Application Details

Reference 21/01995/VP
Address Wyevale Garden Centre Bath Road Brislington Bristol BS31 2AD  
Street View
Proposal T02-Cherry T03-White Birch G04-Mixed Species group T05-Wild Cherry T06-Wild Cherry T07-Cherry Laurel - Fell.
Validated 09-04-21
Type Tree Preservation Order
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 26-04-21
Determination Deadline 04-06-21
Decision Split Decision
Decision Issued 28-05-21
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 62    Total: 62
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 2021-04-29   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 2021-04-27   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 2021-04-26   OBJECT

Trees should be preserved at whatever cost.Too many have been felled without permission already - disgusting!

on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

Seems there is a new application from old Wyevale site everytime one is turned down.Can the company be told what they can and can't do rather than trying to wear public down withapplication after application. Also weren't new trees supposed to be planted

on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

Objection to Planning Application 21/01995/VP (T02-Cherry T03-White Birch G04-Mixed Species group T05-Wild Cherry T06-Wild Cherry T07-Cherry Laurel - Fell.)

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

The developers in question have an extremely poor record when it comes to following planningrules and procedures. In fact, they have even been featured in a BBC report because of theirbehaviour at other sites in the Bristol area. They simply cannot be trusted to act responsibly and inthe interests of the environment 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.

I do not believe permission should be granted for further destruction of healthy trees whenprevious transgressions have not been rectified.

Please reject this application in full.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Varney

on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

Again, stop this clown from putting in multiple applications. Lovely trees which don'tneed to be cut down. How much in bribes you boys paying to build houses? The council are beingshown as 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

Large removal of trees that has not been given planning. Ongoing applications toremove further trees with disregard to local wildlife on green belt.Please take action

on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

Object in full

on 2021-04-26   OBJECT

I wish to strongly object to this planning request as it is not justified and the reasons given are not exceptional.

In the form they say trees need to be felled to "allow relandscaping of the area" in the last application it was for "storage area". What is it? The developer should just leave the trees alone and set out why they need them removed when their final plans are submitted.

The developer is yet to replant any tree which have been cut down. Yet again no ecology survey which was promised in there last application for hard standing.

Removing yet more trees effects the openness of the greenbelt and is just turning this site into a brownfield site by the back door.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

Yet again I must object to these bullish landowners intentions to lay waste to thiscoppice of trees. We are in a climate change emergency as announced by bristol city council sowhy oh why would would you remove them except for selfish gain. These people must have theiractivities curtailed and stop trying to get this passed by simple attrition and fatigue of the generalpublic.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

This area is on the green belt and his developer has removed most of the trees thatwere originally on this site showing a clear lack of care for environmental considerations. As far asI can see there is no reason to remove these trees, they look to be in good health and no doubtprovide an excellent habitat for nesting birds. Given the environmental decimation of this site sofar by this development I wholeheartedly oppose the removal of these trees and any other treefrom the site. We are in a ln ecological emergency.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

I am submitting my objection to this application. This developer has shown completedisregard for the planning process. The council should be protecting the trees unless removal isnecessary. As there is no full disclosure of the intentions of the land the trees should remain. Thedeveloper should provide full information for final proposed use of the property to allow a fulldecision to be made.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

Leave the trees alone

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

All I see are comments about treees being felled without permission or for no reason.As thia is green belt land I would object to any further trees being felled on the site without a goodreason

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

I object to the felling of any healthy trees and shrubs. I believe that minimum pollardingshould if needed 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

I object strongly to the removal of the trees on this site which form part of a green beltarea which is invaluable to nature and biodiversity in the area. Nature trees like these takedecades to grow and provide habitats for countless animals and birds. While I understand thatsome development of this are seems to be inevitable despite the protests of the local community,removal of the trees cannot be reversed and should not be allowed when we are focused as asocially on promoting s greener future.

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

This area is on the green belt and this developer has removed many of the trees thatwere originally on this site showing a clear lack of care for environmental considerations. Thereseems no good reason to remove these trees, they look to be in good health and no doubt providean excellent habitat for nesting birds.

This is green belt land and these developers continuously put forward applications to fell trees withno adequate explanation.

Given the environmental decimation of this site so far by this development I completely oppose theremoval of these trees and any other tree from the site. I understand that these developers arebeing investigated, therefore should be blocked from entering any more applications by thecouncil. Please pause ALL further planning applications until investigations have been completed.Thank you

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

Ref Reasons stated in the many other applications of the same plans

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

I full object to the felling of these healthy trees.

It would be detrimental to the wildlife and green belt land.

on 2021-04-25   OBJECT

Government guidance on TPOs states that it is essential for anapplication to set out clearly what is being proposed. Likewise, a plan for replanting should bepresent. This application does neither of those things and should be rejected out of hand.

In addition I am aware of the wanton destruction to trees on another part of the site and an area ofhard standing that has been constructed without planning permission These trees are even morevisible and are a public amenity as part of the designated green belt area. It is completelyunacceptable and the council must refuse this application and take action to remedy the priordamage.

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

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

These trees should not be cut done. There is no planning application for anything to bebuilt and if there was it should have to be with the trees to stay where they are.

on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

I would like to ask why the previous application in January by Litt Holdings or WyevaleHoldings to fell this group of low level ornamental trees and bushes was to create a storage areaand this application they just want to fell. The trees in question are absolutely no risk to any oneand are on a grassy bank to the East of the buildings. I also notice the report on the trees haschanged significantly from just a few months ago, an Independent tree survey needs to be donebefore any decision is made as there are concerns about why this survey has been altered sosignificantly. None of these trees are listed in bad condition they are not adjacent to any buildingsthey sit on a piece of grassland so are not a risk to buildings or people, they are actually smalltrees and bushes. I believe this developer wants to make the site a brown field site, devoid oftrees, which will be easier to build on in the future. They have not once engaged with the localcommunity about their plans for the site. This developer can not be trusted nothing must beagreed without a full replanting schedule of the trees they have already felled without permission(they are appealing this order). After two years there is still no ecological survey.

on 2021-04-22   OBJECT

I would like to ask why the previous application in January by Litt Holdings or WyevaleHoldings to fell this group of low level ornamental trees and bushes was to create a storage areaand this application they just want to fell. The trees in question are absolutely no risk to any oneand are on a grassy bank to the East of the buildings. I also notice the report on the trees haschanged significantly from just a few months ago, an Independent tree survey needs to be donebefore any decision is made as there are concerns about why this survey has been altered sosignificantly. None of these trees are listed in bad condition they are not adjacent to any buildingsthey sit on a piece of grassland so are not a risk to buildings or people, they are actually smalltrees and bushes. I believe this developer wants to make the site a brown field site, devoid oftrees, which will be easier to build on in the future. They have not once engaged with the localcommunity about their plans for the site. This developer can not be trusted nothing must beagreed without a full replanting schedule of the trees they have already felled without permission(they are appealing this order). After two years there is still no ecological survey.

on 2021-04-19   OBJECT

This is greenbelt land that is being 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

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 2021-04-15   OBJECT

I cannot believe that the council are letting this "company" run rings around them. It'sembarrassing. They keep changing their name, they were fined £94000 a few years back forbreaching fire regulations, they broke planning laws at their Highridge development and willprobably continue to do so at this site. Brislington is full of pollution as it is. Chopping downprotected trees that are valuable for carbon offset and wildlife habitats is just ridiculous.

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

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 2021-04-13   OBJECT

All these rolling applications to take down trees and destroy wildlife habit seem to bepurely an attempt to grind down both the Council and our local community and hope we looseinterest, the fact that work seems to have continued on the site despite being denied and visitsfrom Council officials beggars belief and is causing the sceptics among us to sniff corruption andback handers on a grand scale

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

Seriously, how many times do they need to be told No before they give up I wonder?The fact that they continue to cut trees, dig holes, dissappear piles of refuse, magic up hard standand not get closed down, prosecuted or fined is smelling an awful like envelopes of cash going inback pockets, but.... who knows.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

Please, no more trees wiped out from this site that has already destroyed so many. Weneed our trees to counter pollution, they are habitat for wildlife and look beautiful. Please rejectthis application

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

This is greenbelt land, and there is no reason to fell healthy trees just for hardstandingwhich has no desigated use. Why is the same application permitted time after time and morevigorous action not taken to protect this precious green space?

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

There is no good reason to fell the trees.

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

Surely the case officer here can pull his finger out and stop this? Matt you must havesome power in your role to just stop any planning they put forward and close this loophole?Greenbelt, they have cut down trees and buried asbestos and you do nothing. Surely you getbored?

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

Please leave the trees that are left in the hedgerows, the number of trees listed asproposed to be be cut seams unnecessary.

on 2021-04-13   OBJECT

They have already cut down loads of tress with out the correct consent, they havedestroyed precious green space and turned it into brownfield no further development should beallowed at this site - no further trees should be allowed to cut down

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

This constant work without planning is a direct flaunting of planning controls. They havefailed at every point to follow due process.

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.

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

cannot believe yet another application when this company, whoever there name may bethis 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 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

Yet another application, yet another example of complete disregard to the naturalhabitat .

No need for these trees to be cut or removed this is green belt and should remain so.

Get them to pay for the destruction already committed by this cowboy landowner.

A disgrace this is being allowed

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

No reason for these trees to be removed.

This is a natural corridor and should remain so.

Complete disrespect for all rules and regulations and should be made to put back the trees that'sthey have already cut down illegally.

Biggest bunch of cowboys and making Bristol city council stupid.

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

This application proposes the felling of trees on which there is a preservation order forno reason other than to develop the site. There is no suggestion that they are diseased, ordangerous - they are just 'in the way'. There is no arboricultural assessment that we might expectto see and given the rest of the details on the application form we might surmise that this isbecause there is no good reason to be found. The owners of this land have already felled a greatnumber of trees, with the permission and legality of this being unclear. They should be beingbrought to account for this, rather than be approved to reduce still further the tree coverage in thisarea. Please reject this application.

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

I would like to object to the felling of this group of trees at the Wyevale site. They arepart of an established area of hedging and trees that provide an essential habitat to wildlife in thisgreen belt area.The current owners have already decimated the Wyevale site at the rear, putting in hard standing -I am concerned that further felling will bring about irrepairable damage to the natural environmenton this site.

on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

Absolute disgrace that they are putting in another application. The council should stopthis once and for all its making a mockery of the system. They have already destroyed wildlife theyhave no regard for the law.

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 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.