|Address||Prabhu Krupa Villa Passage Road Henbury Bristol BS10 7FE
|Proposal||T1 Ash - Fell. T4 Ash - Dangerous Fell. T5 & T6 Ash - Fell. T7 & T8 Ash - Fell. T9 Ash - Fell T10 Ash - Fell. T12 Sweet Chestnut - Reduce lateral limbs of lower canopy by up to 2.5 metres on all aspects TPO 184.|
|Type||Tree Preservation Order|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||16-02-21|
|Decision||GRANTED subject to condition(s)|
|BCC Planning Portal||on Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 0 Objectors: 2 Total: 2|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
I am concerned that the Applicant has requested felling of Ash trees "ahead of Ash dieback" disease. Yet the Application form states that a tree/some trees are diseased. What is the case here? It is a complicated application.
National policy is that Ash trees are not felled ahead of Ash die-back. Indeed they should only be felled even with Ash die back when and if they are dangerous. In anticipation of Ash die back (some trees are resistant) succession planting of another species should be practised, not wholesale felling please.
If the trees have ADB and if as a consequence of the disease they are dangerous then felling is the only option.
My comment on this TPO Application as is before - hence its reproduction above - save that in addition for those trees that have a TPO there is even more reason not to fell them if they are not diseased, and to condition replacements if they must go because they are dangerous. It is not legal to fell TPO trees in anticipation of them causing a problem.