It is difficult to sort this application out, with regard to the trees.With regard to the Arboricultural report submitted, it appears that some pre-application advice wastaken before the final report as submitted.My understanding of the documents on the Portal is that the arboriculturist does not think that thetrees on the site are worth saving. It seems that the Planning Dept of BCC is keen to see the treesretained and protected. The arboriculturist is sure that at least one or some canopies will have tobe trimmed/reduced/lifted to accommodate the development.In the event that all/some of the trees are removed, then there should be mitigation under theterms of the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard. I note that in the report a willingness to planttrees on a voluntary basis is expressed, but an obligation is always better, as it is enforceable. Thereport states that the trees are of such poor quality that they do not warrant replacement inmitigation. There could be an element of "they would say that, wouldn't they?" here, so it would bebetter that the Tree Officer assessed the quality of the trees if this has not already happened.Trees lost to facilitate development should be replaced. It is an obligation under Bristol's planningregulations, but it should, under today's climate conditions, be a matter of conscience as well, andmaybe that is what the arboriculturist is saying.I was interested to note, in the drawings submitted by the architects in the Heritage Statement, asplendid row of healthy green flourishing trees growing in the background of the house in theimage of the proposed build. If the original plan was to remove the trees, then the tree report andthe architects' fancy do not match.Please could the Tree Officer sort this out with the Planning Department - will the trees go or willthey stay? If they go - will there be mitigation under BTRS?

I am the owner of 15 Hadrian Close, Sea Mills, and my property is adjacent to theproposed previous planning application. This letter supersedes my communication in relation tothe previous planning application.I now give my qualified support to the application (20/04536/F) but wish to make the followingpoints.1. I am assured by the applicant that there will be no restriction of access to my property neither interms of my parking place in Hadrian Close, nor in relation to the shared access footway. I havesevere mobility issues and need access for my mobility scooter that I sometimes use, and cannotnegotiate building materials or machinery on the said shared footway.2. I wish to see the Leylandii that is one element of the boundary between my property andnumber 16, felled. These trees are a constant source of nuisance to me insofar as they dropdebris into my gutters, and onto my patio and lawn. I have had to employ help on four occasionsthis year to clear my property of thatch and general tree debris.3. I refer to your Conservation Area 21 document published in January 2011 that outlinesmanagement proposals for Sea Mills Conservation area that my property is located in (area 3).This document makes it very clear that boundary treatments that replace traditional features suchas privet hedges are classed as 'Negative Features'. A previous owner planted these Leylandii asa hedge but failed to manage them. A definition of 'Negative features' is given as "Elements withina locality that detract from its special character, which offer potential for beneficial change". It ismy contention that Leylandii that were only commercially available to the general public from the1960's are an aberration in this conservation area, (Para 9.55) and a landscape should beharmonious with nature, having the best possible outlook to their surroundings.4. Paragraph 7.1.5i in the same source states quite clearly that far reaching views are a vital

component in this conservation area. The Leylandii trees totally cut off views towards the Avonand North Somerset, though other vegetation on number 16's plot which is now overgrown, alsoare a factor. The much-quoted Raymond Unwin talks extensively about the need for a 'pleasantoutlook' as this provides quality and a sense of space. I dread to think what Unwin would sayabout low quality and severely damaged Leylandii (see recent arboricultural assessment)incongruously planted as a replacement hedge being allowed to survive and block out distantviews.5. No new planting of trees by the local authority in the Trym Valley include Leylandii. Planting is ofnative species as would be expected.6. This raises the question as to what I would see were the Leylandii to be felled and the proposeddevelopment at number 16 proceed. I opposed the previous plan as a two-storey dwelling wouldhave dominated my view and destroyed any distant view as outlined above. I am less concernedabout a single storey building, and have been reassured by the architect that its design wouldhave minimum impact on me. A replacement privet hedge (maintained at 2 meters) would softenits impact and restore the original style of boundary planting.7. I agree totally with the Archaeology Team suggestion that a survey of the site at number 16should take place. Abona is of international historical importance and I should not like to see anyevidence buried under the proposed development without evaluation.8. Mrs Avena Williams