Well enclosed, not highly visible and capable of accommodating extensions without significant visual impact - subject to control over unnecessary clearance of trees and no adverse ecological effects, agree a more relaxed approach would be appropriate. Essential to ensure policy is applied to any property in open countryside or Green Belt where established boundary planting limits the external effects.

Even modest development in this location can impact on horseshoe bats therefore expect this to be a consideration.

Consider that a relaxation on assessing whether the size of an extension is proportionate in a "Woodland Neighbourhood" is appropriate.

The Woodland Trust objects to the proposal to relax planning scrutiny that has the potential for allowing tree felling or increased development pressure in woodland areas.

This approach to Green Belt development appears to ignore the fact that residents with smaller homes are subject to restrictions. Because a house may be secluded and within large grounds it certainly does not mean that a large extension would have little impact on the Green Belt. This proposed policy appears to favour the few and we would question whether this has any equalities impacts?

The Estate welcomes a review regarding Woodland Neighbourhoods. It is suggested that such an approach could also be applicable to the Belmont Estate, via policy consideration for new visitor accommodation and enhancing the rural economy in the Green Belt to enable appropriate and sensitive proposals that are synonymous within the open countryside to be bought forward at the Estate.

Various issues raised...

Mandatory renewable energy for new housing. Housing, airport and roads lead to pollution, stress and poorer health.

I see no reason for taking ‘a more relaxed approach’. Planning policy should be reasonably consistent across the district.

Similar planning policies for woodland community properties