|Address||9 Pyecroft Avenue Bristol BS9 4NL
|Proposal||Horse Chestnut - Reduce by 50% TPO 1166/R.|
|Type||Tree Preservation Order|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||01-01-21|
|BCC Planning Portal||BCC Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 2 Objectors: 1 Total: 3|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
Recommended: REFUSED Reason for refusal: Consultation complete; One objections received. Two letters of support received, all of which suggest the tree is dangerous and diseased and should be removed. The objection is reasonable - understanding the need to prune urban trees, but explains the implications of this on the tree. The proposed pruning of this tree by 50% is excessive and unnecessary. No justification has been given for such significant works. No professional advice has been sought to guide the applicant to manage this tree - employ an Arboricultural Consultant to survey the tree and provide a pruning specification which will support the structure and physiology of the tree.
It looks to me as if this is one of the original trees on this land, and one of the few to survive the development and beyond.
Pruning a tree is never good for the tree. The only real benefit is to endeavour to remove any structural defects early in the life of a tree to try to prolong its life. Anything else, and for any other reason, is harmful. It causes stress, it reduces the trees ability to make everything it needs, it reduces its potential to fight off pathogens, indeed every wound is a site for potential ingress of pathogens.
But sometimes trees have to be pruned - especially those trees in association with buildings. The poor "urban" tree. Vital for our own health and well being but frankly, in the way!
There have to be limits. No damage to buildings is alleged in the application. No disease of the tree is mentioned in the application. So, firstly, why prune this tree at all? No reason is given.
One can only surmise that it is too large where it is for the convenience of the applicant. That is not a good reason to prune a tree.
We have to leave it to the expertise of the Tree Officer, but surely a 50% reduction puts at risk the very survival of this tree?
All the literature suggests that as an absolute maximum (i.e. pruning a tree should not be done at all) there should never be a reduction greater than 30%. I should like to suggest that IF this must be done then a figure below 30% is set, and checked up on afterwards.