|Address||Land At Access 18 Access 18 Bristol BS11 8HT
|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.|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||14-08-20|
|Standard Consultation Expiry||19-01-22|
|Decision||GRANTED subject to condition(s)|
|BCC Planning Portal||on 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|
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.