Application Details

Reference 21/00347/VP
Address Wyevale Garden Centre Bath Road Brislington Bristol BS31 2AD  
Street View
Sitecode BTF-004
Proposal T02 - Cherry Fell. T05 - Wild Cherry- Fell. T06 - Wild Cherry- Fell. T07 - Cherry Laurel - Fell. To Create Storage Area. Replacement Planting Will Be Undertaken Elsewhere on site. TPO 1372.
Validated 22-01-21
Type Tree Preservation Order
Status Withdrawn
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 10-02-21
Determination Deadline 19-03-21
Decision Application Withdrawn
Decision Issued 28-01-21
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 35  Unstated: 1  Total: 36
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 28-01-21

Application withdrawn - 04 March 2021

We have now submitted our objections to this application - https://bristoltreeforum.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/btf-submission-21-00347-vp.pdf.

This is a repeat of https://bristoltrees.space/Planning/application/QLJGD6DNL9R00 - save that the applicant now states that the trees will be replaced elsewhere on the site.

Public Comments

  OBJECT

2

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 that 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 also 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.

3

This is the second time this application has been made. The earlier application was withdrawn on 21 January 2021 - 20/06131/VP. The comments we made in that application remain relevant albeit that the applicant now states that replacement planning will be undertaken elsewhere on the site.

The trees covered by this application are protected by an Area TPO - TPO 1372 – A1. This Order protects all the trees which were or are now standing on the old Wyevale Garden Centre site at the time it was confirmed on 16 April 2019, although it would have been in force from the day it was made.

We contend that, by removing all the trees then standing on the site to install the hardstanding which was the subject of failed planning application 20/00574/F, the applicant has committed an offence under the legislation which protects TPO trees – see Annex 1.

Having undertaken a desktop survey (see the Canopy Surveys link) of the site, we calculate that, before this site was clear-felled, it had a tree canopy cover (TCC) of about 44%. We calculate that it is now is about 12%, with the remaining trees mostly confined to the site boundaries.

The application of BTRS

The applicant has identified 13 trees which he wishes removed. Eight of these are in a group (G04) but their stem diameters are not given because they are said to be ‘too small to calc’. We have set their diameters at an average of 15 cm which is the minimum tree stem diameter required under the provisions of the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS).

The survey gives the crown spread dimensions for this group – 3 metres for each cardinal point. We have assumed that this is for the whole group rather than for each tree in the group. On this basis, the group’s canopy area is 226.2 square metres.

We calculate that the 13 trees have a CAVAT value of £178,462 and that, taken together, they provide a TCC of 364 square metres and provide 0.1762 Biodiversity Units.

If permission were given to remove these trees, then, under BTRS, 20 tree replacements would need to be planted. In our view this will not adequately replace what will be lost – at least 364 square metres of tree canopy and all the ecoservices these trees provide.

The application of the Biodiversity Metric

If the modelling set out in the Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (JP029) is applied, then the New Habitat area needed just to replace what will be lost (without any Net Gain added) is 953 Square metres. We calculate that 83 trees will need to be planted just to achieve Zero Net Gain replacement. This would only be achieved after 27 years – assuming any trees planted survive this long.

The calculations upon which these values are based may be downloaded here.

4

The impact of TPO legislation

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

Our Submission

1. The planning background

The National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to ensure that new development is sustainable. It stresses the importance of Green Infrastructure as one of three overarching, interdependent objectives – economic, social, and environmental. This means that the presumption in favour of sustainable environmental development is just as important as any which are related to economic or social development objectives.

Trees are an integral part of this because of the importance of trees in relation to the management of air, soil and water quality along with other associated ecosystem services, climate change adaptions and beneficial health effects. The NPPF also seeks to achieve the protection and enhancement of landscapes and achieve Net Gain in biodiversity.

BDM2 provides a way of measuring and accounting for biodiversity losses and gains resulting from development or land management change. It defines Net Gain as an:

“approach to development that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than beforehand. This means protecting existing habitats and ensuring that lost or degraded environmental features are compensated for by restoring or creating environmental features that are of greater value to wildlife and people. It does not change the fact that losses should be avoided where possible, a key part of adhering to a core environmental planning principle called the mitigation hierarchy.”

The mitigation hierarchy

The mitigation hierarchy provides a cascading decision process: only if the preceding choice is unavailable is the next one considered.

• Avoid - Where possible, habitat damage should be avoided.

• Minimise - Where possible, habitat damage and loss should be minimised.

• Remediate - Where possible, any damage or lost habitat should be restored.

• Compensate - As a last resort, damaged or lost habitat should be compensated for.

Local Planning Authorities (LPA) in the UK have a statutory duty to consider both the protection and planting of trees when considering planning applications. The potential impact of

5

development on all trees is therefore a material consideration. BCS9 of the Core Strategy states that "Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development".

We have summarised Bristol’s planning policies as they relate to trees here - Planning obligations in relation to trees in Bristol.

We cannot agree that any of these trees should be allowed to be felled, especially considering the March 2019 clear-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:

6

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

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

7

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 Earth view made on 23 April 2020

8

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 (there appears to be ample existing hardstanding available for a storage area to be set aside anyway).

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 new application. To grant it 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.

It would also be contrary to Policy BCS9 of the Bristol Local Plan: Core Strategy (2011) and of Policies DM15, DM17 and DM19 of Site Allocations and Development Management Policies.

Bristol Tree Forum

January 2021

9

Annex 1 – Evidence of a previous breach of TPO legislation

The Tree Protection Order protecting the trees at the garden centre is an Area TPO - TPO 1372 - A1. It was confirmed on 16 April 2019 though it will have taken effect when the order was made in early March. This type of TPO protects all the trees growing within the pink shaded area below, whether they were present at the time the order was made or whether they appeared afterwards. This is the area the order covers.

This area includes the remains of the line of Poplars (the stumps and the roots) and other trees left growing along the southern boundary of the old garden centre site in the aftermath of the clear-felling incident on 08 March 2019, just before the TPO was made. It also includes those remaining trees which were located within the area to the south of the old garden centre boundary after this area was also clear-felled at the time.

We visited the site on 19 March 2019 and took a series of photos (figures 2-4 above) of the remaining stumps – there were at least 14 visible. These and other trees visible above appear

10

subsequently to have been removed to install the unauthorised hardstanding visible in the image below. If this is the case, then this is an offence.

Figure 6 :The area of unauthorised hardstanding (Google Earth view on 23 April 2020)

Under section 210 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (T&CPA 1990), any person who, in contravention of a tree preservation order tree preservation regulations, cuts down, uproots or wilfully destroys a tree shall be guilty of an offence. This applies as much to the living remains of a tree as it does to one that is extant.

Regulation 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 requires anyone who wants to uproot a TPO tree to apply to the LPA for prior permission to do so. We have seen no evidence that an application was made for permission to do this. If this is correct, then this is an offence under s210 of the T&CPA 1990.

on 2021-03-02   OBJECT

Zero public support, green spaces and trees should be preserved, applicants havebehaved atrociously and should not profit from dustruction of precious local trees. Replanting isnot the same as preserving

on 2021-02-28   OBJECT

I object strongly to this second application, for the same reasons as the first one. Thiscompany have blatantly ignored advice and warnings about their previous actions regarding theillegal felling of trees with TPOs, setting fires on site and the intended use of the site which seemsto change every week. If any permission is granted to fell this small number of trees, I amconcerned they will carry on and clear other trees because they can. This site will never bereturned to its former state, and the impact on what was a thriving wildlife zone has beendevastating.

on 2021-02-12   OBJECT

on 2021-02-09   OBJECT

Too many trees destroyed without permission.No direct response from owners to replace said trees that they have been asked to do so.They continue to flout the rules and have no interest of the natural habitat of the wildlife fauna,trees that have been on this site for years.The dumping, burying of rubbish and do what they want without any thought, consultation withlocal residents, tree professionals, wildlife organisations and even council officials who are ignoredby the Litt Bros. They have caused so much damage for what?Put the Park n Ride on this site and restore the natural habitat and green space for local residentsto use and build the houses on the present site (Stockwood Lane) now as proposed. Bath Roadand surrounding local roads congested to their limit. Hick Gate Roundabout, Ring Road needsextending to take traffic away. STOP THIS APPLICATION.

on 2021-02-09  

Dear Sir/ Madame.

I would like to make the following comment on :

21/00347/VP | T02 - Cherry Fell. T05 - Wild Cherry- Fell. T06 - Wild Cherry- Fell. T07 - Cherry Laurel - Fell. To Create Storage Area. Replacement Planting Will Be Undertaken Elsewhere on site. TPO 1372. | Wyevale Garden Centre Bath Road Brislington Bristol BS31 2AD

Dear Planning Officer,

I wish to formally object to the planning application 21/00347/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 on site. 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) According to the regulations I see that the applicant must

"(iii)a statement of the applicant's reasons for making the application. Applicants must provide reasons for proposed work. They should demonstrate that the proposal is a proportionate solution to their concerns and meets the requirements of sound arboriculture."

The reason for further storage space in my view is hard to understand and does not go into enough details. Why is storage required where the trees are? There appears to be more than enough space unused across the site. In my view it's not a "proportionate solution". The application is not justified.

6) Just like the refused planning permission at the back of the site removing more trees further harms the character and visual appearance of the countryside. The removal of more trees also significantly harms the openness of the Green Belt.

7) I see no environmental survey attached to confirm and ensure that protected wildlife and birds will be affected by the removal of the trees. This is the greenbelt.

8) I see that the amenity value of the tree or woodland has been increased since the deforestation at the back of the site. The trees at the front of the site can be openly seen by the public. The fact they sit within the wildlife corridor further increases the value. They also contribute to the character of the greenbelt.

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". If this has to be approved it should be approved with formal conditions .For example,

Trees need to be replanted on this site. New position to be agreed as a condition by the tree officer and must be included within the TPO.Trees need to be of a certain size and type to be agreed with the tree officer. No building work, road , accessway is to be built on the land occupied by the trees being removed as the planning justification is for storage only.

Many Thanks

William Moore

on 2021-02-08   OBJECT

I am having to put in my objection comment again as the developers have reissued theirplanning to destroy more of the surrounding landscape and green belt. This situation is frustratingand upsetting, the green belt is there for a reason, to protect wildlife and allow nature to thrive.These developers are constantly crashing around in their sitex burning and felling as they like, withno respect or care for the surrounding habits of birds, insects ans other native flora and fauna. Itotally object to them destroying the trees and land surrounding the Bath Road allotments, there islittle green space in cities anyway, we must fight to keep what little there is left.

on 2021-02-08   OBJECT

I wish to preserve the greenbelt

on 2021-02-08   OBJECT

Further felling of mature trees on this site needs to be stopped. The effect on wildlife inthe area from previous felling is already unacceptable and further damage will be irreversible.

on 2021-02-06   OBJECT

Removing more mature trees will exacerbate the environmental damage already doneon this site, which has a large amount of tarmacced space available. There is no need to removefurther trees when there is so much space that could be used without harming the environmentmore. 'Replacing' these trees with new planting is, as is well identified, insufficient for decades interms of reducing the environmental impact - the best environmental solution is to retain existingtrees. This is especially important since these are alongside one of the busiest travel corridors intoBristol, the A4 Bath Road. This removal will also impact on nearby allotment space, harming whatis broadly agreed to be a positive influence on the environment and society. This application, andfurther tree removal applications on this site, should be rejected. The applicants have beeneffectively misusing the planning process by submitting repeated applications in an attempt towear clear local opposition down and this also needs to be addressed somehow.

on 2021-02-05   OBJECT

I'd like to object on the grounds that these are well established trees, that even if thereplanting did take place (which I am doubtful of) it would take several years to replicate thebenefits offered by the current trees.

on 2021-02-05   OBJECT

I strongly object.

It is an absolute disgrace that this land owner has been allowed to get away with this criminalactivity.It is evident they have back handers from the local council to avoid prosecution to date; just look atall their other developments in Brislington where they have ruined land, lives, broken the law andbreached planning permission.Less than 1 mile down the road they also operate as "515 Stockwood Road LLP" where a TPOalso had to be put in place by the local councillor after Litt Holdings also destroyed and illegally cutdown trees on the land at 515-517 Stockwood Road. There was trees on the side of Riders, andalong the rear of the Van store. Now only a couple remain. The developer also breached approvedplans at this site and has still, 2.5years on, not planted the shubbery and greenery they weresupposed to on the approved plans. Additionally they lied on a recent residential application to sayno trees would be affected by the proposed building and this was a lie as they had chopped thetrees down in the proposed site just weeks before submitting their application.They have NOT performed replacement planting at 515-517 Stockwood Road and there is nodoubt in my mind that if this permission for felling is granted, no replacement planting will occur.The approval will just hide all the illegal activity that they plan to remove further greenery and cuteven more trees completely down.Just look at Google Maps to show the sheer scale of this disgraceful act!

The land does not require a further storage area as there is already a huge car park on the site,the land owner has also laid further hard standing. Again shown on Google Maps.

They are NOT a responsible land owner or developer and are NOT welcome in our community.

The Bath Road is a major access route into Bristol and Bath and with recent development at 515-517 Stockwood Road and plans to build on Park and Ride(already hard standing ground) the localarea needs all the countryside and trees it needs to combat and help prevent global warming. Italso helps the environment and air we breathe in our community which improves out health andwellbeing. The greater picture of further development in Brislington and removal of greenerymeans ultimately ill-health and an increase in attendance at the doctors surgeries.

With a great bird and nature population in the local area they have already been significantlyaffected by this illegal activity.

Please do not ever approve felling, building,or any other destructive works at this location. Theland owner does not deserve to own such beauty.

on 2021-02-05   OBJECT

Dear Mr BennettI strongly object to anymore healthy trees being felled on this site.

Hundreds of trees were illegally felled in 2019 and planning permission has been ignored for the massive hard standing that has been created. It constitutes a total "rape" & destruction of this green belt area with total disregard for the environment and the planning processes that are in place to protect our countryside.

Bristol has declared an Ecological Emergency how can this happen in an area which is green belt with existing tree protection orders? Areas such as this are valuable wildlife habitats and form a valuable green belt outside of our urban areas, a place for nature and wildlife to thrive and be protected.

Going by their previous track record and company history they seem unlikely to be trusted and stand by their word, their actions are deliberate, destructive & selfish.

When will the owners of this land be held to account for their actions, how much destruction and deceit needs to takes places before they are stopped?

RegardsHilary Rydon

on 2021-02-03   OBJECT

I see no reason why the developer wants to put in this application when the trees in thisapplication are adjacent to the trees on the previous application for removal which wassubsequently withdrawn. Perhaps I could say cynically they are doing it just to wear down theobjections and ability of the council enforcement officers to protect the trees.The trees in question are away from the all ready laid hardstanding and area of development(destruction) on the Keynsham side of the garden centre buildings. The trees in the application area copse of trees on bank of grassland and are in perfectly good health. These trees are notaffecting any business in the buildings. They are providing a habitat for birds insects and otherwood land creatures. I believe there has been no surveys, by the developer, to assess the habitatfor nature. They also help with the clean air policy of the council along a very busy stretch of theA4There is plenty of unused hardstanding created without permission to the Brislington side of thegarden centre buildings. On 17th December the Government Planning Inspector reported that 'thelaying of hardstanding would constitute inappropriate development of the GreenBelt.'Having thought about the issue I do feel the only reason the developer wants to remove the treesis to create a travel corridor behind the buildings from the Keynsham side of the site. This willagain require unlawfully laid hardstanding.I do not want to see further destruction of the protected Green Belt and the felling of these treescould allow this to happen.

on 2021-02-02   OBJECT

The stated aim of the reason for felling the trees ie more storage is not justified as thereis ample room on the site for storage. The trees are subject to a TPO and form part of a wildlifecorridor. Their removal will impact on the biodiversity of the area and is contrary to Bristol's policyand Local plan. There has been no wildlife survey to consider the impact. The proposedreplacements will not adequately replace the loss of tree canopy and carbon sequestration at atime when such matters are critical to humanity and this is against Bristol CC policy of becomingmore carbon neutral. Further trees matter to people's wellbeing and mental health. They are ongreenbelt land and their situation on the edge of the city on a busy road matters in providing greenreplenishment for those travelling through the area as well as helping to reduce traffic fumes. Istrongly object to this proposed development.

on 2021-02-02   OBJECT

I wish to object to the felling of these trees, purely for storage purposes. These treesoffer habitat and a wildlife corridor that can not simply be replaced by new planting.This unnecessary destruction goes against Bristol planning guidance as well as the ecologicalemergency that was called.Please reject this application and encourage the developer to find a more creative solution thatpreserves this habitat.

on 2021-01-31   OBJECT

In my opinion Bristol Council should be planting young and preserving mature trees asan absolute priority. They provide a huge benefit to the health and well being of everyone and areintegral to the biodiversity of our environment. I think Bristol Council and the government agree.That is why the trees have protection orders on them and they are not diseased or a safety risk toanyone. What's proposed is for healthy, mature wild cherry trees to be cut down for a storagearea. On an green belt site that already has plenty of vacant hard standing areas. The councilshould be seeking to improve on the biodiversity that we have, work with it and around it, ratherthan cutting it down and hoping it will come back in the future. There is absolutely no scientific ormoral support for that philosophy.

on 2021-01-31   OBJECT

Objection to Wyevale Tree Felling

21/00347/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. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsibly and in theinterests 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.9. Their is evidence of illegal rubbish burial at this site. Please investigate.

Please reject this application in full.

Yours faithfully,Bryony Morgan

on 2021-01-31   OBJECT

There is no valid reason to fell any trees, re-planting cannot be guaranteed and shouldbe done years before felling any current ones.

Trees help with pollution and levels will be high due to the very busy Bath Road.

on 2021-01-30   OBJECT

Clearly this developer is going to continue to put applications in that are the same asones rejected. This is a huge fingers up to both the council, environmental protection laws andresidents. This developer should be barred from entering this site IMMEDIATELY. And they shouldbe barred from repeat applications.

My objection is as follows.

There is no evidence provided in the application for this tree feeling that justifies the requirement.There is no reference to an EIA screening report having been done, which should be done beforeany such applications can be assessed. There is no available plan for the site that residents canlook at and engage with to ensure that work will result in a net biodiversity gain for the site as perthe DEFRA metric (http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5850908674228224).There is nothing referencing how this entire development respects and maintains the green belt.There has been no 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 be

granted.

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 2021-01-30   OBJECT

As far as I can see the "developers" have ignored Council orders and have ravaged thelandscape I know the site very well as I used to shop in the Garden Centre I feel there is no needto cut back even more trees There is plenty of space to site hard standing without butchering theremaining trees There are others who have been more eloquent and " fine tuned " in theirobjections I fully support the comments and objections made by the Bristol Tree Forum so I am notgoing to re-invent the wheel !

So I request that this application is refused

on 2021-01-30   OBJECT

How many more times does this have to be declined or withdrawn? The neighborhooddoesn't want this just see last application comments. Pollution rising and you want to chop downmature trees to put up parking!! Really

on 2021-01-29   OBJECT

Objection to Wyevale Tree Felling

21/00347/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 2021-01-28   OBJECT

I completely object this planning application and it's unclear why they are allowed tocontinue to operate in such a substandard way.

There are shocking photos from this site in terms of burying hazardous waste material so thesetrees may end up being poisoned in their poor practice.

This site and their practiced needs to be reviewed urgently.

on 2021-01-28   OBJECT

Yet another application! There is no reason for these trees to be taken down , they arenot obstructing anything or preventing storage. It's another excuse via a company that does notabide by rules and regulations. This is an important green belt lane and a environment corridor. Istrongly object due to the fact of the above and that they have previously removed trees illegallyfrom this site. There are no exceptional circumstances for these trees.

on 2021-01-27   OBJECT

Objection to Wyevale Tree Felling

21/00347/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 faithfully,Andrew Varney

on 2021-01-27   OBJECT

So disappointing to see a company repeatedly ignore notices to cease developmentand repeatedly submit inappropriate applications without punitive consequences. I submit that noapplication, including this one should be considered while the landowner / developer is in breachof protection orders. The trees they want to fell are ancient, native trees that provide importanthabitat. They are very few left due to the landowner already felling neighbouring trees andpolluting the green belt land by dumping and burying commercial building waste. This area is atiny but beautiful haven for wildlife and is valuable as such to local people. Any development ofthis entire site must be done sympathetically and without further destruction of the remainingwoodland. Allowing this to proceed would fly in the face of Bristol's status as a green city.

on 2021-01-27   OBJECT

I object to any more trees being removed from this site. I was under the impression thatmost of them now have preservation orders on them because of what they did with the eight ormore acres of trees they illegally removed before. This company must think we were all bornyesterday,by reapplying for this application after just removing it. Did they think we would notice!What is going on, on this site is disgusting they've totally ignored anything they've been told to do.They're planning application for tarmac in part of it was refused but they've still gone on and doneit. Trees have recently been cut down and over the last couple of days tree surgeons have been inand out. I seriously would advise someone from the planning department goes up there and sortsthis out once and for all. It seems to me a blind eye is being given to this this company (who go bymany different names) enough is enough

on 2021-01-27   OBJECT

Here we go again , don't you think these people have done enough damage . Theyhave already removed trees that haven't been replaced . They have laid tarmac which they weren'taloud to do . The damage to the environment is horrendous. The wildlife that it will disturb isunmentionable . The trees that are left have a preservation act on .come on guys prosecute themand stop them doing any more damage

on 2021-01-27   OBJECT

There is absolutely no reason for taking down more of the trees on this site. Thedeveloper has already annihilated prime wildlife habitat without a second thought. Burning thedebris & causing issues with the local area. I don't normally respond to these things but I'm soincensed by the blatant disregard of planning procedures that I feel compelled to respond.UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE DEVELOPER BE ALLOWED TO REMOVE ANYFURTHER TREES.

on 2021-01-27   OBJECT

Objection to Wyevale Tree Felling

21/00347/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.

H. Maggs

on 2021-01-27   OBJECT

Objection to Wyevale Tree Felling

21/00347/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. I understand that the developer in question, which seems to change its name with everyapplication but is more commonly known as the Litt Brothers, have an extremely poor record whenit comes to following planning rules and procedures and 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 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 2021-01-27   OBJECT

Can't believe yet another application for tree felling.I object most strongly to this application.1. No application should be considered for this site until other issues are dealt with. I.e. thecontinuation of putting down hardstanding with application and appeal refused. No fines orenforcement.2. The application form is not complete where is landowners details, should not be consideredwhen not all information is available.3. All trees in question Are in fair to good condition and give no obstructions to current site.4. Considering that they have already cleared 100's of trees without permission, every tree left onthis site is vital for local wildlife. 3rd application and still no ecological report or bat survey.5. These trees are nowhere near there current storage, there is tons of storage already availablemuch of it unused so why ruin this small piece of grass, hedges and trees.7. Looking at plans the only reason for these trees to be removed would be to create Rd/ landcorridor, for further illegal development.8. This is not exceptional reasons, which is required for development of greenbelt land, ashighlighted in decision from Bristol Planning and Planning Inspectorate.9. Goes against Bristol Mayors climate emergency statement.10. 5 trees requested to be felled and only one replacement? Thought it should be like for like?11. This company continually circumnavigate the planning process in sites all over Bristol, have notrust that they will do what they say site should be be put back to how it was e.g removal of allwaste and hardstanding before any applications are considered.

This is the gate way to Bristol and important greenbelt land for the residents of Brislington so no

more trees should be removed.

on 2021-01-27   OBJECT

This company continues to try and fell trees for no good reason, this is green belt landand needs to be stopped, they have no respect for planning laws.

on 2021-01-27   OBJECT

This is green belt land. We must preserve our green spaces.

on 2021-01-27   OBJECT

The mature trees which are effected by this proposal are significant landmark along theA4 route offering an important wildlife corridor in a valuable green belt between Bristol andKeynsham. These are not replaceable by simple replanting as it the maturity of the trees that offertheir significance for wildlife and pollution barrier on a busy A road in an important boundary areabetween Keynsham and Bristol. I have significant concern for the errosion of the nature of the areaand possible future intrusion on the site. I feel that approval of this order would lead to furtherdenigration of the area, which has been already been greatly and negatively affected by massfelling of mature trees to detrement to the area. This has been noticed and is not acceptable orvalid.