Application Details

Reference 21/02989/VP
Address Land To Rear Of Oakhill Mansions College Park Drive Bristol BS10 7QD  
Street View
Proposal N.B. Reasons for the work can be found in Assured Trees 'Tree Survey Schedule' (attached with application)(TPO 1091/R).
Validated 27-05-21
Type Tree Preservation Order
Status Decided
Determination Deadline 22-07-21
Decision GRANTED
Decision Issued 26-07-21
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 2  Unstated: 2  Total: 4
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 02-06-21

We have now submitted our objections - Here

The applications was granted. There are the reasons:

Observations No consultation undertaken at this time. 3 objections and 1 neutral comment have been received, they can be summaries as the following:

1. The application does not consider the impacts on biodiversity.

2. The proposed tree works are excessive

AO's response:

1. The application does consider biodiversity and suggests that several trees proposed for removal should be retained at monolith height. This would provide habitats and niches for numerous invertebrate and avian species.

2. The tree works are reasonable to ensure the safe access for users of the woodland. The proposed tree works are well specified and considered reasonable. The ash on site has severe ash dieback and these trees should be removed/monolithed to make safe.

The remaining tree works are well specified and complement the natural process of dominance and succession found in a woodland setting.

I do not recommend any replacement trees as the woodland is covered by a Woodland TPO, which covers all trees, regardless of age or stem diameter. Planting replacement trees would not be practicable in this woodland; management and natural succession is the most suitable approach.

The works proposed are acceptable.

Public Comments

 

2

Elm with Dutch Elm Disease.

The remaining trees are identified for removal because they are showing advanced signs

of decay. If the trees are not removed, the applicant says they should be reduced to

monoliths or have their crowns lowered.

Under the Quantified Tree Risk Assessment (QTRA) method, none of the trees surveyed

presents an unacceptable risk to public safety.

The management of Ash Dieback

Forest Research advice is as follows:

With the exceptions of felling for public safety or timber production, we advise

a general presumption against felling living ash trees, whether infected or not.

This is because there is good evidence that a small proportion will be able to

tolerate H. fraxineus infection. There is also the possibility that a proportion of

ash trees can become diseased, but then recover to good health. These, too,

would be valuable for our research, although it is still too early to know whether

there are such trees in the British ash population.

However, by keeping as many ash trees standing as possible, we can identify

individuals which appear to survive exposure to the fungus and which can be used

for breeding tolerant ash trees for the future. See 'Our research' below for

further information.

That said, public safety must be the priority, so keep an eye on the trees' safety

as the disease progresses, and prune or fell them if they or their branches

threaten to cause injury or damage...3

This advice is endorsed by the Woodland Trust:

As well as aiming to retain as many potentially tolerant ash trees as possible,

letting nature take its course by allowing diseased ash trees to decline, we also

improve the resilience of our woods to future diseases and climate change.4

So generally, infected trees should not be removed unless they pose an unacceptable risk to

public safety.

3https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/pest-and-disease-resources/ash-dieback-hymenoscyphus-fraxineus/ 4https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/tree-pests-and-diseases/key-tree-pests-and-diseases/ash-dieback/

3

The management of Dutch Elm Disease

Forest Research advice is that there is no effective cure available, but early sanitation

felling, or removal of infected trees and branches, can slow the spread of the disease.

This has been found to be effective in helping to retaining good populations of mature

elms in some places in Britain.5

The management of dead trees and trees in decline

Trees growing in a woodland setting, especially those growing ancient woodland, are

characterised by the range of ages and stages of development that they display. This

includes trees that are in decline, are dying or which have died, whether standing or

fallen.

The Woodland Trust describes ancient woodland as woodland that has been around for

so long (notionally since 1600) that it has developed special communities of plants and

animals not found elsewhere. It is an important habitat and in sore need of protection.6

Sheep wood fits this definition.

Dead and decaying trees, especially standing dead wood, provide important habitat and

should not be removed. The urge to tidy should be resisted and, unless a tree poses an

unacceptable risk to public safety, it should be left untouched.

If dangerous trees or limbs must be removed, then they should be left in situ so that

the decaying wood can continue to contribute to and enhance the woodland’s

biodiversity and retain its biomass on site.

Compensating for the trees lost

Based on the advice given both by Forest Research and the Woodland Trust, only the

32 Elms identified should be felled.

As none of the other trees surveyed present an unacceptable health and safety risk,

they should be retained.

If the planning authority is minded to grant this application (either in whole or in part),

then the trees removed should be replaced. Whilst the Town & Country Planning Act

1990 empowers the planning authority to mandate the replacement of lost TPO trees

on a one-for-one basis, this is, in our view, insufficient to replace the biodiversity that

will be destroyed as a result or to allow for proper succession planting.

The table below summarises the habitat areas and Habitat Units (HUs) that will be

needed to replace the lost habitat, which would be required should all the trees

5 https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/pest-and-disease-resources/dutch-elm-disease/ 6 https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/habitats/ancient-woodland/

4

identified for felling be removed. Our calculation is based on the applicant’s Tree

Condition Assessment dated 03 November 2020 and Biodiversity Metric 2.0 as published

by Natural England.7 On the basis that the woodland is categorised as Woodland and

forest - Other woodland; broadleaved, then the area of habitat needed to replace what

will be lost without any Biodiversity Net Gain will be 0.96 hectares or 2.13 Habitat

Units.

Biodiversity Net Gain Summary

Site Area

Ha

BNG Model m^2 Ha % TCC HUs

Baseline Tree Habitat

27,600 2.76 79.3% 26.72

3.48

Baseline Tree Habitat Retained

25,400 2.54 92.0% 24.59

Baseline Tree Habitat Lost

2,200 0.22 8.0% 2.13

Add 0% Net Gain 0 0.000 0.0% 0.00

Biodiversity Net Gain Habitat Added 9,575 0.96 34.7% 2.13

Tree Replacement Equivalent – Select Standard trees with a stem diameter of 35 mm are

planted which will each reach optimum canopy size in -

30 years 237

Trees Surveyed 51

Trees to Remove 48

If just the 32 Elms are removed, then this reduces to 0.13 hectares and 0.29 habitat units.

Biodiversity Net Gain Summary

Site Area

Ha

BNG Model m^2 Ha % TCC HUs

Baseline Tree Habitat

27,600 2.76 79.3% 26.72

3.48

Baseline Tree Habitat Retained

27,300 2.73 98.9% 26.43

Baseline Tree Habitat Lost

300 0.03 1.1% 0.29

Add 0% Net Gain 0 0.000 0.0% 0.00

Biodiversity Net Gain Habitat Added 1,304 0.13 4.7% 0.29

Tree Replacement Equivalent - Select Standard trees with a stem diameter of 35 mm are

planted which will each reach optimum canopy size in -

30 years 32

7 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5850908674228224

5

Trees Surveyed 51

Trees to Remove 32

Is a felling licence required?

Given the number of trees proposed for removal, we anticipate that a felling licence will need

to be obtained from the Forestry Commission. As far as the future management of this wood is

concerned, we recommend that the applicant seek guidance from the Forestry Commission or

the Woodland Trust. A carefully planned programme of succession planting will be needed to

ensure its future.

Bristol Tree Forum

June 2021

on 2021-07-16   OBJECT

CPRE South Gloucestershire/North Bristol District of CPRE Avon and Bristol Branchobjects to this application. While a tree condition assessment has been provided withrecommendations for extensive tree felling, it does not apparently form part of a woodlandmanagement plan which we consider essential for the future maintenance and protection of thisAncient Woodland and Green Corridor within the Conservation Area and without which theapplication cannot be satisfactorily decided.We are not experts on the management of diseased ash and elm trees and therefore request thatthe advice of the Woodland Trust and Forest Research is implemented such that trees are notallowed to be felled un-necessarily. It is also vital that replacement trees of appropriate speciesare planted - the Tree Council in its "Ash Dieback Action Plan Toolkit (summer 2019) contains therecommendation that at least 3 trees are planted for every large ash that is felled.We therefore object to this application until further information is provided on how this importantarea of Ancient Woodland within the city boundaries is to be maintained and protected, and notmerely subject to large scale tree felling and loss of habitat and biodiversity.

on 2021-06-16   OBJECT

This looks very lazy to me, an application proposed by someone with no interest in biodiversity,tackling climate change, or enhancing the quality of the local environment.

Its "I've got a minor potential problem. What's the simplest cheapest solution? Cut downeverything. Problem solved".

Its brainless. The local authority must condition some refinement in the proposals.

on 2021-05-30  

This looks like a tree wipe out - but there are a lot of trees here and the report reads asif disease and old-age decay is rampant here.I am puzzled by the address in the report - Ridgeway Gardens is in Whitchurch.

I hope the AO from BCC conditions some replacement planting.Sheep Wood is a very important part of a Green Corridor, one of several mentioned in BCS9"Policy BCS9The integrity and connectivity of the strategic green infrastructure network will bemaintained, protected and enhanced. "so it should not be allowed to dwindle away piecemeal. Replanting as required by TPO regulationwill maintain this important woodland.