|Address||Public Conveniences High Street Westbury Bristol BS9 3ED
|Proposal||Conifer - Fell. To allow scaffolding and the erection of other site equipment, in facilitating the re-development of the site.|
|Type||Works to Trees in Conservation Areas|
|Decision||Place a preservation order on the tree|
|BCC Planning Portal||on Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 0 Objectors: 3 Unstated: 1 Total: 4|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Map Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
OUTCOME: Application refused. A TPO has been placed on the tree.
On behalf of BTF:
I am not supportive of this Application. Nor am I neutral so I suppose I object.
This whole situation needs careful consideration.
There is absolutely no doubt - as it is stated by the Applicant - that this tree felling is requested/hasbeen notified (S211) in order to facilitate development of the site behind the tree. The tree doesnot enjoy a TPO, but this part of Westbury is in a Conservation Area.
Thus this tree loss, if permission is granted, must trigger tree replacement under the local treereplacement protocol - the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS).Residents of Westbury have already taken the precaution of measuring the girth of the tree at therequired height from the ground so that there is a record of it for calculating the number ofreplacement trees to be provided under BTRS. The triggering of the BTRS will occur even if thereis a gap between felling the tree and developing the site - under agreements hammered out withBristol Council following attempts by developers to circumvent the tree replacement requirementsby making two-stage planning applications, one for any trees on a piece of land and then a laterone for the development.
This tree does not appear as a Council owned Bristol Street Tree on Council mapping. The landon which the tree grows does not appear as a Council Asset when the Public Conveniencesexisted prior to their sale. Presumably the ownership of the parcel of land that bears the tree canbe determined. Anyone can apply to fell a tree even if they do not own it, but the agent acting onbehalf of the owner(s) has stated that he/she "owns" the tree, so presumably that is correct.Felling a tree one does not own, even with planning consent, is criminal damage I understand. I doubt that that could become an issue here.
If permission to fell the tree is refused - by making it the subject of a Tree Preservation Order(TPO) - one has to fear that protecting it and its roots (with fencing, barriers around roots etc.)would hardly be feasible. Then there is the problem of later applications to remove it, were it to beretained, after the development was complete, because it was in the way of whatever ends up onthe site. The Arboricultural Officer (AO) could put a TPO on it rather than permit its loss - we relyupon his/her professional opinion. The Council may know more about the proposed developmentthan the public does and thus the AO can decide upon the feasibility of retaining the tree.
All we ask is that if the tree is lost the BTRS must be enforced. There are few trees in WestburyVillage. This is one of them. There have been losses on Canford Lane very recently and morelosses cannot be borne.