I object to the loss of this tree, which forms an important element of the streetscene inthis part of Guinea Street, which has no other trees at this point. There appears to be nothingwrong with the tree, so the removal of it would be a needless loss.

I thoroughly object to the proposal to fell the mature ash tree on Guinea Street. Fellingor scaling back the ash would be entirely contrary to the intention of the Redcliffe ConservationArea, and the Tree Preservation Order and would have a significant negative impact on thecharacter and appearance of this area.

The recent 2023 application, and earlier 2013 application were refused on this basis, and therehave been no material changes in the intervening period.

The presence of the tree has no impact on the wall being made safe.

The arboricultural assessment submitted with this application is not reliable as it states that thesite visit was made in June 2022. Contrary to the planning application, the tree shows no signs ofash dieback at all, with heavy leaf cover and a healthy crown. This claim should be independentlyverified before any works were to proceed.

The position of the proposed replacement tree is in an area which the applicant has for manyyears regularly treated with industrial sprayed herbicide, so the chances of it flourishing are verylow. Furthermore, it would take decades to reach the maturity of the current specimen. Also, itsproximity to the neighbouring property walls might be problematic.

As part of the national work to preserve and protect the native ash population, it is essential toprotect and maintain healthy ash trees, which may have natural resistance to ash dieback and willbe key to the future of the species. Ash trees play an essential role in supporting biodiversity andecological cycles, with many reliant species.

This specific tree adds to the character and life of the street and the wider environment. It providesa habitat for a wide range of flora and fauna including a multitude of birds which would not be seenor heard in the area if this ash, the only tree on Guinea Street, were to be felled.

This mature ash can be seen in many historical photographs of the noteworthy Redcliffe Tunnel,and being anything up to eighty years old may well be approaching status as a veteran tree. To fellthis tree would be to remove a key block in the network of natural habitats and greeninfrastructure, as described in paragraph 175 of National Planning Policy Framework. We have aresponsibility to protect our natural capital.

The removal or deterioration of the root structure of such a large, established tree will have adetrimental effect on the density and structure of the surrounding soil. This is of particularimportance as the tree's root structure will be a significant factor in the integrity of the groundimmediately at the edge of the railway cutting. This area could destabilise, affecting the soil bankabove the car park, the boundary wall, the ground under the road, and even neighbouringbuildings.

The tree provides shade to a number of residential properties, many of which are listed. Thisprotection is of increasing importance as we experience increasingly hotter weather. It also offersair quality benefits in this central urban area (within the Clean Air Zone), absorbing multiplepollutants.

This tree is of great importance to the local environment, ecosystem, residents, and culturalheritage, and adds to the character of this part of the Redcliffe Conservation Area. It appears to behealthy, and the Tree Preservation Order should protect it for future generations.

As per my response to the previous recent application to fell this tree, I strongly objectto the proposal to fell the mature ash tree on Guinea Street. Work to the ash would be entirelycontrary to the intention of the Redcliffe Conservation Area, and the Tree Preservation Order.Removal or significant reduction of the tree would have a significant negative impact on thecharacter and appearance of this area.

The recent 2023 application, and earlier 2013 application were refused on this basis, and therehave been no material changes in the intervening period.

The presence of the tree has no impact on the wall being made safe.

The arboricultural assessment submitted with this application is not reliable as it states that thesite visit was made in June 2022. Contrary to the planning application, the tree shows no signs ofash dieback at all, with heavy leaf cover and a healthy crown. This claim should be independentlyverified before any works were to proceed.

The position of the proposed replacement tree is in an area which the applicant has for manyyears regularly treated with industrial sprayed herbicide, so the chances of it flourishing are verylow. Furthermore, it would take decades to reach the maturity of the current specimen. Also, itsproximity to the neighbouring property walls might be problematic.

As part of the national work to preserve and protect the native ash population, it is essential toprotect and maintain healthy ash trees, which may have natural resistance to ash dieback and willbe key to the future of the species. Ash trees play an essential role in supporting biodiversity andecological cycles, with many reliant species.

This specific tree adds to the character and life of the street and the wider environment. It providesa habitat for a wide range of flora and fauna including a multitude of birds which would not be seenor heard in the area if this ash, the only tree on Guinea Street, were to be felled.

This mature ash can be seen in many historical photographs of the noteworthy Redcliffe Tunnel,and being anything up to eighty years old may well be approaching status as a veteran tree. To fellthis tree would be to remove a key block in the network of natural habitats and greeninfrastructure, as described in paragraph 175 of National Planning Policy Framework. We have aresponsibility to protect our natural capital.

The removal or deterioration of the root structure of such a large, established tree will have adetrimental effect on the density and structure of the surrounding soil. This is of particularimportance as the tree's root structure will be a significant factor in the integrity of the groundimmediately at the edge of the railway cutting. This area could destabilise, affecting the soil bankabove the car park, the boundary wall, the ground under the road, and even neighbouringbuildings.

The tree provides shade to a number of residential properties, many of which are listed. Thisprotection is of increasing importance as we experience increasingly hotter weather. It also offersair quality benefits in this central urban area (within the Clean Air Zone), absorbing multiplepollutants.

This tree is of great importance to the local environment, ecosystem, residents, and culturalheritage, and adds to the character of this part of the Redcliffe Conservation Area. It appears to behealthy, and the Tree Preservation Order should protect it for future generations.

The ash tree is an important ecological asset to an area where there are very few trees.The suggestion that it is not healthy is not proven - it was in full leaf in summer 2023. If theapplicant is allowed to remove the tree it will be massively detrimental to the biodiversity of thearea. An independent assessment of the tree's condition should be undertaken at the appropriatetime to determine whether it does have ash die back or whether this is just a ruse by the applicantto have the tree felled in order to pursue his scheme to build on the land.

This application appears to be based on an examination of the tree which took place inJune 22. And an "over the wall" look at the tree in Jan 24, accompanied by the phrase, "somebodytold me" as an assessment of its vigour and health. I would expect a more scientific, evidencebased approach to an application to fell a protected tree. The application is unconvincing of theneed for its destruction.

If the tree was identified in 22 as having ash dieback, why has the applicant waited until now totake any action?

There are no accompanying assessments of possible mitigations of the disease, if the tree isproven to have it. Further, there are no accompanying assessments of potential impact on wildlifespecies that inhabit the tree, for example, whether there are any rare bat species in the vicinity,which is possible given the location of the tree next to the tunnel and the water.

I object to these proposals as I believe the evidence to support the claims about ashdieback to be weak: no samples taken and no indication of life expectancy for example.

In a city centre which suffers from air pollution, we need the uttermost confidence in assessmentslike this before we sever our green infrastructure. More scrutiny is needed.

This beautiful tree is a huge asset to the area. My house is right next to it and I can seeit from all angles and there is no sign of it being anything other than healthy.

This Application to fell a tree with a Protection Order has caused considerable localattention and objection. It was brought to the attention of the Bristol Tree Forum by one suchobjector.Several of the objectors know the tree well and they comment on the health of the tree - ratherthan an alleged imminent demise from ADB. Winter is not a good time to assess the health of atree - we need to rely on the expertise of the LPA Arboricultural Officer.If this tree does turn out to be sick enough with ADB to warrant felling then one comfort for localresidents is that it will need to be replaced by another tree on the same site. Admittedly that wouldstart off as being a small'ish tree, and not such a visual amenity - but trees do die, and young treeseventually grow large enough for them to be a feature. The replacement tree would inherit a TPOfrom the ground and its forerunner tree.We ask the AO to be very confident that this tree has ADB and thus needs felling and not a "waitand see" in view of the strong local feeling about its proposed loss. Thank you.

This beautiful tree is not suffering from ash die-back. I see this tree regularly, summerand winter and it is healthy.It is clear that the tree is a nuisance to someone who wants to build on the land it occupies. I oftensee and hear birds in it and it would be a terrible loss to lose its properties of cooling shade, andability for photosynthesis in the city centre area where these things are badly needed. It is anasset to the area and must be preserved.

Greed is destroying the planet. It has to stop. Do not destroy this noble tree.

It is well known that the applicant is hoping to redevelop the site on which the Ash treestands. It is not clear from the tree report whether the tree is really in need of felling or not orwhether this is in preparation for building on the site. Reference to sparse leaf cover is not bornout by photographs from the Council's own photographs from June 2024 and it cannot be goodpractice to rely on the views of the person commissioning the report in this respect. I understandthat the time to investigate a tree for Ash dieback is the summer when the condition of the leavesand canopy are clear and other alternative issues can be discounted. An independent summerassessment to see if this tree is really affected or not should be made. It is thought that a smallpercentage of trees may have partial immunity but that will be lost if trees can be chopped downunnecessarily.

An independent view on the claim of Ash Dieback is absolutely essential.

The arboricultural assessment supplied, which was untaken in the leafless month of Januaryshould be viewed with extreme caution. As the tree is not in full leaf, the report is unable to assessif there is evidence of wilting, die back of shoots, and crown thinning which are all signs of ashdieback.

You will see from the photos from the planning officer (taken in early summer) from the 2023application to fell the same tree that the tree exhibits a full and healthy crown. It is my opinion itshows no signs of dieback.

In any case, if tree officers and the planning officer do find the tree needs to be felled, which Ihope is not the case, the submitted tree replacement proposal is woefully inadequate. The BTRSwould require more than one replacement tree. The applicant has a large plot of land at thislocation, so the replacement trees required could easily be accomodated within the site, includingat the same location. The single tree location identified is wholly inadequate, as it would block lightto around 5 adjacent properties, and be in breach of High Hedges Legislation.

The applicant should be encouraged to undertake some careful management of the tree (whichhas never had any care work) so that it does not get hit by large vehicles, and they should fix thewall, which was judged as being unrelated to the tree growth in the 2013 application.

As a point of interest, the applicant has felled six trees in the same conservation area nearby, andI am not aware of any permission being granted for this.

There is a 'corridor' of widely spaced trees between Redcliffe Hill and Bathurst Basin,and this healthy ash tree is the middle one. I have head blackbirds and robins singing from it, sothere is habitat for wildlife in the street that will be lost if you cut it down. Please leave it, it ishealthy and an adornment to Guinea Street.

I've have walked pass this tree for the past 60 years. It is beautiful and supports amultitude of different types of life. It must stay, not be cut down.

We desperately need green infrastructure to filter pollution from the busy arterial route inand out of Bristol via Redcliffe Way and the car park in the cut.

The tree adds to the beauty of the conservation area.

It is an important resource for the birds.It helps absorb noise from the pub opposite.

I object to this application to cut down the Ash tree on Guinea Street. Not only does thetree have a very high amenity value (it is likely a Category A tree), but it also has a Tree ProtectionOrder in place and is located in a conservation area. With regards to Dr Pratt's motivation to cutthis tree down, it is common knowledge that he has well developed plans to build on the railwaycutting and it is clear that this tree represents a significant threat to those plans. Indeed, this is thethird time Dr Pratt has tried to fell this tree, each time using questionable pretences (last time hefalsely claimed the tree's roots were destroying the wall that it is located next to). This time, andrather distastefully, Dr Pratt has chosen to claim the tree is unhealthy enough to necessitatedestroying, using a subjective, bias and highly questionable report that has clearly been producedto support Dr Pratt's questionable narrative. Unfortunately for Dr Pratt, an independent,longstanding and expert tree consultancy has been engaged by the local resident's association toundertake an independent assessment of the tree, as well as a review of the report Dr Pratt hadcommissioned, with initial findings indicating, not unsurprisingly, that Dr Pratt's report is unreliableand is based on highly questionable assumptions and conclusions. Dr Pratt's relentless pursuit ofthis tree's destruction, this time under the questionable guise that it is unhealthy enough to destroy(noting that ash trees with dieback can often maintain their health for years and years withoutissue), clearly demonstrates the sad and lowly depths he is willing to go to for his personalfinancial gain. This cannot, and should not, be rewarded and his application should rightfully berejected once again.

The ash tree is a mature tree and the only tree on the western half of Guinea Street.The felling of this tree would be a significant loss to the urban streetscape of Guinea Street.

This is the only mature tree on Guinea Street and as such, it makes a valuablecontribution to our environment and biodiversity. It is a haven for insects and numerous species ofbirds. It would be an act of wanton vandalism to cut down this beautiful and majestic tree. If infuture die back becomes evident & the tree becomes a danger then, and only then, should thesituation be re-assessed. It seems all too clear to me that the felling of this tree is all part of DrPratt's master plan for the development of the site.

I am a local resident on Redcliffe Parade and I strongly object to this application toremove this beautiful tree. I have seen this tree through all seasons it has a full and lusciouscanopy of leaves throughout spring and summer providing much needed shelter to birds andinsects. This area needs more greenery not less. This tree also when in full leaf provides a barrierto sound from traffic and from late conversations at the local pub. A second opinion is needed onthe health of the tree by an independent arboreal specialist. It is my understanding the developerhas already destroyed other trees in the area without full and proper reason and has gone againstlawful process. This is eco vandalism. I also note this developer regularly destroys native plantsalong the bank of the cutting with use of plant toxins. This tree needs full protection and is anasset to our local ecology.

I am a local resident. I object strongly to this application to remove this magnificent tree.It is essential that we keep the limited amount of greenery we have in this area. The tree isimportant for local wildlife and also helps reduce noise from the pub for local residents. The citycouncil is trying to reduce air pollution in the city, including through the enforcement of the CAZ inthe centre, and this tree provides a vital role in absorbing the pollution in a built up area. A secondopinion is needed on the health of the tree by an independent arboreal specialist. It has beenreported that the developer has destroyed other trees in the area already without full and properreason and has gone against lawful process. This tree must be fully protected and not be allowedto be felled.

I strongly support the other voices that are challenging this application and questioningthe reliability of the arboricultural report and the motives and track record of the applicant, Dr Pratt.I look out on this tree winter and summer and can say categorically that it was in full leaf insummer 2024, and apart from providing homes and shelter for numerous bird species and otherwildlife, it provides some important acoustic baffling in the summer months to lessen the noisefrom people drinking outside the Golden Guinea pub, reducing the noise nuisance that occurs asnoise is bouncing between the brick and stone structures of Guinea street. We must not allow thisvaluable natural and community resource to be lost. Particularly when we already suffer from DrPratts destruction of all plant growth on the banks of the railway cut twice a year, with no courtesyto residents to notify them of herbicide spraying.

This local entrepreneur, Hugh Pratt, recently cut down several smaller ash trees alongthe new cut, I understand without planning permission. As with this more mature tree, he claimedthey had ash dieback, which doesn't appear to be the case. He has shown himself to be willing togo against local planning regulations. In the current case, even if there were evidence of ashdieback, or if it were to develop, it cannot affect other trees. We would need advice about how longit could safely be met from a qualified tree surgeon. The tree is an asset in an street with no trees.My husband and I strongly object to the proposal to cut it down, which, as with the vandalism bythe new cut, seems to be motivated by Mr Pratt's desire for personal profit, not by any concern forthe neighbourhood and its residents, nor for the amenities that make Harbourside attractive tovisitors from in and outside of Bristol, benefitting other small businesses in the area.

Commenter Type: Amenity - Residents Group

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:We note that the application indicates foliage was 'sparse' as evidence of the tree being

in a poor condition . Seems to see that the tree is in excellent state of lush green foliage .See

photo ! This photo negates PRATT planning application statement .

Chairman of Friends of Bathurst Basin

This appears to be a relatively healthy ash tree. However, it should be pruned (toppedout) to take out some of the weight from the upper branches and one branch in particular whichgrows over the road and pathway towards the Golden Guinea perhaps should be removedcompletely. If this work is sympathetically carried out by a tree surgeon there should be very littlereason why it should not prosper for many years to come. The ground immediately around thebase of the tree should be cleared of rubble and detritus which has the potential to cause damageto the tree.

I object strongly to this second attempt bt Mr Pratt to seek planning permission to fell aseemingly healthy mature tree. My house is on the south side of Guinea Street almost oppositethe ash tree enabling me to observe it daily through all seasons. While not an arboricultural expert,but as a lifelong keen observer of the natural environment, I am familiar with the symptoms of ashdieback disease. ( I observe that the expert arboricuturalist undertook the survey during theleafless month of January). Over the past 6 summers I have live in Guinea Street the ash tree hasproduced a normal grwth of folliage with no evidence of dieback. I can only conclude that, ifinfected, it is mild in nature suggesting that it is demonstating a strong immune response. Iconclude there is no reason to remove this local, scarce green ammenity which provides animportant source of biodiversity for a range of wildlife including at least 10 species of bird.

I live on Barossa Place and my property overlooks the tree in question. Its a lovely treeto look out on and is the only tree on Guinea Street, breaking up an otherwise urban outlook.Many birds take shelter in the tree and we (including my 1 year old) enjoy hearing them tweating.This summer the tree was very green and leafy, looking very healthy, so I don't understand thereport when it states the leaves were sparse, I believe this to be incorrect. Can an independentreport be arranged to fully establish the health of the tree? As I believe the one attached to thisplanning application to be inaccurate and bias toward the ulterior motive of the applicant. I'd hatefor a perfectly healthy tree to be cut down needlessly, especially when it is under a treepreservation order. The applicant clearly has another motive for felling the tree, numerous otherpre-apps/planning applications have previously been submitted (and rejected) to build a largeblock of flats on the car park adjacent to the tree and removing the tree will provide access for thisdevelopment. This motive is also further reinforced as the applicant has proposed that thereplacement tree is located in a different area, which doesn't block access to the site. I really hopethis application is carefully considered, as the street would very much miss the presence this tree.

Examination of the tree that the report is based on took place in June 2022 whichseems out of date as only last year in saw the tree looking green and very happy - I expect thesame to happen in spring this year - what's wrong with this tree exactly?

I strongly object to the felling of the tree. Without substantial evidence that the tree hasash dieback, the claim that the tree is a danger to pedestrians and road users is unfounded. Thearboricultural assessment from the 24th June 2022 was a visual assessment only and was carriedout after a significant heatwave in the UK (which was declared a national emergency). I have agood vantage point of the top of the tree and there is plenty of new growth and leaf coverage. Theleaf cover was as usual in the summer of 2023, and didn't suggest signs of disease or worseninghealth of the tree. I suspect that any observed stress response from the tree in June 2022 couldhave been due to the uncharacteristic heat and subsequent lack of water during that time. Assomeone else has suggested, I would support expert pruning of the tree to remove any weakerbranches or those that may pose a genuine hazard to the road.

There was another application to fell this tree in March 2023, which was rejected. This recentapplication is another attempt to cut down a beautiful tree, presumably as it gets in the way ofplans for developing the adjacent land. This is one of many applications over the years to attemptto remove something that improves the local environment. The cutting down of this tree is alwaysstrongly objected by residents and rejected by the council for a variety of reasons, yet theapplicant keeps trying to remove it. It should be clear by now that the tree is important and adds somuch to the area, is valued by everyone who lives here (humans and wildlife), and would begreatly missed if removed. In addition to the reasons above, the tree also provides welcome shadein summer and helps to keep temperatures down during hot weather, provides some shieldingfrom the noise of the road, roosting spots and food for birds, and prevents erosion of the soilunderneath the canopy.

I strongly object to the felling of the tree on Guinea street and query as to the validity ofthe report on the health of this beautiful tree.

In an inner city area such as Redcliffe we need trees to improve our environment andair quality so a mature tree should be retained.

The case for felling this attractive tree is based on an examination by an arboriculturalconsultant which took place in June 2022 and who was informed (presumably by Hugh Pratt) that'the foliage of the tree was sparse last year'. No evidence is presented that there has been anyloss of foliage in this tree. This application needs an up-to-date analysis of the tree in the spring orsummer months.

Hugh Pratt has already felled five protected ash trees on Commercial Road without planningpermission. He should not be given permission to do any further harm to trees that remainstanding in our area.

Once again Pratt tries to get this particular tree removed. It is interesting to note that inhis 2023 application was denied by the Council after many objections were received.

Now Pratt tries again to use a Tree specialist to give a subject matter exert report. It isfundamentally flawed as observations are based on an inspection in 2022 , no soil samples takenor foliage samples taken. A view was expressed by someone (Pratt?) that the foliage was sparselast year but no evidence who stated it. A view was expressed that suddenly it became a highHSE risk to pedestrian and road users, but surely Pratt has a duty of care to remove dead wood.We are fully aware that Pratt cannot be trusted as evidenced by his felling of 5 Ash trees nearbywith a tree order on them and we are still awaiting the Council to judge on his unauthorisedactions.This application is not supported due to lack of clear evidence.

Chairman of Friends of Bathurst Basin

I am a previous neighbour who lived in the area for nearly four years.

The supporting documentation for this lacks objectivity and the conclusions drawn thereforecannot be taken to be wholly reliable.

Much of the conclusion is based on subjective evidence, seemingly provided by the individual whoseeks to fell the tree. It should be noted that the same individual has felled a number of similarlyprotected ash trees in the past, all without planning permission.

The inspection took place over 18 months ago, and despite taking place in June the single imageof the tree provided in the application has been taken during the height of winter, assumedly toinfer that the tree in question is unhealthy.

The application needs a proper accompanying assessment and analysis, one which has been ableto assess the tree during what should be naturally healthier months, either spring or summer.There are very few mature trees in this area, particularly after the previous felling of protectedtrees without planning permission, and efforts should therefore be made to protect and conservethis one.

This tree is a mature tree that enhances the look of the area, there are no othersaround. It is a site amenity and brightens a dull street, with no other trees. It should not be felled

Ridiculous application (by people that don't live in the area) to fell one of the few maturehealthy trees so they can then apply to squeeze in housing above the heritage railway cutting.Should take two seconds to dismiss this. This would be environmental vandalism and contrary toall Council efforts to improve air quality. We should be planting trees more NOT felling existingones. If the ash dieback 'excuse' is used, it should be denied as this is in rude good health andcomment be made that permission would only ever be granted on the basis that an alternativespecies replacement is planted.

Until 2021 I was resident in Guinea Street and it is still my place of work. I can see thistree from my office. It is a beautiful tree, which last year was in full leaf contrary to the commentmade in the arboricultural statement. There are very few trees in Redcliffe and this would be ahuge loss were it to be felled. Please can another tree expert be commissioned to provide an up todate report, ideally someone who has not previously been involved in the applicant's efforts toremove the tree. It would be an absolute disaster if the tree was removed and the applicant wasallowed to build on or around this area, which seems to be the motive for felling the tree.