Application Details

Reference 20/03351/VP
Address Woodland Court Bishops Knoll Bristol BS9 1NR  
Street View
Proposal T1 Holm Oak - Crown raise to 5m. TPO 056
Validated 24-07-20
Type Tree Preservation Order
Status Decided
Determination Deadline 18-09-20
Decision GRANTED
Decision Issued 08-10-20
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 1    Total: 1
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

 

This application is most distressing. It is to Crown Lift a TPO Holm Oak by 5 metres toenable improved and continuing vision from a CCTV camera. Put the wording of the Applicationanother way and it becomes " To prune a protected tree causing it distress such that a) thisthreatens its vitality and reduces its life span and b) risks the loss of its TPO status because itsform is spoiled, at the whim of Mankind, who could move his camera". I am bound to say "The treegot there first".Crown Lifting is pruning. Pruning should only ever be done for the benefit of a tree. This is evenmore true when the tree has a TPO - it is a Protected Tree in a Conservation Area. TPO 056 - T7in fact. What other levels of protection could there be? None should be necessary.TPOs are set to protect selected trees and woodland if their removal would have a significantnegative impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public. Pruning a tree can alsohave a significant impact on the amenity of an area. TPOs record trees of particular merit.

Crown lifting, if really necessary, should never exceed 1/3rd of the height of the tree and should bephased over a number of years to cause as little distress to the tree as possible.Pruning damages trees. It reduces their vitality because they then need to use water, and energy,to heal the wounds inflicted, at a time when their volume of foliage - which provides the energy -has been reduced by the pruning.The Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) is a scoring system for decidingwhether a tree deserves or merits a TPO. In the face of a Planning Application, say fordevelopment, a tree already with a TPO, like this one, needs to merit its continuance. Part of thescoring is an assessment as to whether the tree does or does not have a good form and remaininglongevity. If this Holm Oak undergoes this crown reduction it may well no longer have a correctform and a crown lift is likely of itself to reduce its longevity. Indeed a recent planning application(20/02457) to fell an Ash tree in a Conservation Area (Clifton, Bristol) was granted because the tree could not be "saved" in the only way possible under those circumstances, by being made thesubject of a TPO, one of the reasons being because, and I quote "The tree has been heavilycrown lifted in the past which detracts from the trees natural habit." Thus, because of previousheavy crown lifting the form of that tree in Clifton had been spoiled, and it did not merit thegranting of a TPO, and it is to be felled. We would not want that to happen to this tree to suit awhim when other things can be done, such as move the camera.

If it were a matter of public safety, and were a publicly owned camera run as part of a LocalAuthority/Police Safety Partnership, then the situation might be different, and one might thenconsider a Crown Reduction, retaining a strong framework of healthy small diameter brancheswhich could maintain the vitality of the tree. Some Local Authorities (Islington for example) havetree policies which state "the removal or the substantial pruning of trees to improve CCTV camerasightlines will not be considered" and that is for all trees, not just TPO trees.

But this Application is all about property protection, not public protection, and the tree is beingasked to pay the price with its appearance and possibly its life. We must show we care.We are being asked to pay the price by risking the future loss of amenity.Please do not sacrifice this tree, risking its current health, future existence and future protectedstatus to give a better view for a camera that is not there for safety. Expect the Applicant to findanother place for his security camera.

Public Comments

on 2020-08-14   OBJECT

This application is most distressing. It is to Crown Lift a TPO Holm Oak by 5 metres toenable improved and continuing vision from a CCTV camera. Put the wording of the Applicationanother way and it becomes " To prune a protected tree causing it distress such that a) thisthreatens its vitality and reduces its life span and b) risks the loss of its TPO status because itsform is spoiled, at the whim of Mankind, who could move his camera". I am bound to say "The treegot there first".Crown Lifting is pruning. Pruning should only ever be done for the benefit of a tree. This is evenmore true when the tree has a TPO - it is a Protected Tree in a Conservation Area. TPO 056 - T7in fact. What other levels of protection could there be? None should be necessary.TPOs are set to protect selected trees and woodland if their removal would have a significantnegative impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public. Pruning a tree can alsohave a significant impact on the amenity of an area. TPOs record trees of particular merit.

Crown lifting, if really necessary, should never exceed 1/3rd of the height of the tree and should bephased over a number of years to cause as little distress to the tree as possible.Pruning damages trees. It reduces their vitality because they then need to use water, and energy,to heal the wounds inflicted, at a time when their volume of foliage - which provides the energy -has been reduced by the pruning.The Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) is a scoring system for decidingwhether a tree deserves or merits a TPO. In the face of a Planning Application, say fordevelopment, a tree already with a TPO, like this one, needs to merit its continuance. Part of thescoring is an assessment as to whether the tree does or does not have a good form and remaininglongevity. If this Holm Oak undergoes this crown reduction it may well no longer have a correctform and a crown lift is likely of itself to reduce its longevity. Indeed a recent planning application(20/02457) to fell an Ash tree in a Conservation Area (Clifton, Bristol) was granted because the

tree could not be "saved" in the only way possible under those circumstances, by being made thesubject of a TPO, one of the reasons being because, and I quote "The tree has been heavilycrown lifted in the past which detracts from the trees natural habit." Thus, because of previousheavy crown lifting the form of that tree in Clifton had been spoiled, and it did not merit thegranting of a TPO, and it is to be felled. We would not want that to happen to this tree to suit awhim when other things can be done, such as move the camera.

If it were a matter of public safety, and were a publicly owned camera run as part of a LocalAuthority/Police Safety Partnership, then the situation might be different, and one might thenconsider a Crown Reduction, retaining a strong framework of healthy small diameter brancheswhich could maintain the vitality of the tree. Some Local Authorities (Islington for example) havetree policies which state "the removal or the substantial pruning of trees to improve CCTV camerasightlines will not be considered" and that is for all trees, not just TPO trees.

But this Application is all about property protection, not public protection, and the tree is beingasked to pay the price with its appearance and possibly its life. We must show we care.We are being asked to pay the price by risking the future loss of amenity.Please do not sacrifice this tree, risking its current health, future existence and future protectedstatus to give a better view for a camera that is not there for safety. Expect the Applicant to findanother place for his security camera.