8 (iii)

Environment Working Group Notes Thursday 7th November 2013

Present: Alan Preece, Eileen Stonebridge, David Mayer, Alan Aburrow, Stephanie French, Gill Brown, Clare Campion-Smith, Glenise Morgan, Val Bishop, Eileen Poad, Gerry Arnold, Gary Brentnall, Andrew McGrath

Apologies: Sheila Preece, Sue Boyd

Notes and Actions:

Matters arising. Corner of Church Road needs to be sorted. Verge is constantly getting damaged. Also Mariners Walk. Gerry thinks it’s lorries rather than cars doing the damage. Gerry requested on-site visit with Gary. Action: Gary to contact Gerry and meet up

Grass verge on Druids Hill still being damaged by vehicles. Action: Carry forward from last meeting. Gary

Gas Installation on Stoke Lodge. The remedial work by developers has been only partially completed. Stephanie read out emails she has sent trying to resolve this, so far unsuccessfully. Action: Andrew to contact Mark Dowling (BCC Planning) to arrange on-site meeting with Stephanie and David

Noticeboard on Parrys Lane at Hiatt Baker development. This is allowed by regulation but will be removed once the development is complete. A watching brief will be kept to ensure it is either removed or a proper planning process is performed, if it is to remain. The developer will also need to ensure that the wall is properly restored to its appropriate condition once the noticeboard is removed. Action: All to keep a watch

Dog Fouling. Spraying of dog mess performed across north west Bristol over the summer, including Canford Park. Appears to be working. A careful watch will be kept. The bins in parks and on roads need to be emptied regularly to encourage their use by dog owners. Dog mess on pavements is becoming an increasing problem in Henleaze. Work could be targeted. Officers and PCSOs are able to give fixed penalty notices. There then followed a discussion about leaflets. Eileen showed the meeting leaflets the Sneed Park Nature Reserve had recently used. They have been very effective in reducing

mess. Andrew to show one of these cards to Hayley to see if they could be reproduced and distributed. Action: Andrew

The shared bins have been an important factor in the success of clearing dog mess. The notices on the bins need to clearly indicate that all waste can be deposited there.

Parks updates. Fallodon Way playground opened on 25th October. Very well used over half-term. A great success.

Canford Park. The zipwire has been temporarily removed by the manufacturer, due to its being too fast. If new toilets are commissioned, there will need to be some drainage work performed. It was agreed that quotes would be obtained for new toilets (3 quotes) and entrance railings

The question was asked how well the café is doing at Canford. There are no separate accounts but the assumption is that it is going well as it often seems busy.

Old Quarry Park. Formal consultation ended on 5th November. Trees will soon be identified for removal. Gary asked that the councillors and members of The Henleaze Society help with the identification process. It is likely that up to 50 trees will be removed and replaced (not necessarily in the same position).

Sneed Park Nature Reserve. Eileen discussed the problem of flooding and the damaged dam on the lake. There is a problem identifying the who is responsible for flood alleviation. The land is owned by BCC.

Gary showed the meeting the tree trunk that will be used to carve the benches for Stoke Lodge playground.

Stoke Lodge. An indicative cost of £50k for the improvement to the Stoke Lodge car park was put to the meeting. There was an indication from the working group that it would be in favour of this money being allocated from the Hiatt baker S106 money.

Gary presented the plans for the playground and the car park (see Appendix 1). There was unanimous support for the proposals. The Working Group agreed (by unanimous vote) to formally recommend the proposals to the NP and to ask for it to agree to the proposals at the

next NP meeting (2nd December). Action: Andrew to put formal request for adoption of the proposals to the NP.

The meeting expressed its thanks to Gary and the team for all its work in getting the playground proposals to this stage.

The latest position on the Town or Village Green application for SL is that BCC, in its role as Landowner, together with other objectors have objected to the recommendation of the Independent Inspector (to award TVG status to SL). Having lodged its objection, BCC and the other objectors have been requested by the inspector to provide more detailed information by 29th October 2013. Save Stoke Lodge Parkland (the TVG applicant) have until 10th December to respond to the submissions.

The inspector will then submit his report to the Registration Authority next year, which will, in turn, submit its recommendation to the BCC Public Rights of Way committee for a decision on Registration. There is no further timescale beyond the 10th December date.'

Knotweed spraying took place in October. There will be a further spraying in the spring. Andrew is awaiting a response from BCC Legal Services regarding invasion of knotweed from SL in to private gardens.

The new dog bin is being emptied daily. It is a great success. The field is much cleaner.

Any Other Business.

A new management plan for Sneed Park Nature Reserve is being discussed at the AGM on 14th November. For more information please go to the Friends of Old Sneed Park Nature Reserve:

http://www.spnaturereserve.com/

Expenditure of the Hiatt Baker S106 money (approximately £117,000) will be an agenda item at the next meeting.

Next meeting: 2pm Thursday 6th February 2014. Venue to be confirmed.

Decision Requested: That the NP agree to the detailed proposals relating to the playground on Stoke Lodge

31

SHIREHAMPTON ROAD

31.7m

LodgeStoke

33

Climbing mounds

Entrance area

Pedestrian gate

Maintenance/ Pedestrian gate

Grass reinforcement formaintenance vehicle

KEY

Picnic benches (part of an application

to the Wellbeing Fund)

S

W

N

E

NTSLC25.10.13

Stoke Lodge

BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL

Neighbourhoods & City DevelopmentLandscapes Team

Bower Ashton Depot, Kennel Lodge Road, Bower Ashton, Bristol, BS3 2JT

Proposed Plan 2000

New Play Area

Stoke Lodge Play Area

AS

Area identifiedfor the siting ofthe new proposedplay area

A

AView A-A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

4

5

67

81

2

3

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with thepermission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of HerMajesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorisedreproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecutionor civil proceedings. Bristol City Council 100023406.2013

Basket Swing

Toddler Swing (will have

c r a d l e s e a t s )

C l i m b i n g

U n i t s

H a m m o c k

T r a m p o l i n e

Na

tu

ra

l

P l a y

Play mounds covered in artificial turf will addanother play element to the play area, encouragingimaginative play.

C a b l e w a y

LSC1307008

Fencing style f or the play area

Tree Report to Stoke Bishop, Westbury on Trym and Henleaze Neighbourhood Partnership. Monday December 2nd 2013

1. After the last NP3 meeting I submitted a supplementary report to all members of the NP3 Committee and the Residents’ representatives about the discovery, the day after the last NP meeting, of an “almost finalised plan” proposed by the University to plant new trees to discharge the Planning Consent Condition No 25 (reference re-placement trees) imposed upon them when permission to re-develop the site with many new tall student accommodation blocks had been granted.

It had been my understanding that the SB Planning Group would liaise with the BCC Tree Officer and the University Landscape Architect before taking any final decisions about the tree replacements – species, placement etc. No consultation had taken place.

The almost finalised plan was as follows:

As part of the approval for the Hiatt Baker development the University has a duty to provide 132 replacement trees in compensation for the trees that have been lost on site. I have been in discussion with Kevin Stuckey the Horticultural Coordinator at the University and we are expecting formal proposals of planting shortly which I believe will detail

• 70 No trees to be planted on the Hiatt Baker site as part of the planning consent,

• 41 trees to be planted to improve diversity and quality within woodland on the Parry's Lane boundary within the adjacent Stoke Bishop Campus. This will be implemented following the removal of poor specimens and trees that have suffered from extensive squirrel damage.

• The remaining 21 trees are to be planted at a University site in Woodland Road.

I did not think that the residents of Stoke Bishop nor the greater NP area would be happy about the “export” of 21 trees to Woodland Road nor the felling of further trees to accommodate the new trees.

The condition imposed by the DC North Committee was as follows: (my highlighting)

• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE

HELD ON 6TH AUGUST 2012 AT 2PM

- The trees that would be planted at the site as mitigation would be spread across the whole campus, rather than just the application site. It was not possible to stipulate that the trees be planted outside of the campus area.

• Development Control (North) Committee – 6 August 2012

Officer’s Report. Application Nos. 12/01954/F and 12/01956/LC : Hiatt Baker Hall University Close Bristol

(F) DOES THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SATISFACTORILY ADDRESS ISSUES

RELATING TO LANDSCAPE, TREES & ECOLOGY?

The applicant has agreed in principle that tree removals should be adequately compensated using the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard, and further discussion is continuing to agree the location and number of trees to be provided on the application site and across the wider Stoke Bishop campus.

• Committee Decision August 6th 2012

Condition No 25.

A replacement tree planting programme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and agreed prior to first occupation of the buildings following agreement to plant 132 trees under the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard as compensation for the loss of trees to accommodate the development. The programme shall be agreed and the trees planted within the first available planting season following the availability of the planting areas. Species and size and location of trees are to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All planted materials shall be maintained for five years and any trees removed, dying, being damaged or becoming diseased within that period shall be replaced in the next planting season with other of similar size and species to those original required to be planted.

Reason – To ensure the character of the Conservation Area is retained and that trees of value, which contribute to the character of the area, are replaced.

I have highlighted the relevant stipulations that make it quite clear to me that the trees lost should be replaced on the application site to maintain the character of the conservation area. To me this means that the trees cannot be planted in Woodland Road.

I asked the NP to consider urgently the proposal for the re-planting plan about to be submitted by the University and if they were happy that the plan was acceptable as mitigation for the loss of trees at the Hiatt Baker campus.

I received replies from nearly all the NP members and they all expressed much disquiet. Councillor Abraham on behalf of Stoke Bishop and Councillor Morgan on behalf of the NP took up the cudgels and either contacted directly or wrote to the University and the BCC Planners to express in the strongest possible terms the fact that the plans were completely unacceptable.

The situation deteriorated rapidly when the Stoke Bishop Residents’ Planning Group (SBRPG) discovered that the University had gone ahead (9th October) and made an application to have the condition discharged, having submitted the former “almost final plan” as the “now final plan”. This application included a statement that the University had even, in advance of the application, planted the 21 trees in Woodland Road which they deemed to be a satisfactory way of discharging the condition in view of the fact that they could not find sufficient space in Stoke Bishop on “university owned land”

Councillor Abraham spoke at the Stoke Bishop Forum meeting and expressed in strong terms his support of my and the SBRPG interpretation of the Planning Consent Condition that the replacement trees should be on Hiatt Baker Campus, or on the greater Stoke Bishop campus, or within the Conservation Area and nowhere else. This was supported by the SB residents present at the Forum meeting.

Following all the strong representations to BCC Planning, the University withdrew its application to have Planning Consent Condition No 25 discharged and the planting plans are being re-considered (although it remains on the planning portal website).

The current situation as described by Councillor Abraham is that “I have been given to understand that new tree replacement proposals are currently being prepared and that the Tree Officer will be contacted by the University in due course to discuss the emerging proposals. Following this I would expect the University to discuss the proposals with Cllr Abraham, Stephanie French and the Neighbourhood Partnership prior to formal submission. (This is in accordance with what the University have said they will do.)”

We wait to see if the University does discuss their new proposals with anyone.

2. You may remember me reporting to the NP approximately a year ago about proposals put forward by Tree Bristol to select Priority Wards for Street Tree Replacement on a rolling programme. Henleaze Ward in our NP area had been selected for priority work in the 2013/2014 planting season and tree representatives in affected Wards were asked to consult with organisations, societies and residents and to identify streets that residents wanted put forward for a re-vamp, although there was never an undertaking that those streets would be selected. The Henleaze Society and the Councillors and the residents duly diligently publicised the need for suggestions and eventually after much work a list of streets was drawn up by me following the consultation and forwarded to TreeBristol. Its receipt was acknowledged. Mayor George Ferguson announced a plan for all Bristol schoolchildren to plant a tree, and this work was to be undertaken through TreeBristol. Councillor Gus Hoyt announced at a Tree Forum meeting which I attended that funding had been identified for the Tree Pips project. It appeared to me at that meeting that the Tree Pips project had subsumed the funding for the Street Tree re-vamp project and I then questioned Councillor Hoyt on it more closely by e mail. This is the reply I received ““New trees in streets (i.e. no recent history of a tree in this location). In 2012/13 we initiated a new project to plant new street trees using funds received from various external sources including asset recovery and sponsorship. This project aimed to plant c. 400 new street trees per year and in 2012/13 we came in just shy of this figure. This project has also being planting much smaller planting stock to reduce costs. The project has prioritised planting in areas of the city with low tree canopy cover and higher indices of social depravation, and has delivered projects where there was clear support which otherwise would be outside these parameters. The TreeBristol Streets project continues, but has been built into the TreeBristol ‘Pips’ Project”

I think this means that the money previously identified for the Street Tree re-vamp has indeed been taken over/re-directed and that no street tree planting for Henleaze will take place this season unless it is part of the Tree Pips project. By its very nature the Tree Pips project, although not finalised yet, will result in smaller trees being planted (they are cheaper) and these will probably be too small for usual Street Trees requirements, and I think that the Ward by Ward re-vamp on a rolling programme has been abandoned sadly, and I do wish that TreeBristol had had the courage to announce that. Councillor Morgan has had a different reply to her questions on the same subject verbally, so we wait to see what will happen. We are a third of the way into the relevant planting season. I have to report to the NP that I do not feel inclined to do a lot of work, nor ask others to assist in doing a lot of work, to identify streets in Stoke Bishop and Westbury for Street Tree re-vamps (identified as 2014/2015 Wards) when we currently have no confidence that there will be any Priority Street Tree Planting programmes. Street Tree planting can of course continue with currently existing other schemes, namely through sponsorship, through the normal Tree Stump replacement waiting list, and through residents applying for Community Funding/Well Being Fund Grants.