Support

Representation ID: 4556

Received: 27/11/2023

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

There should be a robust commitment to protection for individual ancient and veteran trees where identified.

Support noted. Policy EN5 accord with paragraph 186 of the NPPF that states that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.

Support

Representation ID: 4607

Received: 04/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roberts

Agree

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 4777

Received: 16/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Kevin Corby

Support in line with Woodland Trust. RCC must not support any development that requires tree felling (Quarry Farm).

Support and comments noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing and forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan. The Local Plan must make provision to meet the county’s housing needs and all allocated housing sites in Policy H1 have been through a rigorous site appraisal process that cover environmental, social and economic factors. The Quarry Farm proposals will include mitigation to ensure biodiversity net gain secured through a habitat creation and management plan.

Support

Representation ID: 4918

Received: 28/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Anthony Orvis

There should be an unequivocal commitment to protect to all individual ancient and veteran trees.
Mitigation or compensation is not appropriate in this case.
Any development should, at a minimum, adhere to Government Guidance regarding buffer zones.

Support noted. Policy EN5 aligns with paragraph 186 of the NPPF that states that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Government guidance on buffer zones is set out in BS 5837 and the requirement for adequate buffers is set out in part 5 of Policy EN5.

Support

Representation ID: 5112

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England supports this policy. Ancient woodland takes hundreds of years to establish and is defined as an irreplaceable habitat. Note the link in point 4 of Policy EN1 regarding irreplaceable habitats.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5212

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Supported

Support Noted

Object

Representation ID: 5370

Received: 30/12/2023

Respondent: Mr John Deag

This policy provides important protection for ancient woodland and trees. However, given the scale of the Climate Crisis and Ecological Emergency (see Chapter 4, page 21), and the importance of woodland ecologically and to the landscape (as pointed out elsewhere in the Local Plan), some of the specific protections given by EN5 (notably 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6), should also apply to Rutland's woods in general. The assumption should be that these protections apply unless it can be shown by developers that they should not.
When assessing this please note the following. Ancient woodlands are considered ecologically important because they have ancient trees (usually native species) with a genotype well adapted to local environmental conditions and because of the specific flora that will have colonised the herb layer over hundreds of years. However, many of the 'ecological services' provided by ancient woodlands are also provided by other woodlands particularly those predominantly composed of native species. And these are just as vulnerable to the threats that Policy EN5 protects against. As a rural county, where sadly many areas have little woodland (see Figure 4 page 185), both the protection of all existing woods and the planting of new woods must be a priority.
Making this change will bring Policies EN4 and EN5 into line with the aspirations of Rutland's top five Blue and Green Infrastructure priorities (GBI), particularly Priorities 1 & 2 (see page 194), and Strategic Objectives (page 15). For these reasons EN4 should be classified as a Strategic Policy in Appendix 1

Comments noted. There is a differentiation between Policies EN4 and EN5 as ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees are considered irreplaceable habitats and given stronger protection in government guidance set out in para 186 of the NPPF. EN4 is not considered as a strategic policy in the Local Plan because it is a development management policy. Consider EN5 is also a development management policy and so should not be a strategic policy. Both policies relate to the statutory role of the council under s197 of the TCPA.

Object

Representation ID: 5456

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

There should be a presumption against development or redevelopment of land with ancient or veteran trees or ancient woodland. Traditional orchards also often contain veteran trees.

Comments noted. Agree. In line with paragraph 186 of the NPPF the wording of EN5 should be changed.
Traditional orchards are covered by Policy EN4 (as amended).

Support

Representation ID: 5631

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs laura alcock

Support. All Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees should be fully protected.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5713

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Braunston parish council supports policy EN5 but questions the wording ‘wholly exceptional circumstances’ this appears to provide an easy way round the policy

Support noted. 'Wholly exceptional circumstances' is the phraseology used in paragraph 186 of the NPPF in relation to irreplaceable habitats.

Support

Representation ID: 5764

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Rachel Butler

Fully support

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5771

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Langham Parish Council

Policy seems to make a presumption in favour of development (what 'New development' is like to protect and enhance irreplaceable habitats?). For clarity, and to avoid ambiguity, it should clearly state a presumption against development.

Comments noted. Agree.

Support

Representation ID: 5857

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Support

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5864

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

There should be a presumption against development/redevelopment of land affecting ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees. Use the same phraseology as in EN6 - “Planning permission for development which would lead to the loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees will only be permitted where:”

Comments noted. Agree.

Support

Representation ID: 5881

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: NGO East Mercia Rivers Trust

EMRT support this and suggests the policy is strengthened and the words 'unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances', is removed.

Support noted. 'Wholly exceptional circumstances' is the phraseology used in paragraph 186 of the NPPF in relation to irreplaceable habitats.

Support

Representation ID: 5923

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Rob Cooke

Agree, but orchards should be included.

Support noted. Traditional orchards are covered and protected under Policy EN4. They are not included in the examples or irreplaceable habitats listed in the glossary of the NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 6319

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

obvs.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 6415

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

While the focus on Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees is supported, the policy should state that development must not impact on, or destroy these features. Trees should be retained as they remove carbon from the atmosphere

Comments noted. The wording of Policy EN5 (as amended) accords with government policy set out in paragraph 186 of the NPPF that sets a presumption against development leading to the loss or deterioration of such features.

Support

Representation ID: 6442

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

Rutland is generally “ under wooded “ compared with other counties , protection of ancient woodland therefore very important .

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 6862

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

We welcome this policy and would not like to see compromised in any way

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 6917

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hanbury Farms Partnership

Agent: Savills

The Estate believes that the wording of this policy is confusing and would be made clearer if more consistent
with the standing guidance. Therefore, we propose the following amendments:

“… New development is expected to protect and enhance irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodlands
and ancient and veteran trees. Planning
permission will be refused if development would result in the loss or deterioration of:
1. ancient woodland; and/or
2. the loss of aged, ancient or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances, and a suitable mitigation and compensation strategy is provided. (See NPPF Para 186(C) or successor.)”

Comments noted. Agree. Reword Policy EN5 in line with para 186 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 7483

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

i) What type of new development would be expected to protect and enhance irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodlands and ancient and veteran trees? Please explain.
ii) Proposals which avoid or prevent the loss or deterioration will be supported?
iii) This policy needs to be changed to create a presumption against development and clearly defined justifiable exceptions are itemised and explained for clarity of decision making.

Comments noted. Agree to amend wording of Policy EN5 so that it aligns with government guidance set out in para 186 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 7896

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

This policy needs to be changed to create a presumption against development and clearly defined justifiable
exceptions are itemised and explained for clarity of decision making.

What type of new development would be expected to protect and enhance irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodlands and ancient and veteran trees? Please explain.

Comments noted. Agree to amend wording of Policy EN5 so that it aligns with government guidance set out in para 186 of the NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 7945

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

EN5 Ancient Woodland & Veteran Trees - Support

Support noted.