Application Details

Reference 20/02903/P
Address Land At Access 18 Access 18 Bristol BS11 8HT  
Street View
Proposal Hybrid planning application comprising a mixed commercial/ industrial development for A1, A3, A5, C1, D1, D2, B2 and B8 use classes over seven plots (Area A-G). Full planning permission is sought for the development of a hotel within Area F, access works to the site and to the identified proposed development plots, earthworks, ecological enhancements, the diversion of the existing public right of way, landscaping works across the whole site and other infrastructure works to support the proposed development.Outline planning permission is sought for the principle of employment development at Areas A, B, C, D, E and G and the principle of retail, non-residential institutions and assembly and leisure uses at Area F. EIA Development & Departure.
Validated 03-07-20
Type Outline Planning
Status Pending decision
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 14-08-20
Standard Consultation Expiry 27-07-21
Determination Deadline 23-10-20
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 1 Objectors: 2  Unstated: 1  Total: 4
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: UNDER CONSIDERATION

This application contains an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and a report on proposed biodiversity mitigation and enhancement. Are these the reports relied on this application? If so, can they please be published on the portal for application 21/04207/F.

Can you also please supply an .xlsm copy of the Biodiversity Net Gain calculation used in 20/02903/P. Will this calculation be relied on in support of 21/04207/F?

We also note that the officer's report to the planning committee states at (D) WOULD THE PROPOSAL LEAD TO THE LOSS OF SIGNIFICANT TREES, AND WOULD IT PROVIDE FOR ACCEPTABLE MITIGATION FOR ANY LOSS OF LANDSCAPING?:

"Officers requested the applicant to provide BTRS calculations of stem diameters of the trees to be removed, as this was initially absent from the applicant’s assessment. This was duly provided and shows that 132 replacement trees are needed to replace individual trees, and approximately 243 replacements are needed for groups of trees proposed to be removed (an approximate figure since the groups are difficult to survey.) This would indicate that a total of 375 replacements are needed."

Please provide the information provided as a result of this request? In particular, can you please provide the number of trees in each of the 35 tree groups (G1-G35) reported on in the AIA and identify how many trees in each of the groups will be removed. Can you please also clarify how the stem diameters of the grouped trees, where a range of stem diameters are reported, were calculated or estimated.

Until we have this information, we are unable to ascertain whether or not the tree replacement calculation required under the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard is correct or if adequate BNG baseline allowance for the trees growing on site has been made.

We are also concerned that a separate, piecemeal application for the creation of ecological enhancement areas in just two areas is now being made such that the overall impact of these schemes on the site as a whole cannot properly be assessed - see planning application 21/04207/F | Creation of Ecological Enhancement Areas, comprising new ponds, landscaping and associated works.

These are the Officer's observations to committee when this matter was last considered:

(D) WOULD THE PROPOSAL LEAD TO THE LOSS OF SIGNIFICANT TREES, AND WOULD IT PROVIDE FOR ACCEPTABLE MITIGATION FOR ANY LOSS OF LANDSCAPING?

Policy BCS9 states that individual green assets should be retained wherever possible, and that development should incorporate new or enhanced green infrastructure of an appropriate type, standard and size.

Policy DM15 highlights the importance of sustaining and enhancing the natural environment, and encourages developments to contribute towards the Green Infrastructure Network. The policy sets out the health benefits of green infrastructure provision, and includes the provision of additional and/or improved management of existing trees to assist in mitigating run-off and flood risk, providing shade and shelter to address urban cooling, and creating a strong framework of street trees to enclose or mitigate the visual impact of a development.

Policy DM17 seeks to protect Important Open Spaces, Unidentified Open Spaces, Urban Landscape and Trees and recognises the role these features have in providing landscape and visual amenity quality. This policy states that where tree loss is essential to allow for new development, replacement trees should be provided in accordance with the tree compensation standard. This gives the number of replacement trees that would be needed according to trunk diameter of each tree to be lost. The Planning Obligations SPD sets out the costs sought on providing replacement trees where these cannot be accommodated on site. Item no. 2 Development Control Committee B – 21 July 2021 Application No. 20/02903/P: Land At Access 18 Access 18 Bristol BS11 8HT

A number of existing trees are proposed to be removed to facilitate the development. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment also notes that since the assessment took place, Western Power Distribution has carried out consented works to remove some of the trees, and National Grid also has a proposal to remove 15 trees in respect of the consented scheme to install new power lines and pylons across this site. This development would require the removal of 51 individual trees and 118 trees within groups (groups being the term used to identify trees that form cohesive arboricultural features). Trees that are proposed to be retained are those in Group 14, which is alongside Ballast Lane and considered to be of the greatest landscape significance on the site. Details of tree protection have been provided, and the earthworks have been designed to avoid incursion into the Root Protection Areas of the retained trees.

The application is supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA). This assessment sets out that trees on the site were assessed as both individual trees and groups, and categorised into A (being of high amenity value), B, C or U (being of poor amenity value).

The AIA notes that of all the tree removals, there is one Category A tree which is small Pedunculate Oak, and the report notes that “whilst it is of long-term potential, it is a relatively small specimen and not considered to make a substantial contribution to the landscape character of the site at the current time.”

For individual trees, most were found to be within category B (61%), 27% in Category B, and 9% unworthy of retention – Category U.

Of the groups, the majority were assessed as being within category C (71%) with 29% being assessed as category B.

Officers requested the applicant to provide BTRS calculations of stem diameters of the trees to be removed, as this was initially absent from the applicant’s assessment. This was duly provided and shows that 132 replacement trees are needed to replace individual trees, and approximately 243 replacements are needed for groups of trees proposed to be removed (an approximate figure since the groups are difficult to survey.) This would indicate that a total of 375 replacements are needed.

Numbers and species of tree planting are shown on the drawings showing Ecological Enhancement Areas. A total of 126 individual trees would be planted along with 939 new Native Woodland plants. Officers consider there is scope for additional tree planting, although acknowledge the efforts by the applicant to improve the ecological value of the site due to the uniqueness of the location. Additional tree planting can be secured through s106 or condition and officers will provide an update on this issue at committee.

Public Comments

  SEVERNNET   on 2021-08-31   SUPPORT

Mr Mark CD Ashdown (for Bristol Tree Forum)  22 CODRINGTON ROAD, BRISTOL BS7 8ET  on 2021-08-25  

This application contains an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and a report onproposed biodiversity mitigation and enhancement. Are these the reports relied on thisapplication? If so, can they please be published on the portal for application 21/04207/F.

Can you also please supply an .xlsm copy of the Biodiversity Net Gain calculation used in20/02903/P. Will this calculation be relied on in support of 21/04207/F?

We also note that the officer's report to the planning committee states at (D) WOULD THEPROPOSAL LEAD TO THE LOSS OF SIGNIFICANT TREES, AND WOULD IT PROVIDE FORACCEPTABLE MITIGATION FOR ANY LOSS OF LANDSCAPING?:

"Officers requested the applicant to provide BTRS calculations of stem diameters of the trees tobe removed, as this was initially absent from the applicant's assessment. This was duly providedand shows that 132 replacement trees are needed to replace individual trees, and approximately243 replacements are needed for groups of trees proposed to be removed (an approximate figuresince the groups are difficult to survey.) This would indicate that a total of 375 replacements areneeded."

Please provide the information provided as a result of this request? In particular, can you pleaseprovide the number of trees in each of the 35 tree groups (G1-G35) reported on in the AIA andidentify how many trees in each of the groups will be removed. Can you please also clarify howthe stem diameters of the grouped trees, where a range of stem diameters are reported, werecalculated or estimated.

Until we have this information, we are unable to ascertain whether or not the tree replacementcalculation required under the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard is correct or if adequate BNGbaseline allowance for the trees growing on site has been made.

We are also concerned that a separate, piecemeal application for the creation of ecologicalenhancement areas in just two areas is now being made such that the overall impact of theseschemes on the site as a whole cannot properly be assessed - see planning application21/04207/F | Creation of Ecological Enhancement Areas, comprising new ponds, landscaping andassociated works.

Mr Donal Lucey  19 BARROW HILL CRESCENT SHIREHAMPTON BRISTOL  on 2020-10-18   OBJECT

As a local resident I object to the current proposals, given the lack of regard to heritageassets. Given some minor changes to the proposals and to the level of proposed archaeologicalmitigation, I would happily change my stance to support the scheme. These comments are notintended as a criticism of the applicant's Heritage Assessment. I have previously worked for thecompany who produced the assessment and can attest to their excellence. Furthermore, Iunderstand on a personal level the difficulty of carrying out Heritage Assessments during thepandemic which has made data-gathering more difficult. However, I am a local professionalarchaeologist who has previously carried out extensive private research in this area, and thereforeI am in a position to provide additional information which may be useful during the determination ofthe application. I defer to the final decision of the BCC Historic Environment Officer on thesematters.

1) The Geotechnical Report submitted with the application records peat deposits in a number ofareas within the site. For example, borehole CP05 within the greenfield area contains twoseparate peat layers. A Mesolithic land surface and Bronze Age activity have been recorded just345m to the north-east of the site at the former location of Katherine's Farm. Consideration shouldtherefore be given in the archaeological evaluation and mitigation strategy to the possibility ofburied ground surfaces and associated archaeological remains.

2) The ridge and furrow earthworks within the site, which the applicant's Heritage Assessmentacknowledges may be of medieval date, are rare within Shirehampton, Avonmouth and King'sWeston (Coates, R. 2018, The King's Weston Estate Farms, p. 5). Given the local rarity of thesesurviving earthworks, their removal to accommodate landscaping and car parking does not seemto be justified - attempts should first be made to preserve all or part of these features in situ andprovide interpretive boards for users of the existing footpath/cycleway through the site. At the veryleast, these earthworks should not be removed for parking, ecological and flood alleviationmeasures that could potentially be altered or accommodated elsewhere within the site. If part ofthese earthworks are to be removed, effort should be made to establish a date for these featuresto determine whether they are associated with the medieval or post-medieval drainage and use ofthe area.

3) The unnamed former farmstead recorded within the site is certainly of post-medieval date.Given the adjacent ridge and furrow earthworks and the irregular enclosure in which it was sited(this ditched enclosure still survives) there is potential for remains of an earlier medieval farmsteadto be present here. It should be noted that a building is recorded at this location on Halett's plan ofthe Level at King's Weston (c 1720) along with another building to the east, also within the site.Trees recorded on the 1880s OS map indicate the locations of former boundaries associated withthis second building. Both of these former building sites are worthy of further investigation andmitigation.

4) Consideration needs to be given to the archaeological and paleoenvironmental potential of thesite to yield information of the changing uses of the Levels from the prehistoric period to thepresent day. Mere Bank, King's Weston Rhine and New Rhine are recorded within the site, alongwith numerous interconnected former minor rhines recorded on historic mapping. The RomanMere Bank did not exist in isolation and would have been fed by further drainage channels, below-ground remains of which may be located within the site or even reused within the existing drainagesystem. The existing and in-filled rhines and other drainage features within the site have thepotential to yield valuable archaeological and palaeoenvironmental evidence relating to theRoman, medieval and post-medieval reclamation, drainage and agriculture which took place here.The mitigation should be research-led and attempt to establish the dates or phases of the variousdrainage features and the relationships between the different phases.

5) The Shirehampton Brook passes through the site. This is a meandering natural watercourserather than a rhine. 1946 aerial imagery shows that the course of the Brook is respected bymedieval and post-medieval ridge and furrow earthworks, showing that it is a historic landscapefeature. The archaeological mitigation programme should therefore also include investigation ofthe palaeoenvironmental deposits within the Brook, where it is being impacted by the proposeddevelopment.

Mr Edward Lucy  DAVIES TURNER & CO LTD FIFTH WAY AVONMOUTH  on 2020-08-11   OBJECT

Our main concern with this development is traffic congestion along Avonmouth Way andthe surrounding roads. At present peak time traffic can be very congested and it is not uncommonfor traffic jams to form during off peak times as well. Parking of vehicles along Avonmouth Wayhas caused major issues, this has been partly addressed with the addition of double yellow linesbut still issues do arise.The point we want to make is that at present, Avonmouth Way is congested and this proposal isonly going to compounded these issues. We can see the secondary exit point from Access 18onto Kings Weston lane but we do not feel this would be adequate to cope with the additionallevels of traffic created by this development.

We would like to see considerably more emphasis put on the flow of traffic in this development,one solution we can see would be to open an additional access point from the end of AvonmouthWay onto Kings Weston lane.