|Address||Land Adjacent To 24 Canford Lane Bristol
|Proposal||Application to vary condition 15 (list of approved drawings) and to remove conditions 4 (tree maintenance), 5 (large scale detail) and 11 (Implementation/installation of tree planting) attached to permission 18/01087/F, which approved the erection of 2 no. semi-detached dwellinghouses - now proposed amendment to refuse/recycling storage and cycle storage and approval of detail of boundary treatment.|
|Type||Variation/Deletion of a Condition|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||12-11-20|
|Decision||GRANTED subject to condition(s)|
|BCC Planning Portal||on Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 0 Objectors: 11 Total: 11|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
See also - https://bristoltrees.space/Planning/application/P4WRY5DNMRI00 - Erection of 2no. semi-detached dwelling houses on land adjacent to 24 Canford Lane, including soft and hard landscaping.
The tree history of this area of land in Canford Lane is a sorry tale indeed. Trees were removed a few years back to facilitate a development just when it became known that some of the trees along that side of the road - the ones not owned by the Council - were going to be made the subject of a TPO.
The tree that was supposed to be retained at the back of this development is the last substantial sized tree close to buildings in the High Street area/Centre of Westbury.
There is a Yew tree outside the ex-conveniences beyond Lloyds Bank, and two small trees on the traffic island, and one hanging on for dear life by Barclays Bank - but that is it.
It was the loss of trees that caused the residents heated objections when the land opposite No 29 Canford Lane was developed, and it was the probable/proposed loss of this tree that raised many objections to the development of this piece of land. So there was slight relief when it was made a condition that although the Sycamore would be lost there was to be a tree planted as a replacement in the same place. There were a few wry smiles when once again an "artist's impression" submitted with the planning application for this site showed a large healthy tree where the Sycamore was - yet it was known that the large tree was going to be felled and that it would take 30 years for the replacement tree to mitigate the environmental damage occasioned by the felling of the Sycamore, and look anything like the fancy drawing.
The Council's Tree Officer conditioned that a tree of some stature should be planted where the Sycamore had been.
11 "No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or the use commenced until the replacement tree has been planted and completed in accordance with approved plan reference 457.200 P7. The implementation of the scheme without replacement tree planting would result in an unacceptable scheme."
This latest application asks to remove this condition. Reading between the lines of the correspondence submitted with the Application, Council Officers have already agreed with this proposal! But don't forget that the Officers report with 18/01807 when consent was first granted (evidently not now) stated that without the tree this would result in "an unacceptable scheme".
The maintenance of this tree was conditioned as well 4 Tree maintenance Prior to the commencement of development a 5 year maintenance schedule for watering and aftercare of the 1.no Small leaved lime (Tilia cordata) as shown on the approved plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
Bristol's Planning Obligations contains the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard. This has been applied in the case of this development, and the developer has to provide 6 other trees off site in addition to replacing the Sycamore tree.
In a letter from the developer to the Council as part of this Application to vary conditions (i.e. NOT plant the tree on site) it is stated "All building works are now complete, and both of the approved dwellings are under offer. It transpired that a retaining wall was needed on the boundary due to plot level differences with the adjacent properties. As such, there is no longer sufficient space to accommodate both the approved refuse storage, the cycle storage, and the single tree required from original application to be planted. After liaising with the Council Planning Officer, we have made this variation of condition (S73) application to remove conditions 4 (Tree Maintenance), 11 (Implementation/Installation of Tree Planting) and to vary condition 14 (List of approved plans/drawings)."
So - they have made errors in the engineering of and design for this development and now have run out of space to plant a tree (the one that is shown in the artists' impression!) as well as accommodate the bins, and it is the tree that has to go. They now want permission not to plant the tree on the site. A situation which the BCC Officer originally stated was "unacceptable"?
As far as the residents are concerned it still is unacceptable.
The tree has gone. Go down and take a look at the site - look at the back right hand corner (facing the development with your back to the road). No tree - thus a loss of visual amenity and loss of benefit to the environment. Of course that does not matter; this is not a busy road and there are no buses on tick over nearby (irony).
Nobly the developer has offered to plant another tree elsewhere to make up for this blunder and the deficit produced by the gross failure, contrary to conditions to plant a tree on site.
But there is nowhere nearby to plant such a tree. Yes space can be found - there are currently 2 planting sites on Southfield Road, 7 sites on Falcondale Road (much needed, but if the road is widened the trees would be lost), and 4 sites on Abbey Road. None of these is in the centre of the Village, where this tree (eventually) would have been growing - providing some visual amenity in the Village and improving the environment. The other 6 compensatory trees that the developer has to provide can go into those other sites further away from the development!
So much for Policies BCS9, BCS 21 and DM 17. This tree "a prominent feature in the street scene" has gone, and should be replaced nearby regardless of the expense for the developer.
This is just too easy and too glib for the developer to say that he/she is prepared to pay for another "off-site" tree. That would be £765.21 but would not be near the development. They should have to pay for a large tree (no tiddlers please) to be planted in an engineered pit in the centre of Westbury, where the tree is needed (and where it has been lost and shouldn't have been), for its visual impact and environmental benefit and for the benefit of the mental health of the residents. The developer should bear that expense (after all there must be enough profit left after selling these two homes?) as a just and deserved penance for bringing about the chopping down, without replacement on site, as conditioned, of yet another of the few trees remaining near the centre of the village. If he/she had a conscience they might even offer?
We expect our Council to do better than just accept a replacement tree some distance away. In the Village is where it is needed. It could be a very dangerous precedent to allow this to happen. "Oops, I had to fell a large tree and could not replace it as conditioned. Never mind". Please do not permit this escape from conditions to the detriment of the Village of Westbury on Trym.