I object to this planning application. My reasons are well covered by the many earlierobjections already on the record.It could well be a foot in the door for applying for additional parking. Trimming the trees back wouldresolve problems with shade, and I can't see that healthy tree branches overhanging thepavement are in any way a problem, rather they add to the greeness of the neighbourhood.

Whilst I have some sympathy with the owners wishing to thin out tree growth, the factthat permission has to be sought is an acknowledgment of how important trees are to the widercommunity. Managing these trees was a responsibility the owners took on when purchasing theproperty, and should not be a surprise when the community expresses concern when trees are tobe felled.

My main concern is the removal of T1 and T2. These trees enhance the visual amenity of ClydeRoad, and as they are to the north of the property it's difficult to see how they are 'shading' the baywindow as the application says. It seems clear the intention is to enlarge the off-road parking area,and felling of these trees is a precursor. If approved it should be on condition the vehicle entranceis not made wider, and the parking area retained as existing.

It needs to be pointed out the plan does not show the property boundary, with the southern limitsof the property being particularly unclear. Previously, the property had ample off-road parkingaccessed from Clyde Park, but this was recently sold for development. The loss of this southernparking reinforces concerns that off-road parking to the north will be increased.

The trees in Redland help make our urban environment greener . To lose 6 establishedtrees in one go would not seem to be in keeping with a policy of encouraging and caring for thegreen vistas that we have already and one has to wonder what the next step would be...concretefor a car?

Replacing mature trees with saplings does not in any real way mitigate the impact ofremoval of habitat for wildlife or a source of carbon capture. Nor will it compensate for the loss ofvisual amenity generally in this verdant part of the city.This is a city that prides itself on recognising the importance of trees to our health and ultimatelythe health of the planet. Many of the objectives of the owners of these trees could probably be metby proper arboreal management, unless of course their aim is to create space for hard standing orother concrete development.Allowing felling without proper consideration of alternatives would act as a green light to similarapplications with the resultant degradation of our area.

I oppose this application, especially the proposal to fell T1, T2 and T3.Mature trees are to be valued for their enhancement of the whole neighbourhood, for their role incapturing carbon dioxide and pollutants, and for providing habitat for birds and other wildlife. Ingeneral replacement plantings do not do these things, at least for several years, if ever.For example, T3 is estimated to be 14 metres high. The proposed replacement, Osmanthusburkwoodii, can only be expected to grow to 3 metres when mature (per RHS). It would providelittle or no habitat for wildlife.T1 and T2 are to the north of the property. Hence it hard to understand how they can shade thehouse, as claimed in the application. T3 is to the north-east and will only cast a shadow on thehouse from April to September, and then only until mid morning at the latest.The application cites "extends over the public pavement" as a reason for felling T1 and T3. Icannot see this as a valid reason. On the contrary, the extension of trees from gardens overpavements (provided they are properly maintained so as to be safe) softens the boundary linesand contributes to the appearance of the street. This is achieved without the issues such asobstruction and ground heave which can come from planting directly in the pavement (and withoutcost to the council!).I feel less strongly about the proposals for T4, T5 and T6.

I support this application. While trees are very important for the environment and thegreenery of the area, and no one wishes to see them felled unnecessarily, the trees outlined in thisproposal have significant impact on the light beyond just the applicants property (16 Clyde Road).The larger trees on the north side significantly impede the light that reaches flats and gardens in18 Clyde Road. The application is also correct in stating the larger trees do overhang pavements. Iam satisfied that the proposed replacements will maintain a sense of greenery in the area andwould be located in more appropriate sizes and locations. Therefore I support this application.

We live at 14 Clyde Road which is adjacent to 16 Clyde Road and the site of thisapplication. We have the following comments on each of the trees.T1, Yew - we agree that this has become too large and impinges on the pavement and should bereplaced as proposed.T2 Magnolia - this is an attractive, relatively small and open structured tree which sits well in itslocation and should be retained. The garden is north facing so any shading concerns cannot relateto the house and any other concerns could be addressed by selective pruning.T3 Cypress - we agree that this tree should be removed and replaced as proposed. It blocks thepavement.T4 Yew, T5 Yew, T6 Holly - together these trees are very congested and we agree that it would besensible to remove at least one of them to be replaced as proposed with shade planting.T7 Silver Birch - This tree has become very large. It also dominates our garden taking away lightcreates shade throughout the summer. We would actually like to see it removed and replaced witha more appropriate tree but recognise that this may not be possible and therefore support thecrown thinning as proposed.

I object to this application for tree removal. As a local resident I regularly walk downClyde Road and past these trees which form a key local amenity.

These trees are an important and visible part of the tree scene in the area positioned as they areby the road and pavement and at the corner of the road.

At a time when efforts are being made to increase tree cover in Bristol to combat climate changeand protect biodiversity it is very disappointing to see the proposal to fell so many mature treeswhich would take many years to replace.

The removal of mature trees goes against established policy of BCC of protecting andimproving the environment. At theCOP26 conference mayor Marvin Rees stated that his council policy is to make Bristol a better,healthier and greener environment. The city's policy for trees is also to ensure we have 'one treeper child'. In 2022 this city is introducing a clean air zone which encourages new lifestyle choicesfrom us all and requires us to do all we can to reduce our air pollution. Why thenapprove the removal of mature trees which have been mitigating pollution for over 50 years?If, as suspected, the removal of these trees will facilitate the creation of onsite parking at theexpense of green space, there is no requirement for this feature as there is ample parkingadjacent to the house on both Clyde Road and Clyde Park. The house also has existing off streetparking on Clyde Road.These trees are over 50 years old. Newly planted replacements cannot capture carbon as they do,or be a substitute for the way they form part of the established street scene in the Redland andCotham Community and Preservation Area. On the contrary, their removal will help to deteriorateand change the area's character.Approval of this application will also encourage further applications to destroy crucial, valued andloved trees, ruin theenvironment and adversely affect the whole area and the community it supports.

The proposal to fell these fine 3 x Yew, Magnolia, Cypress and holly trees would have afurther adverse and detrimental effect on the remaining green appearance of Redland. Of evengreater significance I feel that this suggestion would adversely effect air quality, environment andwild life - not to mention creating the probability more off street parking and garden reduction at alater stage!

I object to this application on the following grounds;

The removal of mature trees goes against established policy of protecting the environment and thepolicy protecting the climate against destruction. Therefore approval of this application is incontravention of BCC established policies of protecting and improving the environment. At theCOP26 conference mayor Marvin Rees stated that his council policy is to make Bristol a better,healthier and greener environment. The city's policy for trees is also to ensure we have 'one treeper child'. This is further upheld across the country by both a Royal initiative and TV programmespromoting this directive. In 2022 this city is introducing a clean air zone which encourages newlifestyle choices from us all and requires us to do all we can to reduce our air pollution. Why thenapprove the removal of mature trees which have been mitigating pollution for over 50 years?

If, as suspected, the removal of these trees will facilitate the creation of onsite parking at theexpense of green space, there is no requirement for this feature as there is ample parkingadjacent to the house on both Clyde Road and Clyde Park. The house also has existing off streetparking on Clyde Road.

These trees are well established, being over 50 years old, and form part of the established streetscene in the Redland and Cotham Community. Their removal will destroy and change the area.

Approval of this application will also encourage further applications to demolish trees, ruin theenvironment and adversely affect the whole area and the community it supports.

The magnolia is a beautiful flowering tree encouraging wildlife such as bees and butterflies.The holly is an evergreen, again with berries to support birds and other wildlife. The 3 yews aretypical old English long lived evergreen trees. Together with the cypress and silver birch, thesetrees were originally planted to give the neighbourhood a balanced and nature- supportingenvironment.

No compelling reasons have been given as to why 6 healthy, mature trees are to be felled andreplaced with shrubs or herbaceous planting. This replacement planting will in no way offer similarsupport to the local biodiversity or maintain the verdant views so important to this part of theconservation area.

If substantial mature trees are removed and replaced by young saplings it will take at least 30years before they are capable of absorbing similar levels of carbon pollution as their predecessors- something which the area suffers from.

I urge the tree officer reviewing this case to encourage the new owners to consider theenvironment into which they have moved and find ways to manage the trees to ensure their plansare in keeping with the wider needs of this conservation area and the established long termpolicies of the City of Bristol.

It's disheartening that new residents who buy in this area clearly recognise the beauty ofthe verdant spaces throughout conservation area and choose to move to the area, then fail toconsider themselves guardians of this green space.

The 5 trees marked for removal form an important part of the green and verdant views of bothClyde Road and Clyde Park and have been intrinsic to these views for over 50 years. Noarboricultural report has been provided to clarify the health of the trees other than statementsagainst T4, 5 and 6 stating they struggle because they are shaded by a beech tree - whichfortunately has a TPO - although they appear to have survived very well until now under theseconditions.

T1 and T2 are positioned next to the driveway which allows on site parking. They provide a privacyscreen for the house and are far enough from the building to allow ample light. I would thereforesuspect that their removal is to allow for the conversion of garden space to paved space,potentially to increase parking space - which requires a planning application and for which there isno need given that the property already has a driveway and enjoys residents parking on bothClyde Road and Clyde Park.

The proposal to remove 6 healthy mature trees goes against the global demand to prevent theremoval of tree canopy cover and in fact increase tree cover in the UK to mitigate our climate andpollution challenges. It also goes against several policies put in place by BCC and the Mayor'soffice to uphold the green status of the City and to provide 'one tree per child'.

An ethically conscious garden designer should be demonstrating to their clients that many of thesetrees can be pruned, managed, and incorporated into any new garden design rather than simplyripped out, to be replaced by just 2 saplings, some plants and shrubs - none of which will supportthe mitigation of pollution or benefit local biodiversity, which includes priority species.

This property sits at the centre of Clyde Road, at the entrance to Clyde Park, a stunning enclave ofhistorical importance. Clyde Park and its residents make great efforts to maintain a central gardenand preserve green space for the benefit of all. Clyde Road residents have also funded streettrees for the benefit of all. The proposal to remove these trees will therefore detract from the long-term and ongoing efforts of this neighbourhood to uphold the conservation area and create greenspace and wildlife corridors for the benefit of all residents and visitors.

I urge the Tree Officer to work with the applicants and their garden designers to find ways topreserve as many of these trees as possible and create a garden design which is more than justsome pretty planting, but instead recognises the responsibility we all have to preserve our treesand green spaces for a greater good.

Felling healthy trees in our neighbourhood is very poor for the local environment andalso distracts from the green elements which enhance the well being of our communities. I suspectthis is a prelude to creating more parking and more concrete. We do need to limit the cars andtravel in our area.Planting the new trees will compensate for the felling of the mature ones in terms of the greenenvironment and CO2 emissionsI do not see the need for this other than to create more parking space

I am suspicious that this tree wipe out is really part of a development application.There is a truly splendid Copper Beech tree in the garden - the subject of a TPO. This would bevirtually the only tree surviving if this application is granted. There was an application to fell thisBeech tree in 2016 which was refused, then the Appeal against that refusal was dismissed - sofortunately we still see the tree and it continues to benefit our environment. It was granted the TPOin 2015 as there was an application to fell it then.

One clue is that the plan showing the siting of the trees for removal is a Design/Architect's plan -clearly prepared for another purpose. Another clue is that there are Design and Build noticeseverywhere and many builders' vans parked around - and a Portaloo in the front garden.If this tree removal is to facilitate a development, then BTRS should apply and I'd like the PlanningOfficer to factor that in please if consent is given to fell some or all of these trees. However20/03330/CP is the application (granted) to restore the property as a single dwelling from two flats.Presumably that it what is happening at present. There is no mention of trees in that Application,and nor does the Plan showing the trees that is submitted with this current application, appear aspart of 20/03330/CP. BTRS seems to have no status with PD, but these trees were not mentionedin the CP Application. Maybe the removal of these trees is something to do with future applicationsor future works?I am surprised in our current climate and environment crises that anyone applies to fell a tree thatis not dying or diseased. But there we are. We have not seen an Arboricultural reportaccompanying this Application, but with a S211 Notice there is no obligation to provide a report, orprovide a reason for a felling, or provide replacements for the trees. These are serious deficienciesin our legislation, but we have to live with what we have got.

In order to be "saved" from the woodman's axe in a Conservation Area a tree has to merit a TPO.One of the many criteria for the scoring system is that the tree has to be a reasonable specimen. Itwill be the judgement of the BCC AO whether any of these trees can escape the chainsaw.If off street parking spaces appear in the front garden, should these trees be felled, followed by adropped kerb application, then BTRS should be applied, even retrospectively.The Silver Birch seems very open and not in the way of anything. It has had crown reductions(thinning) before. Could it cope with more and survive? That too will depend upon the expertopinion of the AO.

This is a second comment. Having read my first it could be read as suggesting that theapplicant has not given reasons for the work and not undertaken to provide replacements.When making a S211 Notice to fell in a Conservation Area reasons do not have to be given andreplacements do not have to be planted, and this is a deficiency in the law. There was anopportunity about 5 or 6 years ago to change some Tree Protection Law but the opportunity wasmissed by our legislators in Westminster despite some strong lobbying.In this application reasons are given and some replacement planting is promised even though theyare not required.