob

I agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction-42 on Trees, Hedges, and Woodland. Protecting and enhancing the existing tree, woodland, and hedgerow cover is crucial for maintaining biodiversity, improving air quality, and mitigating climate change. The policy’s emphasis on retaining valuable trees and encouraging new planting is essential for building a sustainable environment. There are some important trees in SG04, and these should be safeguarded to protect the natural landscape and the local character. The requirement for a canopy cover assessment and long-term maintenance plans will ensure that these green assets are effectively preserved and enhanced.

Other

Representation ID: 101711

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Teed

The draft policy states "Development will be expected to increase tree canopy", there should be an ambitious target.

No

Representation ID: 101736

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area