The original Planning Permission was granted on condition that the developer would plant andmaintain a tree to replace the original TPO sycamore cut down to facilitate redevelopment of thissmall plot.

However, given that the houses have now been built and sold, it is now abundantly clear that thereisn't - and probably never was - any space for a replacement tree to be planted. Likewise, the "softlandscaping" proposed as an integral part of the original Application has now completelydisappeared without trace in the "as built" arrangement.

This Application, if granted, would set a very unwelcome precedent in as much that it would againgive developers carte blanche permission to reverse conditions that had been attached to originalApplications for very good and sound reasons.

I need hardly remind the Planning Officer that there was a condition applied to granting the originalapplication, viz: "No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or the use commenceduntil the replacement tree has been planted and completed in accordance with approved planreference 457.200 P7. The implementation of the scheme without replacement tree planting wouldresult in an unacceptable scheme."

Consequently, the developer should be held to account for his slip-shod and inaccurate designproposals which, apparently, hoodwinked the Planning Officer into granting approval for the

original Application. Irrespective of any additional costs to the developer, his serious errors ofprofessional judgement should be rectified to the satisfaction of local residents and the PlanningOfficer when considering whether or not this Application should be granted.

South Gloucestershire/North Bristol District of CPRE Avon and Bristol objects to theremoval of conditions 4 and 11 relating to tree planting and maintenance on the grounds that it isnot acceptable for the applicant merely to make a contribution towards a replacement tree in anunspecified location.It is clear that the condition was imposed when permission was granted for 18/01087/F because itwas considered that the implementation of the development without the planting of a replacementtree on site as specified would result in an unacceptable scheme. Moreover the Officer's reportstated "Some soft landscaping will be retained to the front, side and rear of the properties tolessen the visual impact of the new development." The photographs attached to application20/04637/COND to approve details relating to conditions 6 and 9 show that no such softlandscaping exists to the side or rear.Of course given that the houses have now been sold and that there isn't (and probably never was)space for a tree to be planted and reach maturity, let alone some soft landscaping, an "acceptablescheme" is presumably now impossible to achieve. Hence in order to to restore the tree's lostprominence in the street scene and its contribution to the character of the location and not least tothe environment, it should be incumbent on the applicant to make some restitution by paying in fullfor researching and determining a suitable nearby location (possibly opposite the site) and for theplanting and maintenance of a reasonably mature example of a suitable species.It would appear that there is currently a disastrous trend for either incompetent or deceptiveapplicants to make errors in calculations of the dimensions of their projects, or to disregard theexistence of important trees or vegetation. This allows schemes to go ahead which are laterdeemed unacceptable, but restitution is unenforceable. There are several recent clear examples of

this happening in the local and nearby area. The problem is confounded by a narrow interpretationof the NPPF's guidance on "sustainability" of locations by officers whereby high density is deemedacceptable but sustainability of the environment takes low priority. It is particularly problematicwhere sites are small and resulting developments are cramped. The current site is a classic case,it was too small for two dwellings where one cottage with suitable amenity space for residents,including a replacement tree, would probably have been acceptable. And no reduction in the levelof provision of urgently needed affordable housing in Bristol would have resulted.It is high time that in determining applications there is demonstrable adherence to the recentstatement by Bristol City Council in response to the consultation on the Government's White Paperon Planning for the Future that "Bristol has declared climate and ecological emergencies andthese inform our approach to sustainable development."

Comments for Planning Application 20/04903/X

In order to build two properties on a small plot of land on Canford Lane, Bristol, a very largesycamore tree (which was protected by a TPO) was cut down.

Our earlier objection to the original planning permission was that the land parcel would be bettersuited to the erection of a single dwelling-house, which would then also have space for a gardenarea on the plot. The artwork of the proposal provided was also misleading, as the tree shown onthe plot looked like a mature tree - yet there were only very small garden areas in the site planproposed.

Planning permission was granted on condition that the developer would replant a tree (andmaintain it for some years) to replace this loss of greenery to the community, as well as destroyinga large absorber of carbon dioxide on a very busy local road.

In addition to the effects on the air quality, the loss of the large tree will already have had adverseeffects on the water absorption, which then cause problems for the drains, being sited in a hollowat the base of a hill.

If the sycamore tree is not replaced in the plot, this will have more pronounced effects, both on theair quality and the water levels in the vicinity. It will also remove even more 'green space' from alocal village area, which has steadily been eroded during the last several years. Our trees and

green spaces are precious to us - now more than ever in times of a national crisis, when many ofus are urged to remain at home for the good of the local community,

Finally, allowing these amendments to the original planning permission sets a very discouragingprecedent, by allowing developers to disregard the commitments previously made to localresidents. If there is no longer room on the site for a tree to be replanted and maintained, this is aproblem the developer should rectify.

We agree with the comments of No. 5 Lampeter Road that new-build properties should not requireextra refuse areas, as these - and previous planning commitments - should have been taken intoaccount in the original design and build of these developments.

The proposed bike storage to replace the new tree for the benefit of the villagers is less essentialat present, as there are currently several bike storage facilities in the village area which are notfully used.

Please take into account the concerns we, neighbours and others have expressed on thisimportant local issue, particularly in the light of climate change and all its related challenges.

I object to the removal of condition 11 (tree planting). Although not a street tree, the treewhich this condition replaces was near the street and part of the street scene prior to thisdevelopment. That is part of the reason that replacement in situ was a specific condition of theoriginal consent, which clearly stated that the scheme would be unacceptable if the tree was notreplaced. That is exactly what has now happened, resulting in a scheme which is unacceptable.

It would not be reasonable to simply remove the condition and allow this unacceptable scheme inreturn for a £725 contribution to a tree in an existing pit some distance away. The condition wasintended to secure a tree which was part of the Canford Lane street scene, and that is what shouldbe required. If that cannot be done on the site, then the developer should fund a new tree in a newpit in some appropriate nearby location.

If that cannot be agreed as a variation to the existing condition, then this application should berefused, and the failure to comply with the original condition should be dealt with via enforcement.

The tree history of this area of land in Canford Lane is a sorry tale indeed. Trees wereremoved a few years back to facilitate a development just when it became known that some of thetrees along that side of the road - the ones not owned by the Council - were going to be made thesubject of a TPO.The tree that was supposed to be retained at the back of this development is the last substantialsized 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 thetraffic 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 29Canford Lane was developed, and it was the probable/proposed loss of this tree that raised manyobjections to the development of this piece of land. So there was slight relief when it was made acondition that although the Sycamore would be lost there was to be a tree planted as areplacement in the same place. There were a few wry smiles when once again an "artist'simpression" submitted with the planning application for this site showed a large healthy tree wherethe Sycamore was - yet it was known that the large tree was going to be felled and that it wouldtake 30 years for the replacement tree to mitigate the environmental damage occasioned by thefelling 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 theSycamore had been.11 "No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or the use commenced until thereplacement tree has been planted and completed in accordance with approved plan reference457.200 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 thecorrespondence submitted with the Application, Council Officers have already agreed with thisproposal! 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 thecommencement of development a 5 year maintenance schedule for watering and aftercare of the1.no Small leaved lime (Tilia cordata) as shown on the approved plans shall be submitted to andapproved in writing by the Local Planning Authority unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.Bristol's Planning Obligations contains the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard. This has beenapplied in the case of this development, and the developer has to provide 6 other trees off site inaddition to replacing the Sycamore tree.In a letter from the developer to the Council as part of this Application to vary conditions (i.e. NOTplant the tree on site) it is stated "All building works are now complete, and both of the approveddwellings are under offer. It transpired that a retaining wall was needed on the boundary due toplot level differences with the adjacent properties. As such, there is no longer sufficient space toaccommodate both the approved refuse storage, the cycle storage, and the single tree requiredfrom original application to be planted. After liaising with the Council Planning Officer, we havemade 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 approvedplans/drawings)."So - they have made errors in the engineering of and design for this development and now haverun out of space to plant a tree (the one that is shown in the artists' impression!) as well asaccommodate the bins, and it is the tree that has to go. They now want permission not to plant thetree 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 (facingthe development with your back to the road). No tree - thus a loss of visual amenity and loss ofbenefit to the environment. Of course that does not matter; this is not a busy road and there are nobuses on tick over nearby (irony).Nobly the developer has offered to plant another tree elsewhere to make up for this blunder andthe 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 2planting sites on Southfield Road, 7 sites on Falcondale Road (much needed, but if the road iswidened the trees would be lost), and 4 sites on Abbey Road. None of these is in the centre of theVillage, where this tree (eventually) would have been growing - providing some visual amenity inthe Village and improving the environment. The other 6 compensatory trees that the developer hasto 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 streetscene" 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 topay for a large tree (no tiddlers please) to be planted in an engineered pit in the centre ofWestbury, where the tree is needed (and where it has been lost and shouldn't have been), for itsvisual 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 sellingthese two homes?) as a just and deserved penance for bringing about the chopping down, withoutreplacement on site, as conditioned, of yet another of the few trees remaining near the centre ofthe 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. Inthe 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 notpermit this escape from conditions to the detriment of the Village of Westbury on Trym.

The original plan for this development was approved despite there being a TPO on thetree that was removed. The developer then agreed to mitigate that removal by agreeing to replanta new tree. To now say there is insufficient room to do so is an insult to the planning regulationswhich must be enforced here. Surely the plans that were submitted and approved by the councilare therefore incorrect and the developer has misguided you with the result of what has actuallybeen built?Surely there is a method of planting somewhere on the site?

When the large tree on was felled and planning permission granted to build two houses,there was agreement that a replacement tree would be planted in its place with a five year careplan. However now we have got to that point, this planning application has been submitted tochange this and not plant the tree, instead to put in a bicycle rack in its place. This goes makes amockery of the planning permission process, but more importantly continues to devalue the historyand nature of Westbury on Trym. New build houses should not require additional space for refuse,this should have been factored into the design in line with planning permission requirements.

I think it is essential given our current climate change situation that the treemaintenance, and implementation/installation of tree planting conditions are upheld in this case.

I feel strongly that the developers submitting this amended planning application aresimply trying to flaunt their obligations of their original planning permission.

Trees are even more important to our community - particularly in Bristol- with our pollutionsproblems.

I strongly object to this amendment. The original application terms for tree planting must beenforced.

Patrick & Helen Devane

This proposed amendment makes a complete mockery of the exiting planning system,in which all residents of Bristol should be able to have faith and trust. There was a condition setout very clearly on removal of the existing tree (which was extremely controversial at the time) thatanother tree should be planted within a time frame and maintained. WE NEED ALL THE TREESWE CAN FIND SPACE FOR in this city and worldwide. The planting of a tree was a condition ofthe planning being granted so it MUST be honoured and it is a travesty that the applicant eventhinks it's appropriate to submit this amendment. PLEASE turn this down and insist they do theRIGHT THING, for everyone who opposed this initially, for the people of Bristol to have faith in anyfuture similar scenarios being enforced, and for the planet.

This proposal was originally approved with conditions as a result of many local concernsabout the loss of a large tree under TPO and loss of green and open space in this area. Theplanning report and decision has condition 11. "No building or use hereby permitted shall beoccupied or the use commenced until the replacement tree has been planted and completed inaccordance with approved plan reference 457.200 P7. The implementation of the scheme withoutreplacement tree planting would result in an unacceptable scheme."The latest application asks to remove this condition. I cannot see how this can be readily grantedwhen the planning report and decision clearly said that this would result in "an unacceptablescheme".I presume that the original large sycamore tree has already been felled, and this has now beenlost. I understand that the changes to the boundary walls mean that it is now not possible to plantthe originally proposed Tilia cordata tree in a pit. However, there appears to be no attempt in thecurrent application to mitigate this loss of tree with alternative planting. Are there no other smallertrees/shrubs that could be substituted? For example a smaller tree or large shrub grown in acontainer rather than the originally proposed pit.It would be very sad to lose such a large old tree and not replace it on site with any other planting.