I thought that having already breached the original planning permission, the developerwould be aiming to placate the local residents and replant trees that were removed withoutpermission and not destroy any further trees. They should be prosecuted for the recent breach.

The Westbury-on-Trym Society

Proud of our past…. shaping our future

www.westburyontrymsociety.org.uk Registered Charity Number 265486

Page 2 of 3

However, on visiting the site, we could find no trace of two other trees identified in the arb report that were to have been retained. These are T15, an ornamental Western Red Cedar, described in the arb report as being 6m in height and with a diameter of 150mm and T17 a Common Ash, 5 metres in height with a diameter of 260mm. Both were within plot 3 and are still shown on the landscape plan 1466-01 rev J. The Bristol Tree Replacement Standard, set out in the Planning Obligations SPD, would require five trees to be planted ‘in compensation’ for the two frontage trees lost, as the arboricultural report shows the diameter of the removed weeping willow to be 380mm and the plum cherry 210 mm at 1.5m above ground level. The plans show four trees to be planted on the frontage to plot1 to replace the willow and plum cherry. That excludes the other two trees that have also been lost. The replacement for the willow, that provided such an attraction to the street scene, is a hawthorn (creategus prunifolia). This is not a suitably attractive replacement in our view nor likely to be popular with the occupants in the front garden. It has presumably been proposed for its wildlife value, which leads on to another issue - biodiversity net gain. Also, while your arboricultural officer seems to agree the proposal, the planting of an acer campestre so close to the existing Silver Birch and Leyland cypress, would be suppressed beneath the canopies of these trees, which already meet. It should be noted that the silver birch is covered in ivy. The other two lost trees should be replaced and again the Tree Replacement policy should be applied. We have previously commented on the amount of replacement planting proposed in the rear gardens on the site - for the trees that were legitimately removed as part of the approved development - is already over dense, so that future occupants will want to remove some as they grow. The required replacement tree planting can therefore only realistically be achieved off site via a planning obligation. The Society would be more than willing to suggest locations in the vicinity where this could be suitably achieved. We pointed out previously that the earlier variation of condition application was inadequate in that it failed to consider the e consequential impacts on the biodiversity net gain report and the current application is no different. We also mentioned that the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP), which is subject to condition 26, has already been compromised by the failure to dig out the Japanese knotweed by the river Trym. This reappeared this summer and appears to have recently been treated chemically and will require more treatments over the coming years before any habitat planting can take place on the south bank of the Trym, as per the approved LEMP. The removal of the trees would impact on the calculations contained in the biodiversity net gain report, so that approved document would also be compromised.

The Westbury-on-Trym Society

Proud of our past…. shaping our future

www.westburyontrymsociety.org.uk Registered Charity Number 265486

Page 3 of 3

In conclusion, while we accept that the only solution now, apart from serving a breach of condition notice on the developer for what has been done, is for a replanting plan, we consider the application is flawed due to:

• The quality of the replacement for the weeping willow – why not replace like for like? • The proposed acer campestre on the frontage will end up suppressed by the adjacent

trees and should be sited elsewhere;

• There is a need to recalculate the biodiversity net gain in the light of the various changes to the plans; and

• There is a need for a resolution of the additional compensatory planting required for the loss of the 2 frontage trees and also the other 2 trees lost during construction.

Accordingly, the Society requests that these matters should be properly investigated by a site visit and resolved before an amended permission is granted. Yours sincerely Andrew Renshaw MRTPI (Retd) On behalf of the Westbury on Trym Society Cc Cllr Caroline Gooch

The further removal of trees will have a detrimental impact on the character on the areaand result in a loss of biodiversity.

Juniper homes has breached their planning permission on a number of occasions, removingprotected trees with impunity and cutting back those that are located beyond the protectivefencing. As well as those mentioned along the front of the properties, the Leyland Cypress (G08)has been cut back so hard that it will not recover and will likely need to be removed to create anattractive enough boundary for the properties to sell. This will lead to a further loss of greenery andwildlife habitats on the already mismanaged site.The protective fencing has signage that states that 'contravention of a tree preservation order maylead to criminal prosecution'. The failure to manage the Japanese knotweed is also a criminaloffence. Please can Juniper homes be made accountable for their actions and local residents beinformed of the outcome. If no serious action is taken it makes a laughing stock of the wholeplanning process.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I live , and I object to this application on the grounds that a)

the plan proposes the unnecessary removal of 4 additional trees (T2, T3, T4, T5), and b) the

original planning application was granted on the understanding these trees would be retained and

protected during construction. As already stated by the Notice of Decision. These trees give

amenity to the area and should not be lost. Not shown on the plan is that other trees that should

still be present (e.g. T1) have already been removed, so the loss of further trees is more severe

than the plans would imply.

The developer, Juniper Homes, has shown a complete disregard for the commitments they made

during the planning process, and the responsibilities they took on when the application was

granted.

The Japanese knotweed that is supposed to be managed carefully, treated and/or removed, has in

fact had building materials piled onto it and generally been left to spread. Knotweed-contaminated

tools and materials have come and gone from this pile throughout the year, despite the fact that

willfully spreading this plant is a criminal offence. The conditions on retaining trees, agreed as part

of the original application (and the main issue for all residents and commenters), have been

completely disregarded. Trees have been removed carelessly with no reference to the agreed

plan, not once but now three times. The attribution of this to human error is frankly an insult to

residents and the planning office.

This application itself has become something of a farce, since Juniper Homes have already

removed trees (including T2, one of the best specimens on the site). Granting this application

would only invite developers to do whatever they like, whenever they like, and seek approval as a

formality later.

Documents presented by Juniper Holmes throughout this development have been misleading, and

the latest submitted plan showing the tree T01 that was in fact cut down by them months ago is a

typical example. There are many other examples of misleading photographs and plans. I hope the

planning office has some way to sanction Juniper Homes for their actions and bring some sanity

back to this process.

Dear Development Management,

This application includes a request to remove trees but no details of the trees to be removed are given.

If further trees are to be removed then updated arboricultural evidence is needed yet none has been supplied.

Please advise and supply a list of the additional trees to be removed referencing the trees identified in the attached earlier report - ARBORICULTURAL_REPORT_JUNE_2022-3276390.

Regards

Mark CD AshdownChair - Bristol Tree Forum

PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU BOTHERED WITH THIS AS THE TREES WEREREMOVED TODAY THE 28TH OF AUGUST 2024.NO DECISIONS HAV E BEEN MADE.

YET AGAIN THE BUILDING COMPANY ARE LAUGHING AT THIS. AS THEY WILL JUST PAYTHE FINE. MAKE THE FINE SO LARGE THAT THEY DON'T DO THIS AGAIN. OTHERWISEWHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS PROCESS.

The Westbury-on-Trym Society

Proud of our past…. shaping our future

www.westburyontrymsociety.org.uk Registered Charity Number 265486

Page 2 of 2

to which the development must conform, so would need to be addressed as part of this submission. We previously wrote to advise you that the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, which is subject to condition 26, has already been compromised by the failure to dig out the Japanese knotweed by the river Trym. This reappeared this summer and appears to have recently been treated chemically and will require more treatments over the coming years before any habitat planting can take place on the south bank of the Trym, as per the approved LEMP. The removal of the trees would impact on the calculations contained in the biodiversity net gain report, so that approved document would also be compromised. So, to conclude, the application is an attempt to completely ignore one of the key issues which the council and Planning Inspector had previously found important in the determination of previous applications and which the approved scheme was considered to resolve. In addition to this, the application creates new issues with regard to landscaping, tree planting and biodiversity which it blatantly ignores. Accordingly, the Society requests that the changes to the site layout be refused. Yours sincerely Andrew Renshaw RMRTPI On behalf of the Westbury on Trym Society

You will just have received the Westbury on Trym Society's response to the proposal to remove 4 trees on the frontage to proposed plot 1, 15 Westfield Road, Westbury on Trym (24/03091/X). This application has been submitted when the development is nearing completion and the houses are on the market. Plot 3 on the site has already been purchased.

The retention of these trees was fundamental to the decision to approve the planning application 22/01935/F (as amended by 23/03160/X). However, once the development is completed and the house on this plot is occupied, the trees could be removed without the need for any consent. This seems very likely as the new occupier could well want more on plot parking - there is only 1 parking space and this is effectively in front of the house on plot 2, so is not ideal, but was the compromise necessary to retain the frontage trees when the planning application was being considered.

As the trees are not within the Westbury on Trym conservation area they will not be protected once the development has been completed and occupied. We consider they are very vulnerable to removal by a future occupier.

In an appeal in respect of an earlier application, the Inspector noted that:

'The planting and greenery serve to soften the built form, emphasise the set back of the existing dwelling from the road and create a green and verdant character and appearance. The removal of a number of the mature trees, the low boundary treatment and the replacement of the lawned area with a large expanse of hardstanding would have a notably detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. The removal of these features which are considered to be key characteristics of the adjacent CA would also cause harm to the setting of the CA.'

Accordingly, we request that the group of four trees which the planning permission required to be retained on the frontage of the new plot1, 15 Westfield Road should be made subject to a Tree Preservation order. We attach extracts from the Arboricultural Report that accompanied the planning application which was granted.

The trees are as follows:

Weeping willow 6 metres in heightSilver birch 8 metres in heightLeyland Cypress 10 metres in heightPurple cherry plum 6 metres in height, referenced as T02, T03,T04 and T05 in the attached arboricultural report.

In view of the current planning application to vary the existing permission to remove all these trees and the lack of any control to prevent this happening once the development is completed please would you consider this as a matter of urgency.

It is arguable that all the trees on the site should be subject to TPOs, given the Inspector's comments, but we consider that protecting the frontage trees is most urgent.

Thank you

Andrew Renshawchair, Westbury on Trym Society.

I have tried to work out what trees are to be removed and what the amendment is to theparking layout in this request for removal condition 27. I cannot work out what the application isseeking to do. My concerns are relating to any further reduction of trees and the impact of 3 morehouseholds with at least 6 vehicles potentially will have on this very busy small road. I assume theapplicant still intends to provide off road parking spaces within the development and hopefullywithout any further loss of trees and shrubs?

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I wish to register my horror at this proposed removal of the trees & expansion of

parking.

This road can not lose these trees. It will impact on the environment, the wildlife & the impact will

be devastating. I have stated all along that we can not support more housing in this already

crowded road, but plans were approved. I was disgusted when they removed one of the trees that

was not meant to be removed. The smaller tree by the entrance. Please don't allow anymore to

go. The building company should have thought about this before.