This work was started illegally trees were cut down illegally -I feel very strongly we needto save the remaining (M32) trees -

Very concerned regarding the loss of the 3 maple trees that are proposed by thedeveloper. My eldest son suffers with viral wheeze, having had multiple emergency hospitaladmissions with difficulty breathing and he appears to be developing asthma. My 1 yo has hadone breathing related admission this winter and I fear that he will go the same way as his brotherwith the loss of more trees in the city and the climate emergency that has been declared.Please do not allow this development to go ahead with the proposed felling of these importanttrees.

Very concerned regarding the loss of the 3 maple trees that are proposed by thedeveloper. My eldest son suffers with viral wheeze, having had multiple emergency hospitaladmissions with difficulty breathing and he appears to be developing asthma. My 1 yo has hadone breathing related admission this winter and I fear that he will go the same way as his brotherwith the loss of more trees in the city and the climate emergency that has been declared.Please do not allow this development to go ahead with the proposed felling of these importanttrees.

This is unnessary and irreversible destruction of assets valuable to all.

Just to clarify I accidentally clicked support on the last one, the message still applies butI meant 'Object'

Thanks

I object to this application. The applicant has shown by the fact that he has cut downtrees which are not his and not on his land that he is untrustworthy. The remaining trees must beprotected. We need to keep all the trees we can, especially in such polluted areas, and becausewe have a climate emergency.

Its absolutely unnecessary and unreasonable to remove these trees and it should notbe allowed

These trees are hugely important for our neighbourhood for a number of reasons -pollution, our birdlife and also the beauty of the area.

Strongly OBJECT to the demolishing .

I want to place an objection to the cutting down of these trees for access. These treesare crucial in cleaning dirty city air pollution which prevents illness and premature deaths.

Doing this is an abhorrent act of destruction and short sightedness.

I want to place an objection to the cutting down of these trees for access. These treesare crucial in cleaning dirty city air pollution which prevents illness and premature deaths.

Doing this is an abhorrent act of destruction and short sightedness.

Dear BCC,I object to the removal of the three trees in order to facilitate the development. At a time when weneed trees more than ever, as BCC has acknowledged this by declaring a climate emergency, it isnot acceptable to remove trees except under exceptional circumstances, which this is not.

These trees provide access to nature to local residents which is important for health andwellbeing, including mental health, and help to mitigate pollution on one of Bristol's most pollutedroads. Please save our trees

Removal of these trees is in direct c9ntrast to the bristol commitment to fighting theecological crisis. Removal of trees for easier access to a building site is not a valid reason toremove and will have detriment against residents health and the wildlife that live in those trees. sostrongly object

I strongly object to the removal of the remaining maple trees on the road. As maturetrees it would take generations to replace and years for any new trees to provide the clean airbenefits these trees currently do.Bristol has declared a climate and ecological emergency, and these trees are part of the solutionto both of these crises.Every political party's manifesto included a bid to plant more trees, but this should not be in placeof being allowed to cut down old trees. A responsible developer should be able to work aroundthese trees, incorporating them in to their proposals.We will continue to object on behalf of Mother Nature and planet earth.

Another case of a developer coming along and cutting down trees. Exactly the same asNewfoundland Road at the Empire Boxing Gym site. You cannot on one hand issue anenvironmental emergency then allow a developer to use manipulation of let's face, the joke ofaffordable housing. Stand up against these conpanies. Bristol City Council must change its cultureand stop getting into bed with these racketeers.

Demolition should not be allowed to happen, without protection of the surrounding trees.

Bristol council recognizes the importance of trees within the urban environment with its excellentscheme to double tree cover, yielding benefits to air quality, wellbeing and CO2 levels.

Mature trees take 10-20 years to grow, together with the costs involved. St Pauls already has verylow levels of tree cover. Any development should to be consistent with retaining and increasingtree cover.

We need to looks after natural trees in our city, the less there are, the more polluted theair becomes. That's bad for the health of the residents, the environment and our planet.

i strongly object to this development and the felling of trees on this site.

To Whom It May ConcernI am strongly apposed to the felling of healthy trees as part of this planning application. I believewe need to preserve air quality as best we can in this heavily polluted location, and generally incities. Its disgraceful that such mature trees would be felled for a new development of any kind.

I strongly object to this flawed planning proposal. These mature trees are not on theland owned by the developed and they have no right to remove or damage them in any way. Thedeveloper has already illegally felled two maple trees, which are vital for the support of air qualityin the area and to help stave off flooding.

Bristol has declared a climate emergency. We need more mature inner city trees, not fewer.

As a independent arboricultural consultant & chartered environmentalist I see seriousflaws in the proposed removal of the roadside maples.These trees can be retained & developed around.I object to the removal of such valuable urban trees when the city is in urgent need of maximumtree conservation and increases of tree cover.Thank you

Human infrastructure and housing should be build around trees. To remove these treesis to strip bristol of another ecological asset. Don't remove these trees.

I strongly object to this application. The planning process appears to be flawed and inmy opinion there has been a lack of transparency overall with this application.

Inner city homes are important but this area has an unprecedented amount of new homes beingcreated (Brook Mills, 2 site on lower ashley road, and 2 sites on Newfoundland road, Magdaleneplace/sussex place and a third site on lower ashley also waiting for planning) and the loss of the 3remaining trees would change irreparably the character of the street (5 mature trees have alreadybeen removed) and the quality of local residents lives.

Air quality is a real issue in this area so this action does not make any sense.

This site has already been on righmove advertising student homes not affordable homes.

Many thanks, Norah

Why are you chopping the trees downThis is blatant disregard for people's wishesI think the council do not care about the people it is meant to represent but big business..or anybusiness what makes it worth your while to look the other way..

I strongly object to the current plans for demolition and development on the basis that:- the developers have failed to follow due planning process- the destruction of mature trees will significantly damage local amenity and character- there is dispute about legal land ownership- to date, demolition and tree-felling has been unsafe and without permissions granted, suggestingthat the developer can not be trusted to proceed safely and legally- the proposed plans do not match what has been advertised on Rightmove for the site- the trees are of particular environmental value given their location and heavy local traffic

I strongly object to Application 20/00232/N. Historically, two enforcements have beenenacted upon this site and recent action taken by the landowner/developer has shown them to belacking in integrity - including commencing 6 months of demolition (involving destruction ofneighbouring trees), and only stopping to submit what is effectively a retrospective demolitionnotice. There is a significant danger that allowing work to proceed will result in further destruction(two already destroyed) of trees lining the Lower Ashely Road, despite the Council's owndeclaration of both a Climate and an Ecological Emergency.

Ownership records and emails with council employees clearly show that the land on which thetrees stand belongs to the council (see Land Registry document BL92053). In addition, these treesare subject to TPO 941 and are classified as 'street trees', which belong to the Local Authority bydefinition. Action must be taken regarding the destruction and damage of these trees and ensurethat strong protections are put in place to ensure that they are not destroyed in future, includingscrutiny of what appears to be an unscrupulous and unprincipled developer.

we NEED our trees!!!!

Leave those trees alone

It is vital to have as many trees as possible in urban environments to keep residentshappy and healthy. These trees protect locals anf are long standing residents themselves. Theyare essential. Do not destroy them.

I object to the removal of the established trees.

As a long time resident of the area I would say that the established trees are necessary for thewell-being of the local residents especially at a location where the air quality is so poor and thepopulation is dense. Any planning consent granted for the site should include the retention of thetrees.

The removal of the trees will have a detrimental effect to the neighbourhood in my opinion.

This project will only take funds from the really needed things. One of them is to makethe normal railways work. It's not worth it if it's not going to work correctly anyway. I have usednumeral "high speed" trains, they are all slower than previous thought. Please use the money toimprove pre-existing infrastructures, or at least to improve the real-people's lives. And the trees?You shall plant 1000trees for every tree you cut down. That's the minimum

This operation disregards the requirements for a wildlife survey. This means the fellingof the trees is illegal. This operation will have a devastating impact on the wildlife of the area. Ourcity has illegal pollution levels - this operation and the felling of the m32 trees which is integral toits completion will cause more pollution. As a council tax long standing citizen of Bristol I throughlyand completely object to the application and the felling of the trees.

I really can't believe the continued allowance of any works on this site, when every ruleseems to be flouted. Firstly there is dispute over ownership of the strip of land including the trees(with TPOs) by the road, which are now boxed in. Secondly there has already been illegal treefelling, lack of safety during procedures, illegal parking, out of hours works and a general lack ofopen communication. I believe that no further work should continue on this site until all parties arein agreement.

I strongly object to the removal of the three remaining maple trees on the road. Theseare mature trees that enhance the health of residents and the physical appearance of the area.The developers should work round the trees as well as planting some more!

Not only is this whole thing very strange and likely illegal, I believe it will not aid the localpeople. Furthermore, the removal of the trees is not necessary. Trees not only help physicalhealth, especially issues such as asthma, they also help in terms of mental health and are veryaesthetically pleasing, making the area look nicer. Plans on how to build around the trees havebeen suggested.

This is an unfortunate development which has too high a density

I strongly object to these plans. This application should be rejected on the basis ofinaccurate and misleading information provided by the applicant, and due to concerns regardingdamage to three protected trees adjoining the site. The City of Bristol has dangerous levels of airpollution and St Paul's, particularly this stretch, has been flagged as an area where pollution levelsare higher than other areas of the city. This means we should not be taking trees away from thisarea. The only reason mature trees should be felled in Bristol right now is if they are dangerous.There are many discrepancies in this application which have been pointed out in many of the otherobjections by Bristol citizens. Please listen to the people of Bristol.

I support the sensitive redevelopment of this long neglected site for social housing but Iobject most strongly to the felling of any mature trees in a densely developed neighbourhoodwhere there is already very little vegetation/landscaping.

I'm objecting to the unnecessary felling of maple trees proposed for this privatedevelopment. Bad for the local community & the planet.

Having previously lived opposite for a number of years I know first hand what a busyand polluted road that is. The mature trees provide much needed buffer to that. And it is aCLIMATE EMERGENCY and the One City Plan refers to healthy spaces - mature trees are anessential part of that. Developers have the wherewithal and £ to incorporate preserving trees intotheir plans. The trees could in fact enhance their offering.

Felling mature trees on council land is unacceptable. Please can the developers be heldto account for this. The council must check the boundaries of this new development and haltprogress if any boundaries have been contravened.

We shouldn't be cutting down mature trees. We should be protecting them, maintaininghabitats for birds/insects and keeping cities green.

Dear Sir/Madam,

l am writing to strongly object to the felling of the three remaining mature maples on Lower AshleyRoad. This road is one of the most polluted in Bristol. The remaining trees have a beneficial effecton wellbeing of the local residents, through absorbing pollution from vehicles, reducing summertemperatures, and providing shade and biodiversity.

In Bristol the major has committed to increasing the number of trees in the city for the manybenefits they provide, and for the important part they play in absorbing carbon, in this time of rapidclimate change and biodiversity loss. One part of that commitment must logically be towardsprotecting the mature trees we have already.

Two have already been illegally felled, which makes it even more important to protect theremaining three trees.

Kind regards,

Simon Tozer

My family are horrified that the developers have cut down mature trees withoutpermission. They only seem to care about money. They have probably worked out that a fine isworth it. What is the matter with people when despite all the dire warnings about trees and climatechange, they put profit before life on Earth.

Strongly object to any local development that doesn't acquire appropriate prospectiveapprovals/ respect environmental standards/ results in abuse or threats to people in theneighbourhood, as it appears has been the case with this.

I object on the case that the developer has operated illegally on multiple occasions.They have illegally felled trees, felled trees without any consideration for safety of the workers andpublic, operated out of hours, proceeded in demolition works without the proper authority, openlyadmitted to ignoring authority and illegally parked vehicles. The developer has obviously norespect for the law or the public. They have caused distress and nuisance to their immediateneighbours and the wider Bristol city population. It would be unethical and illegal to allow adeveloper to so brazenly continue to act in this manner, I believe it is the right of and the law forBristol city council to immediately halt works on the property and to investigate the developersactions and lack of respect for the proper authorities. Only once these matters have been resolvedshould, if any, works continue on the property, and as a priority the maple trees on public highwayland should be protected until the matter is fully resolved.

More felling of mature trees

The contractors are trying to cut down three mature maple trees, after already illegallychopping 2 of the trees. It is absolutely inconsistent with the council's announcements of Climateand Ecological Emergencies to remove these trees.

The area already has below the recommended level of tree cover and suffers from some of theworst pollution in Bristol.

Air pollution is the biggest killer in the city and also causes health issues for residents, especiallyin St Pauls. As we start to address the emergencies we find ourselves in, one of the first steps hasto be to protect the few trees we have and then plant more, and to make sure that access to treesisn't just for wealthier parts of the city.

It has also been proven that the trees are supposed to be under tree protection orders, and arelocated on council owned land. There is every possibility and reason to keep these trees for thecommunity.

I'm writing to object to the impunity with which the developer has been carrying outworks on the site, in particular with regards to the felling of trees without permission to do so.Claiming council land as his own is an outrageous over-stepping of the mark which should not beallowed to continue - if someone cannot manage the land and the build with the appropriate levelof respect and sensitivity to the area, their planning application should be revoked.

I highly object the felling of the remaining maple trees (after the illegal felling of two ofthem last year).

These mature trees are vital for the air quality in the area especially taken the proximity to the M32motorway.

A King's College study revealed that five people die each week in Bristol as a result of high levelsof air pollution and the same study also found that the annual cost of the health impact of airpollution in Bristol was up to £170m a year.

These are real figures and any new housing development needs be planned and built with this inmind, these trees can be easily retained and developed around.

Source: https://www.uk100.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Bristol-City-Health-and-Economic-Impact-Assessment-study.pdf

Strongly object to removal of trees. They are important to health and well being. Theowner has trying to achieve this nefariously.

I strongly object to this as it will result in the felling of healthy trees, which we need moreof, especially in the area of the proposal.

Not ok.

It is essential that the maple trees are not felled as part of this application. They helpreduce air pollution in a heavily polluted, inner city area. Felling trees is not in keeping with thedeclaration of a Climate Emergency by Bristol City Council.

These are protected trees and should not cut down for development purposes. Bristolhas a commitment to maintaining its status as a leader in sustainable and environmental practices.These trees play an important role in providing natural space in an otherwise highly urbanisedarea, with higher than safe levels of pollution that occur adjacent to the M32. Trees help to detoxifythe air - surely this is a more valuable resources than what will be in their place? The communityhas demonstrated clear, sustained objection to this and should be listened to. There are highlevels of asthma in local children residing in this part of Bristol, removal of these trees andsubsequent development will endanger their health.

I strongly object to the felling of the remaining three Maple Trees on Lower AshleyRoad.

I believe the officer's report for application 15/05530/P shows that the council owns the land thetrees are on, not the developers. If serious about combating the effects of the current climatecrisis, the council should protect our environment.

With heavy traffic cutting through our neighbourhood, we need the few trees we have to combatcarbon emissions.

I strongly object to the felling of these mature maple trees, this densely populated andpolluted area needs many more trees, not fewer.They have taken many years to grow to this size and are an asset to the area. Any new buildingcan be designed around them.

I object to the destruction of mature trees on this site; the land is owned by the counciland these trees have a Tree Protection Order on them, which is being ignored by the developerwho claims the land as his own and has cut several trees down. The council must intervene andprotect the trees which are left. Trees are vital for cleaning the air and reducing the pollutionaround here.

If the demolition of this building requires the further felling of trees, then I stronglyobject.I bitterly object to the felling of these trees on Lwr Ashley Rd. The remaining 3 MUST be protected.This Rd is a gateway into Bristol, and as such has a constantly high level of traffic, and isfrequently congested with a queue of cars polluting the air. I believe that 10-11% of Ashleyresidents die of pollution related causes. Trees are essential to reducing the impacts of airpollution. We need more trees, not less. Furthermore these are/were beautiful mature trees thatsoftened the urban landscape.Finally, this disreputable developer has made an illegal land grab and felled supposedly protectedtrees. This must not be tolerated, and certainly should not be allowed to become a precedent.

I object to trees being removed that are subject to TPOs and property of local authority

I object to the proposed development. There is a lot of local concern about this thatneeds to be addressed - not least the felling of mature maple trees that may not belong to thedeveloper. I think there needs to be a thorough investigation.

Please do not allow the destruction of these mature and priceless trees. We are in aclimate emergency and trees are vital to our survival, our wellbeing and to the biodiversity which isalready so under threat.

After the illegal felling of two maple trees last year,I highly object the felling of the remaining maple trees.Trees are a vital part in the process of lowering air pollution, which is a major problem in Bristol.Taking down these trees would be a direct contribution towards worsening air quality in the cityand at therefore also negatively affecting resident's health.A truly modern developing city would take these things into consideration when planning newhousing structures. Therefore, I kindly ask you to refrain from taking down any trees for thishousing development project.Regards

As a local resident I cycle down Ashley Road daily to get to work, the air quality isappalling. Whatever you do with these buildings, please spare the 3 remaining trees.

SAVE THE TREES!!!!

These trees are essential to the quality of life of the local people in this area. Not onlydo they provide us with clean air to breathe but they increase everyone's wellbeing by just beingthere. Allowing for these trees to be felled would not only be illegal (they are on publicly ownedland), it would also be an act of ecocide and further oppression of one of the poorest areas inBristol.

I'm very unhappy about the proposed development given it would mean the felling of theexisting Maple Trees.

I request that the Council refuse this development application and consider alternative plans. Onethat preserves the trees, and thereby maximizes the ability of the natural environment in theAshley area to tackle the high pollution problems. Thank you.

The trees should be protected if they have TPO. Developer should be held responsiblefor their actions so far In removal of other trees. Also falsely stating what property is for.

How can this happen if its illegal. I love trees

I would prefer the keep the trees....they are of great amenity value is such a busy road

I object to this development and the felling of the trees on council land

I strongly object to the demolition plans and would be safe to say this is a bungledapplication and the Council should be looking closer at the developers plans and objectives t toany felling of trees which are evidenced to be in the public highway. The L A policy to assist thehigh pollution rates in Bristol are being breached through allowing these needed trees to goregardless of new planting these are mature trees that cannot be replaced.

This is illegal demolition of important natural infrastructure

I object to the felling of the M32 Maples.

I thought Bristol was supposed to be a green city .you councillors are destroying this.you keep digging up roads putting Busstops in the most dangerous And stupid places allowingany developer to cut down trees .get your act together .

No mature trees should be threatened by this development. More trees need planting!

I strongly object to this application on the following grounds:Substantial demolition work of the main building has been going on for months without priornotification, long before this application for proposed demolition.On site work has been carried out illegally in several respects including out of permitted hours.Parking restrictions have been ignored.Necessary safe practices have not been employed during felling of 2 mature maple trees.No wildlife impact survey, as required by law, has been carried out.Site workers have ignored the legal requirement to get permission for felling trees subject to treeprotection orders (TPOs).

Please don't allow these mature trees to be chopped down. I enjoy themed day on theway to work.Surely the developer can use them as a feature and build around them.

Trees that have protection orders should be protected. This needs looking in to as itseems that some of the trees may already have been felled.People should be trying to preserve mature trees. This kind of action all goes to spoiling areas astrees take a long time to grow and help the environment.Affordable housing is not the same as student flats.Please someone look into this. These developers should not get away with this.

I am concerned that this application has already caused the felling of several maturetrees, allegedly in defiance of preservation orders. It is also claimed that three more trees will belost if this goes ahead. We need mature trees, particularly in inner city areas like this where airpollution is high. The building trade is also one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gasemissions because of the huge amount of fuel used to make cement and steel. Is it not possible tofind a new use for the building instead of knocking it down?

I wish to object to the development on Lower Ashley Road where the developer have felledseveral mature trees without permission. Furthermore the proposed to develop will result inoverdevelopment of the urban are and may well have an impact on traffic congestion. It appearsthat the development is already advertised as student flats not affordable housing as theyoriginally claimed.

I travel on this road regularly. The trees help with the pollution on this busy road andimprove the quality of the environment for people.

It is not clear from the planning history whether or not the planning permission grantedfor this site approved the removal of the maple trees (which are protected by TPOs) on the vergeof Lower Ashley Road, subject to the developer making a financial contribution for replacementplanting.Nevertheless, the remaining trees are mature and precious. Every possible effort should be madeto preserve the trees.- They are the last remaining street trees in Lower Ashley Road,- They have great amenity value, and- they help counteract the high levels of pollution in the area,- The Mayor has sought to promote Bristol as a green city. Lower Ashley Road is a gateway intothe city and should reflect that objective. There should be more trees on the street, not fewer.

I strongly object to the removal of the remaining maple trees on the road. These aremature trees that would take generations to replace and years for any new trees to provide thekind of health and clean air benefits these trees currently do.

Bristol has declared a climate and ecological emergency, and these trees are part of the solutionto both of these crises.

Every political party's manifesto included a bid to plant more trees due to the undeniable benefitsthey bring to public health and climate - if developers are allowed to fell trees that are this maturethen how will we ever reach the recommended quota of trees in the UK.

A responsible developer should be able to work around these trees, incorporating them in to theirproposals.

Please refuse this application. These trees offer significantly amenity value to localresidents and the whole city. They bring pleasure in an urban environment. They provide amagnificent service in cleaning the air, providing a habitat for wildlife and preventing water run offand erosion. They take decades to grow to this size. Their loss will be a significant detriment to ourlocality.

This road is severely polluted because of its closeness to the M32. Also with the illegalremoval of valuable mature trees by the developer from the site (despite the trees having TPOs),this pollution problem will exacerbated. It does not seem to me to be a place to build affordablehousing (especially for families) unless substantial mitigation is put in place (like the planting ofmany more trees not the illegal felling of already mature trees).

This proposed development represents massive overdevelopment in an area that already lacksreasons local amenities. It is also not clear what kind of development it is meant to be. If it is to beaffordable housing why is the developer advertising it as student accommodation?

My objection is based on the way the developer has ridden roughshod over planninglaws and acted in an underhand way to achieve their ends. Protected, mature and well loved treeshave been felled illegally creating bad feeling within the neighbourhood. Plans have been drawnup that fo not take into account the balance between building and existing environment. Thequality of life of people living not only in the proposed new building but also the existing housing inthe locality will be greatly reduced if this development gets approved.

Trees must be saved. The accommodation should be affordable not a money makingventure for the developers.

I strongly object to this development and the tree felling involved in it. We have alreadylost far too many trees in the city of Bristol, we need more not less, it is disgusting that many ofthese trees have been allowed to be felled already, shame on you Bristol city council!!!

I am very disturbed to read that so many regulations appear to have been broken withno consequences. The felling of the trees seems such a blow, and cannot unfortunately be putright by any means. The views of the local residents must surely be heard. I live not far away byBishop Road, but near enough to be disturbed by the disregard for procedures and protections soclose by.

I strongly object to the removal of the maple trees. Bristol has poor air quality andshould not approve any work which results in the removal of mature trees. With suitable planning acompetent contractor would be able to carry out development of the site without removing ordamaging the trees.

I am objecting to the destruction of the maple trees next to the M32. These trees arevital in the reduction of air pollution that is created by the M32, air pollution that causes the deathof five people in Bristol each week.

As a Bristol resident I feel very strongly that the mature maple trees in site, which arecouncil property must be preserved.

This developer is cleary is very happy to flout local laws. What else will they flout. Arewe to see a pile of cheap poor quality flats..

This should not be allowed and I concur with the rest of the comments Bristol Councilneeds to step up here and take control of the situation.

St Paul's does not need student apartments and those trees being cut down conflict with thecouncils climate emergency statement.

This developer has acted with total disregard to the council and its rules and needs to be stopped

Given that pollution is a major hazard in Bristol the felling of mature trees should beavoided if at all possible, particularly when sited along busy roads and helping to alleviatepollution. In the event that regulations relating to tree felling are ignored the maximum fines andany other penalties should be enforced promptly and without hesitation. Only then will developerstake any notice of the law.

I object to the destruction of the Maple trees, this would be a travesty at the best oftimes but in line with environmental and ecological emergencies at hand, which Bristol claims tobe taking seriously then allowing actions like these would be unconscionable. We need to protectthe greenery that remains for air quality and bio diversity but we also need to change business asusual attitudes to policies that don't put environmental justice at their core.

Protect local communities, the children or all species

I am most concerned about the apparently illegal felling of two of the five maple trees inLower Ashley Rd and the threat to three others.We live in a time when our awareness of our reliance on trees is being highlighted daily in pressarticles on climate change . It seems extraordinary therefore that the developers here areapparently able to ignore the rules that have been laid down by Bristol City Council with regard tofelling of treesI have been present at the ongoing vigil at this site and have been very surprised by the supportthis protest has received from the general public. Bristol C C has, I believe, a duty to enforcecompliance to its rules in this case, especially as a warning to other developers who mightotherwise put their own interests before those of the citizens of Bristol.Thank you for reading this

I understand that several mature maple trees are included in this scheme in order thatthe developer may construct an access road. I'm an area of poor air quality and minimal tree coverit is unacceptable to me that these trees be removed. It ought to be possible to accommodate thedevelopment without causing such detrimental effects to the environment.

Concerned about over development and harm to local amenity when parking is alreadysuch an issue, and there is huge pressure on G.P practices.

Concerned about the transparency of the developer - promised to be social housing- which isdesperately needed- but now being advertised as student housing.

Concerned about the environmental impact of the the unauthorised felling of trees- if BCC allowthis to happen unchecked it will encourage others developers to do the same.

I have been reading around this application and it appears that there are someconcerns around the legality of the destruction of maple trees on Lower Ashely road. I oppose theunnecessary destruction of trees for any reason, but with these added concerns, I believe that anobjection to this application is entirely valid.

After speaking to a local to the area, I was informed that there have been many failingsby the developers and the council to assure that the removal of the maple street trees is legal. Ioppose the cutting down of these trees as there is no good reason to do so - I do not consider theprofits of a private company to warrant the deterioration of the local environment, especially in acity so closely connected to 'green' lifestyles.

On the basis that I understand TPO's have been ignored, therefore the developer wouldnot be fit to carry out compliant construction work

Our need for street trees should not be underestimated- in a inner city urban area, withno other trees to provide shade, soften the hard landscape and help clean the highly polluted air -these trees are essential. Plus it is unnecessary- the building can be developed without losingthese trees. The council needs to protect every tree we have, not pander to the greed ofdevelopers

I strongly object to this proposal.

There have been multiple instances of the developer acting in breach of the conditions set out inprevious planning decisions and they have a track record of giving misleading information in theirprior applications.

In addition, the proposal as stands involves the felling of 3 mature trees; these are a valuable localresource with considerable amenity value to those that live in the area. The developer has notproperly shown how the loss of these trees can be offset, given their location and age, in a waythat compensates local residents. Their illegal felling of two of the previous five trees, anddisregard for the requirement to follow proper permissions and procedures, show they are notsuitable or trustworthy. These trees are located on public BCC land and should be incorporatedinto any new development on the site.

I object on every level to this development. From what I can see proper procedureshave not been followed and laws contravened. What on earth is the planning dept at Bristol CityCouncil thinking of? Vigilance has certainly not been practised and allowing the cutting down ofmature trees shows that Bristol City Council's green credentials are seriously flawed. Where is theaffordable housing? Whose interests are being prioritised?

Object due to need to retain trees and comply with TPO

I strongly object to the felling of the remaining M32 maples in order to facilitate thisdevelopment. The development should not go ahead until these trees can be safeguarded. 1.Weneed more mature trees in Bristol, not less - For reasons of biodiversity, the wellbeing of peopleliving in the area, and to capture carbon.2. The Council declared an 'ecological emergency' a week ago. The council allowing thedestruction of valuable habitats like this is one of the ways that a city gets itself into an ecologicalemergency. It's the opposite of your stated policy. If the council wants to give actual substance toits declaration, a very easy win is simply not to allow the felling of the M32 maples. Otherwise itwill be apparent that the ecological emergency declaration is largely driven by a desire for goodPR.3. It is not acceptable to deprive this neighbourhood of its mature trees. They enhance the beautyof the area and trees have be been shown to positively affect people's wellbeing. Why should localpeople not get this benefit? It is unjustifiable.4. Bristol Council has also declared a climate emergency. We need all the trees we have andmore in order to capture carbon. The council should act according to its high-minded declarations,or stop wasting everyone's time with them if they aren't sincere.5. The trees are already there. All you have to do is protect them.

'After speaking to a local to the area, I was informed that there have been many failingsby the developers and the council to assure that the removal of the maple street trees is legal. Ioppose the cutting down of these trees as there is no good reason to do so - I do not consider theprofits of a private company to warrant the deterioration of the local environment, especially in acity so closely connected to 'green' lifestyles.'

I object to these protected trees being cut down, when with a little thought and effortthey could be retained. The City of Bristol has declared an ecological emergency and this needs tobe backed up with action including efforts to protect what trees we have and to plant many more. Ihope this will be looked at again and some solution found.

I strongly object to this application. The planning process appears to be flawed, and inmy opinion there has been a lack of transparency overall with this application.

Inner city homes are important, but this area has an unprecedented amount of new homes alreadybeing created (Brooks Laundry, 2 sites on Lower Ashley Road, and 2 sites on NewfoundlandRoad, Magdalene Place/Sussex place and a third site on Lower Ashley Road also waiting forplanning).

Furthermore, the loss of the three remaining trees would change irreparably the character of thestreet (5 mature trees have already been removed without consent) and the quality of localresidents lives.

Air quality is a real issue in this area so this action does not make any sense.

This site has already been on rightmove.com advertised as student homes not affordable homesas stated in the application.

Please don't cut the remaining 3 maple trees; we need to be urgently planting trees notfelling them. This would be a reckless act.

I live two streets away from these trees.

I live in one of the most polluted areas in Bristol

To take these trees down would be completely ridiculous on a pollution stance but also on a globalwarming stance as well.

We need all the trees we can get. We are in a climate emergency and I live in a pollutedenvironment.

Do the right thing for the people who live here.

Object to the removal of the mature trees in the grounds of air quality, climate change,biodiversity conservation and the need for green places and trees in our urban environments.

These are veteran trees In a city that "prides" itself on being green. As an asthmaticchopping down these trees is a treat to health including mental health and devalues theimportance of nature for future generations. Finally these trees are protected so they fact they canbe attacked in this way with seemingly no action taken by local authorities is shocking and showsthe lack of protection these preservation orders actually give.

Please leave the M32 maples in place. The air quality is St Paul's is illegal and treeshelp. They also help to reduce CO2 and soften this urban landscape.

These trees are protected, and it's disgusting that they're in danger from needlessdevelopment.

How anyone can justify cutting down trees with the climate and ecological crisis isbeyond me. Please consider all of the adverse effects removing these trees will have and do notmake the mistake of cutting them down. Thanks

I am objecting to this planning application and the implication it will have for the 2remaining Norway Maple trees on Lower Ashley Road (2out of 5). I believe that the trees shouldbe protected as they provide much needed oxygen, as well as shade, for the people of St.Paul'sand to remove them would have dire consequences for the environment, not to mention wouldlook incredibly ugly! The trees are not dying and I see no reason to cut them down.

I live in the city centre and commute on my bike past these trees each day. It's aprivilege to see them change through the seasons. The council should represent the people of thecity. The local voice is asking for these trees to stay. They give oxygen, shade, habitat and beautyto the city. In a climate emergency in a city that has declared an ecological emergency we mustkeep these trees. Show you care about the people you represent and that being a green city ismore than just words. We need to see the council taking action. Look at the doctors against dieselweb page if you need any convincing of how harmful pollution is to our children's health right now.

My young family regularly cycles to nursery school down this road and the levels of airpollution at rush hour are an ongoing concern about how it may be shaping my children's health.The maple trees are the only thing on Ashley Road to be actively cleaning up the air there. Theyshould be preserved and given protected status and not felled as a short-term action to providesite access- an alternative that avoids felling the trees MUST be found.

I am very worried for air quality, I understand change and expansion happen, but treesas mature as these need to be protected and cared for. Please find a work around

We need more trees!

Save the trees! Why are we cutting down mature trees at a time of climate crisis. Thesetrees are essential for absorbing the carbon emitted by the traffic on the M32 and it would beridiculous to cut them down just so the area can be developed. We need more green, not less!

I object to cutting down the Maple Trees, they are mature tress which are doing their bitto absorb the air pollution. St Pauls needs these trees and Bristol needs the trees.

I object to destruction of these trees. They are on council land and the council has aduty to protect them. After declaring a climate emergency to allow for the destruction of maturetrees, purely to increase the profits of a private developer is a hypocritical act. They also add to thecharacter of the area and are especially important for air quality so close to the M32.There is no good reason to remove them, only good reasons to keep them.

I strongly object to the current plans for demolition and development on the basis that:- the destruction of mature trees will significantly damage local amenity and character- the trees are of particular environmental value because a) their situation next to the M32 meansthat they help to reduce excess carbon and b) they help to prevent flooding in an area known to beat flood risk- there is dispute about legal land ownership: the developer claims ownership but the land registryindicates that the trees are on council-owned land- to date, demolition and tree-felling has been unsafe and without permissions granted, suggestingthat the developer can not be trusted to proceed safely and legally- the proposed plans do not match what has been advertised: the plans include affordablehousing, yet are already being advertised as student flats

I am a Brisrol resident and I'm appalled this is even being considered. We are chokingon the fumes already. Enough is enough!

I live a few streets away from the trees, in Sandbed road, with my partner and our twosmall children. We already have illegal levels of pollution in this area, living right next to the M32and I am concerned about the impact this will be having on my children's lungs. This is an areawith low tree coverage so these mature maples absolutely need to be protected so they cancontinue to counteract some of the carbon pollution from the motorway that our children arebreathing. It would take 20 years for a newly planted maple to grow to the size of these trees, soreplacing these is not an option. We do not have twenty years to wait. Our children need clean airnow. Please protect these trees.

Cutting down those trees would be an absolute travesty and flies in the face of all logicand morality

We need the ongoing help with pollution that these trees provide. We must not increasebreathing problems and lower life expectancy by chopping down the few that are left.

Several mature trees have been felled without permission. There are only three maturemaples remaining on site thanks to local residents' protests.

The developer has ignored TPOs, claimed council land as his own (land registry says the trees areowned by the council), and already advertised the development as student flats, despite claimingto be building 'affordable housing'.

Disgraceful, when our air is so thick with pollution and every child I know in the area hasasthma. My child has croup and asthma. We need more trees. We can be pioneers inenvironmentally friendly building and civil engineering

Chopping down mature trees is completely counter to Bristol city council's declarationsof climate and ecological emergency.

I am horrified that several mature Maple treeshave been illegally felled in Ashley Road. Ihope that those responsible will be charged and required to replace them.The site borders one of the worst places in Bristol regarding airquality. As you are aware, trees play a vital role in reducing, to some extent, the air polution atthese black spots in the City.Bristol was the first City Council to declare a Climate Emergency, it was also recently GreenCapital. How can the Council square the felling of inner-city trees with what we know about theClimate Crisis?Adjacent tonthe Maple trees, which front . the road, there were 2 Calatpa Bignoniode trees, 80foottall, which have sadly been destroyed recently.I tried and failed to get a TPO on them.Please wake up and ensure that no more trees are felled, and that the trees we do have, arecarefully protected, and cared for.Be on the right side of history,

St Pauls is an area with illegal levels of pollution, low urban tree cover and high risk offlooding.

This is about what kind of city we want to live in and the health of our children. An eye-watering70% of children in the Ashley ward suffer from asthma. Meanwhile, air pollution is the most prolificcause of death in Bristol, killing 5 prematurely every week. Urban trees are essential for cleaningour air and making it safe to breathe.

At a time when our government has given its consent for HS2 to carry out untold destruction ofancient woodland, it is time to make a stand and say 'No More' to developers putting profit aheadof our health, justice and environment. Bristol City Council have just declared an EcologicalEmergency and now we expect them to act on it by protecting our trees and wildlife habitats.

I fully object to the destruction of trees in order to fit in your development. Pleaseconsider the environmental consequences. We need all the trees we can get.

Highly object that trees were felled without consent and expect to see the council takenecessary action against perpetrators.

We should be protecting biodiversity and plant life.

In this current climate we should be looking at ways to make our city greener. Notencouraging more pollution.

Make Bristol a truly Green city. Invest in Green energy. Lets be proud and lead the way!

We need to start valuing biodiversity properly, and understand the value of nature inurban spaces for wellbeing, air treatment, wildlife, and carbon sequestration. Maples like thesehave taken such a long time to grow and cannot be replaced- when will the perilous path of'economic growth' give way to reason and an appreciation that all life has value, and is worthy of aplace in the world? We need natural services, but these maples have value far beyond that aloneand they are symbolic of a commitment from the council to recognising that. Bold moves areneeded now, not tomorrow.

I have been concerned for some time about the proliferation of "studentaccommodation" in the city. It is very unfortunate that the city seems to be able to accommodatethousands of international students when it cannot house its own citizens. This particularapplication appears to have been seriously tainted by lies and deception, not least the claim that itprovides 'affordable housing'. Student housing is not affordable housing, and it does nothing tocreate a community. Let the universities create the accommodation needed by their students.

The illegal and indiscriminate felling of the mature maples fortunately drew attention to exactlywhat this developer planned to do. It is time to put a stop to this and create some proper affordablehousing for the disadvantaged local community. And it rather sounds as if the planning officerconcerned also needs to be investigated too!

We need as many established trees as possible around our city to off set therecognised dangerous level of air pollution. Trees cannot counter all dangerous emissions that areseriously affecting the health of Bristol residents but go some way to absorbing dangerous levelsof carbon monoxide.

These trees are where many many more should be planted rather than being removed as theresidential area is so close to the M32. Studies state that living within a 500m radius of motorwayscaused lung capacity in teenagers having grown up within the radius affected to be diminished by17%, with respiratory issues to be marked and growth predictors to be significantly stunted also.

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5381791/)

Sadly in Bristol we loose 260 people a year to air pollution related deaths.https://www.uk100.org/publications/

I hope Bristol can retain its Green city status and values.We want our residential areas to retain being an enjoyable place to live. Green spaces and treeshaving been proven to be good for mental health as well as limiting some harm from emissions.

It would be a great shame to set the precedence that property developers can purchase anddestroy elements so key to the cardiac and lung health, mental wellbeing and joy of thecommunity.

yours sincerelyCaroline wright

Surely this project could be carried out without the destruction of precious mature trees,at a time when air pollution in the city and climate change are high priorities?

One, two or five trees cut down here and there around Bristol may not seem like much,but they all add up, and when mayor Marvin Rees has pledged to increase tree cover in Bristol thisis a retrograde proposal. This will affect the air quality of the people of St Paul's and StWerburgh's, who already have lower than average tree cover and have seen trees felled along theM32 for another development already in the past few years. Old trees like this take a long time togrow and we can't just cut them down and plant new ones elsewhere. We need more homes butdevelopments should be planned around important parts of the local landscape like these trees.Buildings and streets without trees are lifeless, depressing places to be. The residents of St Paul'sdeserve a neighborhood as verdant as Redland, Clifton or anywhere else.

Already a heavily polluted area . More trees are needed not felled .. Fed up with largedevelopers thinking they are above the law . I hope they are heavily fined and made to act withinthe law in future .

St Paul's has a toxic level of air pollution. Chopping down trees is madness. We shouldbe planting more in this area to help reduce the pollution not chopping down trees which are wellestablished. Please reconsider.

This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleadinginformation provided by the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protectedtrees adjoining the site.

The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site orimmediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F(approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending). So when the applicant declaresthat the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to beviewed with some suspicion.

Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland. Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegaland that they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged. Other discrepancies include that covering letters citedin the application have not been made available.It should be noted that the building is unsafebecause the developers permitted ad hoc demolition work to be carried out without duepermission.

Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land whichwere under the protection of a Tree Protection Order. This is in spite of a prior agreement to haltall works until completion of planning consideration for the application 19/02157/F due in March2020. The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by the

overwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, andin particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

I object to works due to the likely damage to or destruction of trees on / near the site. Nowork should commence unless ownership of the trees has been established and all properpermissions to remove the trees have been granted.

object strongly to the destruction of any more mature trees on this proposeddevelopment. Particularly, as it is council owned land. Although, the council seem unwilling toacknowledge this.

There were 11 mature trees on this site and many have already been illegally destroyed andremoved. There are only 3 mature trees left now, because the council planning dept has not actedagainst this wanton destruction on their land.IAs I understand it, the applicant stated that there are/were no trees at all on this land. Anotheruntruth & they have destroyed many of the trees that were there, without obtaining planningpermission, before their destruction began.

The applicant has already told many untruths about this site & acted in "bad faith" and theplanning dept have let them get away with destroying these mature trees. The planning deptshould be ashamed of themselves for allowing this applicant to destroy our neighbourhood, byremoving council owned mature trees.

The developer stated that there are no public Rights of Way on or adjoining this site. Anotheruntruth, as there are public rights of way on 3 sides of this proposed development.

The awful pollution & flood risk of this site is putting residents in a difficult situation. People arealready leaving the area because of pollution. As a so called "Green City" the council should bedoing all they can to save the remaining trees. Trees go some way to mitigating some of thesepollution issues, we need these trees for our health.

Accepting a "bung" from the developer of 22k so they re-plant trees elsewhere is nothing short ofvandalism by the planning dept. These trees are/were over 40 years old. Newly planted trees willtake years and years before they mature and are able to help with pollution issues.

Any further destruction of the remaining 3 maples is illegal & the planning department need toenforce planning rules to stop this vandalism.

It is so important for air quality - which is very poor all around the M32 area - for there tobe as many trees as possible. Not only to protect the health of local residents but to help offset thecarbon footprint for future generations. It should be very clear to everyone in Britain today thatprotecting and enhancing our natural world is paramount. We can no longer look forward to aprosperous future if we don't take great care of our natural environment - this is a fact which thebest economists in the country are now freely admitting. So, DO NOT clear those trees frombeside the motorway, but instead plant a great many news ones.

I object to this work. The local campaign "Save the M32 Maples" has uncovered a stringof irregularities regarding this project including undisclosed trees on the planning application,illegal removal of existing mature trees, and land ownership issues. These must be fullyinvestigated before any further work can be considered. And future plans must be balancedagainst the needs of the local community and Bristol as a whole particularly saving the remainingthree mature trees on the site.

Dear Planning DeptMany years I worked at Charlotte Keel H/C walked past daily .Trees are very important for allaspects of wellbeing both air wise and whole feel of area especially in a residential area affectedby nearby motor way and resultant air quality and noise and enviremental problems . I also want tostrongly emphasise points raised below.Please listen to concerned locals especially whilst claiming to be a Green city .Removal of treeswill be seen to make those claims empty and will make many cynical of who council is in pay off ..please do not underestimate strength of feeling as not all have time to protest or fill in these formsin an area where many locals are stressed to the max but removing trees will be seen as a lack ofcare and interest to locals by powers that be .This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleading information providedby the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protected trees adjoining thesite.

The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.

The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).

So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.

Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. This

area does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.

Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.

Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been madeavailable.

It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.

The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, andin particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

There are 3 planning spplications already relating to this. 19/02157F, 18/05532/M and15/05530/P.So the application's claim that there is no other development planned is erroneous.The application claims there are no public rights of way adjoining the site! The site is bounded bypublic footpaths on 3 sides!The area defined by the plan does NOT include the strip of land occupied by the three remainingmaple trees.

I have witnessed ad hoc demolition of the site, without due care of workers ( no hardhats) or care of the public, trees hacked with no application of closing the pavement, to protectpassers by, again workers without hats . we have evidenceThe site has been left in a dangerous and precarious condition as slow low cover demolition hasbeen taking place ( with no official sanction) and crossing the border of what is officially owneb byGarlick and co.

The developer mislead the council in one application saying there were no trees on the land oradjoining it.The land registry makes a clear demarcation between the land owned by the council and the landthat is owned by highways, where the trees stand.It is suspicious that the developer did not admit there were trees on or near their land and did notask for the pavement to be officially blocked to fell trees that they insist are theirs although they donot acknowledge so in their application.We have lost trees that are very valuable to us, latest figures show that 70%of children in the innercity suffer from asthma or breathing related problemsThis constitutes a criminal act of vandalism of public land and a abuse of power ,furtherexacerbated by the fact that it is recognised that the air quality in the area is already below thelegal limit, and that the council and community are very aware of this .That the land is said to be contaminated Claywater and yet no soil assessment was done , and ifso why is it not public?That bats are known to nest there, I myself have witnessed bats coming out of the building.The developer has applied for various types of evelopments first student flats then "affordable"housing....."affordable" needs to be defined.Furthermore has a flood assessment been done? The area is prone to flooding and trees are a

great resource as they are able to soak up water.These developers have proven to be shoddy, uncaring and criminal , I hope the planning office willshow some integrity and prove that under the law we are all equal and consider the fact that weare being deprived of oxygen not only by the unlawful cutting down of trees but also by theconstant traffic, roadworks and building sites that surround St Pauls at the moment, it is trulymakng life unbearable

These are the objections I make to the demolition works. The most important is that theapplication is based on flawed information. The maples strip is on public land.1. The site plans have the wrong footprint. They do not match the correct Title Plans BL92052.These prove conclusively that the strip of maple trees is on public land, owned by the HighwaysDept. And not on John Garlicks.

2. Where are the risk assessments to follow application 19/02157/F? The Council tree officer, whoattended the site while Mr. Garlick took down two trees on public property, asked the workmen fortheir papers and a Risk Assessment, which they failed to produce. In fact, such was their hostilityto the women who chained themselves to the trees that they began demolition prematurely, bythrowing tiles off the roof, in their anger.

3. Please provide a copy of Phase 1, of the GPO Environmental Assessment Ref 81641/16 on thewebsite for the admitted contamination on site.

4. Clayewater states that the site is contaminated, which inspection shows to be linked to a formermine shaft. Where is the soil assessment before men continue to work on the site. They havebeen doing this already for weeks.

5. The head of Planning said to the Mayor's meeting "I am not a land e pert." All their data aboutland ownership is questionable. It is now over 11 days since we requested evidence of landownership of the maples and it still not provided to us or to the media. If Planning were soconfident surely it would not take days to produce the evidence. This demolition request covers

trees on Highways land, even on the initial officer's report in 2016, and yet no evidence, onlyassertions.

6. The danger to the maples is obvious. Twice Mr. Garlick's men have started tree felling,unprotected, in the small hours of the road. The fact that both times they avoided applying forproper Highways permission could make anyone wonder why. Were they afraid of what theyalready knew? The the maples were council property. But as with many developers, it is shoot firstand ask questions later.

7. The planning application makes it clear that no construction work is to take place, includingdemolition, until the final decision in March. The fact is that Clayewater started the morning afterthe Mayor's meeting, with no permission, gives us no cause to trust the motives of this followingstep. Without our intervention and public opinion, they would never have applied for this incorrectapplication.

8. The Council's stated agreement to demolition appeared to be to assist Mr. Garlick to avoidpaying business rates. Why? He has already done more than £80k destruction of two TPO maplestrees. He knows that the fines are much smaller than his potential profits. There is a car washbusiness that informed us that they were the ones paying business rates. What is the rush? Theplanning decision has not yet been made, and the community have lost all confidence in theCouncil, landowner and developer to protect property, so essential to the health and welfare of thelow income residents they claim do not need the trees.

I strongly object to the proposed demolition.

This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleading information providedby the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protected trees adjoining thesite.

The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.

The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).

So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.

Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.

Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.

Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been made

available.

It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.

The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, andin particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

5 people die each day in Bristol due to particulates and pollution from vehicles. Cuttingdown mature trees next to the M 32 will make this worse for vulnerable locals from lowersocioeconomic/ culturally sensitive demographics.Also, in a climate emergency every mature tree counts, the developers offer to plant sampling's isnot the same equivalent. Often sampling's are planted and not protected or watered allowing themto die. Some developers unfortunately cannot be trusted to do this, there is a history of deceit &downright lies from this developer.Please do the right thing and protect the maples and allow a smaller development and watch thatthe roots are not compromised at a later date.The flats being built should be for the benefit of the local community and not just for greedy profit,causing irresponsible local damage and bad feeling. Why do we have to fight when we are on theright side of common sense.

I strongly object to the proposed demolition.This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleading information providedby the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protected trees adjoining thesite.The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been madeavailable.It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by the

overwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, andin particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

I note that the application states that the demolition will not involve felling or pruning ofany trees. The developer has already felled two of five Maple trees adjacent to the site. Theremaining three must be protected as they are important to the quality of air on what is a busy andheavily polluted road way. I am objecting to demolition if it means these trees are damaged, andreflect the mistrust of the developer that is widely held in the local community because of previousactions with regard to these trees..

I also note that the form states there are no future plans for development of the site, but there is infact a current planning application for the site. This adds to my concerns about the intentions ofthis application, and the risks posed to these important trees.

I object to the proposed demolition on the grounds that the developer has already felled2 of the maples, even though it states that there will be no felling or pruning. The 3 remaining treesmust be protected from this and any other development. The air pollution in Bristol has beenproved to be toxic.

This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleadinginformation provided by the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protectedtrees adjoining the site.

The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.

The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).

So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.

Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.

Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.

Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been madeavailable.

It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.

The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, andin particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

I am concerned that the developer of this site has unlawfully cut down several maturetrees, despite tree preservation orders and despite the fact that the row of mature maple trees onLower Ashley Road stand on council-owned land, not land owned by the developer.Other mature trees to both sides of the property have also been felled.This busy road, in common with many other road in Bristol, suffers from extreme (and indeedunlawful) levels of air pollution, and we can not allow any more mature trees to be felled, sincethey are so useful at absorbing air pollution and rainfall. The danger of flooding will increase due tothe loss of these trees.Since flooding is also a matter of concern to the council, I urge Ms Sangway, the case officer, torecommend the refusal of this planning application. I also urge the planning department to takemore account of the value of mature trees and to ensure that they are not felled by greedydevelopers eager to maximise profits at the expense of public health and general amenity.

As a local resident I have several concerns regarding this application to demolish thisbuilding.

1) The "Site Location" plan submitted with this application does not accurately show the sitefootprint.

2) The additional notes mentioned in the planning application are not accessible so cannot beconsidered.

3) Demolition paves the way for preventing a full investigation of land ownership. The council itselfexplained in meetings to the M32 group that demolishing would pave the way for the trees to befelled backwards afterwards, onto a proposed vacant site. The landowner has already shown ablatant disregard for rules and regulations regarding demolition/tree felling.

4) Planning advice was that nothing was to be done to the site until planning permission was fullygranted (in March). This demolition flies in the face of Planning's own construction planconstraints.

Thanks for your consideration of these matters, Rachel Lamp

demolition would pave the way for felling the trees backwards onto flat land. This was confirmed to

the M32 Maples group by Council representatives. Grant demolition and help Mr Garlick twice-avoid tax and take out the trees.

This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleadinginformation provided by the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protectedtrees adjoining the site.The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been madeavailable.It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, and

in particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleadinginformation provided by the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protectedtrees adjoining the site.The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been madeavailable.It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, and

in particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

:This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleadinginformation provided by the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protectedtrees adjoining the site.The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been madeavailable.It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, and

in particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

I strongly object to the proposed demolition, should it further result in the loss of themaple trees.

Dear Charlotte,

This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleading information providedby the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protected trees adjoining thesite.

The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.

The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).

So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.

Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.

Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide written

assurances that trees will not be damaged.

Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been madeavailable.

It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.

The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, andin particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

I object to this application on the following grounds:1. The inaccurate and misleading information provided on application and serious concernsregarding damage to three protected trees adjoining the site. The applicant erroneously declaredthat there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediately adjoining the site. In fact thesite is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate. In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office which are as follows:19/02157/F (approved), 18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).

2. The applicant has declared that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning of anytree(s) going by the past actions on this site this statement needs to be viewed with somesuspicion. Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the definedarea. This area does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which isindeed public land.In the light of the above, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees wouldbe illegal and that they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should providewritten assurances that trees will not be damaged.

Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been madeavailable.

It should be noted that the existing building on the site is unsafe because the developers permittedad hoc demolition work to be carried out without due permission or adequate health and safetyprocedures in place.

Further, the developers permitted the destruction of two trees at least partly on public land whichwere under the protection of a Tree Protection Order. This is in spite of a prior agreement to haltall works until completion of planning consideration for the application 19/02157/F due in March2020.

The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, andin particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

I intend to move back to this area after a time away and spend a lot of time there havinglived nearby for 20 years.

( some objections might be accepted after the deadline but best try to get it in tonight , thnx)

I object to the felling of trees.

I support the Letter from John Tarlton to planning

This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleading information providedby the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protected trees adjoining thesite.

The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.

The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).

So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.

Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed public

land.

Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.

Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been madeavailable.

It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.

The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, andin particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

I love the trees and this junction must be one of the most polluted in Bristol. The trees must beable to help the residents feel and breathe better. I understand the developers could avoid cuttingdown the trees.

St Werburghs is distinguishable by its trees, not to mention that this road is many peoplesentrance to Bristol.

Thank youAlex Mills

Demolition not allowed as it disturb the trees.

We need the development AND keep the trees!!

This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleadinginformation provided by the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protectedtrees adjoining the site.The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been madeavailable.It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, and

in particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

I strongly object to the proposed demolition.

This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleading information providedby the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protected trees adjoining thesite.

The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.

The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).

So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.

Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.

Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.

Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been made

available.

It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.

The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, andin particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

This 'demolition' includes felling protected trees, the landowner has already felled atleast two trees without permission or adequate safety measures and cannot be trusted to carry outa safe and legal demolition.

Sir/MadamI strongly oppose this planning application for a number of reasons.

Has a risk assessment been done on the site? Following the recommendation 19/02157 - F (Iunderstand it may also be referred to as the May 19 application) I am concerned that thisassessment has actually been carried out? And shouldn't it be public if indeed it has been?Where is the soil assessment?According to Clayewater Development itself, this area is indeed a contaminated site - andtherefore it has to be essential that an assessment be carried out.As well as butchering two of the public maple trees at the front of the site, I have also seenworkers actually demolishing the building at the back so the work has already started! This is notacceptable! This can be seen clearly from the back of the building where the roof has been takenoff. However none of the workers were wearing appropriate clothing or hard hats - yet they havebeen seen and photographed wielding dangerous tools in a totally unskilled and utterlyinappropriate and dangerous way and where at one time they had not even asked for the publicpavement right of way to be suspended whilst they behaved like that!!!. This is reckless anddangerous audacity which serves only to turn our city into something resembling the wild west.There is at the moment on the other side of Lower Ashley Rd, building work in progress virtuallyopposite this site. Surely having two building works going on at the same time may well causehazardous problems to pedestrians needing to walk along this intensely busy road. Furthermorepeople living near to these sites will be subject not only to increased levels of noise but also to yetfurther pollution in an area where the air quality is already, according to a report carried out by UK100 Clean Air Network (of which as you'll be aware, Bristol is one of the 100) 1 & 1/2 times abovethe legal limit. The developer intends to chop down the remaining trees at this site As isundisputedly and blatantly clear, mature trees are vital to creating fresh air, reduce CO2 and

potential flooding risks - which includes this very area - and provide us with a host of aspectswhich improves health and well-being - as well of course as keeping house prices stable.

It is shall we say unusual that a developer is asking for planning to agree to the demolition of themain building on this particular site when the planning approval for the flats that the developerwants to build has not yet been approved. It would seem that Claywater is jumping the gun so tospeak? This concerns me because the developer is making an assumption that it's all a done deal- why is this??My further objection to this application is that the plan shows the wrong footprint for the site. Itdoes not match title number BL92053 which clearly shows that the maple trees are on Highwayproperty.It is very clear that the developers intention is to move in fell our precious trees and make a hugeprofit by building flats, neglecting any of the local people's concerns or health and well-being. Thissort of behaviour has surely to stop before it costs all of us the absolute earth. There is a duty ofcare here that needs to be recognised. We need to protect our environment for all of our sakes!Please I implore you. When is BCC planning going to take action to stop developers moving inwith cash signs only in their eyes? We, as it is now no longer disputed, are in an urgent situationregarding climate change which BCC is acknowledging and yet has a policy allowing trees to befelled unnecessarily (as White Design Architects have shown in this instance by providing sketchplans for up to 28 flats AND allowing the trees to remain) that inconvenience so-calleddevelopments? Only this week, the Woodland Trust's national report outlines how vitally essentialit is that each and every tree in existence is given every consideration to remain especially inurban areas.I implore the planning department not to allow developer companies to run rings around you but toact in such a way that considers the people of St Paul's and all of Bristol. Please. make way forresponsible developments that provide housing and protect what we have - before it is too late.

This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleadinginformation provided by the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protectedtrees adjoining the site.

The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.

The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).

So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.

Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.

Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.

Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been madeavailable.

It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.

The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, andin particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

I am objecting based on the fact that the trees are to be felled.

There is no reason or need to fell them and they are needed in this highly polluted area.

Dear Charlotte Sangway,

As the person nominated by the Save the M32 Maples to attend the Mayor's negotiation group, Ihave a number of objections:

1. The site plans have the wrong footprint. They do not match the correct Title Plans BL92052.These prove conclusively that the strip of maple trees is on public land, owned by the HighwaysDept. And not on John Garlicks.

2. Where are the risk assessments to follow aplication 19/02157/F? The Council tree officer, whoattended the site while Mr. Garlick took down two trees on public property, asked the workmen fortheir papers and a Risk Assessment, which they failed to produce. In fact, such was their hostilityto the women who chained themselves to the trees that they began demolition prematurely, bythrowing tiles off the roof, in their anger.

3. Please provide a copy of Phase 1, of the GPO Environmental Assessment Ref 81641/16 on thewebsite for the admitted contamination on site.

4. Clayewater states that the site is contaminated, which inspection shows to be linked to a formermine shaft. Where is the soil assessment before men continue to work on the site. They havebeen doing this already for weeks.

5. The head of Planning said to the Mayor's meeting "I am not a land e pert." All the data aboutland ownership is questionable. It is now over 11 days since we requested evidence of landownership of the maples and it still not provided to us or to the media. If Planning were so

confident surely it would not take days to produce the evidence. This demolition request coverstrees on Highways land, even on the initial officer's report in 2016, and yet no evidence, onlyassertions.

6. The danger to the maples is obvious. Twice Mr. Garlick's men have started tree felling,unprotected, in the small hours of the road. The fact that both times they avoided applying forproper Highways permission could make anyone wonder why. Were they afraid of what theyalready knew? The the maples were council property. But as with many developers, it is shoot firstand ask questions later.

7. The planning application makes it clear that no construction work is to take place, includingdemolition, until the final decision in March. The fact is that Clayewater started the morning afterthe Mayor's meeting, with no permission, gives us no cause to trust the motives of this followingstep. Without our intervention and public opinion, they would never have applied for this incorrectapplication.

8. The Council's stated agreement to demolition appeared to be to assist Mr. Garlick to avoidpaying business rates. Why? He has already done more than £80k destruction of two TPO maplestrees. He knows that the fines are much smaller than his potential profits. There is a car washbusiness that informed us that they were the ones paying business rates. What is the rush? Theplanning decision has not yet been made, and the community have lost all confidence in theCouncil, landowner and developer to protect property, so essential to the health and welfare of thelow income residents they claim do not need the trees.

I strongly object to this application. And the associated felling of trees. Bristol Councilstates on its own website that they have a commitment to planting preserving trees in the city andthis contravenes its own policies.Given that we are facing a global climate emergency, Bristol is one of the worst cities in the UK forair pollution and trees form important ecosystems for wildlife (including the patchwork effect), it'svital that the trees remain and the building is renovated rather than demolished.

Please note I am reserving my right to withhold my address from the public record dueto safety concerns. I live locally and would be happy to provide it to any case officer by email.

I strongly object to 20/00232/N | Application for prior notification of proposed demolition of themain building at 31 - 45 Lower Ashley Road St Paul's Bristol BS2 9PZ and I am hereby calling foran Enforcement Enquiry.

My research shows the actions of Bristol City Council Planning Officer Charlotte Sangway,Clayewater Homes Ltd (the "Developer"), and Mr. John Garlick (the "Landowner") need to beurgently investigated before any further work is carried out at this site, as there is strong evidenceof criminality and negligence.

Fundamentally, I remain confused as to how 18/05532/M Reserve Matters was ever approved.How application 19/02157/F passed validation, and how 20/00232/N has not already beenchallenged by enforcement, seeing as work began on the demolition in June 2019 and complaintshave been submitted.

Complaints, in no particular order:

1. Site Plan overlaps land not owned by the applicant: Land Registry document BL92053 showsMr Garlick's land ownership. It demonstrates that the Site Plan submitted is therefore incorrect asit encroaches upon public land (Lower Ashley Road Adopted Highway Class B - Council Asset ID:384).

2. The applicant has provided the incorrect Land Registry documents for ALL prior applications,

hence this entire process is based on inaccuracies which should have been noted by the caseofficer Charlotte Sangway. Charlotte has been the Council Officer for multiple Clayewater HomesLtd applications and seems to have missed this at every step.

3. Until this application, the constraint: "Lower Ashley Road Class: B Road Status: Adopted." hasnot been mentioned in any application aside from WITHDRAWN application 18/00560/F.

4. In 2016 Bristol City Council's Aboriculturalist's team designated the 5 Maples with TPO 941 as"street trees" on pg. 4 of 14 of 15/05530/P (2015 Application) Planning Officers Report. StreetTrees, of which this former group of 5 Norway Maples are considered, are legally defined as LocalAuthority trees.

5. Pre-application site works: Demolition began on June 8th 2019 and continued up until January16th 2020. Only pausing whilst this (virtually retrospective) demolition notice is applied for. Duringthis work, we saw chainsaws being swung over public highways, threats to members of the publicfrom the contractors, workers sweeping up dangerous looking materials on site with no protection(photo evidence), roof tiles thrown at members of the public on public land (video evidence) all thewhile not a single sign, warning or even fence existed. All this is in complete contradiction of theConstruction Plan and any Health & Safety and Environmental laws. BCC should not even beconsidering granting this application until an Enforcement Enquiry has been completed about thebreach of pre-condition work.

6. Contamination Concerns: Clayewater indicate that the site is contaminated in the PlanningApplication for 19/02157/F (2019 Application, Reserved Matters). This application references a2016 Geo-environmental report submitted in a previously withdrawn application that is notavailable to the public! This is very important. The public have concerns about chemicals andasbestos. If the land is contaminated, why is there no Soil Management Plan?

7. How can the public have been afforded a proper consultation on this demolition project whenthe documents were only uploaded two days ago (yet still I note there have been 18 objectionsless than 48 hours since they were published). If this application was given the normal time limit of28 days there would be significantly more objections. This application is being rushed through.Why are we not being afforded the normal consultation period?

8. TPO'd Trees: Why does this application have a constraint regarding TPO 941, and yetapplication 19/02157/F which this relates to does not? Conclusion: Charlotte Sangway is currentlyconsidering a flawed planning application: Maria Bailey of Clayewater Planning Group Ltdanswered "no" to both questions of section 10 of the Planning Application despite knowing full wellthat trees exist on adjacent land (as per her prior application statements). This application shouldnever have passed validation.

9. The oft-quoted Arboricultualists Report expired in January 2017.

This report was not written to BS5837 standards. Of note in this report:- non-identification of TPO trees- Incorrect RPA calculations- Categorisation of trees as B1 (It can be argued trees with 40+ years of life can be regarded ascategory A, and therefore afforded the most protection)- Offers "opinion" that the loss of sunlight and daylight in the proposed building as a reason forremoving the trees.- States "It is important that the remaining new trees to be planted are located within a reasonabledistance (say 250m) of the development so tree cover is maintained locally for the benefit of localpeople.

10. "The development ... including any works of demolition shall be carried out in accordance withthe approved Construction Management Plan (Revision A- Mar 2019), which shall be adhered tothroughout the construction period, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority."

11. Planning officers Report 2015: "There is an anomaly in the application which does not takeinto account the existing highway boundary, which includes the area the trees are currently within.The planting on the edge of the building will encroach onto the existing highway, which is notlegal."

12. Flooding Assessment: The flood Assessment in this flood zone did not take into considerationthe loss of the trees to the West (2 x large Indian Beans, illegally felled) nor the 5 TPO'd maples.Once this neighbourhoods natural flood defenses are removed, the risk of a flood occurring - ashappened on Cheltenham Rd just 18 months ago - will be greatly increased. A new floodassessment is urgently required to take into consideration the altered landscape, especiallyconsidering the large development across the street.

13) Charlotte Sangway addressed none of the residents concerns in her Officers Report of 2019,can she ignore our concerns for this application?

14) Given the continued concern about the loss of trees and the nature conservation (bats areregularly noted within the site boundary), one would have expected more. A professionalArboriculturalists Report is needed in advance of any work on TPO'd trees. A wildlife survey alsoneeds to be carried out.

15) Air Quality: The dust levels are already above the mean average due to constuction at the siteopposite. Air quality (NO2) remains consistently at dangerous levels. Demolition works here mayimpact pedestrian access and force people to wait for long periods at the car-prioritised pedestriancrossing on Lower Ashley Rd. An extra few minutes in poisoned air for young children, or thosesensitive to illegal air, could be fatal.

Many questions remain, the answers of which need a thorough and proper investigation:

1. Have we been afforded a proper consultation on any of the applications? The informationprovided to us, the public, by the Landowner, Developer and Bristol City Council about ALL theapplications has been flawed. A full debate on this proposal was never feasible.These are just a few of some of the issues I've found with this and related applications. TheLandowner, The Developer and Bristol City Council have consistently provided the public with aninaccurate picture. There are many more documents yet to analyse, and I am sure there are stillmore discrepancies to discover. One lie, leads to another, which leads to a cover-up, and this iswhat is happening with this quick fire demolition.I call for a HALT to ALL proceedings whilst an Enforcement Enquiry is carried out and the BristolCity Council Ombudsman review the information.

Still to answer as it is not clear from the public records:1. Are there, or are there not environmental concerns?2. Do the trees exist, or do they not?3. Does the land belong to ex-bankrupt John Garlick, or Bristol City Council?4. What is the definition of a street tree?5. Why are BCC allowing the removal of trees which protect from the illegal levels of pollution onLower Ashley Road? You are condemning future residents to death. 5 people a week are dyingfrom pollution related illnesses in Bristol, and Ashley Ward residents are very concerned aboutpollution - 89% in the local plan survey.6. Why does BCC allow "wild card" landowner to come into St Paul's and break the law? If twolocal kids hacked down a tree, they would not get away with it.7. What percentage of units will be affordable? The documentation states 40% only.8. What guarantees do BCC have that the rent will be capped at 60% of value forever? Is this anaffordable homes project, or is it another developer scam?

I would also like to report the planting of drug paraphernalia in the building - a cheap trick used bythe developer to try and get the building condemned. These guys know the rules and exactly howto play them - they themselves are veteren Council Planning officers. This whole thing is adisgraceful affair and those involved in the felling of the two Norway Maples on public groundshould be held accountable and the mistakes made should be recognised and dealt with.

I strongly object to 20/00232/N | Application for prior notification of proposed demolitionof the main building at 31 - 45 Lower Ashley Road St Paul's Bristol BS2 9PZ and I am herebycalling for an Enforcement Enquiry.

My research shows the actions of Bristol City Council Planning Officer Charlotte Sangway,Clayewater Homes Ltd (the "Developer"), and Mr. John Garlick (the "Landowner") need to beurgently investigated before any further work is carried out at this site, as there is strong evidenceof criminality and negligence.

Fundamentally, I remain confused as to how 18/05532/M Reserve Matters was ever approved.How application 19/02157/F passed validation, and how 20/00232/N has not already beenchallenged by enforcement, seeing as work began on the demolition in June 2019 and complaintshave been submitted.

Complaints, in no particular order:

1. Site Plan overlaps land not owned by the applicant: Land Registry document BL92053 showsMr Garlick's land ownership. It demonstrates that the Site Plan submitted is therefore incorrect asit encroaches upon public land (Lower Ashley Road Adopted Highway Class B - Council Asset ID:384).

2. The applicant has provided the incorrect Land Registry documents for ALL prior applications,hence this entire process is based on inaccuracies which should have been noted by the caseofficer Charlotte Sangway. Charlotte has been the Council Officer for multiple Clayewater HomesLtd applications and seems to have missed this at every step.

3. Until this application, the constraint: "Lower Ashley Road Class: B Road Status: Adopted." hasnot been mentioned in any application aside from WITHDRAWN application 18/00560/F.

4. In 2016 Bristol City Council's Aboriculturalist's team designated the 5 Maples with TPO 941 as"street trees" on pg. 4 of 14 of 15/05530/P (2015 Application) Planning Officers Report. StreetTrees, of which this former group of 5 Norway Maples are considered, are legally defined as LocalAuthority trees.

5. Pre-application site works: Demolition began on June 8th 2019 and continued up until January16th 2020. Only pausing whilst this (virtually retrospective) demolition notice is applied for. Duringthis work, we saw chainsaws being swung over public highways, threats to members of the publicfrom the contractors, workers sweeping up dangerous looking materials on site with no protection(photo evidence), roof tiles thrown at members of the public on public land (video evidence) all thewhile not a single sign, warning or even fence existed. All this is in complete contradiction of theConstruction Plan and any Health & Safety and Environmental laws. BCC should not even beconsidering granting this application until an Enforcement Enquiry has been completed about thebreach of pre-condition work.

6. Contamination Concerns: Clayewater indicate that the site is contaminated in the PlanningApplication for 19/02157/F (2019 Application, Reserved Matters). This application references a2016 Geo-environmental report submitted in a previously withdrawn application that is notavailable to the public! This is very important. The public have concerns about chemicals andasbestos. If the land is contaminated, why is there no Soil Management Plan?

7. How can the public have been afforded a proper consultation on this demolition project whenthe documents were only uploaded two days ago (yet still I note there have been 18 objectionsless than 48 hours since they were published). If this application was given the normal time limit of28 days there would be significantly more objections. This application is being rushed through.Why are we not being afforded the normal consultation period?

8. TPO'd Trees: Why does this application have a constraint regarding TPO 941, and yetapplication 19/02157/F which this relates to does not? Conclusion: Charlotte Sangway is currentlyconsidering a flawed planning application: Maria Bailey of Clayewater Planning Group Ltdanswered "no" to both questions of section 10 of the Planning Application despite knowing full wellthat trees exist on adjacent land (as per her prior application statements). This application shouldnever have passed validation.

9. The oft-quoted Arboricultualists Report expired in January 2017.

This report was not written to BS5837 standards. Of note in this report:

- non-identification of TPO trees

- Incorrect RPA calculations

- Categorisation of trees as B1 (It can be argued trees with 40+ years of life can be regarded ascategory A, and therefore afforded the most protection)

- Offers "opinion" that the loss of sunlight and daylight in the proposed building as a reason forremoving the trees.

- States "It is important that the remaining new trees to be planted are located within a reasonabledistance (say 250m) of the development so tree cover is maintained locally for the benefit of localpeople.

10. "The development ... including any works of demolition shall be carried out in accordance withthe approved Construction Management Plan (Revision A- Mar 2019), which shall be adhered tothroughout the construction period, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority."

11. Planning officers Report 2015: "There is an anomaly in the application which does not takeinto account the existing highway boundary, which includes the area the trees are currently within.The planting on the edge of the building will encroach onto the existing highway, which is notlegal."

12. Flooding Assessment: The flood Assessment in this flood zone did not take into considerationthe loss of the trees to the West (2 x large Indian Beans, illegally felled) nor the 5 TPO'd maples.Once this neighbourhoods natural flood defenses are removed, the risk of a flood occurring - ashappened on Cheltenham Rd just 18 months ago - will be greatly increased. A new floodassessment is urgently required to take into consideration the altered landscape, especiallyconsidering the large development across the street.

13) Charlotte Sangway addressed none of the residents concerns in her Officers Report of 2019,can she ignore our concerns for this application?

14) Given the continued concern about the loss of trees and the nature conservation (bats areregularly noted within the site boundary), one would have expected more. A professionalArboriculturalists Report is needed in advance of any work on TPO'd trees. A wildlife survey alsoneeds to be carried out.

15) Air Quality: The dust levels are already above the mean average due to construction at the siteopposite. Air quality (NO2) remains consistently at dangerous levels. Demolition works here mayimpact pedestrian access and force people to wait for long periods at the car-prioritised pedestrian

crossing on Lower Ashley Rd. An extra few minutes in poisoned air for young children, or thosesensitive to illegal air, could be fatal.

Many questions remain, the answers of which need a thorough and proper investigation:

1. Have we been afforded a proper consultation on any of the applications? The informationprovided to us, the public, by the Landowner, Developer and Bristol City Council about ALL theapplications has been flawed. A full debate on this proposal was never feasible.

These are just a few of some of the issues I've found with this and related applications. TheLandowner, The Developer and Bristol City Council have consistently provided the public with aninaccurate picture. There are many more documents yet to analyse, and I am sure there are stillmore discrepancies to discover. One lie, leads to another, which leads to a cover-up, and this iswhat is happening with this quick fire demolition.

I call for a HALT to ALL proceedings whilst an Enforcement Enquiry is carried out and the BristolCity Council Ombudsman review the information.

Still to answer as it is not clear from the public records:

1. Are there, or are there not environmental concerns?

2. Do the trees exist, or do they not?

3. Does the land belong to ex-bankrupt John Garlick, or Bristol City Council?

4. What is the definition of a street tree?

5. Why are BCC allowing the removal of trees which protect from the illegal levels of pollution onLower Ashley Road? You are condemning future residents to death. 5 people a week are dyingfrom pollution related illnesses in Bristol, and Ashley Ward residents are very concerned aboutpollution - 89% in the local plan survey.

6. Why does BCC allow "wild card" landowner to come into St Paul's and break the law? If twolocal kids hacked down a tree, they would not get away with it.

7. What percentage of units will be affordable? The documentation states 40% only.

8. What guarantees do BCC have that the rent will be capped at 60% of value forever? Is this anaffordable homes project, or is it another developer scam?

I would also like to report the planting of drug paraphernalia in the building - a cheap trick used by

the developer to try and get the building condemned. These guys know the rules and exactly howto play them - they themselves are veteran Council Planning officers. This whole thing is adisgraceful affair and those involved in the felling of the two Norway Maples on public groundshould be held accountable and the mistakes made should be recognised and dealt with.

Please note I am reserving my right to withhold my address from the public record due to safetyconcerns. I live locally and would be happy to provide it to any case officer by email.

I strongly object this application which is full of faults. The trees included in theapplication are on public highway land. They are an essential barrier against both pollution andflooding. Two trees have already been felled illegally by Clayewater with utter disregard for thesafety of passers by and their own workers. This area needs it's mature trees.Most applications take 28 days to allow for objections. Why is this one being hurried through.It is essential that the remaining 3 maples are saved. These trees do not have spreading roots.Furthermore they are the subject of a TPO and as such need particular consideration.

I strongly object to 20/00232/N | Application for prior notification of proposed demolitionof the main building at 31 - 45 Lower Ashley Road St Paul's Bristol BS2 9PZ and I am herebycalling for an Enforcement Enquiry.

My research shows the actions of Bristol City Council Planning Officer Charlotte Sangway,Clayewater Homes Ltd (the "Developer"), and Mr. John Garlick (the "Landowner") need to beurgently investigated before any further work is carried out at this site, as there is strong evidenceof criminality and negligence.

Fundamentally, I remain confused as to how 18/05532/M Reserve Matters was ever approved.How application 19/02157/F passed validation, and how 20/00232/N has not already beenchallenged by enforcement, seeing as work began on the demolition in June 2019 and complaintshave been submitted.

Complaints, in no particular order:

1. Site Plan overlaps land not owned by the applicant: Land Registry document BL92053 showsMr Garlick's land ownership. It demonstrates that the Site Plan submitted is therefore incorrect asit encroaches upon public land (Lower Ashley Road Adopted Highway Class B - Council Asset ID:384).

2. The applicant has provided the incorrect Land Registry documents for ALL prior applications,hence this entire process is based on inaccuracies which should have been noted by the caseofficer Charlotte Sangway. Charlotte has been the Council Officer for multiple Clayewater HomesLtd applications and seems to have missed this at every step.

3. Until this application, the constraint: "Lower Ashley Road Class: B Road Status: Adopted." hasnot been mentioned in any application aside from WITHDRAWN application 18/00560/F.

4. In 2016 Bristol City Council's Aboriculturalist's team designated the 5 Maples with TPO 941 as"street trees" on pg. 4 of 14 of 15/05530/P (2015 Application) Planning Officers Report. StreetTrees, of which this former group of 5 Norway Maples are considered, are legally defined as LocalAuthority trees.

5. Pre-application site works: Demolition began on June 8th 2019 and continued up until January16th 2020. Only pausing whilst this (virtually retrospective) demolition notice is applied for. Duringthis work, we saw chainsaws being swung over public highways, threats to members of the publicfrom the contractors, workers sweeping up dangerous looking materials on site with no protection(photo evidence), roof tiles thrown at members of the public on public land (video evidence) all thewhile not a single sign, warning or even fence existed. All this is in complete contradiction of theConstruction Plan and any Health & Safety and Environmental laws. BCC should not even beconsidering granting this application until an Enforcement Enquiry has been completed about thebreach of pre-condition work.

6. Contamination Concerns: Clayewater indicate that the site is contaminated in the PlanningApplication for 19/02157/F (2019 Application, Reserved Matters). This application references a2016 Geo-environmental report submitted in a previously withdrawn application that is notavailable to the public! This is very important. The public have concerns about chemicals andasbestos. If the land is contaminated, why is there no Soil Management Plan?

7. How can the public have been afforded a proper consultation on this demolition project whenthe documents were only uploaded two days ago (yet still I note there have been 18 objectionsless than 48 hours since they were published). If this application was given the normal time limit of28 days there would be significantly more objections. This application is being rushed through.Why are we not being afforded the normal consultation period?

8. TPO'd Trees: Why does this application have a constraint regarding TPO 941, and yetapplication 19/02157/F which this relates to does not? Conclusion: Charlotte Sangway is currentlyconsidering a flawed planning application: Maria Bailey of Clayewater Planning Group Ltdanswered "no" to both questions of section 10 of the Planning Application despite knowing full wellthat trees exist on adjacent land (as per her prior application statements). This application shouldnever have passed validation.

9. The oft-quoted Arboricultualists Report expired in January 2017.

This report was not written to BS5837 standards. Of note in this report:

- non-identification of TPO trees

- Incorrect RPA calculations

- Categorisation of trees as B1 (It can be argued trees with 40+ years of life can be regarded ascategory A, and therefore afforded the most protection)

- Offers "opinion" that the loss of sunlight and daylight in the proposed building as a reason forremoving the trees.

- States "It is important that the remaining new trees to be planted are located within a reasonabledistance (say 250m) of the development so tree cover is maintained locally for the benefit of localpeople.

10. "The development ... including any works of demolition shall be carried out in accordance withthe approved Construction Management Plan (Revision A- Mar 2019), which shall be adhered tothroughout the construction period, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority."

11. Planning officers Report 2015: "There is an anomaly in the application which does not takeinto account the existing highway boundary, which includes the area the trees are currently within.The planting on the edge of the building will encroach onto the existing highway, which is notlegal."

12. Flooding Assessment: The flood Assessment in this flood zone did not take into considerationthe loss of the trees to the West (2 x large Indian Beans, illegally felled) nor the 5 TPO'd maples.Once this neighbourhoods natural flood defenses are removed, the risk of a flood occurring - ashappened on Cheltenham Rd just 18 months ago - will be greatly increased. A new floodassessment is urgently required to take into consideration the altered landscape, especiallyconsidering the large development across the street.

13) Charlotte Sangway addressed none of the residents concerns in her Officers Report of 2019,can she ignore our concerns for this application?

14) Given the continued concern about the loss of trees and the nature conservation (bats areregularly noted within the site boundary), one would have expected more. A professionalArboriculturalists Report is needed in advance of any work on TPO'd trees. A wildlife survey alsoneeds to be carried out.

15) Air Quality: The dust levels are already above the mean average due to construction at the siteopposite. Air quality (NO2) remains consistently at dangerous levels. Demolition works here mayimpact pedestrian access and force people to wait for long periods at the car-prioritised pedestrian

crossing on Lower Ashley Rd. An extra few minutes in poisoned air for young children, or thosesensitive to illegal air, could be fatal.

Many questions remain, the answers of which need a thorough and proper investigation:

1. Have we been afforded a proper consultation on any of the applications? The informationprovided to us, the public, by the Landowner, Developer and Bristol City Council about ALL theapplications has been flawed. A full debate on this proposal was never feasible.

These are just a few of some of the issues I've found with this and related applications. TheLandowner, The Developer and Bristol City Council have consistently provided the public with aninaccurate picture. There are many more documents yet to analyse, and I am sure there are stillmore discrepancies to discover. One lie, leads to another, which leads to a cover-up, and this iswhat is happening with this quick fire demolition.

I call for a HALT to ALL proceedings whilst an Enforcement Enquiry is carried out and the BristolCity Council Ombudsman review the information.

Still to answer as it is not clear from the public records:

1. Are there, or are there not environmental concerns?

2. Do the trees exist, or do they not?

3. Does the land belong to ex-bankrupt John Garlick, or Bristol City Council?

4. What is the definition of a street tree?

5. Why are BCC allowing the removal of trees which protect from the illegal levels of pollution onLower Ashley Road? You are condemning future residents to death. 5 people a week are dyingfrom pollution related illnesses in Bristol, and Ashley Ward residents are very concerned aboutpollution - 89% in the local plan survey.

6. Why does BCC allow "wild card" landowner to come into St Paul's and break the law? If twolocal kids hacked down a tree, they would not get away with it.

7. What percentage of units will be affordable? The documentation states 40% only.

8. What guarantees do BCC have that the rent will be capped at 60% of value forever? Is this anaffordable homes project, or is it another developer scam?

I would also like to report the planting of drug paraphernalia in the building - a cheap trick used by

the developer to try and get the building condemned. These guys know the rules and exactly howto play them - they themselves are veteran Council Planning officers. This whole thing is adisgraceful affair and those involved in the felling of the two Norway Maples on public groundshould be held accountable and the mistakes made should be recognised and dealt with.

Please note I am reserving my right to withhold my address from the public record due to safetyconcerns. I live locally and would be happy to provide it to any case officer by email.

The following application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleadinginformation provided by the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protectedtrees adjoining the site.

The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.

The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).

So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.

Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.

Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.

Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been madeavailable.

It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.

The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, andin particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

Dear sir/madam

This application should be rejected on the basis of inaccurate and misleading information providedby the applicant, and due to concerns regarding damage to three protected trees adjoining thesite.

The applicant declared that there are no public Rights of Way within the site or immediatelyadjoining the site. In fact the site is surrounded on three sides by public rights of way.

The applicant also declared that there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planning office 19/02157/F (approved),18/05532/M (approved) and 15/05530/P (pending).

So when the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning ofany tree(s), this needs to be viewed with some suspicion.

Furthermore, the location plan does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area. Thisarea does not include the strip of land that three remaining trees occupy, which is indeed publicland.

Therefore, the developer should be informed that any damage to these trees would be illegal andthat they would be prosecuted if any damage did occur, and that they should provide writtenassurances that trees will not be damaged.

Other discrepancies include that covering letters cited in the application have not been made

available.

It should be noted that the building is unsafe because the developers permitted ad hoc demolitionwork to be carried out without due permission. Further, the developers permitted the destruction oftwo trees at least partly on public land which were under the protection of a Tree Protection Order.This is in spite of a prior agreement to halt all works until completion of planning consideration forthe application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.

The importance of the remaining Maple trees in the local environment is attested by theoverwhelming support given them by the community, who believe that the residents of Ashley, andin particular, those occupying affordable homes, deserve to have trees to mitigate their poor airquality just as much as residents of other parts of Bristol.

This application should be rejected on the grounds of inaccurate and misleadinginformation provided by the applicant, due to the concerns regarding damage to the three treeswhich are protected which are adjoining the site.The applicant said there are no public Right of Waynwithin the site which in fact there it issurrounded on three sides by public rights of way.It was also said by the applicant there was no redevelopment or rebuilding proposed at a laterdate ? In truth there are three proposals currently with the planing dept 19/0215/F(approved)18/05532/F(approved) 15/05530/P ( pending)When the applicant declares that the current proposal will not involve the felling or pruning of anytrees this needs to be viewed wit some scepticism.The location plans does not allow for any demolition outside of the defined area, this does notinclude the strip of land which the three trees occupy on public land.Therefore the developer should be informed that if any damage to these trees which would beillegal they would be prosecuted and they should provide written assurances that the trees will notbe damaged.The building is unsafe due to the developers permitted ad hoc demolition work to be carried out ,also the permitted destruction of two trees at least partly on public land despite assurances madeto haltbany works the completion of application 19/02157/F due in March 2020.The importance if the three remaining Map,e trees is vital to the health welfare of the present andfuture residents of the already very polluted area, this community deserves these trees to mitigatetheir poor air quality they deserve better air as like any other residents of other parts of Bristol .t

I have a number of objections to this application. The applicant stated that there is nopublic rights of way adjacent to the site and there will be no plans for further development on thesite, both of which are untrue. Therefore we cannot trust him when he states there will be no fellingor pruning of the three remaining mature Maple trees. I would strongly object to the loss of thesetrees for the following reasons...1) BCC has declared a climate emergency so should be prioritising protection of mature citymature trees, especially these which have TPOs on them..2) BCC has stated it will double the tree canopy by 2050. Any replacement saplings will takedecades to reach maturity.3) These trees will sequester approx 20-40 Kg carbon per year. They absorb nitrogen pollutionand particulates. They reduce flood risk. They reduce the Heat Island Effect in summer. Theyimprove mental well being for locals. They produce oxygen.We have already lost 4 mature trees nearby, on or adjacent to the site, possibly illegally.The levels of pollution are already exceeding safety limits in this area of Bristol, loosing the treeswill make this worse. Local residents deserve better.

I am closely following and have been involved in the issue of the Maple trees alongLower Ashley Rd.To say again that if the planning request to demolish the old building will then mean taking out theonly three remaining Maple trees, then I absolutely object.The Maples will each provide desperately needed clean air for the people of this area which isalready 1 & 1/2 times over the legal limit of air quality. That cannot be underestimated and thesemature trees simply cannot be replaced with saplings. It doesn't work.The developer needs to wake up to this fact and work with the locals - none of whom want to livewhere the air is in danger of becoming even more poor quality and where there is no green space.It's possible to design new flats and keep the trees as the Save the M32 Maples group haveproven.

I must request that whatever happens here that the remaining 3 Maple trees STAY. Thisis a pollution hotspot and every mature tree counts. I believe that it transpires that the Councilactually own the piece of land that the trees are sited on. It would be a disgusting shame on theCouncil if they allow the felling of these fine specimens especially as they claim to care for theenvironment.