|Address||Land To The Rear Of Oakhill Mansions College Park Drive Bristol BS10 7QD
|Proposal||G1 - Various species, reduce back to boundary by 0.5-1m. TPO 1091/R|
|Type||Tree Preservation Order|
|BCC Planning Portal||BCC Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 0 Objectors: 0 Unstated: 2 Total: 2|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
This application is to cut back some trees which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Much of Sheepwood is protected by a Canopy Tree preservation Order, including the area relevant to this Application, and the same Order lists many of the significant trees in the immediate surrounding area.
I recognise this address from previous Applications made when the former Wesley College was being developed. I have made enquiries of some residents whom I know were involved in discussions about the development of the whole site. One of the "unfinished issues" as far as the local residents are concerned is "Who owns the trees in this woodland?
Reference to a document in an earlier Planning Application (19/02672/VP) would suggest that the land of the Sheepwood, as well as the land surrounding the now Oakhill Mansions, is still owned by the developers of the site Firmstone/Northover Development, unless there has been a transfer of ownership to say, a Management Company. I write this because the Applicant for this work is a resident of Blethwin Close and states in the Application Form that the ownership of the land, and hence the trees, is unknown. The Applicant in 2019 (19/02672/VP) was Firmstone Developments, owner of the trees.
Anyone can make a Planning Application to do work on trees, even TPO trees, but, if consent is granted, carrying out that work on the trees in question without the owner's consent is an offence. I am not an expert, but someone who is, said it was criminal damage.
The Application is 2019 was to "To remove large dead wood and broken limbs in Sheep's Wood on the boundary that may present a hazard to neighbouring properties on Didsbury Close, Ridgeway and Northover Road."
This Application is a bit different. It is "Various species, reduce back to boundary by 0.5-1m. TPO 1091/R". This suggests that this involves cutting living parts of more than one tree.
Council policy is not to trim trees it owns when the tree(s) overhang(s) boundaries (though it has to be said that the Council does not always apply this policy, even for TPO trees it owns!). The Council does not own these trees. Their policy for trees they do not own is not stated - presumably each case is treated on its merits.
I ask the AO only to permit the trimming of these trees solely if by doing so no damage is caused to the current state and form of the tree(s) and there is no likely effect on the long-term viability of the trees, as Form and Future Lifespan are both important criteria for maintaining a Tree Preservation Order.