Application Details

Reference 19/02831/COND
Address Redland High School For Girls Redland Court Road Bristol BS6 7EF  
Street View
Proposal Application to approve details reserved by condition 2 (Arboricultural Method Statement), 6 (Phasing Plan and Programme of Works), 7 (Construction Management Plan or Method Statement), 10 (Method statements - specified work) and 23 (Cotoneaster Method Statement) attached to permission 17/04263/F, which approved the residential conversion, including limited demolition and new build development, to form 44 new dwellings associated car and cycle parking and refuse storage. Internal and external refurbishment to all retained buildings. (Major)
Validated 12-06-19
Type Approval/Discharge of conditions
Status Decided
Standard Consultation Expiry 19-08-19
Determination Deadline 07-08-19
Decision Condition application decided
Decision Issued 24-07-20
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 1  Unstated: 2  Total: 3
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response:

Email to Planning officer dated 25 October 2019:
Further to our recent emails I have now seen the attached Briefing Note dated 25th June 2019. I do not recall seeing this document on the portal until now.
In the light of this, I attach my revised spreadsheet and ask the following questions:
  1. Why are none of the trees identified as being felled for landscaping included in the BTRS calculation?
  2. Why are the trees in Groups G02 and G16 not included in the BTRS calculation?
  3. I have identified a number of multi-stemmed trees in my schedule. Is the stem diameter calculation based on the sum of the DBH values of each stem?
  4. Is tree T21 now to be retained?
  5. Are these calculations still based on the survey undertaken on 17th February 2017, almost three years ago?
  6. If so and given the passage of time since the last survey, is it intended to resurvey the trees to be felled to establish their current stem diameters?
I repeat our assertion that, before any tree is felled or any BTRS calculation approved, this matter ought to go back before the Planning Committee for this unresolved aspect of the planning approval to be considered.

Public Comments

  17 HARTINGTON PARK   on 2019-07-24   OBJECT

    on 2019-07-17  

    on 2019-06-25  


Tree ID

Tree Species Tree Count

DBH (cm)

BTRS Trees

Replacement Cost @


T21 Cerasus avium 1 35 3 £ 2,295.63

T22 Prunus 1 20 2 £ 1,530.42

T23 Acer pseudoplatanus 1 18 1 £ 765.21

T25 Fraxinus excelsior 1 35 3 £ 2,295.63

T26 Fraxinus excelsior 1 34 3 £ 2,295.63

T27 Fraxinus excelsior 1 35 3 £ 2,295.63

T28 Alnus glutinosa 1 37 3 £ 2,295.63

T29 Acer pseudoplatanus 1 62 6 £ 4,591.26

T30 Acer pseudoplatanus 1 47 4 £ 3,060.84

T31 Malus 1 8 1 £ 765.21

T32 Acer pseudoplatanus 1 36 3 £ 2,295.63

T33 Ilex aquifolium 1 31 3 £ 2,295.63

T34 Acer pseudoplatanus 1 87 8 £ 6,121.68

T35 Acer pseudoplatanus 1 74 7 £ 5,356.47

T36 Acer pseudoplatanus 1 26 2 £ 1,530.42


Tree ID

Tree Species Tree Count

DBH (cm)

BTRS Trees

Replacement Cost @


T37 Acer pseudoplatanus 1 33 3 £ 2,295.63

T38 Acer pseudoplatanus 1 28 2 £ 1,530.42

T45 Griselinia littoralis 1 17 1 £ 765.21

T46 Griselinia littoralis 1 29 2 £ 1,530.42

T47 Malus 1 14 1 £ 765.21

Total Replacement Cost £84,173.10

Having examined the Cotoneaster Method Statement dated 25 July 2017 (and subject to the

explanation of what the Tree Planting Strategy mentioned in the document refers to), we are

only able to identify 10 sites (described as ‘02’ & ‘03’ in the key to the plan) where it is proposed

that replacement trees will be planted. We have discounted any proposals for hedge, clipped

evergreen or shrubbery planting. In our view these are not covered by BTRS and should not be

counted as part of the BTRS requirement.

Our calculations are based on a tree survey that is now some two and a half years old. The trees

surveyed will have grown since then (assuming all the trees are still in situ) so that the figures

we have produced will need to be adjusted upwards to account of the likely increased size of

the trees since that date. We recommend that a new survey be undertaken before a final

valuation for the purposes of BTRS is agreed.

We also question why, considering the apparent building footprint shown in the plan attached

to the Arboricultural Method Statement, all the trees listed need to be removed, but we

assume that the developer has good reasons for doing to.

We reserve the right to make further comments as and when further information about the

developer’s plans is published.

Bristol Tree Forum

19 June 2019