Comments – 27 August 2023

2

Under BNG 4.05, these 35 trees are an Individual tree - Urban habitat and have an area of

1.1667 hectares of which 0.1497 hectares will be lost and 1.0170 hectares will be retained. A

copy of our BNG 4.0 calculation is annexed below.

The trees on site meet four of the Condition Assessment Criteria – B, C, D & F – which makes

their condition Moderate. Because the site is an IOS, we have set the Strategic significance of

this habitat at High - Formally identified in local strategy.

This gives 10.73 Habitat Units for this habitat, of which 1.38 will be lost – 12.83%. We have

not attempted to assess the other habitats on site as these are unlikely to be permanently

lost and there is insufficient information provided.

On the assumption that the applicant would aspire to achieve at least 10% biodiversity net

gain (BNG), we calculate that a further 179 BNG 4.0 Small category trees will need to be

planted offsite to achieve a BNG of 10% and comply with the Trading rules. The Headline

Results are set out below.

5 The Small Sites Metric cannot be used where offsite mitigation is required.

Comments – 27 August 2023

3

In light of this, the applicant should be obliged to submit its own biodiversity net gain evidence

and make proposals for how and where it plans to compensate for the loss of biodiversity caused

by its plans.

This is, of course, subject to the absolute bar against this sort of development on an IOS. It

could also establish a precedent for how applications to install similar networks across our green

spaces may be approached in future.

A copy of our BNG 4.0 calculation has been submitted.

Comments – 27 August 2023

4

Annex – BNG 4.0 calculation

Tree ID

Common Name Tree Count

Trees Removed BNG 4.0

Category

Baseline Habitat

Habitat removed

(ha)

Habitat Retained

(ha)

Trees 35 3 1.1667 0.1497 1.0170

1 Norway maple 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

2 Lombardy

poplar 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

3 Lombardy

poplar 1 0 Large 0.0765 0.0000 0.0765

4 Sycamore 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

5 Sycamore 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

6 Sycamore 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

7 Cherry 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

8 Cherry 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

9 Cherry 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

10 Cherry 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

11 Norway maple 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

12 Norway maple 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

13 Norway maple 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

14 Norway maple 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

15 Norway maple 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

16 Norway maple 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

17 Norway maple 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

18 Maple 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

19 London plane

1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

20 London plane 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

Comments – 27 August 2023

5

Tree ID

Common Name Tree Count

Trees Removed BNG 4.0

Category

Baseline Habitat

Habitat removed

(ha)

Habitat Retained

(ha)

Trees 35 3 1.1667 0.1497 1.0170

21 London plane 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

22 Lime 1 0 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

23 Alder 1 0 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

24 Lime 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

25 Silver maple 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

26 Norway maple 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

27 Field maple 1 0 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

28 Elder, field maple and hawthorn

1 0 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

29 Norway maple 1 0 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

30 Lombardy

poplar 1 1 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

31 Lombardy

poplar 1 1 Large 0.0765 0.0765 0.0000

32 Lombardy

poplar 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

33 Lime 1 1 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

34 Lime 1 0 Medium 0.0366 0.0000 0.0366

35 Lime, maple and

ash 1 0 Small 0.0041 0.0000 0.0041

The trees need to be preserved in Provident place at all costs. The heat pump shouldnot destroy these mature trees. Planning saplings will not replace them and will destroy this havenin the city

The trees need to be preserved in Provident place at all costs. The heat pump shouldnot destroy these mature trees. Planning saplings will not replace them and will destroy this havenin the city

I object to the destruction of the trees on this green space. But what's the point ofobjecting? Literally every person in Bristol could object but we all know the developers will get theirway, that the council will roll over, like they always do, with no care or consideration of what thelocal community want. There is no local democracy left!They took all the trees and put 'em in a tree museum And they charged the people a dollar and ahalf to see themNo, no, noDon't it always seem to goThat you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?They paved paradise and put up a parking lot .......!

We have to think very carefully about our habitat. What is best for us. We will be having2,200 more places for people to live in, in an already highly populated area - and they will all arriveat the same time.Please leave our little green alone. It is so vital to us and the trees established and giving us afeeling of well-being - aside from the oxygen. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the green could beenhanced, made bigger, more trees. It's too small. It is so absolutely necessary to us. Findanother journey for the pipes. Leave our trees alone.

Comment:After all we (YOU)know about mature Trees and what they provide for a healthy environment bothfor human existence and as natural habitats, still you have the unbelievable stupidity to continuedestroying our increasingly fragile natural world. Have we learnt nothing...?Why not build under the existing road structures or along the cycle route to the green.

I strongly object to the proposal involving cutting down trees. These are integral to thecharacter of the area, the residents' access to green space, and assist and environmentalbiodiversity for wildlife.

Please leave the trees alone. We don't want you chopping down any more trees.Chopping down old, established trees is wrong. Planting young saplings (that you then neglect) toreplace them is wrong. You can do better than this. Leave the trees alone. Bedminster is one ofthe least biodiverse places in Bristol, and you are making it worse. in Japan, they don't kill trees. Ifthey need to make so~called improvements, they carefully dig the tree up, protect the roots andplanted elsewhere. The trees live.

Hello. I really hope you can reconsider taking out the trees on the green. I have seenthe plans to put the Malago through at a measly 50cm wide and to remove good trees and replacewith smaller ones which get neglected or vandalised early on (judging from others I've seen). Oneof the worst things would be the wholesale loss of the beautiful and ever expanding purplecrocuses in the Spring. I have seen people queuing up to photgraph them they are so lovely! It'staken the 25+ years I have been living here to get to where they are now and they would onlyspread further if left alone. Imagine the whole 'green' in purple! Our area is getting ripped to shredsand stuck back together with high rise buildings blocking out the light but increasing the noise andstudent flats with no community involvment with the area, the roads are blocked, the bus stopshut, access to what's left of the High Street is nigh on impossible and the whole place has goneto hell. A recent report claimed that nobody was against the plans, that was not true, I sent inobjections and so did many other people. Please reconsider or find better, non destructive ways ofdoing this, thank you.

The removal of three medium to large, established trees from this group would have anextremely detrimental effect on the green. Trees can not be seen as individual items. They arepart of a group and provide a rare piece of natural habitat in this area that connects to the naturalcorridor of the railway and the river Malago . The replacement with saplings around Bedminsterwould not compensate. This area is a habitat for a family of Crows, blackbirds, other wild birds andsquirrels. The tree group will be of even more importance as the development of the areacontinues. An alternative route would be along the cycle way next to the green.

I completely disagree with the removal of the trees due to heating system installation.

This space has already suffered loss of multiple mature healthy trees due to BGFdevelopments; the whole area is branded as being part of Bedminster 'green' but you areproposing to remove yet more of the Green. You have already destroyed too much. I also use thisspace every day en-route to school with my children and they are asking for there to be more bigtrees there, more green and more wildlife, not less. You are destroying this side of the city forshort term economic reasons only.

Considering the climate emergency we are facing and the absolute need we have oftrees to mitigate against the future consequences of climate change I find it absolutely nonsensicalthat mature trees will be felled. There is also a need for biodiversity in an area that is seeing it'sbuilt environment increased. Trees are an essential part of our urban environment. For a city thatis seemingly in favour of doing all it can to mitigate against the corrosive effects of climate changeit seems very strange that mass tree removal has become policy. Trees provide us with calmingand spiritual spaces and are an extremely effective aid in maintaining balance and in our rapidlychanging environment. Replacing mature trees with saplings will not replace the loss. Bedminsteris facing a huge change in it's built environment due to the massive development and the loss ofany mature tree would be another stressful impact on the neighborhood that local residents do notdeserve. Bristol City Council is happy to encourage development at the expense of Bedminsterresidents which I am frankly appalled at.

Application 23/02915/F

The following comment is submitted on behalf of the Windmill Hill and Malago Planning Group(WHaM).

This is an application relating to the felling of trees on the area of land known locally asBedminster Green in order to lay new pipes below the open space.

ConsultationWHaM is deeply concerned not to have been consulted on this application, it seems that theneighbour notification list published in the application did not include a single residence alongWindmill Hill, Cotswold Road, or Fraser Street. The notification list however does seem to haveincluded a great number of residential addresses that have not been built yet. WHaM assumesthis oversight will be corrected and a proper consultation period with the local residents will beundertaken many of whom use this green space with their children on a daily basis and have fondassociations with this space. These people should be notified and deserve an opportunity to havetheir say, for this reason the consultation should be extended and Bristol City Council should notdetermine an application until an effective consultation of nearby residents (living in homes thatactually exist) has been undertaken.

WHaM objects to the Proposal on the following grounds:

BiodiversityWHaM has taken note of the comments of Bristol tree forum and their accompanying calculation

and is dismayed that in a city that has a declared biodiversity crisis a net loss of biodiversity isbeing put forward for this application. Wham supports the comments of Bristol Tree forum anddoes not think this application should be approved for those reasons alone. Wham agrees withBristol Tree Forum that this application should have the need to demonstrate a net gain waivedand that this application should follow the requirements of all other developments. Especiallywhere this application only relates to green space.

Ensuring a net gain in biodiversity is in line with the National Planning Policy Framework.

The route chosen is not the only solutionWham notes that the land owned by Bristol City Council extends beyond the red line (though noblue line is shown on the application documents (and for this reason should not have beenvalidated) and there are routes for the pipes around the green that would not compromise any ofthe tree roots and these should be explored. In particular, those to the west of the green below theexisting cycle path.

Replacement treesWhilst it is noted that there are replacement trees, these are not to be on site. Current BCC policywould allow these to be placed some distance from the site and so would not in any way make opfor the loss of green habitat for local animals.

Conflict of servicesThe group has also commented on an application (no. 23/00611/FB) earlier this year on the samepiece of land that we were consulted on which included river restoration work, it seems that theroute of pipes might conflict with the river and further evidence should be provided that there is nota risk to future wildlife in the river and that there will not be difficulties in maintaining the pipeswere they to cross below the opened up river.

We were also concerned that the application does not make any mention of other relatedapplications on the green. It does not seem that this application has been correctly processed andthis should be updated to provide people with relevant information to effectively comment on theapplication.

WHaM does not support this application in its current form.

Strongly object to the proposed weekend working hours. Residents in this area havebeen subjected to excessive disruption from noise pollution with the Bedminster Green project forover a year with loud work starting from 7.30 and consistent weekend working. Given the 12 weekduration of this particular proposal, it would not create a significant delay restricting work toweekdays only.

Also strongly object to the proposed working hours beginning at 7.30am and ending after 5pm.Residents in this area have been subjected to excessive noise nuisance from the current sites thatshould be reduced not added to.

Strongly object to removal of 3 trees. This area is outside the clean air zone already, it is notconsistent with the aim for a cleaner city to remove trees in an area that will already suffer from thewell documented additional pollution due to being in close proximity while also excluded from theclean air zone. There is also a strong population of wildlife, notably Bats and Squirrels, in theBedminster green and removal of trees will impact biodiversity in the area.

Object to temporary traffic lights on Whitehouse Lane. The temporary lights used for the currentsite favour the site traffic flow direction coming from the North of Whitehouse lane, despite theactual flow of traffic being heavier from south Bristol. This caused significant delays on a road thatis not suitable for two lanes of traffic in many areas and unjustifiably impacted local residents forthe benefit of the site.

I would also question whether an appropriate consultation has been undertaken given theomission of many neighbouring roads to the project. The inclusion of buildings that are not yet

complete and populated by residents shouldn't be counted.

Strongly object to the proposed weekend working hours. Residents in this area havebeen subjected to excessive disruption from noise pollution with the Bedminster Green project forover a year with loud work starting from 7.30 and consistent weekend working. Given the 12 weekduration of this particular proposal, it would not create a significant delay restricting work toweekdays only.

Also strongly object to the proposed working hours beginning at 7.30am and ending after 5pm.Residents in this area have been subjected to excessive noise nuisance from the current sites thatshould be reduced not added to.

Strongly object to removal of 3 trees. This area is outside the clean air zone already, it is notconsistent with the aim for a cleaner city to remove trees in an area that will already suffer from thewell documented additional pollution due to being in close proximity while also excluded from theclean air zone. There is also a strong population of wildlife, notably Bats and Squirrels, in theBedminster green and removal of trees will impact biodiversity in the area.

Object to temporary traffic lights on Whitehouse Lane. The temporary lights used for the currentsite favour the site traffic flow direction coming from the North of Whitehouse lane, despite theactual flow of traffic being heavier from south Bristol. This caused significant delays on a road thatis not suitable for two lanes of traffic in many areas and unjustifiably impacted local residents forthe benefit of the site.

I would also question whether an appropriate consultation has been undertaken given theomission of many neighbouring roads to the project. The inclusion of buildings that are not yet

complete and populated by residents shouldn't be counted.

I categorically object to the removal of the 3 trees to make way for the gas network. Thispart of Bedminster is becoming more dense and populous, and these green areas, no matter howsmall, provide respite from the concrete jungle this area is becoming.

These are large trees that will have been here for a great number of years and haveenvironmental importance: clean air, carbon, noise.

The trees that are to be replaced in the proposal are frankly ridiculous compared to what is therenow. Surely an alternative route can be looked at.

I strongly object to the removal of our much needed trees on our Bedminster Green.With so many more people coming to live here, we definitely need all the biodiversity we can get. Ithas taken them 30 - 40 years to grow and 20 trees will not replace them for years. Will the treesbe replaced actually on the green or just round about? Our green is very small, why can't a detourbe made to keep the pipes under concrete? Or even dig a tunnel below the roots? We havealready lost some trees so I agree more should be planted anyway.

Also, what point is there in sending out all those letters to places as yet not built? Where did allthat paper end up?

it would be very sad to loose the mature trees in that green space unnecessarily whenlittle green space exists near by.Is there not another way around this that could save the majority of them?

I object on two counts: first trees, second, noise.

Please do not cut down any more trees in Bedminster. Bedminster is one of the least biodiverseareas in Bristol and you are taking more of it away. Trees have already been felled outside StCatherine's House. In Japan, when there are new developments, they dig the trees up, protectingthe roots as the do so, and plant them elsewhere. Here, we just kill them. Leave the trees ofBedminster Green alone.

Secondly, can we please have consideration for the people that live here. There is so muchdevelopment work going on. It goes on until late at night on weeknights, it starts early on Saturdaymornings and, sometimes, there are works on Sundays. Many complaints have been made to noavail. I work really hard and want my evenings and weekends to be peaceful.

This site is registered as a Park and Green Space anddesignated as an Important Open Space (IOS) in the Local Plan a therefore must not bepermitted.

The plan will result in a net loss of biodiversity of 12.83% according to the Bristol Tree Forum andthe 20 replacement trees contained in the plan will in no way compensate for the loss of existingbiodiversity.

I therefore object to this application.

Strongly object to the removal of trees. The associated works around Dalby Avenuehave already removed one mature tree outside Catherine's House and the area is quickly beenturned into a concrete jungle. How can you even associate these developments with 'BedminsterGreen' when you're planning on removing aspects of the only green spaces in the area.

Also strongly objecting to the hours of work. Sunday work should not go ahead. The residents ofthis area have already been subject to 1.5 years of road works with another year to go.. How canwe deal with the constant noise and disruption for 7 days a week.

Please don't allow this to happen. You have already ruined this area with high rise flats.You can't keep destroying it. I completely object to this happening. The air quality and piece hasalready been heavily damaged by the building works. We need all the trees and green space wecan get. Maybe consider improving the area with more trees and more green space? Somedoctors and dentists are needed too. Why don't you spend your time looking at those thing?

I strongly object to the removal of the established trees, which are a beautiful feature ofthe green space that provide well being, shelter from rain and sun, and are a home to a collectionof squirrels that my daughter and I like to spot on our way to nursery. Frankly the notion to cutdown any established trees, especially ones that are a gem sandwiched between developments,train lines and industrial buildings could only be proposed by someone who doesn't live in BS3.

I strongly object to this planning request.

The trees affected by this project are considered part of the local urban habitat.

The Dalby Avenue Open Space, where this is happening, is a protected area under the Local Planand designated as an Important Open Space (IOS). The proposal doesn't align with therequirement that developments here should complement the open space's use.

The proposed development will lead to a significant 12.83% loss in biodiversity. The applicantseeks to bypass their BNG obligations by planting 20 trees elsewhere. This approach contradictsthe National Planning Policy Framework's call for measurable net gains in biodiversity.

Preserving Bedminster Green's natural habitat is crucial, given the extensive building work in ourlocal area. These trees are beloved by the community, offering vital environmental and well-beingbenefits.

The area's IOS designation is meant to protect it, and removing these three trees doesn't alignwith this protection. These trees are an integral part of our community's heritage. They providehabitat, carbon capture, and tranquility. Losing them would be tragic.

This case sets an important precedent for how similar developments in our green spaces will behandled in the future, considering the absolute ban on such developments in IOS areas.

Objecting to the proposal involving cutting down trees which are integral to thecharacter of the area, the residents access to green space, and assist and environmentalbiodiversity for wildlife.

Very strongly object to the removal of 3 mature trees on the land now referred to as"Dalby Avenue Green". These act as carbon capture, green lung/space and noise buffer for thistiny but increasingly vital area of green space at the heart of what will be "Bedminster Green" (andwhat other developers have cynically designated as the only area of green space). Noting that theBNG regime has not yet kicked in. However, replacing 3 mature and essential trees in this smallarea will in no way be compensated for by the planting of replacement saplings somewhere else inthe Bristol CC area. THIS area needs THESE trees. Applicant has not explained why routingcannot be changed to accommodate this. And yes, approving this would set an appallingprecedent for development elsewhere in the city

These are mature trees and cannot be replaced in any meaningful way by saplings.Mature trees are essential to the health of the local community and as such I object very stronglyto the removal of any trees from Bedminster Green. The only possible reason for removal wouldbe disease, danger of falling and rot. This would also set a precedent for the removal of furthertrees which I expect the developer will attempt to do in the future. Cities absolutely need trees forhealth and wellbeing development does not come anywhere near this category.

In one of the only green spaces around it is being proposed that 3 trees, including 2 ofthe largest and most established be removed. This is completely unacceptable. These treesprovide clean air, are carbon sinks, and create a beautiful area in an otherwise urban environment.Bristol city council seems to show a total disregard for this as they have approved prison like towerblocks all the way around Bedminster.

I strongly object to the removal of 3 trees, 2 of which are large and well established andcannot be replaced by saplings which would take many years to reach this stage of maturity.

Preserving the natural habitat of Bedminster Green is vitally important given the amount of highintensity building work going on in the small space locally. The trees are well loved by thecommunity and provde important benefits to the environment and the well-being of people who livearound this green space. This must be preserved.

I strongly object to the removal of trees in Bedminster Green. These are large old treesand help with pollution on this main road. They protect us from the noise of the railway and give alittle bit of a respite in the concreted area. This will also create a precedent for more trees beingremoved from the area - it cannot be allowed due to the amount of dreadful development takingplace.I would also like to point out the lack of meaningful notifications- seems letters were sent to not yetbuilt Stafford Yard, rather to neighbours that can actually comment on this issue.

I object in the strongest possible terms to this planning request. The area is a park anda Green Space designated an IOS the proposed removal of the 3 trees is not ancillary to the openspace use. The designation of IOS is there to provide special protection for green areas: this is anarea of particular importance to my community, the trees are part of our local heritage, they arehistorically significant, beautiful and an essential part of the tranquility that the space offersbetween the increasing areas of urban development. The trees are an established feature of theIOS, they are a vital part of the space offering biodiversity and habitats. As mature trees they areoffer essential carbon capture and carbon locking. They are magnificent, mature trees that offer allof their benefits now - the impact of their removal would be tragic for the Green Space.