2

These trees are clearly growing in an urban setting and so must be treated as an Urban tree habitat.

Using the tree survey in the AMS, we calculate that the baseline habitat area of the 28 trees growing within the development area is 0.2493 hectares of which 0.2253 hectares will be retained. We have assessed the tree habitat as being in Good condition – they meet five of the six Urban tree condition criteria set out in the Biodiversity Metric 3.1 - Technical Supplement

(18.05.22). We have assigned them as having the same strategic significance as the other habitats surveyed - Area/compensation not in local strategy/ no local strategy.

On this basis, these trees provide 3.29 habitat units to the baseline calculation of which 0.32 habitat units will be lost.

The Trading Rules

The Trading Rules for Urban tree habitats state:

The mitigation hierarchy and trading rules apply to Urban trees. Given Urban trees are a ‘Medium’ distinctiveness habitat trading rules stipulate that the same broad habitat type (or a higher distinctiveness habitat) is required. However, given the important ecosystem services value provided by trees, where possible ‘like for like’ compensation is the preferred approach (i.e. where possible any loss of Urban trees should be

replaced by Urban trees - rather than other urban habitats).

Accordingly, these lost Urban tree habitat units ought to be replaced ‘like for like’. In order to satisfy this requirement, we calculate that 26 BS:3936-1 Standard-sized trees will need to be planted to achieve a habitat area of 0.1058 hectares of Small-sized trees in Poor condition after 10 Year time-to-target period has elapsed. This will satisfy the trading rule requirements.

As no proposals appear to have been made for onsite tree planting (nor is there likely to be sufficient space), we have assumed that the trees required will need to be planted offsite. We have made our calculations on the basis that the compensation required will be ‘inside LPA or NCA, or deemed to be sufficiently local, to site of biodiversity loss’ and that the site chosen will be in a ‘Location ecologically desirable but not in local strategy.’ We have set the temporal risk multiplier at zero which gives a final time to target period on 10 years.

The applicant will need to resolve this issue with the planning authority prior to planning consent being granted. We suggest that the six replacement trees required under BTRS be included in this total.

The applicant will also need to prepare a nature conservation and landscape management plan which addresses features of interest, objectives, management compartments and prescriptions, a work schedule including a ten year annual work plan, resourcing including a financial budget and ecological monitoring. This should cover the 10 year time to target period.

On this basis, we calculate that the applicant’s proposals will achieve a biodiversity net gain on 38.27% for area habitats and a 100% net gain for linear habitats. This is less that the 161.81% area habitat gain the applicant has calculated but more than the 73.05% linear habitat gain they have calculated. It does however exceed the biodiversity net gain percentage currently

required by the planning authority or the 10% net gain anticipated under the Environment Act 2021.

The Headline Results of our calculations are set out below. A copy of our BNG 3.1 calculation has been provided to the planning authority.

3

Bristol Tree Forum 01 October 2022

As our requests to Development Management to post our 01 October 2022 commentshave been ignored, we have not choice but to post these links instead:

1. Our comments: https://bristoltreeforum.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/btf-comments.pdf2. Our BNG calculation: https://bristoltreeforum.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/bng-3.1-calculation-btf.xlsx (we are happy to provide a copy of our .xlsm calculation on request.)

Whilst the biodiversity net gain is still positive, we calculate that the applicant's proposals willachieve a reduced biodiversity net gain of 38.27% for area habitats and a 100% net gain for linearhabitats.

However, this will only be achieved if 26 new 26 BS:3936-1 Standard-sized trees are planted tocomply with the BNG 3.1 Trading Rules for Urban tree habitats.

As a resident of Monks Park Avenue, I have lived with constant construction over theroad for nearly 20 years. I have also lived with significant difficulty parking on the street outside myhouse (there is no off-street parking) due to the hospital policy of telling staff who live within 3miles to park in the surrounding area. This is also adopted by visitors. If I leave the house at 9 inthe morning, I am unable to return until the hospital shift change at 6pm or thereabouts and theaddition of car parking facilities seemed like a welcome, and sensible respite. To suddenlydiscover that the plan is to build on top of the newly built car park seems firstly like a significantwaste of public money, but also it will reduce the spaces available for staff and visitors to park theirvehicles, forcing them to park outside my house. If the council wishes to include a residents permitparking scheme on Monks Park Avenue then I would support this application. Until such time as asensible solution is provided, I will object.