21/01994/VP - G01 and G08- Hybrid Black Poplars- Fell TPO 1372. - Objection - the removal of high number of Hybrid poplars has the potential impacts for several reasons An arboricultural report has been produced by Silverback which has identified that several of the black hybrid poplars are in a poor state and do pose a H&S concern. The report states - Various management options have been considered, including crown reductions, pollarding and selective felling. Complete removal of the trees and replacement planting is considered the best option for the long term management of the trees. We have however been informed that the retention of the trees is desirable. In order to retain the trees and ensure they pose a minimal health and safety threat to the site and neighbouring allotments it is considered the trees should be pollarded at around 8m and remaining branches cut back to form a 2m branch spread. I would therefore request that the trees are pollarded rather then felled. Several factors need to be considered here -Wyevale Garden Centre has already had a large number of trees cut down without permission. The strip of black poplar are some of the only remaining matures trees within the site, as such will be providing an important wildlife corridor for wildlife. The line of trees could be used by foraging bats, nesting birds, and will be an important habitat for invertebrates.

Reason for objection - To ensure the protection of legally protected and priority (Section 41) species The site is designated as a wildlife corridor -Agricultural land at Brislington - which has previously been impacted upon by felling of a large number of trees. The strip of black poplar hybrids need to be retained on order to let the wildlife corridor function. Accordingly Policy DM19 in the Local Plan applies. Page 41 of policy DM 19: Development and Nature Conservation in the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies, adopted July 2014, states that: 'Development which would have a harmful impact on the connectivity and function of sites in Wildlife Corridors will only be permitted where the loss in connectivity, or function, of an existing Wildlife Corridor is mitigated in line with the following hierarchy:a. Creation of a new wildlife corridor within the development site;b. Enhancement of an existing corridor or creation of a new corridor off-site to maintain the connectivity of the Bristol Wildlife Network.'Section 2.19.21 on page 43 adds:'Development should integrate existing wildlife corridors. Where this is not practicable it should provide suitable mitigation in the form of on-site, functional Wildlife Corridor(s). Development should also provide mitigation for any habitats, species or features of value associated with the Wildlife Corridors, where they are harmed or lost. This should take place on the development site wherever possible. Reason for objection - loss of wildlife corridor habitat 'for and on behalf of City Design, Bristol City Council'

This is green belt land and these trees should not be felled. I have seen that there is abroken branch on one, but surely some work by a tree surgeon would fix this issue. It seemstotally unnecessary to fell the entire lot.This application is typical, unfortunately, of this developer who has no consideration for theenvironment and is only interested in striping this area of land bare and replacing it with hardstanding, presumably for financial gain. At this time, when Bristol City Council itself has declaredan ecological emergency, it would be absolutely outrageous for this application to be allowed toproceed. BCC, you need to act and stop this developer from destroying this green belt land. Thesedevelopers are currently making a mockery of the planning system and of you BCC by submittingapplication after application all with the intent of destroying the natural environment for their owngain.I whole-hearted object to this application.

Continued work at this site is damaging local environment. Applicants have zero publicsupport for their activities and BCC is continually turning a blind eye to their illegal works.Applicants should be forced to replant trees and be blocked from submitting further planningapplications.

Continued work at this site is damaging local environment. Applicants have zero publicsupport for their activities and BCC is continually turning a blind eye to their illegal works.Applicants should be forced to replant trees and be blocked from submitting further planningapplications.

Please do not let these contractors fell any more trees on the wyevale site. The treesare healthy and on green belt land so why are the council allowing the land to be decimated.The land is a complete mess and they have now placed big stones all round the car park to stoppeople entering. The site that has been screened off is a disgrace, they have dug up the grass andfelled trees to dump hard core and then bury it under earth. What is going on- where are theplanning officers when you need them ?????I'm fed up being sworn at by the new owners who obviously have something to hide otherwise whyare they hiding behind a wire fence.The trees are a valuable part of Brislington and the countryside- what lessons are we teaching ourchildren when they see wildlife habitats being destroyed like this.Stop them felling any more trees and don't give in to pressure from this company!!!!!!

I strongly object to the proposal. The trees they propose to fell are mature, importantparts of the local landscape and environment. Their removal could increase traffic congestion andpollution. Losing screening plants that absorb CO2 such as these trees would have a detrimentaleffect and furthermore be a loss of habitat for wildlife.

I am also aware that this developer has already felled a number of tress without planning consentand has given no justification for this proposal (or any other). They seem to be employing astrategy of repeatedly submitting variations of the same proposal in the hopes that one 'slipsthrough the net'. Surely the council should address this as it clearly isn't how the planning systemis designed to be used?

We are facing a climate crisis and senselessly felling trees must be avoided at all costs.

Living in Keynsham for nearly 30 years I do not see the point in this application. Theplanning pressures on our town are great and protection of the green belt is very important. Wecould find our small town looking like Patchway-Filton, a vast grey housing estate

The trees do not need to be removed.

No disease or reason to take these trees down. The land that is next to them can beused with the trees there and has for a long time.

All trees should be preserved - too many have gone from this site already!

Again, stop this clown from putting in multiple applications. The council are being shownas useless by this process.

Outrageous this is even being considered. We need to preserve such well-establishedtrees and the associated wildlife habitats on the periphery of the city as well as more centrally.

It is an absolute disgrace what is being allowed to happen here. The 'developers' of thisland to not adhere to any rules or regulations and trees are i mindlessly being destroyed - thisneeds to stop

Object to the felling of trees

I wish to strongly object to this planning permission. Why does this arboriculture report yet again use a out of date picture on its cover? Its mendacious to not show a true picture of the carnage at this site.

Why does the report differ so much in only a couple of years?

Whilst I agree some of the trees could be better managed. The proposed solution is excessive. Normal guidance is that they should not be reduced by more the 25% so why has the applicant asked to reduce them by so much if not to risk killing them off for good?

The risk of a safety appears to be minimal and away from the public. If they hadn't cut down the trees and turned the back end of the site into a barren wasteland would there have been a safety issue in the first place? As it sounds like this action is being claimed has affected the wind movement. Cut the trees back 25%, remove the dangerous trees and plant the trees again which you illegally cut down to create the wind barrier again. From the pictures it looks like they have parked a static caravan. Does this need planning permission?

Should the council planning department agree to this, conditions should be put in place. Trees should be replanted before they are cut down. The new trees should be covered by the TPO. We cannot trust this developer to do the right thing . Their past record on not just this site but others is bad enough to warrant a report on the BBC. A full independent ecology report to be produced. No trees to be cut down whilst birds are nesting.

I object to the felling of any healthy trees and shrubs. I believe that minimum pollardingshould be carried out to make the area safe.

I am not sure what the long-term plans are for the site however it is Green belt land and thatshould be taken into account. The land is vital to wildlife. Many trees were felled at this site with nopermission, the landscape has changed beyond recognition.

I would like to see the trees that were already felled be replaced. Perhaps an independentcompany could assess the remaining trees to see if they need removing/pollarding or protecting.

This is green belt land and these trees should not be felled. I have seen that there is abroken branch on one, but surely some work by a tree surgeon would fix this issue. It seemstotally unnecessary to fell the entire lot.

This application is typical, unfortunately, of this developer who has no consideration for theenvironment and is only interested in striping this area of land bare and replacing it with hardstanding, presumably for financial gain. At this time, when Bristol City Council itself has declaredan ecological emergency, it would be absolutely outrageous for this application to be allowed toproceed. BCC, you need to act and stop this developer from destroying this green belt land. Thesedevelopers are currently making a mockery of the planning system and of you BCC by submittingapplication after application all with the intent of destroying the natural environment for their owngain.

I whole-hearted object to this application and will be extremely disappointed in BCC if they grantthis application and allow this destruction to go ahead.

My understanding is that previous applications to fell these trees have been refused. Ifthere have been no changes in curcumstances, and the owners of the site have given noindication of why the trees should come down, the application should be turned down again

I thought this part was protected and therefore should not be given the go ahead, sayno and of they go against like the other side, fine them heavily

Ref to reasons stated in the many other plans subjected that I've objected to

Litt holdings have not yet replaced any trees from the many already cut down on thissite several years ago.Please see the Tree Forum Objection as I back all their concerns fully.None of these trees earmarked for destruction are in poor condition they are not near to anybuildings, they are on grassland and therefore are not a risk to buildings or people.They appear to be small unobtrusive trees and bushes.I understand that this developer wants to make a new rd/entrance to the site to and this may bewhy they want to remove these trees rather 'health and safety'This developer has contravened guidance time and time again and therefore nothing must beagreed without further investigations.After several years, there is still no ecological survey these trees are a habitat for fauna andwildlife and should be protected.I object most strongly to any further loss of trees on the greenbelt land.

I fully object to the felling of these trees. This should never happen unless diseased(which there is no evidence that these are).

The impact will be detrimental to the wildlife and the green belt land.

The fact that the council is allowing repeat applications on this site is very frustrating.

Removing these trees is completely unnecessary- please stop this from happening (this time!)

I completely disagree with the proposed removal of these mature trees within a greenbelt. There is absolutely no need for it and the applicants have not made it clear why they areplanning on doing this.

Still no explanation as to why it is necessary to cut yet more trees down, theses providesome screening of the buildings in this green belt area.

This is nothing more than an egregious attempt to destroy perfectly healthy treeswithout reason. The owners of this site seem to have a vendetta against nature, and their repeateduse of the appeals process to justify felling more trees stands in complete contrast to Bristol'sgreen policies.

I object to these trees being cut down for no reason whatsoever. There are nests inthese trees and should not be removed

Having read the two very recent reports about the poplars by Silverback ArboriculturalCounsultancy Ltd I notice that there are many differences in the few months that applications havebeen submitted for the same group of trees. I do wonder how this is so? I do concede that sometrees need work as I have also seen crossing and hanging branches and am happy that anindependent or the Council Tree Officer makes a decision on what work needs to be done.However I do not trust the present owners of the site to do this without proper council monitoring.The trees all have TPOs and should be preserved if at all possible. Regarding the position of thetrees in the application they are edging a stream line on a field edge and pose little risk to anyoneto the east of the site and the only risk to people on the site is the illegal caravan dwelling behindthe old garden centre buildings. The trees are well away from the present van hire centre. Treestake years to grow and the removal of these trees will affect the air quality along the busy A4.They are an iconic landmark on the way in to Bristol and without a genuine reason for theirremoval I feel they should be retained at all costs. The site owner Litt Holdings(maybe?) haveshown absolutely no regard to maintain this Green Belt site which should be protected especiallyas the Mayor has declared an ecological disaster.

This is greenbelt land, now ruined by destruction of trees

Trees should never be felled unless diseased, especially so close to a highly pollutedarea (Bath Road). How many more times are the owners of the land going to put in theseapplications? I hope the area is being inspected regularly to make sure trees are not being felledunlawfully.

Another application for this site to destroy wildlife and green belt land. This needs tostop. They are trying to damage our local area for their own gain and have illegally already starteddoing this. Bristol City Council please stop this!

These repeated applications for felling trees and concreting over green belt land arefrustrating in the extreme. The trees they propose to fell are mature, important parts of the locallandscape and environment. As someone who regularly cycles the routes around this part of theA4 and South Bristol I am all too aware of the potential for traffic congestion and the resultingpollution. Losing screening plants that absorb CO2such as these trees would have a detrimentaleffect as would the lose of habitat for wild creatures. I strongly object to the proposal.

I strongly object to the proposal. The trees they propose to fell are mature, importantparts of the local landscape and environment. Their removal could increase traffic congestion andpollution. Losing screening plants that absorb CO2 such as these trees would have a detrimentaleffect and furthermore be a loss of habitat for wildlife.

This application appears to be for the felling of two entire groups of trees, identified asG01 and G08. The accompanying arboreal assessment recommends the felling of only seventrees within that group, with pollarding recommended as a suitable safety measure for theremaining trees. The application is, therefore, a huge over reaction to the potential safety issues ofthese trees and, given the environmental impacts of the removal of this many mature trees, shouldbe rejected.

Dear Sir/MadamI strongly object to the destruction of this green belt land, which had been done withoutplanning permission and the loss of hundreds of trees and an important wildlife habitat.Bristol has declared an Ecological Emergency, how can this be allowed to happen?This is an attempt to degrade and destroy valuable green belt to brown field site in orderto build on it. In the meantime it is being sub-let to other business's and building wastematerial is being buried there.There is a process to follow and the people who are committing these acts of vandalismshould be held accountable, please Bristol City Council do something about it.RegardsHilary Rydon

To whom it may concern: I object to the felling of the trees at the former Wyvevale garden centre Bath road, BS31 2AD I object because we need to protect the few green spaces we have in the Bristol and surrounding areas. Trees are a major contributor to our eco system and help clean the air we breathe as well as provide a habitat for wildlife. Also, the construction company has cleared more land than had been agreed so it is hard to trust that they will limit their destruction of the trees. Many Thanks Rebecca Watson

Notice we are back to Litt holdings) have not planted one replacement tree from thehundreds already cut down on this site 2 years ago.I notice the report on the trees has changed significantly from just a few months ago, anIndependant tree survey needs to be done before any decision is made as there are concernsabout why this survey has been altered so significantly.In G01 there is only one tree that is not in fair condition so why do they need felling?In G08 the trees now seem to be dead or in poor condition so in just a few months the trees havedeclined this much?I believe this developer wants to make a new rd/entrance to the site to promote further illegaldevelopment and this is why they want to remove these trees nothing to do with health and safetyas in G01 they have no affect on adjacent areas.And if they were so worried about health and safety why not apply for G048?How many more applications are this company going to make they are just trying to wear downlocal. Objections.Where is the ecological survey and why are they appealing about replanting of trees already cutdown?They cannot be trusted no more applications should be heard until they have agreed to replantingschedule and latest application is decided.These trees are a landmark to the gateway to Bristol, are home to rare fauna (mistletoe) andhabitats for bats and birds.I object strongly to this application.

The ARBORICULTURAL ASSESSMENT is vague in stating the long term potentialproblems from felling these trees. Are they suggesting 1 year, 10 years or longer ? The reportsuggests that removing/pollarding the CURRENTLY dangerous trees as they are at the time ofthis application is not a good idea. Trees need work to keep them in good shape . The ownersneed to invest in that work, not simply their short term solution to remove the trees as aninconvenience and a money saving plan. The trees have a biodiverse and ecological contributionto this congested road and must be maintained . When you buy land you have to pay to maintainthe trees and shrubs not simply remove them .I would ask the Council if they have any powers to fine,( charge, or some similar deterrent) thisapplicant ? They keep submitting more and more applications and wasting the Councils resourcesin having to deal with these time wasters. If not a fine , are the Council able to make their decisionon this application with a note to say no further application will be considered for , say, 3 years.

I object to trees being cut down.

This will destroy trees and wildlife habitat.Strongly object.

I object to the destruction on natural habitats!

I object to the felling of these trees wholeheartedly.

The removal of these trees would greatly impact the air quality of an already congestedarea of a city with targets to improve air quality. Furthermore it would remove habitats for vitalwildlife, further threatening species to near extinction level.Allowing developers to remove mature, established woodland is allowing the people and animalsof Bristol to be smothered.

These poplars are beloved by local people. It is not acceptable to cut down such hugeestablished trees. BANES has declared a climate emergency. How is this in line with their policy?How does cutting down some of the largest trees in the vicinity benefit anyone in the localcommunity? These provide a habitat for hundreds of organisms from parasitic flora to insects andbirds. Is making a profit for a few people really more important that breathing?

Will the development company UKS/Horizon get planning permission for one thing and deliveranother (larger more profitable) as they have done too many times e.g. Highridge, Litfield Court?Will they change their name again to minimise transparency as in Treetops, Horizon, UKS,Birchwood and perhaps declare bankruptcy as they did after Highridge and start all over againwith no recourse?

We really should do better BANES.

No need to fall trees in green belt. Owner has a very poor record of compliance withplanning laws and cannot be trusted on replanting commitment.

These developers continue to destroy green belt land without any planning permission.They burn and inappropriately discard waste. They have cut trees down and cleared areas wherepermission has already been refused and continue to ignore the law. If I built a garage on my frontlawn without permission I'd be forced to take it down so why do these companies get away withdoing what they like.

Please do not let us lose more trees from this site. The owners have felled so manytrees to the detriment of the environment and local wildlife.

This is green belt land, and should absolutely not be developed by a company asinsensitive as Litt Holdings. They built my house, so I am currently living in rented accommodationwhile the mess they made of it is being fixed by the insurers. Please don't allow them to buildanything else and ruin the lives of other families

1. They say this is a revised application but they have doubled the hardstanding frompreviousapplication from 2800 Sqm to 4400sqm.Yet their application says they are only revising the greenbelt issues.2. Two years on still no ecological survey so how can they say there are no important habitatsandspecies , they have cleared 7 hectares of important vegetation and many mature trees.

3. Application says no trade effluent, yet site is littered with old drums and containers theownerhas admitted he is breaking cars on site, this is an extremely hazardous process. He is alsoalready renting out a section of land to a company so do they produce effluent? They havecontinued to put waste on this site from other construction site, but application says this is not awaste site. So how can they explain the huge mounds made around the perimeter of field behindallotments.4. Says does not effect employment, staff are living on site in a mobile home and they arealsorenting out land to a commercial business.5. Says no industrial or commercial business is happening , but evidence of car breakingandselling parts and rented out land to a commercial business so not just ancillary storage.6. Can be seen from road, it is an eyesore7. Enlargement of hardstanding that has already been put down despite failed applicationsandappeals. This is new hardstanding not replacement of concrete.8. It is ironic that cover of tree survey shows state of original land!!! Looks nothing like this now,ithas been contaminated with hardcore and waste from other sites and totally decimated.

This greenbelt land is an important part of Brislington the trees and vegetation provides importantbio diversity in this ecological emergency and reduces pollution from the busy A4This contractor has shown no regard to the community or the planning process and work has

continued on site despite failed applications and appeals. It makes a mockery of the planningprocess and local goverenment. enforcement must be made to stop further work until the wrongsare righted.Their idea of community engagement is to spout untruths and intimidate those who object.

I strongly object

eek! (Notice we are back to Litt holdings) have not planted one replacement tree fromthe hundreds already cut down on this site 2 years ago.I notice the report on the trees has changed significantly from just a few months ago, anIndependant tree survey needs to be done before any decision is made as there are concernsabout why this survey has been altered so significantly.

None of these trees are listed in bad condition they are not adjacent to any buildings they sit on apiece of grassland so are not a risk to buildings or people, they are actually small trees andbushes.

I believe this developer wants to make a new rd/entrance to the site to promote further illegaldevelopment and this is why they want to remove these trees nothing to do with health and safety.

This developer can not be trusted nothing must be agreed without a full replanting schedule andthey have replanted trees already felled without permission (they are appealing this order).

After two years there is still no ecological survey these trees are a habitat for fauna and wildlifeand should be protected. This is greenbelt and should be protected at all costs.I object most strongly

This is green belt land that should be protected, these men have already done so muchwork without permission, and nothing is being done about this. There's no need for these tress tobe removed and in the current climate emergency that has been declared it would be wholly wrongfor this to be approved, we should be doing everything and anything possible to preserve greenspace.

This company have removed far to many trees in the area after many objections. Thesetrees house wildlife and are also covered in mistletoe. And should remain where they are.

This is not an appropriate development for its location, and repetitious PlanningApplications for similar projects do not change that.

HelloI want to object strongly to this application.Bristol declared a climate emergency and it is common knowledge that trees are one of ourbiggest carbon stores thus helping to ease the effects on the climate substantially.This is also green belt which until recently thrived with wildlife.This company has felled numerous trees without permission and now has an order against themto plant more which they are refusing to do and now they wish to cut down more!Please do not agree to this proposal and instead think of ways you can support the wildlife andtrees in the area to ensure we help this climate emergency.

God these developers are boring. I suggest the council limit the amount of applicationsto prevent this tactic.Must be getting bored of this now themselves, let alone the council - wasting time and resources.They have ruined the trees and land that was greenbelt, i caught the burying asbestos sheets theother day and you did nothing about it. Not sure why i pay 2k a year, council are about as usefulas a dog turd.

I wish to object to the latest planning application on the site of the former WyevaleGarden Centre on the A4 Bath Road.The developer in question, commonly known as the Litt Brothers, although have been known byother names previously, have an extremely poor record when it comes to following planning rulesand procedures. They have been featured in a BBC report because of their behaviour at othersites in the Bristol area. They cannot be trusted to act responsibly and in the interests of theenvironment and the local community.Previously at Wyevale, many trees were removed from the site by this developer withoutpermission. A large number of those trees were burnt on site with no supervision. This land wasthen used as a dumping ground for building rubble and covered with hard standing, all of thiswithout permission. In December 2020, the Planning Inspectorate upheld Bristol City Council'sdecision that this was an unacceptable and inappropriate development of the Green Belt.This developer should be made to rectify their previous misdemeanours before yet more planningapplications areconsidered.Please reject this application.

We are not in favour of these plans.

Strongly objectThey've cut enough trees down already on this site with or without permission.These trees should be protected to conserve the green aspect and help with the environmentalpollution especially next to a main road such as the bath road.Suspect the owners are trying to improve access for their future plans. Wake up BCC planning.These people are running rings around you. Surely there should be a limit to how manyapplications should be submitted and withdrawn/denied and also where are the trees theyshould've planted two years ago.

They've cut enough trees down already on this site with or without permission.These trees should be protected to conserve the green aspect and help the environmentespecially next to a main road such as the bath road.Strongly object

Why are the council allowing so many applications for this land. All from the samecompany who just change their name to try and bypass rules, regulations and laws. This land isgreen belt and has been destroyed by this company, why have they not been dealt with. So manylocal residents oppose what has been done to this land. This land needs saving and restoringback to thee beauty it once was. And the persons responsible for the damage need to pay thecosts. I oppose any application which goes against true land being maintained as green belt.

I object to the mindless felling of trees within the green belt especially as there havealready been so many trees illegally cut down. This is a haven for wildlife and this activity isunwarranted and unwanted. How many applications are you going to accept before No means no!

This is the latest in a long line of applications that seeks to further destroy the habitat ofwildlife including nesting birds. There has been no respect shown to the bio-diversity of the area,or the beautiful long-established trees.

The land owner has already illegally stripped this area oftrees and wrecked the Green Belt, bordering this city.

I strongly OBJECT to this proposal and any more feeling of trees or destruction to the land.

I cannot believe yet another application when this company, whoever there name maybe this week! (Notice we are back to Litt holdings) have not planted one replacement tree from thehundreds already cut down on this site 2 years ago.I notice the report on the trees has changed significantly from just a few months ago, anIndependant tree survey needs to be done before any decision is made as there are concernsabout why this survey has been altered so significantly.In G01 there is only one tree that is not in fair condition so why do they need felling?In G08 the trees now seem to be dead or in poor condition so in just a few months the trees havedeclined this much?

I believe this developer wants to make a new rd/entrance to the site to promote further illegaldevelopment and this is why they want to remove these trees nothing to do with health and safetyas in G01 they have no affect on adjacent areas.And if they were so worried about health and safety why not apply for G048?How many more applications are this company going to make they are just trying to wear downlocal. Objections.Where is the ecological survey and why are they appealing about replanting of trees already cutdown?They cannot be trusted no more applications should be heard until they have agreed to replantingschedule and latest application is decided.These trees are a landmark to the gateway to Bristol, are home to rare fauna (mistletoe) andhabitats for bats and birds.I object strongly to this application.

Green belt land should remain green belt land.

I think they've cut enough trees done don't you? About time they did what they were toldto do and replant those!

The land should remain green belt land, the developers have already destroyed landand trees without granted permission.

Green should stay green belt

I wish to put on record my objection to this latest planning application re the sitepreviously owned by Wyevale garden centre. This application or something very similar has beensubmitted and withdrawn on numerous occasions over the past months. I feel this is a tactic to tryand wear down the number of people objecting to their plans as I can see no other logical reasonfor this constant submission and withdrawn of plans so similar as to be almost indentical. Theysimply cannot be trusted to act responsibly and in the interests of the environment and the localcommunity.Previously at Wyevale, despite it being green belt land, many trees were removed from the site bythis developer without permission. A large number of those trees were burnt on site with nosupervision. I understood that BCC were keen to promote the numbers of trees in the city forenvironmental reasons and this application goes against that in every way. These are establishedtrees and even if they were actually replaced, which I doubt very much knowing the history ofthese developers, replacements will take decades before they provide the same benefits.I trust this planning application will be refused on the many grounds that it flaunts current thinkingon the city's well-being.

No trees or bushes should be unnecessarily felled. They are yet to replant trees theywere ordered to replant following illegal removal on green belt land. Their intentions are not inkeeping with the law and this is clear with this project and many others across Bristol. They arecriminal developers and the council must reject this application and all future applications.Brislington residents follow the law and these developers do not. The green belt land should bepreserved for the abundance of wildlife that still lives there. A once beautiful lush green space hasbeen destroyed to a brownfield site, all illegally I add. Please act!

We need to protect our trees, not destroy them. This whole development must bestopped.

Yet another planning application this is now getting boring from this bunch of cowboys.

No more distraction of this wildlife corridor, they have failed to obey by the law.

No consideration should be made by any more planning applications.

Come of Bristol city council planning department show us the people of Brislington that you care.

These trees should not be cut down.

There is no reason for these trees to come down- this is a landmark from miles away and themistletoe is a sight to behold.

Planning department do your job what we pay you to do.

Comment:I cannot believe yet another application when this company, whoever therename may be this week! (Notice we are back to Litt holdings) have not planted one replacementtree from the hundreds already cut down on this site 2 years ago.I notice the report on the trees has changed significantly from just a few months ago, anIndependant tree survey needs to be done before any decision is made as there are concernsabout why this survey has been altered so significantly.In G01 there is only one tree that is not in fair condition so why do they need felling?In G08 the trees now seem to be dead or in poor condition so in just a few months the trees havedeclined this much?I believe this developer wants to make a new rd/entrance to the site to promote further illegaldevelopment and this is why they want to remove these trees nothing to do with health and safetyas in G01 they have no affect on adjacent areas.And if they were so worried about health and safety why not apply for G048?How many more applications are this company going to make they are just trying to wear downlocal. Objections.Where is the ecological survey and why are they appealing about replanting of trees already cutdown?They cannot be trusted no more applications should be heard until they have agreed to replantingschedule and latest application is decided.These trees are a landmark to the gateway to Bristol, are home to rare fauna (mistletoe) andhabitats for bats and birds.I object strongly to this application

I would like to object about the proposal to fell the poplar trees on the Wyevale site.They are an incredibly well established boundary of trees, providing a much needed habitat forwildlife.The site has already been decimated and stripped barefoot hard standing - it seems currentowners wish to further tarmac a once beautiful space.

This is a green belt site but has become a dump and complete mess. It appears there isone rule for one and another rule for everybody else. I would not be allowed to do any of this as ahouseholder so why are these people allowed to do what they want when they want to do it?!!!

I cannot believe yet another application when this company, whoever there name maybe this week! (Notice we are back to Litt holdings) have not planted one replacement tree from thehundreds already cut down on this site 2 years ago.I notice the report on the trees has changed significantly from just a few months ago, anIndependant tree survey needs to be done before any decision is made as there are concernsabout why this survey has been altered so significantly.None of these trees are listed in bad condition they are not adjacent to any buildings they sit on apiece of grassland so are not a risk to buildings or people, they are actually small trees andbushes.I believe this developer wants to make a new rd/entrance to the site to promote further illegaldevelopment and this is why they want to remove these trees nothing to do with health and safety.This developer can not be trusted nothing must be agreed without a full replanting schedule andthey have replanted trees already felled without permission (they are appealing this order).After two years there is still no ecological survey these trees are a habitat for fauna and wildlifeand should be protected. This is greenbelt and should be protected at all costs.I object most strongly

no to taking down trees

I cannot believe yet another application when this company, whoever there name maybe this week! (Notice we are back to Litt holdings) have not planted one replacement tree from thehundreds already cut down on this site 2 years ago.I notice the report on the trees has changed significantly from just a few months ago, anIndependant tree survey needs to be done before any decision is made as there are concernsabout why this survey has been altered so significantly.In G01 there is only one tree that is not in fair condition so why do they need felling?In G08 the trees now seem to be dead or in poor condition so in just a few months the trees havedeclined this much?I believe this developer wants to make a new rd/entrance to the site to promote further illegaldevelopment and this is why they want to remove these trees nothing to do with health and safetyas in G01 they have no affect on adjacent areas.And if they were so worried about health and safety why not apply for G048?How many more applications are this company going to make they are just trying to wear downlocal. Objections.Where is the ecological survey and why are they appealing about replanting of trees already cutdown?They cannot be trusted no more applications should be heard until they have agreed to replantingschedule and latest application is decided.These trees are a landmark to the gateway to Bristol, are home to rare fauna (mistletoe) andhabitats for bats and birds.I object strongly to this application.

Another terrible application from the landowners who have already destroyed dozens oftrees and polluted the air by burning them.The Council should be taking enforcement proceedings to ensure all works are halted.This latest in the long line of applications seeks to destroy habitat of nesting birds and wreck theGreen Belt, bordering this city.There has been no respect shown to the bio diversity of the area, or the beautiful long-establishedtrees.The land owner is seeking to utterly destroy the natural habitat, in order to try and get the landdeclassified as Green Belt.The trees, together with the mistletoe therein, are an important barrier to the road and would takevery many years to replace.As a resident of Brislington I object to this proposal in the strongest possible terms.

This is the latest in a long line of applications that seeks to further destroy the habitat ofwildlife including nesting birds. There has been no respect shown to the bio diversity of the area,or the beautiful long-established trees.

The land owner has already illegally striped this area of trees and wrecked the Green Belt,bordering this city.

I strongly OBJECT to this proposal and any more feeling of trees or destruction to the land.