Application Details

Reference 19/01213/FB
Address Stoke Park Park Road Stapleton Bristol  
Street View
Proposal Proposed development of a formal access route through Stoke Park estate from Sir Johns Lane (Bristol) to Jellicoe Avenue (South Gloucestershire) including access works at Stanfield Close, Romney Avenue and Long Wood Meadows, following historic route and former carriage ride, comprising self-binding gravel surfaced path and associated works.
Validated 11-03-19
Type Full Planning (Regulation 3)
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 15-10-19
Standard Consultation Expiry 02-05-19
Determination Deadline 06-05-19
Decision GRANTED subject to condition(s)
Decision Issued 07-11-19
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 19 Objectors: 50  Unstated: 14  Total: 83
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

See also application - https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QI5DXFDNKBR00

Bristol Tree Forum comments in respect of Planning Applications 19/01213/FB | Stoke Park Road Stapleton Bristol (Bristol City Council) and P19/3047/F | Stoke Park Estate Bristol South Gloucestershire (South Gloucestershire Council)

Summary

Bristol Tree Forum objects to this application. We argue that you have wrongly applied BS 5837:2012 - Trees in relation to construction which is designed for construction sites, not for green space or parkland. You should instead use the appropriate clauses in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (NPPF 2019) which we refer to.

Background

In general we support the provision of accessible paths through green spaces and parkland, providing they can be installed sensitively and do not result in damage to, or the unnecessary removal of large, well-established trees which we oppose, as we do in respect of all the trees recommended for removal in these applications.

These comments relate just to the recommendations in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment dated 1st March 2019 and submitted as part of Bristol City Council’s and South Gloucestershire Councils’ Planning Applications 19/01213/FB & P19/3047/F. All the trees surveyed are categorised in accordance with the guidance provided in the Cascade chart for tree quality assessment at Table 1 of BS 5837.

A total of 80 individual trees, 20 tree groups and four hedges were surveyed. Trees T301 to T362 and tree groups G1 to G13 grow in South Gloucestershire. The rest and all four hedges grow in Bristol. Of the 11 trees recommended for removal, only T373 & T790 grow in Bristol.

The report recommends that seven trees be removed as a direct consequence of the proposed development, however only six are identified. These are:

1.    Three B‐grade Ash trees (T351, T352 & T379). The first two grow in the wooded area at the north east corner of the estate. The third stands in a field boundary hedge at 51.488210°, -2.559173°. It has three stems, a girth of 1.4 metres, is 13 metres high, and no obvious significant defects. It is classified as category B1.

2.    Three C‐grade trees (T353– a Sycamore, T355 – an Ash & T373 – a Sycamore). The first two grow in the wooded area at the north east corner of the estate. T373 grows near the radio repeater station at 51.485414°, -2.561750° and is classified a category U. It is also one of the four trees listed below. This duplication needs to be resolved.

 

A further four trees (T356 – an Ash, T357 – an Ash, T358 – an Ash & T373 – a Sycamore) are recommended for removal not because their removal is necessary to realise the proposed development, but because ‘they are in poor condition and have less than ten years useful life expectancy’ and ‘their removal is recommended regardless of any development proposals’. These trees are considered to be category U.

 

Looking at the table at Schedule One, two other trees are identified for removal, though no reason is given why this should happen. These are T359 & T360. Both are Ash. The first has a heavy lean to north over a neighbouring garden, but no obvious significant defects. The second supports arboreal ivy and has a heavy lean to north over neighbouring garden, but no obvious significant defects. Both trees are classified at C1 according to the guidance provided in Table 1 of BS5837.

BS 5837 should not be applied in this case.

The Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been carried out in accordance with BS 5837. This is designed for use when considering the retention or removal of trees in the context of development and construction of housing and commercial premises etc. It is not designed to be used when assessing trees growing in a parkland setting where the only thing being constructed is an allweather accessible path.

BS 5837 only considers what ‘the effect that construction requirements might have on the amenity value’. ‘Amenity value’ is not defined.  Whilst any of the trees surveyed may well be capable of being categorised in accordance with this standard, BS 5837 does not take each tree’s long-term value into account, nor does it give any regard to its future contribution to the ecological benefits which trees growing in Stoke Park Estate (whatever their condition short of being dangerous) may bring.

NPPF 2019 should be applied in this case. NPPF 2019 makes it clear that (paragraph 170b):

Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;

At paragraph 175c it adds:

development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons

At Annex 2 – the Glossary it defines Irreplaceable habitat as:

Habitats which would be technically very difficult (or take a very significant time) to restore, recreate or replace once destroyed, taking into account their age, uniqueness, species diversity or rarity…

The context of this framework is further developed in GOV.UK’s Natural environment guidance. These are the sorts of criteria that should be applied at Stoke Park Estate when considering this application.

Both Planning Authorities incorporate (or plan to incorporate) the National Planning Policy Framework into their Local Plans.

 

 

These trees should not be removed.

In our view, there are no ‘wholly exceptional reasons’ why any of these trees should be removed.

At a time when Ash trees are facing an unprecedented threat due to Hymenoscyphus fraxineus (commonly known as Ash dieback), we surely need to be keeping as many healthy Ash trees in the landscape as possible? Most of trees marked for removal are Ash.

Some of these trees, with the correct management, could well grow to be the ‘Veterans’ of the park in the future or even prove to be resistant to Ash dieback. Cavities, decay, spits and scars on trees also provide essential habitat for many species. Just because a tree may be considered to be ‘low grade’ according to BS 5837, does not mean that it does not offer many of the wider environmental and biodiversity benefits which a varied and diverse population of native trees (which these are) growing in this parkland environment bring.

In our opinion, none of the trees which need not be removed to realise the plan should be removed. This means that the six trees (T356, T357, T358, T373, T359 & T360) recommended for removal only because of their condition should be retained. It is to be expected that woodland will include a mix of trees covering a range of maturity and condition.

Of the remaining five trees - T379 should be retained. Its condition and striking position justify it. There is no reason why the line of the path cannot be adjusted to pass either side of it in much the same way that the path has been adjusted to pass between hedges H3 & H4, thus:

The gaps between T379 and T378 or T380 appear quite enough to allow this, with the possible added benefit that speeding cyclists will be forced to slow down in order to navigate the ‘chicane’.

If T373 has not been misallocated and falls into the list of trees recommended for removal in the first group above, there seems to us to be absolutely no reason why it should be felled. It is growing on open ground near the radio repeater station (the red pin in the image below) and should be easy to avoid, as the track which passes to the north of it already does.

 

 

This leaves four trees growing in the north-eastern woodland (T351, T352, T353 & T355). Given the close proximity of other trees growing close to the existing path, it seems surprising that a route cannot be found which avoids ‘colliding’ with any tree at all.

These comments are also made against the background of Bristol City Council’s recently-expressed aspiration to double tree canopy cover (TCC) from 12% to 24% by 2046 and South Gloucestershire Council’s plan to increase it from 11% to 15% by 2060. In our experience (admittedly just in Bristol), there has been a historic trend of not replacing trees that are felled, or not replacing them on a like-for-like basis. This is true particularly of street trees. This has been happening piecemeal, but its impact is likely to have led to a decline in TCC. This may not be the case in South Gloucestershire, but we are aware of the growing pressures to rezone green spaces for housing and other urban infrastructure in and around the South West. The loss of 11 trees from what appears to be a well-wooded space may not seem significant, but the same might be said for most applications to remove trees in the way of planned development. It is exactly this death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach which has contributed to this historic decline, a decline which must be reversed if both counties are going to achieve their ambition to increase TCC.

If, despite all this, either LPA concludes that trees must be felled, then we endorse their replacement in accordance with the Bristol’s Local Plan policy DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure (p. 36) (which we encourage South Gloucestershire Council to follow in this case, if at all possible), but with the following caveats:

1.            The replacement species should be well-established (not whips) natives selected with a like-for-like growth habit and eventual mature size to the trees lost.

2.            Replacement trees should be planted within the Stoke Lodge Estate in consultation with the park users.

3.            The calculation of the number of replacements to plant should assume that all the trees being replaced are at least of quality category C as set out in BS 5837. 

Bristol Tree Forum

01 May 2019.

Public Comments

on 2019-10-15   SUPPORT

The park is inaccessible due to muddy paths for much of the year. Accessible paths willallow access for those with mobility constraints but also encourage those with full mobility whodon't access the park because they find it illegible an easy route in. It will make communityengagement and walks and talks easier and safer, as will enhancing the route with benches andinterpretation boards.

on 2019-10-15   SUPPORT

As stated in my response to the earlier application, this path will enable more people toaccess and enjoy Stoke Park, in particular those with disabilities and limited mobility who have sofar been excluded from the health and wellbeing benefits of their local green space. It will enablethe park to be used in all weathers and will allow for a wider range of activities to take place thatwill help people engage with the wildlife, landscape and local history. Improved connectivity willincrease walking and cycling options and contribute to improving air quality by reducing carjourneys and allowing more people to benefit from active travel.

on 2019-10-14   OBJECT

I have read all of the responses on the previous proposal. All of the objectors raiseconsistent issues; availability of alternative cycle routes, higher priority issues (flooding in the M32tunnel which prevents access to the park completely from stapleton, motocross riders),preservation of the natural environment rather than a landscaped one, safety etc. Furthermore,most of the objectors do so from a desire to spend quality time in a historic and natural area,whereas most of the supporters come from a perspective of wanting to transit through the park asfast as possible - the proposal is of no benefit to the park and park users whatsoever. Disturbingan area of historic parkland for an all weather transit route to facilitate getting from one side of thepark to the other is a very poor case. This revision doesn't change anything, this is unnecessary,unwanted, damaging to the park, damaging to the majority of park users and a waste of resources.

on 2019-10-14   OBJECT

I objected to this proposal when the application was first submitted, and I continue toobject to it following the publication of the revised plans. The proposal has fundamentally notchanged. The two spurs from the outside of the park to the main carriageway have become 50cmnarrower, which renders it an even worse solution as an 'active transport connection' andincreases the chances of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, whilst at the same time failingto address the overriding harm to the 18th Century landscape. The transport planners haveblatantly disregarded the opinions of the hundreds of people who have expressed their objectionsto the proposal, via the petition mentioned in previous submissions. All of the objectors raiseconsistent issues; availability of alternative cycle routes, higher priority issues such as the floodingin the M32 tunnel which prevents access to the park completely from Stapleton, increaseddisturbances from motocross riders, preservation of the natural environment rather than alandscaped one, safety of park users etc. Furthermore, most of the objectors do so from a desireto spend quality time in a historic and natural area, whereas the small amount supporters comefrom a perspective of wanting to transit through the park as fast as possible - the proposal is of nobenefit to the park and park users whatsoever.The council also misapplied data protection rules in an attempt to conceal the comments that thepublic submitted in the council's own consultation - the Information Commissioner's Office ruledthat the council must publish them or face legal action. When the council did so it was clear whythey had worked so hard to withhold the responses. This demonstrates an apparent willingness topresent a misleading picture of public opinion in order to pursue a singular vision. The councilhave failed to demonstrate a demand for this path, in the face of mass objection. What they havedemonstrated is that the opinion that they care about is that of Historic England, and that where

there is PUBLIC funding available that they will shoe-horn in an inappropriate development thatgreatly harms the peaceful amenity value that is inherent in the park. This proposal will notproduce the best solution for cyclists wishing to get from A to B, nor the best solution for improvingaccess to the park for those with mobility issues. This revision doesn't change anything - it isunnecessary and unwanted, damaging to the park, damaging to the majority of park users and atotal waste of resources.

on 2019-10-11   OBJECT

Dear SirsI am writing to formally object to this and appeal to the council to please reject this revisedapplication. For reasons outlined comprehensively elsewhere by others this clearly a developmentthat will permenantly scar one of the jewels of bristol and destroy its character as a truly uniquenatural space. I particularly refer to comments previously made by Stephen Bartle, and by DavidMoore in his objection letter dated 3/10/2019. I wholeheartedly support these views,and theirinsightful analysis of what the ( many unintended I'm sure) consequenses of this constructionproject will be. The thinking of why this is needed is just flawed. Aside from the negative impactshighlighted there is no clear agrument as to why the council thinks this required in the first place?

on 2019-10-08   OBJECT

on 2019-10-08   OBJECT

on 2019-10-08   OBJECT

I objected to this proposal when the application was first submitted, and I continue toobject to it now with it's 'revisions'. The proposal has fundamentally not changed. The two spursfrom the outside of the park to the main carriageway have become 50cm narrower, which rendersit an even worse solution as an 'active transport connection' and increases the chances of conflictbetween cyclists and pedestrians, whilst at the same time failing to address the overriding harm tothe landscape - OUR landscape, not that of someone from the 18th Century. The transportplanners have blatantly disregarded the opinions of the hundreds of people who have expressedtheir objections to the proposal, via the petition mentioned in my previous submission. The councilalso misapplied data protection rules in an attempt to conceal the comments that the publicsubmitted in the council's own consultation - the Information Commissioner's Office ruled that thecouncil must publish them or face legal action. When the council did so it was clear why they hadworked so hard to withhold the responses. This demonstrates an apparent willingness to present amisleading picture of public opinion in order to pursue a singular vision. The council have failed todemonstrate a demand for this path, in the face of mass objection.What they have demonstratedis that the opinion that they care about is that of Historic England, and that where there is PUBLICfunding available that they will shoe-horn in an inappropriate development that greatly harms thepeaceful amenity value that is inherent in the park. This proposal will not produce the best solutionfor cyclists wishing to get from A to B, nor the best solution for improving access for those withmobility issues. We all urge you to reject this application.

on 2019-10-07   OBJECT

I support increasing access for all but I fundamentally disagree with covering a circa 11century landmark with modern materials. It will be lost for ever.I have a further safety concern. An accessible path may give people with a disability more accessbut it will increase the number of high speed cyclists crossing the land. I walk my dogs over thatland on a near daily basis and three years ago I was walking on the path that runs under theDower House to Stapleton with two dogs on short leads. As we were parallel with a slow cyclisttravelling up hte hill we were over taken by a fast commuter type cyclist coming down the hill. Hisspeed was incredible and he was so close to one of my dogs. I pulled her towards me and off theedge of the path. I slipped and fell. Neither cyclist stopped to see how I was.So I believe that an increase of cyclists on the new path would actually be detrimental to the samepeople you are trying to improve access for; people who have disabilities.Cyclists already have a perfectly good route to cross this area. So keep them off the land wherepeople walk. Allowing them access will result in injury to all including children and the disabled.

on 2019-09-26   OBJECT

I object to this path being built at all and ruining what is a great historical unspoilt area.I think that an accessible path that helps access the park for disabled/pram users would be a goodidea but why does it have to run straight through the middle of the park and not around the edgesand more importantly it should not be a dual use path as this would be extremely unsafe to currentand other usersof the park.There is a perfectly suitable cycle path just yards up the road that serves the purpose of gettingfrom point A to point B and to make this path to its current proposal is unnecessary and potentiallydangerous.Also I object to the idea of adding a link to the path on the Romney avenue proposal as a residentof this road, the traffic on this part of the road has increased significantly over the last few yearswhat with the link to the many houses on the Cheswick estate and the addition of a bus lane hasseen footfall and traffic increase by at least 500%,To put another access here will just add to theparking problems and increase in traffic issues especially as so many cars park this side of thebus lane now to avoid the 15 min commute to the Cheswick estate and to the UWE by having todrive around it.This increase in traffic is also creating more of a danger to the children who use the adventureplayground located just up the road

on 2019-09-25   OBJECT

I object to this planning application

I objected before when this footpath / cycle path was first discussed. I have no objection to theStoke Park Estate being made more accessible for those in wheelchairs / mobility scooters and forparents with young children in prams / buggies BUT this path will not be safe for those peopleusing the path in this way if cyclists are allowed to use it. There must be means to separatecyclists and pedestrians or wheelchair users. Many cyclists do not have consideration for otherpath users and speed though areas such as Stoke Park. I have had many occasions as apedestrian when cyclists have ridden past me without warning. I wear hearing aids but I do nothear the bikes approaching and they go past very fast not taking account of the fact that I mightveer to the left or right causing injury to both of us. Are these the types of users that you arehoping to attract to Stoke Park? They will just be using the path as an easy cut through to otherareas rather than going into the park to enjoy nature and the lovely environment. Please considerhow all users will be safe using this path. As I pointed out before the path as a route from A to Bone side of the park to the other is not good for those just going into the park for enjoyment. Pathsinto to the park are great but why do they need to go from one side to the other unless it is tofacilitate these commuter journeys? I am not happy that earlier objections to the path have notbeen addressed.

on 2019-09-25   OBJECT

I object to this planning application

I objected before when this footpath / cycle path was first discussed. I have no objection to theStoke Park Estate being made more accessible for those in wheelchairs / mobility scooters and forparents with young children in prams / buggies BUT this path will not be safe for those peopleusing the path in this way if cyclists are allowed to use it. There must be means to separatecyclists and pedestrians or wheelchair users. Many cyclists do not have consideration for otherpath users and speed though areas such as Stoke Park. I have had many occasions as apedestrian when cyclists have ridden past me without warning. I wear hearing aids but I do nothear the bikes approaching and they go past very fast not taking account of the fact that I mightveer to the left or right causing injury to both of us. Are these the types of users that you arehoping to attract to Stoke Park? They will just be using the path as an easy cut through to otherareas rather than going into the park to enjoy nature and the lovely environment. Please considerhow all users will be safe using this path. As I pointed out before the path as a route from A to Bone side of the park to the other is not good for those just going into the park for enjoyment. Pathsinto to the park are great but why do they need to go from one side to the other unless it is tofacilitate these commuter journeys? I am not happy that earlier objections to the path have notbeen addressed.

on 2019-05-17  

on 2019-05-10   OBJECT

I think a large cycle path through the middle of a recreational area will be dangerous. Analternate route around the edge of the field has been proposed and is widely supported by thelocal community but unfortunately has not been considered. I therefore oppose the proposed plan.

on 2019-05-09   OBJECT

despite the obvious strength of feeling against the path, the council are ploughing on with this application. I would urge that this application is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can take place to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming the visual amenity of it in the process. The carriageway might have been appropriate in the private country estate of a wealthy family in the 18th Century, when the whole area was open countryside, but this part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the day and we must protect it and the valuable role it plays in the mental health of it's users. This path proposal forms just one part of the council's wider plans to introduce a car park, cafe and further modern paths in the park. The current essence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of the key aims of this path is to provide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay, and yet this link already exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) path between Romney Avenue in Lockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower House in the north of the park. I find it bizarre that money intended to mitigate the extra car journeys from new housing in Lockleaze is being siphoned off to fulfill an ambition of BCC's Parks Team. In doing so, they will produce a path that is fundamentally unattractive to cyclists, due to it's surfacing and the gates and cattle grids that will need to be negotiated in using it. BCC's own application documents state that it will not be possible, due to these features, for someone to speed from one side of the park to other. That begs the question as to why a cyclists wouldn't just use the existing tarmac path around the perimeter of the park instead. This money could be far better spent in providing cyclists with a cycle-only track alongside the aforementioned path (outside the park), which would arguably mitigate against car journeys from new housing far better than this proposal. It would also avoid conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, something which the application fails to adequately address. It would also leave the badgers referred to in the application's Extended Phase 1 ecological report to continue to cross the area undisturbed, much as we wish to. Access should be improved for those less-mobile, but this proposal is harmful to the character of this much-loved place and the council's blinkered approach in coming up with the proposal has been harmful to community relations. Despite it's long history, if the public don't feel involved in decisions regarding this public space, and don't feel 'ownership' of it, then it's future may not be so safe.

Thank you.

on 2019-05-09   OBJECT

on 2019-05-08   OBJECT

to this path proposal (see https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/re-think-the-stoke-park-all-weather-path?fbclid=IwAR0TUTSc-rAr41nU0IqDC_eDooGDH2XSx5g1Su9jfVk6OvGZQqWg6NMD0-I), whereas thecouncil's own consultation only achieved a comparatively small 108 people in favour of it, despite various promotional material and events and a 3000 houseleaflet maildrop. The above petition wassubmitted to a BCC full council meeting,and despite the obvious strength of feeling against it, the council are ploughing onwith this application. I would urge that this application is refused or withdrawn sothat proper engagement with the local community can take place to come up with abetter proposal that improves access to the park without harming the visual amenityof it in the process. The carriageway might have been appropriate in the privatecountry estate of a wealthy family in the 18th Century, when the whole area wasopen countryside, but this part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the dayand we must protect it and the valuable role it plays in the mental health of it'susers. This path proposal forms just one part of the council's wider plans tointroduce a car park, cafe and further modern paths in the park. The currentessence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of the key aims of this path is to provide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay,and yet this linkalready exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) pathbetween Romney Avenue in Lockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower Housein the north of the park. I find it bizarre that money intended to mitigate the extra carjourneys from new housing in Lockleaze is being siphoned off to fulfill an ambitionof BCC's Parks Team. In doing so, they will produce a path that is fundamentallyunattractive to cyclists, due to it's surfacing and the gates and cattle grids that willneed to be negotiated in using it. BCC's own application documents state that it willnot be possible, due to these features, for someone to speed from one side of thepark to other. That begs the question as to why cyclists wouldn't just use theexisting tarmac path around the perimeter of the park instead. This money could befar better spent in providing cyclists with a cycle-only track alongside theaforementioned path (outside the park), which would arguably mitigate against carjourneys from new housing far better than this proposal. It would also avoid conflictbetween pedestrians and cyclists, something which the application fails toadequately address. It would also leave the badgers referred to in the application'sExtended Phase 1 ecological report to continue to cross the area undisturbed,much as we wish to. Access should be improved for those less-mobile, but thisproposal is harmful to the character of this much-loved place and the council'sblinkered approach in coming up with the proposal has been harmful to communityrelations. Despite it's long history, if the public don't feel involved in decisionsregarding this public space, and don't feel 'ownership' of it, then it's future may notbe so safe."

on 2019-05-08   OBJECT

public green space - a site of Nature and Conservation Interest which boasts an untouched feel which sets it apart from many of the more urbanised parks in Bristol. It provides a sanctuary away from modern life and has many reminders of it's history. One of the most evident is the circa 11th Century track thatcrosses the top fields. Bristol City Council, and more staggeringly Historic England, supports the 'restoration' of this tracks with modern materials. In doing so they will destroy the open, untouched nature of the top fields of the park and bury a historic feature under a modern path. The historic 'gravity' of the historic carriageway is then buried from the eye and lost in the mind. The Draft Local Plan 2019 for Bristol says under Policy GI1 that sites designated as Local Green Space are identified based on 5 criteria of local significance: i)recreational value, ii) historic significance, iii) richness of wildlife, iv) beauty, v) tranquillity. Stoke Park definitely meets all those criteria. The policy text says that "Development thatresults in harm to the Local Green Space's characteristics, appearance or role will not be permitted. Ancillary development of a proportional scale that supports the function and role of the Local Green Space may be acceptable provided it does nothave a harmful impact on the space as a whole." Many people feel that this development will fundamentally harm the space as a whole, especially given the local conflict between the community and the council over the introduction of extensive barbed wire fencing in the park in order to introduce cattle grazing. 467 people have signed a petition objecting to this path proposal (seehttps://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/re-think-the-stoke-park-all-weather-path?fbclid=IwAR0TUTSc-rAr41nU0IqDC_eDooGDH2XSx5g1Su9jfVk6OvGZQqWg6NMD0-I), whereas thecouncil's own consultation only achieved a comparatively small 108 people in favour of it, despite various promotional material and events and a 3000 houseleaflet maildrop. The above petition wassubmitted to a BCC full council meeting, and despite the obvious strength of feeling against it, the council are ploughing on with this application. I would urge that this application is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can take place to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming the visual amenityof it in the process. The carriageway might have been appropriate in the privatecountry estate of a wealthy family in the 18th Century, when the whole area was open countryside, but this part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the day and we must protect it and the valuable role it plays in the mental health of it's users. This path proposal forms just one part of the council's wider plans to introduce a car park, cafe and further modern paths in the park. The current essence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of the key aims of this path is to provide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay,and yet this linkalready exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) path between Romney Avenue in Lockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower House in the north of the park. I find it bizarre that money intended to mitigate the extra carjourneys from new housing in Lockleaze is being siphoned off to fulfill an ambition of BCC's Parks Team. In doing so, they will produce a path that is fundamentally unattractive to cyclists, due to it's surfacing and the gates and cattle grids that will need to be negotiated in using it. BCC's own application documents state that it willnot be possible, due to these features, for someone to speed from one side of thepark to other. That begs the question as to why cyclists wouldn't just use the existing tarmac path around the perimeter of the park instead. This money could be far better spent in providing cyclists with a cycle-only track alongside theaforementioned path (outside the park), which would arguably mitigate against car journeys from new housing far better than this

proposal. It would also avoid conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, something which the application fails to adequately address. It would also leave the badgers referred to in the application's Extended Phase 1 ecological report to continue to cross the area undisturbed,much as we wish to. Access should be improved for those less-mobile, but this proposal is harmful to the character of this much-loved place and the council's blinkered approach in coming up with the proposal has been harmful to community relations. Despite it's long history, if the public don't feel involved in decisions regarding this public space, and don't feel 'ownership' of it, then it's future may not be so safe." I, Diane Doble Leemans make my objection to the Stoke Park situation exactly as worded above. Thank you for your time. With regards, Diane Doble Leemans

on 2019-05-08   OBJECT

on 2019-05-08   OBJECT

on 2019-05-08   OBJECT

not for users of a wildlife haven which Stoke Park has now become. The new path will not attract the type of people going there to enjoy the benefits of a lovely park full of interest. It will become another cycle route instead. Please reject this planning application and ask the planners to speak to residents to find out what would be the best way forward. Valerie Revell

on 2019-05-08   OBJECT

to this path proposal (see https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/re-think-the-stoke-park-all-weather-path?fbclid=IwAR0TUTSc-rAr41nU0IqDC_eDooGDH2XSx5g1Su9jfVk6OvGZQqWg6NMD0-I), whereas thecouncil's own consultation only achieved a comparatively small 108 people in favour of it, despite various promotional material and events and a 3000 house leaflet maildrop. The above petition wassubmitted to a BCC full council meeting, and despite the obvious strength of feeling against it, the council are ploughing on with this application. I would urge that this application is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can take place to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming the visual amenity of it in the process. The carriageway might have been appropriate in the private country estate of a wealthy family in the 18th Century, when the whole area was open countryside, but this part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the day and we must protect it and the valuable role it plays in the mental health of it's users. This path proposal forms just one part of the council's wider plans to introduce a car park, cafe and furthermodern paths in the park. The current essence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of the key aims of this path is to provide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay, and yet this linkalready exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) path between Romney Avenue in Lockleaze and JellicoeAvenue near the Dower House in the north of the park. I find it bizarre that money intended to mitigate the extra car journeys from new housing in Lockleaze is being siphoned off to fulfill an ambition of BCC's Parks Team. In doing so, they will produce a path that is fundamentally unattractive to cyclists, due to it's surfacing and the gates and cattle grids that will need to be negotiated in using it. BCC's own application documents state that it will not be possible, due to these features, for someone to speed from one side of the park to other. That begs the question as to why cyclists wouldn't just use the existing tarmac path around the perimeter of the park instead. This money could be far better spent in providing cyclists with a cycle-only track alongside the aforementioned path (outside the park), which would arguably mitigate against car journeys from new housing far better than this proposal. It would also avoid conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, something which the application fails to adequately address. It would also leave the badgers referred to in the application's Extended Phase 1 ecological report to continue to cross the area undisturbed, much as we wish to. Access should be improved for those less-mobile, but this proposal is harmful to the character of this much-loved place and the council's blinkered approach in coming up with the proposal has been harmful to community relations. Despite it's long history, if the public don't feel involved in decisions regarding this public space, and don't feel 'ownership' of it, then it's future may not be so safe. S.Goulding

on 2019-05-08   OBJECT

to this path proposal (see https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/re-think-the-stoke-park-all-weather-path?fbclid=IwAR0TUTSc-rAr41nU0IqDC_eDooGDH2XSx5g1Su9jfVk6OvGZQqWg6NMD0-I), whereas the council's own consultation only achieved a comparatively small 108 people in favour of it, despite various promotional material and events and a 3000 house leaflet maildrop. The above petition wassubmitted to a BCC full council meeting, and despite the obvious strength of feeling against it, the council are ploughing on with this application. I would urge that this application is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can take place to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming the visual amenity of it in the process. The carriageway might have been appropriate in the private country estate of a wealthy family in the 18th Century, when the whole area was open countryside, but this part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the day and we must protect it and the valuable role it plays in the mental health of it's users. This path proposal forms just one part of the council's wider plans to introduce a car park, cafe and further modern paths in the park. The current essence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of the key aims of this path is to provide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay, and yet this linkalready exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) path between Romney Avenue in Lockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower House in the north of the park. I find it bizarre that money intended to mitigate the extra car journeys from new housing in Lockleaze is being siphoned off to fulfill an ambition of BCC's Parks Team. In doing so, they will produce a path that is fundamentally unattractive to cyclists, due to it's surfacing and the gates and cattle grids that will need to be negotiated in using it. BCC's own application documents state that it will not be possible, due to these features, for someone to speed from one side of the park to other. That begs the question as to why cyclists wouldn't just use the existing tarmac path around the perimeter of the park instead. This money could be far better spent in providing cyclists with a cycle-only track alongside the aforementioned path (outside the park), which would arguably mitigate against car journeys from new housing far better than this proposal. It would also avoid conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, something which the application fails to adequately address. It would also leave the badgers referred to in the application's Extended Phase 1 ecological report to continue to cross the area undisturbed, much as we wish to. Access should be improved for those less-mobile, but this proposal is harmful to the character of this much-loved place and the council's blinkered approach in coming up with the proposal has been harmful to community relations. Despite it's long history, if the public don't feel involved in decisions regarding this public space, and don't feel 'ownership' of it, then it's future may not be so safe." Ernie Oakley

on 2019-05-08   OBJECT

on 2019-05-08   OBJECT

on 2019-05-08   OBJECT

I am writing with further comments, as I see that the Transport DevelopmentManagement (TDM) team at BCC have submitted last minute comments on this BCC application,and have referred to comments submitted by the public. I feel this is an inappropriate attempt tohave the final word and rebut comments by the public.

However, as this seems to be permissible, I would like to address some of the comments theymake:

i) the TDM team say that the proposed housing in Lockleaze would be unlikely to be achievedwithout additional sustainable management infrastructure and the path is needed to "mitigateagainst any potential increase in congestion and a deterioration in air quality" and to help the"ambition to extend the existing core cycle network"

My comment: in this regard the remit of this project is clearly to provide the best traffic mitigationpossible. This path will NOT be attractive to the majority cycling commuters, and I say that as onemyself. Mixed user paths with lots of gates and people to negotiate are not attractive, and result inconflict and is harmful to the experience for pedestrian park users. I note that there are NOcomments of support from any cycling organisations to this application. Morever, there is anexisting cycle track that runs from 'The Vench' on Romney Avenue in Lockleaze to the JellicoeAvenue (to Stoke Park) in Cheswick village, via Long Down Avenue. This route is 0.85 miles,which could be covered in 3 minutes 24 seconds by a bike travelling at 15mph. The council'sproposed path (again starting at The Vench) is 0.64 miles, which would take 2min 34 travelling at

the same speed. Well, it *would* take that long if there were no gates to be negotiated. Taking theseveral gates (which will require dismounting) into account that will be encountered on theproposed path it would in fact be quicker to use the existing path outside the park. Therefore theofficer's claim that the existing path results in a "significant diversion" is completely misleading.Further more, this traffic mitigation money would be far better spend by improving that existingpath by the creation of a segregated cycle route. The grass verge, next to the existing path onLong Down Avenue, has ample space to achieve this, and would be far more appealing to cyclists,and therefore far better mitigation against more car journeys.

The officer goes on to mention that the proposed path will require signage. This will cause furtherharm to the open, untouched amenity of the park, thus detracting from the mental health benefitsto users.

Overall, I would urge officers/councillors to consider, not just whether this is a proposal thatadheres to the relevant planning policies, but whether it is indeed the most appropriate solution toboth traffic mitigation and improving access to the park. Obviously ANY path will improve access,but that doesn't make THIS the most appropriate solution. The public petition against this specificsolution clearly shows an overwhelming lack of public support for this particular proposal. Thatdoesn't mean people are against improving access, but we urge you to reconsider THIS proposal.The council will be applying for Heritage Funding for the park which, if a proposal had the supportof the community, would be likely to succeed. This could be a means to providing improvedpedestrian access to the park, and this WECA money could be used to make more desirableimprovements to the cycle network.

on 2019-05-08   OBJECT

to the project officer that it would be better to have a path skirting the edge of the field linking into the woodlands, the path could wind round the edge which would mean that bikes wouldn't be able to speed along it. This proposal (made pre the public consultation) was ignored and wasn't covered within the consultation, this is a concern as I would have expected the views of the Friends of Stoke Park group to have been published within the consultation plans. Having a straight path through the middle does not meet the needs of people with mobility difficulties. Throughout the consultation we had to approach Bristol City Council to request that they improve communications regarding their plans, lack of communication has meant that there are still many park users unaware of the plans, particularly in the Cheswick Estate who will be most impacted. I am concerned about the need to remove trees, there has already been a significant reduction of trees within the park, in a time where we are in a 'climate crisis' we need to be endeavouring to maintain as many trees as possible. I believe this planning application should be rejected with the view to undertaking a further consultation taking into account proposals which are more likely to meet the needs of park users and to attract those who are currently unable to enjoy the Estate.

on 2019-05-07   OBJECT

I am writing to object to the path proposal by Bristol City Council (BCC) for Stoke ParkEstate. Whilst I agree that improving access for less-abled members of the community isimportant, I fundamentally disagree that the council's proposal is an appropriate solution. StokePark is without doubt North Bristol's finest public green space - a site of Nature and ConservationInterest which boasts an untouched feel which sets it apart from many of the more urbanisedparks in Bristol. It provides a sanctuary away from modern life and has many reminders of it'shistory. One of the most evident is the circa 11th Century track thatcrosses the top fields. BristolCity Council, and more staggeringly Historic England, supports the 'restoration' of this tracks withmodern materials. In doing so they will destroy the open, untouched nature of the top fields of thepark and bury a historic feature under a modern path. The historic 'gravity' of the historiccarriageway is then buried from the eye and lost in the mind. The Draft Local Plan 2019 for Bristolsays under Policy GI1 that sites designated as Local Green Space are identified based on 5criteria of local significance: i)recreational value, ii) historic significance, iii) richness of wildlife, iv)beauty, v) tranquillity. Stoke Park definitely meets all those criteria. The policy text says that"Development that results in harm to the Local Green Space's characteristics, appearance or rolewill not be permitted. Ancillary development of a proportional scale that supports the function androle of the Local Green Space may be acceptable provided it does not have a harmful impact onthe space as a whole." Many people feel that this development will fundamentally harm the spaceas a whole, especially given the local conflict between the community and the council over theintroduction of extensive barbed wire fencing in the park in order to introduce cattle grazing. 467people have signed a petition objecting to this path proposal (seehttps://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/re-think-the-stoke-park-all-weather-

path?fbclid=IwAR0TUTSc-rAr41nU0IqDC_eDooGDH2XSx5g1Su9jfVk6OvGZQqWg6NMD0-I),whereas the council's own consultation only achieved a comparatively small 108 people in favourof it, despite various promotional material and events and a 3000 house leaflet maildrop. Theabove petition wassubmitted to a BCC full council meeting, and despite the obvious strength offeeling against it, the council are ploughing on with this application. I would urge that thisapplication is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can takeplace to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming thevisual amenity of it in the process. The carriageway might have been appropriate in the privatecountry estate of a wealthy family in the 18th Century, when the whole area was open countryside,but this part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the day and we must protect it and thevaluable role it plays in the mental health of it's users. This path proposal forms just one part of thecouncil's wider plans to introduce a car park, cafe and further modern paths in the park. Thecurrent essence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of the key aims of this path is toprovide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay, and yet thislinkalready exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) path between Romney Avenue inLockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower House in the north of the park. I find it bizarre thatmoney intended to mitigate the extra car journeys from new housing in Lockleaze is beingsiphoned off to fulfill an ambition of BCC's Parks Team. In doing so, they will produce a path thatis fundamentally unattractive to cyclists, due to it's surfacing and the gates and cattle grids that willneed to be negotiated in using it. BCC's own application documents state that it will not bepossible, due to these features, for someone to speed from one side of the park to other. Thatbegs the question as to why cyclists wouldn't just use the existing tarmac path around theperimeter of the park instead. This money could be far better spent in providing cyclists with acycle-only track alongside the aforementioned path (outside the park), which would arguablymitigate against car journeys from new housing far better than this proposal. It would also avoidconflict between pedestrians and cyclists, something which the application fails to adequatelyaddress. It would also leave the badgers referred to in the application's Extended Phase 1ecological report to continue to cross the area undisturbed, much as we wish to. Access should beimproved for those less-mobile, but this proposal is harmful to the character of this much-lovedplace and the council's blinkered approach in coming up with the proposal has been harmful tocommunity relations. Despite it's long history, if the public don't feel involved in decisions regardingthis public space, and don't feel 'ownership' of it, then it's future may not be so safe.

on 2019-05-07   OBJECT

Whilst I feel the access to Stoke Park for all users is incredibly important, I myself havestruggled due to using a pushchair I do feel that the proposed plans are mistake. I feel that thereare better options available than the proposed plans and the methods used to build it and thematerials used.While Bristol is an incredibly green city I feel that the green spaces are reducing significantly inrecent times. What are my children going to have in the future if we keep chipping away at the fewgreen spaces that we have. Stoke Park is one of the few areas that is truly wild in places. I oftentake my children to the park to discover the abundance of wildlife in the area. My worry is that thepath will destroy the habitats and behaviour of these animals.

I also feel that there are alternatives to the path already in place. I feel that the building of thepower and the accessed the pace will encourage cyclists and motorcycles in the Park. Thesteepness of the path would make it very easy for the cyclists to be going very fast which wouldmake it dangerous for me and my children to be walking alongside. The access proposed wouldmake it very easy for motorcyclists to access the area which is something that I think everyone willagree is not what we would like. I don't think that the pair has been thought about properly I feelthat this is a plan that has been put in place with no thought to who is actually going to be using it.This is without even taking into consideration the historical value of the area which I feel will betruly impacted on by the building of the path.

When I see that there are good reasons for better access to the area I think that this plan is poorlythought through with regards to the area that it is being put in.

What worries me is the plans that have been put in place already regarding the cattle grazing etcetera have already impacted on the appearance and use of the area and I worry that our beautifulgreen space is being taken from us piece by piece and that by doing it over a long period of timedo you think that we will not notice what is happening.

on 2019-05-07   OBJECT

I object to this proposal which is unnecessary, unwelcome and ugly and will destroy anamenity rather than enhancing it.

Please reject this proposal.

on 2019-05-07   OBJECT

It seems excessive to make a 1.7km long, 3m wide path in one of the few accessiblenatural spaces in this area of Bristol. If one of the aims is to increase connectivity betweenLockleaze and Stapleton/Broomhill then the path would be running in the wrong direction. If afurther aim of the path is to encourage residents in yet-to-be built new housing in Lockleaze not touse their cars, it isn't going to be very useful, as it will only really connect existing pedestrianroutes.If it needs to be 3 metres wide because of the dangers inherent in a mixed cycle/pedestrianpathway, especially where the land slopes reasonably steeply downhill from the Purdown side,then perhaps it would be sensible not to build the path at all, thus mitigating the risk created bybuilding the path. The use of the area by motorbikes is a well-known problem already, and itseems that creating a path will only add to this.In all, the project seems to be a misconceived attempt to urbanise a wild space, which will becostly and unnecessary. Please reconsider.

on 2019-05-07   OBJECT

"I am writing to object to the path proposal by Bristol City Council (BCC) for Stoke ParkEstate (application ref 19/01213/FB). Whilst I agree that improving access for less-abled membersof the community is important, I fundamentally disagree that the council's proposal is anappropriate solution. Stoke Park is without doubt North Bristol's finest public green space - a siteof Nature and Conservation Interest which boasts an untouched feel which sets it apart from manyof the more urbanised parks in Bristol. It provides a sanctuary away from modern life and hasmany reminders of it's history. One of the most evident is the circa 11th Century track thatcrossesthe top fields. Bristol City Council, and more staggeringly Historic England, supports the'restoration' of this tracks with modern materials. In doing so they will destroy the open, untouchednature of the top fields of the park and bury a historic feature under a modern path. The historic'gravity' of the historic carriageway is then buried from the eye and lost in the mind. The DraftLocal Plan 2019 for Bristol says under Policy GI1 that sites designated as Local Green Space areidentified based on 5 criteria of local significance: i)recreational value, ii) historic significance, iii)richness of wildlife, iv) beauty, v) tranquillity. Stoke Park definitely meets all those criteria. Thepolicy text says that "Development that results in harm to the Local Green Space's characteristics,appearance or role will not be permitted. Ancillary development of a proportional scale thatsupports the function and role of the Local Green Space may be acceptable provided it does nothave a harmful impact on the space as a whole." Many people feel that this development willfundamentally harm the space as a whole, especially given the local conflict between thecommunity and the council over the introduction of extensive barbed wire fencing in the park inorder to introduce cattle grazing. 467 people have signed a petition objecting to this path proposal(see https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/re-think-the-stoke-park-all-weather-

path?fbclid=IwAR0TUTSc-rAr41nU0IqDC_eDooGDH2XSx5g1Su9jfVk6OvGZQqWg6NMD0-I),whereas the council's own consultation only achieved a comparatively small 108 people in favourof it, despite various promotional material and events and a 3000 house leaflet maildrop. Theabove petition wassubmitted to a BCC full council meeting, and despite the obvious strength offeeling against it, the council are ploughing on with this application. I would urge that thisapplication is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can takeplace to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming thevisual amenity of it in the process. The carriageway might have been appropriate in the privatecountry estate of a wealthy family in the 18th Century, when the whole area was open countryside,but this part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the day and we must protect it and thevaluable role it plays in the mental health of it's users. This path proposal forms just one part of thecouncil's wider plans to introduce a car park, cafe and further modern paths in the park. Thecurrent essence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of the key aims of this path is toprovide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay, and yet thislinkalready exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) path between Romney Avenue inLockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower House in the north of the park. I find it bizarre thatmoney intended to mitigate the extra car journeys from new housing in Lockleaze is beingsiphoned off to fulfill an ambition of BCC's Parks Team. In doing so, they will produce a path thatis fundamentally unattractive to cyclists, due to it's surfacing and the gates and cattle grids that willneed to be negotiated in using it. BCC's own application documents state that it will not bepossible, due to these features, for someone to speed from one side of the park to other. Thatbegs the question as to why cyclists wouldn't just use the existing tarmac path around theperimeter of the park instead. This money could be far better spent in providing cyclists with acycle-only track alongside the aforementioned path (outside the park), which would arguablymitigate against car journeys from new housing far better than this proposal. It would also avoidconflict between pedestrians and cyclists, something which the application fails to adequatelyaddress. It would also leave the badgers referred to in the application's Extended Phase 1ecological report to continue to cross the area undisturbed, much as we wish to. Access should beimproved for those less-mobile, but this proposal is harmful to the character of this much-lovedplace and the council's blinkered approach in coming up with the proposal has been harmful tocommunity relations. Despite it's long history, if the public don't feel involved in decisions regardingthis public space, and don't feel 'ownership' of it, then it's future may not be so safe."

on 2019-05-07   OBJECT

I am writing to object to the path proposal by Bristol City Council (BCC) for Stoke ParkEstate (application ref 19/01213/FB). Of course I agree that improving access for less-abledmembers of the community is important, however I pasionately believe that the council's proposalis not an appropriate solution. Stoke Park is without doubt North Bristol's finest public green space- a site of Nature and Conservation Interest. In fact in is an unparalled oasis with an untouchedfeel which sets it apart from many of the more urbanised parks in Bristol. It provides a vitalsanctuary emersed in nature away from modern life for many residents both near anf far. in thisrespect its impact on the mental heath of many people in bristol should not be underestimated.The circa 11th Century track thatcrosses the top fields is part of the character and heritage of thepark and the provosed vandalisation of thiswould be criminal. Bristol City Council, and morestaggeringly Historic England, supports the 'restoration' of this tracks with modern materials. Indoing so they will destroy the open, untouched nature of the top fields of the park and bury ahistoric feature under a modern path. The historic 'gravity' of the historic carriageway is thenburied from the eye and lost in the mind. The Draft Local Plan 2019 for Bristol says under PolicyGI1 that sites designated as Local Green Space are identified based on 5 criteria of localsignificance: i)recreational value, ii) historic significance, iii) richness of wildlife, iv) beauty, v)tranquillity. Stoke Park definitely meets all those criteria. The policy text says that "Developmentthat results in harm to the Local Green Space's characteristics, appearance or role will not bepermitted. Ancillary development of a proportional scale that supports the function and role of theLocal Green Space may be acceptable provided it does not have a harmful impact on the spaceas a whole." Many people feel that this development will fundamentally harm the space as awhole, especially given the local conflict between the community and the council over the

introduction of extensive barbed wire fencing in the park in order to introduce cattle grazing. 467people have signed a petition objecting to this path proposal (seehttps://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/re-think-the-stoke-park-all-weather-path?fbclid=IwAR0TUTSc-rAr41nU0IqDC_eDooGDH2XSx5g1Su9jfVk6OvGZQqWg6NMD0-I),whereas the council's own consultation only achieved a comparatively small 108 people in favourof it, despite various promotional material and events and a 3000 house leaflet maildrop. Theabove petition wassubmitted to a BCC full council meeting, and despite the obvious strength offeeling against it, the council are ploughing on with this application. I would urge that thisapplication is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can takeplace to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming thevisual amenity of it in the process. The carriageway might have been appropriate in the privatecountry estate of a wealthy family in the 18th Century, when the whole area was open countryside,but this part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the day and we must protect it and thevaluable role it plays in the mental health of it's users. This path proposal forms just one part of thecouncil's wider plans to introduce a car park, cafe and further modern paths in the park. Thecurrent essence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of the key aims of this path is toprovide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay, and yet thislinkalready exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) path between Romney Avenue inLockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower House in the north of the park. I find it bizarre thatmoney intended to mitigate the extra car journeys from new housing in Lockleaze is beingsiphoned off to fulfill an ambition of BCC's Parks Team. In doing so, they will produce a path thatis fundamentally unattractive to cyclists, due to it's surfacing and the gates and cattle grids that willneed to be negotiated in using it. BCC's own application documents state that it will not bepossible, due to these features, for someone to speed from one side of the park to other. Thatbegs the question as to why cyclists wouldn't just use the existing tarmac path around theperimeter of the park instead. This money could be far better spent in providing cyclists with acycle-only track alongside the aforementioned path (outside the park), which would arguablymitigate against car journeys from new housing far better than this proposal. It would also avoidconflict between pedestrians and cyclists, something which the application fails to adequatelyaddress. It would also leave the badgers referred to in the application's Extended Phase 1ecological report to continue to cross the area undisturbed, much as we wish to. Access should beimproved for those less-mobile, but this proposal is harmful to the character of this much-lovedplace.

on 2019-05-07   OBJECT

I write to object to the path proposal by Bristol Council for Stoke Park estate re19/01213/FB. I do agree that access for people who have mobility or other difficulties is essentialbut do not think the current proposal is the best way of achieving it. In particular I am concernedthat the path is likely to be used as a route for cyclists between parts of the city. One of the mostvaluable aspects of the park is for people to experience the green environment and the relativepeace. This is not likely to be compatible with cyclists using it as a fast route between destinations.This will add risk of collision injuries and conflicts. I understand there is already a route for cyclistsoutside the park and suggest that improving it would be a better way to help them commutewithout harming the peaceful environment of the park.I am also concerned that the proposed path through the middle of the park, along with theproposed materials, would detract from the historic character and the environmental quality of thepark. It constitutes increasing modern urbanisation of what should be a valuable wildlifeenvironment. The recent United Nations report highlights the damage being done to ourenvironment and the need for all of us to protect and enhance it in every way possible. I thinkthere must be more environmentally beneficial ways of developing the park for people who findaccess difficult and that these would enhance the experience of all the people using it.

on 2019-05-07   OBJECT

I am writing to object to the path proposal by Bristol City Council (BCC) for Stoke ParkEstate (application ref 19/01213/FB). Whilst I agree that improving access for less-abled membersof the community is important, I fundamentally disagree that the council's proposal is anappropriate solution. Stoke Park is without doubt North Bristol's finest public green space - a siteof Nature and Conservation Interest which boasts an untouched feel which sets it apart from manyof the more urbanised parks in Bristol. It provides a sanctuary away from modern life and hasmany reminders of it's history. One of the most evident is the circa 11th Century track thatcrossesthe top fields. Bristol City Council, and more staggeringly Historic England, supports the'restoration' of this tracks with modern materials. In doing so they will destroy the open, untouchednature of the top fields of the park and bury a historic feature under a modern path. The historic'gravity' of the historic carriageway is then buried from the eye and lost in the mind. The DraftLocal Plan 2019 for Bristol says under Policy GI1 that sites designated as Local Green Space areidentified based on 5 criteria of local significance: i)recreational value, ii) historic significance, iii)richness of wildlife, iv) beauty, v) tranquillity. Stoke Park definitely meets all those criteria. Thepolicy text says that "Development that results in harm to the Local Green Space's characteristics,appearance or role will not be permitted. Ancillary development of a proportional scale thatsupports the function and role of the Local Green Space may be acceptable provided it does nothave a harmful impact on the space as a whole." Many people feel that this development willfundamentally harm the space as a whole, especially given the local conflict between thecommunity and the council over the introduction of extensive barbed wire fencing in the park inorder to introduce cattle grazing. 467 people have signed a petition objecting to this path proposal(see https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/re-think-the-stoke-park-all-weather-

path?fbclid=IwAR0TUTSc-rAr41nU0IqDC_eDooGDH2XSx5g1Su9jfVk6OvGZQqWg6NMD0-I),whereas the council's own consultation only achieved a comparatively small 108 people in favourof it, despite various promotional material and events and a 3000 house leaflet maildrop. Theabove petition wassubmitted to a BCC full council meeting, and despite the obvious strength offeeling against it, the council are ploughing on with this application. I would urge that thisapplication is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can takeplace to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming thevisual amenity of it in the process. The carriageway might have been appropriate in the privatecountry estate of a wealthy family in the 18th Century, when the whole area was open countryside,but this part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the day and we must protect it and thevaluable role it plays in the mental health of it's users. This path proposal forms just one part of thecouncil's wider plans to introduce a car park, cafe and further modern paths in the park. Thecurrent essence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of the key aims of this path is toprovide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay, and yet thislinkalready exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) path between Romney Avenue inLockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower House in the north of the park. I find it bizarre thatmoney intended to mitigate the extra car journeys from new housing in Lockleaze is beingsiphoned off to fulfill an ambition of BCC's Parks Team. In doing so, they will produce a path thatis fundamentally unattractive to cyclists, due to it's surfacing and the gates and cattle grids that willneed to be negotiated in using it. BCC's own application documents state that it will not bepossible, due to these features, for someone to speed from one side of the park to other. Thatbegs the question as to why cyclists wouldn't just use the existing tarmac path around theperimeter of the park instead. This money could be far better spent in providing cyclists with acycle-only track alongside the aforementioned path (outside the park), which would arguablymitigate against car journeys from new housing far better than this proposal. It would also avoidconflict between pedestrians and cyclists, something which the application fails to adequatelyaddress. It would also leave the badgers referred to in the application's Extended Phase 1ecological report to continue to cross the area undisturbed, much as we wish to. Access should beimproved for those less-mobile, but this proposal is harmful to the character of this much-lovedplace and the council's blinkered approach in coming up with the proposal has been harmful tocommunity relations. Despite it's long history, if the public don't feel involved in decisions regardingthis public space, and don't feel 'ownership' of it, then it's future may not be so safe."

on 2019-05-07   OBJECT

"I am writing about the path proposal by Bristol City Council (BCC) for Stoke ParkEstate (application ref 19/01213/FB).

I object to the council's proposals.

Stoke Park is a site of importance for ecological conservation while also providing open space andclean air for local people.It helps the survival of precious wildlife and is a great educational venuefor local children and adults alike.

The Draft Local Plan 2019 for Bristol says under Policy GI1 that sites designated as Local GreenSpace are identified based on 5 criteria of local significance: i)recreational value, ii) historicsignificance, iii) richness of wildlife, iv) beauty, v) tranquillity. Stoke Park meets all those criteria.The policy text says"Development that results in harm to the Local Green Space's characteristics, appearance or rolewill not be permitted. Ancillary development of a proportional scale that supports the function androle of the Local Green Space may be acceptable provided it does not have a harmful impact onthe space as a whole."

This development will definitely damage the space as a whole.

I cannot see any way in which this development enhances Stoke Park.

At the meetings held in the run up to this application there were many vocal objections. Didanyone count the number of objections at those meetings?There may not be as many written objections because people often find it harder to frame theirthoughts on paper.A low number of written objections cannot be taken for acquiescence.

I live near to the park and have heard much anger at the Council, who are seen as riding rough-shod over people's concerns. Locals have been treated in condescending fashion when askingquestions and have not received adequate answers.

Stop this application. It will cause harm that cannot be repaired.

on 2019-05-07   OBJECT

I strongly object to this proposal.Whilst I agree that improving access for less-abled members of the community is important, Ifundamentally disagree that the council's proposal is an appropriate solution. Stoke Park is withoutdoubt North Bristol's finest "wild" public green space - a site of Nature and Conservation Interestwhich boasts an untouched feel which sets it apart from many of the more urbanised parks inBristol. It provides a sanctuary away from modern life and has many reminders of it's history. Oneof the most evident is the circa 11th Century track thatcrosses the top fields. Bristol City Council,and more staggeringly Historic England, supports the 'restoration' of this tracks with modernmaterials. In doing so they will destroy the open, untouched nature of the top fields of the park andbury a historic feature under a modern path. The Draft Local Plan 2019 for Bristol says underPolicy GI1 that sites designated as Local Green Space are identified based on 5 criteria of localsignificance: i)recreational value, ii) historic significance, iii) richness of wildlife, iv) beauty, v)tranquillity. Stoke Park definitely meets all those criteria. The policy text says that "Developmentthat results in harm to the Local Green Space's characteristics, appearance or role will not bepermitted. Ancillary development of a proportional scale that supports the function and role of theLocal Green Space may be acceptable provided it does not have a harmful impact on the spaceas a whole." Many people feel that this development will fundamentally harm the space as awhole. 467 people have signed a petition objecting to this path proposal (seehttps://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/re-think-the-stoke-park-all-weather-path?fbclid=IwAR0TUTSc-rAr41nU0IqDC_eDooGDH2XSx5g1Su9jfVk6OvGZQqWg6NMD0-I),whereas the council's own consultation only achieved a comparatively small 108 people in favourof it, despite various promotional material and events and a 3000 house leaflet maildrop. The

above petition wassubmitted to a BCC full council meeting, and despite the obvious strength offeeling against it, the council are ploughing on with this application. I would urge that thisapplication is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can takeplace to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming thevisual amenity of it in the process. This part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the day andwe must protect it and the valuable role it plays in the mental health of it's users. This pathproposal forms just one part of the council's wider plans to introduce a car park, cafe and furthermodern paths in the park. The current essence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of thekey aims of this path is to provide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze andBroomhill/Frenchay, and yet this linkalready exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) pathbetween Romney Avenue in Lockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower House in the north ofthe park. Access should be improved for those less-mobile, but this proposal is harmful to thecharacter of this much-loved place and the council's blinkered approach in coming up with theproposal has been harmful to community relations. What makes Bristol a unique & wonderfulplace to live & visit are it's hidden pockets of green countryside & it's very visible glimpses ofhistory, both of which will be lost forever at Stoke Park if this proposal goes ahead. Surely StokeParks listed status should protect it against just such proposals

on 2019-05-07  

File Name: S:\TRAFFIC\TranPlan\City Transport\02 DEV MAN\01 PLANNING\2019\19.01213.FB Stoke

Park Park Road\01 CORRESPONDENCE\01 FORMAL COMMENTS\19.01213.FB.docx

Plan – Site Allocations and Development Management Policies – Adopted July 2014. As part of the route is within South Gloucestershire it would also accord with policies CS2: Green Infrastructure, CS8: Improving Accessibility, CS24: Green Infrastructure, Sport and Recreation and CS25: Communities Of The North Fringe Of Bristol Urban Area – South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy – Adopted December 2013 as well as policy PSP10: Active Travel Routes - South Gloucestershire Local Plan – Policies, Sites and Places Plan – Adopted November 2017. A number of objections have been made regarding the need for the shared path and the effect it would have on Stoke Park. Whilst there is an existing shared use path that runs from Romney Avenue around the edge of Cheswick Village and then parallel to Long Down Avenue, anyone would be forced to undertake a significant diversion in order to get to the M32 Underpass. The lack of any additional infrastructure would hinder promoting and encouraging walking/cycling as a real alternative to single person car trips, thereby helping to mitigate any increase in congestion and air pollution associated with the development of new homes within the surrounding area and improve connectivity it is therefore essential that the both Bristol and South Gloucestershire councils provide a new all-weather accessible route, which this proposal would represent. Route The proposed route was one of three options that were tested as part of a feasibility study, as shown in the plan below. Following a technical appraisal Route One was selected, as whilst not being the most direct, it does link with an existing route to the M32 Underpass (shown in purple on the plan below). Route Two was rejected as whilst being the most direct it would have run through woodland and would have had some very steep sections, thereby requiring a significant zig-zag layout in order to ensure gradients could be achieved that would be suitable for anyone with a mobility impairment. This would have required a significant amount of land, which would have been highly visible and therefore unacceptable due to the parks conversation status. Route Three was rejected for similar reasons. Following additional work a number of further options were

Route One (Green), Route Two (Red) Route Three (Blue)

File Name: S:\TRAFFIC\TranPlan\City Transport\02 DEV MAN\01 PLANNING\2019\19.01213.FB Stoke

Park Park Road\01 CORRESPONDENCE\01 FORMAL COMMENTS\19.01213.FB.docx

consulted on as shown in the plan below: Following feedback from members of the public whilst the section of Route 1A that would have run through Barn Wood was removed, all of the remaining routes were combined to form the overall route. This follows existing paths within Stoke Park including a historic carriage drive, and links Sir John’s Lane, Romney Avenue, UWE Cycle Track, Kent Mews and Jellicoe Avenue (both of which are within South Gloucestershire). Not only will this improve access to the Frome Greenway but also to the Stoke Park Estate in general, particularly for those with mobility impairments. Transport Development Management considers the route to be acceptable. Shared Use A number of the objections received cite concerns over the shared nature of the footpath. Where there is sufficient land a fully segregated route would have been proposed such as the routes along Baldwin Street, Princes Street and through Castle Park. However, due to the conservation status and the natural environment such an option would have been completely out of keeping as would a wider route, which would have been the next best option. As the route will have a self-binding gravel surface this should reduce the speed at which cyclists will travel. Furthermore each of the access points into Stoke Park will feature appropriate shared use signage, providing sufficient warning to both cyclists and pedestrians. As it would not be possible to include the circular cycle roundel on the shared path, a series of low wooden posts could be provided either with the relevant blue TSRGD signage attached or the roundel could be carved out and painted white.

Route 1A (Green), Route 1B (Blue), Route 1C (Red), Route 1D (Orange)

File Name: S:\TRAFFIC\TranPlan\City Transport\02 DEV MAN\01 PLANNING\2019\19.01213.FB Stoke

Park Park Road\01 CORRESPONDENCE\01 FORMAL COMMENTS\19.01213.FB.docx

Access In order to improve access to the park, especially for anyone with mobility impairments, the applicant is proposing to undertake the following work:

 Romney Avenue by Stanfield Close – Remove the existing A-frame barrier and concrete hump and replace with a 1.2m wide K-frame barrier which will have a steel mesh floor panel to prevent surface erosion and a 400mm deep concrete foundation. The existing post and rail fence to be adjusted as required by K-frame barriers foundations.

 Romney Avenue, between No 262 & 270 – Remove the existing pedestrian kissing gate and replace with a 3.25m wide K-frame vehicular gate, install a new finger post directional sign and relocate the existing litter bin and entrance sign within the parks boundary. The existing post and rail fence to be adjusted as required by K-frame barriers foundations.

 UWE Cycle Track (Longwood Meadows) – Install 1.2m wide self-closing gate, livestock fencing (as specified in the Stoke Park Conservation Masterplan) and a new finger post directional sign.

 Jellicoe Avenue by Kent Mews – Retain the existing railings but replace the existing pedestrian kissing gate with a 1.4m wide K-frame barrier and install a new finger post directional sign.

 Jellicoe Avenue/Parnall Road – Retain the existing railings and gates and install a new finger post directional sign.

As part of the above improvements signage would be provided at each of the access points to indicate that that the path it is a shared route for pedal cycles and pedestrians only and must not be used by solo motorcycles/mopeds. It has been suggested that the installation of the K-frame barriers would make it more difficult for anyone in a wheelchair, mobility scooter or pushing a pram to access the park. However, the proposed model that would be used is dual adjustable. This means that not only can the distance between the lower half of the two sides of the frame be widened, but the distance between the squeeze plates can also be increased, even after installation. Photographic evidence provided by the manufacturer (see next page) indicates how accessible they are. In fact they would be a significant improvement on the existing kissing gates which due to their width are difficult if not impossible to use by anyone in a wheelchair etc Whilst Stoke Park is within a conservation area it should be noted that the K-frame barriers are the most effective means to prevent access to the park by anyone on a motorbike/moped, whilst ensuring that anyone with a mobility impairment or pushing a pram can easily access the park, which judging from the responses received from local residents currently appears to be an issue. There is currently no alternative form of gate/barrier which suitably addresses both issues. It has been suggested that the access points are left open. However, this would be unacceptable as it would allow anyone on a motorcycle/moped free rein to drive freely within the park, posing a significant safety hazard to other users, particularly those with mobility impairments, as well as for the livestock especially if they will be used for breeding purposes.

File Name: S:\TRAFFIC\TranPlan\City Transport\02 DEV MAN\01 PLANNING\2019\19.01213.FB Stoke

Park Park Road\01 CORRESPONDENCE\01 FORMAL COMMENTS\19.01213.FB.docx

Although not part of this application, to enable the reintroduction of seasonal cattle grazing within the park, livestock fencing together with self-closing gates are planned to be installed this year. As part of this work vehicular gates and pedestrian/cyclist gates will be provided to maintain access to the existing PROW’s. Whilst the proposed shared path does run through an area of proposed cattle grazing, no cattle grids are proposed. Furthermore by introducing surfacing at some of the gates, such as at the new K-frame barrier on Romney Avenue by Stanfield Close, access will be improved as it will replace grass which often gets muddy during wet conditions. Width / Materials / Drainage / Lighting The applicant proposes to upgrade a number of existing footpaths and follow most of the route of a historic carriage drive. It is proposed that the shared use path along with two spurs will be 3m wide. Both Historic England and the council’s conservation officer have expressed concerns that as there is no historic precedent for these spurs and that therefore their width should be reduced. Whilst Transport Development Management appreciates their concerns, if the width of the path were to be reduced this could increase the risk of conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, something which has been raised within many of the objections received. Furthermore as part of the consultation exercise one of the questions referred specifically to the width of the path. The majority of people that responded supported a 3m wide footpath. By following the route of the historic carriage drive and the existing contours of the land, minimal earthworks will be required. The drive and any other archaeological features will be protected by laying a geotextile membrane. Due to the historic setting the applicant proposes to construct the route using self-binding gravel. Whilst this has a more natural look in keeping with the rural environment and may discourage

Source: www.kbarriers.co.uk/dual-adjustment

File Name: S:\TRAFFIC\TranPlan\City Transport\02 DEV MAN\01 PLANNING\2019\19.01213.FB Stoke

Park Park Road\01 CORRESPONDENCE\01 FORMAL COMMENTS\19.01213.FB.docx

high speed cycling, it is more susceptible to wet conditions and will require regular annual maintenance. It is therefore recommended that stone to dust is used as it is less likely to wash out and is more frost and vehicular resistant. Whilst a number of other materials were considered such as asphalt these were rejected as it was considered they would not be in keeping with the setting and on consulting Historic England they indicated their preference for self-binding gravel and that they would object to an SMA surface. In order to preserve the historic carriage drive the route will be constructed directly on top of it and a geotextile membrane will be used to protect it and any other archaeological features. The depth and type of materials used will vary according to the ground conditions and the need to protect adjacent structures and woodland. In general the shared use path will be composed of a 50mm surface course of 0-30mm self-binding gravel, a 100mm to 300mm thick Type 1/Type 3 granular sub-base, a 300mm thick 6F2 capping layer in locations where site plant is running, a geotextile membrane and either 150 x 50mm PCC edging in class ST1 concrete haunches or 47mm x 200mm timber edging with 50mm x 50mm x 500mm stakes at 1m centres, where no-dig construction is required. To prevent the accumulation of surface water when it rains, in general the crossfall of the shared path will channel run-off into the adjacent verges. However, in places where there is a significant north-south crossfall infiltration trenches will be used to limit any ponding. These will consist of a filter drain wrapped in a permeable membrane 500mm x 750mm deep with a 150mm perforated pipe wrapped in permeable membrane laid flat, stopped in 12m intervals. Where these will be required next to the historic carriage drive, a 1m deep non-permeable geotextile membrane will be provided to protect it. To reduce the formation of erosion channels smooth, evenly sloped surfaces will be provided to spread surface flows more evenly and any run-off will soak away naturally. The proposed improved surface and drainage will be a significant improvement on the existing footpaths which consist of mainly mown grass or unmade gravel, which are prone to become muddy or waterlogged and as a result difficult to negotiate in wet conditions. Due to the visual and the potential impact on bats within the parkland, the applicant has chosen not to provide any external lighting in order to illuminate the shared path at night. Whilst lighting would be preferred, given the environmental/conservation issues, this is acceptable. Other Improvements In addition to the above works Highways England will be funding a range of improvements to the M32 underpass, an area that local residents raised as needing attention. This is to be welcomed. The councils Parks Department will also be undertaking a number of improvements associated with the Stewardship Agreement. In addition to this the applicant has proposed to provide some seating and information boards, although both will need to be sensitively located and the style, materials and method of construction would need to be approved by the Parks Department, Historic England, Natural England and with the input of local residents. As a result bar one site, the location of any seating has not been shown on the plans. It has been suggested that the project should also fund signage and combined litter and dog waste bins. The applicant has indicated that they consider this to be outside the remit of the project. Barring directional signage that will be provided, Transport Development Management considers this to be acceptable.

File Name: S:\TRAFFIC\TranPlan\City Transport\02 DEV MAN\01 PLANNING\2019\19.01213.FB Stoke

Park Park Road\01 CORRESPONDENCE\01 FORMAL COMMENTS\19.01213.FB.docx

Maintenance / Construction Management If permission were to be granted, once constructed the future management/maintenance of the shared path, excluding a 12 month defect period, would become the responsibility of the councils Parks Departments. A commuted sum of £400,000 to cover future maintenance over a 15 year period will be payable for which a Memorandum of Understanding will be required. To enable the path to be constructed the applicant proposes to provide a temporary site compound within the park at the west end of the path, to be accessed from Romney Avenue via a temporary haul road between No’s 262 and 270. It will be necessary to temporarily widen some of the existing footpaths (two of which are being used as driveways) from Stoke Park to Romney Avenue. Given their poor state of repair they must be upgraded as part of the proposed work in order to provide a safe route and to encourage its use by cyclists and pedestrians. As three of the four footpaths are maintained by Housing & Landlord Services it would be necessary to get their permission. It will be incumbent on the applicant to reinstate the removal of any grass. The temporary site compound will be surrounded by security fencing with two areas for the storage of plant and materials as well as two 3m x 10m site offices and welfare facilities and nine parking spaces for staff and visitors. Due to the impact on the surrounding highway network a Construction Management Plan will be required. As this is an internal application a Highway Condition Survey is not considered necessary. As it is likely that the existing footpaths will either need to be closed or temporarily diverted during construction, as one of those affected is a PROW the applicant will be required to obtain a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order and give suitable notice to pedestrians/cyclists of any changes. Recommendations Traffic modelling undertaken to understand the impact any additional vehicles generated by the new housing would have, indicated that the number of homes planned may not be achievable without the provision of additional sustainable transport infrastructure, such as the shared route proposed. This is due to the fact that the Lockleaze can only be accessed via Shaldon Road, Lockleaze Road and Bonnington Walk. The proposal will also help fulfil both Bristol and South Gloucestershire council’s policies to improve connectivity, promote sustainable forms of travel, link key destinations and mitigate congestion and climate change. Whilst the shared route will have an impact on Stoke Park, Transport Development Management considers that the proposed route, access improvements, materials and signage have been designed to minimise this impact as much as possible and are therefore deemed to be acceptable. Conditions Approval of Road Works Necessary Prior to commencement general arrangement plan(s) indicating the following works to the highway shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

 Upgrading of footpaths between 270 and 262 Romney Avenue These works shall be completed prior to occupation of the development to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority

File Name: S:\TRAFFIC\TranPlan\City Transport\02 DEV MAN\01 PLANNING\2019\19.01213.FB Stoke

Park Park Road\01 CORRESPONDENCE\01 FORMAL COMMENTS\19.01213.FB.docx

Reason: In the interests of public safety and to ensure that all road works associated with the proposed development are planned and approved in good time to include any statutory processes, are undertaken to a standard approved by the Local Planning Authority and are completed before occupation. Construction Management Plan No development shall take place, including any demolition works, until a construction management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan shall be adhered to throughout the demolition/construction period. The plan shall provide for:

 24 hour emergency contact number;

 Hours of operation;

 Parking of vehicle of site operatives and visitors (including measures taken to ensure satisfactory access and movement for existing occupiers of neighbouring properties during construction);

 Routes for construction traffic;

 Locations for loading/unloading and storage of plant, waste and materials used in constructing the development;

 Method of preventing mud being carried onto the highway;

 Measures to protect vulnerable road users (cyclists and pedestrians);

 Measures to allow pedestrians/cyclists to be able to continue accessing Stoke Park during the construction period as well as the temporary rerouting of footpaths

 Any necessary temporary traffic management measures;

 Arrangements to enable pedestrians/cyclists to continue accessing Stoke Park during the construction period as well as the temporary rerouting of footpaths

 Arrangements for turning vehicles;

 Arrangements to receive abnormal loads or unusually large vehicles;

 Methods of communicating the Construction Management Plan to staff, visitors and neighbouring residents and businesses.

C8 Completion of Pedestrians/Cyclists Access – Shown Advices I025) Minor works on the Public Highway I028) Public Right of Way I043) Impact on the highway network during construction

on 2019-05-02   SUPPORT

Having a path through stoke park will improve accesibility and so encourage a widerrange of people to use this wonderful green space. The path will also enable people with mobilityissues and people using pushchairs etc to access the park and in turn offer the wellbeing benefitsof accessing green space a wider population.

on 2019-05-02   SUPPORT

I love Stoke Park having worked by it for so many years and I am bringing more andmore people to see and enjoy it. However, as some of my friends are disabled I can't bring themright now and look forward to this being built so I can share it with them too. It means that thosewho are less steady on their feet can get into the park during more of the year too which is great. Ilike the positioning where it follows the original carriageway as this gives such a wonderfulimmersion into the field.

on 2019-05-01   SUPPORT

Stoke Park currently does not provide easy access to those with mobility problems. It isimportant that this wonderful space is open to all sections of the community as much as isfeasible. I therefore broadly support this application on the grounds that it will enable access to animportant and valuable area of Bristol's green space to parents with buggies, wheelchair users,and others who might otherwise find the terrain difficult and cannot currently use it. However, I dohave concerns about the design as well as the shared use of the path, and wish to record myrecommendation that strenuous efforts are made to ensure that it is designed/managed in a waythat ensures pedestrians have proper access/usage and that cyclists cannot dominate the spacethrough excessive speed. I am also concerned about the path surface: it is essential that this is nota black tarmac path but an alternative surface that blends with the natural environment as muchas possible. Stoke Park is a precious green space and making sure we balance the right to accesswith preserving its environmental value is essential.

on 2019-05-01  

2

Looking at the table at Schedule One, two other trees are identified for removal, though no

reason is given why this should happen. These are T359 & T360. Both are Ash. The first has a

heavy lean to north over a neighbouring garden, but no obvious significant defects. The second

supports arboreal ivy and has a heavy lean to north over neighbouring garden, but no obvious

significant defects. Both trees are classified at C1 according to the guidance provided in Table

1 of BS5837.

BS 5837 should not be applied in this case.

The Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been carried out in accordance with BS 5837. This is

designed for use when considering the retention or removal of trees in the context of

development and construction of housing and commercial premises etc. It is not designed to be

used when assessing trees growing in a parkland setting where the only thing being constructed

is an all‐weather accessible path.

BS 5837 only considers what ‘the effect that construction requirements might have on the

amenity value’. ‘Amenity value’ is not defined. Whilst any of the trees surveyed may well be

capable of being categorised in accordance with this standard, BS 5837 does not take each

tree’s long-term value into account, nor does it give any regard to its future contribution to

the ecological benefits which trees growing in Stoke Park Estate (whatever their condition short

of being dangerous) may bring.

NPPF 2019 should be applied in this case. NPPF 2019 makes it clear that (paragraph 170b):

Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and

local environment by…recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the

countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services –

including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural

land, and of trees and woodland;

At paragraph 175c it adds:

development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as

ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are

wholly exceptional reasons…

At Annex 2 – the Glossary it defines Irreplaceable habitat as:

Habitats which would be technically very difficult (or take a very significant time)

to restore, recreate or replace once destroyed, taking into account their age,

uniqueness, species diversity or rarity…

The context of this framework is further developed in GOV.UK’s Natural environment

guidance. These are the sorts of criteria that should be applied at Stoke Park Estate when

considering this application.

Both Planning Authorities incorporate (or plan to incorporate) the National Planning Policy

Framework into their Local Plans.

3

These trees should not be removed.

In our view, there are no ‘wholly exceptional reasons’ why any of these trees should be

removed.

At a time when Ash trees are facing an unprecedented threat due to Hymenoscyphus fraxineus

(commonly known as Ash dieback), we surely need to be keeping as many healthy Ash trees in

the landscape as possible? Most of trees marked for removal are Ash.

Some of these trees, with the correct management, could well grow to be the ‘Veterans’ of the

park in the future or even prove to be resistant to Ash dieback. Cavities, decay, spits and scars

on trees also provide essential habitat for many species. Just because a tree may be considered

to be ‘low grade’ according to BS 5837, does not mean that it does not offer many of the wider

environmental and biodiversity benefits which a varied and diverse population of native trees

(which these are) growing in this parkland environment bring.

In our opinion, none of the trees which need not be removed to realise the plan should be

removed. This means that the six trees (T356, T357, T358, T373, T359 & T360) recommended

for removal only because of their condition should be retained. It is to be expected that

woodland will include a mix of trees covering a range of maturity and condition.

Of the remaining five trees - T379 should be retained. Its condition and striking position justify

it. There is no reason why the line of the path cannot be adjusted to pass either side of it in

much the same way that the path has been adjusted to pass between hedges H3 & H4, thus:

The gaps between T379 and T378 or T380 appear quite enough to allow this, with the possible

added benefit that speeding cyclists will be forced to slow down in order to navigate the

‘chicane’.

4

If T373 has not been misallocated and falls into the list of trees recommended for removal in

the first group above, there seems to us to be absolutely no reason why it should be felled. It

is growing on open ground near the radio repeater station (the red pin in the image below) and

should be easy to avoid, as the track which passes to the north of it already does.

5

This leaves four trees growing in the north-eastern woodland (T351, T352, T353 & T355). Given

the close proximity of other trees growing close to the existing path, it seems surprising that a

route cannot be found which avoids ‘colliding’ with any tree at all.

These comments are also made against the background of Bristol City Council’s recently-

expressed aspiration to double tree canopy cover (TCC) from 12% to 24% by 2046 and South

Gloucestershire Council’s plan to increase it from 11% to 15% by 2060. In our experience

(admittedly just in Bristol), there has been a historic trend of not replacing trees that are

felled, or not replacing them on a like-for-like basis. This is true particularly of street trees.

This has been happening piecemeal, but its impact is likely to have led to a decline in TCC. This

may not be the case in South Gloucestershire, but we are aware of the growing pressures to

rezone green spaces for housing and other urban infrastructure in and around the South West.

The loss of 11 trees from what appears to be a well-wooded space may not seem significant,

but the same might be said for most applications to remove trees in the way of planned

development. It is exactly this death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach which has contributed to

this historic decline, a decline which must be reversed if both counties are going to achieve

their ambition to increase TCC.

If, despite all this, either LPA concludes that trees must be felled, then we endorse their

replacement in accordance with the Bristol’s Local Plan policy DM17: Development Involving

Existing Green Infrastructure (p. 36) (which we encourage South Gloucestershire Council to

follow in this case, if at all possible), but with the following caveats:

1. The replacement species should be well-established (not whips) natives selected with a

like-for-like growth habit and eventual mature size to the trees lost.

2. Replacement trees should be planted within the Stoke Lodge Estate in consultation with

the park users.

3. The calculation of the number of replacements to plant should assume that all the trees

being replaced are at least of quality category C as set out in BS 5837.

Bristol Tree Forum

01 May 2019.

on 2019-04-29   SUPPORT

Stoke Park, Purdown and Lockleaze Open Space provide essential communityresource for education, wellbeing (especially for mental health) and exercise. In previous studiesdating back to Lockleaze Vision (2007) through to more recent consultations (2017 BCCconsultation, Lockleaze community survey 2017, BCC community development team conversation17-18) residents have identified poor access as a major issue in use of the park. At points of theyear the entrances are so muddy as to be impassable unless in wellies and full wet-weather gear.This plus lack of signage, way-finding points and pathways make the park not very legible for mostusers. making it the private enjoyment of a few.With resources in such high demand we cannot keep a gem like this hidden and inaccessible.

The Campaing to Protect Rural England (CPRE) note that half the country's most socially deprivedareas are more than 15 miles from national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, only1% of BAME visit compared with 14% of population - but here is Stoke Park next to Lockleaze with1 LSOA in 10% most deprived 4 LSOAs in the 10-20% most deprived in England, 30% BAME sothere is a real opportunity to open up access to increase the benefits of natural world - fresh air,exercise, education to increase health and well being of those most in need. To provide access tothose most often excluded from green space through both physical and social obstacles.

Striking in the Lockleaze community survey and the Stoke Park path consultation was theresponse from users with mobility differences who's comments included " I can't access the parkand think it is in breach of DDA", the local care giver who said " we sometimes hire minibuses toAshton Court once a year or so but it would be great if we could access the park on our doorstop"

and older users who said "we don't go in there in the winter because we just worry about fallingover and getting stuck". Lockleaze, and Bristol parks, should be a place that is accessible to alland providing accessible paths that provide some access to this amazing local asset is essentialto that.

We recognise that there are some concerns about the impact to the heritage, wildlife and wildnessof the park. The consultation and amended version has respected the compromise between thosethat wanted tarmac 4m+ for maximum ease for accessiblity scooters, and those that wantedminimally invasive - we think this proposal is a good compromise. There were different routessuggested - we think this proposal best reflects existing desire lines and is sympathetic to both themodern usage and historical features. There were concerns about lighting and the impact thatwould have on wildlife (especially bats and gloworms) and note that lighting on the path has beenremoved.

In 2017 we worked on a video project with some young people and Stoke Park was identified as akey resource for positive mental health, and there were discussions about BMX tracks and otheruses to encourage more young people outside. We think with two local schools (Stoke Parkprimary and CST secondary) in the area, good access to the park will provide the necessaryinfrastructure to support outdoor learning and cultivate a love of nature that will benefit the nextgeneration.

We believe this accessible path will provide the necessary infrastructure to support more accessand enjoyment of this incredible resource for the benefit of local residents and the wider city.

on 2019-04-25   SUPPORT

I fully support this plan as a way of opening access to and through the park. This willbenefit Trinity Academy as a possible route for some of our students. Any plan that makes thissafer, better and more accessible is fully supported by us at the Cathedral Schools Trust.

on 2019-04-21   OBJECT

I object to the proposed cycle path for several reasons. The route cuts across aprotected and historic park and will be both an eyesore and a dangerous intrusion on an area usedby many park users including young children, joggers and dog walkers. The proposal to gravelover the historic cart track is unbelievable and I am surprised that the parties involved are allowingthis to happen - this will not preserve it but merely bury it and destroy it and its historicalsignificance will be lost. An all weather cycle path already exists between Lockleaze and StokePark via Long down Ave and therefore the argument that there is a need for transportinfrastructure in this area is futile as a perfectly suitable cycle path is already in place. By creatinga joint usage path, the dangers for collisions to both pedestrians and the cyclists is very high dueto the directness of the path, the area which is heavily used by dog walkers and families and thesteepness of the route. Therefore , the proposal is both pointless ( duplicating paths) anddangerous to all users.

The proposed path also brings other potential issues - not only will it ruin a historic cart way,disturb the habitat of wildlife and birds in the area but will encourage further incidences ofmotorcycles in the park. These are dangerous to the wildlife, destroys the woodland paths andhabitat and cause noise and nuisance to other park users. By providing them access gates ateach end, there will be nothing to stop them using the path as a race track. The current gate onJellicoe Avenue adequately prevents access to these banned vehicles and so should not beremoved. In addition to motorcycles, the pathway will lead to further anti social behaviour. This is aconcern to the residents whose properties back on to the pathway near Jellicoe Avenue,particularly the security of the military families in the area and which will be exacerbated by the

removal of the adjacent trees and undergrowth for the covering of the cart track.The argument for increasing access to the park for less mobile users should be addressedproperly. Whilst I agree that access can be challenging, particularly in the winter months, thisproposed path does little to allow wheelchair users better and safer access to the park. Instead ofruining the park with a 3m wide path which cuts across the heart of it and which is dangerous dueto its steepness and joint usage with cyclists, the council should consider the actual needs ofthose who require assisted access by liaising and working with disability and mobilityorganisations and actively engaging with ALL of the local residents to decide a suitable solution,something which they sadly failed to do with this project. Despite many suggestions for alternativepaths and different areas where access improvements would be more beneficial , the council sadlyignored these voices of the local residents and park users.

This "transport " path is dangerous, totally unnecessary, a waste of money and detrimental to thehistoric park and its wildlife. The money could and should be better spent on the area and thepreservation of this much loved open space together with its tranquility , diverse wildlife andnatural beauty should be the top priority of this council who are responsible to preserve and lookafter it now, and for future generations.

on 2019-04-17   OBJECT

This is entirely unsuitable as a cycle route. Having cycling directed through fields ofcattle is very unsafe, frequent gates are slow and inconvenient, sections are hazardously steep,and a shared use path which attempts to be both a cycle transport route and an accessibilityleisure route has conflict between users built in. There is already a suitable route around theoutside of the park which could be refurbished without cutting into the greenspace and provide amuch safer alternative for both cyclists and other park users. I object to this as a cycle route.

Some path to allow wheelchair users and those with buggies etc. all weather access to thegreenspace could be reasonable, but it does not need to be a route all the way through the park, itjust needs to provide useable entrances and link some of the existing routes. It should not cut rightthrough the centre of fields which will be visually intrusive in what is currently a beautiful 'wild'space in easy reach of urban populations. A smaller path along the edge of the field would bemuch better.

on 2019-04-17   OBJECT

I strongly object to this proposal, which will ruin the open space I use on a regular basis.It is an example of the Disneyfication of heritage. Replacing the old carriageway with a modernhard surface will not "restore" it, it will destroy it. The path is currently very evocative of its past(something the photos in the application fail to convey). It will no longer be evocative of anythingbut suburbia if this work is allowed. A new path will remove the sense of a large green naturalenvironment, thereby severely impacting on the landscape amenity of what is supposed to beprotected open space. It will also encourage motor bikes, endangering pedestrians and destroyingthe peace. Even encouraging cyclists is not on. Pedestrians have to be left with some placeswhere they are unharrassed by faster modes of transport. There is already ample cycle provisionin this area with the path/road on the other side of the woods. There is no need for this work and itwill damage this historic parkland.

on 2019-04-16  

on 2019-04-13   SUPPORT

1. People with Limited Mobility / No Mobility - With the introduction of the proposedaccessible paths, such a community with assistance for the first time will be able to enjoy the Parkwhich able bodied people have been to do for tens of years. This will be possible throughout theyear because of the proposed surface. There will be no need for specialist footwear and thussaving on cost. Because of the proposed width of 3 metres there will be ample room to share withcyclists as the current shared tarmac path from the Dower House to mini round at bottom ofBlackberry Hill.2. Parents with Children in Buggies - This is another class of Users who have largely beenexcluded from the Park because there have been no accessible paths apart from the tarmac paththat runs from the Dower House to mini round about at bottom of Blackberry Hill. The introductionof the proposed accessible paths should see a lot of younger families in the Park for the first time.3. The accessible path from Stanfield Close should make the journey of the Forest School childrena lot pleasanter in the winter months when then they visit the woods in the Park.4. The accessible paths will provide point to point routes for cyclists:- Stapleton to the City via Muller Road (via St John's Lane),- Stapleton to Lockleaze (Stanfield Close) and- Stapleton to Mod via Cheswick (existing)5. We should not throw away this massive opportunity of the new funding pot. From myexperience we probably need to put in 10 to 15 bids to win such an amount of money and we doknow when the Council will land such a huge a pot to fund the accessible paths. So please, let usnot throw away this opportunity.6. The choice of colour of gravel surface will blend in the surrounds over time.

on 2019-04-12  

on 2019-04-10  

Bristol City Council Website Growth and Regeneration – Management of Place P.O. Box 3176 Bristol BS3 9FS

www.bristol.gov.uk

• Add to the network of good quality paths for pedestrians, cyclists and other users of Stoke Park;

• Help to mitigate the impact of increased housing provision and other development in the surrounding area in terms of road congestion and air pollution.

The proposed route includes a portion of PROW BCC/147/10 and the line of BCC/81/10 in its entirity to the BCC boundary (where it follows PROW in South Gloucestershire). As the proposal materially affects these PROW then this needs to be advertised as such as part of the planning process.

Detailed comments on the impact of the proposals on these PROW and others which intersect with it are outlined in section 2.2 below, cross-referenced with the enclosed map. 2. Detailed comments 2.1 Path materials, access control and infrastructure It is noted that the proposed path will be 3 metres wide (the recommended minimum width for a shared use path) and surfaced with self-binding buff-coloured gravel, with soft edges reinstated. Although it follows the route of a historic carriage drive, the existing surface is largely mown grass or unmade gravel and earth track that is prone to become muddy or water-logged and therefore difficult to negotiate in wet conditions. The proposed improved surface and drainage solutions are therefore welcome, particularly the emphasis on restoring the integrity of the historic eighteenth century carriageway the protective membrane overlaying buried stone surface and other measures to protect and retain the archaeological integrity. Any gates to be installed across a PROW shall be the maintenance responsibility of the landowner and will be subject to inspections to ensure that they continue to meet health and safety standards. Gates can only be installed for containing livestock and should be considered for removal in the event that they are no longer required. Such gates should meet the one-way or two-way self-closing specification of BS5709:2018 (Gaps, gates and stiles) for ease of use by all users including cyclists and those using mobility vehicles. Although the proposed K-frame barriers to be installed at the access points from Romney Avenue and Jellicoe Avenue are not directly impacting on BCC PROW, we would point out that such barriers do not comply with BS5709:2018 (Gaps, gates and stiles). In addition, the access point at Romney Avenue/ Stanfield Close lacks the ‘substantial manoeuvring’ space that section 6.3.8 of BS5709:2018 prescribes for users with mobility vehicles, pushchairs or buggies and cyclists to turn into it from the Romney Road footway. Given the core aim of ensuring that the path is accessible to users with reduced mobility, we would point out the Physical Access Standards provided by the Fieldfare Trust: http://www.fieldfare.org.uk/countryside-for-all/physical-access-standards/. In particular, we would recommend that bases for resting places are implemented when the main path is constructed rather than retro-fitted (even if the benches are added later). The Fieldfare Trust standard suggests placing the resting places every 100m in an urban context or 200m in an urban fringe context.

Bristol City Council Website Growth and Regeneration – Management of Place P.O. Box 3176 Bristol BS3 9FS

www.bristol.gov.uk

The Maintenance Statement for the proposed new path confirms ‘5-year formal inspection, supported by informal observation by BCC Parks staff, probably supported by FoSP or public reporting’ for the path surface and construction, signage and other maintenance requirements. The PROW Team would also report any maintenance issues for the sections of the path along which PROW run as and when they conduct site visits. The ring-fenced budget for on-going maintenance of the new path is welcomed. 2.2 Impact on individual PROW BCC/147/10 The realignment of the western portion of the main path through the Purdown Percy scheduled monument along the alignment of the PROW (see Point 1 on the enclosed map) is welcome and the ‘No dig’ self-binding gravel surface and ramps to the relict gun emplacements will improve accessibility through the monument. Similarly, the proposed self-binding gravel surface running north-eastwards and continuing on the alignment of BCC/147/10 before curving north would be a welcome improvement in the surface and accessibility of this part of the PROW. As the PROW Team have already confirmed, the side gates to the lockable main access gates at either end of the scheduled monument should meet the two-way self-closing specification of BS5709:2018 (Gaps, gates and stiles) for ease of use by all users including cyclists and those using mobility vehicles. The Proposed Surfacing Plan for the SM submitted with the Scheduled Monument Consent Application (which incorrectly shows the ‘existing public right of way’ ending at the eastern perimeter) indicates an alternative footpath route around the southern perimeter of the scheduled monument to enable users to divert around the monument. The proposed use of this PROW diversion if and when the self-closing gates alongside the main gates are locked has been the subject of on-going discussion. If a path diversion order is not instigated as part of the planning approval process, these gates would constitute an illegal obstruction when locked until such time as a diversion order is put in place. BCC/144/10 The curved northern section of the PROW currently runs on the western side of the boundary to the field through which the proposed new path will run. Rather than having a PROW parallel with the new path, we would like to see the PROW alignment here diverted onto the new path surface, with the section of new path that then links southwards with BCC/147/10 at the scheduled monument dedicated as a new section of PROW (as indicated on the enclosed map). The benefits of this rationalisation have been discussed with the path project team who expressed a willingness to fund any costs involved from the project budget. Although this would be progressed via a public path order outside of the planning process, we would request that this be included as a planning condition. BCC/144/10, BCC/80/10 and BCC/80/20 A fingerpost is proposed at the junction of the main path with the southern spur to Romney Avenue (see point 2 on the enclosed map). As the path intersects with a number of PROW here (BCC/144/10 to the south, BCC/80/10 to the east, BCC/80/20 to the west and BCC/81/10 northwards) this fingerpost should include Public Footpath signs or waymarkers indicating the directions of these PROW.

Bristol City Council Website Growth and Regeneration – Management of Place P.O. Box 3176 Bristol BS3 9FS

www.bristol.gov.uk

BCC/81/10 This PROW follows the route of the historic carriageway and the proposed new path (see point 3 on the enclosed map). It is noted that the proposed self-binding gravel surface will lie on the existing historic carriage drive formation. As previously stated, this would be a welcome improvement in the surface and accessibility of this PROW. BCC/82/20 This PROW intersects with the proposed new path just short of the South Gloucestershire boundary. A few metres to the west, a fingerpost is proposed at the junction of the main path with the northern spur to Long Wood Meadow (see point 4 on the enclosed map). This fingerpost should include a Public Footpath sign or waymarker indicating the direction of BCC/82/20. 2.3 During construction Consideration would also need to be given to public access and safety for users of the PROW during construction work (see section 5. Bristol City Council Highways – planning conditions, 1028 and 1043 below). If construction works are likely to require the temporary closure or diversion of the PROW, a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) will be required for the duration of the works on the grounds of public safety. It is understood that construction work will be carried out in phased sections and diverted routes for each phase will need to be communicated effectively. 3. General policy advice 3.1 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 Development permanently affecting a Public Right of Way will require an order under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 to accompany the planning application. New routes will be subject to a detailed equality impact assessment. Please note in particular:

a. Proposals for new development will be expected to incorporate existing rights of way for the most part along their existing routes and/or reflect pedestrian desire lines. Early consultation with the PROW Team is advised.

b. New routes should be of an appropriate gradient for wheelchair use, preferably using areas of landscaping and amenity open space.

c. Routes should be signed to enable users to follow the public paths. d. No development should take place over the route of the path prior to the

confirmation of a TCPA path diversion order.

3.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 4. Promoting sustainable transport 35. Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies; give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians.

Bristol City Council Website Growth and Regeneration – Management of Place P.O. Box 3176 Bristol BS3 9FS

www.bristol.gov.uk

3.3 Government Circular - 1/09 Public Rights of Way 7.2 The effect of development on a public right of way is a material consideration in the determination of applications for planning permission. 3.4 Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy 4.9 Green Infrastructure Policy BC39 The integrity and connectivity of the strategic green infrastructure network will be maintained, protected and enhanced. Opportunities to extend the coverage and connectivity of the existing strategic green infrastructure network should be taken. Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development. Loss of green infrastructure will only be acceptable where it is allowed for as part of an adopted Development Plan Document or is necessary, on balance, to achieve the policy aims of the Core Strategy. Appropriate mitigation of the lost green infrastructure assets will be required. Development should incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure of an appropriate type, standard and size. Where on-site provision of green infrastructure is not possible, contributions will be sought to make appropriate provision for green infrastructure off site.

4.9.3 Provision of green active travel routes: Green infrastructure can include walking and cycle routes, public rights of way, accessible river corridors and green streets that create pleasant surroundings and links, which encourage physical activity as part of everyday life. The strategic green infrastructure network protects and enhances connections between elements of green infrastructure in the city and allows improved connectivity for people and wildlife. Improved mental and physical health of local communities: Green infrastructure ensures access to good quality recreational places and spaces, encourages active travel along cycle and walking routes, provides space for community activities and interaction, reduces noise and water pollution, improves air quality and also allows access to natural areas of space and wildlife. 4.10 Transport and Access Improvements Policy BCS10 The council will support the delivery of significant improvements to transport infrastructure to provide an integrated transport system, which improves accessibility within Bristol and supports the proposed levels of development: including a network of routes to encourage walking and cycling. Safeguarding of Routes and Facilities Land required for the implementation of transport proposals will be safeguarded to enable their future provision. Corridors with the potential to serve as future routes for

Bristol City Council Website Growth and Regeneration – Management of Place P.O. Box 3176 Bristol BS3 9FS

www.bristol.gov.uk

walking, cycling and public transport will also be safeguarded. Appropriate existing transport facilities such as transport depots will be safeguarded where required. 4.10.9 Walking and Cycling: Improved pedestrian and cycling facilities through specific schemes; improvements secured through new development, and as part of wider public transport and highway improvement schemes. 3.5 Bristol City Council Highways – planning conditions Pre-commencement: B1 Highway Works – General Arrangement Plan No development shall take place until general arrangement plan(s) to a scale of 1:200 indicating works to the adopted highway have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, including:

• Extent of any stopping up or dedication of new highway (including all public rights of way shown on the definitive map and statement).

• No development should take place over the route of the public right of way prior to the confirmation of a Town & Country Planning Act 1990 path diversion/stopping up order.

1028 Public Right of Way (PROW) Where a property boundary of the development approved abuts a PROW, you are advised that before undertaking any work you must contact the Highway Authority’s Public Rights of Way Team by emailing rightsofway@bristol.gov.uk Whilst it may be unlikely that the PROW will be affected by the proposed development:

• The PROW should remain open, unobstructed and safe for public use at all times;

• No materials are to be stored or spilled on the surface of the PROW; • There must be no encroachment onto the width of the PROW; • No vehicles are to use the PROW without lawful authority of the landowner(s),

unless a private right of way is shown on property deeds. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the appropriate private right exists or has been acquired from the landowner.

• Any scaffolding and/or skips placed over or adjacent to the PROW must not obstruct public access or inconvenience the public in their use of the way and must be properly licensed. Licences can be found online at: www.bristol.gov.uk/highwaylicences

• Any interference of the PROW either whilst demolition/construction is in progress or on completion, may well constitute a criminal offence.

If construction works are likely to temporarily affect the right of way, a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) will be required to close or divert the PROW for the duration of the works on the grounds of safety of the public. To discuss and/or apply for a TTRO contact the Highway Authority’s Network Management Team by emailing traffic@bristol.gov.uk

Bristol City Council Website Growth and Regeneration – Management of Place P.O. Box 3176 Bristol BS3 9FS

www.bristol.gov.uk

N.B. Any damage caused to the surface of the right of way during development works must be made good to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority. 1043 Impact on the highway network during construction If the development approved and any associated highway works required, is likely to impact on the operation of the highway network during its construction (and any demolition required), you are advised that before undertaking any work you must contact the Highway Authorities Network Management Team by emailing traffic@bristol.gov.uk to discuss any temporary traffic management measures required, such as footway, public right of way or carriageway closures or temporary parking restrictions a minimum of eight weeks prior to any activity on site to enable temporary Traffic Regulation Orders to be prepared and a programme of temporary traffic management measures to be agreed. 3.6 Highways Act 1980 - Local Public Path Order Policy As well as the legal tests set out in regulations, path order applications to divert or modify the route of a PROW will be assessed against the following criteria and the new path must be of equal or better quality than existing: connectivity, equalities impact, gaps and gates (least restrictive access principle), gradients, maintenance, safety, status, width and features of interest. 3.7 The Definitive Map The Definitive Map is a minimum record of public rights of way and does not preclude the possibility that public rights exist which have not been recorded or higher rights exist on routes shown as public footpaths and bridleways. I hope that the above comments are clear and useful. If you have any queries on the above or would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely

Eddie Procter Eddie Procter Public Rights of Way Officer Highway Network Management Bristol City Council

on 2019-04-09   SUPPORT

This path will make it easier for me to visit the park with a double buggy. It can be toodifficult to visit when its very muddy. This is as long as the entrances allow access for a doublebuggy.

on 2019-04-09  

May I suggest that the management plan (currently in draft format) includes a protocol for the reporting of and dealing with offenders of the above nuisance behaviour so that local residents and users of the park are aware of how to report issues to B.C.C and have the confidence that action will be taken ?. It is anticipated by B.C.C that the measures proposed will significantly increase footfall in the area which, in itself, will provide an increase in natural surveillance and may deter nuisance behaviour.

If I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Kindest regards

Crime Prevention advice is given free and without the intention of creating a contract. Neither do the Home Office nor do the Avon and Somerset Police take any other legal

responsibility for the advice given.

on 2019-04-08   SUPPORT

Can this path be fully accessible to mobility scooters.My wife would love to be able to access the park but at the moment there is no access for mobilityscooters.Thank you.

on 2019-04-08   OBJECT

on 2019-04-08   OBJECT

on 2019-04-08  

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND

Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation.

wide and undifferentiated from the carriage drive, be re-considered. Recommendation Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. We consider that the issues and safeguards outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 193 of the NPPF. Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us. Yours sincerely

Jo McAllister Heritage at Risk Landscape Architect E-mail: Jo.McAllister@historicengland.org.uk

on 2019-04-06   OBJECT

We would like to object to this proposal on the grounds that we will be overlooking theproposed road and would cause a lot of noise and disruption; there is already anti-social behaviouron the road and would only encourage more of it e.g. scramblers and motorbikes. Furthermore Itwould destroy the natural habitat in the surrounding area and all round cause chaos and mayhem.We are very opposed to this ideal of the construction of the road.

on 2019-04-05   SUPPORT

I believe this will open up Stoke Park creating better access for all users and making thepark more accessible in the winter. Consideration needs to be made on how to link this toglenfrome Road and concorde way to make the most of the connection as an alterative commuterroute and route to access glenfrome school / Eastville Park from lockleaze. This is a specific issuegiven muller Road plans that will make accessing glenfrome and Eastville more difficult due toincreased congestion at junction 2.

on 2019-04-05  

Reason: To ensure the protection of legally protected and priority (Section 41) species which are a material planning consideration. The following planning condition is recommended which accords with the recommendations in the extended phase one ecological survey reports dated 18 October and 27 November 2018 .Condition: Prior to occupation of the development details provided by a qualified ecological consultant shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority providing the specification, orientation, height and location for bird nesting and bat roosting opportunities and shown on a site plan with compass directions marked on it. This shall include eight bird and eight bat boxes. Bird boxes shall be installed to face between north and east to avoid direct sunlight and heavy rain. Bird boxes shall be erected out of the reach of predators and at least 3.5 metres high on publicly accessible sites. Bat boxes shall face south, between south-east and south-west. Bat boxes shall be erected at a height of at least four metres, close to hedges, shrubs or tree-lines and avoid well-lit locations. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To help conserve legally protected bats and birds which include priority species. I note that external lighting is not proposed along the path. Regards, Dr. Nick Michael B.A., M.A., Ph.D. (Ecology)Nature Conservation Officer (Planning)City Design Group – Growth and Regeneration DirectorateBristol City Council Tel. 0117 922 3403 By Post: City Design Group (City Hall), PO Box 3176, Bristol City Council BS3 9FS -----Original Message-----From: development.management@bristol.gov.uk [mailto:development.management@bristol.gov.uk] Sent: 20 March 2019 12:36To: Dr. Nick MichaelSubject: Request for comment on no. 19/01213/FB-Stoke Park Park Road Stapleton Bristol , please reply by 10 April 2019 Please see the attached request for comment for the above application

on 2019-04-03   SUPPORT

Stoke Park is currently let down by the lack of a sealed access route usable by all usersyear round.

The proposed path would go a long way to addressing this.

My concern is that if the route is promoted as a cycle way the proposed width is a little narrow forcomfortably shared use, and a width of 3.5-4m would be more appropriate

on 2019-04-03   SUPPORT

This path will transform access across Stoke Park & I look forward to using it onceimplemented.

on 2019-04-03   OBJECT

promotional material and events and a 3000 house leaflet maildrop. The above petition was submitted to a BCC full council meeting, and despite the obvious strength of feeling against it, the council are ploughing on with this application. I would urge that this application is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can take place to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming the visual amenity of it in the process. The carriageway might have been appropriate in the private country estate of a wealthy family in the 18th Century, when the whole area was open countryside, but this part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the day and we must protect it and the valuable role it plays in the mental health of it's users. This path proposal forms just one part of the council's wider plans to introduce a car park, cafe and further modern paths in the park. The current essence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of the key aims of this path is to provide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay, and yet this link already exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) path between Romney Avenue in Lockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower House in the north of the park. I find it bizarre that money intended to mitigate the extra car journeys from new housing in Lockleaze is being siphoned off to fulfill an ambition of BCC's Parks Team. In doing so, they will produce a path that is fundamentally unattractive to cyclists, due to it's surfacing and the gates and cattle grids that will need to be negotiated in using it. BCC's own application documents state that it will not be possible, due to these features, for someone to speed from one side of the park to other. That begs the question as to why cyclists wouldn't just use the existing tarmac path around the perimeter of the park instead. This money could be far better spent in providing cyclists with a cycle-only track alongside the aforementioned path (outside the park), which would arguably mitigate against car journeys from new housing far better than this proposal. It would also avoid conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, something which the application fails to adequately address. It would also leave the badgers referred to in the application's Extended Phase 1 ecological report to continue to cross the area undisturbed, much as we wish to. Access should be improved for those less-mobile, but this proposal is harmful to the character of this much-loved place and the council's blinkered approach in coming up with the proposal has been harmful to community relations. Despite it's long history, if the public don't feel involved in decisions regarding this public space, and don't feel 'ownership' of it, then it's future may not be so safe."

on 2019-04-03  

on 2019-04-03  

29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND

Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation.

wide and undifferentiated from the carriage drive, be re-considered. Recommendation Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. We consider that the issues and safeguards outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 193 of the NPPF. Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us. Yours sincerely

Jo McAllister Heritage at Risk Landscape Architect E-mail: Jo.McAllister@historicengland.org.uk

on 2019-04-02   SUPPORT

A fantastic opportunity to open up this beautiful area of green space to improve thehealth & wellbeing of all residents in the Lockleaze area & beyond.

on 2019-04-02   SUPPORT

on 2019-04-02  

the park in order to introduce cattle grazing. 467 people have signed a petition objecting to this path proposal (see https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/re-think-the-stoke-park-all-weather-path?fbclid=IwAR0TUTSc-rAr41nU0IqDC_eDooGDH2XSx5g1Su9jfVk6OvGZQqWg6NMD0-I), whereas the council's own consultation only achieved a comparatively small 108 people in favour of it, despite various promotional material and events and a 3000 house leaflet maildrop. The above petition was submitted to a BCC full council meeting, and despite the obvious strength of feeling against it, the council are ploughing on with this application. I would urge that this application is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can take place to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming the visual amenity of it in the process. The carriageway might have been appropriate in the private country estate of a wealthy family in the 18th Century, when the whole area was open countryside, but this part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the day and we must protect it and the valuable role it plays in the mental health of it's users. This path proposal forms just one part of the council's wider plans to introduce a car park, cafe and further modern paths in the park. The current essence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of the key aims of this path is to provide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay, and yet this link already exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) path between Romney Avenue in Lockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower House in the north of the park. I find it bizarre that money intended to mitigate the extra car journeys from new housing in Lockleaze is being siphoned off to fulfill an ambition of BCC's Parks Team. In doing so, they will produce a path that is fundamentally unattractive to cyclists, due to it's surfacing and the gates and cattle grids that will need to be negotiated in using it. BCC's own application documents state that it will not be possible, due to these features, for someone to speed from one side of the park to other. That begs the question as to why a cyclists wouldn't just use the existing tarmac path around the perimeter of the park instead. This money could be far better spent in providing cyclists with a cycle-only track alongside the aforementioned path (outside the park), which would arguably mitigate against car jounreys from new housing far better than this proposal. It would also avoid conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, something which the application fails to adequately address. It would also leave the badgers referred to in the application's Extended Phase 1 ecological report to continue to cross the area undisturbed, much as we wish to. Access should be improved for those less-mobile, but this proposal is harmful to the character of this much-loved place and the council's blinkered approach in coming up with the proposal has been harmful to community relations. Despite it's long history, if the public don't feel involved in decisions regarding this public space, and don't feel 'ownership' of it, then it's future may not be so safe.

on 2019-04-01   OBJECT

There are few truly green spaces left in the city. This park offers runners and dogwalkers alike the experience of the countryside whilst in the midst of a city. Putting a path in willruin the experience and is unnecessary. There are many access points around the outskirts of theestate that are paved or have access paths. We do not need further urbanisation.

on 2019-04-01   OBJECT

Planning Application 19/01213 FB

I would ask that the following observations are considered as part of the public response to theabove planning application.

In 1991 the former Stoke Park Restoration Trust, with financial support from both local councils,commissioned a Stoke Park Masterplan to inform future works that might be carried out within theparkland. The plan clearly states the importance of this unique area of our city.

Stoke Park is not just a convenient piece of open land remaining on the edge of Bristol. It has nowbeen recognised as a nationally important designed landscape laid out in the mid eighteenthcentury by Thomas Wright, now acknowledged as a figure of equal importance to "Capability"Brown and Humphrey Repton............

.........Stoke Park should not become a playground to be filled with attractions but must berecognised for its passive recreational value.

When the City Council accepted ownership of Stoke Park it was fully aware of its historicalsignificance and the need that all proposed works within the parkland should be tested against theoverarching aim of maintaining its passive recreational value.

I believe the creation of a shared use path in place of the former carriage drive to be unacceptable

in the context of the City Council's stewardship of an historic parkland. I base this belief upon thefollowing criteria:

Firstly, and most importantly, such a path is unnecessary. A suitable alternative already exists inthe form of the cycle path which runs from the edge of Lockleaze, looping around both Long Woodand Hermitage Wood, and thus into Long Down Avenue. From here the current cycle path throughStoke Park is easily accessible by way of quiet suburban roads and existing pathways. Any slightsaving on journey time afforded by a new path would justify neither its cost nor the irreparablechanges it would bring to the parkland.

Once any such path were in situ the familiar and inevitable domino effect would very likely lead toyet further inappropriate development within the parkland.

Stoke Park is primarily a landscape for pedestrians and maintaining its passive recreational valueshould inform all decisions made by the Council in relation to the parkland. A bicycle route with itsattendant speed, bustle and potential for misuse would represent an inappropriate intrusion into aheritage landscape.

Stoke Park should not be treated as an urban park. It is altogether something else. It perhapsshould be accepted that like great landscapes everywhere it will not always be totally accessible atall times of year, for all purposes, and to all people.

- The City Council's management and oversight of such projects is poor as evidenced by:

a. The disproportionate disruption resulting from the construction of the cycle track betweenDuchess Gate and Glenside campus.

b. The laying of a black tarred strip within metres of the listed 18th century Duchess Gate.

c. The total lack of maintenance afforded to existing tracks - one small example being the inactionin respect of flooding of the Stoke Park path at the M32 underpass.

If the City Council is serious in its desire to improve accessibility to Stoke Park there is muchwhich could be done without the construction of the path set out in this current application.Entrances to the parkland could be improved to prevent these pinch points flooding during winterrains. Access points should be designed to encourage legitimate users whilst acting as a deterrentto motor cyclists. There is strong historical evidence that the principal woodland paths wereoriginally gravelled. Some years ago a programme of works initiated by the previous owners of thepark restored some of these pathways. These should be maintained and, if deemed appropriate,the network of gravelled paths extended so that access to Long Wood and Hermitage Woods isreadily available from Cheswick Village. Improvements could also be made to the short pathway

connecting Hermitage and Barn Woods. In this way the entire woodland would be more readilyaccessible from existing points around the estate.

The current signs welcoming visitors to the Stoke Park Estate proudly proclaim it as a Grade lllisted landscape owned and managed by Bristol City Council. It is to be hoped that the City'sstewardship of this unique and precious place will be such as to provide inspiration to visitors fordecades to come - it is my view that the current proposal would only serve to degrade thelandscape and the application should be refused.

on 2019-04-01   SUPPORT

Whilst I am aware of and respect the concerns of some park users who oppose thisshared use path in Stoke park, I have taken into consideration a wide range of views from myconstituents. I have found that there is considerable support amongst some park users andparticularly local Lockleaze residents, for an accessible and all weather shared use path in StokePark. There is support for it from older and disabled people (particularly wheelchair users) whocurrently cannot access this beautiful open space at all, and who would like to use it. Evidenceshows the benefits to physical and mental health of access to green spaces and nature and Ibelieve our local park should be accessible to all. There is support from people who find theycannot use the park for several months a year when bad weather makes it slippery and dangerousunderfoot. There is support from parents who would like to be able to take prams and buggies intothe park and use it more with their children. Those who organise outdoor events in the park wouldfind it easier to manage these safely if there were a path, for example it would benefit the forestschool who walk over daily with their children and all their equipment.As a member of the Lockleaze Sports and Physical Activity partnership I would like to see morepeople use the park for leisure, walking, running, cycling and games, to improve health andwellbeing and a path would open up more opportunities for this kind of activity, including beingable to teach children to ride their bikes.From a transport point of view, there is a need for more walking and cycling routes to connectdifferent parts of the city to mitigate the impact of new housing and a new secondary school, andwe would like to encourage active travel to reduce traffic congestion on nearby roads. Active travelhas benefits for health and the reduction of car journeys will improve the current problems wehave with air pollution.

I believe that the use of established pathways following a historic route would not detract from thehistoric preservation of the estate.I do have some concerns about the potential speed of cyclists and it will be important to establishguidelines on reasonable speed and conduct of cyclists to keep pedestrians safe and manage theshared use effectively. I am keen to see good signage, effective disabled access points as part ofthe project that also discourage unauthorised use of motorbikes, and if possible seating, directionsigns and any other measures that will make the park easier to navigate and more attractive towalkers. I believe this path would make Stoke Park more inclusive and welcoming, and by openinga new walking/cycling route, would be of benefit to local residents.

on 2019-04-01   OBJECT

Park definitely meets all those criteria. The policy text says that "Development that results in harm to the Local Green Space's characteristics, appearance or role will not be permitted. Ancillary development of a proportional scale that supports the function and role of the Local Green Space may be acceptable provided it does not have a harmful impact on the space as a whole." Many people feel that this development will fundamentally harm the space as a whole, especially given the local conflict between the community and the council over the introduction of extensive barbed wire fencing in the park in order to introduce cattle grazing. 467 people have signed a petition objecting to this path proposal (see https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/re-think-the-stoke-park-all-weather-path?fbclid=IwAR0TUTSc-rAr41nU0IqDC_eDooGDH2XSx5g1Su9jfVk6OvGZQqWg6NMD0-I), whereas the council's own consultation only achieved a comparatively small 108 people in favour of it, despite various promotional material and events and a 3000 house leaflet maildrop. The above petition was submitted to a BCC full council meeting, and despite the obvious strength of feeling against it, the council are ploughing on with this application. I would urge that this application is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can take place to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming the visual amenity of it in the process.

The carriageway might have been appropriate in the private country estate of a wealthy family in the 18th Century, when the whole area was open countryside, but this part of Bristol is becoming more urbanised by the day and we must protect it and the valuable role it plays in the mental health of it's users. This path proposal forms just one part of the council's wider plans to introduce a car park, cafe and further modern paths in the park. The current essence of what makes it so special will be lost. One of the key aims of this path is to provide an 'active travel connection' between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay, and yet this link already exists with a mixed user (cycle and pedestrian) path between Romney Avenue in Lockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower House in the north of the park. I find it bizarre that money intended to mitigate the extra car journeys from new housing in Lockleaze is being siphoned off to fulfill an ambition of BCC's Parks Team. In doing so, they will produce a path that is fundamentally unattractive to cyclists, due to it's surfacing and the gates and cattle grids that will need to be negotiated in using it. BCC's own application documents state that it will not be possible, due to these features, for someone to speed from one side of the park to other. That begs the question as to why a cyclists wouldn't just use the existing tarmac path around the perimeter of the park instead. This money could be far better spent in providing cyclists with a cycle-only track alongside the aforementioned path (outside the park), which would arguably mitigate against car jounreys from new housing far better than this proposal. It would also avoid conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, something which the application fails to adequately address. It would also leave the badgers referred to in the application's Extended Phase 1 ecological report to continue to cross the area undisturbed, much as we wish to. Access should be improved for those less-mobile, but this proposal is harmful to the character of this much-loved place and the council's blinkered approach in coming up with the proposal has been harmful to community relations. Despite it's long history, if the public don't feel involved in decisions regarding this public space, and don't feel 'ownership' of it, then it's future may not be so safe.

If this goes ahead it is another example of BCC decimating an area. This is meant to be a conservation area!

Kind regards,

Liz Caisey

on 2019-04-01   OBJECT

would urge that this application is refused or withdrawn so that proper engagement with the local community can take place to come up with a better proposal that improves access to the park without harming the visual amenity of it in the process.

There is already a travel pathway for pedestrians and cyclists between Lockleaze and Broomhill/Frenchay between Romney Avenue in Lockleaze and Jellicoe Avenue near the Dower House in the north of the park.

Mental Health is on the increase. People need places like this to escape from the fast pace of cities and this is not doing justice or indeed giving respect to the general public as a whole who are finding less places to visit, let alone one steeped in history.

Please reconsider. The local residents who have grown up and enjoyed frequenting this land, and still do, love this place and would be very sad to lose it.

Linda Beard

on 2019-03-31   SUPPORT

Provided this remains a shared cycle / pedestrian path with suitable access gates topark for cyclist I support this.

on 2019-03-31   OBJECT

I completely agree with the concept of improving accessibility of the park.

I only have one problem with the proposals and that is the actual routesu. Currently the routes arethe most direct possible, meaning that they are cutting straight through the middle of the fields. Ifeel this wil negatively impact on the countryside feel of the park. Putting a path along the insideedge of the fields, along the hedgerow, would have the same desired effect for accessibility whilstlimiting the visual impact on the park itself.

on 2019-03-31   OBJECT

Unclear what value is being added for the cost and disruption involved. There is alreadyaccess and already tarmaced paths.

on 2019-03-31   OBJECT

I would like to object to this path for numerous reasons.

Firstly whilst I understand an accessible path for disabled users and people with wheelchairs is agood idea the current proposed path is not right way of doing this. The path would ruin the naturallandscape of the area by cutting right through the middle of it with a man made monstrosity whichis already being blighted by the increasing house building around the outskirts and artificiallighting.

The purpose of the cycle path is unneeded as their already is a dualpath that goes from point a topoint b.

The area is a beautiful green haven for all sorts of wildlife and has remained untouched for manyyears and is better for it.

The addition of this path will no doubt lead to more paths and more buildings on what is the bestnatural green space in north Bristol.

The bit of the park that backs on to Romney avenue is used very regularly by dog walkers andlocal people and children and by putting a cycle path right through the middle of it would decreaseits use as it would become unsafe for the everyday users of the area as speeding cyclists woulduse it as a shortcut to get to the other perfectly usable cycle path 100 metres further up the roadalong long wood meadows.The park has seen a steady increase in visitors over the years without

the need for a path and adding a unneeded sloped cycle path straight through the middle of it willundoubtedly end with somebody or somebody's pet getting severely hurt.

A natural single path should be explored but certainly not a dual use cycle path.

There is no need for another cycle path this close to the other one and as a resident of Romneyavenue I have already seen a massive increase in commuters parking along our road taking outcycles because of the extra houses and for access to the UWE via the existing path. Because ofthe bus lane a lot of people now use this road to park and walk/cycle through to the new cheswickestate also.

The leaflet drop regarding the path didn't make it to all local residents either and I think if youcanvassed the area surrounding the proposed path you will find most people are opposed to it anda petition with more people signing than agreed to the path in your consultation should tell youhow the majority of people feel.

I oppose this plan and it should be thrown out and other ideas considered by asking residents fromthe lcoal area properly for their views and suggestions not in the way this plan has beenfastracked through because of a travel west budget available for these projects.

on 2019-03-29   OBJECT

Of all the works required in the park, this proposal is way down the list of priorities.Firstly, the drainage at the Frenchay side of the M32 underpass must be resolved - the whole parkis not safely accessible for this side when it rains. Secondly, the park has been plagued withmotorcross riders for a decade with zero interest from the council or authorities. Perimeter andaccess to the park must be secured for pedestrians and cyclists - another all weather path is onlygoing to lead to more motorcross use. One day, these riders will cause injury or worse. Thirdly, theattraction of the top side of the listed park is that it is a small pocket of natural environment in whatis becoming urban sprawl on the north side of Bristol. It should remain this way.

on 2019-03-28   SUPPORT

Whilst I can understand the concern regarding cyclists speeding along the proposedpathway [as they do down the hill from Jellicoe Avenue], I agree that it is hopefully less likely to bea problem on a flatter pathway [as proposed]. As a regular Stoke Park user, I am very much infavour of making it more accessible to disabled users and people who find walking on unevensurfaces difficult. I have personally seen a wheelchair user trying to access the rough terrain andthought how wrong it was that they had to struggle so much simply to enjoy the stunning viewsand fresh air. Opening this wonderful area up to a greater cross section of community users has tobe a good idea.

on 2019-03-28  

mailto:consultations@naturalengland.org.uk We are here to secure a healthy natural environment for people to enjoy, where wildlife is protected and England’s traditional landscapes are safeguarded for future generations. Natural England offers two chargeable services - the Discretionary Advice Service, which provides pre-application and post-consent advice on planning/licensing proposals to developers and consultants, and the Pre-submission Screening Service for European Protected Species mitigation licence applications. These services help applicants take appropriate account of environmental considerations at an early stage of project development, reduce uncertainty, the risk of delay and added cost at a later stage, whilst securing good results for the natural environment. For further information on the Discretionary Advice Service see here For further information on the Pre-submission Screening Service see here This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the Natural England systems, we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

on 2019-03-28  

We are here to secure a healthy natural environment for people to enjoy, where wildlife isprotected and England’s traditional landscapes are safeguarded for future generations. Natural England offers two chargeable services - the Discretionary Advice Service, whichprovides pre-application and post-consent advice on planning/licensing proposals todevelopers and consultants, and the Pre-submission Screening Service for EuropeanProtected Species mitigation licence applications. These services help applicants takeappropriate account of environmental considerations at an early stage of projectdevelopment, reduce uncertainty, the risk of delay and added cost at a later stage, whilstsecuring good results for the natural environment. For further information on the Discretionary Advice Service see hereFor further information on the Pre-submission Screening Service see here This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If youhave received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy anyof its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this emailand associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilstwithin the Natural England systems, we can accept no responsibility once it hasleft our systems. Communications on Natural England systems may be monitoredand/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for otherlawful purposes.

Development Management

Consultation on planning application – request for comments

You are being notified of the following application registered on 11 March 2019.

The application form, plans and documents submitted with the application can be found by using the application link below:

Application No. 19/01213/FB

Type of application Full Planning (Regulation 3)

Target date for determination 6 May 2019

Applicant Bristol City Council

Address Stoke Park Park Road Stapleton Bristol

Description Proposed restoration of an existing historic access route, and former carriage ride, with a self-binding gravel path surface.

Conservation Area Stapleton And Frome Valley

Listed Building Grade

Ward Lockleaze

Please reply by 10 April 2019

Case officer David Macfadyen

on 2019-03-27   OBJECT

The path going right through the middle of green fields would destroy the natural feelingof the place that we all love and enjoy. If access is indeed required, a path could be provided thatgoes along the edge of the woods, rather than following the historic path in the middle of the fields.

As for cyclists, there are good alternative cycle paths available that goes alone Long WoodMeadows and Long Down Avenue and as a cyclist myself, I do not have a problem with existingpaths.

on 2019-03-26   SUPPORT