Application Details

Reference 20/06131/VP
Address Wyevale Garden Centre Bath Road Brislington Bristol BS31 2AD  
Street View
Proposal T02-Cherry T03-White Birch G04-Mixed Species group T05-Wild Cherry T06-Wild Cherry T07-Cherry Laurel - Fell.
Validated 18-12-20
Type Tree Preservation Order
Status Withdrawn
Determination Deadline 12-02-21
Decision Application Withdrawn
Decision Issued 21-01-21
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 95  Unstated: 1  Total: 96
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

We have submitted our objections to this application which can be found here - https://bristoltreeforum.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/btf-submission-2006131vp.pdf

Public Comments

on 2021-01-21   OBJECT

Mature trees should not be removed. The timescale to regrow is significant and the lossto the environment and the trees contribution to carbon sequestration should not beunderestimated

on 2021-01-20   OBJECT

I object to any tree felling on this site.The owner has devastated this site by the removal of huge quantities of trees without priorapproval. This will have had a massively detrimental impact on the wildlife which was once ahaven. The wildlife corridor that all locals are aware of and Bristol City Council should be aware of,is being decimated here by a greedy, sly, developer who has absolutely zero interest or regard forwildlife or the local community. The destruction this developer has caused already is criminal andit would be criminal to allow it to continue.

on 2021-01-20   OBJECT

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nesting

season in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

on 2021-01-20   OBJECT

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every applicationbut is more commonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes tofollowing planning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC reportbecause of their behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to actresponsibly and in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yet

many of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

This building developing group have not followed any rules to date. Please ensure theydon't remove any further trees or Greenery from our green belt land

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

This CANNOT happen, these people are ruining the landscape around here, depletingthe green space which people and wildlife need to survive. I object to them destroying any greenthey get their hands on ans want to protect the little countryside we have.

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

The piece of land upon which the trees which are the subject of this application grow(numbered 3 in the plan above) is leased for five years until 30 October 2024. The identity of thelessee is unknown. The site appears to be unoccupied at the moment.

This application has been submitted by one Wright of Silverback Arboricultural Consultancy of IronActon. They declare that they are not an agent acting on behalf of the applicant and that they donot own the trees which are the subject of this application. The identity of the owner is not given,but we assume it is Smar Holdings Ltd.

Silverback Arboricultural Consultancy is the author of the partial arboricultural report upon whichthis application is based. The substantive report this is based on was prepared in March 2020 insupport of an earlier, failed application under planning number 20/00574/F. This application wasmade on behalf of one John Rooney of Stokes Morgan Planning Ltd. We assume that this is thecompany behind this current application as it seems unlikely that Silverback ArboriculturalConsultancy has any proprietary interest in this site. We invite the planning authority to clarify whothe true applicant is before allowing this application to proceed further.

The site is in the Green Belt but was identified in the last published version of the draft Local Planas suitable for future development.

The applicant declares that the trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) though theTPO number is not given. The Council has no record of the TPO on its mapping service, thoughwe understood that one was made after many trees were clear-felled on the site in the early part of2019. We have asked for details of the Order.

The application of BTRS

The applicant has identified 13 trees which he wishes removed. Eight of these are in a group buttheir stem diameters are not given because they are said to be 'too small to calc.'. Their canopycovers an area of about 150 square metres We have calculated that the 13 trees have a CAVATvalue of £178,462. Taken together, all 13 trees provide tree canopy cover of some 288 squaremetres.

The only reason the applicant gives for removing the trees is to create a storage area. The storagearea's design and specifications are not described (and there is ample existing hardstandingavailable for a storage area to be set aside anyway). We assume that the applicant plans toundertake the work under permitted development rights.

Be that as it may, we submit that this application is subject to the requirements of the Council'sCore Strategy Policies, BCS9 and so it is necessary to apply the provisions of the Bristol TreeReplacement Standard (BTRS). As a BTRS calculation is based on the stem diameter, it isincumbent on the applicant to provide this data for all trees he proposes to remove.

As this has not been done for these eight grouped trees, we have assumed that each has a stemdiameter of 15 to 20 cm. On this basis we calculate that, under BTRS, the applicant would beobliged to provide for 20 replacement trees to be planted.

The impact of TPO legislation

Even if BTRS were not to apply, S206 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that,when a TPO tree is removed, it should be replaced in the same location as the tree removed or asclose as possible.

3

Our Submission

We cannot agree that any of these trees should be allowed to be felled, especially considering theMarch 2019 tree-felling incident. This Google Earth image made in April 2018 vividly illustrateshow the site looked before most of its trees were clear-felled:

Figure 1 The site in April 2018 (Google Earth)

Since then, nearly all the mature trees, poplars, that grew on the boundary to the southwest of theold garden centre buildings and in the field beyond have been destroyed. This is how the scene ofdestruction looked immediately after the felling occurred:

4

Figure 2: 08 March 2019 - Looking south from the carpark

Figure 3: 08 March 2019 - Looking southwest from the fence behind carpark

5

Figure 4: 08 March 2019 - Looking south from the fence behind carpark

Consequently, this group of trees is almost the last of the trees remaining on the site which are notconfined to its boundaries. This is how the site looks now:

Figure 5: Google Maps view taken some time after March 2019

6

Given this history, and particularly because the proposed development is on Green Belt land andthe trees under consideration are protected by a TPO, the proposed storage area, by virtue of itsdisproportionate impact on the little green infrastructure that remains, fails to respect the alreadymuch diminished characteristics of the landscape and its surroundings.

Furthermore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposed development will havesignificant harmful impacts on the connectivity and function of the Wildlife Corridor which thedevelopment sits within. The development has not been informed by appropriate survey works andsubsequent assessment of impacts and fails to maintain, protect, or enhance the wildlife corridor.As such the development is contrary to Policy BCS9 of the Bristol Local Plan: Core Strategy(2011) and Policies DM15, DM17 and DM19 of Site Allocations and Development ManagementPolicies.

We repeat the conclusions of the Planning Inspector in their decision of 17 December 2020(Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/W/20/3252071) when the appeal against the decision of the planningauthority under planning number 20/00574/F was rejected and submit that the same conclusionshould be drawn in this case:

The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt andwould harm its openness. Paragraph 144 of the Framework places substantial weight on any harmto the Green Belt. Additionally, paragraph 143 of the Framework states that inappropriatedevelopment should not be approved except in very special circumstances. I have also found thatthe proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area as well aswildlife and would conflict with the development plan.

We urge the Planning Authority to reject this application. To permit this application would be to addinsult to the egregious injury to the site done in 2019 and would allow the true applicant (whoeverthat might be) yet again to 'drive a coach and horses' through planning law.

Bs4 tree champion on behalf of Bristol Tree Forum

January 2021

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

Wyevale Tree Felling 20/06131/VP

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, or the mother company, have an extremely poor record when itcomes to following planning rules and procedures. They simply cannot be trusted to actresponsibly and in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.

6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

The developer on this site removed large numbers of trees without permission from thissite last year. A TPO was subsequently implemented by BCC but not before the vast majority oftrees had been cut down. Those trees are lost and cannot be replaced - there should therefore beno more trees cut down on this site.

The developer gives the reason for removing the trees as to create a storage area. They have justhad an appeal on a previous application to create a hard-standing storage area on the site deniedat appeal because the site is in the Green belt.

The developer in question has a very bad reputation amongst the local community for actingwithout planning permission and the fear is that after cutting down these trees, they will buildsomething on this area without permission to do so, and then claim it as a fait accomplis.

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

It is beyond any logical reasoning why these trees and hedge row should be destroyed.

There has been no formal planning application for this site and it appears to me to be a case ofblatant and wanton destruction for destruction's sake.

The track record of this developer is well known in South Bristol for their apparent total disregardof planning and building regulations.

If Mayor Rees has declared an Ecological Emergency, shouldn't these trees and hedgerows havepreservation orders on them? People was quick enough to put POs on the spindly ash trees off ofBroomhill Road recently but seems totally incapable of protecting the majestic and mature trees onthe A4.

I would be very happy to speak to this objection if and when this application comes beforecommittee.

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

The developer has repeatedly ignored restrictions, I have no faith that any futureplanning requirements would be adhered to. The immediate area does not have the rightamenities to support a community and would therefore add further traffic to an already heavilyloaded artery into and out of Bristol.

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

I would like to object to more trees being felled at this site.

The trees have a current TPO and should be protected. Several trees were taken down withoutpermission prior to this and the owners are yet to replace them The site is on the busy A4 corridorand are needed to combat air pollution levels.

The trees that form this planning application appear to be healthy .

The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollutionlevels in the area.

The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nesting seasonin which trees are vital to support our many bird species.

The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yet many of the trees lie alongthe boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surely aprerequisite before such an application can be considered.

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

Wyevale Tree Felling 20/06131/VP

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in the

area.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

Wyevale Tree Felling 20/06131/VP

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such a big piece of work.

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

The trees a crucial to the wildlife and cutting down the pollution coming from Bath Rd

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

The piece of land upon which the trees which are the subject of this application grow(numbered 3 in the plan above) is leased for five years until 30 October 2024. The identity of thelessee is unknown. The site appears to be unoccupied at the moment.

This application has been submitted by one Wright of Silverback Arboricultural Consultancy of IronActon. They declare that they are not an agent acting on behalf of the applicant and that they donot own the trees which are the subject of this application. The identity of the owner is not given,but we assume it is Smar Holdings Ltd.

Silverback Arboricultural Consultancy is the author of the partial arboricultural report upon whichthis application is based. The substantive report this is based on was prepared in March 2020 insupport of an earlier, failed application under planning number 20/00574/F. This application wasmade on behalf of one John Rooney of Stokes Morgan Planning Ltd. We assume that this is thecompany behind this current application as it seems unlikely that Silverback ArboriculturalConsultancy has any proprietary interest in this site. We invite the planning authority to clarify whothe true applicant is before allowing this application to proceed further.

The site is in the Green Belt but was identified in the last published version of the draft Local Planas suitable for future development.

The applicant declares that the trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) though theTPO number is not given. The Council has no record of the TPO on its mapping service, thoughwe understood that one was made after many trees were clear-felled on the site in the early part of2019. We have asked for details of the Order.

The application of BTRS

The applicant has identified 13 trees which he wishes removed. Eight of these are in a group buttheir stem diameters are not given because they are said to be 'too small to calc.'. Their canopycovers an area of about 150 square metres We have calculated that the 13 trees have a CAVATvalue of £178,462. Taken together, all 13 trees provide tree canopy cover of some 288 squaremetres.

The only reason the applicant gives for removing the trees is to create a storage area. The storagearea's design and specifications are not described (and there is ample existing hardstandingavailable for a storage area to be set aside anyway). We assume that the applicant plans toundertake the work under permitted development rights.

Be that as it may, we submit that this application is subject to the requirements of the Council'sCore Strategy Policies, BCS9 and so it is necessary to apply the provisions of the Bristol TreeReplacement Standard (BTRS). As a BTRS calculation is based on the stem diameter, it isincumbent on the applicant to provide this data for all trees he proposes to remove.

As this has not been done for these eight grouped trees, we have assumed that each has a stemdiameter of 15 to 20 cm. On this basis we calculate that, under BTRS, the applicant would beobliged to provide for 20 replacement trees to be planted.

The impact of TPO legislation

Even if BTRS were not to apply, S206 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that,when a TPO tree is removed, it should be replaced in the same location as the tree removed or asclose as possible.

3

Our Submission

We cannot agree that any of these trees should be allowed to be felled, especially considering theMarch 2019 tree-felling incident. This Google Earth image made in April 2018 vividly illustrateshow the site looked before most of its trees were clear-felled:

Figure 1 The site in April 2018 (Google Earth)

Since then, nearly all the mature trees, poplars, that grew on the boundary to the southwest of theold garden centre buildings and in the field beyond have been destroyed. This is how the scene ofdestruction looked immediately after the felling occurred:

4

Figure 2: 08 March 2019 - Looking south from the carpark

Figure 3: 08 March 2019 - Looking southwest from the fence behind carpark

5

Figure 4: 08 March 2019 - Looking south from the fence behind carpark

Consequently, this group of trees is almost the last of the trees remaining on the site which are notconfined to its boundaries. This is how the site looks now:

Figure 5: Google Maps view taken some time after March 2019

6

Given this history, and particularly because the proposed development is on Green Belt land andthe trees under consideration are protected by a TPO, the proposed storage area, by virtue of itsdisproportionate impact on the little green infrastructure that remains, fails to respect the alreadymuch diminished characteristics of the landscape and its surroundings.

Furthermore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposed development will havesignificant harmful impacts on the connectivity and function of the Wildlife Corridor which thedevelopment sits within. The development has not been informed by appropriate survey works andsubsequent assessment of impacts and fails to maintain, protect, or enhance the wildlife corridor.As such the development is contrary to Policy BCS9 of the Bristol Local Plan: Core Strategy(2011) and Policies DM15, DM17 and DM19 of Site Allocations and Development ManagementPolicies.

We repeat the conclusions of the Planning Inspector in their decision of 17 December 2020(Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/W/20/3252071) when the appeal against the decision of the planningauthority under planning number 20/00574/F was rejected and submit that the same conclusionshould be drawn in this case:

The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt andwould harm its openness. Paragraph 144 of the Framework places substantial weight on any harmto the Green Belt. Additionally, paragraph 143 of the Framework states that inappropriatedevelopment should not be approved except in very special circumstances. I have also found thatthe proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area as well aswildlife and would conflict with the development plan.

We urge the Planning Authority to reject this application. To permit this application would be to addinsult to the egregious injury to the site done in 2019 and would allow the true applicant (whoeverthat might be) yet again to 'drive a coach and horses' through planning law.

Bs4 tree champion on behalf of Bristol Tree Forum

January 2021

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of theformer Wyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.

2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.

3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.

4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in the

area.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.

6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.

7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

on 2021-01-19   OBJECT

I understand that the applicant has raised an area of land, adjacent to the old gardencentre, to the ground, with callous disregard for the wildlife and ecology as a whole. This wouldmost likely have included the death and injury of legally protected species, is therefore illegal andagainst local authority policy. The area should be fully reinstated.

on 2021-01-17   OBJECT

Even if this application is for only 5 trees, I would urge the council to be very cautiousbefore granting planning permission to this company for anything at all. They have shown acomplete disregard for TPOs already in place, ignored any ecological and wildlife concerns,carried on burning of vegetation, dumping rubbish on site and been generally uncooperative withprofessional bodies who have the right and duty to dictate what can and can't be done on what isrented land. I am concerned that if permission is granted, they will not stick to the agreement andonce further trees and scrub are removed it will be too late. How can this land possibly to itsformer state?

on 2021-01-14   OBJECT

If Bristol really is serious about doing something about climate change then allowingtrees to be felled, especially healthy ones, is not a good idea. Additionally, trees provide naturalhabitats for so many different species which are important to the eco system and they should notbe endangered because of greedy developers who already have a poor reputation.

on 2021-01-14   OBJECT

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

Please reject this application in full.

Yours faithfully,Julia Damsell

on 2021-01-13   OBJECT

We need to protect the forever reducing amount of nature in our neighbourhood.Organisations can't just trample over correct processes and procedures that embed ourdemocracy.I want green spaces preserved for nature and the future of humanity

on 2021-01-12   OBJECT

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

Please reject this application in full.

Yours faithfully,Lisa Holden

on 2021-01-12   OBJECT

I am objecting to the latest planning application by the owners of the former WyevaleGarden Centre. I would encourage as many people as possible to object by the deadline of 20January. Please feel free to use any of the points mentioned in my objection.Objection to Wyevale Tree Felling 20/06131/VP

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducing

the impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

Please reject this application in full.

Yours Mr.Tucker

on 2021-01-12  

2

The piece of land upon which the trees which are the subject of this application grow (numbered 3 in the plan above) is leased for five years until 30 October 2024. The identity of the lessee is unknown. The site appears to be unoccupied at the moment.

This application has been submitted by one Wright of Silverback Arboricultural Consultancy of Iron Acton. They declare that they are not an agent acting on behalf of the applicant and that they do not own the trees which are the subject of this application. The identity of the owner is not given, but we assume it is Smar Holdings Ltd.

Silverback Arboricultural Consultancy is the author of the partial arboricultural report upon which this application is based. The substantive report this is based on was prepared in March 2020 in support of an earlier, failed application under planning number 20/00574/F. This application was made on behalf of one John Rooney of Stokes Morgan Planning Ltd. We assume that this is the company behind this current application as it seems unlikely that Silverback Arboricultural Consultancy has any proprietary interest in this site. We invite the planning authority to clarify who the true applicant is before allowing this application to proceed further.

The site is in the Green Belt but was identified in the last published version of the draft Local Plan as suitable for future development.

The applicant declares that the trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) though the TPO number is not given. The Council has no record of the TPO on its mapping service, though we understood that one was made after many trees were clear-felled on the site in the early part of 2019. We have asked for details of the Order.

The application of BTRS

The applicant has identified 13 trees which he wishes removed. Eight of these are in a group but their stem diameters are not given because they are said to be ‘too small to calc.’. Their canopy covers an area of about 150 square metres We have calculated that the 13 trees have a CAVAT value of £178,462. Taken together, all 13 trees provide tree canopy cover of some 288 square metres.

The only reason the applicant gives for removing the trees is to create a storage area. The storage area’s design and specifications are not described (and there is ample existing hardstanding available for a storage area to be set aside anyway). We assume that the applicant plans to undertake the work under permitted development rights.

Be that as it may, we submit that this application is subject to the requirements of the Council’s Core Strategy Policies, BCS9 and so it is necessary to apply the provisions of the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS). As a BTRS calculation is based on the stem diameter, it is incumbent on the applicant to provide this data for all trees he proposes to remove.

As this has not been done for these eight grouped trees, we have assumed that each has a stem diameter of 15 to 20 cm. On this basis we calculate that, under BTRS, the applicant would be obliged to provide for 20 replacement trees to be planted.

The impact of TPO legislation

Even if BTRS were not to apply, S206 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that, when a TPO tree is removed, it should be replaced in the same location as the tree removed or as close as possible.

3

Our Submission

We cannot agree that any of these trees should be allowed to be felled, especially considering the March 2019 tree-felling incident. This Google Earth image made in April 2018 vividly illustrates how the site looked before most of its trees were clear-felled:

Figure 1 The site in April 2018 (Google Earth)

Since then, nearly all the mature trees, poplars, that grew on the boundary to the southwest of the old garden centre buildings and in the field beyond have been destroyed. This is how the scene of destruction looked immediately after the felling occurred:

4

Figure 2: 08 March 2019 - Looking south from the carpark

Figure 3: 08 March 2019 - Looking southwest from the fence behind carpark

5

Figure 4: 08 March 2019 - Looking south from the fence behind carpark

Consequently, this group of trees is almost the last of the trees remaining on the site which are not confined to its boundaries. This is how the site looks now:

Figure 5: Google Maps view taken some time after March 2019

6

Given this history, and particularly because the proposed development is on Green Belt land and the trees under consideration are protected by a TPO, the proposed storage area, by virtue of its disproportionate impact on the little green infrastructure that remains, fails to respect the already much diminished characteristics of the landscape and its surroundings.

Furthermore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposed development will have significant harmful impacts on the connectivity and function of the Wildlife Corridor which the development sits within. The development has not been informed by appropriate survey works and subsequent assessment of impacts and fails to maintain, protect, or enhance the wildlife corridor. As such the development is contrary to Policy BCS9 of the Bristol Local Plan: Core Strategy (2011) and Policies DM15, DM17 and DM19 of Site Allocations and Development Management Policies.

We repeat the conclusions of the Planning Inspector in their decision of 17 December 2020 (Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/W/20/3252071) when the appeal against the decision of the planning authority under planning number 20/00574/F was rejected and submit that the same conclusion should be drawn in this case:

The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm its openness. Paragraph 144 of the Framework places substantial weight on any harm to the Green Belt. Additionally, paragraph 143 of the Framework states that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. I have also found that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area as well as wildlife and would conflict with the development plan.

We urge the Planning Authority to reject this application. To permit this application would be to add insult to the egregious injury to the site done in 2019 and would allow the true applicant (whoever that might be) yet again to ‘drive a coach and horses’ through planning law.

Bristol Tree Forum

January 2021

on 2021-01-12   OBJECT

I object on ecological grounds. I believe the trees are of benefit to the site, particularlyas it is located by a busy road and are healthy as far as I am aware.

I believe they are important in battling air pollution, and provide necessary habitat for wildlife.

on 2021-01-12   OBJECT

Not a reputable company as proven in other bristol sites. Why are you still allowingthem to develop in Bristol at all.

on 2021-01-12   OBJECT

The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.

7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

Please reject this application in full.

on 2021-01-12   OBJECT

I object to the further removal of trees from this area. Current trees are a wildlife havenand provide a sound break from the busy A4 road. I object to these particular developers as theyare renowned as poor quality builders who openly flout planning rules. The environmental impactis huge and will be a terrible blight on land bordering green belt. They have already destroyedmature trees during bird nesting season, and openly burned them.They have used the land as a dumping ground. They have zero regard for the wildlife. They willnot stick to any outline planning permission as they regularly flout planning laws and they are sopoor a whole BBC watchdog style documentary focused on their appalling behaviour. They arepersonally toxic as well as polluting the actual environment with their building waste. If BCCapproves any further proposal from these individuals then it seriously calls into question the ethicsof the Planning committee. If I burned down, polluted and destroyed the land next to my house Iwould not expect to be rewarded with planning permission.BCC should move to compulsory purchase this land, due to these brothers being unable toproperly maintain it and prevent pollution and destruction.

on 2021-01-12   OBJECT

The developer seems to act without adherence to any rules

Trees have already been removed form the site without permission some were burned on site withno supervision

The site was used as a dumping ground for rubble and covered withhard standing All of whichwithout permission

The trees in question do not need removing they are healthy and provide environmental benefits

I fail to understand if these trees are subject to Tree Preservation Orders why there is anapplication to remove them

I ask that the council take into consideration the previous actions of the developer and deny thisapplication

on 2021-01-12   OBJECT

I am objecting to the latest planning application by the owners of the former WyevaleGarden Centre. I would encourage as many people as possible to object by the deadline of 20January. Please feel free to use any of the points mentioned in my objection.Objection to Wyevale Tree Felling 20/06131/VP

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducing

the impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

Please reject this application in full.

on 2021-01-12   OBJECT

They should be made to replace all trees and extra to help reduce pollution and givenesting sites for birds and other animals which used the site for their homes.

on 2021-01-12   OBJECT

Trees should never be felled unless they are diseased. On such a busy road producingso much pollution trees are vital.

on 2021-01-12   OBJECT

Tree removal needs to be much more carefully considered and I believe several havebeen taken down for no good reason. The developers behaviour looks slippery to say the least.

on 2021-01-12   OBJECT

I am objecting to the latest planning application by the owners of the former WyevaleGarden Centre -Wyevale Tree Felling 20/06131/VP

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission. Simply planting a sapling does not make up for the lossof biodiversity when felling a mature tree.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones we

already have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea. Mature trees recycle far more carbon dioxide and retain far more water (re flooding) than asapling.5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

Please reject this application in full.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

Trees have been felled and hardstanding increased despite being refused prior planningpermission twice, this developer has been ignoring proper procedure and has no regard for theenvironmental reasons for keeping as much greenery as possible. Habitat loss is a series matterand this developer has shown no regard for it, not playing by the rules.

The Government Planning Inspectorate that upheld Bristol City Council decision that the creationof hard standing would constitute inappropriate development of the Green Belt. This decision wasposted on 17th December the day before the new planning application by the company to removemore trees. The company have continued to add more hard standing to the site and there aremany mounds of builders rubble and soil on site, removed from their other sites aroundBrislington.

We are in an environmental emergency with species loss and global warming increasing. Wecannot allow this to happen any more , especially in Brislington where we are facing loss ofBrislington meadows already.

Please can BCC look into this urgently and ensure that trees are compensated for by replantingand this developer is held to account.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

Please do not fell these trees. They are vital to this heavily polluted area to help cleanthe air. They also provide habitats to wildlife.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

The company that had applied for this planning permission has constantly ignoredprevious orders to stop all work and continued to develop this site having already cut down manyhealthy trees without permission. Someone should be held accountable for allowing this tocontinue for so long.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

This is an area of woodland and has no planning permission. The developers haveignored previous restrictions yet are still on site causing more damage. As they have no planningpermission there can be no reason to fell more trees. The developers must be stopped before theycause permanent damage to this area.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

Objection to Wyevale Tree Felling 20/06131/VP

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

Please reject this application in full.

Yours faithfully,Andrew Varney

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

I am objecting to the latest planning application by the owners of the former WyevaleGarden Centre. I would encourage as many people as possible to object by the deadline of 20January. Please feel free to use any of the points mentioned in my objection.Objection to Wyevale Tree Felling 20/06131/VP

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducing

the impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

Please reject this application in full.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

This is green belt land. The trees should not be destroyed. The land should be keptgreen.b

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

Seeing native, well-established trees and habitat being destroyed is heartbreaking,seeing it happen illegally is vile. The illegal continued laying of hard stand after denial of planningpermission is quite disgusting. The site in question could be developed sensitively andappropriately within the law but the landowner has proceeded illegally and so far, withoutretribution.

The site is home to many species (and previously to many more), provided a windbreak andpollution-filtering screen. As it stands, the remaining trees are the only things that break up a nowotherwise soulless and barren area. I call on BCC to stand up to these bullies and put a stop tothis desecration.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

A commute of my on a very frequent basis. The illegal remove of the habit at this oncebeautiful site is absolutely heartbreaking. The site has continued to operate with laying of hardstanding after denial of planning permission is quite disgusting it shows a complete and utterdisregard to BCC and the intentions are fully known to be laughing at BCC. The site in questioncould be developed sensitively and appropriately within the law but the landowner has proceededillegally and so far, without retribution.The site is home to many species (and previously to many more), provided a windbreak andpollution-filtering screen. As it stands, the remaining trees are the only things that break up a nowotherwise soulless and barren area. I call on BCC to stand up to these bullies and put a stop tothis mindless thuggery to laws and processes. Either a member of the BBC is receiving somewhatunknown packages or are just showing their incompetence. Either way it needs to stop and a fullinvestigation is to be undertaken.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

I object to the application on the Wyevale garden centre plot, because the currentowners have total disregard for the wildlife of this area.They have removed trees without permission, they have extended their footprint withoutpermission, they have put down hard standing without permission.They are threatening to remove more trees - again, without due process being followed.Please throw out their application.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

Objection to Wyevale Tree Felling 20/06131/VP

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

Please reject this application in full.

Yours faithfully,Anna Boulter

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

I totally object to illegal felling of trees, yet this company continues to ignore allrestrictions and orders that have been put in place, when will Bristol city council do somethingabout this site and company, why not have the entrance blocked.Surely officers from the council and the council take them to court and fine the hell out of them.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

I object to the trees being chapped downWe need to keep to the plans that are in place with the trees staying and not let the company differfrom this

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

I object in full. These developers do not respect trees or the community or the BS4 area.Their tactics are not in keeping with the Bristol 'brand' of community, preservation and climate.They do not match with the vision of the mayor of Bristol for Bristol spaces, and they actunlawfully. Their plan is more suited to less developed countries and counties, not Bristol UK.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

I am objecting to the latest planning application by the owners of the former WyevaleGarden Centre. I would encourage as many people as possible to object by the deadline of 20January. Please feel free to use any of the points mentioned in my objection.Objection to Wyevale Tree Felling 20/06131/VP

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducing

the impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

Please reject this application in full.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

At this time of climate crisis we should be saving trees not felling them. Unless they areto be replaced with a greater number of trees

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of theformer Wyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.

6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

Please reject this application in full.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

Objection to Wyevale Tree Felling 20/06131/VP

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of the formerWyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

Please reject this application in full.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of theformer Wyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road.

The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.

2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.

3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.

4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducing

the impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.

6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.

7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

I strongly object to the application. The trees must be preserved to provide protectionfrom the constant noise of the busy A4.Furthermore a degree of windshield is provided by the trees. I do not consider there is a need toremove the trees to provide storage. Finally I am extremely concerned about the poor track recordof the developer.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

Object

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

I wish to put on record my objection to the latest planning application on the site of theformer Wyevale Garden Centre on the A4 Bath Road. The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The developer in question, which seems to change its name with every application but is morecommonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record when it comes to followingplanning rules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because oftheir behaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsiblyand in the interests of the environment and the local community.2. Many trees have previously been removed from the site without permission. A large number ofthese trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land was then used as a dumping groundfor building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of this without permission. In December,2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council's decision that this was anunacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.3. The trees that form the basis of this latest planning application are for the most part perfectlyhealthy and do not require much if any remedial work. It is unacceptable to remove perfectlyhealthy trees without good reason, especially in a climate and ecological emergency. Thecompany claims they will replace the trees but this has yet to happen with the acres of trees theyhave already removed without permission.4. The trees in question are located near a busy, main road and play an important role in reducingthe impact of pollution. We should be planting more trees in this area, not removing the ones wealready have. The removal of these trees will have a detrimental impact on pollution levels in thearea.

5. The trees form an important habitat for local wildlife. We will soon be entering the nestingseason in which trees are vital to support our many bird species.

6. The trees are located adjacent to the Bath Road allotments and form a vital windbreak.7. Due to the developer's previous poor behaviour on the site, all the trees remaining are subjectto Tree Preservation Orders. The developer claims they need to remove the trees for storage, yetmany of the trees lie along the boundary of the site and would hardly be in the way of any storage.

8. There is no evidence of an Environmental Impact Assessment having been undertaken, surelya prerequisite before such an application can be considered.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

History of the company and untrustworthy practices

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

This is no time to be cutting down trees this well established. They will take at least halfa century if not more to be replaced and with the current environmental emergency that the councilthemselves have acknowledged, there is no justification for such an action. Development canhappen on site but around the existing trees. There is enough space to incorporate this into theplan and many benefits may be obtained from retaining them if some thought put into the design.We must protect nature and work with it instead of against it, if we have hope of changing ourcurrent trajectory.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

I object fully to this proposal. The company have a poor track record and havepreviously burnt many trees unnecceasirly without permission. This site is next to a busy mainroad so environmental issues need to be at the heart of this site and no further trees should beremoved.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

These trees provide oxygen for us to breathe. They help protect us from pollution fromthe busy road.

on 2021-01-11   OBJECT

This whole development has been a farce since the beginning. Work starting withoutapproval, complete disrespect for the natural environment, the developers and those working onthe site cannot be permitted to continue. The trees must be protected.

on 2021-01-10   OBJECT

There is no evidence provided in the application for this tree feeling that justifies therequirement. There is no reference to an EIA screening report having been done, which should bedone before any such applications can be assessed. There is no available plan for the site thatresidents can look at and engage with to ensure that work will result in a net biodiversity gain forthe site as per the DEFRA metric(http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5850908674228224). There is nothingreferencing how this entire development respects and maintains the green belt. There has beenno community engagement at all from this developer.

It is incredibly concerning that the developer has already illegally felled mature trees on this siteand as a result was instructed to replace them. However, there are no indications they will comply.Furthermore, they continue to work on the site, e.g. putting down hard standing, despite an orderfrom the council to desist.

This developer should be fined and banned from the site immediately, unless they comply with thetree replacement orders and desist orders with immediate effect, and provide the necessaryinformation regarding biodiversity metrics and standards. No further applications should begranted.

The actions of this developer at this site are shameful and the council needs to grip this issue as amatter of urgency, as per the binding aspirations expressed in its Ecological Emergency documentand as per the One City agenda.

on 2021-01-10   OBJECT

There's no good reason for this to proceed. There are multiple good reasons for this notto proceed. The evidence is already there.

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

Hello, as a local resident in BS4 and frequently travel past this site, it's a real shame tosee these trees are being considered suitable for felling. We must protect the valuable anddiminishing stock of trees we have which cannot be easily replaced. Our natural heritage is beingeroded and just because this site is not necessarily residential doesn't make it better. Thedevelopment should instead look to adjust thier plans to accommodate these important resourcesfor our health, for air quality and for the wildlife they support. Please refuse the application. Manythanks, Sam.

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

No healthy tree should be felledHuge impact on our biodiversityWe should be protecting all of our green wildlife spaces and not pandering to those withdestructive intent for their own purposes

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

These are beautiful, mature trees and as such are vital homes for a diverse range ofbirds, animal and insect species.

Moreover, these trees, located as they are next to the clogged Bath Road, are also vital carbonsinks and also windbreaks for the allotment area.

Finally, their role in stabilisimg the soil in the area should not be underestimated. As our climatebecomes more erratic, the vital topsoil that the allotment area depends upon is at risk of beingwashed away.

Please decline this proposal.

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

Please read the one city plan and the ecological emergency plan created by Bristol CityCouncil. We need to play our part in this climate emergency and this behaviour is not acceptable.

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

The proposal to remove the trees seems like nothing more than wilful destruction. Theyare a beautiful part of the BS4 skyline along the Bath road, a route I cycle often. The trees are ahabitat for urban wildlife, are crowned with ancient mistletoe (visible in the autumn and wintermonths) and clearly act as a CO2/Oxygen exchange next to one of the main routes into southBristol. They also act as a screen to the allotments from the road and the interchange at Hicksgate.I fail to understand why this application is even being considered given previous unsanctionedremoval of trees from the property area.

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

These trees must have some advantages of taking carbon on oxide out of theatmosphere where traffic builds up every day. We need to keep them as it would help keep the itcleaner. What about the effects of climate change if we keep felling our beautiful trees.

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

The removal of these trees is detrimental to local wildlife that uses them as a habitat. Tolose them would mean loss of a habitat, an increase in co2 absorption and the loss of a localnatural landmark.

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

These trees should remain

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

This is an unnecessary destruction of trees. We need to keep our green belt

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

I object to the proposed tree felling.

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

Too many trees already felled illegally, this MUST STOP. Allotment holders have saidwildlife seriously effected already. Exactly what will be built on this site? Affordable housing forlocal people? Infrastructure, schools, GP surgeries, Dentists, plus? Urgently needed in the area.Also, the proposed relocation of the Brislington Park & Ride and more housing being built and TheMeadows St Annes again any Affordable housing for Bristolians.HOW MANY MORE TREES WILL BE AFFECTED IN OUR AREA, not only on this application.

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

Hello,once again I'm forced to object to what's going on behind wyvale garden centre bythe litt brothers and what other names they might go by. I was told they had to re-place trees thatthey had removed before (which they I might add have not) and that they're preservation orders onsome of them now because of this. How in the hell can they now ask to cut more down,it's an utterdisgrace! Nothing seems to be done about this company. They have tramac the area that they hadbeen refused planning to twice and no one has been out to check on this. ive been told by areliable source from their office that they're quite happy to do it anyway and pay the fines thismakes a joke of the whole system,but I suppose they get away with it!! I also believe some of thetrees they want to remove are behind fencing belonging to the allotments/council so they have noright to touch them. The wildlife and nature they have destroyed is disgusting,lots of animals birdsetc have been displaced and killed because of what they've done on this site and enough isenough! Someone must take immediate action to sort this company out,they think their above thelaw. The notice they put on the gate was done just before Christmas where no one could see. Itwasn't put on any of the main gates within public view,once again very underhanded actions of aunderhanded company. I beg you to please put a stop to all they are trying to do and sendsomeone up there to check on what's being done in there and make them do what they've beentold to do ie replace the trees they've already demolished

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

Tons of trees have been cut down and not replaced which they have been ordered to doso after forestry department go involved. After cutting down previous trees they piled them up,covered them in petrol and set fire to them. A huge amount of wild life have lost their homesalready and considering the current climate, I don't think we should loose any more trees

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

As part of the bath road allotment I have been dismayed by the devistation thedeveloper has alread done with no regards to planning permission and to think the trees around uswould be removed not only a great loss of mature trees but also wind and weather break

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

I am disgusted that this application is given air time. After the wonton destruction ofwonderful natural habitat that has been raped & pillaged by uncaring thoughtless mindlessheathens. No permission was given, they clearly have no morals. So I absolutely OBJECT in thestrongest way. These money grabbing filth need to be locked up for the murder of millions ofinsect & wild life.

PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS APPLICATION!

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

My allotment backs on to this site so I am very against this application to remove trees .The wildlife that lives in the trees are paramount to the survival of many animals . We are meant tobe planting more trees not pulling them down .Not only are the trees on the site of the allotmentbut they have a preservation act . They have already taken down trees illegally. If these trees weretaken down it would be a travesty not only on wildlife but would effect all of the allotments behindthe trees . Greenhouses , pets , ponds , planting , it would effect all of these things . It is disgustingwhat they have been allowed to do already

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

This is disgusting, they have already taken down trees that had a preservation act howmuch more damage to the environment will they cause . Why has this not been dealt with . A fineis not enough , they are a very rich company a fine means nothing to them . These trees will neverbe able to be replaced

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

Absolutely disgusted that the owner of the land has no regard for the environment or thewildlife. We should be conserving as many trees as we can now

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

I understand trees with a tree protection order are going to be illegally felled

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

I would like to the removal of protected trees at the rear of bath road allotments. Theowners have already removed 100 trees from this area without permission. It appears they dowhat ever they want then pay the pautry fines. If the trees between the garden centre and theallotments are removed. Apart from the impact on the environment. People would be able to walkstraight into the allotments

on 2021-01-09   OBJECT

Dear Mr Bennett

I strongly oppose the recent application for felling of trees on the above site for the following reasons:-

1. Bristol has declared an "Ecological Emergency" Feb 2020, with a pledge to create more space for nature, with 30% of land in Bristol managed for the benefit of wildlife, how can this proposed felling of trees take place?

2. This land is greenbelt and provides a much needed area for wildlife and all the trees have a TPO for this reason.

3. Previous felling of trees last Feb 2020 was carried out without permission and the area has been used to bury construction waste.

4. Totally disregard for the planning process and no attempt to restore the land to it's previous condition, I don't think the owners will plant more trees to mitigate those that are proposed to be felled if they are unable to observe planning regulations in the first place & who will enforce it?

5. There will also be a loss of 9.1 hectares with the proposed housing development locally on the Brislington Meadows, site allocation BSA1201, which will also probably result in more trees and hedgerows being destroyed and felled, if this goes ahead more valuable green space will be lost on both counts.

6. Silverback Arboricultural consultancy have indicated that there are no reasons to

fell the trees due to disease or danger.

7. Has an ecological survey been carried out on the area? This is a rich wild life habitat that is vital for deer, foxes, badges, hedgehogs, rabbits, birds, birds of prey, slowworms, bats the list is endless for an area such as this which is surrounded by fields and hedgerows.

8. If the "Spacial Plans" were rejected for this site a year or so ago for housing on the recommendation that planners had to go back to the drawing board to find more brown field sites instead of green belt, then doesn't this overrule any change of use from current green belt land?

Yours sincerelyHilary Rydon

on 2021-01-08   OBJECT

Further felling of trees on this site will have more detrimental impact on the wildlife ontop of the harm already caused by the previous felling of trees.

on 2021-01-07   OBJECT

How can this company put in another application to remove more trees the day aftertheir appeal to the Planning Inspectorate was dismissed! The dates being 17th December 2020 forthe planning inspectorate decision and the new application beIng 18th December 2020. ThePlanning Inspectorate agreed with Bristol City Council and the local objectors in Brislington thatthe company were unlawful in their removal of trees and with their creation of hard standing forstorage. We must remember that this is Green Belt land and as such should be protected. Thecompany should be made to stop all work on site and that includes its use as an unlicensedconstruction waste site.

on 2021-01-07   OBJECT

I object that the tree felling by a company taken down trees on the site and filling in theholes with debris from another site they are developing in the St. Anne's area.

The company does not have plans to dismantle the trees on this site and they should be enforcedto replace the trees and discontinue working on this site.

on 2021-01-07   OBJECT

This is environmentally detrimental to the area which already suffers from high level ofpollution. We should be protecting our local wild life and helping the environment to thrive.

on 2021-01-06   OBJECT

I have just seen the planning application to remove another 13 trees from this site (hundreds have already been removed without planning permission). The application says it is toprovide more space in storage area, the planning inspectorate have already dismissed an appealby this company for this site, as a large part of the land has already been hard landscaped withoutthe appropriate permissions their appeal was dismissed 17th Dec.I may be cynical but I question why this was put in just before the Christmas holidays, last timethey felled trees it was done over an Easter bank holiday and this is now the reason why there areTPO's on all trees on this greenbelt site. There was considerably community outrage at the time.Having looked at their supporting documentation most of the trees are around boundary so do noteffect storage space, and none required immediate action to make safe when surveyed, and a fairproportion are in fair condition.This company ( who have changed their name at least 3 times whilst illegally doing work on thesite) have a poor record and I am baffled why work still continues on site when their retrospectionplanning application and appeal have both been dismissed due to the lack of supporting evidenceand that this is important greenbelt land for Bristol and they do not give exceptional reasons!Has a bat survey been done? After 2 years an ecological survey has still not been completed byland owners for this site. But they continue to add new hardstanding and bury tons of constructionwaste without any penalties or prosecutions.I strongly object to any more trees being removed from this site

on 2021-01-06   OBJECT

I have just seen the planning application to remove another 13 trees from this site (hundreds have already been removed without planning permission). The application says it is toprovide more space in storage area, the planning inspectorate have already dismissed an appealby this company for this site, as a large part of the land has already been hard landscaped withoutthe appropriate permissions their appeal was dismissed 17th Dec.I may be cynical but I question why this was put in just before the Christmas holidays, last timethey felled trees it was done over an Easter bank holiday and this is now the reason why there areTPO's on all trees on this greenbelt site. There was considerably community outrage at the time.Having looked at their supporting documentation most of the trees are around boundary so do noteffect storage space, and none required immediate action to make safe when surveyed, and a fairproportion are in fair condition.This company ( who have changed their name at least 3 times whilst illegally doing work on thesite) have a poor record and I am baffled why work still continues on site when their retrospectionplanning application and appeal have both been dismissed due to the lack of supporting evidenceand that this is important greenbelt land for Bristol and they do not give exceptional reasons!Has a bat survey been done? After 2 years an ecological survey has still not been completed byland owners for this site. But they continue to add new hardstanding and bury tons of constructionwaste without any penalties or prosecutions.I strongly object to any more trees being removed from this site

on 2021-01-06   OBJECT

I strongly object to the further felling of trees on this site. The detrimental effect on thewildlife / ecosystem and increased risk to flooding in the area is not in line with Bristol's greenpolicies and is unnecessary.

on 2021-01-06   OBJECT

I object to the way this company seem to think they are above the law by felling treeswithout permission. I object to the felling of more trees on this site. The effect on the wildlife in thearea and increased risk to flooding is not acceptable, this is green belt land and should remain sofor future generations to enjoy.

on 2021-01-06   OBJECT

The tree removal request is another application to destroy a natural resource and isanother ploy to completely destroy the ecology of the site which the council in our name mustprotect.As a storage area firstly what for and why when they have a empty site.

on 2021-01-06   OBJECT

I understand that this planning application proposes removing another 13 trees from thesite and this follows hundreds previously removed without planning permission. In the currentclimate, any felling of trees as to be supported by robust evidence and this is not evident.There has been countless objections to previous work by the same company, and I strongly objectagainst planning permission and encourage further investigations of some of the practicesundertaken without permission. This is greenbelt land and these practices are not lawful orappropriate and I strongly object to more trees being removed.

on 2021-01-06   OBJECT

My comment

Dear Planning Officer,

I wish to formally object to the planning application 20/06131/VP.

1) The trees are subject to TPO due to hundreds of trees being removed without permission. The site has already been drastically changed and removal of more trees will cause more wildlife and ecological impact. We will shortly be coming into Spring again when wild birds will be nesting.

2) The supporting tree report does not recommend any action required at this time. The application form confirms they are not diseased or causing any property damage.

3) The application says that they will replant elsewhere. I don't see anything on the plans to show where they will be replanted. The company has already chopped down hundreds of trees without replanting any. I find it very difficult to take their word for it. I imagine the replanted trees will not be the same size and have the same impact on ecology or air quality.

4) On the same site , retrospective planning has been refused. Appeals have been rejected . Yet the company has not returned ground to its previous state. Why would the council approve further planning whilst this is still outstanding.

5) The reason for further storage space in my view seems hard to understand. There appears to be more than enough space.

6) By removing more trees this further harms the character and visual appearance of the countryside. The removal of more trees also significantly harms the openness of the Green Belt

In my view the reason for needing the trees removed doesn't meet the bar. I strongly disagree with any more perfectly good trees being cut down in the name of "more storage area".

Many Thanks

William Moore