Application Details
| Council | BCC |
|---|---|
| Reference | 20/02457/VC |
| Address | Flat 1 Tamarillo House 62 - 64 Whiteladies Road Bristol BS8 2QA
Street View |
| Ward |
|
| Proposal | Ash Tree - Fell. |
| Validated | 2020-06-16 |
| Type | Works to Trees in Conservation Areas |
| Status | Decided |
| Neighbour Consultation Expiry | 2020-07-03 |
| Determination Deadline | 2020-07-28 |
| Decision | Preservation Order NOT REQUIRED |
| Decision Issued | 2020-07-28 |
| BCC Planning Portal | on 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 |
BTF response:
OBJECT
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.
Public Comments
on 2020-07-09 OBJECT
I strongly object to the felling of this mature and valuable ash tree. Its removal will havea 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 superficiallyinterferes with the roof of the adjoining house, some 4-5 metres from the trunk of the tree. Fellingof this tree would be an unjustifiable over-reaction. Indeed, the applicant was originally happy forthe 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 corestrategy, which states, "Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible" and it iscertainly 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 thatthey plan to double Bristol's tree canopy by 2046 (One City Plan). Such justification is absent fromthis application.
It also seems likely that the applicant may not be the sole owner of the property, and therefore hasno right to unilaterally request felling of this tree sited in the communal entrance to a large block offlats. That the applicant is the owner of Flat 1 Tamarillo House is not in question, rather that theydo not represent all of the other residents of these two large HMOs. If the applicant claims torepresent the management committee of all of the residents, clear evidence of this has to beprovided.
Originally, the applicant asked either for the tree to be pruned or felled, but Lyn Sully (AdminBusiness Support Officer Bristol City Council) insisted that only one option can be chosen, so theapplicant 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, andcertainly cheaper.
This tree has no obvious sign of ash dieback (ADB), although there are a few dead branches. Ifindeed this tree is free from ash dieback, this should certainly be retained. Resistance to ADB maybe as high as 40% in the short term, but only 5% in the long term. However, this resistance isheritable, with a penetrance of 50% (Royal Society Open Science), so any ash that is not sufferingfrom ADB should always be retained as it could be one of the 1/20 that are resistant long-term.
on 2020-07-09 OBJECT
On behalf of Bristol Tree Forum, I endorse and adopt the comments of the otherobjectors made to date.
Given the location of this tree and the high public amenity that the tree provides, a TreePreservation Order should be made to protect it from further threats.
on 2020-07-09 OBJECT
Ash trees that are surviving should be conserved, not felled. If this tree does not haveAsh Die Back (the email correspondence raises some doubt) then it should be kept - pruned ifnecessary - as the population of Ash in the UK could do with the genes frankly.Add to that the drawbacks of an urban area - noise, traffic pollution etc - and we need all the treeswe have, and more.Add to that the term "Conservation Area" and we have the full set.Visual amenity, traffic pollution, noise mitigation, habitat, flood prevention, shade, oxygenproduction, carbon dioxide sequestration, etc.Please do not permit the felling of this tree. If it is healthy then "manage" it. Recent developmentsin Clifton Down have led to the loss of oh so many trees and such as remain should be kept.
on 2020-07-03 OBJECT
I have no objections to the tree being cut back.
However, this is almost the only tree on that side of Whatley Road between the Whiteladies Roadand the Whiteladies Medical Centre. As far as I can see, there seems no reason why the treeshould be felled and no reason has been given. Felling the tree will have a significant impact onthe amount of greenery in the immediate vicinity and reduce the quality of the environment.
on 2020-06-26 OBJECT
The tree which is in question sustains a number of small nesting birds throughout theyear bringing some much needed nature to a very built up area in addition it provides a smallamount of buffer to road noise and car fumes as my flat faces the area where the tree is situatedremoval of the tree will undoubtedly lead to an increase in the traffic noise and fumes experiencedin my home