|Address||41 Stoke Hill Bristol BS9 1LQ
|Proposal||Ash - Fell. TPO 438.|
|Type||Tree Preservation Order|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||03-11-20|
|Decision||GRANTED subject to condition(s)|
|BCC Planning Portal||on Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 0 Objectors: 2 Unstated: 1 Total: 3|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
The applicant alleges that the tree should be felled because it has Ash Dieback, but has failed to provide written arboricultural advice or other diagnostic information from an appropriate expert as they are required to do - see section 4 of the application form.
TPO trees may only be felled if the reason for doing so falls within one or more of the exceptions set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 198 or the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012, section 14.
As no evidence has been presented to support any of these exceptions, the application must be refused.
|I do not object so much to the felling of this tree, if it has Ash Die-Back, as to the request that a replacement tree should not be required as per TPO regulation. The fact that this is in a Conservation Area should also hold some sway.
The BCC Tree Officer is the expert in this situation so can decide if it has the disease and, if it has, whether felling is necessary for public safety, which has been recommended as being the only reason to fell afflicted trees, as some Ash are resistant and some will recover, and their genes are required.
I am disappointed by the request that a TPO tree should not be replaced, in these days of a climate emergency. A newly planted tree will need 30+ years to replace the contribution to the environment currently supplied by this Ash.
Bristol is losing a great number of mature trees every year and they are not being replaced. The current deficit averages 380 trees per year. This is in a City with an aspiration to double tree canopy. It is never going to happen. Society requires that more attention is paid to tree loss.
There could be room on this site for a replacement tree, and the AO can recommend suitable species. Or a tree could be planted elsewhere if there really is no room on site - the planting of a tree does not have to be only because of regulation and enforcement. Very close to this house is a tree planted on public land paid for by someone who felled a tree in a garden, one that was damaging the house foundations. There was not room in the garden for a replacement tree of eventual comparative stature - so a similar tree was sponsored to be planted on public land instead. It is an option worth considering.