The wording of this policy appears to contradict itself currently. It states on one bullet point that development proposals need to ‘protect and enhance the tree population on site, including its diversity and distribution’ but then adds on the subsequent bullet point the need to ‘protect existing trees of value (including landscape, heritage, cultural, amenity, biodiversity, ecosystem service or aesthetic value) as measured by a recognised tool such as iTree’.
The first point appears to suggest that all existing trees on sites should be protected and makes no allowance for instances where trees are required to be removed due to disease, age or safety concerns which renders their retention inappropriate. Furthermore, in some instances the removal of trees, in whole or in part, is required in order for the development to be brought forward. These could be trees of value. For example, this could be to allow for access to a development. This would not make a development unacceptable, particularly where appropriate mitigation could be provided. It is therefore considered that the two bullet points could be merged into a single point that references ‘trees of value’ and for them to be protected ‘where possible’.
The same comment is raised in relation to the bullet point stating the need to ‘protect existing hedgerows and the surrounding land that supports them, and to require the planting of new ones where appropriate’. Again, it is suggested that ‘hedgerows of value’ is stated in this point.
Concerns are also raised to the reference of using ‘a recognised tool such as iTree’ to measure tree value. This would appear to make the role of many arboriculturalists redundant if they do not use such a tool, and it is also unclear from this policy wording what other such recognised tools may be. It is therefore suggested that this text be removed from the wording of the policy, which would otherwise appear to take a very restrictive and unnecessary approach to arboricultural assessments.