Policy DM31: Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 205
Received: 18/01/2019
Respondent: Mrs Trish Mackinnon
The Barratt vision will cover many fields and East Wittering and Bracklesham will merge into one huge housing estate if this is allowed it is unavoidable that the ancient hedgerows and indigenous tress and plants will be torn out denuding animal habitat. This should be avoided at all cost and I would dispute that 15 meters is enough of a buffer between new development and woodland. My impression is that very few new housing developments have adequate screening with hedges and trees, planners should take care that this is achieved.
The Barratt vision will cover many fields and East Wittering and Bracklesham will merge into one huge housing estate if this is allowed it is unavoidable that the ancient hedgerows and indigenous tress and plants will be torn out denuding animal habitat. This should be avoided at all cost and I would dispute that 15 meters is enough of a buffer between new development and woodland. My impression is that very few new housing developments have adequate screening with hedges and trees, planners should take care that this is achieved.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 550
Received: 29/01/2019
Respondent: Mr Robin Kidd
We need better protection and replanting for trees in public spaces in Chichester city centre, specifically around the city walls, in West Street by the cathedral, and to replace the trees recently killed on New Park Road. Although the policy states that replanting is required, I see no replanting of the trees recently felled in West Street. The forward thinking of past generations should be continued today for the benefit of future generations. It is not enough just to prevent privately-owned trees from being cut down; I would like to see more focus on the trees in public spaces.
We need better protection and replanting for trees in public spaces in Chichester city centre, specifically around the city walls, in West Street by the cathedral, and to replace the trees recently killed on New Park Road. Although the policy states that replanting is required, I see no replanting of the trees recently felled in West Street. The forward thinking of past generations should be continued today for the benefit of future generations. It is not enough just to prevent privately-owned trees from being cut down; I would like to see more focus on the trees in public spaces.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1326
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Lynne Friel
'Valued' trees is a very loose term and should be defined more clearly. A tree may be valued by a local community which others might think less important.
'Valued' trees is a very loose term and should be defined more clearly. A tree may be valued by a local community which others might think less important.
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1370
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Mr David Leah
Support
Support
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1836
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Ms Paula Chatfield
BUT please demonstrate how the Plan will deliver Government tree-planting targets.
BUT please demonstrate how the Plan will deliver Government tree-planting targets.
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2824
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust
Support the policy and welcome the wording in bullet point 4, which highlights the need for a buffer in relation to ancient woodland and ancient/veteran trees. Bullet point would benefit from stating the need to also avoid impacts on Ancient Woodland and Ancient/veteran trees as per paragraph 175 of the NPPF and Natural England's ancient woodland standing advice.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2934
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
We welcome the inclusion of this issue and trust that the 'exceptional circumstances' will be extremely rare. Item 2 is unacceptable. The myth that you can replace protected trees, non-protected trees, woodlands and hedgerows is truly unsustainable, and therefore in conflict with your policy statements. The timescale to replace these features properly is much longer than the timescale of your plan.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3118
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy
Under point 1, to change "existing valued trees" to "existing valued and statutorily protected trees".
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3215
Received: 04/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Sarah Sharp
Insert "6. A tree planning and hedgerow planning policy is to be adopted by the council to reduce the risk of climate change, offer shade and reduce urban heat effect, reduce risk of flooding."
See attachment