If the Horse Chestnut is otherwise healthy, we would suggest the rubble wall buttresscould be rebuilt further from the trunk of the tree. The combination of Lime mortar and concretemortar makes such walls inflexible and more liable to weathering. The wall should either be fullylime mortar (as the chemical bond needed is H2O) or fully concrete mortar.

We generally leave a gap in boundary walls to allow for the expansion of tree girth and roots.

I object as there seems very little benefit in cutting down this tree. It's a beautiful treeand it would be a great unnecessary loss for it to be felled.This is a conservation area for good reason. There is very little between the residential propertiesand the busy main road so this tree provides a lovely natural barrier. We must retain as muchnature as possible in this built up area.I feel if this was a private garden rather than a business the applicants would feel very differentlyabout it.

Dear Matthew Bennett,

I am writing to you in regards to the proposal of the felling of Horse Chestnut tree, and wish toaddress my concerns of the application.

This is a prestigious tree, fully matured and healthy, which provides both visual beauty andpromotes wildlife to the area. There are various wild birds which have setup home in this tree formany years. In autumn the leaves of the tree turn bright yellow and look absolutely stunning. Thisproposal will also impact other neighbours in the area, as we will lose the shade from the sun, andas mentioned, the wildlife established as a result of this tree. Additionally, roughly 2 years ago thetree was crowned and still continues to thrive.

The requester of this proposal had already removed a similar tree of equal size. This caused thelandscape to appear empty and unattractive. We have resided in this area for well over 40 yearsand still in awe of this tree's beauty. The tree does not cause any detrimental issues to the ownersproperty, nor does it cause any obstruction, as it is out of the way.

This is a conservation area, therefore such trees should be preserved. The number of trees on thisstreet that are so grand are minimal, since we recently lost other trees nearby.

Furthermore, we have not been informed of a reason as to why the tree should be felled. Havingspoken to some of our neighbours, they have not received this notice of application and thereforehave not had a chance to challenge the proposal.

Please could you consider a Tree Preservation Order on this tree and other trees in the area.

Regards,

Nizar Jaffer

To put it simply, this is a beautiful tree which should not be cut down purely due to beinga slight inconvenience.

Bristol is a beautifully green city and we should do all we can to preserve priceless parts of naturesuch as this tree.

There are many psychological studies to show that being able to view nature just from a windowcan help well-being and even help to speed up recovery from physical illness.

Therefore, I feel it would be in the interest of many people to leave the tree in place. More peoplewould be negatively implicated by its removal than anyone would be positively implicated by thischange.

I am not sure that the evidence provided is substantial for the felling of this tree. Itseems that this action is fulled by inconvenience rather than actual need, as it doesn't seem thatthe tree is causing any harm to anybody. This problem could easily be resolved by fixing the walland perhaps moving it as little as one meter away from the tree.

With the rise of civilisation it is more and more common to have cities with no greenery at all andalthough Bristol still preserves a lot of its green parks and natural spaces, if we continue this way,it won't be long until these spaces ceased to exist. We only need to take a look at College Greenor Victoria Park to see how quickly it fills on a hot summers day. This may seem a bit extreme tosome people, but it takes one action to start a chain reaction.

I personally throughly enjoy spending time outdoors. However, this pandemic has made thisalmost impossible, since it started and one of the things that has made this all bearable is beingable to look outside and see green even if it is from a distance. As Ms Treby has stated it is very isimportant for people's wellbeing to get out and enjoy the great outdoors even if this means lookingat a tree from a window.

I was invited to comment on this planning application as a neighbour. In reality, myproperty is the closest to the tree in question - closer than both those listed on the site address.This is because the tree in question sits on the boundary between two car parks, with very littleproximity to either the flats at no. 2 or the hotel at no. 4, and therefore, in my opinion, causes verylittle issue for either set of properties.

I object to this planning application for two reasons. Firstly, as a Mr Ashdown commented in anearlier objection - it makes no financial sense to cut down this tree. The 'damaged' wall in questionis not even the main border wall between the two car parks, but a small side wall, perpendicular tothis main wall, which seems to serve no purpose other than to fence off a section of a car park.This wall looks to me to be entirely obscelete, and it would be far cheaper to remove the wall thanthe tree. I have taken photos to support this objection, which I am happy to provide separately (Ido not believe this form allows me to attach documents).

My second objection is more personal. Living in a first floor flat during the current global pandemic,with no access to my own personal outdoor space, I spent many an hour sat on my windowsilllooking at this tree. It is often busy with birds, as it is the only cluster of trees in the vicinity, and isno doubt teeming with other wildlife. It has beautiful foliage, and it was a pleasure to watch theleaves uncurl in spring, and now in autumn to have seen them change from green to gold as theseasons have marched on. It might sound cheesy, but gazing up at this tree honestly provided awelcome restbite for my troubled mind, so battered with anxiety over the pandemic, and I would bevery upset to see it felled.

Furthermore, this is a fairly built up area, and these trees provide a breath of nature in a sea ofasphalt. They also serve a practical purpose - providing shade for the cars which have parked,

and cooling and clearing the air which simmers with pollution so close to Whiteladies, a busy road.

To surmise, I strongly object to this planning application. However, a further question remains inmy mind. As a city striving for carbon neutrality, why on earth are we even considering choppingdown those few well established trees that remain, when we know they a vital to reduce ourfootprint, offsetting emissions through carbon sequestration, in addition to all of the other benefitsmentioned above, to health and wellbeing? How has this application even made it to this stage?And if, as Mr Ashdown suggests, this planning application does go ahead on the compromise ofplanting a new tree in its place, what purpose does that serve? Who is that benefitting, other thanthe owner of the small boundary wall who cannot be bothered to replace it? Who will ensure thatthis new tree flourishes, and does not die of drought, or damage as a small sapling next to a carpark? Where is the sense of communal responsibility that is so desperately needed if we are totackle the climate crisis? I expect better from the city of Bristol than to let this application goahead.

The applicant has applied to fell this Horse Chestnut tree alleging that it has caused'unsafe damage to party wall'.

From the photos supplied, the only damage shown appears to be to a short 'stub' wall thatappears to be at the entrance to a car park at the rear of the address. There is no evidenceproduced that the adjacent party wall between the properties has been damaged by the tree.

This tree is growing in a group of two or three others also growing on the boundary. It is the last ofthis group, and, like some of the others, has already been much pollarded in the past. Despite this,the tree and the group offer significant public amenity value to this much over-developed part ofthe road.

There appears to be no good reason given for the tree to be removed. As an alternative, a simplerepair, or even removal of the short stub wall offers a far better cost/benefit solution, given that thetree offers a much more significant amenity to the wider community than this wall does.

Consideration should also be given to protecting this tree and is associated group with a TreePreservation Order or, if the Planning Authority is minded to grant this application, to requiring asimilar tree to be planted in its place.