|Address||21A Stoke Hill Bristol BS9 1JN
|Proposal||T10, T13, T14 & T19 Yew Crown lift to 3.5m (TPO 402); T11 Sycamore Fell (not protected by TPO)|
|Type||Tree Preservation Order|
|BCC Planning Portal||on 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|
This application has been withdrawn and then treated as Permitted Devlopment issue under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.