|Address||43 Old Sneed Road Bristol BS9 1ES
|Proposal||Proposed single storey side and rear extension and new 2.0 high wall to replace existing timber fence to Old Sneed Park and Mariners Drive boundaries.|
|Type||Full Planning (Householders)|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||02-11-20|
|Decision||GRANTED subject to condition(s)|
|BCC Planning Portal||on Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 0 Objectors: 5 Total: 5|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
I am neutral about the extension, but I object to the building of the wall around the garden because of its likely effect upon the many important trees.
This Application is to both build a side and rear extension to the house, and to replace the fence between Old Sneed Park and the Mariners Drive footpath with a wall. It has a /H suffix as a Householder Application, but this Application affects trees that have TPOs and trees that are in a Conservation Area even though they might not have TPOs, and I very much hope that the Planning Officer will seek an opinion from the Council's Tree Officer about the impact on the trees. I note that the Council's AO Mr Matthew Bennett has been made aware of the proposed work and I hope he will be asked to report for the Planning Portal.
Whilst a lot is said about the effect that the extensions might have on the several very important trees within a few metres of the extensions, I can find nothing said about the works that will be necessary within the RPAs of 2 Local Authority owned trees and 3 TPO trees in the garden of No 43 during the building of the garden wall to replace the fence - which presumably will require foundations to be dug and then concrete poured in. If the two trees on the verge of the road were not owned by the Local Authority it is likely that they would be subjects of a TPO. But they are within the Conservation Area.
This is an attractive wooded area. The importance provided by the amenity of the trees is evidenced by the numerous TPOs deservedly placed on the several trees in this "woodland". TPOs 198, 697,1303,1412,1386, as well as the TPO 633 mentioned under "constraints".
These 5 trees must be at risk from the digging of the foundations and the toxins in concrete so close to their trunks well within their Root Protection Areas, and yet this has not been mentioned.
It has been stated that, because hard standing is already within the RPAs of the trees, and this will not be disturbed by the works; and as the extensions are to be timber framed "Subsequently the only excavation necessary will be holes to fix the uprights for the timber structure". But I challenge this. What about the wall which is to be built between the side extension and the two LA trees outside the garden, and within the RPAs of the 3 TPO trees in the back garden?
There is no mention of hand digging for that lengthy trench nor of the avoidance of chemicals toxic for tree roots being used as foundations.
If this is true ".....the position of the side extension is within the calculated Root Protection Area of the existing trees. Any excavation or soil compaction in this area could potentially lead to root severance or damage. This could subsequently lead to a reduction in the trees ability to take up water and nutrients, which may lead to a deterioration in the tree's health. The proposed extension will be timber framed construction supported on wooden upright fixed into the ground. The existing lean-to structure is constructed on wooden uprights, it is intended to replace these to form the framework for the new extension. If possible, the existing post holes will be utilised for the new uprights. If this is not possible new post holes will be excavated by hand in accordance with BS5937:2012. Existing hard surfacing covering the area will be retained, to protect underlying roots, and incorporated into the new extension. 7.2 The position of the side extension is within the calculated Root Protection Area of T03. Any excavation or soil compaction in this area could potentially lead to root severance or damage. The proposed extension will be timber framed construction supported on wooden upright fixed into the ground. Post holes for the new uprights will be excavated by hand in accordance with BS5937:2012. The existing hard surfaced patio, covering the area, will be retained to protect underlying roots and incorporated into the new extension......" then it must also be true that the wall is closer to the trunks of the two LA trees than the side of the side extension, affecting the more major roots of each nearby tree.
There is much merit in the effort that has been taken to consider the impact of the extensions upon the trees and their roots - but "What about the wall?"
Apart from this sentence in the Application Form "Proposed single storey side and rear extension and new 2.0 high wall to replace existing timber fence to Old Sneed Park and Mariners Drive boundaries" I can find no mention of, or consideration of the impact on the trees and their future health, caused by the works associated with the new boundary wall during its building and then its existence.