|Address||334 Canford Lane Bristol BS9 3PW
|Proposal||Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Erection of two new 3 storey (plus basement excavation) 8 bedroom, 16 bedspace dwellings including attached garages, roof terraces and revised access.|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||24-06-20|
|Standard Consultation Expiry||11-08-20|
|BCC Planning Portal||on Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 1 Objectors: 21 Total: 22|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Map Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
I am objecting to this application on behalf of the trees and on behalf of the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard - both its actual numbers and to its implementation as a policy.
As such I have some questions and some assertions.
Are the measurements correct following the lapse of time between the survey (April 2017 - 3 years ago) and this latest application? We ask the Tree Officer to check all the assertions as to size. For example - T16 could now merit 3 replacements. It would only have needed have grown ever so little to merit 3 replacements - not 2.
How has the condition of the tree to be felled "for good arboricultural practice" changed between 2017 when it was OK, with up to 10 years life in it, and 2020, when it is supposed not to be OK and thus not good enough to be included in the count of trees for the BTRS? Only 3 years of its 10 years have elapsed and those 7 years have a replacement value. It should be noted that this is a large'ish tree and would require 4 replacements.
We ask the Tree Officer to check the assertions as to tree conditions, especially for the one alleged to require felling anyhow. How realistic is it to accept that this tree requires felling and would have been felled even if there was not a development in the offing? Seems probable to me that this tree too is to be felled to facilitate development, and thus should be counted for tree replacement purposes.
The British Standard for the erection of protective fencing is not one devised for the convenience of developers. It is rather for the protection of trees - that should not be a surprise. It is not there to be amended to suit developers. Developers should change their plans to suit the trees, or devise another method - which might be more expensive - to protect the trees. Or find another route or layout. Few people appreciate the huge importance of trees. We are enduring a Climate Change. We have an environmental crisis happening now. We have to keep trees, despite development. We have to protect those we have from the dire effects of development, so that they survive what developers throw at them - hence the British Standards, which are not there for the bending.
And the 12 trees previously removed should be included in the tree count for BTRS as per implementation of BTRS policy. We see too much of this - get rid of the trees if at all possible and then make the application.
I ask the Tree Officer to 1) check the measurements and conditions of these trees, because I think that Bristol deserves more replacements, and to 2) require the implementation of tree protection standards for retained trees and to 3) include previously removed trees in the assessment for tree replacement provision.