|Address||Flat 1 Tamarillo House 62 - 64 Whiteladies Road Bristol BS8 2QA
|Proposal||Ash Tree - Fell.|
|Type||Works to Trees in Conservation Areas|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||03-07-20|
|Decision||Preservation Order NOT REQUIRED|
|BCC Planning Portal||BCC Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 0 Objectors: 5 Total: 5|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Map Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
We strongly object to the felling of this mature and valuable ash tree. Its removal will have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity and the character of the area.
Felling of this tree is entirely unnecessary, as there is only a small branch which only superficially interferes with the roof of the adjoining house, some 4-5 metres from the trunk of the tree. Felling of this tree would be an unjustifiable over-reaction. Indeed, the applicant was originally happy for the tree to be pruned, and this would be a much more proportionate response.
To remove this tree without good justification would be a contravention of BCS9 of Bristol's core strategy, which states, "Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible" and it is certainly possible to do so in this case. Furthermore, being in Whiteladies Road conservation area, additional justification should be required, particularly when Bristol City Council have declared that they plan to double Bristol's tree canopy by 2046 (One City Plan). Such justification is absent from this application.
It also seems likely that the applicant may not be the sole owner of the property, and therefore has no right to unilaterally request felling of this tree sited in the communal entrance to a large block of flats. That the applicant is the owner of Flat 1 Tamarillo House is not in question, rather that they do not represent all of the other residents of these two large HMOs. If the applicant claims to represent the management committee of all of the residents, clear evidence of this has to be provided.
Originally, the applicant asked either for the tree to be pruned or felled, but Lyn Sully (Admin Business Support Officer Bristol City Council) insisted that only one option can be chosen, so the applicant chose to apply for felling. I would suggest that more guidance should have been provided in this case, as minor pruning would be entirely adequate to address the problem, and certainly cheaper.
This tree has no obvious sign of ash dieback (ADB), although there are a few dead branches. If indeed this tree is free from ash dieback, this should certainly be retained. Resistance to ADB may be as high as 40% in the short term, but only 5% in the long term. However, this resistance is heritable, with a penetrance of 50% (Royal Society Open Science), so any ash that is not suffering from ADB should always be retained as it could be one of the 1/20 that are resistant long-term.
Given the location of this tree and the high public amenity that the tree provides, a Tree Preservation Order should be made to protect it from further threats.