My previous comments still stand although revisions have been made in adjusting theroutes of the trenching. The route adjacent to Whitehouse Lane has been move a little way awayfrom the tree stems but because the trees are immediately adjacent on the other side to thehighway, root spread into the farm is likely to be much further than the RPA indicates.The trenching adjacent to the Phillip Street boundary has in fact been moved closer to the treestems so would exacerbate rather than ameliorate the damage done to the roots of these trees.

Further comments – 08 September 2024

2

Figure 1: Extract from the proposed new BS5837

In this instance, the presence of Whitehouse Lane and Philip Street immediately adjacent to

the affected trees means that their root spread is likely to be asymmetrical, with the greater

part growing on the City Farm side. The trenching will particularly affect the roots growing

close to the surface, which are vital for the uptake of water, oxygen and nutrients and therefore

important for the health of a tree as a whole. This is especially true for the 15 mature trees

identified in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA), which are likely to recover only slowly,

if at all.

The excavation of a trench measuring 1.5 m x 1.5m through these roots will inevitably cause

significant harm, leading to long-term decline in the health of these mature trees, as well as

the remaining semi-mature ones.

We also note that the pipework route still passes within the RPAs of many of the City Farm

trees, most notably the Monterey cypress identified as T10 in the revised May 2024 AIA 3 (based

on a survey undertaken in June 2023) and shown in Figure 2 below. Not only does the trenching

extend through its RPA, but the proposed access route on to the site for construction traffic

also passes through it.

3 23_03638_F-REVISED__ARBORICULTURAL_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT_13TH_MAY_2024-3740145

Further comments – 08 September 2024

3

Figure 2: Extract from AIA, Appendix B – Arboricultural Method Statement, Route 1.

The amenity value of this tree is confirmed by the revised AIA, where the tree is described as:

‘Mature/over mature specimen; significant amenity from streetscape’ with a life expectancy

of 10+ years.

Figure 3: Extract from: AIA, redated MAY 2024.

However, the recent tree survey, undertaken on 26 March 2024 by Bosky Trees and carried out

to support planning application 24/01215/VP,4 identifies the same Monterey cypress as tree

T306 and rates its condition as ‘Good. It recommends a plan of non-urgent maintenance works

(see Figure 4 below).

Figure 4: Extract from: Bosky Trees, TREE RISK ASSESSMENT 26 March 2024.

4 24_01215_VP-TREE_RISK_ASSESSMENT-3653979

Further comments – 08 September 2024

4

We also deplore the automatic assumption that the three BS 5837 category “U’ trees, T05, T08

and T13, will be removed merely because of their categorisation. Even if dead, these trees are

still providing both biodiversity and ecoservices. Furthermore, the trees do not belong to the

applicant, nor is their removal necessary for it to achieve its plans so the applicant has no

business calling for their removal. These trees should only be removed if they present a safety

risk. It is notable that the tree works application, 24/01215/VP, did not propose their removal.5

It is clear, therefore, that, as a consequence of these plans, significant damage will be doned

to these publicly owned Council trees - growing on and managed by the City Farm on its behalf.

In this case, it is not possible to justify this proposed course of action without offering a

compelling reason for why this unplanned route is being proposed, given the significant harm

that will be caused to both the ecoservices and the biodiversity of these trees, especially when

the original planned route along Whitehouse Lane appears to be perfectly viable.

The planning requirements

The requirements of both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Local

Development Plan are clear when it comes to the issue of harm (our underlining):

1. Para 186 a) of the NPPF states: When determining planning applications, local planning

authorities should apply the following principles: a) if significant harm to biodiversity

resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site

with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for,

then planning permission should be refused.'6

2. Core Strategic Policy BCS9 of the Local Development Plan, states: 'Individual green assets

should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development. Loss of green

infrastructure will only be acceptable where it is allowed for as part of an adopted

Development Plan Document or is necessary, on balance, to achieve the policy aims of the

Core Strategy. Appropriate mitigation of the lost green infrastructure assets will be

required.'7

Despite this, the applicant has failed to explain both why the ‘significant harm’ these plans

will cause the City Farm trees ‘cannot be avoided’, and why ‘locating on an alternative site

with less harmful impacts (Whitehouse Lane and Philip Street) is not possible, so that that the

route of the pipework must pass through the City Farm, causing this harm to the trees growing

there. Since there are no proposals adequately to mitigate this harm, or to offer compensation

for it, the application must be refused.

The loss of this ‘green infrastructure’ is not allowed for as part of an ‘adopted Development

Plan Document’. Nor is it ‘necessary, on balance, to achieve the policy aims of the Core

Strategy’ because The Bristol Heat Network Local Development Order is not part of the Core

5 https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=SB0L9ZDNMKT00 6 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/669a25e9a3c2a28abb50d2b4/NPPF_December_2023.pdf. 7 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/64-core-strategy-web-pdf-low-res-with-links/file.

Further comments – 08 September 2024

5

Strategy.8 In any event, alternative, less damaging routes are available.

Fence installation

Looking at the Method Statement annexed to the AIA, we are also concerned about the lack of

detail at paragraphs 5.4 and 9.8 relating to the installation of the proposed boundary fencing,

which are clearly within the RPAs. We presume that each post will require holes to be dug and

the posts to be set in concrete before the holes are backfilled. The Method Statement needs to

deal with how this will be done in such a way that tree roots are not unnecessarily damaged

either by the hole excavation or by the concrete.

8 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/5/section/38.

No explanation is give to support the route of the district heating scheme through theallotments of Windmill Hill City Farm. The proposed route had previously been shown to be alongthe public highway which is the most direct and is accessible for properties along Whitehouse St.This application for an alternative route through the allotments compromises the health andstability of the trees at the perimeter of the south and east sides of the site. Sixteen of these treeshave been given Tree Protection Orders in recognition of their value as amenity and contributionto biodiversity.No tree officers report has been included on the Planning Portal for this application. Without thisreport there is no independent professional expert voice to inform the lay person who is asked tojudge the validity of the applicants claims.Under The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012, theauthority is advised to:assess the amenity value of the tree or woodland and the likely impact of the proposal on theamenity of the area;consider, in the light of this assessment, whether or not the proposal is justified, having regard tothe reasons and additional information put forward in support of it;consider whether any loss or damage is likely to arise if consent is refused or granted subject toconditions;consider whether any requirements apply in regard to protected species;consider other material considerations, including development plan policies where relevant; andensure that appropriate expertise informs its decision.The proposed works would affect these trees and the contributions they make but there are nomitigation works identified in the application for this or where trees fail to survive the works and

any future deterioration in their health and stability as a result of this installation works.

I would ask that the Tree Preservation Order is presented on the Planning Portal together with theassociated map.