Application Details

Reference 21/04328/VP
Address Former Blackberry Hill Hospital Blackberry Hill Bristol BS16 2EW  
Street View
Proposal 18 no Ash Trees- Fell TPO 1437.
Validated 09-08-21
Type Tree Preservation Order
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 24-08-21
Determination Deadline 03-10-21
Decision GRANTED subject to condition(s)
Decision Issued 08-10-21
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 5    Total: 5
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

Save for the statement that these trees need to be felled, the applicant has failed to produce any arboricultural evidence to support its application. The application form clearly states: 'Please indicate whether the reasons for carrying out the proposed works include any of the following. If so, your application MUST be accompanied by the necessary evidence to support your proposals'. For this reason alone, the application should not have been allowed to proceed and should be refused.

We also note that there is what appears to be an almost identical application for the permission to fell 2 trees - 21/04334/VP | Ash (T1) and Ash (T2) - Fell. TPO 1436. The reasons for the request are identical and, again, provide no supporting evidence. This too should be refused.

We also note identical applications earlier this years for the same consents - 21/03374/VC & 21/03472/VC. In both cases TPOs were made and the officer noted in their delegated report dated 28 July 2021:

'The subject young ash trees are prominent features in the NHS car park. The trees have local amenity value and likely to have cultural value to staff and patients at the hospital. The trees have varying degrees of ash dieback, with limited severe cases at the time of writing. Due to the amenity value of these trees, I object to the proposed work and order TPO 1437 is issued to preserve these tree and ensure replacement trees can be secured if/when these trees succumb to ash dieback. Please note - In future, I will accept tree works applications to manage these trees as ash dieback advances.'

It is hard to imagine how the condition of the trees could possibly have changed in such a short time such that either of these applications can now be justified.

Public Comments

on 2021-08-26   OBJECT

Save for the statement that these trees need to be felled, the applicant has failed toproduce any arboricultural evidence to support its application. The application form clearly states:'Please indicate whether the reasons for carrying out the proposed works include any of thefollowing. If so, your application MUST be accompanied by the necessary evidence to supportyour proposals'. For this reason alone, the application should not have been allowed to proceedand should be refused.

We also note that there is what appears to be an almost identical application for the permission tofell 2 trees - 21/04334/VP | Ash (T1) and Ash (T2) - Fell. TPO 1436. The reasons for the requestare identical and, again, provide no supporting evidence. This too should be refused.

We also note identical applications earlier this years for the same consents - 21/03374/VC &21/03472/VC. In both cases TPOs were made and the officer noted in their delegated report dated28 July 2021:

'The subject young ash trees are prominent features in the NHS car park. The trees have localamenity value and likely to have cultural value to staff and patients at the hospital. The trees havevarying degrees of ash dieback, with limited severe cases at the time of writing. Due to theamenity value of these trees, I object to the proposed work and order TPO 1437 is issued topreserve these tree and ensure replacement trees can be secured if/when these trees succumb toash dieback. Please note - In future, I will accept tree works applications to manage these trees asash dieback advances.'

It is hard to imagine how the condition of the trees could possibly have changed in such a shorttime such that either of these applications can now be justified.

on 2021-08-24   OBJECT

These trees not only provide an incalculable environmental value, but also enrich theessence of the community, creating clean, green and natural environments.

on 2021-08-19   OBJECT

The protection order has only just been granted and a recent report suggests that "onlyvery minor dieback in the upper canopy was visible".

These trees provide significal local amenity value therefore, if they were to be fell they should bereplaced by trees of similar maturity.

These trees provide important habitat, sound absorbance, pleasant features, mental wellbeing forBlackberry Hill neighbours and air quality.

In a time of climate change, I would like to ask to explore all possibilities to avoid removing maturetrees.

on 2021-08-18   OBJECT

This trees are doing a service for the neighborhood

on 2021-08-14   OBJECT

These trees are part of the natural area that we were promised would remain in placewhen we bought our house. The "reading garden" in that area won't be much without those treesand neither would our view.

I'm addition, as far as I can see, there's no good reason stated to remove these lovely healthytrees. In a previous application only 2 weeks ago, the outcome was that there wasn't a significantenough amount of dieback to warrant felling of the trees. Could that have really changed much inthe past 2 weeks?

This seems more like an excuse to start making room for further housing in the protected area,without care for how the residents feel.