We were very disturbed to hear your advice to Councillor Pearce at last night’s Development Control Committee B meeting to consider the expansion of South Bristol Cemetery on to land used by Yew Tree Farm, a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). You advised Councillor Pearce that the definition of ‘harm’ under SADMP DM19 was based on the net (not gross) harm caused after mitigation had been considered.
You seemed to be using Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) as the proxy for harm, so that the reported net gain of nearly 3% was sufficient to conclude that there was no ‘harmful impact’ as defined by DM19.
Bristol Local Planning Policy DM19 plainly states that ‘Development which would have a harmful impact on the nature conservation value of a Site of Nature Conservation Interest will not be permitted.’ It could not be clearer.
If your interpretation of this is correct (and we say it cannot be), it will effectively nullify any policy protection for SNCIs or indeed, any other existing green infrastructure and all SNCIs could be developed in a free-for-all. We set out our reasoning below.
The Mitigation Hierarchy
The Mitigation Hierarchy, as enshrined at paragraph 180 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;
On your interpretation, the first element of this cascading test, avoidance, will never have to be applied. Instead, you need only consider the second element, mitigation, for it is only then that ‘harm’ can be assessed. This cannot be the intention of this provision.
Green spaces protection
The effect of your approach is to make a nonsense of the prohibition against causing any ‘harmful impact’ to an SNCI as conferred by DM19. It effectively nullifies the special protection given to these sites. Here is the full DM19 policy wording:
On your interpretation, the whole section relating to Sites of Nature Conservation Interest may as well be deleted, as it adds nothing to the more general policy set out above.
The section relating to wildlife corridors is also rendered meaningless if there can now be no net ‘harmful impact’.
The same conclusion must also apply to the protection of Urban Landscapes under SADMP DM17, another feature which ‘contributes to nature conservation in Bristol’, on your interpretation. Your interpretation might also be extended to the other Existing Green Infrastructure identified in DM17.
Achieving BNG means there is no ‘harm’
When the Environment Act 2021’s requirement for all developments to achieve at least 10% biodiversity net gain takes effect later this year, it must follow that schemes which achieve this will have caused no ‘harm’ under your definition.
How then should this be interpreted if the net gain can only be achieved through offsite mitigation (as will often be the case)? Even in this scenario, it seems that there can never be any circumstance where an SNCI can suffer a harmful impact because it must always be mitigated by the requirement to achieve at least 10% BNG. It is even possible to imagine that the SNCI status of the target site will be lost as a result of the development, yet, as you see it, this will not be ‘harm’.
You are in effect stating that no SNCI in Bristol now has any greater protection than any ‘other habitat, species or features, which contribute to nature conservation in Bristol’ and the whole special status of SNCIs has become meaningless.
This cannot be what was intended when SNCIs were created and given special protection under the Local Plan.
We urge you to reconsider your advice.
Our statement to the Planning Committee can be read here.
Following discussions with the Council about our recent proposal to revise BTRS, we have drafted a new version which we believe will strengthen tree protection across the city even further if it is adopted into the proposed new Local Plan.
Revisions are shown in red.
The latest version of the Biodiversity Metric (BNG 4.0), just published by Natural England,[1] is likely to become mandatory when the balance of the Environment Act 2021 comes into force later this year. We have revisited our June 2022 proposals and reviewed our calculations. We have met with Bristol City Council Officers and discussed possible alternatives with them. Here is the revised version.
The Bristol Tree Replacement Standard[2] (BTRS), adopted a decade ago, provides a mechanism for calculating the number of replacements for any trees that are removed for developments. It was ground-breaking in its time as it, typically, required more than 1:1 replacement of trees lost to development and within one mile of the development.
The presumption when considering any development involving established trees should always be that trees will be retained. The application of BTRS should only ever be a last resort. Providing funds in exchange for trees that are removed on development sites should not be the default choice which it seems to have become. In addition, in many instances, the locations of the promised replacement trees are not specified and the trees are never planted. As a result, section 106 tree replacement funds continue to accumulate to the 2023 figure of approximately £800K. This figure as barely changed over the years we have been monitoring it.
The starting point for any decision on whether to remove trees (or any other green asset for that matter) is the Mitigation Hierarchy. Paragraph 180 a) of the National Planning Policy Framework sets it out as follows:
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.[3]
BTRS is and should always be ‘a last resort’. This is reflected in the Bristol Core Strategy, policy BCS9 adopts this approach and states that:
Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new developments.[4]
However, with the development of a new Local Plan for Bristol, we believe that the time has come for BTRS to be revised to reflect our changing understanding of the vital importance of urban trees to Bristol in the years since the final part (SADMP[5]) of the Local Plan was adopted in 2014.
In addition, Bristol has adopted Climate and Ecological Emergency Declarations so a new BTRS will be an important part of implementing these declarations. Nationally, the Environment Act 2021[6] (EA 2021) will come force later this year. This will require nearly all developments to achieve a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) of at least 10%. Our proposal provides a mechanism for complying with this new requirement and so aligns BTRS with the BNG provisions of the EA 2021.
Background
Under current policy – BCS9 and DM17[7] – trees lost to development must be replaced using this table:
Table 1 The Current DM17/BTRS replacement tree table.
However, when the balance of EA 2021 takes effect, the current version of BTRS will not, in most cases, be sufficient to achieve the 10% BNG minimum that will be required for nearly all developments. A new section 90A will be added to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and set out the level of BNG required (see Schedule 14 of EA 2021[8]).
The Local Government Association says of BNG that it:
…delivers measurable improvements for biodiversity by creating or enhancing habitats in association with development. Biodiversity net gain can be achieved on-site, off-site or through a combination of on-site and off-site measures.[9] GOV.UK says of the Biodiversity Metric that: where a development has an impact on biodiversity, it will ensure that the development is delivered in a way which helps to restore any biodiversity loss and seeks to deliver thriving natural spaces for local communities.[10]
This aligns perfectly with Bristol’s recent declarations of climate and ecological emergencies and with the aspirations of the Ecological Emergency Action Plan,[11] which recognises that a BNG of at least 10% net gain will become mandatory for housing and development and acknowledges that:
These strategies [the Local Nature Recovery Strategies] will guide smooth and effective delivery of Biodiversity Net…
Our proposed new BTRS model
We propose that the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard be amended to reflect the requirements of the EA 2021 and BNG 4.0 and that the BTRS table (Table 1 above) be replaced with Table 2 below:
The Replacement Trees Required number is based on the habitat area of each of the three BNG 4.0 tree category sizes (Table 8-1 below) divided by the area habitat of one BNG 4.0 Small category tree (see section 3 below) plus a 10% net gain. This is rounded up to the nearest whole number – you can’t plant a fraction of a tree.
Replacing lost woodland
The current BTRS model does not deal effectively with the loss of woodland where it is impractical to measure individual tree sizes. Under BNG 4.0 these habitats are treated as Woodland and forest habitat and their habitat area is measured by the area they cover. We propose using the same method and adding 10% to allow for biodiversity net gain. The ratio will be 1 to 1.1 so that a woodland of, say, one hectare must be replaced with one which is 1.1 hectares.
The definition of a woodland is as set out in the UK Habitat Classification[12], w Woodland and forest: ‘Land with more than 25% cover of trees more than 5m in height.’
Replacing lost trees with hedgerows
The aim of BTRS is to replace lost tree habitat and canopy. Planting hedgerows cannot do this.
Whilst the planting of hedgerows is always to be encouraged, especially native species hedgerows, proposals to replace trees lost to development with hedging is very rarely a suitable solution and will not be permitted unless the developer is able to show that there are exceptional reasons for doing so. The planning arboricultural officer will need to agree the exceptional circumstances.
If a replacement hedgerow is permitted, this cannot be credited towards any BNG 4.0 calculation relating to trees. Hedgerows are a different habitat type, being linear as opposed to area based as trees are.
Making the BTRS calculation transparent
Often, years pass before trees lost to development are replaced and often the lost trees are only shown in the subsequent s106 agreement[13] as a single sum which was calculated years before and indexed to allow passage of time since the adoption of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in January 2013.[14]
We would like to see a schedule set out in the S106 agreement and/or as a planning condition which itemises:
The number and identity (using Id used in the BS5837:2012 survey) of each tree to be removed.
The number and species of the trees to be planted on the development site.
The number and species of the trees to be planted on public land.
Which offsite trees are in to be planted open ground and which in hard standing.
The agreed location and species of each offsite replacement tree which and should be within one mile radius of the lost tree.
Trees planted under BTRS should not replace lost public trees, such as street trees removed in the normal course of tree management.
Like for like replacement. Compensation for the loss of large-form trees should result in large-form trees being planted.
Require that replacement trees or trees damaged as a result of the development that die within five years of planting will be replaced at the developer’s expense – This is the standard condition for trees planted on a development site.
The reasoning for our proposals is set out below:
Applying the Biodiversity Metric to Urban trees
The most recent Biodiversity Metric[15] (BNG 4.0) published by Natural England this April, defines trees in urban spaces as Individual trees called Urban tree habitats. The User Guide states that:
Individual trees may be classed as ‘urban’ or ‘rural’. Typically, urban trees will be bound by (or near) hardstanding and rural trees are likely to be found in open countryside. The assessor should consider the degree of ‘urbanisation’ of habitats around the tree and assign the best fit for the location.
Individual trees may also be found in groups or stands (with overlapping canopies) within and around the perimeter of urban land. This includes those along urban streets, highways, railways and canals, and also former field boundary trees incorporated into developments. For example, if groups of trees within the urban environment do not match the descriptions for woodland, they may be assessed as a block of individual urban trees.
Calculating Individual trees habitat
Table 8-1 in the BNG 4.0 user guide is used to calculate the ‘area equivalent’ of individual trees:
Note that the tree’s stem diameter will still need to be ascertained using BS:5837 2012,[16] and that any tree with a stem diameter (DBH) 7 mm or more and of whatever quality (even a dead tree, which offers its own habitat benefits) is included. Under the current DM17/BTRS requirement, trees with a DBH smaller than 150 mm are excluded, as are BS:5837 2012 category “U” trees. This will no longer be the case.
The Rule 3 of the BNG User guide makes it clear that like-for-like replacement is most often required, so that lost Individual trees (which have Medium distinctiveness) are to be replaced by Individual trees rather than by other habitat types of the same distinctiveness.[17]
Forecasting the post-development habitat area of new Individual trees
The BNG 4.0 User Guide provides this guidance:
8.3.13. Size classes for newly planted trees should be classified by a projected size relevant to the project timeframe.
most newly planted street trees should be categorised as ‘small’
evidence is required to justify the input of larger size classes
8.3.14. When estimating the size of planted trees consideration should be given to growth rate, which is determined by a wide range of factors, including tree vigour, geography, soil conditions, sunlight, precipitation levels and temperature.
8.3.15. Do not record natural size increases of pre-existing baseline trees within post-development calculations.
Our calculations are based on ‘small’ category replacement trees being planted.
Retain the community benefits of green assets
The current requirement that any off-site tree replacements are within a one-mile radius of the site should be retained. Were tree replacements to be allowed at any distance from the site, the local community that has lost trees due to a development would likely not benefit from their replacements. If trees lost in tree-deprived areas were to be replaced in areas with more available space and often more trees, the result would be greater inequality in tree cover. Currently, the most socially and economically deprived areas in the city centre have the lowest tree cover, and as these areas are also under the most pressure from developments, to lose this localism in tree replacement would lead to a further deprivation in tree cover for these communities.
The likely impact of this policy change
We have analysed tree data for 1,038 surveyed trees taken from a sample of BS:5837 2012 tree surveys submitted in support of previous planning applications. Most of the trees in this sample, 61%, fall within the BNG 4.0 Small range, 38% are within the Medium range, with the balance, 1%, being categorised as Large.
Table 4 below sets out the likely impact of the proposed changes to BTRS. It assumes that all these trees were removed (though that was not the case for all the planning applications we sampled):
Our proposed changes to DM17 and BTRS are set out in Appendices 1 and 2.
Appendix 1 – Our proposed changes to DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure…
Trees
All new development will integrate important existing trees[18].
Development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) will be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.[19]
Where tree loss or damage is unavoidable to allow for sustainable development, replacement trees of an appropriate species will be provided in accordance with the tree replacement requirements set out in the Council’s Planning Obligations – Supplementary Planning Document. …
Trees
2.17.6 Due to their characteristics and value, Aged and Veteran trees are considered to be of relatively greater importance than other trees and even trees of a similar species. Aged trees, by definition, have developed characteristics associated with great age and often have particular landscape and townscape value. Veteran trees are considered to have particularly important nature conservation value. Both will often have significant visual amenity, and potentially historic and cultural importance. As such, their loss or harm will not be permitted, and the design and layout of development will be expected to integrate them into development.
2.17.7 Trees are considered valuable multifunctional green infrastructure assets. This policy seeks to protect the most valuable trees and in line with the Core Strategy approach to green infrastructure assets, mitigate for the loss of other important trees by securing replacement trees on-site or in the public realm. The tree compensation standard set out in this policy provides a suitable mechanism to determine the appropriate level of mitigation where loss of trees is proposed as part of development.
2.17.8 The council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document sets out the circumstances when off-site tree provision will be necessary. Where trees are to be provided off-site, planning obligations will be sought to provide the appropriate number of replacement trees, utilising the approach set out in the Supplementary Planning Document.
Appendix 2 – Our proposed changes to BTRS
Trees – Policy Background
The justification for requiring obligations in respect of new or compensatory tree planting is set out in the Environment Act 2021, Policies BCS9 and BCS11 of the Council’s Core Strategy and in DM 17 of the Council’s Site Allocations and Development Management Policies.[20]
Trigger for Obligation
Obligations in respect of trees will be required where there is an obligation under the Environment Act 2021 to compensate for the loss of biodiversity when Urban tree habitat is lost as a result of development.
Any offsite Urban tree habitat creation will take place in sites which are either on open ground or in areas of hard standing such as pavements and are located as close as possible to the site of the lost tree.
Where planting will take place directly into open ground, the contribution will be lower than where the planting is in an area of hard standing. This is because of the need to plant trees located in areas of hard standing in an engineered tree pit.
All tree planting on public land will be undertaken by the council to ensure a consistent approach and level of quality, and to reduce the likelihood of new tree stock failing to survive.
The trees planted will not replace lost public trees, such as street trees or trees in parks, removed in the normal course of tree management.
Level of Contribution
The contribution covers the cost of providing the tree pit (where appropriate), purchasing, planting, protecting, establishing and initially maintaining the new tree. The level of contribution per tree is as follows:
Tree in open ground (no tree pit required) £765.21
Tree in hard standing (tree pit required) £3,318.88[21]
The ‘open ground’ figure will apply where a development results in the loss of Council-owned trees planted in open ground. In these cases, the Council will undertake replacement tree planting in the nearest appropriate area of public open space.
In all other cases, the level of offsite compensation required will be based on the nature (in open ground or in hard standing) of the specific site which must be identified by the developer and is approved by the Council during the planning approval process. In the absence of any such agreement, the level of contribution will be for a tree in hard standing.
The calculation of the habitat required to compensate for loss of Urban trees is set out in Table 8-1 of the Biodiversity Metric (BNG), published by Natural England. This may be updated as newer versions of BNG become mandatory under the Environment Act 2021.
The following table will be used when calculating the level of contribution required by this obligation:
Were it is not reasonably practicable to ascertain the number or size of trees growing in a woodland, the level of compensation required will be 110% of the area covered by the trees, so that, for example, a woodland of one hectare will be replaced with one which is 1.1 hectares. The definition of a woodland is as set out in the UK Habitat Classification, w Woodland and forest: ‘Land with more than 25% cover of trees more than 5m in height.’[22]
The level of contribution required for planting trees in a woodland setting will be £[TBD] per 100 square metres.
Proposals to replace trees lost to development with hedging is very rarely a suitable solution and will not be permitted unless the developer is able to show that there are exceptional reasons for doing so and the planning arboricultural officer has agreed.
Planning obligations will contain the following:
The number and identity (using Id used in the BS5837:2012 survey) of each tree to be removed.
The number and species of the trees to be planted on the development site.
The number and species of the trees to be planted on public land.
Which offsite trees are in to be planted open ground and which in hard standing.
The agreed location and species of each offsite replacement tree which and should be within one mile radius of the lost tree.
Trees planted under BTRS should not replace lost public trees, such as street trees removed in the normal course of tree management.
Like for like replacement. Compensation for the loss of large-form trees should result in large-form trees being planted.
Require that replacement trees or trees damaged as a result of the development that die within five years of planting will be replaced at the developer’s expense.
[17] Table 3-2 Trading rules (Rule 3) to compensate for losses. Any habitat from a higher distinctiveness band (from any broad habitat type) may also be used. [18] Need to define what ‘important means.
[19] This is based on NPPF para. 180 c). We have inserted ‘will’ instead of ‘should’.
[20] These references may need to be changed to reflect any replacement policies adopted with the new Local Plan.
[21] These values should be updated to the current rates applicable at the time of adoption. The current indexed rates as of June 2023 are £1,171.79 & £5,082.29 respectively.
We’re asking Bristol City Council to take its commitment to nature conservation seriously. To this end, we urge everyone to sign our petition to amend the local plan policies map so that it shows all the designated Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCIs) in Bristol. SNCIs ensure the protection of green spaces for future generations.
Please sign our petition and help save Bristol’s precious green spaces
We’re proud to have been involved in the first new designation of a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) – at Yew Tree Farm – in over a decade. We hope it will ensure the protection of this rare and precious meadowland. However, other SNCIs are still under threat of being destroyed. This is because, in 2014, the Council in its wisdom decided to allocate seven SNCI sites for housing development.
However, these SNCIs – all but one of them in south Bristol – were never formally deselected. According to government guidance and the Designated Sites Protocol adopted by the Council, SNCIs can only be deselected by Local Sites Partnerships (LSPs) ‘if their nature conservation interest deteriorates to such an extent that they no longer qualify as Local Sites’. This did not happen; the LSP has not deselected these SNCIs.
This means that the local development plan, DM19, which protects SNCIs, still applies. DM19 states that ‘Development which would have a harmful impact on the nature conservation value of a Site of Nature Conservation Interest will not be permitted.’
When the 2014 Local Plan was adopted, the SNCI designations and boundaries of these seven sites were improperly altered. The local plan policies map shows that the Council unilaterally changed all or parts of the boundaries of these SNCIs, even though it didn’t have the power to do so. These SNCI designations need to be restored and the local plan map amended.
In the decade since the Council’s fateful decision, the Airport Road SNCI at Filwood New Park, off Hengrove Way, has been developed and is probably destroyed. This has also happened on the part of the Bonington Walk SNCI (the only site in North Bristol) that was allocated for development. The part of the Novers Common SNCI at Sidford Road has also been built on and the nature there destroyed.
Of the two remaining sites allocated for development on the Novers Common SNCI, the one at Kingswear Road has permission to build housing and the Homes England application to develop the northern part of the Brislington Meadows SNCI has just been approved on appeal. There is also a pending application to develop the northern part of the SNCI by Novers Hill on the Western Slopes.
In all these cases, the SNCIs there are still in place. Had this been known at the time of the applications to develop them, it’s possible that these sites could have been protected or at least restored once developed.
Only the SNCIs at Malago Valley, St Anne’s Valley and the two remaining sites on the Western Slopes – called the Pigeonhouse Stream and adjacent Meadows SNCI – are not yet subject to applications to develop them. In the current Local Plan Consultation, the Council proposes to remove the sites designated for development on the Pigeonhouse Stream and adjacent Meadows SNCI. However, it has not said whether it will reinstate their SNCI designations on to the current local plan map.
This petition does not call for the SNCI sites allocated for development to have their allocation status removed (though they should be) as this can only be done as part of the local plan process. This is a first step to rectify the mistakes made under the previous 2014 local plan. The petition asks for the local plan map to be corrected to show the full extent of these SNCIs, whether or not they overlap a site allocated for development.
In this way we can at least ensure that, if and when these sites are developed, planners and developers know that they must give, at the very least, weight to their SNCI designations as set out in the development plan. We hope this will help protect these sites of nature conservation and remind planning decision-makers of their obligations.
Our draft of the resolution that the council needs to pass is set out below. All that the Council needs to do is pass this resolution and then instruct officers to correct the local plan map.
Draft resolution
‘This council notes that, when the Site Allocations and Development Policies was adopted in July 2014, the following designated Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI – code ‘BC’) had Site Allocations (BSA) placed on them:
BC1 BSA1110 – The Hangar Site and Filwood Park, north of Hengrove Way.
BC16 BSA1201 – Land at Broom Hill, Brislington.
BC49 BSA1305 – Land to the north-west of Vale Lane, Bedminster Down.
BC54 BSA1124 – Kingswear Road, Torpoint Road and Haldon Close.
BC64 BSA1205 – Wicklea and adjacent land, St Anne’s / Broom Hill, nr Brislington.
BC80 BSA1108 – Land at Novers Hill, east of Hartcliffe Way and west of Novers Lane / Novers Hill.
BC80 BSA1114 – Land at Novers Hill, adjacent to industrial units.
BC80 BSA1119 – Land to east of Hartcliffe Way, south of the Waste Depot.
BC108 BSA0402 – Bonnington Walk former allotments site, Lockleaze.
The Site Allocations and Development Policies Map (the Map) was published at the same time. This unilaterally altered the boundaries of the SNCIs above so that the areas within them which were overlapped by these BSAs were excluded, even though their boundaries had not been changed by the Local Sites partnership, the only body authorised to alter or de-designate SNCIs.
This council believes that these changes to the Map were made in error and that the Map, which does not form part of the Bristol Development Plan, now needs to be corrected to show the true boundaries of the SNCIs affected.
This council resolves to correct the Map to show the correct boundaries of the SNCIs affected.‘
We call on Bristol City Council to take its commitments to nature conservation seriously and correct the local plan map.
A small grove massacred to the last ash,
An oak with heart-rot, give away the show:
This great society is going to smash;
They cannot fool us with how fast they go,
How much they cost each other and the gods.
A culture is no better than its woods.
W.H. Auden from ‘Bucolics, II: Woods’
Nearly six weeks ago, on 17 April, our hopes of preserving our beloved Brislington Meadows were dashed. Homes England has been allowed to continue with its plans to use the land for housing. The almost universal cry of ‘No!’ from across the city has fallen on deaf ears; Homes England will carry on regardless.
But we haven’t given up. We have all – The Bristol Tree Forum, Greater Brislington Together and Save Brislington Meadows Group – been searching high and low to find a way to stop this, even at the eleventh hour. And we’ve succeeded! We’ve found serious omissions in the planning inspector’s decision which, we believe, give us grounds to have it overturned.
Here’s a summary of the reasons why we think the decision should be set aside. They are a bit technical, but they are important:
The Inspector’s Decision has entirely missed the fact that part of the site – part of the proposed vehicle access at the north-west corner to Broomhill Road, with a strip of housing development there (the only viable point of access onto the development site) – is designated in the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (SADM) as ‘Important Open Space: Belroyal Avenue, Brislington’.
SADM policy DM17 states: ‘Development on part, or all, of an Important Open Space as designated on the Policies Map will not be permitted unless the development is ancillary to the open space use.’ The failure to have regard to this clear conflict with policy was a breach of s.38(6) and s.70 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It’s notable that this part of the site is outside of the Site Allocation, discussed below, which the Inspector placed so much weight on.
What’s more, this same part of the development was confirmed by the Council as a public open space called Belroyal Avenue Open Space in its 2008 Bristol Parks and Green Space Strategy. Because of this and its historic use for recreation, the site is protected by a statutory trust under s.10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906. However, when this land was sold to Homes England in March 2020, the Council failed to meet the requirements of s.123(1) and (2A) of the Local Government 1972. As a result, the site remains subject to the statutory trust, held for the enjoyment of the public, and may not be developed. The principle of the statutory trust was recently confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Day v. Shropshire. Even though this case was not brought before the planning inspector (it was published only three days before our three-week planning appeal ended), the legal principle at the heart of it was a material consideration that should have been taken into account in the Inspector’s 17 April decision. This is especially so, given the earlier 1 November 2016 Cabinet decision (item 12) to ignore the 2012 decision of the Greater Brislington Partnership not to declare this land surplus to their Green Space requirements and decide that the land should be sold anyway. Site ‘1’ on map N5954e – which was available when the Cabinet met in November 2016 – clearly shows the Belroyal Avenue Open Space as owned by the Council and subject to its 2008 Bristol Parks and Green Space Strategy designation.
The Brislington Meadows Site Allocation policy, BSA1201 (at page 154), states that ‘the development should retain or incorporate important trees and hedgerows within the development which will be identified by a tree survey.’ The Inspector identified a number of ‘relatively important trees for the purposes of BSA1201’ which would be lost. To allow this must be a breach of the BSA1202 requirement. Despite this, they then found compliance with the policy. This is irrational, as is the fact that they judged that ‘broadly speaking, the most important hedgerows would see the most retention’. This must mean that some of the other most important hedgerows will be lost. This is also in conflict with BSA1201.
Compliance with BSA1201 is also used to reduce significantly the weight accorded to the breach of DM17 in respect of the requirement to integrate important existing trees. This gives another ground of challenge in relation to the Inspector misinterpreting the criterion in BSA1201 and/or irrationally failing to acknowledge that the loss of important trees and hedgerows constitutes a breach of BSA1201, being compounded by a consequential reduction in weight accorded to the conflict with DM17.
For all these reasons, we’ve a strong case to make to overturn the inspector’s decision. Time is running out, though – we only have until this coming Friday, 26 May, to issue proceedings. It is tight, but we could do it. But we’ll need to find at least £50,000 to bring and argue our case.
No doubt Homes England would be determined to fight us all the way and, whilst they seem to have access to almost limitless public funds and can afford the most expensive lawyers, we don’t. We’re just a group of local volunteers doing the best we can to save this precious green space. We don’t have much money – certainly not £50,000! Any money we can raise will depend on the generosity of the public. This is a big ask, especially as times are hard and money is tight. Also, should we lose (and we could), Homes England will want their costs paid as well. This is just too much of a risk.
We’ve written to the Council asking if they plan to challenge the decision and have said why we think they have a case. Sadly, we’ve had no answer. We suspect they’ll be reluctant to do so and expose themselves, yet again, to criticism for their mistakes and misjudgements. This is perhaps especially true given that, as well as losing the appeal, the Inspector has also ordered them (actually, us tax payers) to pay a large part of Homes England’s appeal costs.
Bristol City Council is currently writing a tree strategy for Bristol. This is welcome news, as we have been calling for such a strategy to be developed for more than a decade.
A tree strategy should be an evolving process rather than a document which may quickly become out of date. This is particularly true in our rapidly changing world – environmentally, climatically and politically. To provide an effective response to the challenges these present, a group of representatives from both civic and professional groups (along the lines of the Bristol Advisory Committee on Climate Change (BACCC), should be established to help coordinate further research and make recommendations to Bristol City Council and other stakeholders as the situation changes.
We also recommend that the development of a tree strategy should take full advantage of exemplars from other local authorities[1]. We should have the ambition to make Bristol’s tree strategy the best.
Here follow 18 key points that we would expect to see included in a strategy.
Buy in from all the stakeholders involved. Many council departments (as well as Parks, there is Highways, Education and Planning) have a role to play in the management of Bristol’s trees. We need to see evidence that all such departments are fully involved in the development of the strategy. In particular, with the current review of the Local Plan, it is essential that Planning is fully engaged with the strategy, and that the two documents are consistent and properly cross-referenced. The tree strategy needs to be incorporated into the new Local Plan. In addition, other important landowners (such as the universities, utilities providers, housing associations, schools and hospitals) have a role to play in contributing their expertise to the strategy and implementing its goals. As well as the Bristol Tree Forum, many community groups have an interest in tree planting in Bristol and should be involved and consulted.
When council trees are removed, they must be replaced. At present there are more than 800 street tree stumps and empty tree pits around the city – sites where trees once grew. A plan to plant all these missing trees within five years needs to be included. In the future, when any council trees are damaged or felled, they should be replaced within the next planting season.
There needs to be community engagement in tree management decisions both at the level of individual trees and in strategic decisions. In recent years we have seen a rise in community led campaigns to protect trees, such as the Ashley Down Oak, the M32 maples and Baltic Wharf, and this is indicative of a disconnect between the Council and the communities it serves. When the balance of the Environment Act 2021 takes effect later this year, Councils will be obliged to consult when street trees are being considered for removal[2]. This is too narrow and should be extended to include where any public tree is being considered for removal. Therefore, part of the strategy should be promoting community engagement, providing mechanisms for engagement and then taking account of the concerns of the community and tree campaigners alike.
There should be one person responsible for trees within Bristol City Council. At present we have tree planning officers, tree maintenance officers and tree planting officers with no single individual or office accountable overall, often resulting in a lack of appropriate action or people working at cross-purpose. It is also concerning that Highways are able to remove street trees without any consultation.
There needs to be a plan to address the massive inequality in tree cover in Bristol, which often mirrors social and financial deprivation in the City. For instance, additional protections could be given to trees, and tree planting prioritised, especially in deprived areas such as the City Centre, Harbourside and St Pauls.
When developers remove trees, the replacements required should be planted by BCC. Too often developers have shown themselves incompetent or unconcerned when planting trees, so the trees fail or are never planted. In the case of Metrobus, there has been a more than 100% failure rate of trees in some places (trees have been replaced multiple times). We have an excellent tree planting team in Bristol and we should benefit from requiring them to organise and implement the planting required. The cost should be funded by the developer.
Retaining existing trees must be a major part of the strategy. A tree strategy cannot be just about planting new trees, the benefits of which will not be realised for decades, but crucially about retaining and protecting existing trees and the benefits they are already providing. As such, the strategy must address the threats to existing trees. Planning is crucial in this so we would expect major engagement with Development officers to address the current and future problems.
Planning Enforcement must address the illegal removal of or damage to trees. At the moment there are no consequences following the unauthorised damage or destruction of trees. This must change. Other neighbouring local authorities manage to do this but not Bristol. A strategy must include a review of the reasons for the existing lack of effective enforcement and make recommendations as to how this can be rectified.
Developments should be built around existing trees as is already required[3]. Other local authorities do this but not Bristol. This will require a change of culture in the planning department so that pre-application discussions with developers make it clear that this will be required.
The sites for the replacement trees must be agreed before Planning Applications are approved. This is required by planning policy (BCS9 and DM17), but currently developers are being allowed to, instead, pay a “fee” into Section 106, and frequently the replacement trees are never planted. Trees form an important part of our urban habitat. The calculation of tree replacements required to compensate for their loss must be aligned with the Biodiversity Metric as adopted under the Environment Act 2021.
Spend the £ 900K+ reserved for tree planting. Connected with the above point, a strategy needs to include a mechanism for spending the existing £900K+ of unspent tree planting Section 106 money within the next three years.
A strategy to increase Bristol’s tree canopy cover (or at the minimum, maintain existing canopy cover) needs to have a route to implementation. This must include addressing the loss of street tree canopy cover by being bolder in selecting new tree planting sites and planting large-form trees wherever possible. Trees such as rowans and flowering cherries are short-lived and will never provide much canopy or become robust enough to survive our challenging urban environment in the long-term.
Canopy Cover needs to be measured with an agreed methodology with confidence limits (levels of doubt in the estimate) made clear. In the first instance, we need to establish the baseline year and percentage tree cover from which progress will be measured. Only then will it be possible to show whether a trend has been determined. Two measurements using different methodologies should not be used to claim an increase in canopy cover. The metric should take account of trees lost so that the figure reflects the true increase, or loss.
Include trees within road changes. There needs to be proper engagement with Highways at early stages of the design process for road changes to look at retaining the maximum number of existing trees and including innovative planting opportunities for new large-form trees, such as pavement build-outs.
For new developments, trees should be properly considered at the pre-application stage, with appropriate consultation with stakeholder groups. Too often, the mitigation hierarchy requiring the removal of trees to be a last resort is disregarded, so that it is only after the design has been finalised that the existing trees are considered and removed where they conflict with the design scheme.
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) calculations need to be checked by the Local Planning Authority and biodiversity loss must not be monetised as BTRS has been. BNG, if properly implemented, makes sure that biodiversity on development sites is properly measured and will provide a net gain (soon to be least 10%) is factored in. However, at present, developers’ calculations are not being checked. When we have provided properly evidenced calculations, these have been dismissed by the LPA as mere differences of opinion. You cannot have differences of opinion on facts. The LPA must require that BNG calculations are presented in a way that can be checked by anyone interested and actually do the checking. In addition, ensuring BNG must require that the development site does not lose its biodiversity. If this is not possible, then its immediate local environment must be used to offset any onsite losses. Onsite losses must not be compensated for in some faraway place completely removed from Bristol.
Planning Applications involving trees must mention this fact in the title. Too often, applications that involve the loss of important trees (or plans to avoid the planting of new trees[4]) do not even mention this fact in the title. This means that it is extremely difficult for community organisations to engage.
Once a planning application has been issued, no removal of trees. A moratorium should be placed on any tree felling pending the outcome of the planning application. This includes applications to demolish buildings which should exclude tree or other habitat removal.
[3] Bristol Core Strategy, policy BCS9 states that, “Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new Developments.”
Assessing the condition of urban tree habitats using Biodiversity Metric 3.0
Our recent blog – Valuing our urban trees I, pointed out the failings of the methodology for calculating the size of urban tree habitats as set out in Biodiversity Metric 3.0 (BNG 3.0). We would now like to show how this is compounded by the inappropriate assessment criteria used to determine the condition of Urban Tree habitats, as also set out in BNG 3.0 (see Annex 1).
We use the following example – taken from a recently approved planning application[1] which will result in the removal of 13 urban trees – to demonstrate why this is approach is inappropriate.
Figure 1 The example tree – Google Street View 2020
This street tree is a London Plane (Platanus × acerifolia) with a stem diameter (called DBH) of 118 cm. It is a non-native species planted in hard standing on Bridge St, Bristol BS1 2AN in about 1967. Using BS 5837:2012 – Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations (a BSI Standards Publication), it has been categorised as A,1,2 (see Annex 2). The developer’s Arboriculturalist described it as having a ‘Large, broad crown with excellent form and vigour.’
The tree’s BS 5837:2012-calculated Root Protection Area (RPA) radius[3] is 14.6 metres, so it has an RPA of 630 square metres. The tree has an average crown radius of 9.88 metres and a calculated canopy area of 306 square metres.
Using BNG 3.0 TABLE 7-2: Urban tree size by girth and their area equivalent (see Annex 1), the calculated RPA of the tree is set at Large, so its habitat size is limited to just 113 square metres – a discount of 82% of its calculated RPA and 37% of its canopy area.
Notwithstanding categorisation of the tree as A,1,2, the BNG 3.0 Condition Assessment Criteria categorises the condition of this tree as Poor because it meets only two of the six criteria, as shown below:
Using BNG 3.0, the calculation of the baseline habitat (called Habitat Units) of this tree is as follows:
Had the BS 5837:2012 condition of the tree been allowed for and its condition set to ‘Good’, then the habitat units of this tree would be three times the habitat unit value of 0.0452, i.e., 0.1356 as shown below.
Not only has the true size of the urban tree habitat been significantly undervalued (because its actual RPA has not been used), but its assessed condition using the BNG 3.0 criteria is also clearly inappropriate given that this tree has been assessed at the highest category under BS 5837:2012:
Category A – Trees of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years …that are particularly good examples of their species, especially if rare or unusual; or those that are essential components of groups or formal or semi-formal arboricultural features (e.g., the dominant and/or principal trees within an avenue).
The proposed solution
BNG 3.0 is seriously flawed when it comes to evaluating Urban Tree habitats. We have already commented on this when it comes to calculating habitat size.
In our view, the solution to the issue of assessing the correct condition of urban tree habitats is already available in BS 5837:2012. The standard may require some amendment to align it with BNG 3.0, but it is a well-established and practical approach used by the arboricultural community. This British Standard gives recommendations and guidance on the relationship between trees and design, demolition and construction processes and is used whether or not planning permission is required.
However, a consequence of the adoption of this motion is that there is greater pressure to develop on other sites. Those advocating development on open spaces within Bristol have begun, arbitrarily and without proper justification, to declare such open spaces to be brownfield. To inaccurately describe a development site as brownfield places Development Committee members under undue pressure to approve a planning application when, as greenfield, a site should fall under the additional protection engendered by the landmark motion.
Baltic Wharf Caravan Park
Recent examples (see below) where the term brownfield has been misused are the Bristol Zoo Gardens car park on College Rd, Clifton and the Baltic Wharf Caravan Park on the Floating Harbour in Hotwells, each of which have been mislabelled as brownfield sites despite not falling within with the recognised legal definition.
Bristol Zoo Gardens car park
The term brownfield site is used to describe certain types of previously developed land. Most dictionary definitions refer to this land as being currently or previously occupied by a permanent structure which generally includes the potential for contamination. In planning law there is a definition which must apply when considering planning proposals. This is detailed in the National planning policy framework (NPPF – called ‘Previously developed land’, p.70) as:
“Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure…. and any associated fixed surface infrastructure”.
The definition excludes land which is maintained as a garden:
“….. land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments…“
In addition to the definition, there is a statutory requirement for local authorities to maintain an up to date register of brownfield sites which are appropriate for development:
The Town and Country Planning act also addresses the situation where a fragment of the site might be considered brownfield, but other parts of the curtilage is green space:
“Greenfield land is not appropriate for inclusion in a brownfield land register. Where a potential site includes greenfield land within the curtilage, local planning authorities should consider whether the site falls within the definition of previously developed (brownfield) land in the National Planning Policy Framework. Where it is unclear whether the whole site is previously developed land, only the brownfield part of the site should be included in Part 1 of the register and considered for permission in principle”.
Mislabelling as brownfield examples in recent planning applications
Bristol Zoo Gardens car park, College Rd, Clifton (21/01999/F)
The planning proposal makes the statement “The application site is brownfield, previously developed land, as it is a car park“. Mayor Marvin Rees similarly defined the site in a subsequent tweet criticising some members of the Development Committee for voting against the proposal.
This site fails to comply with the proper planning definition of a brownfield site. In relation to the NPPF definition, 7.4% of the site is occupied by buildings whereas tree canopy covers about 17% of the site. Much of the site is covered by unfixed surface, which does not qualify under the definition of a brownfield site. Therefore, according to the Town and Country Planning Act only 7.4% of the site could be considered brownfield, with the remaining 92.6% being classified as greenfield. The site does not appear on the Council’s register of brownfield sites, and therefore cannot legally be classified as such.
This planning proposal has also been inappropriately described as a brownfield site in the planning application. Only 2.6% of the site is occupied by a permanent structure, whereas the 100 trees that occupy this site cover over 30% of its area. Thus, only 2.6% of the site could possibly be defined as brownfield, with the remaining 97.4% falling under the classification of greenfield. Furthermore, as much of the site is maintained as a “residential garden”, the site is exempt from the NPPF definition. This site, also, is absent from the necessarily up-to-date register of brownfield sites.
Whilst there may be arguments to develop some parts of some of these sites, the existing trees should be retained in order to comply with Local Planning Policy BCS9. The current approach of flattening all trees, including those on the edge of the site results in third rate developments. Instead, new developments should be built around existing trees.
Petition
If you agree that this mislabelling should stop, please sign this petition to protect Bristol’s green spaces from the Council’s mislabelling of them as “brownfield sites”:
