Additional Comments 14 May 2024

2

be a net of biodiversity loss of -4.53% or -0.23 area habitat units. This is contrary to the above

requirements of the NPPF.

In order to comply with the NPPF and achieve a bare minimum biodiversity gain, a further 21

‘small’ category SM trees which will achieve a poor condition and be planted in areas of low

strategic significance will have to be planted. We have allowed a one-year delay. This will

result in a biodiversity gain of 0.03%.

If the applicant agrees to abide by the current SM obligations, then, in order to comply with

the trading rules and have no net loss of broad individual trees habitat, a further 92 small

category size SM trees (or higher distinctiveness habitats) will need to be created offsite after

a one-year delay. These will also achieve poor condition and have low strategic significance. If

92 small category size SM trees are planted off site, then a biodiversity gain of 15.42% can be

achieved.

As a local resident I ask Bristol City Council to please, please not remove trees fromBedminster Green as is proposed in this application.This application calls for the removal of several of the large, well-established trees from the green.These trees are part of a group and comprise an overall natural habitat; they cannot be viewed asindividuals. The green and its trees form a scarce natural resource, providing habitats for birds,insects and nocturnal mammals, in a corridor that is continuous with the railway embankment andthe Malago. Various families of birds live on the green including crows, blackbirds, and other wildbirds as well as squirrels. Removing any of the trees will mean the overall habitat will be depletedand these species are very likely to be lost.The wider Bedminster Green area is subject to many planning applications on a variety of plots. Allthe proposed and current developments are for high rise tower blocks with little or no greenspaces. The amenity value of the green and its trees therefore needs to be viewed from theperspective of the completed developments of highrise buildings; the trees will have ever-increasing importance and scarcity value to its human inhabitants; green spaces, particularlymature trees, are proven to improve human well-being.Replacing these trees with saplings elsewhere around Bedminster will therefore in no waycompensate for their removal from the focal point and key resource of the green, to either humanresidents or other species.Alternative routes for the underground pipework should therefore be found, eg along the cycle waynext to the green, which would not necessitate the loss of any of these crucial trees.

Additional Comments 21 February 2024

2

BTRS calculations for the Malago River restoration application. Appendix 2 sets out our

suggestion for a possible way to apportion the baseline habitat and replacement trees

required between these two applications, to overcome the risk of under- or over-

compensation. We have not included the biodiversity gain evidence used in planning

application 21/05219/F, although, ideally, this should also be integrated into this analysis

once the arboricultural evidence is consistent across all three applications.

2. The LPA’s ecologist challenges the designation of the strategic significance of the onsite

habitats as high in the Malago River restoration application. Whatever the overall merits of

this, we say that the trees growing on site should be given high strategic significance

because trees are expressly identified in the Local Plan under BCS9 and DM17. A Local

Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) has yet to be adopted by the planning authority. As a

consequence, planners may look to local strategies which have been adopted. These can

include:

• Draft Local Nature Recovery Strategies

• Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans

• Local Planning Authority Local Ecological Networks

• Tree Strategies (one of these is about to be adopted)

• Biodiversity Action Plans

• Woodland strategies

• Green Infrastructure Strategies

• River Basin Management Plans

• Catchment Plans and Catchment Planning Systems.6

6 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c60e0514b83c000ca715f3/The_Statutory_Biodiversity_Metric_-_User_Guide_.pdf - page 26.

Additional Comments 21 February 2024

3

Appendix 1 – Accounting for temporary habitat loss

This application does not rely on biodiversity gain evidence, even though it is still required to

‘identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity’ under

paragraph 185(b) of the NPPF.7

The applicant claims that the loss of habitat will be temporary and that ‘the Biodiversity Metric

4.0 allows for temporary losses that can be restored within 2 years to be excluded from the

calculations.’8 The now-obligatory Statutory Metric refines this and states:9

However, the standard time-to-target period for lost Individual trees habitat ranges from 10 to

30+ years, depending on the target condition. Since there are no plans to enhance this habitat,

this exemption cannot be relied on.

7 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a11af7e8f5ec000f1f8c46/NPPF_December_2023.pdf 8 23_02915_F-BNG_EXEMPTION_NOTE_REV_B-3501172.pdf 9 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c60e0514b83c000ca715f3/The_Statutory_Biodiversity_Metric_-_User_Guide_.pdf - page 34.

Additional Comments 21 February 2024

4

Appendix 2

The following table shows three possible ways of distributing baseline Urban Individual trees

habitats and their replacement habitats, depending on the metric used between the HNI

application and the Malago River restoration application.

Metric Used Habitat Data

Application Sites

Malago

Restoration

Share

HNI

Share

All

Habitats

Statutory Metric

Baseline area

(ha) 0.1715 0.1294 0.3009

New trees

needed to

comply with the

trading rules

116 87 203

BNG 4.0

Baseline area

(ha) 0.2527 0.1497 0.4024

New trees

needed to

comply with the

trading rules

170 101 271

BTRS

Requirement for

replacement

trees

32 20 52

Our preference is to use the Statutory Metric because it replaces BNG 4.0 and BTRS for all

calculations of biodiversity gain for Urban Individual trees habitat.

- It is quite unnecessary to put the pipes for the District Heat Network (DHN) belowBedminster Green. Many of the other pipes are being put under roads (Malago Rd, Dalby Avenue)and these pipes should also be put under roads. This proposal wants to put pipes under the Greenbecause that is easier and cheaper. The pipes could go along Hereford St.- Putting the pipes under the Green will lose us several trees (not clear exactly how many, assome trees are lost with the River Restoration Scheme, and some with the pipe network scheme).We need to see a very clear Biodiversity Net Gain analysis to know exactly what will be lost andwhat gained.- Once the pipes are installed, future access is needed for repairs, which means that no moretrees can be planted along this line, and there could well be further disturbances in the future. Sothere will be a permanent effect of biodiversity loss on site.- As more and more flats are built around the Green, more and more trees will be needed bypeople, for shade, mental wellbeing, joy, as well as for biodiversity. Trees have a cooling effect aswell as being very important for our wellbeing.- Bedminster Green is a designated IOS (Important Open Space) and as such has someprotection, including that all development of the site must be ancillary to the open space. This useis clearly not helping the open space in any way, it will change it, and effect it in a negative way.- The consultation that was done for this did not include any of the local neighbours to the siteliving on Cotswold Rd, Fraser St or Windmill Hill. It did, however, include many addresses that arenot yet even built. Surely this was a big oversight and must be rectified. A proper consultationmust be held.

Bedminster Green is a much-loved open green space in the midst of several emergingtower blocks. It is currently covered by the most amazing display of crocuses and daffodils whichis hugely admired by both local residents and visitors. Under the Local Plan Bedminster Green isrightly designated as an important space. In hot weather, which we increasingly seem to have, thetree canopy provides much needed shade. This is of considerable help to many elderly folk, andyoung families, carrying their shopping from East Street up to Windmill Hill. As far as I'm awarethere is no ecolgical reason for putting the pipework under the Green and there are clearlyalternative routes that would avoid the destruction and damage to this precious piece of greenland.

As this application is wholey within a site designated as an Important Open Space andas such protected from any development that is not incidental to the enjoyment of that space.The District Heat Network is in no way incidental to the use of this and should withdrawn and analternative solution found.The new Local Plan proposes to downgrade the designation of this site, however even if it were tobe approved by the Government Inspector it would not come into force until at least 2025.

There is no Bio Diversity Net Gain calculation but a list of excuses for not including it. Ifthe reasoning is reasonable why not support it with the calculation.There is no Ecological report to support the reasoning.The excuses contain inaccurate statements with regard the existing baseline BNG.This application should be rejected.

Bedminster Green is a much loved open space that needs to be protected. A petition insupport of Green has already attracted nearly 900 signatures. The consultation on this applicationhas been wholly inadequate. For example, no one in Windmill Hill was contacted about it. Puttingthe pipework under the Green will mean the destruction of some rare beautiful trees such as theLombardy poplars that have become alocal landmark due to their height. There appears nochance of replacing them with trees anywhere near this Green. The council have called abiodiversity crisis and yet putting the pipes under the ground will result in a biodiversity loss.Furthermore, it goes against the local plan which protects the space from any activity that is notincidental to that space. There is absolutely no reason why the pipework can't go round.Therefore, this application should be rejected

1. Dalby Avenue Open Space/ Bedminster Green is an Important Open Space andprotected from development.

Dalby Avenue Open Space, is registered as a Park and Green Space and designated as anImportant Open Space (IOS) in the Local Plan. IOS sites are protected by Site Allocations andDevelopment Management Policies (SADMP) DM17 of the Local Plan which states that'Development on part, or all, of an Important Open Space as designated on the Policies Map willnot be permitted unless the development is ancillary to the open space use.' The proposeddevelopment is not 'ancillary to the open space use' and so cannot be permitted.

2.Loss of biodiversity

At least four mature trees will be felled and the proposed development will result in a net loss ofbiodiversity. There will be an irreplaceable loss of tree canopy and carbon capture and wildlifehabitat/corridor in an urban area where trees and green space are scarce and at a time whenBristol City Council has recognised a climate and ecological emergency.

Once pipes are buried in the green no trees can be planted in the vicinity of the pipes as access tothem will be required at all times.

3.No biodiversity or ecological survey

There is no biodiversity net gain calculation included in the application and no ecological survey atall to support its reasoning .

4.Alternative Routes exist

There are alternative routes for the pipes which would avoid destroying the ecology of the area.

5.How does this applicant propose to deal with the developments currently proposed in the twoother pending applications ?

This application fails to mention or adequately address the discrepancies and conflicts that existbetween this application and the two other pending applications relating to the same site namely-23/00611/FB and 21/05291/F

Additional Comments 07 February 2024

2

be used. Failing that, biodiversity credits may be purchased. This is set out in the new

statutory biodiversity gain hierarchy, which states:

(a) in relation to onsite habitat with a habitat distinctiveness score, applied in the

biodiversity metric, equal to or higher than four—

(i) avoiding adverse effects of the development, or

(ii) insofar as those adverse effects cannot be avoided, mitigating those effects;

(b) in relation to any onsite habitat which is adversely affected by the development,

compensating for that adverse effect by—

(i) habitat enhancement of onsite habitat;

(ii) insofar as there cannot be that enhancement, creation of onsite habitat;

(iii) insofar as there cannot be that creation, the availability of registered offsite

biodiversity gain for allocation to the development;

(iv) insofar as registered offsite biodiversity gain cannot be allocated to the

development, the purchase of biodiversity credits.5

The broad habitat, Individual trees, is a Medium distinctiveness habitat and so scores four.

Under the statutory metric trading rules, it can only be replaced with the same broad

habitat or one with a higher distinctiveness score of 6 or 8.

If habitat creation must happen outside Bristol, or if biodiversity credits need to be bought,

then there will be a net loss of biodiversity within the city. This is unacceptable. The whole

purpose of the new biodiversity gain regime is to improve overall biodiversity by at least

10%. This will not happen if the net effect is that Bristol suffers an overall decline in

biodiversity.

8. In either case, the applicant will be obliged to prepare a Biodiversity Gain Plan under Part

2 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act.6 It will also need to agree, secure

and fund a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) for at least the next 30 years

so that the post-development habitat mitigations proposed are properly managed.

Given the above, and for all the other reasons we have already set out, we continue to object

to this application.

5 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/50/made - regulation 37A. 6 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/schedule/7A

Additional Comments 07 February 2024

3

Appendix 1

23/02915/F - Application redline boundary

Additional Comments 07 February 2024

4

Appendix 2

Statutory Metric - Individual trees – Urban tree habitat calculation

How can you call it a green space when there will be no green to look at. As a visitor toBedminster on a regular basis, im appauled with the amount of building going up. Its looking like aconcrete jungle. Has anyone considered the wildlife?

How can you call it a green space when there will be no green to look at. As a visitor toBedminster on a regular basis, im appauled with the amount of building going up. Its looking like aconcrete jungle. Has anyone considered the wildlife?

It is essential to find a different underground route for the planned heat pipes, so that itis not necessary to remove these medium to large trees. Can the heat pipes not be put under theroad or the cycle track route nearby?

There is a crisis which everyone knows about, that human beings have and continue to, destroynatural habitats and biodiversity. Having this little green plot of land is a superb natural spot in anarea desperately in need of it and more.

Bedminster has the least biodiversity in Bristol. To remove the trees would be a crime, againstnature and the people and living things that depend on the trees for their health and wellbeing.

With the planned increase of accommodation for an extra 2,200 abodes, which is not sustainable,makes keeping this green area and the trees a very high priority.

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.

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.