Application Details

Reference 21/01994/VP
Address Wyevale Garden Centre Bath Road Brislington Bristol BS31 2AD  
Street View
Proposal G01 and G08- Hybrid Black Poplars- Fell TPO 1372.
Validated 09-04-21
Type Tree Preservation Order
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 26-04-21
Determination Deadline 04-06-21
Decision REFUSED
Decision Issued 28-05-21
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 81    Total: 81
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 20-04-21

We have submitted our objections to this application - https://bristoltreeforum.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/btf-submission-21-01994-vp-and-21-01995-vp-.pdf

Public Comments

  OBJECT

2

As the arboricultural report points out, any management works need to address each group of

the trees as a single entity rather than as individual trees. In the case of Poplar trees, the same

is true when judging their amenity value, as these trees are often, as they are here, planted in

lines along boundaries and have a high visual impact. To reduce the trees as proposed would

be to remove their amenity value and so risk removing any justification for granting them TPO

status which could then be challenged and would probably be removed.

As for the alleged risk to public safety, both groups G01 and G08 are located along the south-

eastern boundary of the site and are largely sequestered from access by the public and so pose

little if any immediate risk to people. Only tree group G48 on the north-western boundary of

the disused car park and the allotments beyond pose a potential safety hazard. No trees are

identified for removal in this group and the only proposal is to ‘remove deadwood hung up

branches’ and ‘reduce overextended branches to balance canopy’.

We are also concerned about the potential negative habitat and environmental impact of these

works. Apart from the value of these trees for wildlife, particularly bats and birds, we believe

that excessive removal of deadwood (which is in itself important habitat), whether standing or

fallen, will further degrade the biodiversity value of the site.

2. Application 21/01995/VP

We repeat our original objections to Planning Application 21/00347/VP (Appendix 2).

The applicant states that the trees must be felled to ‘allow relandscaping of the area.’ The last

time they applied to remove these trees (Appendix 2) was ‘to Create Storage Area.’ In neither

case are there any drawings or other details setting out what the plans were, either to create

a storage area or to allow relandscaping of the area.

If these are indeed the true reasons, then the applicant should make a full planning application

and not try to use TPO legislation to allow their plans to be realised, as it were, by the back

door. There is no justification for this application, and it should be refused.

Conclusion

If, despite our representations, the planning authority is minded to allow these applications,

then permission should be given be subject to the following conditions:

a) Before any work is undertaken, a full ecological survey and baseline biodiversity

calculation should be carried out so that a proper baseline measure is available when

assessing any future full planning application.

b) These surveys should include a full photographic record of the site and the trees growing

on it both before and after the tree works requested.

3

c) These surveys should also calculate the biodiversity value of the site before the trees

previously growing on the south-western boundary and on the land to the south-west of

it were illegally removed.

d) Only so much pollarding and pruning should be carried out as is commensurate with good

arboricultural practice and is the minimum needed to preserve both the habitat and TPO

status of the trees and to mitigate any immediate risk to public safety.

e) Only so much dead wood, standing or fallen, should be removed as is commensurate with

good arboricultural practice and is the minimum needed to preserve both the habitat and

TPO status of the trees and to mitigate any immediate risk to public safety.

f) The pollarded wood and brash should be stored on site to create new habitat.

g) No work should commence until after the 2021 nesting season.

h) When the works commence, they should be undertaken under the supervision of a

qualified arboriculturalist.

i) All trees removed, for whatever reason, will be replaced within the next planting season

with new trees of a suitable species to the trees removed and planted as closely as

possible to their original locations.

j) The applicant will be required to replace any tree so planted within five years of the tree

being planted, should it fail.

k) Any soil compaction caused by the works to the root zones of trees is to be ameliorated.

We have undertaken an updated Biodiversity Net Gain calculation using Biodiversity Metric 2.0.

This takes into account the 23 trees proposed for removal in both applications. A summary of

our calculations can be seen at Appendix 3.

A copy of our calculations is available on request.

Bristol Tree Forum

April 2021

4

Appendix 1

5

Appendix 2

Planning Application 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.

We object to this application.

The Background

The freehold of Wyevale Garden Centre Plc, Hicks Gate, Keynsham, Bristol (BS31 2AD) is owned by Smar Holdings Limited (R/O Albion Dockside Building, Hanover Place, Bristol, England, BS1 6UT) whose primary purpose is the development of building projects. The company purchased the land in September 2018 for £2.5 million.

It is subject to one registered, unexpired short-term lease as recorded in Land Registry title AV18176:

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

6

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.

7

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.

8

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

9

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:

10

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

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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.

15

Appendix 3 - Biodiversity Metric 2.0 calculation

Site Area: 4.32 hectares (ha)

Site TCC: 21.6% - based on three, 400 random point surveys using 2020 Google

Earth images published here. We estimate the site TCC was between

42% - 52% before a large part of the site was cleared in around 2019.

Habitat type: Woodland and forest - Other woodland; broadleaved

Net Gain allowance: 10%

Habitat parameters:

Key

TCC – Tree Canopy Cover

HU – Habitat Units

All area and HU calculations are rounded to two decimal points.

on 2021-05-26   OBJECT

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'

on 2021-05-12   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-29   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-29   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-28   OBJECT

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!!!!!!

on 2021-04-27   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-27   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-27   OBJECT

The trees do not need to be removed.

on 2021-04-27   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

Object to the felling of trees

on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

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!)

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-19   OBJECT

This is greenbelt land, now ruined by destruction of trees

on 2021-04-17   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-16   OBJECT

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!

on 2021-04-16   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-16   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-15   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-15   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-15   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-14   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-14   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-14   OBJECT

I object to trees being cut down.

on 2021-04-14   OBJECT

This will destroy trees and wildlife habitat.Strongly object.

on 2021-04-14   OBJECT

I object to the destruction on natural habitats!

on 2021-04-14   OBJECT

I object to the felling of these trees wholeheartedly.

on 2021-04-14   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-14   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-13   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

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

We are not in favour of these plans.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-13   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.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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!

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

Green belt land should remain green belt land.

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

Green should stay green belt

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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!

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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?!!!

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

no to taking down trees

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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.

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

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.