Having read through the objections as set out by the Bristol Tree Forum, I urge theCouncil to give serious consideration to their comments. In particular, I note the final paragraph oftheir submission, which points out that there is a history of this applicant making successive,piecemeal applications "and the Council should consider treating this application as part of a widerproject to remove these neighbouring trees from their boundary".

I therefore very much object to further lopping or cutting back of this Beech tree on Stoke LodgeParkland, and which borders the garden of 10 Stoke Paddock Road.

I know this is my second comment. I apologise for not having managed to combinethoughts in one comment, but sometimes after the blood has boiled it continues to simmer.

This Beech tree is a truly magnificent specimen. On the Field side its branches sweep down toground level. On the fence side (Stoke Paddock Road) some branches do go over the fence butnot at a low level. Those that do go over the fence then do not sweep down to ground level. Onepossibility is that this tree may already have had a few previous trims over the years, or maybe itsnatural growth has been inhibited by the fence? In any event there is a distinct difference betweenthe two sides of the tree - Western (towards Stoke Paddock Road) and Eastern (towards theField). Without actually going into the back garden of No 10 it is impossible to judge the size andshape of the lower western crown, but standing next to the trunk of the tree and looking at thecanopy/crown between the fence of No 10 and the trunk of the Beech one is not aware of muchtree canopy at a level above ones' head and going over the fence. Standing by the trunk of thetree between the trunk and the Field one is immersed in a huge bell-tent of foliage/canopy/crownreaching right down to the ground. The branches complained of "over the fence" cannot be anactionable nuisance with an immediate risk of causing damage.Surely it is the Western face of the crown that faces the garden of No 10. Not the Eastern or Northeastern face of the crown? Maybe it is a bit like naming wind direction - is it "from" or "to"?I have to assume that the application is to cut back the crown that faces No 10 Stoke PaddockRoad.Any (more) work to this tree would ruin its form and surely is not supported by the Law, orjustifiable in law?

This application is a further attempt by this applicant to interfere with TPO trees of whichthey were fully aware when they bought their house a few years ago.

There is no danger nor nuisance involved. Gratuitous pruning for the selfish benefit of onehouseholder should not be permitted, especially on TPO tree which the Council has a legal duty toprotect.

Beech trees are particularly at risk from consequences (including long term) from pruning,according to experts.

I oppose this application. I urge the Council's tree officer to inform the applicant once and for allthat their continuing attempts with serial applications to damage TPO trees are to be seen as anuisance, wasting everyone's time.

It's attrition by small steps - two trees here, one there - one can only deduce that theowners at this address have decided to divide up their various applications until they get the wholerow lopped as they wanted in the first place in 2018! It is so transparent a ploy. I would like to thinkthat the planning committee have already realised this.2018 - permission refused to massively prune whole row of trees that were affecting theirswimming pool. (18/06369/VP)2020 - permission granted to lop two of the same trees - swimming pool not mentioned this time(20/022268/VP). It is mystifying in the extreme to see that a refusal was changed to a permission.2020 - new application to lop another tree in the same row (20/05068)All of the row of trees there have TPOs and are all mature and well shaped. The TPOs that theywere granted were intended to make sure they were looked after and not have healthy parts cut.In addition, the Council policy is not to recognise overhanging as a reason. I live the other side ofthe Stoke Lodge Parkland and I can see these mature trees and would want the TPOs that theywere worth of to be honoured.I urge the planning committee to look at this application in the round as there are several trees inthe row, rooted in Stoke Lodge, and gradually cutting them one after the other is just not justifiable.

Surely any tree that is considered worthy of TPO status, as in this case, must beoutstanding; therefore as guardians, BCC must safeguard from any unwarranted tree surgery.This majestic tree was planted long before 10 Stoke Paddock was built on land that was formerlypart of Stoke Lodge and thankfully, previous owners have respected the special status of this andother trees that border the property.However, new owners appear to have taken exception to the natural habit of trees that marginallyoverhang the fringes of expansive rolling lawns, despite growing on neighbouring land someconsiderable distance from the house. There is no threat to the property from roots so the onlyconclusion is that perhaps this is more about the south facing aspect of the garden and tiresometree shadows that traverse their garden daily.How unfortunate to imply these trees cause a nuisance when they actually protect neighbouringproperty from seasonal flooding, by absorbing excess water from the natural "floodplain" beyond;equally, all the parkland trees have taken hundreds of years to mature and grow within Councilowned land, so strict TPO rules should apply.How can we allow ignorance to undermine this delicate balance and possibly contribute to anotheruntimely demise; please, refuse this wholly unnecessary tree works.

I strongly object to any lopping/cutting back to this Beech tree which is on Stoke LodgeParkland and borders the garden of No 10 Stoke Paddock Road, once again they feel it necessaryto require yet another tree this time G1 of TPO 1192 to be cut back. They have already removed avery old tree completely from the front of their property. If you buy a property surrounded bymature trees one should expect to have leaves fall on your property. If this further chopping backof a TPO tree is really necessary they should have applied for permission at the same time as theydid for the Norway Maple, also the subject of a TPO. Pruning trees could affect the health and lifeof a tree and whilst overhanging branches can be a nuisance this does not appear to be thesituation here.We are supposed to be promoting "green lungs" to improve the air quality with in our City which isparticularly badPlease do not allow massive pruning of this tree for spurious reasons.

It is always a great shame to prune a tree. No tree's life should be risked by pruning -even ones that seem fairly insignificant. We need every tree we have got. Pruning a tree risks itsfuture health.There is a Common Law right to remove branches of a tree that you do not own but whichoverhang the boundary of your property. But this does not apply straightforwardly if the tree has aTPO, as is the case with this one, or is in a Conservation Area. In that situation there has to be anapplication for permission to do that work to the Local Planning Authority. I assume it is thatrequirement that has prompted this Application.But the LPA is bound to obey the TPO regulations and it is my understanding, from having readthe Town and Country Planning Act and explanatory notes, that, in the case of a TPO tree, theNuisance has to be 'actionable'; in other words where the overhanging branches are causing, orthere is an immediate risk of their causing, actual foreseeable damage. This is a very high hurdleto achieve, but rightly so. Trees that achieve TPO status do so for a reason, and it is not right foranyone to try to work around the regulations. This "actionable nuisance" does not appear to be thesituation here. It has not been stated to be so - just a mention of overhanging branches. Thepermissions for pruning a TPO tree are very limited. There was no evidence of damage in 2018.Damage is not claimed this time. It is too easy to use words like "light" to excuse work outside theregulations. Wrong is wrong.

"Beech (B) - Client feels the crowns of both trees are excessively over hanging their property,particularly the lower portions of crown. I have recommended a light crown-lift and reduction (2mmaximum) of the NE lower face of crown (lower 4m North East quadrant of crown and no higher).This tree should have been included in the previous application but was missed. Works from theprevious approved application have already been carried out with consideration and care to

maintain the natural form of the trees. We will continue that care through to works on the Beech"

There is a plural "trees" here. The actual Application is to crown lift just one tree this time - theBeech in G1 of TPO 1192. The other tree (s) referred to in this Application is/are an error I hope,and are the Norway Maples which were the subject of an earlier Application (20/02228). If not, andApplication(s) for work on a further tree(s) in the group follow later, then this would be verydisturbing.It would be quite wrong to see a Crown Reduction at all in this case as requested. Tree crownreduction is the process of removing branch tips, pruning back to a growth point further down thebranch. This may be carried out to remove dead, diseased and damaged branches, or simply toreduce the overall size of the tree. The main reason for performing a crown reduction is thus forlight.A request for a reduction here is far in excess of carrying out any work for any Nuisance ofoverhanging branches, even IF a Nuisance from the overhanging branches was considered to be'actionable' with an immediate risk of the branches causing actual, or foreseeable damage.Reducing the canopy size stresses the tree because of the cuts required, and I have read that forthis reason it is best not to perform crown reduction if at all possible. I say again - this tree has aTPO.

I think the Applicant wants the whole size of this tree canopy reduced. The tree is not their treeand is not on their land. IF there is an actionable Nuisance from any overhanging branchescausing immediate or foreseeable damage, then carrying out a reduction as well is going much toofar to mitigate for that.There is an interesting contrast here with Application 20/03288. I mention it here because that wasalso about a TPO tree in the same Parkland, and a comparison between the two is bound to bedrawn by local residents, and others, and questions raised.

In that matter:"20/03288/VP | Ash (T8 on plan, part of G7 on TPO 1192) Crown lift to 8m on the Pavilion side.Remove the basal shoot and any hanging branches or deadwood in the crown. Remove the threelowest limbs that overhang the footpath outside of the playing fields. | Stoke Lodge Sports GroundShirehampton Road Sea Mills Bristol"the application was to remove branches that overhung a garden that was not the property of theApplicant. Indeed the residents who did own the affected garden objected to the removal of thebranches and stated that the branches were not causing a Nuisance to them in the terms set outin the TPO regulations of the Town and Country Planning Act. It is strange that someone otherthan the householder was even permitted to apply for that work. In TPO regulation a landowner orleaseholder cannot claim that the trees in his/her own property, or the property they lease, are thecause of a nuisance to themselves.The work applied for in that case was also much more extensive, as there was also an applicationto remove a branch that was allegedly causing an immediate Nuisance with the risk of thebranches causing actual, foreseeable damage (rubbing against a structure), which I understand is

work permitted under the Act, but the application included work to remove several other branchesthat might come to cause a Nuisance in say 5-10 years' time - this is an extension of work which isnot permitted under the Act. It was the illegality of that work that caused so many objections, and itremains in the Community a cause of concern for the tree, and will do so for many years.Permission was granted but I think it was contrary to the Act.This Application is very different from 20/03288/VP, but concerning nevertheless.Please do not permit pruning of any nature to this TPO tree, however "light".

My objection to this proposal is twofold: (a) beach trees do not take kindly to pruning so that any minor case may well have larger effects; and, (b) this is an unfortunate suggestion at a time when there remains controversy between Cotham School and local interests about the status of the field, i.e. any granting of a change in these valuable trees in the field could well encouyrage other more ambitious threats.

According to the Arboricultural Association in their guide to pruning, beech trees farepoorly to pruning. Is such action,to the extent described in the application, to a mature tree with aTPO in parkland really a necessity? If this tree is significantly reduced along with others in thevicinity for which further reduction work is desired (or indeed has already been carried out) thenthe habitat loss potentially begins to be significant for the wildlife and biodiversity Eg the batcolony. It also affects the visual amenity value which makes Stoke Lodge such a special feature ofBS9.

The proposed "lifting" of this tree would ruin the shape. It is an iconic tree which, beingin Stoke Lodge, has a TPO on it, and should not be touched, or lightly pruned on an even basis.This tree is not reducing light to the property and should therefore not need such a drastic prune.