Application Details

Reference 20/02621/VP
Address 21A Stoke Hill Bristol BS9 1JN  
Street View
Proposal T10, T13, T14 & T19 Yew Crown lift to 3.5m (TPO 402); T11 Sycamore Fell (not protected by TPO)
Validated 18-06-20
Type Tree Preservation Order
Status Decided
Determination Deadline 13-08-20
Decision GRANTED
Decision Issued 25-08-20
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 1  Unstated: 1  Total: 2
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

This application has been withdrawn and then treated as Permitted Devlopment issue under https://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QBZ4ZQDNLIV00.

I am not so much objecting to this application as commenting upon some of the assumptions made by the arboriculturist in his report, and not always in agreement with them.
The proposal is undoubtedly a "development". Building two cabins, one of which is to house a swimming pool, is clearly a development.
The Bristol Tree Replacement Standard will therefore come into play. If planning permission is granted then the Sycamore that is to be felled warrants replacement under the BTRS planning requirement, contrary to the report of the arboriculturist.
I refer to this statement in his report
"Given the large number of trees in the garden and in neighbouring properties, replacement planting is not considered appropriate. The trees in the raised bed are growing in very close proximity. Removal of T11 sycamore will allow space for neighbouring tree growth."
What is appropriate is the (eventual) replacement of the lost environmental benefit of the tree(s).
It matters not that nearby trees would enjoy more space to grow, nor that the trees are not that visible to the public. What matters is that this is environmental "damage" to facilitate development. I would add that there is a public footpath (Pitch and Pay Lane) running along the rear boundary of the property, so unusually back garden trees are visible to the public and do contribute to public amenity.
If the replacement trees cannot be accommodated on the land owned by the Applicant then they will need to be planted on nearby public land. The size of the tree to be felled (once checked by the BCC Tree Officer) means that 3 trees will need to be replaced. There are more than three sites within a mile of the development that are available under a s106 agreement.
With regard to the works proposed for the TPO trees - 4 Yew trees - I ask the Planning/Tree Officer to ensure that by maybe granting any permission to crown lift the trees to accommodate this development proposal the trees do not thereby risk losing their TPO status, their form having been spoiled. These trees are visible in the public domain and their status as an amenity is more important than building cabins.
I also ask the Tree/Planning Officer to make sure that there will not be irresistible future pressure to remove these trees later, once the cabins have been built, should permission to build them be granted. Creeping tree loss subsequent to developments being permitted is well known.

Public Comments

on 2020-07-13   OBJECT

I wish to agree with the comments made by our Tree Champion, Stephanie French, andto say that the proposed buildings are not in keeping with the Conservation Area.

on 2020-07-01  

I am not so much objecting to this application as commenting upon some of theassumptions made by the arboriculturist in his report, and not always in agreement with them.The proposal is undoubtedly a "development". Building two cabins, one of which is to house aswimming pool, is clearly a development.The Bristol Tree Replacement Standard will therefore come into play. If planning permission isgranted then the Sycamore that is to be felled warrants replacement under the BTRS planningrequirement, contrary to the report of the arboriculturist.I refer to this statement in his report"Given the large number of trees in the garden and in neighbouring properties, replacementplanting is not considered appropriate. The trees in the raised bed are growing in very closeproximity. Removal of T11 sycamore will allow space for neighbouring tree growth."What is appropriate is the (eventual) replacement of the lost environmental benefit of the tree(s).It matters not that nearby trees would enjoy more space to grow, nor that the trees are not thatvisible to the public. What matters is that this is environmental "damage" to facilitate development.I would add that there is a public footpath (Pitch and Pay Lane) running along the rear boundary ofthe property, so unusually back garden trees are visible to the public and do contribute to publicamenity.If the replacement trees cannot be accommodated on the land owned by the Applicant then theywill need to be planted on nearby public land. The size of the tree to be felled (once checked bythe BCC Tree Officer) means that 3 trees will need to be replaced. There are more than three siteswithin a mile of the development that are available under a s106 agreement.With regard to the works proposed for the TPO trees - 4 Yew trees - I ask the Planning/TreeOfficer to ensure that by maybe granting any permission to crown lift the trees to accommodatethis development proposal the trees do not thereby risk losing their TPO status, their form havingbeen spoiled. These trees are visible in the public domain and their status as an amenity is more

important than building cabins.I also ask the Tree/Planning Officer to make sure that there will not be irresistible future pressureto remove these trees later, once the cabins have been built, should permission to build them begranted. Creeping tree loss subsequent to developments being permitted is well known.