|Address||Woodlands Church Road Sneyd Park Bristol BS9 1JT
|Proposal||Application for the variation of condition No. 10 (List of approved plans) following grant of planning application 17/05145/F for the construction of three storey four bedroom house.|
|Type||Variation/Deletion of a Condition|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||09-03-22|
|Standard Consultation Expiry||03-08-21|
|Decision||GRANTED subject to condition(s)|
|BCC Planning Portal||on Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 0 Objectors: 25 Total: 25|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
It is very disappointing to read this kind of Application. "In the United Kingdom, the term Conservation Area almost always applies to an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character of which is considered worthy of preservation or enhancement" This application goes against the whole ethos of a Conservation Area.
The Applicant, upon becoming the new owner, has applied to vary the existing Application 17/05145/F, presumably having knowledge of the existing planning application, its consent and the conditions; and now requests to do everything possible to change that application ignoring the fact that it is in a Conservation Area.
I'll not comment on the aesthetics, rather leave that to the neighbours who risk see their amenity being spoiled should these variations be permitted.
I just want to comment upon the effect this will have on the trees.
Trees and shrubs on the site will be lost to facilitate the development. This was noted in the Application 17/05145 and following upon a number of discussions and renewed plans, undertakings were finally decided upon with the LPAs Tree Officer. He wrote:
"The proposed reprovision of trees on site accords with the Local Planning Authority's tree replacement policies to replacement those trees lost to facilitate the development" having reported "The proposals involve the retention of 8 trees, but the loss of 20 trees and this would create a gap between the existing buildings, particularly with the loss of the understory vegetation. The proposals included low level planting at the front of the site; this must be increased to block the potential open space......I therefore consider that BTRS calculations are required for trees T9, T11, T16, T19, T20, T21, T22, T26, T27 which equates to 25 replacement trees or a financial contribution of 25 X £765 = £19,125 pro rata dependant on the number of replacement trees on site. Replacement trees have been identified with the design and access statement; however, no formal landscape plan has been provided at this stage to show a robust mitigation for tree loss on site. We require a high-quality landscape plan containing tree location, species, planting stock size (Minimum 12-14cm Girth) & maintenance schedule for watering and aftercare to ensure establishment of newly planted trees. .........This needs to be provided prior to consent as a Unilateral Undertaking needs to be agreed for tree not replaced on site."
The report went on:
"A landscape plan and tree pit details were submitted by the applicant. Outlining that 19 replacement trees would be provided on-site. In response to the additional information submitted, the Officer stated no objections to the proposals and requested that conditions are attached to any relating to the protection of trees during construction and arboricultural supervision. A Unilateral Undertaking should be agreed between the Council and the applicant to ensure the offsite planting of six trees is funded and appropriately located."
"Suitable specimen trees will be planted within the site following completion of the proposed new dwelling within the matrix of a detailed landscaping scheme. It will not be feasible to plant the total number of required replacement trees so locations will be identified elsewhere through liaison with Bristol City Council Tree Officers."
This new Application (21/03386/X) is very dismissive of the negotiations and conditions about trees that were part of 17/05145/F, merely saying, on page 13 of the MMA, "TREES There is no further encroachment on the root protection zone compared to the approved design. Since the planning application T14 & T15 have been lawfully felled. Seven proposed trees have been omitted. These will need to be planted off site instead."
If I am reading the Conditions and AO's reporting of 17/05145 correctly (there have been variations so it is not straightforward) then for that Application there were to be 25 replacement trees provided by the Applicant, 19 on site and 6 off site. This latest iteration states that if the proposed development envisaged in this Application goes ahead (21/03386), there will not remain space for 7 of the trees that were proposed to be planted on site actually to be planted on the site. This then means that the new off-site planting requirement becomes 6 (from 17/05145) and 7 (moved off site by 21/03386) = 13 trees. I'd hate for the figure of 7 from this Application to become the new total! Please remember the 6 off site plantings still required from 17/05145. The total off-site becomes 13.
Examination of the BCC Tree Sponsorship mapping of available tree sponsorship/tree replacement sites shows 11 sites within a mile of the development. As many of the replacement trees as possible should be planted as close as possible to the development site. In 2012 the residents of the area had a 2-year debate with the University of Bristol about where replacement trees should be planted when trees had been lost from a Conservation Area. The final decision was that trees lost from a Conservation Area should where at all possible be planted within the Conservation Area to maintain the characteristics of a Conservation Area.
If this application for an enlarged house goes ahead please add together the two off-site tree provision requirements in order to provide sufficient mitigation (eventually) for the trees lost to development.