Yes

Representation ID: 101904

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Strongly in agreement. One hopes this is taken into account when selecting housing sites to be included in the SWLP

Yes

Representation ID: 101990

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs AMANDA VENABLES

Retention of existing trees and enhancement of tree cover is very important for nature recovery and for wellbeing so I totally agree with this policy direction.

Yes

Representation ID: 102017

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Walkden

Maintaining and improving trees, hedges and woodland is essential

Other

Representation ID: 102034

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Heart of England Forest

As an organisation that is actively engaged in the process of creating new native woodland and associated habitats we would hope and expect to see an ambitious tree planting plan with targets formally set out in a tree canopy cover assessment report.

The ecological value of a tree can still be highly significant even if the tree is dead or dying therefore the blanket approach for removal as stated within the proposed policy must be nuanced and approached on a case-by-case basis.

Yes

Representation ID: 102105

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Anne Page

I'll believe it when I see it!

Other

Representation ID: 102242

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: IM Land 1 Limited

Agent: Turley

87. The presumption in favour of retaining trees is supported by IM Land.
88. There may be an instance outside agricultural reasoning where a tree needs to be removed to provide a specific requirement of development, such as to facilitate an access. The loss of trees with regards to the planning application is also a matter of planning judgement as part of the overall planning balance. Policy wording should be updated to reflect this.

Other

Representation ID: 102422

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Alton

There is no evidence that the Council pursues this policy - witness the destruction of trees at Hatton Park and the destruction of hedgerows at Union View. The Council needs to win back the trust of residents and to reset its relationship with developers.

Other

Representation ID: 102462

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Agent: Turley

Comment relates to amendments to policy wording

Yes

Representation ID: 102601

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Cole

I support this.

No

Representation ID: 102636

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Carl Barthorpe

Fields near trees and woodland are needed also, birds, deer etc need places to feed, fly and roam. Not to be hemmed in by roads and noise.

Yes

Representation ID: 102748

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Phoebe Withnall

I agree broadly with this strategy.

No

Representation ID: 102809

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: The Ragley Estate

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: 103015

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Bailey

I agree.

Other

Representation ID: 103097

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Andrew Close

Figure 20 is unclear (fuzzy) and can’t be used to define this policy. This may impact on the plan’s soundness?

Yes

Representation ID: 103450

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Alisha Johnson

Very supportive of retaining existing trees, especially old ones!

Yes

Representation ID: 103598

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Stevens

Please view the hedgerows as important as the trees

Other

Representation ID: 103686

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Laura Nicholas

I do not agree with the use of green belt sites being used for delevelopment. Green spaces are vital for the environment, human wellbeing, natural resources, exercise, fresh air. Increasingly in Cubbington and around Leamington our green spaces are becoming fewer and this can only have a negative impact in the years to come. Green belt should be left alone and removed from development plans. We must protect our parks, trees, green spaces and waterways.

Yes

Representation ID: 103777

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

By prioritising sustainable, non-Green Belt sites, housing can be delivered responsibly—without destroying the countryside, harming biodiversity, or overwhelming local services.

Other

Representation ID: 103845

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Claire Jones

Dead and dying trees are a necessary part of the ecosystem. How do you not know this?

Yes

Representation ID: 103889

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: H Crook

so important.
trees and hedgerows take multiple decades to support wildlife, so are not easily replaced - it is not like for like replanting.
climate change makes it harder for young trees and hedgerows to survive.
Watering new trees and hedgerows will be needed, with water scarcity in the fitter with climate change will impact new plantings so need to keep older trees and hedgerows

Yes

Representation ID: 103988

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Amarjit Gill

This is important to protect our local environment

No

Representation ID: 104018

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Camille Newton

Wording needs to be refined as dead, dying trees often support wildlife and fungi so they should only be removed when necessary for health and safety reasons. There needs to be a target for more tree cover, in line with other local authorities, though it is important that tree planting is not carried out across other important habitats eg semi-improved, unimproved grasslands. Trees and hedges on site need to be protected by an area of buffering as well.

Yes

Representation ID: 104102

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Margaret Halligan

Agree

No

Representation ID: 104169

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Clare Kimpton

There seems to be no tree canopy target just a desire to increase which can easily be disregarded by developers

No

Representation ID: 104282

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

Trees need to be valued on the basis of their carbon sequestration and storage, and not just their ‘amenity, historic or ecological value’. Existing woodland should be valued, regardless of whether it is non-native or given a ‘poor’ biodiversity rating – something which happens shockingly often. We are in a climate emergency, and cannot afford to lose existing carbon sinks, or the carbon emissions released by their destruction. This policy should make it impossible for whole woods (as opposed to isolated trees) to be cut down for the purpose of development, as has happened in the development at Mappleborough Green.

Yes

Representation ID: 104467

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

We agree and support this approach

Yes

Representation ID: 104676

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ruth McCormack

n/a

Yes

Representation ID: 104701

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Need more focus on hedgerow.

Yes

Representation ID: 104869

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

agree, but trees that are native to the area are to be planted.

Other

Representation ID: 104878

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Susan Hood

Targets should be set for e.g. tree canopy. Need to be more ambitious.