|Address||Public Conveniences High Street Westbury Bristol BS9 3ED
|Proposal||T1 Yew - Fell TPO 1406.|
|Type||Tree Preservation Order|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||13-05-21|
|BCC Planning Portal||BCC Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 0 Objectors: 3 Total: 3|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
It is not clear on the Application Form what this application is about. TPO 1406 is listed under "Constraints". This cannot be an objection to the placement of the TPO if that has been confirmed. The covering letter states that a TPO objection has been sent to BCC. When was this sent? Was it before or after the TPO was confirmed, if it has been? Can the Applicant, at this stage, state that the TPO should not have been made in the first place? If it has been confirmed he is out of time to argue that, surely?
The Application Form does not state that a felling of the tree is being requested. But the covering letter states "It is proposed to remove the yew because it is unreasonably close to the building". So this seems to be an application to fell a TPO tree
I see that the objector attempts to persuade the Council against enforcing/confirming the TPO by threat of payment of compensation to the Applicant. Surely the purchasers must have known that there was a tree on the land immediately in front of the building? Maybe they just assumed it could be removed. That is a bold assumption, whether the tree had a TPO or not, and does not entitle them to seek compensation if it should not be removed. Caveat emptor.
In fact the original S211 Notice, 20/02348/VC, to remove the tree was not for the erection of the new building, but to facilitate erection of scaffolding to demolish the old building. If the old building is to be removed then this could be done from the "inside" having removed the other walls first. One often sees building frontages being retained to "face" the replacement building. I am not suggesting that here, but merely saying that such building practices are feasible.
Who owns the tree? Who owns the land? I recall that at the time of the previous application - 20/02348/VC - that some commentators asked that question. Was the ownership of the land immediately in front of the conveniences ever established? He who owns the land owns the tree. BCC PinPoint and KnowYourPlace mapping show the land in front of the conveniences as being part of the Highway. Adjacent landowners can object to the confirmation of a TPO so presumably that is what is being done here - but has such an objection to confirmation been lodged in time?
The placing of a TPO on a tree is in part subjective.
Forbes Laird Arboricultural Consultancy February 2009 TEMPO Guidance Notes are being quoted by the objector as demonstrating that the Yew tree is an 'existing or near future nuisance, clearly outgrowing the context' and should have scored 0 under Section 1b of the TEMPO assessment. I would comment "You would say that, wouldn't you?"
But the same section of the Guidance Note goes on to say that a tree should NOT be marked down because it is standing HARD UP AGAINST AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.
"The nuisance element is introduced to cover situations where, for example, a Section 211 Notice has been received by the LPA for removal of a tree causing subsidence damage. In relation to outgrowing context, some common sense is needed here: if the trees are being considered for TPO protection prior to development, and if it is apparent that demolition of existing structures will be a component of this process, then a tree should not be marked down simply because it is standing hard up against one of the existing structures."
I would say that any replacement building does not have to be erected so close to the Yew tree. In fact, Tree Protection would ensure that it is not built so close to the tree. Then the tree is not a near future nuisance.
I very much support the TPO. The tree has huge amenity value in the High Street. Every tree that grows on the planet is a necessary tree. That is particularly so for urban trees. In such a built environment as a City the presence of a tree improves mental health and reduces pollution. Although these are not criteria for a TPO, amenity is a major consideration.
There are a number of questions here.
Is the Applicant too late to object to the placement of a TPO?
When did the Applicant lodge an objection to the TPO? Was it before or after the TPO was confirmed (if it has been confirmed)? One cannot force a LPA to revoke a confirmed TPO.
Who owns the tree and the land on which it grows?
If the Council owns the land, should the Council permit the felling of a TPO tree it owns to facilitate the demolition and construction of a building close to the tree? Work should be done to the "old" building without causing a nuisance to the tree, and any new building works undertaken in a similar fashion. Maybe the new building will have to be constructed further from the tree.
If the Council should permit the felling of this tree (I object to that) then a replacement tree will need to be planted by the Applicant, and should be within 5 metres of the Yew. I await the siting of that with both interest and dismay.
Should it turn out that the TPO has not been confirmed - I know not how to discover that - then the loss of the tree - if that is permitted - will have to be mitigated under the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard - so that will be something at least. Another tree in the High Street please. It will need a pit. £3,318.88.