The tree planting proposed for Avon Crescent would have helped to improve driverbehaviour in a 20mph street where speeding is a problem. It would help indicate the street is moreof a shared space rather than motorist priority.The issue of abnormal loads needing a wide path is completely bogus - the police have confirmedthat they actually redirect away from Avon Crescent on safety grounds.Trees reduce air pollution. There are now three parallel roads, Avon Crescent being one of them,so we need all the help we can get.

I am not a local and I have not been following the minutiae of this scheme. I just knowthat across the city numerous trees are now missing due to this Metrobus, and I anticipated a bit ofa struggle to get the tree canopy replaced eventually. I do not know the proposals for eachindividual road and the merits and demerits of planting trees in particular sites. I do haveexperience however of developers trying not to do what has been asked of them, and of makingapplications to vary conditions until the residents are exhausted by it all.I have read the Application form and on reading one part of it I must object - AVTM ask to reducethe number of trees they are obliged to plant/provide under BTRS. I object most strongly to this.We must hang on to the BTRS and even strengthen it, not permit any nibbling away at the edges.I have no objection to the developer paying the money to the Council for the Council to choosesites, other than this might then exclude the possibility of trees being planted in sites that arecurrently in "hard ground" , i.e. not vacant tree sites. These would require tree pits to beconstructed, adding to the expense considerably - circa £3000 per tree, in addition to the s106£765 for the tree. So it is a fraught and difficult subject and I am no expert - but I say "No" toreducing the number of trees.Member, Bristol Tree Forum.

The original plan was to maintain 12 trees on Avon Crescent, some of which would beadded to replace trees removed due to the AVTM scheme.

The trees would help reduce air pollution and traffic noise and also more importantly indicate todrivers entering Avon Crescent that they were approaching a "shared space" conservation areaand to reduce speed accordingly.

Hindering the progress of abnormal loads was quoted as the reason for removing the trees fromthe revised plan. This would not be the case. Moreover the police and Bristol Marina have statedthat they never direct abnormal loads down Avon Crescent.

Please reconsider this variation and support the residents and local community.

Thank you

{Please consider this an extension to my previous objection, not a second one.}

I also object to the removal of the requirement to add 6 new trees on the side of the path behindAston Avenue, and also the same for the 15 birch trees proposed for next to A Bond.

I object to this application on the grounds of removal of trees on Ashton Avenue. While Iaccept that the trees scheduled for planting on Avon Crescent are now likely to be in the roadway,or in unsustainble locations - given the Council's desire not to progress the "shared space" plansas originally planned, the west-most three on Aston Avenue - in front of number 2 - can still goahead and would be welcome in this spot.

I object to this variation of the condition for the following reasons:Trees were part of the original plan to calm traffic in Avon Crescent. Losing them from schemewhen they bring the following benefits is mistaken i.e.- they reduce air pollution - which is a major issue now;- they would cut down traffic noise from Smeaton Road and AVTM traffic lights which impacts onresidents;- they would give a strong message to car drivers travelling through Avon Crescent that theyshould slow down;Whilst we understand that costs are being reduced, the decision to remove the Avon Crescenttrees is arbitrary, as the reason given is false- the planting of trees would not affect the passage of abnormal loads;- the police have recently made it clear that they do not route abnormal loads down AvonCrescent.

The original condition was calculated on a BTRS of 30 (replacing 11 trees) that comesfrom policy DM17. There is another policy which is DM15 which calls for enhancing tree cover.That is also what was done and so the extra 25 trees were planted. The tree officer doesn'texplicitly refer to both DM17 and DM15 and talks about BTRS and enhancements. If there are lesstrees being felled then the BTRS will reduce according to the Tree Constraints report which allowsthe BTRS calculation to be made. It does not reduce the DM15 enhancement requirement.

If new locations are deemed unsafe then don't plant there. Pay the S106 money to the LocalAuthority which is Bristol and the Area Committee can use it to plant street trees elsewhere.

The case officer quotes the AVTM 2014 report to the development control committee"The proposed creation of a shared space, a reduction in through traffic at Avon Crescent withassociated landscaping is considered an appropriate approach to improving links across the area."He knows jolly well that the shared space scheme is proposed to be scrapped under another s73application, about to be heard by development control committee B on 7th November.It is also contentious whether this is a genuine concern by the Avon and Somerset police, as manydiscussions were held with them about this barge access back in 2014. We would ask forevidence that this is a genuine police concern. After all, why were these concerns not raisedbefore the AVTM was given consent in March 2014? The police are a statutory consultee.Highways should also have objected at that point.The amendments proposed under these s73 appications, are intended to remove all the mitigatingimprovements, following the building of a third major new road parallel to a grade 2 listed crescent.The trees would also have helped to slow traffic which despite a 20mph speed limit, habituallyspeeds in a street very heavily used by walkers cyclists and runners.