|Address||334 Canford Lane Bristol BS9 3PW
|Proposal||Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of proposed 2No dwelling Houses. (Self Build).|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||09-06-21|
|BCC Planning Portal||BCC Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 5 Objectors: 15 Unstated: 3 Total: 23|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
|I comment on behalf of the trees that have been lost, will be lost immediately to facilitate this proposed development, and which come under threat of future loss if this goes ahead.
A BCC Arboricultural Officer was consulted in relation to the last refused scheme. I hope he is consulted again about this further application. He commented upon the proper and larger RPA of the Sycamore, the pressure of the amount of building proposed upon the retained trees, the absence of a Landscape Plan, the pressure on the soon-to-be-boxed in Yew tree, and the number of parking spaces. i.e. overall too much concrete too close to too many significant trees (my conclusion).
I quote "Due to the impact of the development on TPO'd trees on site (T1 and T6), I recommend refusal in line with Policy DM17 and DM15. Any future applications should be supported with the following information:
- Construction and foundation details for the garage to prove root damage has been considered and potential future subsidence has been avoided (NHBC 4.2)
- Arboricultural method statement
- Location and routes of underground services and utilities
- Detailed specification for on-site arboricultural supervision for works close to TPO'd trees
- LANDSCAPE PLAN (my capitals) "
I apologise for quoting from an earlier report by someone else, but the points made are pertinent. I admit to not being an expert with building plans. BCC Planning will have before it the earlier and the current plans and will be best able to judge if the reasons for earlier refusal have been overcome with this application.
I repeat a previous question, and ask the Tree Officer to check the assertions as to tree conditions, especially for the Silver Birch alleged to require felling anyhow. How realistic is it to accept that this tree requires felling and would have been felled even if there was not a development in the offing? Seems probable to me that this tree too is to be felled to facilitate development, and thus should be counted for tree replacement purposes.
The 12 trees previously removed should be included in the tree count for BTRS as per implementation of BTRS policy. We see quite a bit of this - get rid of the trees if at all possible and then make the application to develop the land.
I ask the Tree Officer to 1) check the measurements and conditions of these trees, because I think that Bristol deserves more replacements, and to 2) require the implementation of tree protection standards for retained trees as per the last AO's report, especially about T6 the Sycamore, whose RPA is still quoted as 15 m despite the AO's comments in the refusal last year, and to 3) include previously removed trees in the assessment for tree replacement provision, and to 4) insist upon a Landscape Plan. There still is not one submitted.
We see too often tiny trees, almost shrubs, squeezed on to remaining tiny areas of land without any chance of future survival, planted as mitigation for trees lost from the site to facilitate development, in order to avoid the expense of having to plant decent sized standard trees on nearby public land. We only know that that is not going to happen when we see a landscape plan submitted with the application, as requested by the AO in the last refusal.