Bristol Airport Expansion Would Lose Five Ancient Trees, Its Own Data Shows

Bristol Airport's own biodiversity spreadsheet now concedes that its expansion plans will destroy five ancient or veteran trees at Cook's Farm — all of them, in the airport's words, "in good condition. All of these will be lost."

The admission sits at the centre of a compulsory purchase bid covering 24 hectares of long-established agricultural countryside, where campaigners count at least 21 veteran trees on site. Bristol Tree Forum, which lodged a detailed objection to the proposal, says the new evidence published to support the application does the opposite: it exposes that the true scale of irreplaceable-habitat loss was understated in earlier submissions.

Two ash and one sycamore — the same species felled at Hadrian's Wall — grow in an ancient hedge on the farm's boundary with the airport. The airport proposes transplanting them to the northern edge of the site. Translocation is now offered for only three of the five doomed trees.

Why translocation won't work

A spokesperson for Bristol Tree Forum said: "That might sound like a reasonable compromise, but our objections explain why it's not in careful detail."

The group's argument is ecological. "A veteran tree isn't just an old tree, especially those in long-established hedgerows," the spokesperson said. "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."

The core problem, in the forum's view, is time. "These features take centuries to form. You cannot manufacture them, and you cannot move them."

The campaigners add that the trees are unlikely to survive transplanting at all. Of the three proposed for relocation, they call the plan "just a plan to kill them slowly rather than a genuine solution."

North Somerset Council's own ecological reviewer has weighed in on the airport's side of the ledger. The reviewer told the airport that treating translocated veteran trees as 'retained' is 'inappropriate', and that any veteran tree that cannot be kept where it stands 'should be considered lost'.

The airport has now accepted that position — a significant admission, according to the forum, because it confirms the earlier evidence understated the habitat loss.

What the planning rules require

The stakes reach beyond one farm. The forum points out that the airport's own evaluation shows the habitat loss will not be sufficiently replaced, because the trees cannot be accommodated within the biodiversity net gain trading rules.

National planning policy, the group says, states that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats — a category that covers veteran trees — should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy already exists.

According to the airport, no such compensation exists.

That combination — irreplaceable habitat, no compensation strategy, and an admitted loss of five trees — frames the forum's demand that the application not be decided until the problems are resolved.

"Our position is unchanged. We say these problems must be resolved before the application is decided," the spokesperson said. "On the evidence now available, the Council should refuse it. For everyone who cares about Cook's Farm, its ancient hedgerows and the veteran trees standing in them, this remains the line worth holding."

The campaign runs alongside a separate fight to save nearby Felton Common, which the expansion also encroaches on. Bristol Airport has been approached for comment.

North Somerset Council must now weigh an application whose own supporting documents concede a permanent loss that the planning framework treats as effectively uncompensable.