|Address||6 Dingle Road Bristol BS9 2LW
|Proposal||Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 6no. dwellings with associated works.|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||12-11-19|
|Standard Consultation Expiry||11-11-19|
|Decision||GRANTED subject to condition(s)|
|BCC Planning Portal||on Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 0 Objectors: 20 Total: 20|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
I have read the arboricultural report.
I must take issue with several of the comments within it.
Firstly I would rather rely upon the expertise of the Council Officers rather than the opinion of a contractor employed on behalf of the applicant with regard to the quality of the trees on the site, the measures required for protection of retained trees and the preservation of soil levels around the trees to maintain their future health.
I would also have thought that visibility from the road increased the visual amenity value of a tree, not decreased it.
But my major issue is with the rather dismissive and casual comments about how to mitigate for the loss of the trees in order to facilitate this development.
I expect that the Tree/Planning Officers will determine the number of replacement trees required. Apparently this may be 11 according to the report submitted on behalf of the applicant.
Two of these are to be planted on site, but the rest cannot because of the density of the building and the amount of hard-standing (surely an issue in itself?).
At £765 per tree (for the Council to plant off site) this would give rise to a charge of £6,885 to be paid by the applicant.
The applicants, if they are successful, will have 6 dwellings to sell.
Bristol has declared a climate emergency. It is now well accepted that trees mitigate many of the adverse effects of climate change. We should be planting millions of trees.
Yet the report pleads that the Council should take into account the hedging suggested as part of the landscaping plan as part mitigation, hence reducing the charge to the applicants for replacing the chopped down trees.
Firstly I think that this is a shameful suggestion.
Secondly, and perhaps of greater importance, is the fact that during this year the Bristol Tree Forum has been engaged in lengthy discussion with Bristol Council Planning and Tree Officers concerning the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard. It has been agreed that hedging is not to be considered as mitigation for canopy loss except in truly exceptional cases where, on large developments, tall hedges can form part of the screening of the site for aesthetic purposes. This is more for industrial sites than 6 dwellings in a former garden/on a demolition site.
So I would urge Bristol Planning Officers not to permit hedges as part of the mitigation for tree loss, but to implement the achieved agreement of no hedges as mitigation. Paying for 9 trees - if that is what the calculation should be - is not so very much, surely?