The ownership of the tree needs to be clarified, as from the plot shown on the auctionwebsite, it would appear the tree was not included in the recent sale.If the ownership of the tree has moved to the new owner who recently purchased the toilet blockfrom BCC, the trees size would mean it qualifies for the tree replacement scheme and the numberof new trees to be planted within the area will need to be agreed.

1. Sustainable Westbury on Trym (SusWoT) agrees with the view that it is importantthat this application should be considered in conjunction with any application for the developmentof the former toilet block itself. The nature of any future development, which is mentioned in thepresent application, might well influence the nature of any onsite mitigation for loss of the tree,should this be considered permissable.2. There is no mention in the application of an intention to conform to the Bristol TreeReplacement Standard, which must be adopted if permission is granted for it to be felled. Thebenefits of street trees in urban areas in mitigating the effects of pollution and climate change donot need repeating here. While Westbury on Trym may be considered to be a "leafy suburb", thisdescription does not apply to the central area of Westbury village, and every tree that is lost mustbe suitably replaced in accordance with the BTRS.We therefore object to this application until further information is available on these 2 issues.

At least the Applicant has "come clean" in as much that this is an Application to get rid of aninconvenient tree in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the site.

However, it is difficult to assess the aesthetic benefits of this tree's removal without being privy tothe Applicant's full aspirations for redeveloping the site of this redundant iconic early 20th centurypublic convenience, situated within the heart of Westbury's Conservation Area.

In fact, it is not obvious from the information available that the parcel of land supporting the tree isactually within the curtilage of the redundant public convenience.

However, if the Council's Planning Officer is so minded, the tree could become the subject of aTree Preservation Order (TPO) but, to a large extent, this would be dictated by the Applicant'saspirations for the site by way of a Full Planning Application.

Either way, if approval is granted for the tree's removal, its loss would be subject to the Council'sextant Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS) and, consequently, the Developer would haveto fund replacement trees in accordance with the protocols of the BTRS.

As a consequence of the lack of evidence to support the tree's removal, I object to this Application.

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.