This corner site on Stoke Hill/Stoke Park Road South is gradually being denuded oftrees.Lingchi - Death of a Thousand Cuts.First there was the building of a house adjacent to No 3 (now 3a) - Planning Application 11/02870.8 trees on the corner site were felled to enable that development to take place. There was somemitigation street tree planting locally (Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking) (by the way those treesare doing well, but it will be some time yet - maybe another 15/20 years - before they replace theenvironmental contribution made by the trees lost).Earlier this year there was Planning Application 20/02842. "T1: To crown lift Aspen to 5.5. metresover road and reduce by 1.5 metres all round. T2: To crown lift Cherry over road to 5.5 metres andreduce by 1.5 metres all round. T3: To remove Goat Willow. Really poor specimen, sever decay atbase and throughout main stems. T4: To pollard Goat Willow leaving a final height of 7 metres .T5: To remove dead wood from Goat Willow. Routine maintenance, health and safety."Permission was granted and it is probable from the wording of the Officer Report that there was nosite visit made by the Officer. He can correct me if I am wrong.This Application is to fell three trees - One of them, T3, a Goat Willow, is probably T5 in theapplication 20/02842.I too, as the other commentator, ask that on this occasion the Tree Officer does visit to determineif these fellings are required. Trees do not live forever - but this site will be completely bare soon.A survey of the trees carried out in 2018 for Planning Application 18/03855 gave life expectanciesfor the retained trees on site as at least 10 years and maybe 40 years (range varied with eachindividual tree). Yet here we are only 2 years later with a request to fell 3 of them. Were the treesadequately protected during the major rebuild? Concerns were raised by the public and by CouncilTree Officers as to whether retained tree protection measures for that build were adequate, andmodifications were made. Was that enough? Have trees been damaged and now lost? Should

there be mitigation, maybe off site, for the "2 years later" tree loss under the Bristol TreeReplacement Standard, as per the 2011 build?Might the tree loss applied for now be part of a further building development on the site, yet to bethe subject of an Application?I ask the Tree Officer to visit and consider these points. This further tree loss is a great sadness inwhat is after all a Conservation Area.

3a Stoke Hill is a relatively new in-fill development. The local community worked hard topreserve something of the character of the site given the corner location within the landscape aswell as noting the Conservation Area remit. Sadly the (then) owner did not uphold the (then)proposed block plan new planting under application 11/02870/F which was granted (eg prunustrees within the curtilage).Under application 11/02870/F there is an Aboricultural Assessment which I would request the TreeOfficer to consider against this application, bearing in mind that the granted Decision from 2011included conditions: "To protect the retained trees from damage during construction and inrecognition of the contribution which the retained tree(s) give(s) and will continue to give to theamenity of the area."Since 2011 ownership has changed and there have been further changes to various trees on siteduring that time, not least with new plantings to Stoke Hill and more recently some crown lifting,some of which currently appears quite brutal.So I would urge a visit by the Tree Officer in order to be clear that felling of two CA trees (Birchand Willow) are absolutely necessary. I would also point out the Holly is rooted into an area knownto be close to (within 2m) of Japanese Knotweed (still active in Spring/Summer 2020) and is not solarge as to be beyond judicious management alone.Finally since there are no indications for a variety of replacement trees specifically for the site,which would contribute to the local conservation area I therefore object to the application to fell.