|Address||1 Whytes Close Bristol BS9 3HU
|Proposal||Construction of a new two storey four bedroom attached dwelling with on site parking and associated works.|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||24-08-20|
|Standard Consultation Expiry||25-08-20|
|Decision||GRANTED subject to condition(s)|
|BCC Planning Portal||BCC Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 0 Objectors: 19 Total: 19|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
These comments are about the trees, or rather, the "former" trees.
This site has a busy recent planning history. In 2018 there was an Application to build two houses on the site, in 2019 there was an Application to build one house on the site. This was refused and there was an Appeal - which was lost.
There then followed an Application to extend the house that is already on the site, which was permitted, and now this further Application to build another house on the land, which is the current garden of the existing extended house.
As a member of the Bristol Tree Forum (Bristol Tree Forum) my interest has been to ensure that the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS) is applied in this case. This is a Planning Obligation when trees are lost to Development.
With some other residents, we brought to the attention of the LPA the fact that several trees in the garden had been felled prior to the first Application, and it had to be true that these fellings were to facilitate the planned development in the garden. We could not trespass and measure the trees, but we did take photographs.
In the event the Application was refused and the subsequent Appeal was lost so the matter rested.
Now there is this further Application.
It is refreshing to note that a Tree Survey Report accompanies this Application, and in that Tree Survey Report it is clearly stated that trees have been felled on the development site to facilitate the building works proposed, and there will need to be mitigation by applying the BTRS. The Surveyor's calculation is that there is a requirement to plant on site, or provide funding for, ten trees.
This brings to the fore another problem that the Bristol Tree Forum has been highlighting for years. The Bristol Tree Forum does not think that providing a few small trees squeezed onto the remaining land following a development is adequate mitigation for the loss of sizeable trees. We have managed to negotiate with BCC that hedges do not provide mitigation for tree canopy loss (other than tall thick hedging for screening industrial development).
Having said that we are pleased to see here an acceptance that there should be mitigation for lost trees, I have to take serious issue with the landscape plan to provide this mitigation entirely on site - which is the suggestion in the Tree Survey "all be accommodated on the site". Frankly there is not room for ten trees in the small area of land remaining after the house is built, and the selection of species reflects this view.
The proposed ten tree plantings are squeezed together, and all tree species are small, and most can readily be transformed into hedging.
One of them, Jasmine, is not even classified as a tree. It is a shrub or climbing vine.
The Hawthorn and Beech could easily become hedge.
The Dogwood is a shrub in most places (motorway screening for example).
Holly is very slow growing and is often a hedge or shrub.
Crab Apple trees are small.
Japanese Maple is often just an ornamental shrub in a container.
Indeed, it must be intended for these replacements to be kept small, because there is not the space for any other management in the area of land remaining to be landscaped after the house is built.
So, in response to this Application, I ask the Planning Officer and the Tree Officer to a) accept that there must be mitigation for the tree loss reported to BCC and admitted by the Applicant, and
b) not agree the current landscape plan, but negotiate a new one, which is likely to require some off-site planting in public land. The proposed plan, and the tree species, are not adequate replacement for the trees lost. This should be a proposal which repairs the environment rather than just decorate a garden, which the new householder would want to do anyway.