The Westbury-on-Trym Society

Proud of our past…. shaping our future

www.westburyontrymsociety.org.ukRegistered Charity Number 265486

Page 2 of 2

Whilst the amendment to the layout enables a further tree to be retained to help retain thespecial character of the street, this has only been achieved by an adjustment to the carparking arrangements with no off street parking on plot 1 and two spaces in front of plot 2.

In the Society’s earlier response, we drew your attention to the parking stress in the street. Thecurrent single house has sufficient space for at least 3 cars to be parked off street, whereasthe three proposed 5 bedroom houses only have 3 off street spaces between them. There aredouble yellow lines along the frontage due to the narrowness of the street. Any additionalvehicles above the 3 for which provision is made off-street will have to be parked somedistance from the proposed dwellings – with the size of the dwellings, this will be significant.The inadequacy of off street parking for the 3 new houses is going to intensify pressure on on-street parking in Westfield Close to the detriment of the safety, security and amenity of thearea.

Given the shortage of car parking for the properties, there is a high risk that future occupantswill convert front gardens to hard parking areas to the detriment of the character of the area.Whilst the Local Plan’s policies for parking are based on maximum provision, this is contrary topara 108 of the NPPF, which only supports this where there is ‘clear and compellingjustification’. Those circumstances cited do not apply in this case.

The Society concludes that the revisions to the scheme demonstrate that three five bedroomhouses is greater than can reasonably be achieved to retain the character of the area, provideadequate car parking and without a management arrangement for the biodiversityimprovements, these will fail.

Finally, our concerns previously expressed over the replacement planting have not changed.The Society repeats its point that some replacement planting will have to be off site and itwould welcome the opportunity to advise where this could be placed to enhance the villageenvironment.

So to conclude, the Society continues to object to the application on landscape, ecological andcar parking grounds.

Yours sincerely

On behalf of the Westbury on Trym Society

Although there have been positive changes to the application to try to improve the biodiversity ofthe site and retain more of the mature trees I object to the application due to the following reasons.

Japanese knotweedThe extent of the spread of Japanese knotweed means that it will be difficult to remove completelyand will need ongoing treatment. The 'Landscape and Ecological Management Plan' states thatonly mechanical methods will be used to dig out the plant which, as acknowledged in the plan, willpotentially cause root damage to existing trees on the site. Experts advise that both herbicide andmechanical methods are used as part of a long term eradication programme, but that herbicidescan take up to 3 years to have an impact.As neighbours on the northern side of the River Trym, we are concerned of the Japaneseknotweed spreading to our property and would want there to be a long term solution to this issue.The fact that the boundaries of the 3 proposed properties would not include the land with theJapanese knotweed means that they would not take on the legal responsibility of managing theplant. The boundaries of the new properties should therefore be to the middle of the River Trym,which is the existing boundary of 15 Westfield Road, so that there is a clear understanding ofresponsibility, rather than leaving the area subject to a Management Company that will onlyinspect the area and 'report back to the council' every 5 years.

TreesThe mature weeping willow (T12) is important to the site's aesthetic appearance and biodiversity,so we are pleased that it will remain according to the plans. However, this tree as well as T13 willlie outside the boundaries of the 3 new properties. The willow regularly sheds large branches into

the river which need to be removed to ensure that the river can flow easily downstream. (Asneighbours we have done this ourselves since the property has been left derelict). The mature treewill also need occasional pruning to keep it healthy and ensure it does not impact other plants andproperties. There is an obvious financial cost involved in maintaining a mature tree like this, so thefact that it lies outside the boundaries of the new properties means that nobody will be responsibleto cover this cost. The boundary of Plot 2 should therefore include T12. This tree and others arealso too close to the proposed post and rail fence to ensure that they have space to grow and willnot be negatively affected by its installation.

RiverThe River Trym has a very variable flow rate as we have witnessed little to no flow during warmsummers and high water levels of over 1 metre during flash floods. Therefore the well-meaningplans to remove existing concrete structures and replace it with coir plugs to improve the floraalong the river bank needs more careful consideration. From my own experience of trying tointroduce foliage to the river bank, will need regular watering in summer to allow them to establishand there is a chance that they will get washed away during flash floods when the riverexperiences high discharge and velocities. The southern bank of the river that faces our propertyis being undercut by erosion, so it is likely that whatever plants that do manage to survive will onlybe temporary as the river cliff retreats. According to my research the suggested plants areconsidered invasive (valerian and in particular purple loosestrife) Purple Loosestrife Plant:Information On Garden Loosestrife Plant Care And Control (gardeningknowhow.com), and wouldalso need ongoing management to control their spread. The boundaries of the new propertiesshould therefore include the river banks on the southern side of the River Trym.

1. JAPANESE KNOTWEED

We welcome the detail that has been provided regarding knotweed removal, however a number ofconcerns remain.

In the latest proposal, emphasis has been placed on marking the conservation zone as outside theownership of the new properties. This is a problem because ongoing responsibility to control andtreat knotweed will be required.

Recent research, the most detailed study of its kind, shows that eradication of knotweed, wherethe infestation is of the age and severity at 15 Westfield Road, is not possible. The study wascovered extensively in the press:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-43882916

Japanese Knotweed grows along the entire north boundary of 15 Westfield Road, amongst largetree roots, with rhizomes extending more than six feet into the ground (visible via the bank).There's evidence of knotweed extending up to 5 metres in from the north boundary. No amount ofphysical and chemical control will remove it. A long term commitment to controlling and managingthe weed is needed, although excavating to remove existing rhizomes will be a great help with thiscontrol.

Left unchecked, within 1 year there will be a large, dense patch of 5-foot high knotweed plantsgrowing, able to fall into the stream and spread (which has already happened, as others on

Rosery Close can attest). The owners of these new properties MUST take their responsibility tomanage this plant seriously, and creating a band of land that they do not own, regardless of anunenforceable covenant to inspect every 5 years, will place this area out-of-sight, out-of-mind, andoutside of their responsibility.

The current boundary of 15 Westfield Road extends to the midpoint of the stream. Theresponsibility to maintain this area, right up to the midpoint of the stream, including controlling andnot allowing invasive species to spread, should sit firmly with the new homeowners by ensuringthat the borders of their own plots include this land.

2. TREES

We welcome the changes to the plan to maintain more trees. However, the conservation zoneincludes mature trees (contrary to the incorrect BNG report) and younger trees that will becomemature. The responsibility to maintain the trees that are part of this land must fall directly with thehome owners. Creating a no-man's-land of unowned land will allow this responsibility to beshrugged off. Any new trees that begin to grow must be removed before they damage structureslike the bridge (which has happened with very serious damage showing), and so it's important thatin future homeowners understand this to be their responsibility.

As neighbours, we had to work hard to ensure that the previous owners of 15 Westfield Road tooktheir responsibility to maintain these trees seriously, including pollarding when necessary andremoving branches that encroached on other houses. The trees retained in this area will need tobe maintained, not simply be subject to an unenforceable inspection every 5 years.

The fence marking out the conservation zone is a good addition, but the boundaries of theproperties must extend to the midpoint of the stream to make responsibility for maintaining treesclear.

3. BRIDGE

We included the following comment on a previous application: The bridge between the lane (3-7AHenbury Road) and Westfield Road has been damaged by trees growing in the north-east cornerof 15 Westfield Road. Three concerns arise here: firstly, there is currently no provision within theplans to make this damage good, although previous owners have cut down the trees causing thedamage (to stop it progressing further) there is no description of remedial work within the plan;secondly, adding a significant number of residents to the area will place additional strain on thisbridge to carry increased traffic, as it will inevitably used to travel to the new properties fromHenbury Road; thirdly, there is no obvious plan in place to ensure that the bridge is not used byheavy construction and delivery vehicles.

The severity of this issue has worsened with the latest plans.

The trees that have damaged the bridge, and the damaged bridge footings, fall within theboundaries of 15 Westfield Road. These should fall within the boundary of the easternmostproposed new property. There has been an attempt on the Landscape Proposals to move thisproblematic area outside of the boundaries and responsibility of homeowners. So not only do theplans fail to rectify this issue (despite the fact that the bridge will be used as a major access routefor three new houses) but the plans now move the entire area outside the plot of the easternmostnew property and outside the responsibility of any new owner.

OVERALL

We feel that the latest plans attempt to make new properties more saleable by convenientlyremoving all challenging issues associated with the site into an un-owned strip of land.

Some of these issues, like the knotweed and trees, require a clear solution for long-termownership and management, which will only come about by homeowners understanding theirresponsibilities clearly. Other issues, like the bridge, require a remedial plan WITHIN the currentproposal, as well as clear lines of ownership in future. As a result, we object to the current plan.

Please provide or direct me to more supporting information regarding this proposal inrelation to the following:

1) Acoustics impact on the neighbourhood2) Asbestos contamination/pollution impact on the neighbourhood3) Fire & Safety policy of the construction company during the works in the area

Kind regardsMarco Mendola

The development plan makes no reference to Japanese knotweed on site and how theknotweed will be eradicated or contained to that site during the site development. Due to thelocation of the knotweed and the river bank I would expect the developer to engage specialist helpto deal with the issue.

Today's Times newspaper refers to how "litigation over japenese knotweed is growing as fast asthe plant itself". None of us living in neighbouring houses wish to get knotweed related problemsas a result of this development.

Given the importance of wildlife and the environment in urban settings (cf NPPF 174d) wewould at the very least expect to see a reference to the provision of bird boxes and themaintenance of a wildlife corridor across the gardens.

We are also still unclear about what is meant by the “conservation zone” between the postand rail fence and the river Trym. Who would be responsible for the maintenance of thisarea?

The claim that development of the site would result in more efficient use of the landbecause of its location would lead to the conclusion that any reasonably sized garden insuburban Bristol which is near shops and a bus stop ought to be developed to increase landefficiency. Hardly a pleasant vision for the future.

The reference to the Housing Delivery Test and the status of the Local Plan is alsoirrelevant. If the Plan is considered out of date and development is to be assessed againstthe policies in the National Planning Policy Framework 2021, then DM21 is totally inaccordance with the latter which states:71. Plans should consider the case for setting out policies to resistinappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development wouldcause harm to the local area.124. Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient useof land, taking into account:d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (includingresidential gardens)

Moreover the recent statement in a radio interview by Michael Gove the Secretary of Statefor Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, that perfect mathematics is less importantthan building the right houses in the right places indicates the direction of travel ofgovernment thinking on the need to give more thought to the location of new housingdevelopment.

This latest iteration of the application presents a collection of documents containing errorsand omisions with a resulting “smoke and mirrors” effect. We are more than conversantwith the errors which result from cutting and pasting from previous plans but, as anexample, it is extremely difficult to follow the plot regarding the proposals for the gardentrees:

The Arboricultural Report 6.4 states that it is proposed to remove 6 trees to facilitatedevelopment. The table below then lists 8 trees which presumably includes the 4 which areintended for removal through “good arboricultural practice” and states that 15replacement trees will be planted on site.The Heritage Design Access and Planning Document states that 4 trees will be removedand 17 replacement trees planted.Meanwhile the Proposed Site Plan document appears to be annotated to indicate that 7trees will have been removed.The Avon and Bristol Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England is a registered charityRegistered charity number 1189628The CPRE Avon and Bristol logo is a registered trademark

(Apart from the lack of clarity about tree felling and replacement we note that the CouncilArboricultural Team stated in their response to the previous application that “Theproposals require the removal of several trees to the frontage (T03, T02, T06). Regardlessof their category, these trees should be retained.” However the current various proposalsignore this expert opinion and still include the intention to remove T02 and T06 which arelarge mature trees contributing to the verdant street scene).

Furthermore the January 22 winter drone photographs obviously do not indicate theverdant nature of the site, the rear part of which according to the Heritage Design Accessand Planning Document statement is largely obscured from view. However no photographsare included of the view from the northern end of Rosery Close at its junction with HenburyRoad where there is a clear view from the public realm down into the garden trees and therear corner of the house.

In fact viewed from the rear lane the existing house is entirely in keeping with the characterof neighbouring Orchard Cottage with its similar roof profile and which continues theborder with the Conservation Area. This lane is well used by pedestrians and cyclists as it links a network of footpaths comingfrom the north of Shipley Road, across Henbury Road on to Westfield Road and WestburyVillage, avoiding the main Falcondale Rd. Approached from this direction the rural aspectof this lane bordered by the tall trees of the adjacent garden of 15 Westfield Roadcontributes to the local “village” character of Westbury on Trym.

As to the proposed development itself, while the latest design is somewhat of an improvement on previous efforts, the houses, unlike the existing dwelling, are decidedly bland in appearance and do not meet the latest government aspirations for housing that is “beautiful” or the provisions of DM26.

Finally, and while we fully understand that this is not a material issue in determining the application, we are very concerned about the manner in which the applicant has been dumping a large number of items including metal fencing and traffic signs in the front garden (of course not shown in the photographs). This cavalier attitude does not bode well for protection of the environment, particularly during the construction phase, and we would urge that if permission were granted there is monitoring of the provisions listed in sections 7-9 of the Arboricultural Report for the avoidance of harm to trees and their root protection zones.

Yours sincerely,JR KempshallCPRE Avon and Bristol,South Gloucestershire/North Bristol District Committee

The Avon and Bristol Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England is a registered charityRegistered charity number 1189628The CPRE Avon and Bristol logo is a registered trademark

The Westbury-on-Trym Society

Proud of our past…. shaping our future

www.westburyontrymsociety.org.uk

Registered Charity Number 265486

Page 2 of 3

occupancy at all times of the day and night. The houses are 5 bedroom in size and more than 1 parking space will be required, as these are the sorts of houses that are bound to result in multiple car ownership. The council’s maximum parking standards are inappropriate in this situation, as the parking stress in the street will be exacerbated. Regrettably this means that there will be a need to be provide larger hard surfaced spaces in the front of the houses to accommodate two car parking spaces. Plot 3 could have rear parking. So to conclude, despite the reduction in numbers of houses to a more appropriate level to retain much of the verdant character of the site, the Society considers that the development is contrary to Policies BCS 21 and DM26, DM 21 (particularly with respect to landscape design), DM23 in respect of the inappropriate parking arrangements, DM27 and DM29 and should b e refused. Yours sincerely Andrew Renshaw MRTPI On behalf of the Westbury on Trym Society

The Westbury-on-Trym Society

Proud of our past…. shaping our future

www.westburyontrymsociety.org.uk

Registered Charity Number 265486

Page 3 of 3

Further to our initial comments, we have some concern regarding responsibility forsome of the mature retained trees located just outside the fences of the plots. In particular thelarge willow tree that is shown to be right up against the fence of plot 2. In its nature, it regularlydrops branches, some of which land in the Trym, leading to potential drainage and environmentalissues. I have photographs of one such branch I found this afternoon. I estimate it to be 3-4metres in length and of some 30-40 kgs in weight. It blocked the entire channel of the stream.If responsibility for all trees is allocated, perhaps by proximity to plot boundaries for example, suchissues with debris could be rectified quickly and efficiently.

What a muddle. I have been asked by others to sort out the discrepancies between thestatements in the Heritage and Design Statement (HDS) and the Arboricultural Report, and franklyit cannot be sorted readily. The Planning and Tree Officers will have to endeavour to achieve that -but I have two comments about the principles of the determination.Firstly the HDS suggests that hedges, shrubs and herbaceous planting can be used as mitigationfor the tree loss. This is not possible in Bristol. The BTRS does not allow for it. Only huge hedgeson a large scale, used on industrial estates as screening for factories and the like, are permittedwhen it comes to BTRS - so that is that disingenuous suggestion dealt with. Shrubs andperennials do not replace tree canopy in spite of any amount of wishful thinking.Secondly in the AR there is the suggestion that trees that should have had good arboriculturalmanagement over the years should not be mitigated for. Duplicitous or what? Poorly managed ornot they have contributed to the environment and the environment will notice their loss. Theyshould be compensated for. The BCC AO should determine their category and decide upon themerits of replacing them - and the numbers of replacements provided. There is a little bit of MandyRice Davies here - "He would say that, wouldn't he?"The numbers of replacements required should be a calculation made by the AO - the numberssuggested in the reports don't match - quoting 15 and 17. Whichever it is, or even if it is more,there is not sufficient space remaining on the development land for the planting of decent treeswith adequate room to grow on the site. Trees would need to be planted off site. There are justabout 17 sites available within a mile - though a few may be accommodated on site.

We provided detailed comments on the initial proposal and many of the concerns stillstand. We are pleased to see that more effort to retain original trees has been made, but manyexisting, but also the new trees will be close to the boundaries. This will lead to problems with theirmaintenance and sustainability.The plans for 3 houses do provide a more family friendly interior design, but will take up a similarfootprint, meaning that concerns about 'overdevelopment' and increased flood risk due to hardlandscaping still stand.I also note that the new proposals for parking mean that none of the houses have adjacent parkingspaces which could potentially lead to more on street parking which would cause issues on a culde sac where parking and manoeuvring is already a concern.Thanks you for taking the time to consider our comments.

I write with concerns to traffic management during the development. I believe a councilsite visit would be useful to all. The road as highlighted by other commentators is a narrow accessroad in a built up area. We regularly have cars parked with tyres on the pavement due to thenarrow street these tend to be others working in the area, and are parked for the whole workingday. These cause the obvious inconvenience to pedestrians and householders negotiating in andout of their drives.

i have been approached by the refuse collectors asking if i know the owners of vehicles as theyhave damaged the vehicles whilst trying to do the refuse collections.

there is concern for a further issues with traffic management not only with the building contractorsbut also the potential further vehicles for the new residents on this development.

There are also some beautiful trees in this development and a site visit would be appropriate inthat respect.

I have read the Bristol City Council Arboricultural Officer's (BCC AO) reportaccompanying the refusal of 21/05310/F. The AO is an independent professional.There had been numerous objections to the earlier application for a variety of reasons, but withregard to trees the residents' and others, objections were expressing concern about the loss ofmature trees to facilitate this development, and the high risk of the early loss of other retainedtrees and early/future loss of replacement (mitigation) trees, as they would be too close to thedwellings and thus at risk of early removal following occupation of the dwellings. It was felt unlikelythat there would be sufficient space remaining for the replacement (mitigation) trees to beaccommodated on site.The AO expressed similar concerns when he reported for the earlier application, and added someother concerns.He stated that in order to keep the amenity of the area T03, T02 and T06 should be retained inany development of the site.He felt that there would be pressure from householders to remove some of the replacement(mitigation) trees fairly early following occupation as they would be too close to the new dwellings.This is because there was insufficient space remaining on the development site to accommodatethe number of replacement trees required. He was concerned about species selection -particularly around the car parking spaces, as the trees would attract birds and their droppingswould again lead to pressure for the early removal of the trees.With this latest application I see very little effort to accept and adopt these recommendations fromthe BCC AO.It is still proposed to remove T02 and T06 despite the report from the BCC AO. This would be veryharmful to the visual amenity of the area. T03 - although it will be retained - will have a car parkinghard standing constructed in its root protection area. Despite the method of construction this must

be detrimental especially when the works are unnecessary i.e., don't build so many dwellings onthe site, and re-position any that might be built. Amend and accommodate!With three dwellings proposed for the site there is insufficient space, still, for the 15 replacement(mitigation) tree planting that would be required under BTRS were the trees all to be planted onsite - which raises the spectre for the developer of having to pay for tree mitigation planting off site- hopefully only to be permitted IF there are sites - which there aren't. The landscaping plansubmitted shows the sites proposed and the species of tree proposed for the mitigation planting.All still crammed together as previously, I see.Bristol does have planning policies in a brave effort to protect our environment and prevent/avoidtoo much damage. Studying Planning Applications, and, sadly, also reading the final planningdecisions, maybe from an Appeals Inspector, one would not think so. Often Planning andArboricultural Officers start to implement the policies and apply them fairly when making decisions.They even make recommendations to developers showing how they might successfully develop asite in a way that would fit in with the policies and might be approved. The policies follow theMitigation Protocol - Avoid damage in the first place; if it cannot be Avoided, then Minimise it. Onlyif those two limbs of the Protocol cannot be followed, should any form of Remediation orCompensation be considered. Developers tend to jump straight to compensation. Clear a site of alltrees, then offer tiny little things crammed on to a site where they cannot possibly grow andprobably will be removed. Even if they do grow on the site, it will be 30 - 50 years before theycompensate for the loss to our environment caused by the felling of the mature tree tooverdevelop a site and thereby maximise profit. The laudable Bristol Tree Replacement Policy isfailing to produce large benefit recently because there are fewer and fewer vacant sites availableon public land for the planting of replacement (mitigation) trees near a development site. Eventhen we should remember that planting a replacement tree in a vacant site, using funds generatedby the loss of another tree, does not gain a tree because the site is only vacant because the treethat grew there has already been lost.Developers keep making Applications to overdevelop a site, and when one application is refusedthey Appeal and/also make further Applications. They are only keen on the funds for them to begenerated rather than the damaged environment that is left behind. I appreciate that we have aneed for housing - but we also need to protect our environment. Not every piece of land thatformally had 1/2/3 people living on it needs now to accommodate 10/11/12 people. Develop a sitethoughtfully and there would not be the outcry.Please consider this Application with reference to the comments made by the AO in the lastApplication - 21/05310/F - because they remain just as pertinent.