Category: Tree Canopy Cover

Our proposal for a new Bristol Tree Replacement Standard using Biodiversity Metric 4.0

The latest version of the Biodiversity Metric (BNG 4.0), just published by Natural England, 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. Here is the revised version.

The Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (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.

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. It should not be the default choice which it seems to have become.

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.[1]

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.[2]

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) 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 (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[3] – 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).

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.[4]

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.[5]

This aligns perfectly with Bristol’s recent declarations of climate and ecological emergencies and with the aspirations of the Ecological Emergency Action Plan,[6] 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.

The reasoning for our proposal is set out below.

Applying the Biodiversity Metric to Urban trees

The most recent Biodiversity Metric (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,[7] 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.[8]

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.

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):

The spreadsheet setting out the basis of our calculations can be downloaded here – RPA Table BNG 4.0 8-1 table Comparison.

Our proposed changes to BTRS are set out in Appendix 1.

A copy of this article is available here.

Appendix 1 – Our proposed changes to BTRS

See the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document at page 20.

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.[9]

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.

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[10]

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 will has been 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:

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005759/NPPF_July_2021.pdf

[2] https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/64-core-strategy-web-pdf-low-res-with-links/file at page 74.

[3] https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/5718-cd5-2-brislington-meadows-site-allocations-and-development-management-policies/file page 36.

[4] https://www.local.gov.uk/pas/topics/environment/biodiversity-net-gain.

[5] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biodiversity-30-metric-launched-in-new-sustainable-development-toolkit.

[6] https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/5572361/Ecological_Emergency_Action_Plan.pdf/2e98b357-5e7c-d926-3a52-bf602e01d44c?t=1630497102530.

[7] https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/trees-in-relation-to-design-demolition-and-construction-recommendations/standard

[8] 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.

[9] These references may need to be changed to reflect any replacement policies adopted with the new Local Plan.

[10] These values should be updated to the current rates applicable at the time of adoption. The current indexed rates as of May 2023 are £1,143.15 & £4,958.07 respectively.

Measuring and Modeling the Tree Canopy of Bristol

A new canopy growth model shows the challenge of increasing Bristol’s tree canopy to 24%, an increase of a third.

Launched in January 2019, Bristol’s One City Plan is a vision of the development of Bristol over the years until 2050.  This vision covers many aspects of city life.  Of particular interest to the Bristol Tree Forum are two goals:

by 2036  Tree canopy cover has increased by 25% since 2018

by 2046  Tree canopy cover has doubled since 2018

The obvious question to ask is :

What was the canopy in 2018, the baseline for these proportional increases?

But to answer that question, we need to ask another:

How can tree canopy be measured across the city?

We would expect certain properties of a method of measurement, such as accuracy, precision, repeatability, economy (since it will have to be applied repeatedly over the years to assess progress) and scalabilty (so the method can be applied to any boundary to analyse selected areas of the city). 

Neither question was addressed in One City Plan publications. A group led by BCC’s Richard Ennion which including Forest of Avon Trust (FOAT), Woodland Trust and Bristol Tree Forum (BTF) met in in 2018-2019 to address these and other tree strategy issues. An ecological survey using the i-Tree Eco method was undertaken by FOAT and volunteers. Here 201 randomly located 11m radius plots are surveyed. This resulted in useful data on the proportion of tree species (Ash was a worrying 16% of trees in Bristol) and estimated the tree canopy at 12%. BTF had also carried out a survey using i-Tree Canopy which is a desk-based method using Google Map imagery able to be carried out by citizen scientists. Our figure was around 18% which was more in line with previous estimates. This figure was later quoted in the Cabot Instutute Review of Progress. 

Our arguments in favour of the i-Tree Canopy method were several:  reputational (it is used by Forest Research in their nationwide survey); precision (error range is smaller than i-Tree Eco and sample size easily increased to improve precision); economy  (i-Tree Eco survey cost around £20k whereas i-Tree canopy is essential free ) and scalability (the method can be easily applied to any bounded area). 

In the event, the lower figure of 12% was adopted but no decision was made about a suitable method. The 12% figure leads to a goal of 16% by 2036 and 24% by 2046. However, since the i-Tree Eco method was limited to 201 plots across the city, it is unable to give estimates at ward level, so reports about variability by ward have, anomolously, used our i-tree Canopy figures of 9% to 22%. Ward-level estimates are visualized on our ward information page.

image

The i-Tree Canopy method can be undertaken using a tool provided by i-Tree. BTF have developed our own version of this tool to improve the precision, ease of use by citizen scientists and to integrate into our BristolTrees website. We have used this tool to estimate the canopy for 2020 and while there is a slight numerical increase, it is not statistically significant.

More recently we have had access to the estimates produced by the commercial Bluesky tree map which is based on lidar and aerial imagery. The figure for Bristol, (once corrected to exclude large areas of the Severn Estuary in the Bristol Unitary Authority boundary) is slightly less than the i-Tree Canopy estimate, a difference probably accounted for by BlueSky’s ability to exclude canopy below 3m. Recent BCC reports seem to accept that the baseline is 18% and Bluesky mapping recommended as the method of estimation. It is however unclear how the 18% baseline affects the One City Plan goals. If still based on the initial 12% but measured using Bluesky (or i-Tree Canopy), the 2036 goal of 16% has apparently already been achieved!

The use of the commercial Bluesky service raises questions of the cost of this data, its granularity and the extent to which this data will be publicly available as open data.  We look forward to answers on these issues.

Canopy prediction

We have created an online canopy prediction model which computes the canopy over a future period, based on defined planting schemes, which may be so many trees per annum over a period, or so much woodland area.

The BCC report on the planting season 2021-22 shows that 1,352 individual trees and 3 hectares (ha) of woodland were planted.  The model predicts that this would yield a total of about 8 ha canopy by 2046. (The BCC report predicts 22.7 ha but this is when all trees have reached their full maturity, well beyond 2046). If repeated every year till then, this planting programme would produce about 120 ha. This is the model used.

image

To get a fuller picture, we can account for the trees which are lost due to disease, damage or because they outgow the site. On average, about 400 BCC trees are lost each year,and this figure is expected to rise as Ash Dieback takes its toll. If this is added into the model, the result is much less promising. This powerfully demonstates the great benefit of saving the existing tree stock.

image

However it is unfair to account for tree losses in the BCC tree stock without  modeling the canopy growth. This model needs to take account of the age and species profile and to take into account tree management practices. Many large street trees are managed through regular pollarding so that their canopy is essentially constant. This is complex task which is still to be done.

Is the goal achievable?

Achieving the goal of even 24% cover from a base of 18% by 2046 is still a challenging task, even though this would increase tree cover by only a third rather than doubling. It would require adding 660 hectares of tree canopy in 28 years.

A paper by Waters and Sinnett (2021) looked at this issue.  Their results are not directly compatible because, thanks to the baseline confusion, they explored the need to increase canopy from 12% to 37.5% using the i-Tree Forecast software. Multiple scenarios are explored but no distinction was made between woodland planting, where the eventual canopy area is limited to the planting area, and planting individual street or park trees able to grow to full canopy width. 

In order to create 660 ha, our model indicates that you would have to plant 26 ha of woodland per annum or 14,000 individual trees or some mixture of the two. This model assumes an annual mortality rate of 1%. With a mortality of 3% more typical of urban trees, the planting rate rises to 24,000 trees pa.  Urban trees have high early mortality which reduces over time and this is not yet modeled.

image

In the predictions above, canopy size prediction uses Root Protection Area as defined in BS5837. RPA is a generous proxy for canopy area. Other predictve models are supported, including one derived from data on the Bristol tree stock. The model takes no account of trees lost through the period due to felling existing trees because of age, disease or development, nor for the effect of climate change on tree health. As a result, these predictions, daunting though they are, are likely to be under-estimates of the planting required to achieve the goal.

However, the major constraint is the lack of suitable street space and land to achieve this level of planting and competition for land use from other One City Plan goals, such as increased housing, food security and greater ecological diversity. Trees alone provide some ecological benefits although this is species-dependant. In general, British native trees provide better ecological support than introduced trees. 37% of the existing council-owned tree stock are natives but only 18% of the trees ear-marked for planting are natives.  Woodland areas have a much higher proportion of natives. BCC is undertaking research into the availablity of both street and parkland planting to explore the opportunities for street and park planting.

So our assessment is that even the goal of 24% is unachievable.  This does not of course mean that we should not do our utmost to increase tree canopy. The benefits of trees in an urban environment are well-documented.

The private realm

This analysis has focused on the role of the council in expanding tree canopy on council land. However the majority of land and hence tree canopy in Bristol is in private and commercial hands. The need for private and commercial landowners to use their land to help move the city forward is clear. BTF is particularly concerned over the loss of mature trees due to housing and other development. Mature trees are an irreplaceable (in the short and medium term) loss of canopy and sequestered Carbon. Likewise for private homes, the trend seems to be in the wrong direction, with paving of front gardens, astroturfing of back gardens and existing trees often deemed more of a nuisance that a benefit. 

The need to bring the public on-side with this goal is urgent.

Trees for Streets – will we see more trees being planted in more Bristol streets? Hopefully.

You will all have seen young trees planted in vacant tree pits in the streets of Bristol. These trees are replacement trees. There was once a tree growing there before – maybe some time ago.

These replacement trees are paid for by sponsorship, or by funds paid by Developers when they have felled trees on a building site and there is no room to replace the felled trees on the building site. In the latter case more than one tree has been “lost” – the one on the building site and the one that was previously in the tree pit.

In order to increase Bristol’s tree canopy – vital in this time of a climate emergency – we must see trees being planted in new places as well as getting all the “old” sites being filled more quickly.

Trees for Streets

To try to get this initiative going, Bristol has joined Trees for Streets.

Quotes from the Flyer for Trees for Streets

‘Bristol City Council has joined the Trees for Streets national street tree sponsorship scheme, which aims to plant thousands of additional trees in streets and parks across the city, by supplementing the council’s tree budgets through public and corporate sponsorship.’

and

‘Trees for Streets is the National Street Tree Sponsorship Scheme from the urban tree charity Trees for Cities, funded by the government’s Green Recovery Challenge Fund and City Bridge Trust. The project uses technology to empower people and makes it easy for residents and organisations to get involved in greening their communities.’

and

‘Our mission is to fund the planting of more than 250,000 additional street trees nationwide over the next ten years by hosting online tree sponsorship schemes on behalf of local councils and delivering local promotion and engagement activity to bring these schemes to life.’

Comment

Bristol has long had a Tree Sponsorship scheme, run by TreeBristol (part of Bristol City Council).

In the 2021/2022 planting season £456,000 was spent by Bristol Council in planting of trees. A portion of this money is retained by BCC for maintaining the trees planted 55% of this money came from mitigation funds paid by Developers who had felled trees somewhere in the city in order to build on the land released. (So, the money was not being spent on NEW trees, just on replacements).

10% of that money came from sponsorship, with 6.5% coming from private sponsorship (individuals and groups) and 3.5% coming from business sponsorship. Even then a lot of that money was spent on replacing trees which had been lost i.e., not on providing trees in new sites. It is a difficult “sum” to achieve. Money from Developers is for the replacement of trees lost to development. The Bristol Tree Replacement Standard achieves an amount for replacement trees based on the size of the trees lost. Eventually the trees may grow to a size which more than compensates for the environmental value of trees lost. But it remains true that each replacement tree goes in to a tree site that has lost a tree formerly growing there – so the Council is spared the expense of replacing lost trees that it owned.

Representatives of the Bristol Tree Forum have attended two meetings now where this new scheme has been explained and described.

The Trees for Streets scheme is not going to fund the trees, nor plant the trees, so we would have worded the sentence “Our mission is to fund the planting of more than 250,000 additional street trees…….” slightly differently with instead “Our mission is to facilitate and organise the funding of the planting of more than 250,000 additional street trees…”

The Trees for Streets scheme is similar to Bristol’s former scheme in that it will provide a web based choosing and ordering and paying for system, whereby residents and organisations and businesses can find available tree sites for planting trees in Streets and Parks.

There are differences between the Trees for Streets Scheme and Bristol’s former scheme, and they are:

  • Bristol’s former sponsorship scheme was largely one of replacement for trees lost. A sponsor (an individual, a group or a business) would select, from the Council’s mapping, a site where formerly there had been a tree, and would pay for its planting. New site planting came from One Tree per Child (whips) or from national grants where Bristol would win a bid for a grant and spend the money.
  • The new scheme hopes to facilitate, through sponsorship, the planting of a new tree in a new site. These sites have to be found, and checked for Services (underground utility provision), and then put forward in the Council mapping for planting with a tree.
  • Residents, and other types of sponsor, will be able to suggest new sites for trees by answering the question “Where would you like to see a tree planted?” with their own suggestions.
    The sponsor would need to pay for the tree, but Trees for Streets might be able to assist with organising the funding, using their funding know how.
  • Initially this kind of new planting of Street Trees will only be possible in streets that currently have green verges, or in new sites in Parks.
  • (Trees in “hard ground” – pavements, plazas, city squares, etc. will need to be planted in engineered tree pits – and that is expensive. If a sponsor (which can be an individual, a group or a business) is prepared to meet that cost, then efforts will be made to agree suitable sites and then check them for Services and other criteria, such as the width of the pavement.)
  • Trees for Streets has national funding and this gives it an improved platform with web support and advertising which could see many more trees sponsored. Maybe businesses reached by the advertising will see a role in supporting tree planting in the more “tree poor” areas of Bristol?
  • Bristol is to offer residents the option to water their sponsored tree when it is outside their property – at a reduced cost (£160/tree v £295/tree).  It gives people an option at a lower cost – and it avoids trucks driving about with lots of water in a bowser.  It has worked elsewhere, and Bristol is going to try it.
  • DEFRA has provided funds for the setting up of Trees for Streets, and maybe future DEFRA grants will be channelled through this new national scheme. Bristol has, by making individual bids, obtained grants for tree planting from DEFRA in the past, and will still want to continue to make these bids for new funding for the actual purchase and planting of trees for new sites.

How it will work:

  1. Go to the Trees for Streets website at https://treesforstreets.org.bristol.
  2. Choose the location of your tree from the map or suggest a spot in a grass verge in your street or neighbourhood. The questions on the website take you through the choices.
  3. Answer a few questions about the location and you.
  4. If all works out your tree will be planted during the next available planting season.

Bristol Tree Forum’s Tree Champions are to be offered training from Bristol’s Tree Officers so that they can help residents, organisations and businesses with determining the suitability of sites that are suggested.

Baltic Wharf Caravan Park: a controversial planning proposal

We have never been able to understand why Bristol City Council decided to terminate the lease of the longstanding and very successful central Bristol caravan site. It is not a brownfield site crying out for redevelopment, as some would have us believe. Its success and the 91 mature, well-established trees that grace it (74 of which are to be removed) testify to that.

Bristol Chamber of Commerce has described this caravan park as ‘… an important, high performing asset for Bristol’s visitor economy, enabling visitors to stay in walking distance of the city centre and thus providing significant levels of custom for local businesses‘.

And John Hirst, as Chief Executive of Destination Bristol, observed that ‘There are significant financial benefits for Bristol due to the year round supply of visitors to their current caravan site. We know that the current Bristol site at Baltic Wharf has been one of the most popular and successful central sites in the UK’.

So why on earth close the caravan park for a plan that almost nobody really wants – at least 273 at the last count? It seems that it’s worth closing this successful tourist attraction to replace it with new housing, even though the caravan park is estimated to bring some £1 to £1.5 million annually to Bristol’s tourist economy. The scramble for new housing at any cost – while ignoring the wishes of local communities and the economic benefits that the caravan park brings us – seems to take priority over all else.

And the result? We have proposals that will flatten every inconvenient tree rather than incorporating them into the proposed development. This only adds to the steady loss of green spaces and reduces Bristol, especially the centre of Bristol, to a grim, unliveable environment.  As Bristol grows hotter with each passing year, with the expectation that by 2050 life-threatening heatwaves will occur once every two years (not to mention the increasing flood risk to this area), we will need the cooling benefit of large, mature trees yet, tree by tree, they are inexorably removed in order to maximise profit and achieve what many say is an unrealisable aspiration. With the majority of new housing being sold at full market price, these will be as much for the benefit of the estimated 1,900 annual migrants from London as they are for the more affluent citizens of Bristol.

It is especially sad that Goram Homes, the much-lauded development arm of Bristol City Council, continues to ignore our very own key green planning policy, BCS9, and the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) upon which it is based. BCS9 states that ‘Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development’.

The Framework is the foundation upon which BCS9 is based:

We had hoped that Goram Homes would have set a good example – especially since the Council has recently published its Ecological Emergency Action Plan and announced that it will “embed nature into all decisions” – and abide by these important principles. What has happened to the Framework’s third, overarching environmental objective? Taking Baltic Wharf Caravan Park as an example, it would have been quite straightforward to design any new housing around existing trees, particularly if the focus was on just building affordable and social housing. Instead, nearly all are going. This, it seems, is ‘Placeshaping’, Bristol-style.

And this intransigence has resulted in damaging national press coverage – though note the lovely photo of the trees growing on the site.

Our objections to the proposals are set out here, but we are not the only ones…

Councillor Mark Wright’s experience

Councillor Mark Wright was the councillor for Hotwells and Harbourside until May 2021 when he stepped down.  Here he presents his experience of the many attempts he made to engage with the planners and Goram Homes at an early stage to try to secure as good an outcome as possible given that the caravan park was doomed to be closed. They came to nothing.

Mark writes:

‘Sept 2018

Mayor Rees announces that flats will be built on the site.

Dec 2018

I wrote to Cllr Paul Smith (Housing) “There are a number of very nice trees on the caravan park site that residents are already calling for saving (see attached Google 3D image). If done skilfully and at an early enough stage, many of the best trees could be embraced into the development in a way that greatly increases the value of the retail flats. If done too late or not at all, it’s likely that getting planning permission will become a battle over trees, which isn’t what anyone really wants. I think it would be a good demonstration of why Goram is a good thing if it sets the bar high on pre-app planning on things like this – it could really set an example to other developers. I understand that planning policy BCS9 requires the developer (i.e., BCC in this case) to do a tree constraints plan as early as possible – there is no need to wait until the actual plans start to form to do this. Can we get BCC to start this ASAP?” Cllr Smith replied, “I will have a word with officers”, but I got no further response.

I also wrote to the Council’s Arboricultural Officer, Matthew Bennett, asking for a tree assessment report to be done ASAP so that the best trees on the site could be saved and incorporated into the plans. I was interested in getting TPOs put on the best trees, but at that early stage Bennet replied to me: “Our aim through the planning process is to secure the best trees on site and mitigate the loss of those removed through the planning obligations SPD (BTRS). We cannot try and save every tree {…} a tree preservation order would not help the situation because full planning consent overrides a TPO”. That seemed reasonable so I concentrated on trying to get a tree report.

Jan 2019

I contacted officers again for an update but got no info.

Early Feb 2019

Planning Officer Paul Chick told me that no arboricultural tree report would be done until a pre-app was submitted, but no one knew when that would be.

Late Feb 2019

I raised the issue of trees on the site with Cllr Paul Smith and Steve Blake at Goram (Development manager); Cllr Smith said he had raised the issue of trees after my earlier contact, but I heard nothing more.

Jun 2019

I again raised the issue of trees on the site with Steve Blake at Goram and Matthew Bennett but got no response.

July 2019

A tree report was secretly written for the Council, but I wouldn’t see it until December 2020.

Dec 2019

The first concept images of the plans were released to the public. I wrote to Steve, Matthew, and Paul Smith again: “I note with interest the Council’s press release today indicating that a development partner has been selected for this housing site. There is even a picture of the proposed build. I presume this *must* mean that there has been enough preliminary work done to allow a tree constraints report for the site to be drawn up. Please can you assure me that the prime trees currently on the site are being designed into this new plan? A development such as this will be greatly enhanced in value by the intelligent and thoughtful retention of mature trees, and the Council’s reputation as a builder will be greatly enhanced as well, setting a higher bar in the city for other developers to follow…”

I got no responses…

Jan 2020

I wrote to Tim Bluff, a new contact at Goran Homes (taking over from Steve Blake, presumably) I had been given after badgering people. Bluff informed me that a tree report had in fact been done 6 months previously. I had never been told about it, despite asking multiple people for it for 13 months. I was told at this point the document wasn’t public and I couldn’t see it.

Feb 2020

There was a public *showing* of the plans. At this point it was clear that the plans were essentially almost “final” despite there having not been a single public engagement session of any kind, about anything. I declared publicly that I was concerned about both height and loss of trees.

Mar 2020

I discussed with the Bristol Tree Forum doing an informal assessment of the trees, but the Covid lock-down squashed that.

Apr 2020

The pre-app was published privately on the planning portal, but I couldn’t have access.

Early May 2020

The pre-app was made available to me, but not the public. It was clear that all trees on the site would be felled; all that would be saved was some of the boundary hedges. Again, by this point there had still been zero public engagement on any issue, only a showing of the images. The 10-month old Arboricultural report (i.e., July 2019) was still not available to anyone, including the Council’s own Arboricultural officer Matt Bennett, who wanted it too.

Late May 2020

I had a video meeting with Stephen Baker, Development manager at Goram (and Geoff Fox and Glynn Mutton) to discuss the plans. I made it clear I was unhappy with the height, the loss of all trees was a major problem, and the lack of any public input before publishing the plans was a big mistake and contrary to planning requirements on major plans. Steve said the trees were all being lost because the site had to be raised 2m to allow “active frontages” that comply with planning regs. I said that saving trees might be preferable to active frontages inside the site; I asked him who made this critical decision and when, as this was exactly the kind of thing the public should have fed into – at least if the decision had been informed by the public there would be some buy-in. He said he didn’t know and it had all happened before he joined the project. I made clear I was disappointed, but I really didn’t want to end up opposing the plans, and I hoped there would be a reduction in the height.

Oct 2020

Website for the plans went up.

Dec 2020

I finally received a copy of the July 2019 tree report – from the Bristol Tree Forum, not from the Council! It was clear that the decision to fell all trees on site had already been made earlier than July 2019.

Apr 2021

Full Planning app submitted, with no real changes since the pre-application stage. I lodged an objection “with heavy heart”.’

Bristol Tree Forum tree planting campaign – free Oak saplings available for planting

STOP PRESS

We delighted to report that nearly 1,600 tree orders have been received. We have bought another 600 trees to cover the extra orders and expect delivery soon.

Many thanks to all of you who have placed an order. We shall soon let you know when and where you can collect your trees.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions and delays in government funding, there has been postponements and cancellations of many major tree planting projects. As a result, large numbers of tree saplings are due for destruction in tree nurseries. This includes 750,000 two year old English oak tree saplings at the Maelor Forest Nursery in Wrexham.

Rather than see these trees destroyed, Bristol Tree Forum has purchased 1,000 of the oak saplings for free distribution to anyone able to plant them, whether this is one tree or a hundred.

We will get delivery early in November. The trees can be collected from a site in Redland, Bristol and a few collection dates will be organised hopefully to suit all. They should be planted as soon as possible afterwards.

The saplings are between 10cm and 90cm high. They come bare-rooted (i.e. out of the soil) and need to be planted as soon as possible after collection, although the viability of the trees over winter can be extended a little by storing the trees with the roots covered in damp soil.

This form is to find out who would like to have saplings for planting and how many, and for you to provide basic contact details (email and/or phone number) for us to organise collection of the trees. Contact details will not be used for any other purpose.

Why plant a tree?

A single mature oak tree is the equivalent of 18 tonnes of CO2 or 16 passenger return transatlantic flights.

Despite advances in carbon capture technology, the most efficient and cost-effective way to sequester carbon from the atmosphere is to plant trees.

Recent scientific reports calculate that planting trees wherever we can, without occupying land used for other purposes, would absorb up to two thirds of the carbon emitted in the last century.

Oak trees can support over 2300 different species, including birds, mammals, invertebrates, mosses, lichen and fungi.

Trees improve air quality by absorbing both gaseous (e.g. NO2) and particulate pollution.

Trees reduce traffic noise and flooding, reduce excessive heat in cities and improve physical and mental wellbeing.

Trees valued at over £4.6m are under threat at Bonnington Walk, Lockleaze

Whatever the merits of this application of achieving its primary goal to provide much needed housing may be, it should not be permitted to proceed unless and until it has properly addressed how it will replace and build upon the Green Infrastructure (including trees) that will inevitably be lost if this application proceeds as presently formulated.

Summary of our submission

We object to this application for the following reasons.

Bristol City Council has:

Declared climate and environmental emergencies.

Committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030.

Committed to doubling tree canopy cover by 2046.

As currently formulated, these plans to build new houses can only set back the work needed to resolve these emergencies and achieve these commitments.

  1. The need to build housing to meet sustainable economic or social development objectives should not be allowed to take precedence over ensuring that the development is also both environmentally sustainable and meets Net Gain objectives.
  2. Whatever the merits of this application of achieving its primary goal to provide much needed housing may be, it should not be permitted to proceed unless and until it has properly addressed how it will replace and build upon the Green Infrastructure (including trees) that will inevitably be lost if this application proceeds as presently formulated.
  3. The existing trees have a significant asset value which should not lightly be ignored. Using CAVAT, we have valued them at £4,674,918.
  4. Under the Mitigation Hierarchy, trees should not be removed unless there is no realistic alternative. One alternative would be to build around the trees rather than remove them.
  5. BCS9 of the Core Strategy also states that “Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development”. Clear felling nearly all the trees to the east of the cycle/footpath should not, as it so often is, be the default option.
  6. Trees should not be removed merely because they are diseased or self-sown, or because they are small or not perfect specimens of their species.
  7. The removal of existing trees inevitably means that the eco-services they provided will not be replaced for decades, if at all.
  8. The adverse knock-on environmental impact on biodiversity of removing existing trees far outweighs any short-term benefits achieved by replacing them.

Our submission

The planning background

The National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to ensure that new development is sustainable. It stresses the importance of Green Infrastructure as one of three overarching, interdependent objectives – economic, social, and environmental. This means that the presumption in favour of sustainable environmental development is just as important as any in respect of economic or social development objectives.

Trees are an integral part of this because of the importance of trees in relation to the management of air, soil and water quality along with other associated ecosystem services, climate change adaptions and beneficial health effects. The NPPF also seeks to achieve the protection and enhancement of landscapes and achieve Net Gain in biodiversity.

The Natural England Joint Publication JP029 – Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (BDM2) provides a way of measuring and accounting for biodiversity losses and gains resulting from development or land management change. It defines Net Gain as an:

“approach to development that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than beforehand. This means protecting existing habitats and ensuring that lost or degraded environmental features are compensated for by restoring or creating environmental features that are of greater value to wildlife and people. It does not change the fact that losses should be avoided where possible, a key part of adhering to a core environmental planning principle called the mitigation hierarchy.”

The Mitigation Hierarchy

Avoid – Where possible habitat damage should be avoided.

Minimise – Where possible habitat damage and loss should be minimised.

Remediate – Where possible any damage or lost habitat should be restored.

Compensate – As a last resort, damaged or lost habitat should be compensated for.

This is a cascading decision process – only if the preceding choice is unavailable is the next considered.

Local Planning Authorities (LPA) in the UK have a statutory duty to consider both the protection and planting of trees when considering planning applications. The potential impact of development on all trees is therefore a material consideration. In particular, BCS9 of the Core Strategy states that “Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development”.

We have summarised Bristol’s planning policies as they relate to trees here – Planning obligations in relation to trees in Bristol.

Summary of the proposal in relation to trees

This site covers just over six hectares. The Lockleaze Allotments (a 0.8 hectare Statutory Allotment[1]) is located to the south east of the widest part of the site. It appears to be disused. Most of the substantial trees growing on the site are growing in or around this allotment or to the north of it. We have calculated that, taken together, they cover at least 1.3 hectares of the site – a tree canopy cover (TCC) of around 20% which is well above the estimated TCC for Bristol as a whole which is just under 12%.

All our calculations, summarised below, can be examined in this linked spreadsheet.

The Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report (the AIS) dated June 2020 (based on a survey done on the 19th and 20th of September 2019) identified a combined total of 58 individual trees and 40 tree group features. The number of trees in each group is not given, so it is not possible to say how many trees in total are growing on the site.

Of all the trees growing on site 24 individual and at least 251 group trees are identified for removal. The trees growing in Groups G69 and G74 are all to be removed, but the number of trees in each group is not identified so we have not been able to include or count these in our calculations.

The only reason for given for felling these two groups is because they show evidence of Ash Dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus). As the AIS recognises, the mere presence of Ash Dieback is not a sufficient reason for the removal of a tree. We oppose the removal of these tree unless it can be shown that they there is a better reason for their removal.

The CAVAT calculation

Using CAVAT we have calculated that those identified trees which have a measured stem Diameter (DBH) are worth £4,674,918.  As the AIS fails to give the upper life expectancy ranges[2] of the majority of trees, we have assumed that all those trees given a 10+ or 20+ years life expectancy will survive between 40 and 80 years. This attracts a 5% discount on the base valuation. We have applied a CTI factor for Bristol of 150[3]. All the other factors are set to their default values.

The BTRS calculation

These two tree groups and five individual trees are categorised as Category ‘U’ trees under BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design demolition and construction, and so have not been taken into account for the purpose of the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS) calculation. A further 10 trees are also excluded from the BTRS calculation because their stem diameters are under 15 cm. We advocate that all trees identified for removal should be replaced no matter what their size.

Notwithstanding this and based on the current guidance, we have calculated the BTRS value at 455 trees as per the AIS calculation.

Net Gain calculation

No Net Gain calculation has been undertaken using BDM2 in support of this application.

We have undertaken our own BDM2 calculation in respect of just the trees surveyed in support of this application. A full calculation needs to be undertaken in respect of the whole of the site. This will inform any future decision about achieving Net Gain if this development is to be allowed to proceed.

Using BDM2, we have calculated that the combined tree canopy cover[4] of just the known, measured trees is 1.21 hectares. We have set the A-1 Site Habitat Baseline Habitat Type to Urban – Street Tree in the calculation. This assumes, amongst other things, that any replacement trees will reach maturity in 27 years and so uses a multiplier of 0.3822 to reflect this.

This gives Base Habitat Units of 5.864 and a Base Replacement value of 3.17 hectares. If we add an arbitrary Net Gain value of 10%[5], then the Base Habitat Units increases to 6.451 and the Base Replacement value to 3.49 hectares. Assuming that a 27-year-old tree has a canopy of .00403 hectares, then 866 replacement trees are needed to replace what has been removed and to achieve Net Gain.

Loss of the ecosystem services of trees

We invite you to consider the decades-long damage that felling just one tree (let alone over 277 trees) will cause by inputting the DBH of any tree identified for removal into our Tree CO2 Calculator.

As you will see, when an equivalent tree is replaced on a one-for-one basis, the lost CO2e is never recovered. Even when the largest tree (with a DBH of 100 cm) is replaced with eight trees in accordance with BTRS, it will still take some 40 years to recover the 10.4 tonnes of lost CO2e. And this is just one of the eco-services that trees provide us!

Impact on wildlife from tree loss

We endorse the following passages from the Bonnington Walk Breeding Bird Survey Report which observes at 5.2 Habitat Loss:

The Proposed Development will include the loss of scrub, trees and buildings which provide habitat for breeding birds. The extent of habitat loss is likely to include all the scrub and trees in the centre of the Site with some edge habitat along the boundaries retained…The loss of this habitat will have an impact on any birds using it for foraging or breeding at the time. The Site is located within an urban landscape with limited natural habitats. Alternative habitats are not readily available adjacent to the Site, though alternative habitat is available in the wider landscape including Stoke Park Estate and connected habitats further east. Habitat loss on Site will have an impact at a Local level by reducing breeding bird habitat in the local area…

and at 6.2.1 Habitat Loss:

Where possible, habitat loss should be avoided, and natural habitats retained. Scrub and trees are of most value to breeding birds at this Site. When natural habitats are retained these should be protected during construction to prevent damage including root compaction and knocking off or damaging over hanging limbs.

This is just one example of the likely adverse impact on wildlife resulting from these tree removal plans. There is evidence of a diverse range of both flora and fauna that likewise will also be adversely affected by the loss of these trees.

The Bristol Tree Forum – July 2020

You can find more detail about the application here:

20/02523/FB – Land on south side of Bonnington Walk, Bristol

[1] Owned by BCC under its asset number 8397.

[2] CAVAT uses six age ranges to set the discount factor.

[3] Bristol has a population of 459,300 and a land area (as opposed to the Administrative area which covers large parts of the River Avon and coastal margins) of 10,970 hectares. Using this gives a population per hectare of 41.9 (459,300/10,970) and so a CTI Index value of 150.

[4] Under BDM2 each tree’s Root Protection Area (RPA) is calculated at 12 times its stem diameter. RPA is roughly equivalent to a tree’s canopy.

[5] The choice is arbitrary chosen only for the sake of illustration. We are not advocating a Net Gain of 10%, though the concept of Net Gain implies an improvement on the base values.

Congratulations BCC on its successful Defra Urban Tree Challenge Fund bid!

Dear Bristol City Council,

We want to put on record our congratulations for the successful bid that your Parks Strategy team led for Bristol City Council to the DEFRA Urban Tree Challenge Fund (UTCF).  It has been some time in the resolution, but it is great that we now know for sure that it has succeeded.

We are delighted that there will now be more funds available to plant and maintain trees in the streets and green spaces of local communities that have perhaps been been overlooked in the past.

Thanks to you and to your excellent tree planting team, the Council has built an enviable reputation for planting urban trees across the city. Long may it continue!

We look forward to helping you with the planning and consultation that will be needed for adding these UTCF trees to next winter’s tree planting season.

This will make an important contribution to doubling Bristol’s tree canopy cover over the next 25 years.

We also applaud your decision to involve us in the collaborative partnership preparing the initial bid. As the only group specialising in protecting and caring for Bristol’s urban forest, we are very pleased to have been able to:

  1. Survey a representative sample of some of the 1,471 sites you have identified across the city, thereby relieving overstretched BCC officers who simply didn’t have the time to undertake this work.
  2. Adapt our Trees of Bristol website to record the planned planting locations for both street trees and the woodland sites.
  3. Develop our Tree Care site which communities will be able to use for post-planting tree maintenance and care – an important part of match funding the UTCF grant.
  4. We have also developed a comprehensive network of ward-based tree champions who are ready to be involved both in engaging with their local communities in the planned consultation and in helping with the ongoing care of newly planted trees.

As you can imagine, it was a lot of work, but we believe that it provided the sort of detail that helped clinch the bid.

Now that the funding has been secured, we look forward to meeting with you and the other partners to help with the next important planning phase of engaging with local communities and getting trees actually planted come next winter.

When can we meet to help you take this further?

A Manifesto for protecting Bristol’s existing Urban Forest

We invite all candidates standing in this May’s Mayoral and Councillor elections to endorse our tree manifesto which we set out here.

Bristol has declared a climate and ecological emergency. An emergency means making radical changes now – in every council department, by every developer, and by all those who own or care for trees.

All these proposals fit under Bristol’s existing 2011 Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy – BCS9 Green Infrastructure Policy which should now be implemented.  We must stop the needless destruction of so many trees in our city and instead learn to work around and with them.

Everyone from all sides of the political spectrum is talking about planting trees.  We fully endorse this, but it will take time for these new trees to mature. In the meantime, retaining existing trees will have the biggest immediate effect.

We propose that

  • There needs to be genuine community engagement in Bristol’s tree management decisions.  The council needs to listen to communities that want to save trees, not just to those who want to remove them.
  • Urban trees (planted or self-sown) have a tough life. Many bear the wounds and scars of previous damage or interventions.  These trees, though they may not be perfect, should be valued for the ecosystem services they provide and retained with appropriate and careful management wherever possible.
  • Alternatives to felling must be given priority, whether for street trees, or for those threatened by planning applications, or for other trees in the public or the private space.  
  • We need to strengthen planning policies to help retain trees on development sites by building around them, especially when the trees are on the edge of the site. 
  • Veteran and ancient trees require specialist management to ensure their retention whenever possible.
  • When surveys identify trees that present a risk, there should be consultation about the range of options available to mitigate the risk. This should always balance risk with the benefits the tree provides. Felling is only ever a last resort.
  • If trees must be felled, then more trees need to be planted to replace them. This should be based on well-established metrics used to calculate how to increase (not just replace) the natural capital of the lost tree.

Click here to print a copy of the manifesto. Candidates are welcome to download and use to support our aims.

Our Blogs contain many examples of the sorts of issues that have caused us to write this manifesto.

The trees at Stoke Lodge Park and Playing Fields – a letter to the Council

5th February 2020

Dear Bristol City Council Parks Department,

As you are aware, we have been expressing our continuing concerns about the welfare of the trees growing at Stoke Lodge Park and Playing Fields for the best part of a year now.

At the moment, our particular concerns are threefold:

  1. The potential for damage to trees caused by pedestrians being obliged to pass over their root zones and under their canopies since Cotham School erected its boundary fence last year.
  2. The potential for damage being caused to the trees growing within the new fence being caused by the school’s grass mowing regime.
  3. The potential for damage to trees caused by vehicles passing over their root zones and under their canopies.

To a large extend, our concerns about issue three may have been allayed by the school’s adoption of a new access point at the eastern end of the fields, but we will have to see how this develops.

The new vehicle access point at the eastern end.

As for the other two issues, we attach images showing how the very muddy and disturbed path running around the outside of the school’s fence is causing disruption to the root zones of a number of trees – these are not all the trees being affected by this.

The eastern end of the fields.
The path leading to the Pavilion on the northern boundary.
created by dji camera
The path leading to the Pavilion.

These images show how the current mowing regime encroaches within the root zone of one of the Turkey oaks inside the fence.

The Turkey growing at the eastern end of the playing fields seen from above.
The Turkey growing at the eastern end of the playing fields – the mowing line is clearly visible.

Here is a video which shows the mowing issue more clearly.

In our view, something needs to be done about this before any damage being caused becomes irreversible.

Can you advise me what action the Council plans to take to protect these trees, please?

Best Regards,

The Bristol Tree Forum

Council no longer manages trees on educational sites – Part II

Our worst fears have been realised. Schools have been left to care for the trees growing on their own sites, including those growing on school playing fields.

This blog follows on from our recent article on this subject – Council no longer manages trees on educational sites.

We have now had a response to a recent Freedom of Information request.

Trying to avoid the Council’s earlier refusals to answer our earlier FoIs about this, we asked for the same information as before, but just about one school which we selected randomly.

The school’s identity has no particular significance. We believe that these responses reflect the same situation across many other schools in Bristol (and the rest of the country?) – the lease disclosed is a ‘Department for Education (DfE) standard Academy Lease’.

We asked…

[We] have been advised that Bristol City Council no longer maintains or manages trees growing on some sites owned by it.

In respect of Henleaze Junior School, is it a site where the responsibility for the care of the trees growing on its site has been passed to the school?

If so, please provide the following information:

1. Does the Council retain the ownership of the trees on the site?
2. If it no longer retains ownership, who does?
3. Does the Council still retain liability for any damage caused by trees on this site?
4. If it no longer retains liability, who does?
5. is this site available for tree planting by the public through sponsorship schemes such as TreeBristol or through tree-planting initiatives such as One Tree Per Child or the Urban Tree Challenge Fund?
8. Who makes decisions about the planting, maintenance or felling of trees on this site?
9. If it is not the Council, is the decision maker obliged to consult the Council before proceeding to maintain or fell a tree, whether or not the tree is growing in a Conservation area, or is protected by a Tree Preservation Order or is the subject of a planning application?

Please provide a copy of any lease entered into between to Council and Henleaze Junior School for the lease of its site.

The Council has responded to say…

The site is let to the Academy on a 125 year Department for Education standard Academy Lease.  The Council holds the Freehold of the site, but the responsibility for the management of the trees has passed to the Academy and the Council no longer retains liability for any damage caused by trees on this site?  The Academy does.

While the the site is available for tree planting by the public through sponsorship schemes such as TreeBristol or through tree-planting initiatives such as One Tree Per Child or the Urban Tree Challenge Fund, consent by the Academy is required for this.

The Academy is not obliged to consult the Council regarding the maintenance, removal or planting of trees on site and has the sole responsibility for these activities. This is subject only to any Tree Protection Orders (TPO’s) and/or Conservation Area requirements that may exist for trees on the site. In these cases, a planning application must first be made and permission given before the school can proceed.

A copy of the lease is available here. There is no mention of trees in the lease.

We are intrigued to note however, that the Council retains the right to develop the school and playing fields – Schedule Three – Rights Excepted and Reserved:

It appears very likely that similar arrangements to this will be found across most of the city’s 78 Academy schools (and possibly many Maintained and Special schools), by leaving them to make their own ad hoc arrangements to care for and/or plant trees as they may/or not desire.

Given that the One City Plan aims to double tree canopy cover over the next 25 years, it seems a great shame that this important land bank (we estimate some 188 hectares – land and buildings – for Academies alone) of possible new planting sites might have been excluded from helping to achieve Bristol’s ambitious plans.

What about protecting all the trees with a TPO?

There are already at least 3,400+ established trees growing on educational sites that could be at risk. As far as we can tell, very few of these trees are protected by a TPO, though some will be are growing in a Conservation area.

So, is it possible possible to protect all the remaining unprotected trees with TPOs? At least then all schools would be obliged to get planning permission before removing or ‘managing’ trees and we will be able to see what is planned.

Local Authorities have the power to make four types of TPO:

  • Individual TPOs: A single tree, illustrated as a trunk and approximate canopy spread. If trees merit protection in their own right, authorities should specify them as individual trees in the Order. 
  • Group TPOs: A group of trees, usually shown as a canopy, or group of canopies, with or without stems shown. The group category should be used to protect groups of trees where the individual category would not be appropriate and the group’s overall impact and quality merits protection. 
  • Woodland: Shown as an area of land. The woodland category’s purpose is to safeguard a woodland as a whole. So it follows that, while some trees may lack individual merit, all trees within a woodland that merits protection are protected and made subject to the same provisions and exemptions. 
  • Area TPO: Shown as an area, without stems highlighted. The area category is one way of protecting individual trees dispersed over an area. Authorities may either protect all trees within an area defined on the Order’s map or only those species which it is expedient to protect in the interests of amenity. 

We were recently been copied this answer when this issue was raised about some trees growing in the Bearpit:

Thank you for your email requesting a Tree Preservation Order for trees within the St James Barton roundabout/ Bearpit area. We have reviewed these trees following your TPO request. We understand that you are concerned about any future plans for the Bearpit which could affect these trees and the amenity they provide. 

The national guidance on ‘Tree Preservation Orders and Trees in conservation areas’ (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-preservation-orders-and-trees-in-conservation-areas#making-tree-preservation-orders ) advises: 

“though some trees or woodlands may merit protection on amenity grounds it may not be expedient to make them the subject of an Order. For example, it is unlikely to be necessary to make an Order in respect of trees which are under good arboricultural or silvicultural management.” 

Furthermore, the potential effect of development on trees, whether statutorily protected (e.g. by a tree preservation order or by their inclusion within a conservation area) or not, is a material consideration. This means that tree matters must be taken into account by Bristol City Council as the Local Planning Authority when dealing with planning applications, and when undertaking consultations, and that members of the public can make clear their views. 

Given that these trees are already under existing arboricultural management, and that they would automatically be a material consideration should any future planning application come forward, it is not expedient or necessary for a Tree Preservation Order to be placed on these trees.

It appears that trees on educational land can, in theory, have TPO protection if it can be shown that they are not ‘under good arboricultural or silvicultural management’. But, how can the Local Authority know this?

However, our experience when we have requested that TPOs are made, is that the council will rarely do so, unless the trees are considered to have Amenity value and they are shown to be under immediate threat of destruction or damage. But, how can the Local Authority know this if the school is not obliged to tell them?

And…bitter experience has taught us that, whilst ‘…the potential effect of development on trees, whether statutorily protected…or not, may be ‘a material consideration’, other considerations often result in the welfare of trees being a very distant secondary consideration, with the result that they are frequently sacrificed to the too-oft-repeated argument that it is either the development or the trees, when there is no reason why it cannot be both.

So, the reality is that these trees are unlikely to be granted TPO status, save in exceptional circumstances and, even if they are, this is no guarantee of their future protection.

Our original concerns remain

We remain concerned that school governors (quite apart from lacking the necessary skills to manage the trees growing on their sites) may not yet have realised the full implications of the practical and strategic obligations that taking on such an important part of Bristol’s Natural Capital places upon them.

As a result, they are likely to buy in (at our eventual expense) ad hoc expertise, with the risk that they will overlook the wider strategic considerations that are needed when it comes to managing and promoting Bristol’s trees.

This, coupled with the distinct possibility that well-meaning, but unqualified Council officers in departments with no expertise in the management of trees may be making critical decisions about the welfare of trees across a wide range educational sites across the city, makes for a very worrying situation.

Our view is that the Council should take back the control and management of trees growing on land owned by it whether it is leased or not. Only then can we be assured that there is at least some degree of oversight and accountability, while helping us to achieve the wider strategic vision for the development of Bristol’s urban forest.

%d bloggers like this: