II strongly object to this application. The removal of these trees is unnecessary and willdestroy an otherwise attractive view of the river and the grass meadows We will be left with a hardand relatively ugly sight of houses which are not adequately softened by their surroundings. Thework to be done could be achieved without the removal of the willows which have been there formany many years and which enhance the area considerably.Surely it has been understood for some time that we actually need more trees rather than less andthat the felling of mature ones for no very good reason shows a lazy and irresponsible attitude. Inshort it is vandalism which must be resisted.

I was upset to learn of the application to fell a line trees "to facilitate the de-commissioning of a mobile mast'. This would seem to be entirely over the top, an example ofthoughtless destruction to avoid inconvenience, which may be only imagined anyway. I urge thecouncil to demand more detail from the applicants and a detailed justification for their actions.The felling of this line of trees would undoubtedly diminish the beauty of that part of the rivervalley.

The reason given for felling these trees seems ridiculous ... for heaven's sake, leavethem be!

Cutting down the trees is unnecessary. I understand this is just because the adjacentfootball club is concerned about maintenance costs, which is not a good enough reason for cuttingdown the trees. The trees have environmental value.

I object to the proposed removal of these trees because I find them attractive and theyare of ecological importance.

I would like to object in full to this application.

There is an identifiable trackway to get to the mast, however I believe the mast in question hasalready been removed, so there is no need for this application to go ahead.

Bristol needs more trees, not less, and there is a concerted effort to increase the number of treesin the city by Bristol City Council, so why could it possibly be a good idea to cut down treesunnecessarily?

The football club says they'd be happy to see the trees go - "they put leaves on the pitch."However, the wind will bring other leaves to the pitch from far and wide anyway, regardless ifthese particular trees are there or not, but it is a lazy argument to try to justify destroying trees soyou'd have a little less work to do! It shows insensitivity to current environmental issues, disregardfor nature and therefore the application should be dismissed.

The justification that a tree could fall applies to every tree everywhere. Would it be right to chop alltrees down just in case? These trees should be properly maintained, managed and kept.

In addition, these trees have a visual amenity value and serve to soften the landscape around thatarea which would be otherwise very stark.

Trees play a vital part in reducing pollution, creating shade to reduce evaporation of water and tohelp prevent soil erosion. We need to plant more trees and maintain existing ones.

Please dismiss this application as it has no solid foundation. Thank you.

I object to the felling of these trees on the grounds of amenity and environmental issues.The trees grow on the bank above the river Trym; I live locally and walk by these trees often.When it floods, which is frequent, the water can rise to the trees. The trees stabilise the bank.There is an amenity value in having trees, not only for the good they do to the planet but also thevisual and calming effect on people using the footpaths nearby.However, I noted yesterday that the winds have brought down a large bough. The trees are inneed of pruning and future maintenance, so it is important to find out who is responsible for this.Please reject this application.

This is a contemptible application for a crappy reason. We need to keep every tree wepossibly can - we are in a situation with climate breakdown and ecological emergency where thevery existance of humanity on this planet is at risk and this is to take down a mast! I support, andactively assist, the council in its ambition to double tree cover, and to have to object to thisapplication shouldn't even be necessary.

Within this application there is little or no justification provided for doing this work andthe poor quality drawing and picture do not help. Although it is not clear to me exactly what theyare aiming to achieve, I would doubt that is is really necessary to take the trees down and Isuspect that it is being done to keep cost down.In many cases companies will use health and safety to justify what they want to do and this isprobably not true either.If the mast was cut into small sections I suspect it can be removed by hand without the need forany tree work.

I write a second comment because I have just read in the article by the communityreporter that the mast has already been removed. Therefore the trees have proved to be noproblem and the application should be deemed null and void.The club is quoted as saying that the trees 'are no longer necessary'. Should anyone anywhereever say that a tree should be cut down because it is not necessary?! These trees serve a veryuseful purpose as has been stated by many people who have commented, not least the BristolTree Forum and the Tree Champion. The other comment by the Club that the leaves fall on thesports pitch is laughable. When leaves fall on a flat area of grass, such as my lawn, a lawnmowersoon hoovers them up; the Club does a regular mowing of the pitch presumably so therefore theycan pick up the leaves when they are doing this without any problem.I urge the Council to reject this planning application so as to preserve these trees.

There is no good reason to fell these trees and loads of reasons why they shouldremain. Bless a tree is dangerous, diseased or causing a nuisance no one should be givenpermission to remove it , let alone a row of trees. These trees screen the football club andenhance the view of the historic harbour. They also absorb pollution from the Portway and alsocushion the noise from this very busy road.Leave these trees alone.

Hello,Please do not allow the trees to be felled. This is a historic site - originally a Roman port and SeaMills harbour - and therefore every effort should be made to preserve it and make it look beautiful.The trees are particularly important in this respect as they help stabilise the river bank, the rootsabsorb water and help reduce the risk of flooding to the neighbouring football ground and thisbenefit should be of particular importance to the football club. Also it is repeatedly pointed out inthe media that we need to plant trees and not fell them to try to soak up carbon dioxide if we are tostand any chance of staving off the worse impacts of climate change.

These trees enhance the local environment - both visually and through reducingpollution and providing habitat for wildlife. I am told that the mobile mast is no longer in place, inwhich case removing the trees to facilitate removal of non-existent mast makes no sense. Even ifthe mast is still there, there must a way to remove it without destroying so many well-establishedtrees.

Comment:These trees enhance the local environment - both visually and throughreducing pollution and providing habitat for wildlife. I am told that the mobile mast is no longer inplace, in which case removing the trees to facilitate removal of non-existent mast makes no sense.Even if the mast is still there, there must a way to remove it without destroying so many well-established trees.

I object to this application. Just because these trees were planted to screen a mobilephone mast which has now been removed is not a good reason to remove trees which provide anamenity, help reduce flooding, provide oxygen. There are other masts which are screened bythese trees.

Not only does it seem counter-productive and somewhat blind to the environmentalissues of this World (not least that Bristol City Council itself having declared a climate emergency),but the unnecessary felling of these trees for what appear to be reasons of efficiency rather thanrespect or thought for the local community just seems to be completely short sighted and selfish.Sea Mills is a beautiful, historic and overtly natural area which somehow manages to remain soeven with the busy, noisy and dirty Portway there. Leave the trees where they are maintain themproperly for the good of the environment and the local surroundings. Bristol City Council is verygood at talking about 'community' and 'inclusivity'- that should mean all communities.

This would be an unnecessary and damaging felling of trees. Bristol, including in theSea Mills area is under threat from future flooding risk, and trees help to prevent flooding in heavyrain.

We know that trees are essential for limiting flood risk, providing shade during heatwaves, and asa habitat for wildlife. These trees are more established and as such are providing more benefitsand amenity to the local area than any replacement would for at least 10-20 years. The reasonsfor this felling put forward - that leaves fall on the football pitch and trees are expensive to maintain- are not well founded. Everyone has to deal with leaves, and raking them up is not a significantcost. Tree management costs should be picked up by the owners of the site, but it is far morebeneficial to maintain trees than to fell them simply because of the cost of maintenance.

This application should be refused because:1. It is against stated policy of local and national government which is to retain trees primarily forenvironmental and amenity purposes.2. The application seems to suggest the removal of the trees is necessary to facilitate access formast removal, yet public statements from the football club suggests otherwise (cost ofmaintenance, leaf nuisance). Whichever is the true rationale for the application neither areacceptable as retention of the trees in this environment is important to help manage carbondioxide and water management. Should the felling of any trees be necessary to gain access formast removal, then they should be replaced by new trees.3. While it seems clear that the football club may have concerns regarding the cost ofmaintenance of the trees, has there been any income from Vodafone for use of the location? If so,then this funding should have been (and continue to be) used to help maintain the site, includingthese trees.

It is completely unacceptable to remove healthy trees simply because they require funds tosupport and maintain.them.

Trees are important for the environment- these trees help screen noise and pollutionfrom the portway and help prevent light pollution from the floodlights of the football ground. As theyare in a conservation area they should be preserved

I have read the application to fell a line of willow trees adjoining the Manor FarmFootball Club at the Creek in Sea Mills and wish to register an objection to the proposal.

My reasons for objection are that the willow trees provide:(1) a pleasant and effective visual screen of the Football Club for walkers along the River Trymand users of the Sea Mills Station, and(2) protection of the river bank when the River Trym is in flood.

Trees provide important stability to embankment land generally; if one of the willow trees is dead, Iwould be prepared to donate the costs of a replacement.

Gareth Dodds.

Living in climate change we need all the trees. These willows are known to help preventflooding. They make oxygen for us to breathe and they help purify the atmosphere fromavonmouth factorys. They help me feel good about life seeingThe lovely leaves and heating all the wild life in these trees. Ioften walk here.

The application site is within the Sea Mills Conservation Area Character Area 3 identified in theSea Mills Character Appraisal and Management Proposals (January 2011) document.Referring to the sports buildings adjacent to the line of willow trees, the Character Appraisal statesthat "Views within and across this area are partly spoiled by the ... floodlights that surround thesports ground, as well as the out of character sports buildings." (Paragraph 7.1.5k).Paragraph 7.4.7 specifically identifies the "Rugby Centre buildings" as "Individual NegativeBuildings". The Appraisal defines Negative Buildings as "buildings that, due to their location, scale,materials, form or detailed design detract from the special character of the Conservation Area."In the table on page 49 of the Appraisal which specifies the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunitiesand Threats to Character Area 3, under "Weaknesses" the Appraisal identifies "Lighting and mastsassociated with the sports ground detracting from views; sports buildings out of character andvisually unattractive."The importance of "views" are highlighted in several paragraphs on Character Area 3.For example, paragraphs 7.1.5c and 7.1.5i both emphasise that "Views are a vital component ofthe significance of this area."In the table, one of the strengths of this area is specified as "Views across the Garden Suburb ...and across and along the Trym".The line of willow trees, shown in Figure 55 of the Character Appraisal, partially hide and obscureviews of the negative sports buildings and the associated masts that "detract from the specialcharacter of the Conservation Area" and which spoil the "views within and across this area".(Paragraphs 7.4.7 and 7.1.5k).Removal of the line of willow trees would significantly harm the character of the Sea MillsConservation Area by exposing the currently obscured views of the negative buildings and mastsof the sports ground.

Removing the willow trees would harm local views, one of the most important characteristics ofthis Area specified in this section of the Character Appraisal, by making these buildings and mastsvisible.Consequently, I request that you please REFUSE this application.

SusWoT, Sustainable Westbury on Trym, working with other groups that the river Trymand Hazel Brook flows through are looking to revive the ecology of the whole river Trym catchmentarea. Removing mature trees in the area will be highly detrimental to making the Trym moreattractive to people and wildlife.

There must be a less harmful way of removing masts.

I object in principle to the removal of trees at a time when we are being encouraged toplant trees to combat climate change.I think it should be compulsory if any removal of trees is approved for any purpose that thereshould be a guaranteed undertaking to replace them, if necessary in a neighbouring location, bythe applicants for the planning permission.

I regularly walk from Haytor Park along the Trym. This is already made tricky with theamount of mud on the tree side path during high tides. But it is still passable most of the time andlovely to enjoy some exercise along the river bank - and I believe this is part of the Severn wayfootpath..The trees must help to reduce the amount of moisture on this walkway. In my view they do notimpinge on the area and add an attractive background to this historic harbour.Perhaps any unstable branches could be trimmed to satisfy health and safety concerns and leavetree cover for aesthetic and environmental aspects.

The application does not state who owns the trees and, although, I have been trying todo some research there isn't much information on why it is necessary to fell them.

It seems that the telecom mast has been or will be, decommissioned and if it is now to be removedthen surely there is a way to do that without felling trees that are now about 23 years old andprovide an attractive barrier to, among other things, direct views of all the buildings at Manor FarmFootball Club and the floodlights. Their environmental benefits are numerous and given theclimate change situation that we are in I don't think that any tree should be felled unless it isdiseased and presents a danger.

I am bemused by a comment that I read that the chairman at Manor farm Football Club thinks thatthey are 'no longer needed'?!I feel that he may reconsider when his pitch is constantly flooded as this area is frequently proneto flooding and the trees must surely help to ameliorate that.

It seems that these trees may not have been well maintained so surely what is needed is for treeexperts to view and conserve not chop down on 'a whim'. Once again it seems that we expectnature to suffer for man's slight inconvenience. So with arrogant tiny steps we head towards ourown extinction!!

It seems clear to me that this line of trees makes a great contribution on many levels to this areaso I really hope that you will refuse this application to fell them.

We object to the removal of the line of willow trees for the following reason: noopenness or transparency in the application - neither the number of trees or a valid reason aregiven. The trees provide a valuable screen, stabilise the river bank and protect the wildlife in thatpart of the mouth of the river Trym, they also reduce light pollution from the pitch. They are anattractive addition for all the walkers who go along that area as well as a valuable asset in anotherwise boring recreational area - all kids love playing under willow trees (I suppose all the morereason for miserable gits to pull them down then). The mayor announced Bristol is facing anenvironmental emergency I can't help wonder in what way this tree felling is going to improvethings? Trees are critical to the environment and should be preserved when ever possible. Thereis no valid reason to remove them.

These trees are a key part of the landscape" which "should be protected with a Groupor Woodland Tree Preservation Order."

Please stop this . Who owns the Land? How does this tie in with Climate change with felling trees.

It is absolutely appalling that mature trees should be felled to make it cheaper to takedown a phone mast. Trees take the best part of a century to mature. It will not be possible to bringthem back in our lifetimes. Trees are especially vital near river banks to stabilise the land in thecontext of increasingly heavy rainfall due to global warming. Trees clean the air that we breath andgenerate our oxygen. The mast can be demolished piece by piece if need be. Please save thetrees, so that the trees can save us. The trees are part of our community!

I object to this proposal for the following reasons:

1. Willows traditionally are found along the banks of watercourses. They serve an importantfunction with regards flood prevention, screening, habitats for both flora and fauna

2. The willows form part of the landscape and have environmental benefits some listed above butalso add to the character of the area.

3. There is no need to fell these trees for this purpose.

4. This is destruction for no reason. Denuding the area of these trees will cause erosion of thebanks of the Trym and remove an very important screen.

5. The area forms part of the green link within the Avon Gorge and river valley and surroundings.

For the above reasons I object to this proposal and I hope this application will be refused.

I strongly object to the removal of these willow trees. Since lockdown we havefrequently walked down to the river past these trees and appreciate their beauty. Not only this, buttrees are so important for controlling levels of CO2 in the environment, and for stabilising the riverbank. We need as many and more trees as we have in Bristol, and funds should be put towardsmaintaining tree health rather than chopping them down. Thank you.

To remove this row of Willow trees seems a very poor decision as the roots of the treeswill help stabalise the bank and keep the path much more use able for pedestrian s. They are alsoan attractive feature in this area.

I strongly object to these trees being felled. The fact that the trees are no longer neededfor the original reason they were planted is irrelevant - all trees are now needed urgently for floodprotection, coastal stabilisation, amenity, bird and insect habitat and carbon sequestration. Thesetrees must be retained, and if anything, enhanced.

As someone who often walks through the area I am very concerned at the possibility ofdestroying these willow trees. They now provide a mature screen of the sports ground and, beingwell established, provide a root structure to help stabilise the river bank. With so many trees nowunder threat from development or disease it is essential that we retain mature specimens such asthese. Please ensure this application is rejected.

I formally object to the felling of the live trees in this proposal. There are two dead treesin the row which do need to be removed and replaced. My objections are for the following reasons:1. The reasons on the application for the felling are spurious as the trees are outside the boundaryof the football club and some distance from the phone masts: removal of the trees are notnecessary for access nor to make mast removal safe.2. The trees provide important amenity value in the conservation area as they screen theunattractive, high and somewhat ramshackle fence erected by the football club to deter non-paying football fans from viewing matches.3. The applicant states they are not the owner of the trees, nor is the football club and the owner isnot known. There is the risk therefore that the owner has no knowledge of the proposal and asthere is no safety reason for felling, the work would constitute criminal damage.4. The proposal conflicts with the council's policies on tree preservation, particularly Policy LM8"Build into our green space planning measures to adapt to, and mitigate, the effects of climatechange; including trees for shade, drought resistant planting and water storage" and LM9 "Adoptsustainability targets in the management of Bristol's parks and green spaces" and LM10 "Manageand plant more trees to improve distribution across the city, and advocate the importance of treesin adapting to climate change."5. Willows soak up water and help stabilise the riverbank and assist in reducing flooding.

This is a bit drastic to be removing trees just to remove a mast.This is a conservation area and I am sure these tree assist on the wet days with soakingup some of the rain water which would just sit on the ground if they were not there.We should be planting more trees not removing them!

I strongly object to the removal of the willow trees in Sea Mills.

The reasons given for removal are frankly laughable (told to local media): " leaves falling on thepitches" and one of the trees is "leaning".

We have a duty to keep and protect all healthy trees, wherever possible. There is no reasonablejustification for removing these trees.

The club should also be aware that removing trees increases the speed and amount of water thatwill flood their land in inclement weather, which is becoming more common each year. 'Slow theflow' catchment management is vitally important.

I often walk in this area and the trees are a vital habitat for birds, bugs and more as etc.

Please put environmental protection ahead of no good reason to remove these trees.

No thought has been put into this application, absolutely no need to remove them.Conservation area, flooding risk area, this should be rejected, if anything more trees should beplanted here. Good location for BCC to fulfil their commitment to tree planting.

This is a favourite destination for a walk. The trees are beautiful and mask the sportsground and masts. They are important to prevent flooding, fix the soil and prevent pollution.Please do not fell them

This is proposal should be rejected.

The removal of trees in an urban area, especially in an area next to the portray should not beallowed.

By accepting that the trees should be removed here will not only degrade the air quality but it'llreduce the natural habitat. Every tree is important and plays it's part in supporting the localenvironment.

By removing trees because "they are no longer needed" is wrong. The trees are needed now morethan ever. By slowly felling trees in urban areas we will be creating more polluted and lesssustainable environments for us and our children.

To Whom is may concern

I am writing to express concern about the removal of tress stated above. This is due to theenvironmental benefit they offer with regards to wildlife cover, food as well as carbon storage.They will also help stabilise the river bank. I would urge caution before hasty removal.

Kind regards

Fergus

I live almost opposite these trees and they make a lovely background to the harbourand enhance the parkThe trees screen the football club from view, reduce the glare from the floodlighting and mufflesome of the noise.The also help to reduce the waterlogging that sometimes occurs after high tides.It is ridiculous to give as a reason for felling then that they shed leaves on some football pitches.Please stop this mindless vandalism and preserve the parkland as it is

I strongly object to the felling for no good reason of this line of visually-important Willowtrees which are owned by the City Council because they are growing on Council-owned land.

These Willow trees, about 15 in number, were required to be planted by a landscaping conditionplaced on the planning permission for a 15 m high Vodafone mobile phone mast developmentwhich was granted in 1997. This landscaping scheme was designed to help screen the mast andthe prominent Football Club buildings behind it from views from the banks of the river Trym andthe historic Sea Mills harbour which are a public open space well-used for walking and for theenjoyment of the area's natural beauty. The trees now screen two later phone masts andfloodlights from view from the public footpath along the adjoining north side of harbour (which ispart of the long-distance Severn Way) and from the public open space on the south side alongSea Mills Lane.

The Willow trees were chosen as an appropriate species for a river bank situation being, I believe,the native Salix fragilis trees. These trees are now over 20 years old and have grown to besignificant and attractive in the local scene, contributing to the appearance and character of theSea Mills harbour part of the Sea Mills Conservation Area. They have considerable public visualamenity value.

The reason given in the application form for the felling of these trees is "to facilitate the de-commissioning of the Mobile Mast site". However, the felling of the trees at the same time as anypossible future removal of the mobile mast site was never intended because the tree plantingscheme was required to be a permanent enhancement of the landscape. It was the 'planning gain'.But in fact the mobile mast site has already been de-commissioned and the mast removed. Sothere is absolutely no reason to fell these healthy and attractive trees.

The Council's 'Sea Mills Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals' sayson p 49

"Views within and across this area are partly spoiled by the mobile phone masts and floodlights(particularly at night) that surround the sports ground, as well as the out of character sportsbuildings." "Weaknesses : Lighting and masts associated with the sports ground detracting fromviews; sports buildings out of character and visually unattractive."

If the screening line of Willow trees was to be felled the two remaining phone masts and the Clubbuildings would be revealed to view from a wide part of this harbour area. This would harm theConservation Area and be contrary to the Council's Management Proposals for it.

The applicants say that they are not the owners of the trees and they do not know who is.However, since the trees are growing on City Council-owned land the Council owns the trees. TheCouncil's consent as owners is therefore needed for the felling of the trees. I urge the Council torefuse this consent, in accordance with the 'Character Appraisal and Management Proposals' forthe Conservation Area, and prevent the unjustified loss of these important trees.

Theres no reason to remove these healthy trees. The mast can be decommissionedwith them in place.

I live directly opposite this site and strenuously object to the felling of these trees thatmask the remaining phone masts and tower that they are fixed to.I see no reasonable argument for their removal, as they look healthy and still do the job that wasintended in hiding the remaining industrial hardware.Their removal would significantly (and negatively) affect our view and would spoil the rural aspectfor all who visit this historical site.

Bristol needs trees. They benefit the environment in numerous ways. Reduce pollution,prevent water run off, provide habitats for wild life. These particular trees are mainly healthy. Theyare lovely to look at and are an amenity to all locally. With minimum maintenance they remain anasset to the city in an area where traffic on the portly causes excessive pollution.

There seems to be no clear reason to remove these trees, and a lot of reasons to leavethem in place.

The proposal is for removal of willow trees to facilitate removal of a phone mast - however, themast has already been removed. The trees are apparently only to be removed as they wereinitially planted to screen the mast, and are no longer deemed necessary. These willows still fulfillmany other functions though and are highly valuable to the Sea Mills community. Removal wouldbe a waste of mature native trees, which overall we need many more of, not less. Trees improveair quality and capture carbon. They provide shade and habitat for wildlife. These trees inparticular provide protection of the adjacent harbourside path (well-used by runners and dog-walkers), sheltering it from the elements, absorbing water and stabilising the soil. They absorbnoise and pollution from the Portway running directly past. Viewed from the historic Sea Millsharbour, they screen the remaining phone masts and the football club. The cost of maintenanceshould be considered against all of these benefits.

Trees make places much better, and I hope that these trees can stay where they have beengrowing for over two decades now.

It seems unnecessary to remove the trees when the mobile mast is no longer thereanyway. Trees take years to grow so even if you planted new ones in their place elsewhere theenvironmental benefits would not be enjoyed for years. Please consider the environmental benefitbefore taking down trees unnecessarily.

Hi,

On the face of it this seems way over the top in order to dismantle/demolish some infrastructure.The trees shield some of the brutally ugly football stands and instead of cutting these down surelythey should be planting more to shield the rest of the view. Over the years the quality of theenvironment near the harbour has been significantly degraded with masts, stands, hoardings andthis will do nothing to improve it. Can't believe you have to cut them down to do the work - itprobably just makes it a bit easier and is the cheapest option. No thanks.

Regards

Trevor Kingston

Dear Sir/Madam, I object in the strongest terms the plan to chop down these trees. Weare in the middle of a climate crisis and retention of fully grown trees is vital to our survival.Everyone seems to think 'it is just a few trees' but all the trees matter. It takes decades for saplingsto absorb the amount of carbon dioxide that these trees absorb and by chopping them down youplace animal life on this planet at greater risk. All to take something down which, frankly, is not apriority for our survival.Yours sincerely, Simon Baines

These trees should not be removed - there's no point as the phone mast is no longerthere ; the trees screen the view of the football field from the harbour, which is a well used localwalking spot. It's an area that often floods so it needs trees to absorb the water. The trees alsoabsorb pollution from the Portway. They've been there for a significant length of time and are partof the landscape.

I find it incredulous that I have to write an objection to the felling of these trees based onthe argument that a football club do not like leaves on their pitch. Build leaf picking up into yourwarm-up exercises - for goodness sake think laterally. These trees have more rights to be on thisplanet that we do and contribute more to the local environment than any of us. They are habitatsfor birds and animals, stability for land, filtration for vehicle pollution, absorbers of water fromweather and tides plus visual screens for human-made ugly structures. On a piece of landsurrounded by National Trust land, Avon Wildlife Trust protected land, the historic port of Abonaand the beautiful River Avon this application is shameful. At this time we need to protect our planetand our natural habitats more than ever.

I find it incredulous that I have to write an objection to the felling of these trees based onthe argument that a football club do not like leaves on their pitch. Build leaf picking up into yourwarm-up exercises - for goodness sake think laterally. These trees have more rights to be on thisplanet that we do and contribute more to the local environment than any of us. They are habitatsfor birds and animals, stability for land, filtration for vehicle pollution, absorbers of water fromweather and tides plus visual screens for human-made ugly structures. On a piece of landsurrounded by National Trust land, Avon Wildlife Trust protected land, the historic port of Abonaand the beautiful River Avon this application is shameful. At this time we need to protect our planetand our natural habitats more than ever.

I do not agree with cutting down these willows and do not see why it is required. Themobile mast was put up without felling the trees It should therefore be possible to take it downwithout affecting them. Apart from the visual impact of the trees they are very important in cuttingdown the pollution and noise from the Portway.

Trees are vital for wild life and climate change and we need more of them not less.

.

These trees contribute greatly to the visual appeal of the old Sea Mills harbour area. Iwalk there regularly and would be sad and disappointed if they were to be removed for such ashort-term reason. The proposed site works must be possible without destroying the trees, after allthe phone mast was installed and erected while the trees were in place. If the trees were to befelled there is no guarantee that they would be replaced and even if such a guarantee were inplace it would take decades for any new trees to grow to the height of the current ones. So please,leave the trees alone and work around them carefully so they are not damaged.

I strongly object to the felling of the willow trees which screen the football club oppositeand enhance the old Sea Mills Harbour. It also shields the harbour area from the Portway which isa very pleasant place to walk

The willows partially screen the view of the football club from the harbour at the mouth of the Trymwhich is a popular walking spot and wildlife corridor.

The footpath between the willows and the Trym is often sodden with water and this would bemade worse by the removal of the trees. The trees also help to stabilise the river bank and protectthe walls of the historically significant harbour.As a community we should be planting more trees and not felling them unless really necessary.The mast to be decommissioned seems to have already gone so what is the real purpose of thisfelling?

I do not agree with cutting down these willows and do not see why it is required. Themobile mast was put up without felling the trees It should therefore be possible to take it downwithout affecting them. Apart from the visual impact of the trees they are very important in cuttingdown the pollution and noise from the Portway.

Trees are vital for wild life and climate change and we need more of them not less.

.

In 2015, Bristol became the UKs first ever European Green Capital 'in recognition ofwhat its citizens have already achieved in making our city a healthier, happier place to live in'.

In November 2018, the City Councillors and Mayor declared a Climate Emergency.

In January 2019, the Once City Plan was launched and endorsed by Mayor Marvin Reese in aneffort to create a fair, healthy and sustainable city.

In February 2020 earlier this year we have had climate activist Greta Thunberg visit Bristol andspeak on College Green, right outside Bristol City Council itself about the importance the actionwe need to take on global warming. (Positively received and endorsed by BCC by the way).

What BCC does is meaningless if you don't actually do it.There is a reason why we have Extinction Rebellion protesting throughout the city raising theirvoices this weekend. It is exactly for the absurd reasons BCC wants to cut these trees down.

In a place where they are surrounded by National Trust land and Avon Wildlife Trust protectedland ... where they provide habitats for birds, insects and animals, help clean our air of toxins andhelp stabilise the riverbank.

Losing a few trees right now might not sound like much, but those trees in years to come will beincredibly important.

Is it not time that BCC stands by its very own Climate Emergency Action Plan?

In 2015, Bristol became the UKs first ever European Green Capital 'in recognition ofwhat its citizens have already achieved in making our city a healthier, happier place to live in'.

In November 2018, the City Councillors and Mayor declared a Climate Emergency.

In January 2019, the Once City Plan was launched and endorsed by Mayor Marvin Reese in aneffort to create a fair, healthy and sustainable city.

In February 2020 earlier this year we have had climate activist Greta Thunberg visit Bristol andspeak on College Green, right outside Bristol City Council itself about the importance the actionwe need to take on global warming. (Positively received and endorsed by BCC by the way).

What BCC does is meaningless if you don't actually do it.There is a reason why we have Extinction Rebellion protesting throughout the city raising theirvoices this weekend. It is exactly for the absurd reasons BCC wants to cut these trees down.

In a place where they are surrounded by National Trust land and Avon Wildlife Trust protectedland ... where they provide habitats for birds, insects and animals, help clean our air of toxins andhelp stabilise the riverbank.

Losing a few trees right now might not sound like much, but those trees in years to come will beincredibly important.

Is it not time that BCC stands by its very own Climate Emergency Action Plan?

Application reference: 20/03328/VC

Details: Willows to fell line to facilitate the decommissioning of the mobile mast site/Manor FarmAfc, Portway, Bristol, BS9 2HS

As well as being local residents, we are both also members of the Stoke Bishop Residents'Planning Group, established some years ago by the Stoke Bishop Ward Neighbourhood Forum tomonitor local planning applications, and make responses to the City Council, on its behalf.Recently, the ward's boundaries and the Forum have expanded, but it is no longer meetingbecause of COVID. Nevertheless, the Group has maintained its watching brief as previously,including of this application to fell willow trees to allow the removal of a mobile phone mast.

Following a site visit to the southern aspect of the site by the Portway viaduct, and discussionamong our Group's members, we wish to object to this application. From this viewpoint it is notimmediately clear where the relevant mast lies amongst the 13 or so trees and the footballfloodlights of the site. Which of them (some? all?) are to disappear were the application to beapproved is also unclear, given the minimalist 'details' provided by the Applicant in Section 5. Thisalso fails to offer evidence of why any felling at all is necessary. Yet leaving a rump of themunfelled would be very unattractive and removing them completely an act of vandalism.

As they stand, they are a substantial and positive landscape feature, adding height and contrast tothe flat floodplain of the Avon, and providing a welcome visual shield from the station, allotmentsand local houses of Sea Mills Lane against the football ground's unattractive structures beyond.They also make a contribution to the City's drive to reduce traffic-generated air pollution, given

their proximity to the Portway, and obviously contribute positively to its green and sustainabilitypolicy priorities more generally.

The Tree Forum's response, already on the City's planningonline portal, puts the case here veryclearly and with authority, and we wish to endorse their comments to reinforce our own, as above.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Kate and Tony Hoare

In 2015, Bristol became the UKs first ever European Green Capital 'in recognition ofwhat its citizens have already achieved in making our city a healthier, happier place to live in'.

In November 2018, the City Councillors and Mayor declared a Climate Emergency.

In January 2019, the Once City Plan was launched and endorsed by Mayor Marvin Reese in aneffort to create a fair, healthy and sustainable city.

In February 2020 earlier this year we have had climate activist Greta Thunberg visit Bristol andspeak on College Green, right outside Bristol City Council itself about the importance the actionwe need to take on global warming. (Positively received and endorsed by BCC by the way).

What BCC does is meaningless if you don't actually do it.There is a reason why we have Extinction Rebellion protesting throughout the city raising theirvoices this weekend. It is exactly for the absurd reasons BCC wants to cut these trees down.

In a place where they are surrounded by National Trust land and Avon Wildlife Trust protectedland ... where they provide habitats for birds, insects and animals, help clean our air of toxins andhelp stabilise the riverbank.

Losing a few trees right now might not sound like much, but those trees in years to come will beincredibly important.

Is it not time that BCC stands by its very own Climate Emergency Action Plan?

This is gratuitous vandalism by a lazy contractor. They should find another way todecommission the mast or perhaps just leave it alone.

These trees stabilise the river bank and have a high amenity value for wildlife as well as providingvisual screening of the unattractive buildings behind.

In any case surely only a single tree would need pruning or felling if access is to be organised fromthe river bank. But why can't it be organised from the sports pitch side? A bit of re-sowing of grassis trivial compared to distraction of fine trees.

This application should be rejected.

The proposal wording :'Willows tFell line....' is gibberish and is meaningless. Request BCC to modify the wording to Plain English standards. If the meaning of the intended proposal is to fell a line of willows it behoves BCC to state the reasons which justify the removal of mature trees.

This is one of three separate applications at the moment in this area for felling ormassively chopping mature healthy trees. We are being assailed on all sides: Westbury, StokeBishop and now in Sea Mills.I see that the APPLICANT for felling the line of willows in the present application is fromSTAFFORDSHIRE. So there is no extensive local knowledge there presumably. On their websitethere seems to be pride in their expertise for environmental cleaning, gritting, landscaping, weedcontrol, and tree management. One would hope that they could have advised the Club that thesewillow trees are important in helping to stabilise the river bank that is regularly inundated by thetide; not least is the fact that they provide a beautiful screen against an ugly mast and some veryutilitarian buildings. The environmental and health benefits of these trees are obvious.The application form states that the owner of the trees is unknown. This cannot be true as the landon which they stand belongs to BCC. The application form also states that the work comprises 'theline of willows', but no detailed information is provided. So we have to assume that the proposal isto cut down all the willows when, according to the aerial photo provided by the Bristol Tree Forum,there is 'an accessway to the offending mast that is clearly visible'. It must be possible to deviseanother way to demolish the mast and preserve the ambiance of this area; the companythemselves have in fact acknowledged on the application form that the trees are in a conservationarea. Surely this must mean that they are to be preserved at all costs other than for safety which isnot an issue here.I urge BCC and its tree officers to reject this application.

Stoke Bishop Local History Group objects to this proposal

Sea Mills Harbour is an important historic site.These willow trees screen the Football Club buildings from the Sea Mills historic harbour which isreferred to as 'the Creek' in the application map. In fact this is Sea Mills Harbour, an important site.Not only was it the Roman Port, Abona but also it was only the third 'wet' dock in the country. Thishappened in the early 1700s when the (listed) lock wall was built across the harbour entrance.Further well-built harbour walls can be seen among the mud and reeds on the north side of theharbour near the footpath beside the willows. The line willows provide a partial screen to hide thebuildings of Manor Farm AFC and enhance the view of this historic site. Instead of felling, couldthe line of trees be extended as far as the railway track?

Do the trees need to be felled?Does a line of trees really need to be felled to 'facilitate the de-commissioning of the Mobile Mastsite'? The mast itself has already been removed. Why does the site have to be further'decommissioned'? Can the site not be left as it is? Trees should be preserved where possible andmore planted.

The Bristol City Council is proud of its Green credentials and well aware of how trees improve theamenity of any area - environmental benefits to birds and insects, air quality, noise mitigation,sense of well being etc.

Please can this line of willows along a popular foot path to the River Avon be kept and any ailingones replaced.

Why do we have to lose some beautiful trees? Surely the work can be done withoutfelling trees that are established and part of the lovely landscape.

The many reasons not to fell these trees/ grant this application are as follows;1. This area is an historic site. As such all and any steps should be taken to preserve it as itstands, and2. BCC should stand by it's green credentials and not fell trees unnecessarily which it is doing inthis case, and3. The mast in question is no longer in situ, and4. It is not proven that any other remaining equipment (excluding the mast) requiresdecommissioning (that there is any benefit in doing so.5. There is no public record of BCC making any attempt to look at less destructive means ofachieving the same end

I strongly object to the felling of the willow trees which screen the football club oppositeand enhance the old Sea Mills Harbour. It also shields the harbour area from the Portway which isa very pleasant place to walk.

I strongly object to the felling of the willow trees which screen the football club oppositefor the purpose of mast decommissioning.The trees appear to predate the mast, and now that it has outlived its useful purpose there seemsto be no reason to remove the trees just to save money on the mast removal process.These trees help stabilise the soil along Sea Mills Harbour and form part of the natural landscape.As a regular user of the adjacent footpath these trees enhance the area and make it a morepleasant place to walk.The trees seem to be on Bristol City Council land and it would harm the 'green credentials' of thecouncil for mature trees to be removed unnecessarily.

The idea that a group of healthy, mature trees which add visually, environmentally andin terms of mental and physical health should be axed to make the removal of a mast moreconvenient is absurd. Isn't the council committed to protecting Bristol's trees? Isn't it committed tomaximising capacity to remove greenhouse gases from the air? Ditch the mast but keep the trees!

There seems to be no operational reason for felling these trees just to decommission amast, which is not shown on the application site plan anyway, and does not appear to be near thetrees.

The trees shield and screen from Sea Mills Harbour a football ground with an ugly perimeter fenceand commercial buildings and flood-lights.

The trees also form a screen and noise barrier from the busy Portway trunk road for the adjacentpublic amenity area and historically important Sea Mills Harbour.

The riverbank of the River Trym, which is tidal, could also be destabilized by the removal of thesetrees.

The trees are a visually attractive amenity as a backdrop to the view from the public open spaceacross Sea Mills Harbour and should be preserved..

I am writing to submit the Society's objection to this application on the following grounds.1. The applicants do not appear to have submitted any justification for their proposed action. Therefore, the application should be summarily dismissed.2. The Willow Trees are in an appropriate location. The species stabilises river banks and protects the shore line. With rising tides and water levels this factor provides an important benefit to this historic location owned by Bristol City Council.3. Willow Trees (Salix species) also offer benefit to our local fauna and particularlyinvertebrate species that are under considerable threat at the current time. Hymenoptera (Bees, etc.) benefit from the food the Willows provide as do Coleoptera species (Beetles) and Lepidoptera (Butterflies and Moths). These species in turn support birds and bats.4. The food and shelter provided by these trees is a vital resource and should not be sacrificed to the whim of a lazy mobile 'phone company who are taking the easy route for no good reason and ignoring the ecological crisis that Bristol City Council is trying to address.5. The Willows also offer potential nesting sites to local birds.6. The Willows store carbon dioxide and release oxygen.7. At a time when the City Council has declared an 'Ecological Emergency' it would be wanton, ecological vandalism to allow the destruction of a useful line of healthy Willows that offer protection to the shoreline and so many other benefits to our local wildlife.8. In addition, the Willows add an aesthetic value to a conservation area with a patchwork of differing tree species that offers ecological variety and very specific worth within our natural capital.9. There is also an accessible route through to the mast without the need for any destruction of trees and the Willows appear to pre-date the mast.10. These trees should be protected by a Group or Woodland Preservation Order and

the application to remove them denied. At a time when Bristol City Council is taking responsible action and seeking to double the number of trees and wildlife numbers in the City in connection with Climate Change and the Ecological Crisis, I write on behalf of the Society, to request that this application is denied.

Yours faithfully,

Lesley Cox(Hon. Sec. Bristol Naturalists' Society)

I do not agree with the felling of these trees and oppose it. Trees are very important interms of assisting with environmental pollution from the busy Portway and Sea Mills Station.Bristol should not be felling trees full stop. We are one of the most polluted cities in the UK. Thefelling of these trees would also be detrimental of wildlife habitat particularly birds. The trees areplanted on a flood plain and this assists with reducing the impact of high tides. Aside from thesecritical issues they are also very aesthetically pleasing. There is no just reason to fell these treesand I ask that you do not do it.

BCC boasts its green credentials has committed to making the city carbon neutral.Felling healthy mature trees is NOT compatible with this. We need to be planting more trees notfelling those we have. I am a member of a local group who regularly clear litter from in and aroundthe river Trym, and we have a longer term aim to improve planting and native vegetation along theriver. I urge you to refuse permission for the felling of these trees.

As the Vodafone Mast is no longer there, there is now no need to remove the trees(originally planted to disguise the Mast).Removal of dead trees yes but not to remove healthy trees.We do need more trees to support the environment and to work towards reducing carbonemissions, so removing existing healthy trees defeats BCC Objectives.

We should not be removing trees, but increasing their numbers to aid with pollution andclimate change.

Trees are very important nowadays for the echo system of planet earth.It is madness to fall these ready established trees.

These trees partially remove the view of the football club from the harbour which is apopular walking spot and is great for wildlife.

The footpath where the the trees are is often flooded from the water levels, which would be madeworse by their removal.

The habitat they provide for is large, and they are mature trees. Given the current stance aroundclimate change, I am amazed that the council is even entertaining this idea!

I don't see a clear and valid reason here as to why these willows have to be destroyed.At this time, when BCC has declared a Climate Emergency, surely we should be valuing our treesand planting (many) more, not taking them down?

There must be another way to remove the mast; it feels like alternatives have not been explored inany way in this application.

Considering BCC are encouraging and indeed planting trees, I cannot understand theneed to remove mature trees and number of trees has not be stated, to remove a telecoms mast.Surely the applicant can find another way to remove the said mast and should be encouraged todo so.Therefore, I fully Object to this current application.

I can see no reason why these tress should be felled to allow for the removal of theradio mast. There is plenty of room to remove them from the football club.

It seems unnecessary to cut a lot of mature trees down to remove a telecommunicationsmast. I feel more explanation is needed and possibly other methods to remove the mast need tobe considered.

South Gloucestershire/North Bristol District Group of CPRE Avon and Bristol stronglyobjects to this application. The application itself is incomplete in that it fails to state how manytrees would be removed and there is no reference to the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard whichwould need to be applied in this case. Moreover no justification has been offered as to why thereis no alternative option for access to decommission the mast.However it is quite unacceptable that such a dominant line of trees should be felled when they aresuch a feature of the landscape in this Conservation Area and furthermore offer all the wellacknowledged benefits of such a group of mature trees to the wellbeing of the environment and ofhumans. The proposal is contrary to Policy BCS9: Green Infrastructure, which aims to protectGreen Infrastructure assets and DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure, inthat it would harm the urban landscape. The trees form a visual connection with the landscapebeyond on both sides of the Portway especially when viewed from the Portway itself. Loss of thetrees would open up the view into the Conservation Area and remove some of the screening of thebuildings on the football pitch site beyond. Willow also provides an excellent shelter belt andboosts biodiversity as it is the food plant for many caterpillars and a nectar plant for bees. Theresulting harm of the proposal to fell the trees therefore outweighs any benefit.

This is appalling and must not be allowed.This is an an important green space and the natural landscape should not be destroyed.

I object to the removal of perfectly healthy Willow trees growing in a natural type ofhabitat adjacent to water on the grounds that it is unnecessary to remove these to take down amast particularly in the light if BCC wishing to encourage the Planting of trees to lessen the spreadof air pollution as well as the visual effect from both the river and the land.

There seems to be a lot of confusion over this application. The trees were planted toscreen a Vodafone 'phone mast, however, I understand that the mast has already been removedand the deal with Vodafone was that they would also remove the trees because they are no longerneeded!!! Accordingly, the planning application is, to say the least, being economical with the truth.

Nonetheless, even if my information is incorrect, in view of the climate crisis, we should bepreserving trees and planting new ones, not to speak of the enormous value of trees to people'shealth, both physical and mental. Also, it seems to be rather over the top to destroy mature treesin order remove a 'phone mast.

In an area that is regularly flooded, I'd suggest the trees in this area provide stability tothe bank and help prevent worse damage when the area is inundated with water - willows are wellknown for their water retention properties and I'd query if this is why they were planted in the firstplace. The trees are fairly mature and would take a considerable time to re-grow. They provide awind break for the players using the sports club facilities and they also provide a barrier (bothaudibly and visually) to the residents living around the Sea Mills station when the sports facilitiesand bright spot lights are being used. I understand access could be made through the sportsfacility instead and those grounds subsequently restored without impacting the local flora andfauna, providing economical benefit to the company engaged to do this work and at presumablyno great financial penalty to the sports facility who are no doubt operating at vastly reducedcapacity due to the pandemic.

The applicant does not explain why it is necessary to remove these trees to carry outthe removal of the mast.The trees appear to belong to BCC.BCC should be encouraging the growing and preservation of trees.The trees provide useful screening, absorb water on a particularly wet site, help stabilize theharbour/riverbank and provide a wildlife habitat.Fully object.

This is an area of outstanding beauty and lot of people enjoy this area for walks which isgood for wellbeing.

The trees help stabilise the river bank and without them the adjacent path would be even moremuddy and dangerous.

I was deeply saddened to see that BCC are considering felling these trees. Surely in aclimate emergency we should not be felling mature trees in a wanton manner like this? They aregood for the environment/air quality, wildlife, and also help to drain (being Willows) an area that isvery susceptible to waterlogging and help prevent the accompanying de-stabilisation of thesurrounding banks/area. The trees also shelter the houses at the harbour to some degree fromnoise from the sports ground behind them. I, as a resident of Sea Mills would be very sorry to seethem go, and urge the Council to consider this matter extremely seriously, to lose them would bevery detrimental to the area, aesthtically and envronmentally.

As far as I know the mast has already been removed. Please do not remove the treesthey are valuable to nature, to support the bank and discourage erosion and to help us all breathe.Many thanks

Extremely disappointed to hear about the plan to fell these willows in order to remove amobile phone mast.The willows partially screen the view of the football club from the harbour which is a popularwalking spot and is also used frequently by local wildlife.The footpath between the willows and the Trym is often extremely muddy and this would be madeworse by the removal of the trees. The trees also help to stabilise the river bank and protectthe walls of the historically significant harbour.

Looking at the proposal, removing a phone mast by felling 2 or more mature willowsseems a very extreme and totally unnecessary action.

Clearly the willows existed when the mast(s) were put in place so there must be a way to removethem without felling mature trees!

I am sure you are aware of all the reasons why felling healthy trees unnecessarily should bestopped at all costs. I will name but a few- We live in a time of climate emergency and every ounce of carbon that trees can help us take outof the air is vital to stop a climate catastrophe from happening.- They provide vital support to wildlife such a birds and insects.- They stabilise the river bank- These trees provide mental health support - I enjoy looking at them every time I walk along theTrym

Surely another method can be used to remove the mast(s)?

I feel this is a bit drastic to be removing trees just to remove a mast. This is a conservation area and I am sure these tree assist on the wet days with soaking up some of the rain water which would just sit on the ground if they were not their. I regularly use this field along with lots of others and feel removing these trees would add to the noise level which is already not pleasant. We should be planting more trees not removing them so that mans job can be easier.

Im saddened to read that a whole line of willow trees " needs" to be chopped down in order to facilitate the removal of a phone mast.In these conservation-sensitive times when the science informs us that trees are both a CO2 sinker as well as oxygen-giver, not to mention all their other amazing and life-giving attributes.... can't you find a less destructive way to get rid of the mast?

For the wildlife that depends on them , and the pleasure they give to the many who walk that way, and the screening of uglier human construction there, PLEASE reconsider your proposed drastic action.There must be another way - save our trees!!!

Thank you.

Trees should be left and worked around. Especially at this sensitive time.

Willow trees help stabilise the river bank and are also visually pleasing and part of the natural aspect of the river Bank. There must be alternative ways of doing the work being considered that would not remove a natural resource. These alternative methods must be considered - the possible increased cost will be small compared to th cost of replacing trees of the same size and age at th site which should be demanded

Surely it is better and possible to do the work without felling the trees. Is there an alternative agenda for the applicant. What about all the wildlife and erosion of the riverbank. These issues need to be weighed against the cost and convenience of removing the mast and trees or just the mast.

This line of trees provides cover for the football ground, enhances the surrounding area and provides stability for the river bank.

Removing these trees would destabilise the river bank and ruin the area

Is it really necessary to remove all the trees to remove the mast?

As a frequent "on foot " visitor to this area the destruction of the willows on mass would seem excessive in the extreme! The trees stabilise the bank and without them the ground would fall away and become muddier than it does now. It would seem unnecessary to remove all these beautiful trees to assist in removal of a mast. Were the trees there when the mast was erected? If so - leave the trees alone! They're great for the environment and our mental health. Please do not destroy these trees.

I would like to comment about the application to fell a line of Willows in Sea Mills. Application Reference: 20/03328/VCI feel this is an excessive action to decommission one mast. In fact, on inspection of the area there is NO mast situated amongst these trees. The closest mast is at one end of the football pitch some distance from the row of trees and I cannot understand why, with modern technology and lifting gear, any of the trees need to be removed for this job. The trees are in a conservation area by the river and add to the value of the public amenity. Trees take a long time to grow and so the cutting down of these trees will remove an amenity which has been in existence for many years. They will take many years to replace to their present glory.The trees are by the river and must be a vital part of water retention and drainage for the surrounding area. The path by the river under the trees is often wet and will most probably be wetter and more frequently impassable if these trees go. I would assume too, that the football pitch will notice an increase in standing water if the trees are removed.The trees are on the riverbank and their roots undoubtably contribute to the stability of the river edge and are a factor which prevents erosion. They could also help with the retention of the bank supporting the Portway roadThere are not many trees in this area and so removing them will destroy a vital habitat for birds and animals. In an age when we are considering the importance of conserving wildlife the destruction of these trees seems completely inappropriate. Also we all know the vital role trees play in removing carbon dioxide and as the local and national government move towards zero emissions, the removal of these trees will have a negative consequence on this target particularly where they stand, close to the Portway.Taking the above comments into consideration I would suggest that these threes are not felled but an alternative method is found for the decommissioning of the mast which

is some distance from them.

Removing these trees seems an extreme solution. They help stabilise the river bank and are important to wildlife and human well being.

Growing up around seamills and enjoying the walk along there I would be sad to see the willows go as it's taking away a part of the natural beauty all because of a old mast tower, it's. Why can't they take it from the foot ball Field side like they did when they first installed it? Don't ruin the beauty of seamills all for the sake of a football pitch when that is the easier option n isn't damaging nature

In this time of enhanced conservation why on earth are these trees being felled?Perhaps to facilitate an easier option for the contractors than access via the football club and thus a less expensive outlay?This would seem to be a totally unnecessary route to the said mobile mast and access should be considered via the football club!In the ridiculous scenario that common sense fails, are there plans to re-plant trees to replace the felled ones? Has this cost also been included in the scheme?I object in the strongest terms.

Willow trees are nowhere near the mast so no reason to remove themWillow trees are particularly good to counter climate change and removing these trees would be contrary to Bristol City Councils commitment to reduce climate changeWillow trees also reduce soil erosion , maintain water retention. especially during unseasonably low rainfall periods as we have seen recently These trees also provide nectar for many insects and shelter for birds and local wildlife I object to their removal as this will be detrimental to the local and broader environment

This mast Can be decommissioned Without removing the beloved Willow trees....which consolidate the bank and avoid subsidence...also they are an admires feature, particularly by the many who use the adjacent path.I was the lead volunteer for Bristol City Council's Green Bristol Treepips Project....teaching children and challenged young adults to plant trees, own them and preserve the environment.I was also a neighbourhood housing officer and liaison officer with BCC for 20 years and then an Arborist in charge of planting and nurturing Bristol 's street trees....Their removal may make the decommissioning slightly more awkward... but at What Cost!!!As Councillors you are charged with protecting our trees and environment NOT destroying them!!! Thankyou.

We are appalled to see an application has been made to fell a line of healthy willow trees at Manor farm AFS, They act as a windshield, they help frame a scenic area around roman Harbour and they add to Bristol's pledge to remain a "Green" City. It appears that there could possibly be an ulterior motive to fell the trees en masse as surely this cannot be justified on grounds of removing a mast?Please investigate further and protect our countryside.

The line of willows do not appear to block access to any masts. The willows instead appear to be a screening from the station and the football field and offer support to the riverbank There is no good reason is given for the felling of the willows

Felling these willows seems a very extreme and totally unnecessary action in order toremove a mobile phone mast.

The willows partially screen the view of the football club from the harbour at the mouth of the Trymwhich is a popular walking spot and wildlife corridor.

The footpath between the willows and the Trym is often sodden with water and this would bemade worse by the removal of the trees. The trees also help to stabilise the river bank and protectthe walls of the historically significant harbour.

Surely another method can be used to remove the mast(s) which does not necessitate thedestruction of these mature trees?

I cannot tell you how distressing this Application is. I am deeply shocked that there is noreason given on the Application for the felling of a whole line of Willow trees - other than to removea Mobile Signal mast that is in the grounds of a football club.

The setting: What is called "The Creek" on the plan submitted by the Applicant is in fact the mouthof the River Trym where it joins the River Avon. Any student of the history of Bristol should know ofthe importance of this site in English and local history. It was a Roman port - Portus Abonae -second only to London in importance in Roman times. Then in 1712 a wet dock was built here byJoshua Franklin, a Bristol Merchant, when the ships had grown too large to navigate the Avon.Roman remains are still visible on the Portway at the junction with Roman Way (!) and remains ofthe 18th Century harbour walls can still be seen at low tide across the River Trym, in the areabetween the A4 bridge and the Railway Bridge. This area, rightly, is a Conservation Area, andlinks with the Sea Mills Garden Suburb Conservation Area slightly further upstream.Trymside - the name for the large Open Green Space here - is an important area for recreation -walking, children playing, access to the footpaths alongside the River Avon, bird watching, etc.This area is often flooded at high tide. In fact, the waters can be deep and extensive at Spring andAutumn tides, and warnings are often given by Meteorologists as the nearby roads disappearunder water - even the railway bridge could be flooded.This line of Willow trees serves many purposes. Firstly, it is of its own right most attractive. I shallnot repeat here the whole list of the environmental and health benefits of trees. BCC Plannersmust know them by now, and developers should know them. One benefit stands out here morethan the others, and that is that the trees stabilise the river bank. The Willows grow very close tothe western/right bank of the river. Indeed the water today, when I went to visit, was over thefootpath which was thus impassable - and it was an "ordinary" high tide.BCC has spent money in recent years planting Willow and Poplar trees along the banks of the

Trym in Trymside, the other side of the Portway from this line of Willows, in order to stabilise thebanks. As sea levels rise we are going to see more flooding here, and there is dense urbandevelopment on both sides of the river.The trees act as a screen. The buildings of the Manor Farm Football Club are not attractive - Ithink even the management of the club might agree with that. Also there are TWO mobile phonemasts, not one. I am not a NIMBY but one has to admit that if one does not have to see a mobilephone mast adjacent to a beauty spot then that is for the good. If this line of trees was removed sothat one of the masts could be dismantled then the other mast - very tall and very ugly thing - andthe Club buildings would come into full view from the left/eastern bank of the river and would,frankly, ruin the ambience of that area. The light from the floodlights would pollute the recreationalarea alongside the river.In fact there are nothing but major disadvantages from the removal of these trees, as well as nogood reasons for removing them, just to dismantle a Mast which appears not to be near the trees.I did not trespass, and the footpath was under water, but it seemed to me that this Application canonly be to facilitate access by disturbing everything that is beautiful about Abona so as not to"damage" the Football Club property by providing access through that site. I am only guessing, butas I say, there is precious little detail provided in the Application Form.

There has to be another way to dismantle a Mast without this sacrifice and desecration. Please donot allow it. The consequences for the amenity of the immediate area are too awful tocontemplate.

Surely, in this day and age, a means of removing a telecoms mast could be devised that did notrequire the complete removal of a whole line of mature willow trees?

The Application Form states "line of willows" but does not state how many. However, one mustassume that "a line" is two or more trees.

Whilst the removal of the mast in itself is not objectionable, I urge the Planning Officer to liaise withthe Applicant to reach an accommodation whereby none of the willow trees have to be removed.