Application Details

Reference 21/04334/VP
Address Former Blackberry Hill Hospital Blackberry Hill Bristol BS16 2EW  
Street View
Proposal Ash (T1) and Ash (T2) - Fell. TPO 1436.
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: 16    Total: 16
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 18 trees - 21/04328/VP | 18 no Ash Trees- Fell TPO 1437. 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 2021-08-27   OBJECT

There are no substantive grounds for the felling of these trees and their destruction willhave a detrimental impact on local residents and wildlife - furthermore, in a time of climate crisiswe should be doing all we can to protect nature.

I also note that identical applications have been rejected and so should this be.

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 18 trees - 21/04328/VP | 18 no Ash Trees- Fell TPO 1437. The reasons for the request areidentical 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 2021-08-19   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 alternatives to avoid removing maturetrees.

on 2021-08-19   OBJECT

We helped our daughter choose this location to live and one of the prime reasons wasthe mature trees.

on 2021-08-19   OBJECT

I have purchased a house on Arboretum Row, which I will move into in the autumn. Twomature trees to the right of the property have already been removed and the reason we chose theproperty was because of all the mature trees on the estate. The trees provide homes for wildlife,shade & change the feel of the estate.

on 2021-08-19   OBJECT

The trees round here provide useful green space and would be terrible to see them cutdown

on 2021-08-18   OBJECT

This trees they want to cut, they are part of the environment, they are grown trees, ifthey wanna cut it they need to replace for a new growth tree because this trees have a function inour neighborhood

on 2021-08-18   OBJECT

These trees are a valuable home and function for wildlife, including insects and birds.They are crucial to the biodiversity of the area.The trees also provide oxygen essential to human life. I object to the felling of these trees.

on 2021-08-18   OBJECT

These trees provide the following:Sound and pollution barrier.Essential oxygen.Biodiversity.

The creatures and animals that have used and live in these trees for many many years will die.

The hospital has a nice view of the trees and provides some privacy. Nature has been proven tobe theraputic to patients even when just looking at nature.

From our homes we enjoy looking at and being surrounded by these trees.

It would take many many years to replace these trees.

We are in a climate emergency and trees such as these should not be felled.

on 2021-08-18   OBJECT

Hi, as a former resident of Bristol and Fishponds and knowing the area quite well I havebeen saddened to learn trees are being cut down.

They are very important for habitat and for mental wellbeing of the residents and their impactshould not be underestimated.So I would like to formally object to cutting these trees.Reasons for objecting to the cutting of the trees : they provide- important habitat- sound absorbance- pleasant features- mental wellbeing-air quality improvement

on 2021-08-18   OBJECT

The loss of the trees would have an effect on ecology.

on 2021-08-18   OBJECT

A friend of mine lives in the area so I'm aware of the trees in question. My concerns arethat the trees are healthy, provide a barrier to the sound and pollution from the surrounding roads,and would be an ecological loss to the area if they were removed.

on 2021-08-18   OBJECT

In a time of climate change surely there is an alternative to removing mature trees.

on 2021-08-18   OBJECT

Please retain these protected trees. The protection order has only just been grantedand these trees are still healthy and so meaningful to the local residents. It is a matter of fact thatthe developer has not replanted a single tree on this development, despite their obligations to doso. Please do not enable Linden Homes / Vistry to further their unnecessary destruction of thelocal environment.

on 2021-08-18   OBJECT

Too many trees are being feld. Replanting takes many years to get to maturity if rarelycarried out.No more.

on 2021-08-18   OBJECT

I ask that the previous planning decision to place a preservation order on these trees beupheld. Their removal is unnecessary and would have a significant, negative impact on localwildlife. Linden Homes recognise the value and appeal of trees to their customers, hence thenaming of their new properties on this site, so to argue that these trees are dispensable ishypocritical. This development promised to respect its position within a conservation area, and Iask that the planning officers hold the developers to this.