BTF response: OBJECT

 

Our Objection: 'This development proposal represents a huge threat to the future of a truly significant publicly owned tree. Despite the nice words in the AIS the proposed building is too close to the tree, and the building and its foundations will likely kill it, no matter how careful on their hands and knees under supervision the workmen may be.

Then of course there is the very real risk that, were the development to go ahead, there would be applications to fell the tree, whose trunk, and, more significantly, its magnificent crown, would be threatening and inconvenient for the new householder to tolerate. Who wants the branches from a Plane Tree tap tap tapping at their window night and day? Pollen, leaves, shade - ugh, nasty!

We need every tree we have, and we should keep the mature ones like this lest we die. Bristol has planning policies to keep trees. Let's abide by them, please.

The appeal for non-determination was dismised -  - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3317535

"17. The appellants have provided substantial detail in relation to the exploratory works already carried out on the site to determine root depths and positions. Recommendations are made in respect of foundation design, construction methodology and the supervision required and proposed during the building process. On this basis, the appellants consider that the future health of the tree can be assured.

18. Given its very close proximity to future building activities, if it took place, I am not wholly convinced that the Plane, despite its acknowledged resilience, would survive the construction process. But even if that were to prove the case, I harbour little doubt that the tree, given its intrusion into the appeal site, would likely become the cause of nuisance to future residents. It would dominate the proposed dwelling at the front and would probably and reasonably be perceived as overbearing, causing overshadowing during the early part of the day. It could well cause physical damage to any property erected, particularly in that period immediately prior to its normally planned pollarding.

19. In the circumstances, I consider it almost inevitably that the Council would increasingly face pressure to significantly reduce the mass of the tree or possibly remove it on account of the nuisance it caused to residents. To my mind, the health and longevity of this attractive tree, which contributes significantly to local amenity and the character and appearance of the CA, would be best served by adopting a precautionary approach by eliminating the risk posed to it by the proposed development."