I wrote over a year ago in objecting to a planning application from the owner of these trees(18/06369/VP), and this was refused. I object to this latest application for the following reasons:

- The applicant does not provide proof of actual or potential damage to the garden structures orthe swimming pool.- No evidence has been provided that the trees are diseased or causing any subsidence.- The two trees are subject to Tree Preservation Orders, and are within the parkland surrounding aGrade II listed building.- The Council has a long standing policy of not pruning the trees it owns to reduce shading. Ifpermission was given to reduce crown reduction and branch length, it would impact on all theother decisions it has made in times past.

We are all guardians of our green heritage and, in the words of the great poet, Gerald ManleyHopkins:

'Oh if we but knew what we do when we hack and rack the growing greenAfter comers cannot guess the beauty been'.

I therefore urge Bristol City Council to reject this application to desecrate these beautiful trees,once and for all.

I can see these magnificent trees from my office window. They are rightly protected andthe priority is their continued future as specimen trees. The only criteria for doing any work onthese trees should be if it is in the best interests of the trees themselves or there is a danger topeople.

Neither appears to be the case with thios application and soa s previously I object to the proposedapplication

"We do not prune or remove a council owned tree to stop the nuisance of overhangingbranches."This is the stated policy of Bristol City Council. Therefore, particularly for ancient trees that arethought sufficiently important to have been granted a TPO, then I would hope that by definitionthere should be no question of lopping, cutting branches or other 'works' performed on such trees.These two maples that probably reached their maximum size a long time ago and are now in theirprime will not have expanded during the short period that the current house owners have been inoccupation. The age of these trees and their being on the boundary means they have beenoverhanging for many years. To cut them will damage the shape of the trees which is important forthose that a TPO protects; it may indeed introduce disease through open cuts. The latter happensoften even when saws are disinfected.I cannot see that anything will have changed since the previous similar application made in late2018 (fairly soon after the occupants moved there) which was refused. The issue now is thereforethe same - 'excessively overhanging' means shade, not damage or danger.Incidentally, the plan submitted by the company is inadequate. It consists of two blobs marked atthe edge of a rectangle, not showing any adjacent features!

As a resident of Bristol I am a part owner of these TPO'd trees and I object to anyreduction / pruning / crown uplift of them.

Our neighbourhood, our city, and our planet, needs as many trees as possible to be retained in ahealthy state and to be allowed to grow to full size: to provide oxygen; to reduce CO2; to providewildlife habitat to promote biodiversity; to reduce traffic noise; and to enhance our urbanlandscape.

The amenity value these trees provide is immeasurable.

The numerous beneficiaries include:the many members of the public who enjoy Stoke Lodge playing field and the view it affordstowards the Blaise Estate,Cotham School pupils (many of whom live in the crowded areas of the city centre) who will use thefield for games lessons.

The trees were there long before the swimming pool and the associated garden buildings wereconstructed, so the applicant knew the situation from the outset. We, the public, want to see thetrees - not the back of a garden building or a swimming pool.

"It is always best to prune trees as little as possible, as removing large amounts of wood andfoliage reduces the ability of the tree to photosynthesise and can put the tree under significantstress". Arboricultural Association UK

The Arboricultural Association only rates the tolerance of Maples to pruning and crown uplifting as"Fair". It would be shocking if the health of these trees were to suffer as a consequence of thisapplication being approved.

It is my understanding that BCC's policy is not to approve application to prune / uplift TPO'd treesowned by BCC on behalf of the citizens.

So let us give these trees the best chance of survival by leaving them well alone.

This application should therefore be refused.

No evidence has been adduced in support of this application. I request that, unless theArboreal Officer is completely satisfied professionally that the lopping is justified, it should beturned down. We have after all been here before, 17 months ago (Application 18/06369); andinhabitants of this area have become very wary in recent years of the behaviour of CothamSchool. In other words, what would come next?

The trees of Stoke Lodge parkland are magnificent and cannot be entrusted to any body that doesnot own the site. It would in the meantime it would be better rather than worse if the contractorsdid not a) park their vans on the roots of trees and b) swear obscenely at people who ask themwhat they are doing.

I understand that a similar application, 18/06369/VP, was made some 15 months agowhere the application was refused. With regard to the current application, since the applicant'sclient only "feels the crowns of both trees are excessively over hanging their property", onewonders whether this is sufficient reason to carry out work that was previously refused.

I also note that reference to the Council's tree policy has been made in an earlier objection i.e.

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/32823/Tree+management+policy+2016/049b3533-d4df-4161-a2f8-a63da223530e

Page 6 of the policy document, "Tree Overhanging Property"

"Policy: We do not prune or remove a council owned tree to stop the nuisance of overhangingbranches."

The trees in question are subject to TPOs and are an important addition to the visualamenity of the Stoke Lodge parkland. As such, any proposal to prune the trees should only beallowed if they present a hazard. In this case, the reason given for the need for pruning is that theowner of the adjoining property "feels that the crowns of both trees are excessively over hangingtheir property". In his report on his refusal to grant a previous application to prune these trees, theTree Officer commented "the garden is approximately 27m in length, meaning the trees are at asufficient distance that they will not prevent the reasonable enjoyment of the property or thegarden". What's more, any such pruning would go against the Council's policy with regard topruning, namely

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/32823/Tree+management+policy+2016/049b3533-d4df-4161-a2f8-a63da223530e

Page 6 of the policy document, "Tree Overhanging Property"

"Policy: We do not prune or remove a council owned tree to stop the nuisance of overhangingbranches."

I believe that the two trees are subject to Tree Preservation Orders and are growing onland owned by the Bristol City Council within the parkland surrounding a grade II listed buildingnamely Stoke Lodge.I understand that the Council Policy is not to prune or reduce the crown of TPO trees in order topreserve their natural shape.On the application the two trees are NOT said to be damaged or diseased NOR causing anysubsidence.In view of the above it seems to me that to prune these trees for the sole personal benefit of theapplicant such that leaves do not fall in the garden of the applicant and shade not falling acrossthe garden should be regarded as a minor inconvenience compared to the significant loss ofamenity value to an historic parkland enjoyed by the local community.These trees were among those that were the subject of a previous application in February 2019that was refused. At that time four trees were said to be shading the garden and leaves from thetrees falling in a swimming pool. The swimming pool is not mentioned in this application but thenneither is any other significant reason given for the need to prune the two Norway Maples.The trees forming part of a valued parkland laid out over 150 years ago surely take precedent overa swimming pool. I do not know how along the applicant has lived in 10 Stoke Paddock Road but Iam certain that the TPO trees predate the house let alone the swimming pool; hence the applicantwould have been fully aware of the leaves falling and shading of the sun when they moved in.Please refuse this planning application on the grounds that the trees are under TPO orders andthe Council policy of not pruning or reducing the crown of TPO trees should be applied again inthis case so as not to set a precedent.

This application should be rejected on the basis that it isn't significantly different to theprevious application (Feb 2019) which was quite appropriately rejected. It would be against BristolCity Council policy to allow the branches to be cut back without proper justification - these treeshave Tree Protection Orders for good reason. Any pruning would spoil the shape of these ancientand historically important trees, which enhance Stoke Lodge Parkland. There is much evidencethat trees are particularly important in city spaces and, especially in view of Bristol's ongoingclimate emergency, the council should be making every effort to preserve and protect our trees(and these are 'our trees' - they are council owned and hence belong to the residents of the city). Ialso note that no suggestion has been made by the applicant of actual or potential damage to thegarden structures or the swimming pool, so the only issue can in fact be (in their opinionundesirable) shade.

This application should be rejected on the basis that it isn't significantly different to theprevious application (Feb 2019) which was quite appropriately rejected. It would be against BristolCity Council policy to allow the branches to be cut back without proper justification - these treeshave Tree Protection Orders for good reason. Any pruning would spoil the shape of these ancientand historically important trees, which enhance Stoke Lodge Parkland. There is much evidencethat trees are particularly important in city spaces and, especially in view of Bristol's ongoingclimate emergency, the council should be making every effort to preserve and protect our trees(and these are 'our trees' - they are council owned and hence belong to the residents of the city). Ialso note that no suggestion has been made by the applicant of actual or potential damage to thegarden structures or the swimming pool, so the only issue can in fact be (in their opinionundesirable) shade.

I object to this application to prune two protected maple trees on the boundary of StokeLodge Parkland. They are rooted on Stoke Lodge and have high amenity value, and they belongto BCC on behalf of Bristol residents. Hence their TPO status, which is well deserved.

The proposed lifting of the crown of these trees, along with significant reduction of the branches onone side, will spoil their natural shape, acquired over a century. The preservation of mature treesis increasingly recognised as crucial in looking after our threatened environment. Bristol's trees areparticularly at risk from the consequences of over-development and loss of green space, includingin gardens. This work would result in loss of important shade, which we need to conserve in thecontext of Bristol's declared climate emergency, and would damage the trees' amenity valuethrough loss of symmetry and natural beauty.

I believe the reasons given for proposing the works are insufficient to justify them. Trees aremeant to overhang and shelter the land, increasingly as they develop. They were obviouslypresent, healthy and growing before the applicant occupied this house and garden, and will longoutlast them. They should not be allowed to interfere with and damage trees which are a public,protected asset because they feel 'the crowns of both trees are excessively overhanging theirproperty, particularly the lower portions of crown.'The well-being and benefits of these trees must take priority over simple inconvenience for theapplicant, since they are not causing any interference or damage to property, according to theTree Officer's report in February, 2019. The report says that they are 'not preventing a "reasonableenjoyment" of the ample size garden' and that 'No evidence has been provided to show thegarden or [swimming] pool has been damaged by the subject trees, therefore, this cannot beconsidered actionable nuisance.'

Please refuse this application. These trees should be protected and kept in optimum health,according to their TPO status. Each individual tree has increasing value for the community andcontributes to its environment, and is not to be damaged and mutilated for no good purpose orpressing need.

The position remains unchanged from February 2019 when an application to reducethese protected trees was refused. In the absence of any new evidence, there is no reason whythe trees should be pruned as proposed. There would certainly be no advantage to amenity inspoiling these beautiful old trees which are a part of the character of the Stoke Lodge parkland.

The position remains unchanged from February 2019 when an application to reducethese protected trees was refused. In the absence of any new evidence, there is no reason whythe trees should be pruned as proposed. There would certainly be no advantage to amenity inspoiling these beautiful old trees which are a part of the character of the Stoke Lodge parkland.

These trees which have TPOs are iconic and in no way should they be prunedparticularly on one side just for the benefit of shading. They are not likely to cause any damage tothe adjacent garden and they were planted long before the swimming pool was installed, andtherefore they cannot be classed as being a nuisance. No damage is envisaged and it would beagainst Council policy to perform a crown lift and cut back branches. These trees are historicallyimportant and should remain untouched.

I am a daily user of Stoke Lodge Park and live very close to it. I note that a similarapplication was rejected 17 months ago. I feel that since then a case has strengthened for thevalue of trees especially in cities. Theri value for providing clean air cannot be understated. Iacknowledge that of course shade can be unwanted and I am sorry for some people who find theirproperties now in the shadow more than they had anticipated but the tree is a public goodbenefiting all local people and tehir friends and families o enjoy the park despite the impedimentscreated by the fence. At a time when the general public are more acutely aware than ever of ourcollective responsibilities to value adn protect teh planet and those less fortunate members ofsociety, the unnecessary removal of the tree would not only be detrimental to the environment butinflamatory and politically insensitive. Please do not remove this or other trees. It is of far greaterbenefit than detriment and to remove it would be short-sighted and inexplicable in the light of thedecision taken 17 months ago.

The trees in the Stoke Lodge Parkland are getting less and less. It is very importantwhat trees there are preserved and do not get cut in any way. They are not a danger and soimportant for the beautiful Parkland forming a barrier from houses. The tree in question is part of arow of mature trees. Please keep it so.It is important to stop any cutting or felling of trees in this area to help the environment.

The reason given in the application to crown lift these trees is not in any way sufficientto justify cutting branches and spoiling the shape of beautiful trees which were planted long beforethe swimming pool was built. The fact that they might cast shade is insignificant compared to thebenefits to the amenity and to the environment which these trees provide. These trees have aTree Protection Order and they are iconic. A previous application to crown lift was refused andthere is no change since then to justify another application. To prune them particularly on one sidejust for the reason they might cause shade is not acceptable. Trees cause shade and theswimming pool was built in that location with this knowledge. They are not likely to cause anydamage to the adjacent garden. As no damage is envisaged, it would be wrong cut brancheswithout proper justification. These trees are historically important, appreciated by the communityand should remain untouched.

Suggest application is turned down on the same grounds as previously.Damage to TPO trees by the current contractor is unacceptable.

The reduction in the overhang if this beautiful tree so that it does not cause shadow andleaf dropping into a private swimming pool is unnecessary and detrimental effect upon itappearance.

The mature trees in and around Stoke Lodge Parkland are an integeral part of avaluable community asset sitting within an area which has already be desicrated by unecessaryand unwarranted works. Please, for the sake of our green enviorment, do the job that other partsof the Council seem incapable of doing. Protect this precious local heritage and reject this requestto interfere with these trees.

The applicant wishes to crown lift two Norway Maples, both protected by TPO's thatgrow on neighbouring Parkland owned by BCC. However, the reason given to justify this butcheryis ill-conceived but also betrays a lack of empathy for arboreal issues because by cutting branchesand spoiling the shape of these beautiful trees, works may also inadvertently introduce disease viathe open cuts and Honey Fungus is present on the ParklandBoth trees were planted long before the swimming pool was built, when Stoke Lodge Parklandencompassed land down to the Dingle within its vast Estate.The fact that the trees might cast shade is insignificant compared to their amenity value and theyare highly regarded, iconic.A previous application to crown lift was refused and there are no changes that would justifyanother application. Lopsided pruning is ugly, abhorrent and unacceptable as a means to gainmore light. Trees cause shade and the swimming pool was built in that location with thisawareness; the trees are equally unlikely to cause any damage to the adjacent garden in thefuture.There is a need for preservation of mature trees and thankfully this is increasingly recognised asour natural environment is under threat from over-development of green space.Trees cannot be confined and will naturally overhang boundaries; they shelter land and createhabitats for animals and birds as they mature, so please refuse this unfounded request.

I am a 61 year resident of Stoke Bishop who has enjoyed Stoke Lodge Park for manyyears; both as a Pupil which used Stoke Lodge as our Playing fields and for therapy of my MentalHealth.I do not understand how you can fell this beautiful tree that has stood there longer than any of us.It is not necessary.The natural beauty of this spot is gradually being turned into a no go area that prevents hundredsof its residents using it!Stop this before we see another concrete playground that is little used.

I object to the installation of the CCTV in Stoke Lodge Playing field in this application.

I have 3 clear grounds for my objection:

1) Breach of my Human RightsPut simply the CCTV will have an unrestricted view across the field towards our house at the endof Stoke Paddock and has specifically been designed to overlook us (as it states in thepermission).

This will have a view into 3 bedrooms and one bathroom at our property. While this will berestricted in summer by foliage for 6 months of the year there will be a deliberate direct line of siteinto our property.

I believe that this is a direct violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 2000 which reads:

Right to respect for private and family life1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and hiscorrespondence.2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such asis in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of nationalsecurity, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder orcrime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms ofothers.

The claim in the application is that the reason for needing a CCTV is because of vandalism.However, a recent incident occurred were a tree that had a TPO order on it with branchescovering a CCTV camera on this field was vandalised. The imagery was right in front of the CCTVbecause it was those branches that were vandalised. No Police were called, no enforcementaction was taken. This indicates that not only will CCTV have no deterrent effect on vandalism butthat this is notthe intended use of the CCTV.

In addition current Police records for the area can be found here https://www.police.uk/pu/your-area/avon-somerset-constabulary/stoke-bishop/.

This shows that crime has been falling in this area since April 2019. What little crime that might becalled Vandalism did not even happen in an area that would be within the purview of this CCTVsystem.

2) Illegal collection of dataIt is because of this possible violation of my human rights that the information Commissionersoffice introduced a code of conduct which recommends a privacy impact assessment be made. InThe ICO's "CCTV Code of Practice" v 1.2 https://ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf itclearly stated on page 32 "Privacy impact assessments are also beneficial because consultation isa key element of the process; this will help you to understand the public's reaction to your proposaland people's views about potential privacy intrusion."The school has failed to provide this, and this should cause planners concern, it could mean thatthe ICO could rule that the data collected from this system cannot be used because it has notbeen legally gathered.

There is a further challenge that the authority should satisfy itself with before granting permission,whether the applicant has legal permission to collect, store and process this data. The existingICO registration for Cotham School dates to 2002, before this "applicant" even existed as a trust.

Before the council permits the erection of this CCTV system it should satisfy itself that there is alegal basis for it.The same Code of Practice calls for specific governance measures to be in place to protect thecommunity. This CCTV will have a view of a children's playing area in Stoke Lodge maintained byBristol City Council. The council should satisfy itself that images from the CCTV of children at playwill not be accessed in a way that breaches the law. As this entire system will be operatedremotely and be recording 24 hours a day using storage "in the cloud", there is a need for thecouncil to satisfy itself that the ICO's Guidance on Using Cloud Computing under the DataProtection Act 1988 has been complied with which would the possibility of the children in the Cityof Bristol being exposed to offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978 which make itillegal to take, distribute, show or possess for the intent of showing or distributing an indecentphotograph of a child under the age of 18.

3) AmenityOur house has a view over a Grade 2 listed property and its' curtilage (including outbuildings). Themap only specifies a very vague location for the placement of the CCTV system, however existingworks to install electrics for this system, which were put in last year, long before any allegedvandalism will place the pole directly hindering our view of this amenity. As such the applicantshould be required to conduct a Residential Amenity assessment.

This ugly pole is within a few feet of a grade II listed gazebo and detrimental to this important openspace which is designated as such based on the following criteria: recreation, leisure, communityuse, townscape and visual amenity.

For these 3 reasons I implore the council to throw out this application and implore the applicant toconsider alternative ways to protect its property as the ICO suggests.

Nothing has changed from the previous application 18/06369/VP which was refused.

These trees do not need pruning, they present no structural risk to the applicant's property. The"shading" of the swimming pool is not a basis for compromising these trees' health and form.

The applicant bought the house in 2016 in the full knowledge these TPO tress were adjacent.They should learn to live within the local environment including respecting TPO trees.

I know this is my second comment, but some residents have contacted me withquestions, so I thought I would provide the answers here.I was asked about Council tree pruning policy with regard to the trees owned by the Council.The answers can be found here as part of the "Report a problem with a tree" page on theirwebsite:https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/32823/Tree+management+policy+2016/049b3533-d4df-4161-a2f8-a63da223530ePage 6 of the policy document, "Tree Overhanging Property""Policy: We do not prune or remove a council owned tree to stop the nuisance of overhangingbranches."

There was an application 17 months ago to prune three of these maples and a beechtree in this same Group, G1 of TPO 1192. The request was then to reduce the length of the lowerbranches by 3 metres. At that time the proposed work was requested to prevent potential damageto existing garden structure and space surrounding outdoor swimming pool.The application this time is perform a light crown lift of two of the maples and reduce by 2 metresthe length of the lower branches of the NE lower face of the crown.These trees are of historical importance in Bristol. They have a very high amenity value and theywell deserve their TPO status. They are owned by the Council, and hence the residents of Bristol.Performing a crown lift and reducing the length of the branches on one side will spoil theirsymmetry and reduce their amenity value and detract from their natural shape - all three eventswould spoil their amenity hugely.The reason for this application is given as "Client feels the crowns of both trees are excessivelyover hanging their property, particularly the lower portions of crown." It thus seems to be an issueof shade. Surely that is not a good enough reason to damage important TPO trees? If anythingshade is a good thing in the light of Bristol's declared climate emergency?These trees should be protected - not pruned to reduce shading over a swimming pool. The treeshave been there a long time - likely well over a hundred years - and long before the swimmingpool.The Council has long exercised a policy of not pruning trees it owns to reduce shading. To givepermission for this crown reduction and limb length reduction would devalue all the decisions theyhave taken before.In the report written by the Tree Officer in February 2019 he wrote:"The trees are not causing any 'actionable nuisance' (interfering or damaging property) to theapplicant's property, nor are they preventing a 'reasonable enjoyment' of the ample size garden.

The reason provided for tree works are to prevent damage to the garden and areas around theswimming pool. No evidence has been provided to show the garden or the pool has beendamaged by the subject trees, therefore, this cannot be considered actionable nuisance."The Tree Officer is the expert here, but one has to feel that it is very unlikely that the situation haschanged in the intervening 17 months. There are no suggestions made by the applicant of actualor potential damage to the garden structures or the swimming pool. It must just be shade.Please refuse this application.