BTF Planning Portal

Application Details

Council	BCC
Reference	20/05776/VP
Address	Stoke Lodge Sports Ground Shirehampton Road Sea Mills Bristol BS9 1BN Street View
Ward	Stoke Bishop
Proposal	See attached document; Stoke Lodge TPO application identification of trees and description of works TPO 451, 1192, 1236.
Validated	01-12-20
Type	Tree Preservation Order
Status	Decided
Determination Deadline	26-01-21
Decision	GRANTED subject to condition(s)
Decision Issued	04-01-21
BCC Planning Portal	on Planning Portal
Public Comments	Supporters: 4 Objectors: 0 Unstated: 2 Total: 6
No. of Page Views	0
Comment analysis	Date of Submission
Nearby Trees	Within 200m

BTF response: SUPPORT

Recommendation submitted 09-12-20

Application granted - see delegated report

We have now submitted our comments on this application giving qualified support.

Here is a copy of our Comments.

Public Comments

SUPPORT

4. The impact of Ash Dieback

The Shirehampton Road border between the House entrance and Druid Hill roundabout will soon be depleted – one monolith and one crown reduced Holm Oak.

The Ash trees growing along the boundary wall to the west of the Stoke Lodge House and Shirehampton Road have started to be infected with Ash Dieback (ADB). Succession planting needs to be planned.

There needs to be some replacement planting between the Stoke Lodge House car park and the children’s playground as the Ash trees growing there succumb to ADB – maybe a mix species hedge could be gradually established.

5. The Application of the Bristol Replacement Standard (BTRS)

Bristol City Council has declared climate and environmental emergencies and committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030 and to doubling tree canopy cover by 2046. If it is serious about achieving these goals, the council must now abandon applying BTRS only to some planning applications and commit to replacing all the public trees it controls which it removes, albeit by making new sites available for public sponsorship or for funding with funds available as a result of development elsewhere.

We calculate that seven trees will be lost as a result of these proposals (if we include the Holm Oak which it is proposed to Monolith (100108) and the two Ash trees where you consider that replanting is inappropriate as ‘there is not enough room amongst existing vegetation’ (100264 & 100265) – there is no reason why tree replacements might not be planted elsewhere. If BTRS is applied, then 18 replacements would be planted (we have counted the trees identified for sponsored replacement and the others which fall below the 15 cm lower limits applied in BTRS as one replacement each). There are many opportunities for planting these or their equivalent (say as hedging or as a micro forest – see below) in and around the site.

Planting the seven trees identified 1:1 would cost £2,065 at the sponsorship rate (£295). Planting 18 BTRS replacements would cost £5,310 at the same rate.

6. The possible application of Biodiversity Metric 2

Biodiversity Metric 2 (BDM2) is premised on the basis that whenever green infrastructure is lost it should be replaced so that there is Net Gain. When applied to the loss of street and other public trees, a multiplier of 12 x the DBH (diameter at breast height) of the lost tree is used to calculate the tree canopy cover (TCC) lost. We calculate that the lost TCC for the trees identified for removal is 430 sq. metres. When this figure is input into BDM2, the calculated net gain value is 1,294 sq. metres if a 15% net gain uplift is applied. This translates into 41 trees which will reach their full canopy potential in 27 years’ time. This translates as about 140 whips if planted at 1 per 9 sq. metres in a woodland setting or about 3,890 whips if planted 3 to a square metre as a Micro Forest. At a cost of £1.76 per whip (to include three years establishment costs) would cost £253 and £6,835 respectively.

7. Miscellaneous

The Oak tree which replaced TPO 451 T4 (100238 - https://bristoltrees.space/Tree/tree/BCC-223151) has outgrown its ties which need to be adjusted or removed. It also needs to be added to the BCC asset register and be registered as part of TPO 451 (see Schedule 2)

Calculations: We have prepared a detailed spreadsheet which models all our calculations – Click here to download it

Schedule 1 - BTF comments on each tree identified in the Application

Tree ID

TPO No.

Plot No. ToB ID DBH Fell BTRS Trees

Works Description BTF Comments

T1 TPO 1236 T14

100002 BCC-70319

118 8 Yew. CL to 4.5m over road for VC and elsewhere to 3m for PC. RCP by 2m to prevent damage.

If 'to prevent damage' means damage to the tree, then we support this proposal but only

to the minimum extent necessary for the welfare of the tree.

T2 TPO 1236 T15

100025 BCC-72426

56 5 Field Maple. RCP by 1.5m to prevent damage.

If 'to prevent damage' means damage to the tree, then we support this proposal but only

to the minimum extent necessary for the welfare of the tree.

T3 TPO 1236 G2

100026 BCC-72427

81 8

Yew. RCP and overhead cable by 2m to prevent damage. CL to 3m over path and 2.5m elsewhere for PC.

If 'to prevent damage' means damage to the tree, then we support this proposal but only

to the minimum extent necessary for the welfare of the tree.

T4 TPO 1236 G2

100027 BCC-72428

80 8 Yew. RCP by 2m to prevent damage. CL to 3m over path and 2.5m elsewhere for PC.

If 'to prevent damage' means damage to the tree, then we support this proposal but only

to the minimum extent necessary for the welfare of the tree.

T5 TPO 1236 T5

100050 BCC-72451

157 8

Himalayan Cedar. Recent branch failures. Reduce approximately 25 heavily end weighted branches by a maximum of 5m to reduce

We support this proposal. The tree is an important specimen tree within the arboretum, but it does need careful

management to prevent further limb failure.

Tree ID

TPO No.

Plot No. ToB ID DBH Fell BTRS Trees

Works Description BTF Comments

likelihood of further branch failures. Remove deadwood and broken branches over 50mm diameter.

It is unfortunate that this tree has not been managed more frequently in the past.

T6 TPO 1236 T11

100105 BCC-74015

120 8

Holm Oak. Decay within main stem and low lateral branch. Reduce canopy by 20% (3m) on roadside and 15% (2.5m) elsewhere.

We support this proposal. This tree forms an important line of mostly Holm Oaks growing along the road. Many are mature specimens of a substantial size. It is likely that some

will decline over time so a plan for succession planting to replace trees as they

are lost should be developed.

T7 TPO 451 G1

100140 BCC-77003

48 4

Sycamore. RCP by 1.5m to prevent damage. Only remove branches under 100mm diameter at pruning point.

If 'to prevent damage' means damage to the tree, then we support this proposal but only

to the minimum extent necessary for the welfare of the tree and not because the

presence of the tree obscures the view of the lessee's surveillance equipment. This

tree has already had branches torn from it illegally in order, we believe, to clear the

view for a CCTV camera nearby. Some branches close to and over the apex of the roof could be trimmed. But the other major branches which bore the branches already

torn from it require no further trimming and the community would be unhappy to see

that done as it is distrustful of the motive for trimming those branches further, even if

done professionally.

Tree ID

TPO No.

Plot No. ToB ID DBH Fell BTRS Trees

Works Description BTF Comments

T8 TPO 1192 T14

100141 BCC-77004

63 6

Sycamore. RCP by 1.5m to prevent damage. Only remove branches under 100mm diameter at pruning point.

If 'to prevent damage' means damage to the tree, then we support this proposal but only

to the minimum extent necessary for the welfare of the tree. At most, one branch

only is close to apex of shed, we accept that this may be shortened. Any further work to

other parts of the tree is, we believe, excessive. We would not want to see any further work done with the intention of

clearing views for the surveillance equipment installed nearby.

T9 TPO 1192 G6

100181 BCC-77044

80 8

Ash. Extensive basal decay. Reduce height of stems to 5m and reduce length of remaining lateral branches to 4m to reduce likelihood of stem failure.

This is a five-stemmed Ash with the junction of the five stems very close to the ground

giving it an unusual and interesting form. It is probably an old coppice stool resulting in multiple stems. There is extensive decay at the fusion points resulting in a high risk of failure. We support the application in an effort to save the tree. We suggest that

there be compensatory planting to compensate for the substantial reduction of

this tree.

T10 TPO 1192 G4

100228 BCC-77091

63 6 Ash. In decline. Growing between playground and car park. Remove deadwood over 20mm diameter.

There is a line of medium-sized Ash trees growing along the boundary of the park with the Children’s' Playgrounds. There is a sub-story of other species beneath. With careful

management and succession planting to replace the Ash trees as they succumb to ADB, this line could be transformed into a mixed species hedge feature. We support

this proposal.

Tree ID

TPO No.

Plot No. ToB ID DBH Fell BTRS Trees

Works Description BTF Comments

T11 TPO 1192 T11

100241 BCC-

192455 20 x 2 Oak. Tree is dead. Fell. Replant.

We support this. It mirrors our separate application which is well-supported. We

have suggested that this part of this application being redacted.

The replacement should be planted as close as possible (within 5-10 metres) to the

original Oak so that it has the potential to achieve its full field form and stature. As

well planting a tree in accordance with the T&CPA 1990, the Council should apply BTRS

to the removal of this tree and make available 1 additional site for sponsored planting in Stoke Lodge so that the long-term benefit of the tree is not lost. The

closest point of the School security fence from the tree is 4 metres with a path

passing outside it which is some six metres wide. This limits the options for planting the

tree closer towards the boundary of Stoke Lodge.

T12 TPO 1192 G4

100264 BCC-

223157 14 x 1

Ash. Tree will become exposed to wind when adjacent tree is removed with high likelihood of failure. Growing between playground and car park. Fell. Replanting inappropriate as not enough room amongst existing vegetation.

A replacement tree planted in accordance with the T&CPA 1990 should be found in

another site at Stoke Lodge so that the long-term benefit of the tree is not lost. We suggest a site somewhere nearby to the

west of to the west of the playground which is underutilised. This site would be suitable for a possible micro-forest to be planted.

on 2020-12-24

I broadly support this application with the proviso that work is only carried out ondamaged or deseased trees. Trees that are perfectly healthy should not be trimmed for the sake ofCCTV cameras.I hope that if the work is carried out that there is someone from BCC on site at the time enforcingthe TPO requirements. TPO's are given for a reason. History on this site shows a blatant disregardfor any TPO. Once cut the branches cannot be replaced

Please respect the parkland.

on 2020-12-23 SUPPORT

I support the application for badly needed maintenance to the Stoke Lodge trees. Thishas been lacking for several years and it is pleasing that something may now be done. However,the following provisos are important:Pruning should in all cases be the minimum possible for the protection of the tree only.Trees with TPOs should be treated with special care and only pruned if they are in immediatedanger.If the leaseholder has requested certain cutting work because of inconvenience e.g. to their CCTVcameras, then that cutting should not be done because it is not for the health of the tree. We havealready had at least one example of this of branches being badly lopped back. This fact should betaken notice of as it was witnessed.Infill with new trees of appropriate species should be insisted upon and planted as soon aspossible.

on 2020-12-19 SUPPORT

There is broad support in the community for appropriate tree maintenance at StokeLodge, and we welcome Council officers investing their expertise.

However, it is understood that works to the sycamores at the corners of the maintenance hut, BCC77003 and 77004, may have been added at the request of the current tenant, Cotham School, toimprove the view from their surveillance cameras. The school has publicly stated that it will leavethe site if the land is registered as a Town or Village Green; the TVG process is currently underway and may be resolved next year. Please note that there will be nothing to prevent the schoolcontinuing its tenancy post-TVG registration, but currently its stated intention is to opt for using analternative location. Given these circumstances, the claim that reducing the branches of thesetrees is 'to prevent damage' would have to refer to a real and imminent risk of actual damage if it isto result in cutting the branches of a protected tree. Several branches were ripped off one of thesetrees earlier in 2020 by an individual who I understand identified himself at the time to a witnessand said that he was clearing the view for the camera (this information was provided to BCCenforcement officers). I trust that Council officers will consider carefully what work is reallyrequired to these trees and not carry out any unnecessary work to clear the view of cameras thatmay soon (and could now) be moved.

I fully support the replacement of the dead oak tree BCC192455 under either this application orapplication 20/05387/VP and understand that officers intend to replace it as close as possible(within 5-10 metres) to the original Oak so that it has the potential to achieve its full field form andstature. This is a really welcome investment in this historic parkland estate for future generations.

I request that the Stoke Lodge tree preservation order records are updated as a matter of priority

following this work, as several TPO trees are or will be missing from the current maps - given thevarious hazards to the Stoke Lodge trees from mowing and unauthorised branch removal, it isimportant that the protected status of these trees is clear to all.

on 2020-12-13 SUPPORT

On the whole I agree with this application where a tree has died it should be replacedwith the same variety, but with Ash Die Back currently on the increase it may be advisable toreplace with something different. Large trees overhanding the highway should only be cut backcarefully where they are likely to cause damage to people or traffic - they are an important barrierto pollution.I totally agree with Bristol Tree Forum's suggestions and particularly in the cases of T7 and T8 anytrimming of these trees should be monitored very carefully under close supervision as a branchhas already been torn off to facilitate better access to the CCTV camera - branches cannot bereplaced!

on 2020-12-04

Where a tree has been proved to be diseased or dying, then it should be removed butimmediately replaced with an identical tree. The boundary of this Parkland should be maintainedwith trees and bushes as at present.