8 Southdown Road
Westbury on Trym
Bristol
BS9 3NN
23 August 2024
Westbury on Trym
Bristol
BS9 3NN
23 August 2024
Dear Mr Wilkinson
Planning Application 24/01551/X: 15 Westfield Road
This planning application to vary condition 27 in respect of the site layout fundamentally seeks to go back on one of the key issues that formed part of the consideration of the initial applications and the appeal in relation to the earlier refused scheme for 4 houses.
I would remind you of the appeal application, which proposed the removal of trees T2, T3 and T6, within what is now plot 1. What is now proposed is not just the removal of these trees, but also the removal of trees T4 and T5. In para 14 of the Inspector’s decision letter, he wrote:
‘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.’
The application that was finally approved was on the basis that the trees that are so important to the character of the area were to be retained and a further tree was to be provided on the plot frontage (to replace a tree subsequently lost elsewhere on the site frontage). Not only would the loss of trees have (in the Inspector’s words) a notably detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, it would in turn lead to the question as to how the trees now proposed for removal could be replaced in accordance with the council’s tree policy.
The application is actually inadequate in that it fails to consider the necessary amendments to the approved landscaping plan (1466-01H) nor the consequential impacts on the biodiversity net gain report. This plan and document are listed in the approved plans set out in condition 27 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
I would remind you of the appeal application, which proposed the removal of trees T2, T3 and T6, within what is now plot 1. What is now proposed is not just the removal of these trees, but also the removal of trees T4 and T5. In para 14 of the Inspector’s decision letter, he wrote:
‘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.’
The application that was finally approved was on the basis that the trees that are so important to the character of the area were to be retained and a further tree was to be provided on the plot frontage (to replace a tree subsequently lost elsewhere on the site frontage). Not only would the loss of trees have (in the Inspector’s words) a notably detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, it would in turn lead to the question as to how the trees now proposed for removal could be replaced in accordance with the council’s tree policy.
The application is actually inadequate in that it fails to consider the necessary amendments to the approved landscaping plan (1466-01H) nor the consequential impacts on the biodiversity net gain report. This plan and document are listed in the approved plans set out in condition 27 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
