Category: Irreplaceable habitat

Ancient trees, missing data, and the fight over Bristol Airport’s planned expansion

So far, most of the public alarm about this expansion has centred on Felton Common, the well-loved local nature reserve on the other side of the runway, where the airport wants to plant 8.5-metre approach lights and fencing across protected grassland. Campaigners under the Save Felton Common banner have campaigned hard against that ‘land grab’, and rightly so. But the fierce fight over the Common has largely overshadowed a second, quieter yet important threat next door — the loss of irreplaceable habitat at Cook’s Farm, which has drawn far less attention. That is what our objection is chiefly concerned with.

Bristol Airport wants to grow. Its planning application (ref. 26/P/0686/OU2) seeks permission to expand from 12 million passengers a year to 15 million. To do this, the airport needs more land — including Cook’s Farm, some 24 hectares of long-established agricultural countryside where hedgerows have stood since at least the 1840s and where some trees have been growing for centuries. The airport now proposes to compulsorily purchase the site so it can carry out its plans.

However, it first needs to persuade the planners that its proposal is acceptable. We say it’s not, and we’ve lodged a detailed objection. It is a technical document, full of hectares and habitat codes, but underneath the detail is a simple story: irreplaceable habitat is at risk, the evidence supporting the plans doesn’t add up, and the law says that should matter.

Here is what our objection says, in plain terms.

The heart of it: three veteran trees

The most emotive part of the case concerns three veteran trees growing in an ancient hedgerow on the boundary of Cook’s Farm — two Ash and one Sycamore. The airport doesn’t propose to simply cut them down. Instead, it plans to translocate them: lift them with a giant tree spade and replant them on the northern edge of the development.

That might sound like a reasonable compromise, but our objections explain why it’s not in careful detail.

A veteran tree isn’t just an old tree, especially those in long-established hedgerows. It’s a whole ecosystem — cavities, rot, deadwood and fungal growth that specialist insects, fungi and other wildlife depend on and cannot find anywhere else. These features take centuries to form. You cannot manufacture them, and you cannot move them.

Worse, veteran trees are extremely unlikely to survive being moved. Their biology works against them. Over centuries they’ve spent their reserves coping with drought, storms, disease and damage, leaving little in the tank to survive the shock of relocation. Their roots are extensive but fragile, they depend on specialised underground fungal networks built up over generations, and much of their internal wood is effectively dead but structurally essential — it can’t be repaired if damaged. Successful relocation needs around two full growing seasons of careful root preparation beforehand. Crucially, the airport’s plan makes no proposal to reduce the trees’ roots at all. As our objection bluntly puts it: if the trees are translocated without root reduction, they will die.

Our conclusion is that, for the purposes of a planning decision, these three veteran trees should be treated as lost. The airport itself seems to half-accept this: it promises a ‘compensation’ package of ten new future veteran trees and the artificial ‘veteranisation’ of ten existing trees. But you can’t conjure a veteran tree on demand. Even with the right conditions, it takes two or three decades for a ‘veteranised’ tree to start resembling the real thing — and it will still lack the fungal decay that gives a true veteran its ecological value.

The evidence doesn’t add up

Beyond the trees themselves, we found that the environmental evidence supporting the application is riddled with inconsistencies. This means that the application can’t properly be decided as it stands.

The airport is required to demonstrate that it will deliver ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’ — a calculation meant to prove development leaves nature in a measurably better state (at least 10%) than it was before development. But our objection shows the numbers in the official metric calculation simply don’t match the airport’s own ecological survey. The two documents use different habitat categories, different reference codes, and don’t cross-reference each other. Some habitats that appear in the survey are missing from the metric altogether. Habitat parcels aren’t sized, and their locations aren’t shown on the map. In short, it’s impossible to reconcile the airport’s own datasets.

The tree surveys are a particular problem. Three surveys tucked into the appendices fail to meet BS5837:2012, the British Standard for trees in planning. Between them they’re missing the surveyors’ names and qualifications, survey dates, crown-spread data, branch heights and directions, life-expectancy estimates, soil assessments, and even the number of trees in some groups. One key survey dates from June 2024 and is now out of date. And when we asked for the tree schedule in a usable spreadsheet format so we could check it, our request was refused — leaving them, in their words, to analyse the data ‘as best we can’.

Even working with that inadequate evidence, their interim analysis is striking. Of roughly 1,618 individual trees on the site, some 367 — more than a fifth — are set to be removed, along with a share of the site’s hedgerows, which the airport’s own figures and the survey record in wildly different numbers (10 hedgerow parcels in one document, 71 in another).

Why this is a matter of law, not just sentiment

This is where our objection turns from ecology to policy — and it’s the part that could decide the outcome.

National planning rules are clear about irreplaceable habitats. Paragraph 193(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework says development that causes the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats — and it names ancient and veteran trees specifically — ‘should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists’.

We make two arguments about this test:

  • First, it’s a two-part test that has to be met in sequence: you need both wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy. A compensation package — however good, and here they say it isn’t good — cannot on its own make the reasons ‘wholly exceptional’. The decision in Juden v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2021] EWHC 1368 (Admin) backs this interpretation.
  • Second, we argue that this scheme doesn’t clear the ‘wholly exceptional’ bar at all. The Framework’s own example of exceptional reasons is nationally significant infrastructure — the kind of once-in-a-generation project decided by government. This application, we say, is simply about increasing the capacity of an existing airport. That’s not the sort of wholly exceptional circumstance the rules have in mind.

Our objection also points to local policy. North Somerset Council’s own adopted Core Strategy (Policy CS4) requires it to protect, connect and enhance important habitats, ‘particularly designated sites, ancient woodlands and veteran trees’. The same protection is included in the Council’s emerging 2041 Local Plan. Approving the loss of these veteran trees would go against the Council’s own rules.

What it comes down to

Strip away the appendices and the acronyms, and our case is straightforward. The airport wants to expand on to land that includes centuries-old, irreplaceable habitat. Its plan to ‘move’ three veteran trees is, on the evidence, a plan to kill them slowly. The paperwork meant to justify all this is inconsistent, incomplete and in places non-compliant with the relevant standards. National and local planning policy both say irreplaceable habitat like this should be protected, not traded away for extra passenger numbers.

Our central demand is modest but firm: these problems need to be resolved before the application can properly be decided. For anyone who cares about Cook’s Farm, its ancient hedgerows and the veteran trees growing in them, that’s the line worth holding.

Here is our full response to the application:

BTF Consolidated Comments – 06 May 2026

Biodiversity gain: will urban nature become hollowed out?

In a boost for the environment, new legislation now obliges most developers to set out how they will achieve at least 10% more biodiversity than already exists on their proposed development sites.

Developers must now show how they will improve the biodiversity of their development site as a result of their works. Developers must record the (baseline) on-site habitats that exist before development starts and show how they will either enhance or replace these on site. If their proposals fail to reach the 10% threshold, the developer may provide the shortfall elsewhere. This post-development mitigation should be done as closely as possible to the development site, or at least within the Local Authority. However, if this isn’t possible, they can use approved sites anywhere in England.

This approach is called the Biodiversity Gain Hierarchy (found in Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 at section 37A). The Hierarchy says it’s a priority to avoid the ‘adverse effects’ to ‘onsite habitat with a habitat distinctiveness score … equal to or higher than four.’ If this can’t be avoided, only then is mitigation permitted. In our experience, nearly all developers ignore the requirement to avoid adverse effects and move straight on to mitigation.

Since the introduction of the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard in 2013, developers (and planners) have ignored the policy requirement to avoid tree removal where at all possible. Instead, they’ve moved straight on to providing compensation for the trees lost to the development. As a result, the money set aside for replacement tree planting was not spent (on occasion reaching nearly £1 million) and many of the lost trees were never replaced.

Under the Hierarchy, habitats that score four are designated as having medium distinctiveness. While many habitats have medium distinctiveness, many don’t. For example, managed grassed areas (called ‘modified grassland’) are often found on urban sites but have a low distinctiveness score. So, too, do many other urban habitats such as allotments and gardens. Developers are not required to avoid harming these, though losses to these habitats must still be mitigated.

There’s no definition of what an ‘adverse effect’ is or any guidance on how it is assessed. However, recent advice from the Bristol’s Chief Planner about the meaning of ‘harm’ suggests that this could be interpreted very broadly or simply ignored because some sort of mitigation will always be available.

In the last extreme, developers may purchase biodiversity credits. We wait to see how this and the offsite biodiversity mitigation market evolves, but a 2012 paper published in the Harvard Environmental Law Review suggests that such environmental markets are prisoners of their own geography because the space available is always constrained:

Markets for water quality, biodiversity, endangered species, fisheries, air quality, and aquatic resources, to name a few, must recognize that the commodities they trade exist at particular geographic scales, and set appropriate spatial limits on the redistribution of environmental quality. The size of geographic trading areas has significant implications for the economic viability of markets and the ecological quality of their offsets.

This will be a particular challenge when providing biodiversity mitigation in urban areas.

The squeeze on green spaces

Land use in Bristol is subject to intense competition by many stakeholders. This is especially true for our green and open spaces, which offer many ‘services’ beyond just habitat provision. There is very little, if any, space available for new biodiversity to be created. At best, some green spaces might be enhanced, but opportunities to do this are likely to be very limited.

For example, Bristol Tree Forum’s examination of the three proposals to develop Bedminster Green shows that, if these proposals are allowed, then nearly 400 new trees will need to be planted to compensate for the lost tree habitat – a medium distinctiveness habitat. There’s no room to plant these trees on site, so offsite provision will be needed. There are very few opportunities for doing any new tree planting (as opposed to replacing lost trees) in the surrounding wards or even across Bristol, let alone, as is usually required, within a mile of a development site.

Instead, these replacement trees will have to be planted somewhere else: ‘in some foreign field that is forever Bristol’. This will inevitably lead to a net loss of biodiversity across the city as nature is ‘hollowed out’. This is unacceptable. The whole purpose of the new biodiversity gain regime is to improve overall local biodiversity, but it seems inevitable that Bristol will instead see a steady, inexorable decline.

We are disappointed that the current draft of the new Local Plan addresses none of these issues and have said so in our responses to the latest consultation:

Bristol Tree Forum representations in relation to the Bristol Local Plan 2023 Publication Version consultation & BTF Representations on the Bristol Local Plan 2023 publication version – Addendum.

A shorter version of this article was published by 24/7 as:

‘It seems inevitable Bristol will see a steady, inexorable biodiversity decline’

The saga of the SNCI at Yew Tree Farm continues

What does ‘harmful impact’ mean?

When the Development Control Committee last met to discuss the Council’s application to extend the cemetery at South Bristol into the SNCI at Yew Tree Farm on 6 September 2023, we were disturbed to hear the Chief Planner’s interpretation of the meaning of ‘harmful impact’, as set out in the Local Plan policy, DM19 – ‘Development which would have a harmful impact on the nature conservation value of a Site of Nature Conservation Interest will not be permitted.’

We even wrote an open letter to the Chief Planner asking them to explain their reasoning. We published this as a blog: It seems that SNCIs are nothing special – an open letter to Bristol’s Chief planner.

Update

Unbeknown to us, it seems that the Council’s Nature Conservation officer did comment on the Chief Planner’s earlier advice to the Committee:

This document was disclosed on 1 December 2023 as a result of our Freedom of Information request of 01 November 2023. This appears to have formed the basis of the answers given below.

Update Ends

As we received no reply at the time, we took the opportunity to ask again when the Committee reconvened to make its decision on 29 November 2023. We asked two questions – see page 9 of the Public Forum. As the responses still didn’t really satisfy, we asked two supplementary questions:

  1. When you say, ‘the site’, what do you mean? Is it within the redline boundary or something else such as within the SNCI’s boundary?
  2. You say ‘The crucial additional clarification to highlight, is that to be in alignment with this policy it is NOT the overall biodiversity gain that is determinative. There rather needs to be an assessment that establishes whether there is harm with reference to the specific characteristics that make the site special.’

Does this mean that the replacement of one habitat which forms part of the ‘specific characteristics that make the site special’ – such as a replacing the Grassland Habitat that forms part of the current SNCI designation with a Lake Habitat that does not form part of the current SNCI designation, or that the provision of offsite mitigation measures to compensate for onsite habitat losses (in this case -6.44%) – would not be acceptable?

These were the replies:

To question 1

By ‘the site’, it’s the site as set out in the application document, so it’s the SNCI as contained in the application document the area in the redline boundary.

To question 2 (as it is quite complex, we have reproduced it verbatim)

You need to take the application as a whole and where it is demonstrated as that with regard to the features, particularly the grassland, that there is no impact ultimately or, if anything, a slight enhanced impact.

We intervened to ask – So you are saying that the substitution of the grassland habitat for a lake habitat…?

I am not saying that at all, I am saying that the grassland, actually that there is more grassland and that’s what the ecology report also says – more grassland of the type for which the SNCI is designated will be there through this application than before… within the redline boundary.

Here is the recording of this exchange – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8EvqLA8-Lg (08:05 minutes from the start to 11:30 minutes).

What’s a redline boundary?

Anyone who wants to develop land must produce a location plan of the area proposed for development, delineated by a red line – the so-called ‘redline boundary’.[1]

When planning permission is granted, only the area within the redline boundary may be developed (though ancillary works may take place elsewhere).

Here is the location plan for the South Bristol Cemetery Extension application:

The South Bristol Cemetery Extension location plan (North is at the top)

The redline boundary here is quite complex because it’s made up of two burial areas, in the north and south, and an attenuation pond to collect runoff from the northern burial ground through a series of drains (the southern burial ground runoff will drain straight into Colliter’s Brook to the west). The area within the blue line is also owned by the Council and so is under their control.

The redline boundary is also important when it comes to calculating the biodiversity value (BNG) of the development site. All the habitats within the redline boundary are treated as ‘onsite’, while those outside the boundary are treated as ‘offsite’.

So, when we are told that ‘… there is more grassland and that’s what the ecology report also says – more grassland of the type for which the SNCI is designated will be there through this application than before… within the redline boundary,’ it’s just the onsite area that’s being referred to. This is important, as we show below.

The headline results shown in the most recent BNG 3.1 calculation relied on by the Council[2] show that 6.44% of the baseline onsite area biodiversity will be lost as a result of the development (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The BNG 3.1 Headline BNG results.

Figure 2 shows the net losses of the onsite grassland habitat:

Figure 2: Grassland Area & Habitat Unit analysis (HUs)

Under the BNG Trading Rules, Medium Distinctiveness grassland habitats may only be replaced with the other Medium Distinctiveness grassland habitats or with habitats of a Higher Distinctiveness. So, in order to achieve the net 2.93% BNG which the Council claims will result from the development, it will be necessary to compensate for these losses by crediting 3.25 Habitat Units of High Distinctiveness Lakes habitat by creating the attenuation pond.

This is not what we are told is happening and it certainly cannot be said that: ‘… there is more grassland … of the type for which the SNCI is designated … within the redline boundary,’ This is plainly untrue and, even on the Chief Planner’s definition (which we do not accept), it is clear that this application will ‘have a harmful impact on the nature conservation value of a Site of Nature Conservation Interest.’ This is contrary to DM19.

What’s more, even if the proposed offsite habitat mitigations were taken into account, there’d still be a net loss of -0.47 HU of Medium Distinctiveness grassland habitat (see Figure 4 below).

Figure 4: Net Medium Distinctiveness habitat losses

There’s one other serious flaw in the application, which was not brought to the attention of the Development Control Committee at its meeting. There’s a shortfall of -0.11 Habitat Units of the High Distinctiveness habitat, Species-rich native hedgerow with trees. Lost High Distinctiveness habitats may only be replaced like-for-like. This has not happened. As a result, the application is in breach of the BNG Trading Rules and should not have been approved.

We have brought this to the attention of the Council and the LPA.

These are just some of the important reasons why we say that the Development Control Committee was wrong to grant this flawed application.

A copy of this blog can be downloaded here – The saga of the SNCI at Yew Tree Farm continues

[1] It seems that no one thought of those with red/green colour blindness, who might find it difficult to see this red line.

[2] 22_05714_FB-SOUTH_BRISTOL_CEMETERY_BNG__25TH_AUGUST_23_-3540800

It seems that SNCIs are nothing special – an open letter to Bristol’s Chief planner

Dear Simone,

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.

A copy of this letter may be downloaded here

Farewell to the Meadows

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:

  1. 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’.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. 
  5. 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.

Here is a copy of this article.

Our proposal for a new Bristol Tree Replacement Standard

The Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS), which was adopted nearly a decade ago in 2013, 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.

The presumption should always be that trees should 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) is the Mitigation Hierarchy[2] which states, firstly, avoid; then, if that is not possible, minimise; then, if that is not possible, restore; and, as a last resort, compensate (the purpose or BTRS). BCS9 adopts this approach and states that:

Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new developments.

However, with the emergence 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 trees to the city in the years since the last version 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 new Environment Act 2021 (EA 2021) is coming into force late next year.

Our proposal provides a mechanism for complying with the new legal requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) which will be mandatory when EA 2021 takes effect.

Background

Under current policy – BCS9 and DM17 – trees lost to development must be replaced using this table:

Table 1 The Current BTRS replacement tree table

However, when the balance of the Environment Act 2021 (EA 2021) takes effect late in 2023, the current version of BTRS will not, in most cases, be sufficient to achieve the 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG) that will be required for nearly all developments. Section 90A will be added to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and will set out the level of biodiversity net gain required ( Schedule 14 of the 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.[3]

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.[4]

This aligns perfectly with Bristol’s recent declarations of climate and ecological emergencies and with the aspirations of the Ecological Emergency Action Plan,[5] which recognises that a BNG of 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 3.1 and that the BTRS table (Table 1) be replaced with Table 2 below:

Table 2 The proposed new BTRS tree replacement table

The Replacement Trees Required number is based on the habitat area of each of the three BNG 3.1 tree categories (Table 7-2 below) divided by the area habitat of one 30-year old BNG 3.1 Small tree (Table 3 below) plus 10% net gain. This is rounded up to the nearest whole number since 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 3.1) published by Natural England, defines trees in urban spaces as Urban tree habitats. The guidance states that:

the term ‘Urban tree’ applies to all trees in urban situations. Urban trees may be situated within public land, private land, institutional land and land used for transport functions.

Table 7-1 divides Urban tree habitats into three categories:

Paragraph 8.5 of the 3.1 BNG Guidance makes it clear that lines of trees in an urban environment should not be treated as a linear habitat:

Urban trees are considered separately to lines of trees in the wider environment, since they generally occur in an urban environment surrounded by developed land. 

Calculating Urban tree habitat

Urban tree baseline habitat area is measured in hectares and is based on the Root Protection Area[7] (RPA) of each tree impacted by a proposed development. RPA is used instead of tree canopy because it is considered to be the best proxy for tree biomass.

In most cases, RPA is obtained from an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA), which complies with British Standard 5837 2012 – Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction (BS:5837).

Where no AIA is available, Table 7-2 is used:

Note that the tree’s size will still need to be ascertained, and that any tree with a stem diameter (DBH) 75mm or more and of whatever quality (even a dead tree, which offers its own habitat benefits) is included . Under BTRS, trees with a DBH smaller than 150 mm are excluded, as are BS:5837 category “U” trees.

The guidance also makes it clear that, given the important ecosystem services value provided by trees, where possible like-for-like compensation is the preferred approach, so that lost Urban trees are replaced by Urban trees rather than by other types of urban habitat.[8]

Replacing lost trees

To calculate the number of trees required to replace Urban tree habitat being lost, table 7-2 above is used on this basis:

Size classes for newly planted trees should be classified by projected size at 30 years from planting.

We have used the median DBH sizes for new stock trees as set out in BS 3936-1: Nursery Stock Specification for trees and shrubs as the basis for calculating the eventual size of a newly planted trees after 30 years and assumed that a tree adds 2.54 cm (1”) to its girth annually.

This results in a predicted stock tree size after 30 years’ growth. This is then assigned to one of the three Urban tree categories set out in table 7-2: Small, Medium or Large. In all cases save for Semi-mature tree stock, the eventual size of stock trees after 30 years falls within the BNG 3.1 size category Small, which has a habitat area of 0.0041 hectares. This value is then used to calculate how many new trees will be required to replace trees lost to the development, plus a 10% biodiversity net gain. This gives a compensation size per replacement tree of 0.0045 ha (0.0041 hectares + 10%).

Table 3 below shows the basis our our calculation:

Table 3 Annual stock tree growth predictions

The Trading Rules

It may be that a notional positive biodiversity net gain can be achieved by replacing fewer trees than this analysis indicates. However, this is not enough. The calculation should also comply with the Trading Rules that apply to Urban tree habitats.

Paragraph 7.6 of the 3.1 BNG Guidance states:

The mitigation hierarchy and trading rules apply to Urban trees. Given Urban trees are a ‘Medium’ distinctiveness habitat, trading rules stipulate that the same broad habitat type (or a higher distinctiveness habitat) is required. However, given the important ecosystem services value provided by trees, where possible ‘like for like’ compensation is the preferred approach (i.e. where possible any loss of Urban trees should be replaced by Urban trees – rather than other urban habitats).

Rule 3 of the User Guide states: ‘”Trading down’ must be avoided. Losses of habitat are to be compensated for on a ‘like for like’ or ‘like for better’ basis. New or restored habitats should aim to achieve a higher distinctiveness and/or condition than those lost…’

The likely impact of this policy change

We have analysed tree data for 1,038 surveyed trees taken from a sample of AIAs submitted in support of previous planning applications. Most of the trees in this sample, 61%, fall within the BNG 3.1 Small range, 38% within the Medium range, with the balance, 1%, 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):

Table 4 Proposed BTRS impact analysis

The spreadsheet setting out the basis of our calculations can be downloaded here – RPA Table 7-2 Comparison.

Our proposed changes to BTRS (published in the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, page 20) are set out in Appendix 1.

This article was amended on 7 November 2022 to include references to Lines of Trees in the urban environment, the application of the Trading Rules to Urban tree habitats and fix a broken link.

Appendix 1

Our proposed changes to BTRS, set out in the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, 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.

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.

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[9]:

  • Tree in open ground (no tree pit required) £765.21
  • Tree in hard standing (tree pit required) £3,318.88

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 7-2 of the Biodiversity Metric (BNG), published from time to time by Natural England. This may be updated as newer versions of BNG are published.

The following table will be used when calculating the level of contribution required by this obligation:

A copy of this blog can be downloaded here:

BTF proposal for a new Bristol Tree Replacement Standard

[1] Biodiversity Metric 3.1 – Auditing and accounting for biodiversity – USER GUIDE.

[2] https://nationalzoo.si.edu/ccs/mitigation-hierarchy.

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

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

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

[6] DBH = Diameter at Breast Height. RPAr = Root Protection Area radius. Area = the calculated BNG habitat area.

[7] RPA area = π × r2 where r is 12 x the tree’s DBH for a single stemmed tree. For multi-stemmed trees, the DBH of the largest stem in the cluster should be used to determine r.

GOV.UK advice is that r should be at least 15 times larger than DBH – https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-ancient-trees-and-veteran-trees-advice-for-making-planning-decisions.

The Woodland Trust also recommends that r be set to 15 x DBH for ancient and veteran trees – https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2021/04/root-protection-areas.

[8] Paragraph 7.8 – Trading Rules.

[9] These values should be updated to the current rates applicable at the time of adoption. The current indexed rates as of April 2022 are £1,041.6 & £4,517.89 respectively.

[10] DBH = Diameter at Breast Height. RPAr = Root Protection Area radius. Area = the calculated BNG habitat area.

Mislabelling Bristol’s crucial open spaces as “brownfield” sites to justify development

A recent landmark Council motion to Protect the Green Belt and Bristol’s Green Spaces, was approved with cross-party support and no dissensions. As a result, vital green spaces within Bristol now have additional protection, in line with the City’s declarations of Climate and Ecological Emergencies, the recently published Ecological Emergency Action Plan and the new Environment Act 2021.

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:

“Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017 requires local planning authorities in England to prepare, maintain and publish registers of previously developed (brownfield) land”.

“Brownfield land registers will provide up-to-date and consistent information on sites that local authorities consider to be appropriate for residential development having regard to the criteria set out in regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017.” 

“Regulation 17 requires local planning authorities to review their registers at least once a year“.

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.

Baltic Wharf Caravan Park (21/01331/F)

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”:

Protect Baltic Wharf and Bristol’s Other Green Spaces