ArthurJob

Hi richyrich, thanks for the positive comments. I am actually meeting with the local MP and ward councillors about it along with many other residents. The councillors are basically are Parish Council rep I'd say as it's a large metropolitan area broken up into different wards. They're all Conservative and the council is Conservative run as well. I actually found a photo of the TPO notices that were posted on site and edited them so you can see the terms in which the TPO was applied e.g. for visual amenity protection in the face of potential future development.... so I am still in the thinking the age/size of trees wouldn't matter if that was the case as surely young and small trees in a planed woodland could be considered on the basis of visual amenity?

I hear what you're saying about highways officers, the houses would be on a bend in the road where people cross to a dog bin and to continue a footpath as well as there being kids playing football in the middle bit and always running out into the road. There are trees and bushes affecting the view around that corner and it'll mean loads of cars parking on the bend as visitors come round as well as people parking there already still using it. My neighbour pointed out as well that a garage and driveway will mean cars pulling out from behind a fence as people come down a road and is an accident waiting to happen as no way would you see them coming out into a joining street with 22 houses in the top bit.

Thanks richyrich, really appreciated. The main councillor (been in position since 2005) was the vice chair of the planning committee until about a month ago having been on there for several years I believe so hopefully is a strong force in our favour. He has put in a great objection and is going to speak at the committee he said. I have the feeling I may have been delegated as the speaker if it goes to committee (can you only have one resident doing that?) but hopefully we'll have another 'residents meeting' which might be better attended than the last as we were a bit wary of the 30 outdoor limit. I had a look round there yesterday and there is a really nice mix of Oak, Alder, Ash and Birch with Hawthorn inbetween which is covered in blossom at the moment. The largest oak there has already reached a good size, about 8 metres. What is ridiculous is that the council has recently done a tree planting scheme and there are small saplings with protection scattered around green spaces in the area yet they're looking at wiping out trees growing for 20 years. There's a sapling planted on the adjacent green space about 100 metres away. In the space subject to the application I saw butterflies and dragonflies there yesterday, apparently the ecological side is being considered at the moment as the local wildlife trust pointed out it was urban forest, a PSI and no ecological impact assessment has been done, it's also a crucial linkage as part of a wildlife corridor. I'll devise a good speech with the councillor and do as best we can. As long as I have put up a fight that's the main thing, didn't want to just sit back and do nothing.

Hi richyrich, Sadly it does feel that way. When I spoke to him on the phone he really sounded like he couldn't be bothered. He maintained there were no trees at all where the buildings would be and I insisted there were some saplings and he just laughed it off saying the committee wouldn't care or take him seriously if he mentioned them. I mentioned the two very tall Birch trees and he said "they'll give you some privacy then" but aren't shown on any of the plans so assume they'd be lost. He just moaned about how busy he was and all the stuff he had to deal with and sounded really fed up. He also said how he tried to get some Birch trees protected behind his property and couldn't so sounded a bit bitter. His first comments proposed losing one plot and the landowner called and shouted at him just before I spoke to him and so was irritable about that. The councillors are all opposed to it and have objected. They held a meeting with loads of residents about it as well. They have been good with updates.

Excellent, thanks. Some good options there, I did consider if I used bamboo that it would be in some kind of really strong container but the neighbour annoyance idea is interesting 😁 Certainly not going as far as Japanese Knotweed anyway! (a criminal conviction and major devaluation of my own property wouldn't be fun to start with!) My fence is about 6 feet at the back.

Thankyou, absolutely and it raises another arboricultural query too. The houses will look straight into the gardens and living rooms of my houses and my neighbours so serious privacy issues (in objection). I've been considering some kind of screening. Bamboo was one thought as fast growing and predictable height but may be difficult to contain and rustle in the wind. Looking at something evergreen so a line of conifers that would grow quickly to around 15 feet or something. Any more and I'd be losing light in my garden. Trying to work our what would fit the bill best.

That's the annoyance as we were going to buy it and the landowner has already made his money back selling little bits of land off to people in the estate to expand their properties. The councillor reassured us it would never be built on and not to do a communal purchase so now we're thinking we shouldn't have listened to them and done it but too little too late. Like you say, council refuse or goes to committee and then Bristol overturn it with the appeal. It's the third time he's made the same application, he withdrew the last two.

Hi kevinjohnsonmbe, thanks for the reply. Basically the story goes that the estate was built in the early 90s but the mining history caused issues. Some houses subsided and the developers changed the land use from residential to public open space and woodland in 2000. The woodland was planted as an urban forestry project funded by the Millennium Commision with a deed of dedication for 99 years. The land went to auction (sold for just £15k) and the councillor said not to do a communal purchase and got the TPO slapped on all the land which does include some mature woodland. This area was included as a Woodland TPO where the trees were all planted in 2000 so assume on that basis it was done for visual amenity benefit. The land was backfilled basically creating a large mound as building was not seen to be possible for the 'forseeable future' My issue is that the TO refuses to acknowledge there are any trees there as a tree report just discounted them as being of low value and he went with that. Yet I believe a woodland TPO means he should be recording all trees there regardless of size, species or their 'value' and he won't. The TPO covers a much larger area so on the basis that this small patch contains trees discounted as low value then the much wider area would be considered the same as the trees are the same age, size and species. Ultimately it would render the TPO applied to that area as being void if the basis of protection in his view is just on the 5837:2012 size situation as being less than 15cm diameter. It would mean no reason why the developer can't build over the whole of W2.

Hi all, thanks for all the feedback and comments. I have put forward the situation to the council that if the TPO wasn't to preserve the trees for visual amenity then there would have been no logical reason to apply the TPO over that area as if it was working off the basis that the trees are 'low value' and easily replaced then that would apply to the whole area covered by W2 in the TPO and it may as well be a TPO on a football field. All the trees were planted at the same time so will all be much the same size and in 20 years not many are likely to have a trunk greater than 15cm in diameter. The attached image shows the black region top left where trees were planted for the urban forest along with the species used and the right side is the TPO showing it as W2. My point made was if the trees in the red squared area of the TPO are disregarded then it paves the way to the whole of the black area and W2 being built on in the same respect as they would be of equal value. The tree officer comments were to protect the 'shelter belt' of trees to the East but those are mostly Birch trees of the same age as those in the red square so why aren't they considered low value?

Thanks all, the application has already had over 100 objections including all the local councillors and the wildlife trust. The thing that I thought today was that it is within that woodland TPO area where all the trees in that compartment were planted at the same time as an urban forestry scheme. I doubt any of those trees are going to be over 15cm in diameter in the whole compartment for the TPO. I believe the TPO was put in place on the basis of visual amenity and to protect the planted urban forest. Otherwise it would seem pointless having it if all the trees in it were disregarded as low value surely? The annoyance is that the tree officer for some reason acknowledged the trees at the side of the area subject to planning permission which were of the same age and just completely discounted the ones in the area affected which is all the ones in the photos below. They should all be of equal value I think for visual amenity and part of the urban forest. Badgers are there as well as bats but no sets unfortunately. GC newts are nearby.

The application hasn't been decided on yet.

Hi eggsarascal, they bought it 10 years ago and at the time the councillor got the TPO put in place to prevent development and told people it couldn't be built on so not to buy the land when it went up for auction. Neighbouring residents are reeling that the application to build there has been made now.

Hi Khriss, unfortunately not. It's adjacent to my land.

Thanks Dan, the TPO description includes Hawthorn as attached (W2) Unsure if that is just descriptive of the land or it would suggestion it is included?

Ah, thankyou. Wasnt sure whether to leave it or not. Definitely helps with the decision.