Currently there are Great British Runs being developed in the park. This showsHengrove Park has great appeal to sports people and the plans should reflect this demand. Alsorunning is much more popular v the time when the decision was taken not maintain the HengrovePark Athletic's Stadium e.g. number of running events has exploded over last decade. The currentHengrove Park Athletic's Stadium is in a very tired state and the track is in a very poor state incomparison to other track in the area. It feels soft to run on compared to Bath University's SportVillage Track which is much easier to run fast times on. It's also far from the current Sports Centrewhich has plenty of parking and close to the college.

I therefore think the stadium should be rebuilt next to the sports centre because current sportingdemand deems such a facility necessary for the following reasons:

1) It would also make a great meeting point for Great British Runs.2) It would allow the development of a 10k race.

3) Runners like running around Dundry and make an ideal starting point to extend runs to thislocation.4) Great location for a marathon because it could use the ring road and Dundry for a challengingyet scenic route.5) A dedicated disabled cyclists facility should be built e.g. Velodrom. The development of acycling facility would align to Bristol's ambition to grow cycling's popularity.6) A larger swimming pool should be incorporated for triathele athletes.7) This could be built in one building with underground parking to ensure disabled athletes don'thave to walk to far and minimise the long term environmental impact on the development. Thetrack would be on the top of building because it doesn't need to indoors and would offer greatviews of Bristol. The existing sports centre would offer other facilities like a gym.8) The Bath University Sports Village would be a classic example of what could be achieved onthis site. It should also be linked with the college to ensure the students can use this facility andensure it's long term success and allow educational sporting events to be held on the site.9) It would be a great sporting location for major sporting events e.g. could hold a internationalswimming event which would add a lot to the economy and ensure it's economic success.10) Hengrove Park residents would be able to use these facilities and improve their physical andmental health.11) Car Parking could be expanded and the Velodrom would encourage cycling to the site.Therefore cycle parking should be included in the revised plan.

Therefore by amending the plans it would become the sporting facility Bristol needs and allow it todevelop an international sporting reputation.

What are your proposals for replacing the running track facility that will be lost as part ofthis development? Currently this is used by my club throughout the summer, and by my coachthrough the winter.The loss of this facility will be a significant blow and the upshot will be that we will have to travel toother tracks predominantly utilising private transport. This seems a strange decision in light ofcurrent thinking that encourages us to both be more active for health reasons, and travel less forenvironmental ones.Given that there are proposals to move a rugby club and a scout group, it doesn't seem beyondthe wit or ability of the planners and developers to be able to incorporate either the existing trackinto the plan, or to create a new one.

Southville Running Club Submission:

Southville Running Club have been looking into alternative track locations because the Whitchurchtrack will not be operational when Kier Group says it can't be used due to the Hengrove ParkDevelopment. This has involved discussing with track managers what access we can get to theirtrack. To date the track investigations have found the nearest to Southville Running Club home,Bedminster, is the Whitehall Sports Facility. This Sports Facility has real difficultly in offering thetrack solution Southville Running Club seek because of the Partnership Agreement and SLA withBristol and West Athletic's Club.

This is far from an ideal situation for following reasons:

1) This means we are not in a position to know what we can deliver to our members regardingtrack sessions when Whitchurch track closes.

2) Financial projections are impossible because we don't have hire costs nor the number of weeklysessions we could run.3) Currently our members are being forced to use Pavements for interval sessions because wedon't have access to a floodlight track. This means we are currently running the risk of a collisionoccurring with another pavement user when club members are running flat out. They therefore findit the hardest training session to avoid pedestrians. We minimise the risk by running on thePortway and other areas where there are few pedestrians to avoid an accident. We also are awareof them when running generally. Group leaders are clear to members what to do when they see anoncoming pedestrian. They tell the group to run on the other side of the pavement to avoid acollision. Group leaders are also sent on the British Athletic's approved group leadership course toensure they know how to lead a group e.g. what to do if a member is struggling with the group'srunning pace. The likelihood of an accident occurring is therefore reduced. However an accident isa situation everybody wants to avoid occurring where practical. Therefore access to the WhitehallSports Facility will stop the risk of an accident occurring in interval sessions because they wouldoccur on a track.4) Track access is affecting member retention because the club can't tell them what is happeningabout track sessions. These sessions are key to reducing personal best race times. It's thereforehard to compete with Bristol and West Athletic's Club because they can offer this type of trainingwith certainty and allow their members to reduce personal best race times. It therefore leavesthem with a competitive advantage.5) The facility manager at Whitehall Sports Facility says she has spoken to Bristol and WestAthletic's Club about a shared Partnership Agreement. This is why I am surprised the council havenot contacted the club because they would also have to be informed about this PartnershipAgreement change due to signing it off. The SLA with Bristol and West Athletic's Club must alsobe signed off by the council. We therefore want the council to ensure any Whitehall Sports Facilityagreements reflect the change in track arrangements caused by the loss of Whitchurch track. Thiswould involve Southville Running Club and Bristol and West's Athletic's club have sharedWhitehall Sports Facility Agreements which will enable both club's to share and enjoy this sportingfacility.6) Strategic development of the club is therefore impossible and any plan for the club's future isvery hard to develop without greater certainty on this issue e.g. we can't decide whether tobecome an Athletic's Club without knowing the access to Whitehall Sports Facility.

The lack of consultation from the council has therefore left club in a uncertain situation. Wetherefore want the following:Southville Running Club therefore want Bristol City Council and Kier Group to offer:

1) Financial help to pay for the set up and running costs.2) Professional help on the matter discussed in this planning objection.3) Southville Running Club help in deciding on alternative plans if it can't gain access to theWhitehall Sports Facility. It would want financial help to pay for the set up and running costs forany chosen alternative solution.

Without this help Sport England will not approve the development because the current sportingfacility use will not continue, when the Hengrove Park Development building work dictates theWhitchurch Track closes and Southville Running Club can't run track sessions. If Sport Englanddon't approve the development the Housing Secretary will not consider the development.

1) This means we are not in a position to know what we can deliver to our members regarding track sessions when Whitchurch track closes. 2) Financial projections are impossible because we don't have hire costs nor the number of weekly sessions we could run. 3) Currently our members are being forced to use Pavements for interval sessions because we don't have access to a floodlight track. This means we are currently running the risk of a collision occurring with another pavement user when club members are running flat out. They therefore find it the hardest training session to avoid pedestrians. We minimise the risk by running on the Portway and other areas where there are few pedestrians to avoid an accident. We also are aware of them when running generally. Group leaders are clear to members what to do when they see an oncoming pedestrian. They tell the group to run on the other side of the pavement to avoid a collision. Group leaders are also sent on the British Athletic's approved group leadership course to ensure they know how to lead a group e.g. what to do if a member is struggling with the group's running pace. The likelihood of an accident occurring is therefore reduced. However an accident is a situation everybody wants to avoid occurring where practical. Therefore access to the Whitehall Sports Facility will stop the risk of an accident occurring in interval sessions because they would occur on a track. 4) Track access is affecting member retention because the club can't tell them what is happening about track sessions. These sessions are key to reducing personal best race times. It's therefore hard to compete with Bristol and West Athletic's Club because they can offer this type of training with certainty and allow their members to reduce personal best race times. It therefore leaves them with a competitive advantage. 5) The facility manager at Whitehall Sports Facility says she has spoken to Bristol and West Athletic's Club about a shared Partnership Agreement. This is why I am surprised the council have not contacted the club because they would also have to be informed about this Partnership Agreement change due to signing it off. The SLA with Bristol and West Athletic's Club must also be signed off by the council. We therefore want the council to ensure any Whitehall Sports Facility agreements reflect the change in track arrangements caused by the loss of Whitchurch track. This would involve Southville Running Club and Bristol and West's Athletic's club have shared Whitehall Sports Facility Agreements which will enable both club's to share and enjoy this sporting facility. 6) Strategic development of the club is therefore impossible and any plan for the club's future is very hard to develop without greater certainty on this issue e.g. we can't decide whether to become an Athletic's Club without knowing the access to Whitehall Sports Facility. The lack of consultation from the council has therefore left club in a uncertain situation. We therefore want the following: Southville Running Club therefore want Bristol City Council and Kier Group to offer: 1) Financial help to pay for the set up and running costs. 2) Professional help on the matter discussed in this planning objection. 3) Southville Running Club help in deciding on alternative plans if it can't gain access to the Whitehall Sports Facility. It would want financial help to pay for the set up and running costs for any chosen alternative solution.

Without this help Sport England will not approve the development because the current sporting facility use will not continue, when the Hengrove Park Development building work dictates the Whitchurch Track closes and Southville Running Club can't run track sessions. If Sport England don't approve the development the Housing Secretary will not consider the development.

I would like the following noted about planning reference, 19/02632/PB, which relates tothe Hengrove Park Development October 2019 planning proposal:

1) I think it's poor the council have omitted Southville Running Club from the Hengrove ParkDevelopment October 2019 proposal document because we have been using the running track forseveral years. Our members paid to use the track and a hire cost was paid. This therefore showsa formal hire arrangement which means we are current users of Hengrove Park. To ensure youget Sports England approval we will need to be consulted because our current and future sportingrequirements will not be meet. This is therefore not good stakeholder management by the councilbecause it will impact on Southville Running club and the Housing Secretary will not consider theproposal without Sports England approval.2) This means our current and future development has been adversely affected by not beingconsulted about the Hengrove Park Development at all because we could have used Lottery andother grant funding to develop the running club:

a) Hired more coaches to train runnersb) Decided if we want to expand the club's activities e.g. to start a junior club, become an athletic'sclubc) Have floodlights on during dark eveningsd) Increased evenings we used the track due to floodlightinge) Improved people's mental and physical healthf) Improved our online offering which is crucial in the modern day worldg) Held events at the track which would have brought commercial revenue to the area andboosted the local communityh) Worked with the City of Bristol College on developing sporting facilities improving the health ofchildren in the local area and reducing child obesityi) Increased member retention because we accommodate changing members needs e.g.members having a baby would have an incentive to keep coming with a junior club

These initiatives would have increased the popularity of the club. The loss of the track willtherefore reduce our ability to develop our club.

At the time of writing if we had been consulted we would be in a position to know what we wantedas an alternative to the track e.g. whether or not we wanted a shared sporting venue and wouldhave been included in the Hengrove Park Development October 2019 proposal document e.g.funding and assistance required in setting up an alternative venue.

Also I don't understand why the college need a 4,500m2 site because the unused land oppositethe current building (as you go to the running track from Bedminister it's on the right and thecurrent building is on your left) was allocated to them for a new building. They have beenstruggling to justify building on this land due to several annual losses and been trying to find asuitable use. If they have land allocated to them and struggled to develop it after several yearshow will they justify using this extra land. Could this be used for a sporting facility e.g. StBernadette's Rugby Club still use site if after analysing their development needs it was found theyonly need half the land or none?

I therefore doubt Sport England will approve these plans with these issues unresolved. Withouttheir consent the Housing Secretary can't consider the project.

I would like the following noted about planning reference, 19/02632/PB, which relates tothe Hengrove Park Development October 2019 planning proposal:

1) I think it's poor the council have omitted Southville Running Club from the Hengrove ParkDevelopment October 2019 proposal document because we have been using the running track forseveral years. To ensure you get Sports England approval we will need to be consulted becauseour current and future sporting requirements will not be meet. This is therefore not goodstakeholder management by the council because it will impact on Southville Running club and theHousing Secretary will not consider the proposal without Sports England approval.2) This means our current and future development has been adversely affected by not beingconsulted about the Hengrove Park Development at all because we could have used Lottery andother grant funding to develop the running club:a) Hired more coaches to train runnersb) Decided if we want to expand the club's activities e.g. to start a junior club, become an athletic's

clubc) Have floodlights on during dark eveningsd) Increased evenings we used the track due to floodlightinge) Improved people's mental and physical healthf) Improved our online offering which is crucial in the modern day worldg) Held events at the track which would have brought commercial revenue to the area andboosted the local communityh) Worked with the City of Bristol College on developing sporting facilities improving the health ofchildren in the local area and reducing child obesityi) Increased member retention because we accommodate changing members needs e.g.members having a baby would have an incentive to keep coming with a junior club

These initiatives would have increased the popularity of the club. The loss of the track willtherefore reduce our ability to develop our club.

At the time of writing if we had been consulted we would be in a position to know what we wantedas an alternative to the track e.g. whether or not we wanted a shared sporting venue and wouldhave been included in the Hengrove Park Development October 2019 proposal document e.g.funding and assistance required in setting up an alternative venue.

Also I don't understand why the college need a 4,500m2 site because the unused land oppositethe current building (as you go to the running track from Bedminister it's on the right and thecurrent building is on your left) was allocated to them for a new building. They have beenstruggling to justify building on this land due to several annual losses and been trying to find asuitable use. If they have land allocated to them and struggled to develop it after several yearshow will they justify using this extra land. Could this be used for a sporting facility e.g. StBernadette's Rugby Club still use site if after analysing their development needs it was found theyonly need half the land or none?

I therefore doubt Sport England will approve these plans with these issues unresolved. Withouttheir consent the Housing Secretary can't consider the project.

I would like the following noted about planning reference, 19/02632/PB, which relates tothe Hengrove Park Development October 2019 planning proposal:

1) I think it's poor the council have omitted Southville Running Club from the Hengrove ParkDevelopment October 2019 proposal document because we have been using the running track forseveral years. Our members paid to use the track and a hire cost was paid. This therefore showsa formal hire arrangement which means we are current users of Hengrove Park. To ensure youget Sports England approval we will need to be consulted because our current and future sportingrequirements will not be meet. This is therefore not good stakeholder management by the councilbecause it will impact on Southville Running club and the Housing Secretary will not consider theproposal without Sports England approval.2) This means our current and future development has been adversely affected by not beingconsulted about the Hengrove Park Development at all because we could have used Lottery andother grant funding to develop the running club:

a) Hired more coaches to train runnersb) Decided if we want to expand the club's activities e.g. to start a junior club, become an athletic'sclubc) Have floodlights on during dark eveningsd) Increased evenings we used the track due to floodlightinge) Improved people's mental and physical healthf) Improved our online offering which is crucial in the modern day worldg) Held events at the track which would have brought commercial revenue to the area andboosted the local communityh) Worked with the City of Bristol College on developing sporting facilities improving the health ofchildren in the local area and reducing child obesityi) Increased member retention because we accommodate changing members needs e.g.members having a baby would have an incentive to keep coming with a junior club

These initiatives would have increased the popularity of the club. The loss of the track willtherefore reduce our ability to develop our club.

At the time of writing if we had been consulted we would be in a position to know what we wantedas an alternative to the track e.g. whether or not we wanted a shared sporting venue and wouldhave been included in the Hengrove Park Development October 2019 proposal document e.g.funding and assistance required in setting up an alternative venue.

Also I don't understand why the college need a 4,500m2 site because the unused land oppositethe current building (as you go to the running track from Bedminister it's on the right and thecurrent building is on your left) was allocated to them for a new building. They have beenstruggling to justify building on this land due to several annual losses and been trying to find asuitable use. If they have land allocated to them and struggled to develop it after several yearshow will they justify using this extra land. Could this be used for a sporting facility e.g. StBernadette's Rugby Club still use site if after analysing their development needs it was found theyonly need half the land or none?

I therefore doubt Sport England will approve these plans with these issues unresolved. Withouttheir consent the Housing Secretary can't consider the project.

This is a very big development proposal and needs to be done with care with specialconsideration to the current trees in the large green space.Nature including trees, wildlife and human wellbeing is vital to our health, both physical andpsychological.Removing yet more green space within the city can only degrade the already poor air quality inBristol and Carbon sequestration by trees has a positive effect on the environment. Any removal ofstandard trees is a failure of the city to be joined up to the policy of the Climate Emergency whichthe council proudly announced a while back.

Any high density housing without proper provision for public transport does nothing but increasethe problem of pollution and environmental degredation.

I object to the proposal in its present large scale and lack of consideration for the localenvironment.

I am increasingly worried about BCC's apparent lack of care around the green spacesand trees of our city. In times of climate emergency it is not sensible to give in to demands formore buildings when everyone needs access to clean air and green spaces close to where theylive. This area is already very densely populated and built up with a real lack of natural space forpeople's physical and mental wellbeing. Everyone should have access to green space within 5minutes walk of their house but it seems that plans at BCC to allow applications that destroyhundreds of trees and block public access form historically public land are on the rise. We don'tneed more indoor offices, sports halls and classrooms - we need more wildlife, outdoor space tobe free and for children to run and develop and be in touchbacks with nature. Our mental health issuffering with all this development and I strongly object to this proposal. It should be looked atholistically and not be about pressure from academy schools to expand or about funding for BCC.Future generations will curse us for our destruction of our natural habitat. I urge BCC to reject thisapplication on grounds of protecting green space for inner city children.

We have more than enough houses and not the services to accommodate them all atthe moment with roads and doctors being difficult to use at times. Also taking out local sports clubsie Rugby is not holding a community together but braking it up.If all those properties are to be built you need to consider info structure first and that doesn't meanputting a ring Road in the middle braking up the community to which side of the road you live onSo I totally disagree with the amount of houses or new roads

Hengrove Park Planning Application 19/02632.PBObjection by Cllr Tim Kent and Hengrove and Whitchurch Park Liberal Democrats

I am objecting to the planning application for Hengrove Park, resubmitted not long after theprevious and very similar planning application was rejected by the Planning Committee.

The committee rejected the previous application on six distinct grounds and this application clearlystill fails to meet the majority of those tests.

As this is an application by the council to the council it should be expected that it complies with thelocal plan, neighbourhood plan and the distinct resolutions of the planning committee - it fails to dothat on all three grounds.

Looking at the key issues still unresolved:

1. There is still not a good balance between employment and housing. The area around HengrovePark has higher unemployment than the city average and Hengrove Park had previously beenseen as an opportunity to provide employment land. The amount of employment land within thisapplication is unchanged from the one previously rejected by the committee on those grounds.2. Parking and car dependency. The application still sees a domination of external space forparking. Parking provision is clearly a priority but ensuring parking is dealt with in a way that is lessdominant of open space is required with more under croft parking needed. This issue raised by thecommittee last time has not been met.3. Size of Park and total amount of development - the proposal is very similar to the previous onerejected. It ignores the requirements within the neighbourhood plan and the local plan for a parkfirst approach, an events space, and a density of development and open space as required in theNeighbourhood Plan. A few minor changes have been adopted since the previous plan but thesein no way go to meet the requirement within the Neighbourhood Plan which is adopted planningpolicy. The application is still in breach of HWNP8 and on these grounds along needs to berejected.

I wish to look at a few more issues in greater depth - numbers and density, size, use and quality ofpark.

The Local Plan states that around 1000 dwellings could be delivered on this site (this is based on40 units per hectare = 20 hectares of development) in the 2014 Local Plan.Since this Phase 1 of Kier has received planning permission for 261 units on around a 5 hectaresite.

The Neighbourhood Plan, developed by local residents, inspected by a planning inspector andadopted through referendum accepted the councils desire to maximise units on this site and set apolicy to allow this to happen. HWNP8 allows for just under 1400 units on the rest of HengrovePark at a density of 70 dph. It is important to note that this number is arrived at by developing atthat density and through use of additional land not within this application. The applicant's proposalis at a lower density and does not include all of the land within HWNP8 - the equivalent number isunder 1250 dwellings in total.

This would still allow the deliver of over 1500 dwellings on Hengrove Park (50% increase on thatwithin the local plan).The neighbourhood plan sets the maximum envelop but the applicant is intentionally trying toignore this and has failed to meet the test required within HWNP8 to do that - to prove it would notbe 'feasible and viable'.

The applicant has not met the test in HWNP8 regarding density and numbers.

Regarding the size, use and quality of the park the applicant has also failed to meet policy. Thelocal plan clearly states that the site should include an events space. This requirement has been

ignored so that more of the park could be taken for development. The council should not be in thebusiness of ignoring its own planning regulations.

HWNP8 also requires that any development of Hengrove Park should follow the five MasterplanMoves of the Hengrove Park Masterplan where this is feasible and viable in order that a high-quality park is created ... The Park footprint should where possible be broadly as shown on theMasterplan.

The application before you doesn't follow the five moves - a park first approach. If it did it would beoffering a park of similar size and quality as that laid out in the masterplan (again ignored by theapplicant). The applicant's proposals are similar to those that they have continued to pushthroughout the process despite the Neighbourhood Plan. The quality of the park is also not a high-quality park as called for in the local and neighbourhood plan. The majority of the land is currentlyconsidered to be undesirable parts of the park and those least used. A clear management planhas still not been communicated to local councillors by the applicant which leads to greatconcerns.

The applicant has not met the test in HWNP8 regarding the size, layout and quality of park and thelocal plan with regards to quality and use of the park.

Local councillors along with the Neighbourhood Planning Forum continue to offer to meet with theapplicant and their agents. Unfortunately, the applicant has chosen to ignore requests formeetings, organise them at times inconvenient to the local community and pay little regard to anyviews expressed by the community at the very few meetings that have been held. We call on thecommittee to reject this application and send a message that the local plan and neighbourhoodplanning process is important and must be followed.

All the best

Cllr Tim Kent

Please hear us:. This is the last bit of free open space for thousands of families. It's oneof the places that still makes Bristol's quality of life bearable. Can't money and development detouron this location?Thanks

Some minor changes have been made - the size of the sports pitches have been increased following an objection by Sport England that the previously proposed pitches were undersized. Housing has been pulled back a little from the woodland to the north of the site so less trees will be lost. The allotments will be moved off site. All together these changes result in about an additional 2 hectares of parkland.

This though is far short of what is required in the Neighbourhood Plan that puts forward a park of around 30 hectares, protects the historic runway space, connects the park to the Hengrove Mounds wildlife area and ensures a full provision of community facilities.

The Neighbourhood Plan can be read in full here:

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/planning-and-building-regulations/hengrove-and-whitchurch-park

We are calling on residents to support the Neighbourhood Plan, ensure we have the right balance between development and parks and sports facilities and to oppose this application. Please sign the petition, share it on social media and via email, and write in an objection on the planning portal site above.

We call on Mayor Marvin Rees and Bristol City Council to withdraw the planning application for Hengrove Park (19/02632/PB) that fails to comply with the Neighbourhood Plan.

We oppose this application that fails to follow the park first approach with too small a park, builds more dwellings at a lower density at a cost of open space which contravenes the Neighbourhood Plan. We call on Bristol City Council's Development Control Committee to once again refuse permission due to the continued conflict with the adopted Neighbourhood Plan.

935 SIGNATURES

I have sent my objection as a pdf directly to development.management@bristol.gov.uk.However I realise that you need my address and other details, so have also made the commentand objection note here. Please let me know if you need anything else.

2

e) Besides the 1,435 homes proposed in this application, there are hundreds of other new dwellings proposed

in the immediate area to Hengrove Park – including Parkview, Hartcliffe Campus, Phase 1 Urban Quarter,

Filwood Park, Imperial Park and Lakeshore. Besides existing residents, approximately another 3,200 new

dwellings are proposed all within walking distance of Hengrove Park. Over 7,500 new residents can be

expected therefore, and both they and the existing residents need a better Park than is currently proposed.

f) We need greater clarity about the 420 sq m of community space referred to recently being in addition to the

retained 790sq m community building. We also need it to be clear that providing the community building

as well as the land will be a requirement of the permission.

g) We still think keeping the St Bernadette’s Rugby Club where it is, will work better. It would also save money,

about £3.7 million allowing for some upgrading of facilities on its present site in the park.

h) There should be underground parking provided, as in the Kidbrooke development. This would make more

space for the Park without reducing the amount of housing on the site.

i) A chance has been missed to provide small and medium sized business units. These have proved popular

elsewhere in South Bristol, and the area needs employment provision.

j) Policy HWP9 in the neighbourhood plan requires more wheelchair-accessible housing to be provided than the

affordable housing scheme shows. Crucially dwellings that are accessible and wheelchair adaptable are

needed in market housing as well as affordable housing.

1.3 We have been disappointed with the consultation undertaken on this scheme throughout the process of

developing the scheme. Although some changes have finally been made, getting heard has been hard work.

We have never felt that the ideas and concerns we had were really considered, or resulted in significant

alterations to a scheme that seemed to be a ‘done deal’. The general response we got to our suggestions for

change was a defensive justification for the proposals as they were. We are not anti-development, and want

to see housing along with a revitalised park on the site. However this scheme is still not providing a high quality

park, or an urban environment that will truly regenerate our community and its built environment.

1.4 The discussion below gives further detail on our ongoing concerns.

Providing a High Quality Large Park

2.1 Development proposals for Hengrove Park have existed for many years. Council planning policy in the

adopted SADMP Local Plan 2014 stated that a ‘large, high quality park’ would be included in the proposals, with

the option of a large event space. A previous assessment of Green Space in the city, the Parks and Green Spaces

Strategy 2008, showed South Bristol to be lacking in formal parks, and suggested that the re-development of

Hengrove Park could make up for this lack. As shown in the HWP-NDP, dissatisfaction with local green space is

highest in the outer South Bristol wards. A previous planning application (05/00461/PB) showed a large park,

which linked the Mounds, the Children’s Play area and the existing open space to Bamfield and Hengrove Way

together in a coherent whole – as shown below.

3

Park Layout in Application 05/00461/PB

2.2 Local Expectations have always understood that proposals would follow this general layout, and the

proposals for the Park in this current scheme were a shock. The Council’s own planning policy requires a better

park to be created at Hengrove, and the current proposals are a betrayal of community expectations fostered

by the Council over many years: that they would get a better park as part of the regeneration of the site.

2.3 The so-called Village Green has been opposed by the local community from the start, but it appears to be

something that cannot change (bottom right-hand feature on the application strategic landscape plan on page

1). Given that the main park proposed is too small for local wishes; this takes away park space and ‘privatises’

it. The only response from the designers was to create two fairly narrow ways into the Green from the Park.

The Forum would prefer that one wide area of interaction was created between the Park and the Green, with

the housing being a sort of horseshoe arrangement around the Green. This has been an example of the

proposals only slowly and grudgingly responding to local concerns, and achieving any change being hard work

for local residents and the Neighbourhood Planning Forum.

2.4 The proposed development is contrary to policy in the SADMP Local Plan and the HWP-NDP in that it

does not create a high quality large park as required by Site Allocation BSA1401, and Policy HWP1 in the HWP-

NDP. The Runway area has not been retained as also required by policy HWP1, and there are no significant

green links between the Mounds and the remaining park.

4

Promotion of biodiversity and wildlife corridors

3.1 The proposed development and Park proposals do not create a wildlife corridor across the site from West

to East, and link the Mounds with open green space to the rest of the Park. This is contrary to Policy HWP2

in the HWP-NDP and Policy DM19 in the SADMP Local Plan. The Wildlife corridors into and across Hengrove

Park are potentially very extensive, but breaking any real connection between the Mounds and the rest of

the Park threatens to reduce the biodiversity in the wider area.

3.2 Recent government policy in the revised NPPF (170) requires planning decisions to enhance the natural

environment by:

“….minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent

ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures…”

The Council has declared a climate emergency, and seems to accept that there is an extinction crisis developing

among wildlife populations, but the proposed development at Hengrove will worsen the situation for local

biodiversity not improve it.

Protection of Heritage Assets

4.1 The Runway was designated a Local Heritage Asset at the beginning of this year, and is now on the formal

Local List for Bristol. The listing statement was as follows:

“The panel noted the community value of the runway, and the historic interest stemming from its

wartime construction and use. There was strong evidential value in the runway which needed to be

acknowledge as development plans for the area progressed.”

4.2 The Environmental Impact Assessment (non-technical summary) for this application states that the runway

is ‘low sensitivity’ (para 6.9.2) and that the development proposals will mean it is “likely to experience minor

adverse (not significant) effects.” This does not agree with the assessment from the previous refused

application (18/03537/PB), which included the following comments from the Council’s Archaeologist:

“the council’s archaeological officer … has commented on the national significance of the airfield during

the Second World War as one of, and possibly the only, wholly civil airfields in the country and the

desirability of preserving landscape remains of the use and where possible using them to inform the

design of the scheme.”

The Committee report went on to state that the line of the runway was retained in proposals, but not the width.

Despite the listing of the runway just before the previous application was refused, the current proposals still

show the runway significantly reduced in width from over 40m to 28m. The hard surface is to be removed, and

no significant area of wide hard surfacing is to remain. Retaining an improved hard surface to the true width of

the historic runway would provide an events space for the new park, and retain at least part of the existing

feature for recreational use – which is currently valued. The previous committee report considered that

proposals for the runway would “amount to substantial harm”, contrary to the assessment of little harm of no

significance in the EIA. The substantial harm was justified in the previous committee report by the rather bizarre

statement that:

“it has not been a runway since the closure of the airport and there is no option of it being reused.”

5

Nobody is proposing that the runway should be retained to a more respectful degree because it could be re-

used in the future! It is a historic asset in a locality with very few historic assets, and retaining more of its

features will assist with creating the required large, high quality park. Maintaining its width, and adding some

green space both within it and alongside, will go some way to create the better east-west links between the

Mounds and the rest of the Park as well.

4.3 The proposed treatment of the runway is contrary to national and local policy regarding the protection

and preservation of heritage assets. It is also not necessary for a successful development: retaining the true

width and a better setting for the runway space will create a much better Park and facility for new and

existing local residents.

Comments on the Open Space Study submitted with Planning Application 19/02632.PB

5.1 This Study details Bristol CC policy with regard to the general provision of open space required in any major

residential application. The study downplays the repeated policy requirements that the site be developed as a

large, high quality Park, residential and employment uses. Thus the general policy requirements for new open

space provision in a major housing development are not very relevant at Hengrove. They should be significantly

more than met, as part of the site is allocated for a large destination park to correct the current lack of such a

facility in this part of the city [Parks and Green Spaces Strategy (PGSS) 2008 and Bristol Site Allocations and DM

Policies (SADMP) Local Plan 2014]. Para 2.9 of the Study mentions that Site Allocation BSA 1401 in the SADMP

will provide approximately 1,000 dwellings, but does not make it clear that an overarching requirement of this

allocation is a new Park. The proposed park is not just to comply with the requirements of the residential

development: it is a needed and long-promised benefit for existing residents of development and regeneration

of the site of the former airfield. Discussion of the PGSS at paras 2.22-4 of this Study also fails to mention the

proposal that the site should be partly developed as a destination, high quality formal Park.

5.2 The Study goes on to consider policies from the Hengrove and Whitchurch Park NDP (HWP-NDP). The

assertion at 2.12 that the scout group could be accommodated in the community building is not correct – they

need a replacement separate building, a point accepted by the Council in negotiations. Para 2.13 of the Study

suggests that the Forum have a problem just with the amount of land allocated for the Park. In fact we are as

concerned that the design has effectively severed links between key features of the re-modelled park and its

adjacent open space such as the Mounds and the Children’s Play area. The runway and its historic form has

effectively been erased in these proposals contrary to assertions in the Study (paras 2.13 and 2.18). In an area

with little heritage this is not acceptable. The wildlife corridor links between the Mounds and the remaining

Park are not adequate for wildlife, despite claims in para 2.14. This is contrary to national and local policy, as

detailed below.

5.3 The Study is muddled in what ‘Formal Green Space’ is. A high quality destination park would all be formal

green space as long as it is designed to a high standard. Millennium Green is a small, constrained park over a

mile away from many parts of Hengrove and Whitchurch Park. Consultation on local use of open space

undertaken by the Forum during work on the HWPNDP indicated nobody visited Millennium Green. It’s quality

was assessed as only ‘fair’ in the same study.

There are far to many houses proposed there is not enough schools doctors etc tosupport this plan nor is there the road network to acomodate the increase in traffic. A better placefor new housing would be in the feilds next to the new south bristol link road

I object to the councils new plans for Hengrove Park. The reason being is the new plansare hardly any different from the plans rejected earlier this year.With more housing planned for Airport Road and all others being built in the area traffic andpollution levels have already increased. As this is the only open space in the whole of the south ofBristol this area should be redeveloped as a park for residents and wild life not turned into ahousing estate. Mr Christopher Prytherch

Again the council have put a planning application for houses on Hengrove Park. Theyhave completely ignored the reasons the plans were rejected last time. There is not enough parkspace left for such a large area of south Bristol. There is already far to many houses being built inthis area. With plans for another 200 homes along Hengrove Way which will result in trees beingremoved resulting in rising pollution levels. The Mayor is already behind schedule for pollutionlevels in the centre of Bristol to be decreased, and now is creating more problems in other areas.Most other areas of Bristol have large parks for recreation and wild life. So Hengrove Park shouldbe a large park that has money spent to make it a space for the people of South Bristol with nohousing being built at all.

Mr and Mrs Philip and Susan Prytherch

I have lived in this area all of my life- drawn to the location due to the amount of greenspace identified as the perfect location to bring up a family. The area is being built up around us -thousands of houses already being built in various areas including the leisure centre, imperialpark, banfield, airport road/ filwood and proposal to build prefab houses along airport road. Wheredoes this traffic go? The traffic and pollution is worsening and will only get a lot worse if furtherproperties are built. The doctors surgery are bursting at the seams. The schools aren't coping withdemand- with 1435 further houses proposed where do these people visit/ attend for services. Thegreen space is there for drainage so would this create flooding for all including residents whoalready own properties. This green space is for the those in knowle, Hengrove, Hartcliffe,Withywood and Whitchurch - where can we go if this is taken away from us. You promote healthyliving yet take the options from us.

I moved to this area just over 2 years ago and slowly the green spaces are beingremoved.The area in questions is a great park for dog walking and spending time in the summer months.Without it there would be no large parks in this area.The area would benefit much more from a proper maintained green space and park - not morehousing.The current plans - not much different from the previously rejected plans earlier this year - do notprovide any where near enough green space for the residents in the area.

I remain strongly opposed to any development in this area that doesn't include a large amount ofgreen space.

We OPPOSE this application that fails to follow the park first approach with too small apark, builds more dwellings at a lower density at a cost of open space which contravenes theNeighbourhood Plan.

We call on Bristol City Council's Development Control Committee to once again, refuse permissiondue to the continued conflict with the adopted Neighbourhood Plan.

The plan fails to comply with the Local Plan and the Site Allocations Strategy which states that alarge high-quality park must be delivered as part of a development proposal. This is the only sitethat could deliver this.

The plan fails to comply with council policy with regards to the provision of additional schoolplaces.

The application fails to provide adequate or acceptable mitigation for negative health impacts suchas an additional doctors surgery etc.

The proposal is excessive with far too many proposed residential dwellings in such a small area.There is currently building works in our area creating yet more new housing sacrificing park spaceand so breaching the requirement for a large high-quality park (site allocations) and a park leddevelopment (Neighbourhood Plan).

The plan will create significant additional traffic along Bamfield and at its junctions and there arenot enough appropriate transport management interventions or improvements to public transportproposed. The air quality will also be impacted by the additional traffic in the local area.

Also, have considerations be made on the impact on the local wildlife? The park is a haven forhedgehogs, foxes, badgers, migratory birds and bats all of which visit the local surroundinggardens enhancing the residents' quality of life.

Has any consideration be made to the rich history of the old Whitchurch Airfield? Surely, weshould be protecting and celebrating our local history within the City. Whitchurch Airfield was oneof the first airports in Bristol and contributed heavily during the Second World War with theestablishment of the No.2 Ferry Pilots Pool which distributed aircraft built in Bristol across theCountry to aid the War effort.

Our park is a lovely open space used for various community events and is one of the few greenspaces left in South Bristol. We appreciate that people need somewhere to live, but use thederelict buildings within Bristol first and LEAVE OUR GREEN SPACE ALONE!

My previous objections are not mitigated by the changes most recently made to theproposals, which seem to be more "tinkering at the edges".

What I continue to find most objectionable is the applicant's failure to acknowledge andincorporate the alternative proposals in the Hengrove and Whitchurch Neighbourhood Plan, whichwere developed during two years of consultation between professional planners and the localcommunity, and approved by 85% of those who voted in a referendum from the Hengrove andWhitchurch Park Neighbourhood Planning Forum. Working WITH rather than IN SPITE OF thecommunity could create not only a better physical result but also foster a healthy and constructivespirit of co-operation.

1. Most significantly, it would be irresponsible to grant planning permission for so many newhomes when the local community facilities, both existing and proposed, are so obviouslyinsufficient to meet the increased needs.

While the addition of a 5 hectare space of playing field, a 420m2 sports pavilion and a scout hut iswelcome, the amendments do not effectively address the increased need for social, economic,educational and medical facilities.If the 1,435 new dwellings now proposed contain the average per household of 2.3 residents(Office for National Statistics 2011 census), the proposed £90,000 allocated for improvements toallow an increase in the capacity of the Armada Practice GP surgery equates to a woefullyinadequate £27.27 per additional person - an increase of 27 pence per person afforded by theremoval of 15 dwellings from the plans. According to an NHS news item dated January 2019(https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/01) a single GP appointment costs the Health Service £30.Local schools are already dealing with limited capacity to accept new pupils, and are expected toreach full capacity in the next few years. At least 500 extra primary places would be necessary,but the application offers no proposals for additional primary places, let alone new primaryschools. Although funding has been secured for a new secondary school, no new site has beenidentified, and there is a possible threat to yet more of Hengrove Park's open space if this is notresolved before the population of the area is suddenly increased. Such issues should surely beclosely examined and resolved by independent assessors before planning permission is granted.The proposed development does not include sufficient community facilities and is thereforecontrary to Policy HWNP10 of the Hengrove and Whitchurch Park Neighbourhood Plan February2019.

2. The addition of 0.4 hectares in the park area (now proposed to be 22.2 compared with theprevious 21.8 hectares) still fails to create the anticipated large park of "destination" quality and istherefore contrary to Policies HWNP1 and HWNP8 of the Hengrove and Whitchurch ParkNeighbourhood Plan.

3. The removal of only 15 houses has very little impact on the low density of the development aspreviously proposed, so this amended application for 1,435 instead of 1,450 new dwellingsremains contrary to Policy HWNP8 of the Hengrove and Whitchurch Park Neighbourhood Plan.

4. The proposed development results in the loss of a row of poplar trees to the north of the site,which are classed as category A and which form a key landscape feature. Their loss is contrary toPolicy BCS9 of the Bristol Core Strategy adopted June 2011 and Policy DM17 of the SiteAllocation and Development Management Local Plan adopted July 2014.

5. The proposal is an unsustainable car-dependent form of development contrary to Paragraphs 8and 102 of the National Planning Policy Framework February 2019.

6. The proposal does not include sufficient employment floor space and is therefore contrary toBCS1 of the Bristol Core Strategy adopted June 2011 and Site Allocation BSA1401 included in theSite Allocation and Development Management Local Plan adopted July 2014.

In my previous objection, I observed that "The Council and its Agent seem to be following the

irrational and failed example set by Prime Minister Theresa May with her Brexit Plan: rather thanconsult and adapt, repeatedly present essentially the same proposals, hoping for a differentanswer".

This latest version of application 19/02632/PB reminds me of a phrase used in the Brexit Party's26th September Party Political Broadcast to describe Boris Johnson's proposed deal with the EU:"Mrs May's betrayal with a new haircut".Sometimes it seems to me that those in power nationally, internationally - and locally - choose adeliberate strategy to complicate and obfuscate decision-making processes in order to thwart or atleast deter continued opposition from the communities whose lives those decisions will affect forgenerations to come.Please ensure that the planners work with the community to resolve the contentious issues in thisapplication before granting permission for such a major and life-changing development in SouthBristol.

I have previously objected to this application and unfortunately the latest amendmentsdo not address my fundamental objection regarding the balance of proposed development inrelationship to the retained linear park. The proposed park is, in my opinion unduly narrow where itruns alongside Penrose, Sandcroft and Rowacres. A smaller built offering would allow a widerpark which would allow a greater sense of open space away from a built up environment.

I therefore remain opposed to the application.

To the Bristol City Council Planning Department

Ref: 19/02632/PB

Following the submission on 5 September 2019 of a revised plan for this development, we wish toformally object to the outline planning permission sought. The revised plans provide very limited'tweeks' to the plans submitted under this planning application number from July 2019 and do notconstitute a substantial difference. Our primary concerns in relation to planning considerations arenot affected by the alterations made on 5 September and therefore, our objection remains.

For completeness, below is a verbatim copy of our reasons for objection under relevant planningconsiderations, as provided in July 2019.

Under point 5, we understand the revised plans now include an allowance for a new Scout hut to

be built and an allowance of 4 ha of flat playing field. However, it isn't clear if the 4 ha of flat sportsspace will be publicly accessible at all times of the day. Therefore this provision might notconstitute a replacement for the flat space currently used most often. The total proposed park areaof 22.2 ha still does not constitute a "large high quality park" as required by the Local Plan andHengrove and Whitchurch Park Neighbourhood Development Plan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

We would like to make a formal objection to the outline planning permission sought for HengrovePark, application number 19/02632/PB. We feel this revised planning application does not addressthe reasons that the previous application was denied and does not meet the requirements of theLocal Plan and Neighbourhood Plan.

In particular, we object to the following:

1. Number of new dwellings far surpasses the Local Plan Site Allocation, and the density ofhousing is inconsistent with the surrounding area. Along with the Kier development it would deliverover 1700 units on Hengrove Park, where around 1000 is identified in the Local Plan SiteAllocation. Whilst we recognise that the application of housing in the Local Plan is not a limit, thenew development needs to be within keeping of the character of the existing built environment.

2. The outline design of the properties is inconsistent with the character of the neighbouringproperties. The height is excessive and will partition the new development from the existinghousing, rather than blending in with the retained parkland and existing built environment. Theproposed housing unit design could segregate the new housing from the existing community,causing friction.

3. There is no provision for amenities to support this development, not limited to, schools, doctor'sand dentist's.

4. There is insufficient provision for connected infrastructure. There are insufficient guaranteesregarding the bus services and pedestrian and cycling facilities, both on-site and off-site.Pedestrian and cycle facilities need to be improved outside of the site boundary, e.g. acrossBamfield towards the shopping centre (Asda) given the number of dwellings proposed. Roadinfrastructure needs to be improved outside of the site boundary, for example the main junctions toWells Road and Airport Road.

5. There is an excessive loss of active public open space. Under NPPF paragraph 97, loss ofexisting open space must be "replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity andquality". Whilst we accept there is discussion about the provision for loss of the rugby ground,there is no provision for the loss of the regularly-used public green space (the flat ground aroundthe runway) and the scout group. The Local Plan Site Allocations Strategy requires this site to

retain a "large high-quality park". The Neighbourhood Plan requires a "park-led development". Theoutline planning application breaches all of these requirements and is unacceptable.

6. There does not appear to be an impact study on the wildlife corridor owing to the significantincrease in traffic that will occur on Bamfield and surrounding roads. The proposed plan would seethe loss of numerous mature and diverse trees.

7. There are insufficient parking places provisioned in these plans. There will be unacceptableimpact on neighbouring properties from overspill.

8. We are disappointed at the potential loss of the historical site of Whitchurch Airfield runway.

Yours Faithfully,

Dr Sam Royston and Dr Paul Dickinson

I am concerned that this development will leave very little open space parkland left. I amin favour of some development in this area, but this is the last large public space on this side oftown. I think more park should be retained for now and for future generations.As Bristol expands we will be so grateful for green spaces. Imagine london had only left 22 ha forRegents Park or Hyde park. It is not enough - Please leave us more green space!

Radiodetection have previously objected to this planning due to the lack of informationregarding any power cable installation running adjacent to it's premises in Western Drive.The objection still remains in place as any power cable installation adjacent to the building couldbe detrimental to our R&D and testing of our cable detection products.

Please listen to residents, families and dog walkers who use the area on a daily basis.There was a vote that rejected the plans, proposed plans by residents which have been ignored.Please reject these plans and listen to the people who actually use the area. Why take away bigareas of grassland and replace it with lots of houses and cars? Whatever you do will also disturband kill some wildlife.I object strongly to these plans.

I want more green land less houses, the wild life I am used toowould be moved or killed off by the building of these buildings, the noise and the mess would behorrendous.

I wish to lodge my complaint against your new Hengrove Park proposal.I feel that thereis little change from the last proposal that was rejected.At our last meeting with Paul Smith Ithought that hewas going to make dialogue with the neighbourhood committee,i see that was not the case.We stillneed green park for the future generations. I live on Bamfield with 3 fatalities over the years and anumber of accidents it makes it one of the most dangerous residential roads in Bristol.With theextra 1000 cars that will be using Bamfield plus the extra pollution it will be even moredangererous I hope that you will take my objections seriouslyJeff Perks

Whilst I have no problem with some Hengrove Park being redeveloped I still object tothe amount of housing that is being proposed and the fact that the application still does not accordwith the Hengrove Neighbourhood Plan. As I have stated in my previous two objections I amextremely concerned about the number of homes versus the infrastructure that exists. Whilst thereare plans to address the number of school places Whitchurch Health Centre does not have anyspare capacity and existing patients already struggle to get an appointment. Where do you thinkover 3,000 plus new residents will go? The surgery cannot keep taking on new patients forever.There has to come a point when they will just close their list. As it stands nearly all of the GP'swork part time. I think you are trying to cram too much housing in, whilst providing poor facilities.Decent viable housing needs good infrastructure. There needs to be shops as well as communityfacilities. There is also not enough work being proposed to improve cycle and pedestrian links.The footpath outside my house is in a poor condition, as all our the links from the park to Bamfield.They all need reconstructing, widening and resurfacing. We cannot expect future residents to usesustainable forms of travel like walking/cycling if we don't provide suitable links. It will just become

car dominated. People on the St Giles Estate already struggle finding parking. Given the strengthof local feeling I cannot understand why the council cannot sit down and try and find a compromisesolution rather than just trying to stick as much housing in there as possible. If this is got wrong allit will do is create the ghettos of tomorrow.

This fails to follow and conflicts Hengrove and Whitchurch Neighbourhood Plan whichlocal residents won the vote.Valuable trees are still being lost.Still too many houses leaving notenough parkland.The bottle yard may have to relocate to smaller premises in a different areawhen people need work in this area.No provision to develop business locally so car dependent,nomention of new doctors or schools.Loss of open space due to too many dwellings.

I object to the planning proposal. This proposal is substantially similar to and earlyapplication that was rejected by the planning committee.

The council has failed to engage with the Whitchurch Planning Forum and discuss their alternativeproposals.

This proposal , together with dwelling under construction would see at least 3000 additionalresidents in the area. This is not just a few houses, but the equivalent of a small town. Such planscannot be approved without further details and plans for other town planning issues which thecouncil has failed to address. While accepting there is a need for new homes, the scale and natureof this proposal is unacceptable.

TrafficThere will be a considerable increase in the amount of traffic using Bamfield and other local roads

leading to congestion.

SchoolsThere is no mention of the requirement for additional school places

Health CareWhitchurch Health Centre is already under staffed with long waiting list for patients. An offer toprovide some additional funding is somewhat lame and needs to be supported by discussions withthe NHS.

Flood RiskThe environmental report highlights a significant flood risk. The houses in the St Giles estate arelikely to be particularly at risk. A Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDS) is mentioned without and clearindication of how much of the remaining open space would be affected. Any land used for SUDSwould not be available as public open space.

Sports Facilities.The area suggested for sports become waterlogged after modest rainfall. This was usedpreviously for football pitches but abandoned because of the high number of game called off dueto waterlogged pitches.

General CommentThis proposal would not enhance the quality of life in the area and remove valuable open space inthe south of the city. A more imaginative plan for enhancing the Hengrove Park area is required.Other parts of the city have high quality parkland and South Bristol is being short changed.

Please remain aware that the neighbourhood plan is a far cry from the usual NIMBY response. The council should be very aware of the maturity of the response from the area, and appreciate that to the full. The Planning department I feel sure truly know that a development of this size, will have the greatest difficulty in being fully supported by surrounding facilities, and the potential traffic will generate further problems throughout this area of south Bristol.

I was heartened by the planning departments last response, and hope they will once again exercise a measure of common sense in their deliberations.

PLEASE NOTE - this is the second comment sent by me, the first did not contain my full address, which I believe is a requirement.

yours faithfullyC J Evans

This application does not follow the agreed local plan with regard park space andhousing numbers/density.it is clear that there is inadequate provision to accommodate a minimum of two cars perhousehold, and a guest spaces.The skill types of the persons in these dwelling are potentially driving vans for companies that theypark in the area, as can be seen by driving around St Giles Estate, the number of large vans thateat into car space parking.there need to be incorporated into the higher density housing more provision for parking as it willhave both a detrimental impact on neighbouring streets if this is not accommodated, andemergency vehicle access.as a RRV Paramedic primarily covering South Bristol, we are struggling with new builddevelopments road widths when vans are parked and do not give space for Ambulances and FireAppliances to negotiate curves or road junctions, as locals are forced to park in this area.

Emergency services need sufficient space for two rows of parked cars/vans with sufficient spacefor a van and Ambulance/Fire appliance to pass without difficulty.

Traffic queuing out of junctions or along roads where there is a central island preventing usovertaking when cars have pulled to the side, is ever more challenging as we find on the newsection of the A4174 from King Georges road to Hareclive Rd, Hartcliffe junction.

response. The council should be very aware of the maturity of the response from the area, and appreciate that to the full. The Planning department I feel sure truly know that a development of this size, will have the greatest difficulty in being fully supported by surrounding facilities, and the potential traffic will generate further problems throughout this area of south Bristol.I was heartened by the planning departments last response, and hope they will once again exercise a measure of common sense in their deliberations.yours faithfullyC J Evans

The letter I received about revised application details for Hengrove Park have Hardlychanged. There is still to much housing and other buildings and not enough park area left.

I put in an objection to these plans last week. In it I mentioned the removal of 15houses. After talking with someone about this I think this refers to houses that were to be built onthe park not houses being demolished. Other people I spoke to had come to the same conclusionas myself and were a bit concerned. So I don't think this is stated very clearly in your letter.

question???Where are people supposed to walk and let free their dogs???

This plan has just a small number of changes to it and is nothing like theNeighbourhood plan that we voted for. There is already to many houses being built in the area.With green space and trees being pulled down. With the dual carriage so close to residentialhousing and more cars because of new housing there must be an increase in pollution in the area.Which the Mayor is saying he is tackling in the centre of Bristol. But it seems the council have notthough of people in other areas. So I strongly object to these plans. My. P Prytherch.

My wife and I strongly object to the number of houses planned on Hengrove Park. Thecouncil are ignoring the recently adopted neighbourhood plan and have only slightly altered theiroriginal plans that have been under discussion for some considerable time.

Can you please explain how you propose to provide both medical & educational facilities to anincrease of potentially 4,000+ person who's well being must be catered for.

Traffic congestion in around the area will also prove extensive which will create potential healthissues at a time when we should all be likeminded in addressing climate change issues.

This present proposal to build up to 1,435 dwellings is both irresponsible to say the least.

The letter I have received from the council of the revised details for Hengrove Park arejust a few small changes. That is not the plan we voted for. It also states in the letter that 15houses are to be removed . That seems very odd when they are building more. Pollution in thearea has already increased due to the ring road, and building of housing along Hengrove Way.Trees are being removed and even if new ones are planted they will take years it establish. Theoriginal plan was thrown out because the area did not meet the standards for the building ofhousing. So I cannot see what a difference these few alterations will make. Mrs S Prutherch

We want a park that is safe for kids to chase a ball, ride a bike and run freely without having concerns about traffic and pollution. The park is also used daily by people walking dogs. Your proposal leaves a green mound bordered by a road, hardly a park. So to have, what we have now, if these plans are passed, will mean driving elsewhere. I live adjacent to this park on the St. Giles estate, every night I feed foxes,hedgehogs and many birds, I've even had a badger. I despair what will happen to these animals when the bulldozers arrive and destroy the wildlife corridor. Other vital issues are the problems in getting a doctors appointment (which already exists) dentists, schools and of course the increase in traffic especially along Bamfield. We have had traffic jams recently due to roadworks on Airport Rd. Thankfully, this has finished, but it gives an insight to the future if these plans go ahead. Please don't turn my beloved green city of Bristol into Birmingham.

This in no ways comes with the Neighbourhood Plan passed by referendum. Do whatthe local residentsnwant, not what you want

I have not been following this application until now because things always change alongthe way so O have not been able to see the actual plan, my question is: where are the 15 housesplaned to be demolished and are they council property or private? thank you, Stan

There are too many houses on the small site.There is not enough free, open space for residents and others to use.Amenities that are on The Park will be lost and not replaced by anything more updated

As a family with children and a dog, we use the green space provided on this land.There is a lot of wildlife including bats and at present a family of foxes living on the green space.Although the revised plans have reduced the number of dwellings right next to our property I haveto object to the application due to the amount of dwellings proposed.The loss of green space would affect our family and others in the neighbourhood.We have seen our children's primary schools oversubscribed every year with proposed addition ofmore children to the neighbourhood and the lack of new schools within the plan is a big concernfor future child places available.We also have been patients of the Whitchurch health centre for many years and can honestly saygetting an appointment is difficult most of time, with the amount of dwellings proposed it is a greatconcern that no additional surgery's are included or proposed.the roads around the area are small and not able to cope with the increase of future traffic andpollution to our neighbourhood. The proposed dwellings will be lucky if they can gave 1 car perfamily, it is common for most family's to have on average 2 cars, plus visitors to the families, the

amount of dwellings proposed and estimated cars is a great a concern especially the lack ofparking spaces within the proposed plans. There would be a major problem with parking andaccess in and around the neighbourhood.I strongly object to this application.

This is getting ridiculous now. I am being asked to provide my objections once again onthe same reasons I have already provided previously. Removing 15 houses does not make thisplan less excessive!!! All of my original objections around the strain on infrastructure, the loss ofgreen space still stand as removing 15 houses from a plan makes little difference!!! Please refer tomy original objection as I am not wasting my time writing out the same comments when they areclearly not being listened to!

The changes do NOT address the issues I made so still reject them.

We don't want what little green land Bristol has left destroyed. With the building of houses with thepopulation of the area growing through these new houses would also bring in pollution into thearea with less green land to take away the pollution. This will lead to a reduced air quality whichwill effect heath in the area and cause additional demand for heath care for both current residentsand any new residents that would move into the houses if built.

Destroying the green areas on Bristol would also reduce the amount of land people can use forexercise, obesity is often talked about in the news as being a big heath risk but with less areas ofgreen land to exercise there is a real risk that people in the area will become more prone tobecoming overweight. Also greenland has been found to have a positive effect on metal health.This will put extra demand for healthcare in the area. The current GP surgery already has more

patients per doctor than the national average and getting a doctors appointment is already difficultand often you are unable to get an appointment before being examined by a nurse to decide if youare ill enough to see a doctor. The doctors surgery will already have to cope with the attentionalhouses through the loss of the neighbouring Filwood Park along with the addition of many othersmaller building of homes around the area resulting in smaller areas of green land lost or reduced.There are no plans to address this issue the community has.

The building of these houses would destroy a community hub, which is used for communityevents. The area is also home a historical site (the old airport) which is rare within these areas.The area is also used by balloons for a save landing place, removing green areas in this area willput future balloon fiesta in danger as reducing the amount of green land will remove save landingplaces and may become too dangerous within the future to run or reduce the size of the event.

The area currently provides a safe place for children to plan without fear of being killed by passingtraffic.

The destroying of the green land areas would also reduce the land the wildlife in the area can use,destroying there homes and future homes in the process. This would lead to less wildlife in Bristoleither though moving away from the area or though there death due to lack of natural foodsources.

The plans do not comply with Local Plan and Site Allocation Strategy, and the Council's Park andGreen Spaces Strategy of park space within the area.

The building of new houses on this site would make the next area of greenland for many peopleinaccessible as being too far away to walk and poor transport in the area with First Bus calmingthat they run the buses at a loss in this area of Bristol would result in many not having access toany large area of greenland. New houses will unlikely improve public transport in the area and themoney spent in the area of the promised metro bus would be wasted due to changes of therequired route in the area in the event that we do ever get a metro service in the area.

The building of new housing in the area will result in attentional traffic on the roads in the area andmake RTAs more likely in the area. This would be on-top of the already attentional traffic in thearea from new housing being built now as well as changes further afield to the road network, thatwill lead attentional traffic to the area. This will cause gridlock in the area and more pollution.

Other more suited sites of abandoned lots/areas already concerted over (many owned by thecouncil) are still without planing permission and could be used to build attentional houses withoutlosing green land.

At the rate we are building soon there will be no green areas around and will lead to more issueswithin Bristol in the long run that will be much harder to fix. Therefore we should be protecting our

green land for a better future for Bristol.

The area is much better to be left as a community hub (park) with attentional trees being plantedand extending the wildlife reserve areas and would result in a better community area within thelocal area much like other areas of Bristol. This would also bring the area in-line with other parts ofBristol that have large parks where events are held.

Therefore Avon Fire & Rescue Service may need to become reliant on local support funding through either developer contributions, Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

These developments will contribute to a significant increase in demand for Avon Fire & Rescue Service. As the population increases, so does the demand. This has an added impact upon the current resources therefore stretching our assets to meet this demand.

Fire Hydrants

The additional residential and commercial developments will require additional hydrants to be installed and appropriately-sized water mains to be provided for fire-fighting purposes. This additional infrastructure is required as a direct result of the developments and so the costs will need to be borne by developers either through them fitting suitable mains and fire hydrants themselves and at their cost or through developer contributions.

Avon Fire & Rescue Service has calculated the cost of installation and five years maintenance of a Fire Hydrant to be £1,500 per hydrant. Again this cost should be borne by the developer.

Importantly, these fire-fighting water supplies must be installed at the same time as each phase of the developments is built so that they are immediately available should an incident occur and the Fire & Rescue Service be called.

Please do not hesitate in contacting me if you have any further questions.

Yours Sincerely

SM Martyn White

Water Officer Technical Services

Avon Fire & Rescue Service

Telephone: 0117 926 2061 ex 8534

The site has a long history in the delivery of community sport and playing pitches. There has been a lot of uncertaintyregarding the site and community sport has been unable to plan for the future.In this application, we note the removal of a path on the main area of the playing field proposed and the inclusion of a‘new’ area of informal open space of 0.9ha.Assessment against Sport England Policy/NPPFThis part of the playing field site (north of the runway) measures approx. 5 hectares and includes 2 x rugby natural turfplaying pitches and a training area. St. Bernadette’s RFC have training lights and a clubhouse. We understand that theclub has a membership of around 900 people, with 3 senior teams and junior sides from under 7’s through to under 16’s.The club house is in need of significant repair after years of uncertainty regarding the redevelopment of the site. Theadopted Bristol Playing Pitch Strategy identifies 3 rugby pitches at Hengrove Park. The pitches are quality rated as D1/M0(meaning minimal drainage and poor maintenance) in the Bristol Playing Pitch Strategy. Again linked to uncertaintyregarding the redevelopment of the site. The PPS suggests the pitches are being significantly overplayed i.e. the qualityof the pitch cannot sustain the current level of usage. The PPS acknowledges the plans for the Hengrove Park site butalso acknowledges the need for the current pitches. Therefore the PPS strongly supports the replacement of any loss ofplaying pitches through development. From a long term sports development perspective, remaining on site and developingthe area shown in the above aerial image would potentially give them a strong ‘community’ around them, adding to theirexisting membership.In line with our comments to the site allocation document BSA1401 Hengrove Park (which seeks to deliver a ‘high qualitypark’), Sport England require replacement playing field land in line with E4:

The area of playing field to be lost as a result of the proposed development will be replaced, prior to thecommencement of development, by a new area of playing field:▪ of equivalent or better quality, and▪ of equivalent or greater quantity, and▪ in a suitable location, and▪ subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements.

On site proposals On-site proposals would appear to show 2 x 100 by 70m rugby pitches with a cricket square (1 wicket) in middle of thepitches. Further work and plans will need to be developed to ensure that this is deliverable in practice. Usually cricketneeds 8-10 natural wickets and 1 non turf wicket to form the ‘square’. We note playing field land around the two winterpitches to provide room and flexibility for rest and recovery. How will the pitches be constructed to deliver the performancequality standard? This would need to form part of an amended planning obligation to ensure a reputable firm is engaged to‘construct the playing pitches’. In relation to pitch ancillary provision, what is also not clear is how the teams / users of the pitches will change (showerand use WCs). Where is the ancillary changing block with social space and area for refreshments? The proposedcommunity building it too far from the pitches which will harm the development of a strong community club to manage andoperate the site? How will the site be managed? Maintained? Unlikely it will be the Council given funding issues. Willthere be a commuted sum for site and pitch maintenance? Further work is required by the applicant to be secured by planning condition or planning obligation. Playing Pitch Strategy

The adopted Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) for Bristol identifies: Priority sport specific actions (that reflect the key issues and findings)

Protect Enhance ProvideCricket The cricket sites

within the Bristolboundary to preventno further displaceddemand out of thecity

The quantity, quality andavailability of the “pay andplay” cricket facility stock tomeet the club’s needs

New cricket facilities withinBristol to meet the demandfrom Bristol residents andprevent any furtherdisplaced demand out of theBristol boundary

Football The overall quantityof pitches in the cityto cope with futuredemand from all agegroups

The large number of poorpitches and changing facilities-specifically the ones mostheavily used

Develop a balance of adult,youth and mini footballpitches that provides thebest fit for the city’sdemands

Hockey The number andquality of hockeysuitable (sand based)AGPs in the city

The number of hours that sandbased AGPs are madeavailable for hockeythroughout the week

Additional playing andtraining time for thedevelopment of hockey inthe south of the city

RugbyUnion

The current siteswithin the Bristolboundary so no moreare displaced tooutside the city

The large number of poorquality pitches in the citythrough alternative usagepatterns, improved standardsof maintenance and capitalinterventions

Access to 3G artificial grasspitches in strategic locationsthat are World RugbyRegulation 22 compliant forcompetitive training andmatch play

The current site presents an opportunity to address the lack of cricket pitches as identified in the PPS. And address otherpitch issues for either football and/or rugby. Or for a pitch sport like lacrosse or American football. This application suggests a new informal open space of 0.9ha in approx. the location of the existing rugby pitches. Whilstthe argument has been put forward that the overall amount of open space has been increased, the new 0.9 ha area forinformal open space will have a very limited contribution to formal sport and meeting exception E4. Could the masterplanbe adjusted to create a larger single area of playing fields for formal sport to create a ‘high quality park’ serving formalsport? It could also have a dual use for informal activity when well managed. The Football Foundation, on behalf of the Football Association, advise that with the increase in population aligned with thestrategic need identified with the PPS, it is noted the proposed multi-purpose sports pitches including changing rooms anda designated area that can be used for informal football activity. We would expect any proposal to meet the needs offootball locally and is constructed to FA/FF specification, with natural grass pitches meeting the FA Performance QualityStandard (PQS). The Football Foundation have invested significantly in Filwood Park Playing Fields, BS4 1UA which is key strategic sitelocally with 8 grass football pitches and ancillary facilities including changing rooms. The application suggests that there will be a proposal to relocate the Rugby Club to Fulford Road, Hartcliffe which will besupported by a future application. It is noted that there is an adult 11v11 grass football pitch at the Fulford Road site andaligned within the Playing Pitch Strategy for football that there would be need to protect this pitch “There is a need toprotect the overall quantity of pitches in the city to cope with future demand from all age groups”. In addition, there is aneed to provide the right combination of 5v5, 7v7, 9v9 and 11v11 youth pitches in the city. Additionally, the proposal does not meet one of the five exceptions to Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy or withParagraph 97 of the NPPF: 97. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:a) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus torequirements; orb) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms ofquantity and quality in a suitable location; orc) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss ofthe current or former use. Consideration and weight should also be given to the Council’s own Local Plan policies that seek to protect open space,sport and recreation. Supported by the Playing Pitch Strategy. And the requirements of the adopted Neighbourhood Plan. Sport England objects to the loss of playing fields at Hengrove Park without replacement. We look forward to receivingadditional information regarding this proposal that may fully satisfy exception E.4 of our policy.

New housing contributing to sport

The occupiers of new development, especially residential, will generate demand for sporting provision. The existingprovision within an area may not be able to accommodate this increased demand without exacerbating existing and/orpredicted future deficiencies. Therefore, Sport England considers that new developments should contribute towards

meeting the demand that they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by a robust evidence base such as an up to date SportsFacilities Strategy, Playing Pitch Strategy or other relevant needs assessment. Which is ‘in place’ at Bristol City Council. This additional population will generate additional demand for sports facilities. If this demand is not adequately met then itmay place additional pressure on existing sports facilities, thereby creating deficiencies in facility provision. In accordancewith NPPF, Sport England seeks to ensure that the development meets any new sports facility needs arising as a result ofthe development. Using the Sport England Sport Facility Calculator webtool an increase of 5,000 people suggests the need for:

0.37 of a sports hall (1.49 badminton courts)

55.13 square metres of swimming pool space (or 0.26 of a pool)

0.19 of an artificial grass pitch

We note the provision for a new population of 5000 as 2x 100x70m multi-sport pitches and a MUGA. It is not clear if theMUGA will be lit for use in the winter months. Whilst there may not be a need to contribute to swimming pools based on adetailed Council assessment, the proposal could be a vehicle to deliver a community hub with sports/activity hall space,additional outdoor tennis and cycling / wheels park facility. Sport England would welcome a further conversation with theapplicant to encourage additional on-site provision / offs-site mitigation which could be beneficial to both the future ofAction Indoor Sports and Bristol Family Cycling Centre.

Active Design

We are encouraged that the applicants have made reference to Active Design. Sport England, in conjunction with PublicHealth England, has produced ‘Active Design’, a guide to planning new developments that create the right environment tohelp people get more active, more often in the interests of health and wellbeing. The guidance sets out ten key principlesfor ensuring new developments incorporate opportunities for people to take part in sport and physical activity. The ActiveDesign principles are aimed at contributing towards the Government’s desire for the planning system to promote healthycommunities through good urban design. Sport England would recommend the use of the guidance in the master planningprocess for new residential developments. The document can be downloaded via the following link:http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/ Appendix 1 contains a checklist that can demonstrate that the proposal has been / will be designed in line with the ActiveDesign principles. Cycle and walking networks should be extended to linking the existing urban areas with the new development, and accessto the surrounding environment. To encourage active travel there should be clear signage for cyclists into and out of thedevelopment site and to other destinations. In particular (this is a sample list to start a conversation and not a complete list):

Is there a range and mix of recreation, sports and play facilities and open spaces provided to encourage physicalactivity across all neighbourhoods? (Activity for All)Are facilities and open spaces managed to encourage a range of activities (Activity for All)Are all facilities supported as appropriate by public conveniences, water fountains and, where appropriate, changingfacilities (Activity for All)Do public spaces and routes have generous levels of seating provided? (Activity for All)Where shared surfaces occur, are the specific needs of the vulnerable pedestrian taken into account? (Activity forAll)Are a diverse mix of land uses such as homes, schools, shops, jobs, relevant community facilities and open spaceprovided within a comfortable (800m) walking distance? Is a broader range of land uses available within 5km cyclingdistance? (Walkable communities)Does the proposal promote a legible, integrated, direct, safe and attractive network of walking and cycling routessuitable for all users? (connected walking and cycling routes)Does the proposal prioritise pedestrian, cycle and public transport access ahead of the private car? (connectedwalking and cycling routes)Are the walking and cycling routes provided safe, well lit, overlooked, welcoming, and well maintained, durable andclearly signposted? Do they avoid blind corners? (connected walking and cycling routes)Do walking and cycling leisure routes integrate with the open space and green infrastructure network of the area andsports pitches? (connected walking and cycling routes)Does the open space provided facilitate a range of uses? (network of multifunctional open space)Are streets and spaces which are provided of a high quality, with durable materials, street furniture and signage?(high quality streets and spaces)Is safe and secure cycle parking provided for all types of cycles including adapted cycles and trikes? (appropriateinfrastructure)Is Wi-Fi provided in facilities and spaces? (appropriate infrastructure)Is safe and secure cycle and pushchair storage provided where appropriate? (appropriate infrastructure)

Other physical activity opportunities that should be considered:

* Need for an indoor meeting/activity space for winter activity and when it rains. Huge potential for a 'meet and greet' placefor a wide range of informal activity groups, including:

Beginner runningRide socialBoot campPop-up family games

*An indoor multi-purpose space within the pavilion can cater for a range of activities, including:

DanceYoga/PilatesCircuitsMums & babies/toddlers activity sessionsShort Mat BowlsTable Tennis

* Outdoor open access activity trail equipment. Ideally with a walk/jog/cycle trail around the perimeter of the space. Thisgives scope to a wide range of activity including 'story trails', green gym trail, junior/adult parkrun, circuits & boot camps. Allactivities that suit the demographic of families, busy working adults. * Keep element of flat multi-use informal space outside pitch layouts to encourage 'free-play' for children & families, thismay include:

'Jumpers for posts'FrisbeeRoundersFitness/Exercise sessions

* Potential for one of the designated 'play areas' to be focussed at teenagers and explore whether there is demand forskate park, free-running/parkour equipment etc. Sport England would welcome a further discussion on how this site is being influenced on Active Design principles,evidenced against the ‘checklist’ and how we can monitor activity levels pre build and during the occupancies and beyondas part of a wider Active Design case study. Technical Guidance Lastly any new facilities should be built in accordance with Sport England’s technical guidance notes, copies of which canbe found at: http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools-guidance/design-and-cost-guidance/ ConclusionIn light of the above, Sport England objects to the application because it is not considered to accord with any of theexceptions to Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy or with Paragraph 97 of the NPPF.

In objecting to this statutory planning application, Sport England would make reference to the High Court decision to quasha planning consent for development adjoining the East Meon cricket ground in East Hampshire District (High Court Ref:Case No: CO/1894/2014). In summing up the case, the Inspector said:. In my judgment, the officers and the PlanningCommittee failed to have proper regard to the representations of Sport England in its capacity as statutory consultee".Sport England would therefore request that the local planning authority give due weight to the concerns raised by SportEngland with regard to this proposal, given our status as a statutory consultee.

Should the local planning authority be minded to grant planning permission for the proposal, contrary to Sport England’sobjection then in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, theapplication should be referred to the Secretary of State, via the National Planning Casework Unit.If this application is to be presented to a Planning Committee, we would like to be notified in advance of the publication ofany committee agendas, report(s) and committee date(s). We would be grateful if you would advise us of the outcome ofthe application by sending us a copy of the decision notice.Sport England would welcome further discussion around the provision of on-site or off-site sport and recreation facilitiesand how to implement Active Design principles and monitor the success of this new community as it moves from masterplanning to an established community where sport and physical activity is part of daily life and embedded into activelifestyles.If you would like any further information or advice please contact me at the address below Yours sincerely   Gary Parsons MSc MRTPI Planning Manager

 Childcare facilities not provided and no provision for voluntary sector. No mitigation measures proposed.

Few mitigation measures are specific or measurable and there is no process stated for monitoring the implementation of the measures or of health indicators.

Full review

Section 1: Information about the project, policy, plan or proposal

Good - The project aims, organisational relationships, timeframe and policy context have been included.

Section 2: Methodology: Is it an HIA? Has it followed a recognised HIA methodology?

Requires strengthening - A robust assessment tool - The Healthy Urban Development Unit Planning for Health Rapid HIA Tool - has been used and a holistic definition of health and wellbeing has been given. However, other than deprived people, vulnerable groups who may be impacted by the proposal have not been identified and engagement with citizens has not been outlined.

Section 3: Evidence: Is the evidence used to identify and assess impacts robust?

Inadequate - Health data has been provided for the whole population of Bristol, but not at ward level. There is no literature or evidence review and stakeholder data has not been provided. Technical data provided is not relevant to the project site.

Section 4: Appraisal, assessment and the identification of impacts

Requires strengthening – Many positive health impacts have been identified. Several neutral impacts have been identified; for each, mitigation measures have been proposed. However, some positive impacts have been overstated, and some neutral impacts could be considered negative. Little data has been directly used to inform the assessment and no potential inequalities have been identified.

Many positive health impacts have been identified:

 Housing quality and design - wheelchair accessibility for a number of units; residential units meet internal space standards; kitchen and dining spaces; 30% affordable dwellings; energy efficiency measures.

 Access to healthcare services and other social infrastructure – community space provided at the Proposed Development; Site is well-located in relation to existing community uses and services.

 Access to open space and nature – new managed and maintained areas of public open greenspace and landscaped gardens within the Site which is welcoming, safe and accessible; private gardens for residents; informal recreation / playable space; new Multi-Use Games Area; links between open space and the public realm.

 Accessibility and active travel - dedicated cycling and walking routes; cycle storage within each residential unit; designated cycle stores; crossing points, segregated walking and cycle lanes, speed limitation and appropriate visibility splays; car parking will not exceed BCC standards; electric vehicle charging points; accessible parking.

 Crime reduction and community safety – external lighting; open and circulation space promote natural surveillance; layout and communal areas promote sense of shared community and connects well to existing area; public open space, multi-use spaces and community centre area promote social cohesion; public consultation took place.

 Access to healthy food - offsite funding for allotment gardens and a community orchard; retail space could include local small food retailers and social enterprises.

 Access to work and training – 175 FTE net construction jobs per annum during construction; possibility of training or apprenticeship schemes; jobs during operation; possible local Employment Strategy; expansion of Skills Academy; workspace for local businesses.

 Social cohesion and lifetime neighbourhoods – connections with existing local residential areas including open spaces which encourage pedestrian movement through the area; mix of uses and community facilities; addresses several components of lifetime neighbourhoods.

 Minimising the use of resources – medium density housing and employment space; enhanced open space; construction waste management measures; Operational Waste Management Strategy; energy efficiency measures.

 Climate change – energy efficiency measures; options including use of natural gas or biomass; enhancement of biodiversity; Sustainable Urban Drainage methods.

However, some of these impacts have been overstated or lack evidence:

 Access to open space and nature – although new public open greenspace is proposed, the Site is currently used as a large public park.

 Accessibility and active travel – whilst car parking will not exceed BCC standards, the Proposed Development will accommodate a large number of cars.

 Air quality, noise and public amenity – the Proposed Development will be accessed by many vehicles.

 Access to healthy food – it is not known if the retail space will include healthy food.

 Access to work and training – it is not known if a local Employment Strategy will be developed.

 Minimising the use of resources – it is not known if renewable fuels will be used.

 Social cohesion and lifetime neighbourhoods – it is unclear whether a range of community facilities will be provided.

Some neutral health impacts have been identified, and mitigation measures proposed for most:

 Access to healthcare services and other social infrastructure – the local GP surgery has above the England average number of patients per GP, £90,000 has been proposed as a contribution towards improvements; D1 floorspace could be used for health-related services; additional demand for school places; CIL contributions towards provision of health, education and other infrastructure in the local area.

 Air quality, noise and neighbourhood amenity – minimisation of construction impacts including dust and emissions; air pollution caused by traffic and energy facilities will be minimised; noise pollution will be minimised.

 Accessibility and active travel – paving, clear wayfinding, lighting; access to public transport, local services nearby.

 Access to work and training – childcare facilities not provided; no provision for voluntary sector; no mitigation measures proposed.

However, some of these could be considered negative impacts for which mitigations have been proposed:

 Access to healthcare services and other social infrastructure – impact on local GP surgery; additional demand for school places

 Air quality, noise and neighbourhood amenity – impacts of construction

 Access to work and training – lack of childcare facilities; no provision for voluntary sector.

No negative impacts, gaps or unintended consequences have been identified.

Other than GP access data, health data and evidence have not been used to inform the assessment of impacts.

Who will be impacted and any potential inequalities in the distribution of impacts have not been identified.

Section 5: Recommendations, Conclusions and Monitoring

Requires strengthening – The ‘Conclusions and recommendations’ chapter provides a summary of the health impacts and mitigation measures. There are few clear links between the evidence gathered, assessment and recommendations. Few mitigation measures are specific or measurable. There is no process stated for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures, and no health indicators have been identified for ongoing monitoring.

Section 6: Principles and Governance: Has it been conducted in a way that meets the principles and values of HIA?

Inadequate - There is no focus on equity or reducing inequalities. Stakeholder engagement took place but data was not included or considered in the assessment.

This development will increase air, light and noise pollution in the area as well asserving to increase congestion and strain on already stretched services.The air pollution levels in this area are currently low however this will not remain the case. Many ofthe trees in the park will be felled and, combined with the loss of general green space, the impacton biodiversity and local ecosystems will be severe. It is not feasible to suggest that planting a fewsaplings and having a managed green space will compensate for such loss given the maturity ofstock currently in the park. Given research on trees (in particular) is indicating that they areincredibly important in managing climate change and pollution then the council is effectivelysubjecting the local resident population to risk of pollution caused illness.Hengrove Park is a well used green space for all the community and should not be subjected to aconcrete makeover in order to fulfil an ill thought out BCC commitment.

We have examined the proposals for the redevelopment of Hengrove Park. From yoursection drawings, particularly section A_A through the narrowest part of the Park oppositeRowberrow we am extremely concerned about the proposal to build houses along the northernexit road to Hengrove Way.The existing lane , which would require widening, is lined on the park side by a heavily woodedembankment 5-6 metres high. In order to create space for housing I estimate that an almost levelarea would be required 20 metres deep. This would effectively remove allthe treesto the east ofthe lane. I would estimate 500 to 1000 good healthy trees would be removed. I suggest that this istotally against the policy to retain as many of the good healthy trees for the benefit of theredeveloped parkland. The proposal to build houses in this position is a bad one as the trees arean established benefit to this area of the park.It would be better to further investigate housing on the empty plots of the Leisure Park rather thanremove these trees to create building plots.The connectivity between the existing children's play are, along the line of the old runway isinadequate. This should be a wide tree lined thoroughfare which would encourage people andchildren to investigate both areas of the parkland and reinforce the historic presence of the

runway.The proposals overall do not meet the criteria set out in the Neighbourhood Plan which wasconfirmed by a local referendum and should be respected. Basically the proposed plan has toomany houses and not enough Parkland compared to the APPROVED NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN.

This proposal fails to comply with the Neighbourhood Plan and Adopted Master Plan aswas the previous application which was rejected by the Development Control Committee. Thehousing density is too low and the number of houses is too high. The proposal does not respectthe historic Runway Space and fails to protect this as required in the Neighbourhood plan. Theproposal severs the East - West link from the park to The Mounds. Excessive additional traffic willbe generated by the proposal and there are not sufficient appropriate transport managementinterventions or improvements to public transport proposed.

1. The plan fails to comply with the Neighbourhood Plan and adopted master plan, asdid the previous application which was refused by the Development Control Committee for thatvery reason.

2. The density of housing is too low and the number of housing proposed too high, breaching theNeighbourhood Plan.

3. The proposal does not respect the historic runway space and fails to protect this as requiredwithin the Neighbourhood Plan.

4. The proposal is excessive. Along with the Kier development and [possible future developmentat the leisure park it would deliver over 1800 units on Hengrove Park, where around 1000 areidentified in the Local Plan Site Allocation. This is being achieved through the sacrifice of parkspace and breaching of the requirement for a large high quality park (Site Allocations) and a parkled development (Neighbourhood Plan).

5. The proposal severs the East West link from the park to Hengrove Mounds and proposesdevelopment too existing housing on St Giles Estate.

6. The plan will create significant additional traffic along Bamfield and at its junctions and there arenot appropriate transport management interventions or improvements to public transportproposed.

7. Finally there is little mention of infant/junior school provision and more importantly GeneralPractitioners. Whitchurch Health Centre is already sinking under the volume of patients it has.

1. The plan fails to comply with the Neighbourhood Plan and adopted master plan, asdid the previous application which was refused by the Development Control Committee for thatvery reason.

2. The density of housing is too low and the number of housing proposed too high, breaching theNeighbourhood Plan.

3. The proposal does not respect the historic runway space and fails to protect this as requiredwithin the Neighbourhood Plan.

4. The proposal is excessive. Along with the Kier development and [possible future developmentat the leisure park it would deliver over 1800 units on Hengrove Park, where around 1000 areidentified in the Local Plan Site Allocation. This is being achieved through the sacrifice of parkspace and breaching of the requirement for a large high quality park (Site Allocations) and a parkled development (Neighbourhood Plan).

5. The proposal severs the East West link from the park to Hengrove Mounds and proposesdevelopment too existing housing on St Giles Estate.

6. The plan will create significant additional traffic along Bamfield and at its junctions and there arenot appropriate transport management interventions or improvements to public transportproposed.

7. Finally there is little mention of infant/junior school provision and more importantly GeneralPractitioners. Whitchurch Health Centre is already sinking under the volume of patients it has.

1. The plan fails to comply with the Neighbourhood Plan and adopted master plan, asdid the previous application which was refused by the Development Control Committee for thatvery reason.

2. The density of housing is too low and the number of housing proposed too high, breaching theNeighbourhood Plan.

3. The proposal does not respect the historic runway space and fails to protect this as requiredwithin the Neighbourhood Plan.

4. The proposal is excessive. Along with the Kier development and [possible future developmentat the leisure park it would deliver over 1800 units on Hengrove Park, where around 1000 areidentified in the Local Plan Site Allocation. This is being achieved through the sacrifice of parkspace and breaching of the requirement for a large high quality park (Site Allocations) and a parkled development (Neighbourhood Plan).

5. The proposal severs the East West link from the park to Hengrove Mounds and proposesdevelopment too existing housing on St Giles Estate.

6. The plan will create significant additional traffic along Bamfield and at its junctions and there arenot appropriate transport management interventions or improvements to public transportproposed.

7. Finally there is little mention of infant/junior school provision and more importantly GeneralPractitioners. Whitchurch Health Centre is already sinking under the volume of patients it has.

1. The plan fails to comply with the Neighbourhood Plan and adopted master plan, asdid the previous application which was refused by the Development Control Committee for thatvery reason.

2. The density of housing is too low and the number of housing proposed too high, breaching theNeighbourhood Plan.

3. The proposal does not respect the historic runway space and fails to protect this as requiredwithin the Neighbourhood Plan.

4. The proposal is excessive. Along with the Kier development and [possible future developmentat the leisure park it would deliver over 1800 units on Hengrove Park, where around 1000 areidentified in the Local Plan Site Allocation. This is being achieved through the sacrifice of parkspace and breaching of the requirement for a large high quality park (Site Allocations) and a parkled development (Neighbourhood Plan).

5. The proposal severs the East West link from the park to Hengrove Mounds and proposesdevelopment too existing housing on St Giles Estate.

6. The plan will create significant additional traffic along Bamfield and at its junctions and there arenot appropriate transport management interventions or improvements to public transportproposed.

7. Finally there is little mention of infant/junior school provision and more importantly GeneralPractitioners. Whitchurch Health Centre is already sinking under the volume of patients it has.1.The plan fails to comply with the Neighbourhood Plan and adopted master plan, as did theprevious application which was refused by the Development Control Committee for that veryreason.

2. The density of housing is too low and the number of housing proposed too high, breaching theNeighbourhood Plan.

3. The proposal does not respect the historic runway space and fails to protect this as requiredwithin the Neighbourhood Plan.

4. The proposal is excessive. Along with the Kier development and [possible future developmentat the leisure park it would deliver over 1800 units on Hengrove Park, where around 1000 areidentified in the Local Plan Site Allocation. This is being achieved through the sacrifice of parkspace and breaching of the requirement for a large high quality park (Site Allocations) and a parkled development (Neighbourhood Plan).

5. The proposal severs the East West link from the park to Hengrove Mounds and proposesdevelopment too existing housing on St Giles Estate.

6. The plan will create significant additional traffic along Bamfield and at its junctions and there arenot appropriate transport management interventions or improvements to public transportproposed.

7. Finally there is little mention of infant/junior school provision and more importantly GeneralPractitioners. Whitchurch Health Centre is already sinking under the volume of patients it has.

1. The plan fails to comply with the Neighbourhood Plan and adopted master plan, asdid the previous application which was refused by the Development Control Committee for thatvery reason.

2. The density of housing is too low and the number of housing proposed too high, breaching theNeighbourhood Plan.

3. The proposal does not respect the historic runway space and fails to protect this as requiredwithin the Neighbourhood Plan.

4. The proposal is excessive. Along with the Kier development and [possible future developmentat the leisure park it would deliver over 1800 units on Hengrove Park, where around 1000 areidentified in the Local Plan Site Allocation. This is being achieved through the sacrifice of parkspace and breaching of the requirement for a large high quality park (Site Allocations) and a parkled development (Neighbourhood Plan).

5. The proposal severs the East West link from the park to Hengrove Mounds and proposesdevelopment to existing housing on St Giles Estate.

6. The plan will create significant additional traffic along Bamfield and at its junctions and there arenot appropriate transport management interventions or improvements to public transportproposed.

7. Finally there is little mention of infant/junior school provision and more importantly GeneralPractitioners. Whitchurch Health Centre is already sinking under the volume of patients it has.

6. There does not appear to be an impact study on the wildlife corridor owing to the significant increase in traffic that will occur on Bamfield and surrounding roads. The proposed plan would see the loss of numerous mature and diverse trees.

7. There are insufficient parking places provisioned in these plans. There will be unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties from overspill.

8. We are disappointed at the potential loss of the historical site of Whitchurch Airfield runway.

Yours Faithfully,

Dr Sam Royston and Dr Paul Dickinson

The plans submitted by Bristol City Council contravenes the Neighbourhood Plan andso I call upon the council's Development Control Committee to again refuse permission. The will ofresidents must be considered.

We don't want what little green land Bristol has left destroyed. With the building ofhouses with the population of the area growing through these new houses would also bring inpollution into the area with less green land to take away the pollution. This will lead to a reducedair quality which will effect heath in the area and cause additional demand for heath care for bothcurrent residents and any new residents that would move into the houses if built.

Destroying the green areas on Bristol would also reduce the amount of land people can use forexercise, obesity is often talked about in the news as being a big heath risk but with less areas ofgreen land to exercise there is a real risk that people in the area will become more prone tobecoming overweight. Also greenland has been found to have a positive effect on metal health.This will put extra demand for healthcare in the area. The current GP surgery already has morepatients per doctor than the national average and getting a doctors appointment is already difficultand often you are unable to get an appointment before being examined by a nurse to decide if youare ill enough to see a doctor. The doctors surgery will already have to cope with the attentionalhouses through the loss of the neighbouring Filwood Park along with the addition of many othersmaller building of homes around the area resulting in smaller areas of green land lost or reduced.

There are no plans to address this issue the community has.

The building of these houses would destroy a community hub, which is used for communityevents. The area is also home a historical site (the old airport) which is rare within these areas.The area is also used by balloons for a save landing place, removing green areas in this area willput future balloon fiesta in danger as reducing the amount of green land will remove save landingplaces and may become too dangerous within the future to run or reduce the size of the event.

The area currently provides a safe place for children to plan without fear of being killed by passingtraffic.

The destroying of the green land areas would also reduce the land the wildlife in the area can use,destroying there homes and future homes in the process. This would lead to less wildlife in Bristoleither though moving away from the area or though there death due to lack of natural foodsources.

The plans do not comply with Local Plan and Site Allocation Strategy, and the Council's Park andGreen Spaces Strategy of park space within the area.

The building of new houses on this site would make the next area of greenland for many peopleinaccessible as being too far away to walk and poor transport in the area with First Bus calmingthat they run the buses at a loss in this area of Bristol would result in many not having access toany large area of greenland. New houses will unlikely improve public transport in the area and themoney spent in the area of the promised metro bus would be wasted due to changes of therequired route in the area in the event that we do ever get a metro service in the area.

The building of new housing in the area will result in attentional traffic on the roads in the area andmake RTAs more likely in the area. This would be on-top of the already attentional traffic in thearea from new housing being built now as well as changes further afield to the road network, thatwill lead attentional traffic to the area. This will cause gridlock in the area and more pollution.

Other more suited sites of abandoned lots/areas already concerted over (many owned by thecouncil) are still without planing permission and could be used to build attentional houses withoutlosing green land.

At the rate we are building soon there will be no green areas around and will lead to more issueswithin Bristol in the long run that will be much harder to fix. Therefore we should be protecting ourgreen land for a better future for Bristol.

The area is much better to be left as a community hub (park) with attentional trees being plantedand extending the wildlife reserve areas and would result in a better community area within thelocal area much like other areas of Bristol. This would also bring the area in-line with other parts of

Bristol that have large parks where events are held.

This supposed 'revision' seems to be a slightly watered down version of the pastsubmitted (and rejected) plan.

The revised/proposed plan has been hidden rather cleverly, by loading whitchurch library with anenormous amount of data in huge folders. There is no way that a member of the public can absorball the information contained therein, and gain a full understanding of how the area will look.

We require a proper to scale model/layout to fully appreciate the proposal. The omission of thismodel (I believe) makes a case that the planning authorities have failed in conveying to the publicthe enormity of the changes proposed - this alone may be contestable at law.

The revisions are a further example of a Mayor on an ego trip, and it is an insult to re-present aslightly modified submission in the hope that the public will accept it. This whole concept ismotivated by quantity, all other considerations have been pushed aside.

The neighbourhood plan has not been given the due consideration it deserves 1800 plus housing

units is way far excessive - with the result that the park area will be considerably reduced.

NB 1800 houses equates to a population increase of approx 2700, and an increased carpopulation of approx 2700+. In addition to this, we have the prospect of some commercial activitythat will further add to traffic movement.I sincerely hope that the planning authorities who rejected the previous 'silly' proposal will not befooled into thinking the latest outline (with its trivial tweaks) will fit the bill.People in this area have made clear that the planners are NOT listening to their realisticalternative proposals.The revised plan is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

As always the volume of documentation in support of this application is overwhelmingand it is not practicable to pick through every piece of information. However this revisedapplication appears fundamentally little different from the previous application which was refused.

Open space:I support the principle of some development on the site however remain unconvinced that theextent of development as against the area of parkland is correct. The proposed park is a linearpark which has a very different character to the large open space that currently exists. Despite theevolution of the masterplan the proposed park remains narrow adjacent to Rowacres. A smallerbuilt offering would allow a wider park.

There is a steady erosion of green space and trees within this part of Bristol. Further removal ofgreen spaces alongside Airport Road for development is proposed. I understand that the mayorhas designated Bristol a climate emergency city. With the prospect of climate change resulting in awarmer planet it will be even more important for people to have access to open spaces where theycan get away from heat reflected from and trapped between buildings. People also need to be

able to get away from roads and the associated pollution immediately adjacent to them. Openspace where one can get away from the built important has an important psychological value andnot everybody can get out into the surrounding countryside.

I support the quality of external space and park that is proposed in the D&A. Long termmaintenance will of course be essential to maintain this. The often shabby appearance of thespace between Hengrove Leisure Centre and South Bristol Hospital is not an encouragingprecedent.

Development quantity:The officer's report in respect of the previous application noted that the number of dwellingsreferenced in the adopted site allocation document was 1,000 but added that the figure was not acap. It also noted that the Neighbourhood Plan indicates an approximate number of 1,400dwellings.

The current application is now for 1,450 dwellings (a small reduction from the 1,500 proposed inthe refused plan). I understand that, taken with the previously agreed plans, this amounts to a totalof 1711 dwellings. This is a 22% increase on the 1,400 referred to in the Neighbourhood Plan.This is a significant difference which I do not consider can be justified, I can see no point in havingparticipatory planning exercises if the results are to be so blatantly overridden.

The Open Space Assessment notes that "the application site is extremely well served by informalopen space including Valley Walk, Maynard Road, Willmott Park, Briery Leaze, Filwood Park andAirport Road open space. " (para 5.9). This statement ignores the fact that much of the informalopen space identified is already designated for development within the Bristol City Site Allocationsand Development policies.

Housing mix:I am not persuaded that the housing mix is right. Given that the Building Types plan indicatesvarious blocks as town houses or apartments I am not clear how the house to flat ratio iscalculated but the Planning Supporting Statement states that two thirds of the dwellings proposedare to be flats (paragraph 7.5). Does this statement assume all the the blocks labelled as 'housesor flats' are flats, or houses or a mix - it's not clear.

However lots of flats are already under construction or proposed in central Bristol where the ideaof living without the use of a car is more credible and where the creation of satisfactory familyhomes is exceedingly difficult. Part of the justification for this appears to be to increase the densityof the scheme. However much of Bristol provides family dwellings with private outdoor spacewithin high density urban planning. Southville, Bedminster and Totterdown in south Bristol areexamples of this. Early parts of Knowle are similarly dense with density dropping off in the mid/latetwentieth century developments of Knowle West, Filwood etc. Whilst these earlier examples arenot directly replicable and obviously did not need to address the motor car, they do indicate that

building high with flats is not the only way to create high density urban environments.

The affordable housing aspiration is welcome particularly the requirement for social housing. It isnot clear whether the mix of social housing will reflect the overall mix of the development or beskewed to particular dwelling types. I would certainly like to see family housing included in thesocial rent mix. I assume this will be a matter for future discussion and that Bristol City Council willuse their knowledge of their existing accommodation and the demand for it (and taking intoaccount the forced sale of some accommodation through Right to Buy) to inform the agreedprovision.

Transport/roads:Not withstanding the new Metrobus service bus connections in south Bristol are poor and notreadily accessible for many. For most people getting from home to work is not possible without acar as bus services go from south Bristol to the City Centre which means that to get to other partsof Bristol it is necessary to get to the centre, change bus and then travel outwards again - thismakes for long journey times. In addition many people own a car in order to be able to access thecountryside, visit family or friends etc. It is difficult to see car ownership disappearing in the nearfuture and the level of car parking provision is therefore questionable.

Although the submitted documents indicate that the development will have only minor impact onthe road network the reality is that Bristol's roads are frequently choked and this conclusion defiescommon sense.

I acknowledge however that given that Bristol undoubtedly requires more housing there is nosimple answer to this. I knowledge also that this issue may not be a fault in the application butmore to do with planning policy itself.

Education:ES para 14.6.35 to 14.6.27 states that the additional demand for primary school places will be metby the expansion of Perry Court E-ACT Academy in the short-medium term. It does not addresswhether this then meets long term demand.

ES para 14.6.38 states that the additional demand for secondary school places will be met by thenew secondary school approved for South Bristol - I assume this refers to the school nowproposed to be built on the site of the former Merrywood School. Greater clarity on this would behelpful.

Healthcare:Anecdotal evidence suggests that getting appointments to see GPs is increasingly difficult and thatGPs generally are overworked. The ES (para 14.6.2) states that the development will have only amoderate adverse (significant) impact on primary healthcare provision based on a comparison ofregistered patients per GP. Although it suggests that this impact could be mitigated by expansion

of the Armada Family Practice it is not known whether or not this is feasible. In addition it is notclear that the general trend for greater demand for primary healthcare as a result of an ageingpopulation has been factored in. Unless off site provision can definitely be identified the proposeddevelopment should, in my opinion, include allocation of additional space for delivery of primaryhealthcare.

Historical memory:I support the proposal to retain memories of the runway and incorporate information panelsregarding the history of the airfield.

Summary:I support the high quality standards aspired to and the proposal to retain memories of the airfield.However I consider- the amount of development is to high- the balance of development to retained park to be too much in favour of development- the mix of housing units proposed to be inappropriate for this location (although it is also unclear)- the impact on traffic to be underplayed in the supporting documents,- the impact on school provision to be unclear and not completely addressed- the impact on primary healthcare services to be unclear and not convincingly addressed

I therefore object to this application

Whilst I have no objection to the principle of the park partially being used for housing Ido object to the fact that what is being proposed still clearly contravenes the policies within theNeighbourhood Development Plan. The Plan is very clear as to what is required, particularly interms of the amount and quality of the park. The application fails to address the need for additionalhealth facilities as Whitchurch Health Centre is close to capacity and it is already a nightmaretrying to get an appointment. I would like to know why the council thinks it is acceptable to placesuch a large amount of housing in South Bristol, yet if we were to suggest even building on a smallsection of the Downs there would be a political outcry. You only have to look at what happened tothe A4018 proposals. The council talks about equality but this smacks of anything but.

properly addressed in the next draft of the Bristol Local Plan and that it sets out to deliver a Greater South Bristol Economic Framework to give greater attention to the economic and business needs of the area in both Bristol City Council and WECA.We consider that the provision of opportunities for businesses to locate, grow and provide jobs is a vital part of ensuring south Bristol is able to succeed and benefit from the wider economic health of the region.Currently access from south Bristol to the core economic centres of the city and city region is weak and presents significant barriers to residents and their ability to work in these areas. We strongly welcome and have supported the major HIF Bid which BCC and WECA have recently submitted to government to help address this.Current levels of private sector investment into south Bristol are poor, particularly compared to other parts of the Bristol. Whilst we also know of local south Bristol businesses who have been struggling tosecure suitable employment locations in south Bristol to allow them to pursue their expansion plans locally, rather than having to relocate out of the area.At present, the draft Bristol Local Plan is proposing to:Remove Policy BCS8, which was present in the 2011 Bristol Core Strategy,The draft Bristol Local Plan therefore will remove any binding targets for either employment or for additional employment land space. This includes removing significant targets for sqm of office space and hectare targets for industrial land, including a target for new industrial land in south Bristol for "up to 10 hectares of additional industrial and warehousing land focused on the major regeneration areas in South Bristol". This, in itself, was lower than the recommended level of industrial land recommended by the then Employment Land Study.1Remove employment land protections from the area around the Bottleyard.The Bristol Local Plan contains proposals to remove protections from over 40% of Bristol's 'Primary Industial and Warehousing Areas' (PIWAs) to allow for redevelopment at housing, with current weak proposed protections to secure employment within these areas. This includes a proposal to remove protection from the PIWA in South Bristol next to Hengrove Park that contains Bottleyard Studios and the offices of Matthew Clark. The Bristol Local Plan is not proposing redesignating any other areas of employment landIn order to be further informed, we look forward to seeing a copy of the new employment land study produced for the council by JLL when it becomes publically available.We are also note our continued concern at a city region level in the current West of England Joint Spatial Plan there is a lack of attention on the employment and economic aspects for the South Bristol area and its place within a wider city region strategic framework for economic growth.Best wishesJames Durie,BCCI Chief Executive Officer

The plan fails to comply with the Neighbourhood Plan and adopted master plan as didthe previous application that was refused by the Development Control Committee for this reason.

The number of houses is too high, breaching the Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal does notrespect the historic runway space and fails to protect this as required in the Neighbourhood Plan.The proposal is excessive. With the Kier development it would deliver 1800 units on HengrovePark where around 1000 is identified in the Local Plan Site Allocation. This is achieved bysacrificing park space and so breaching the requirement for a large high quality park (SiteAllocations) and a Park led development (Neighbourhood Plan).

The plan will create significant additional traffic along Bamfield and its junctions and noappropriate transport management interventions or improvements to public transport areproposed.

There are not enough primary school placements and medical facilities to cope with so many extrahomes. Our Medical Centre is already 50% over prescribed and there are thousands of houses

and flats being built in Whitchurch and surrounding areas all needing medical facilities, educationfacilities and sport facilities.

This application should be refused.

19/02632/PB

The plan fails to comply with the Neighbourhood Plan and adopted master plan as did theprevious application that was refused by the Development Control Committee for this reason.

The number of houses is too high, breaching the Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal does notrespect the historic runway space and fails to protect this as required in the Neighbourhood Plan.The proposal is excessive. With the Kier development it would deliver 1800 units on HengrovePark where around 1000 is identified in the Local Plan Site Allocation. This is achieved bysacrificing park space and so breaching the requirement for a large high quality park (SiteAllocations) and a Park led development (Neighbourhood Plan).

The plan will create significant additional traffic along Bamfield and its junctions and noappropriate transport management interventions or improvements to public transport areproposed.

There are not enough primary school places and medical facilities to cope with so many extrahomes. Our Medical Centre is already 50% over prescribed and there are thousands of housesand flats being built in Whitchurch and surrounding areas all needing medical facilities.

This application should be refused.

The plan fails to comply with the neighbourhood plan and adapted master plan as didthe previous application that was refused by the Development Control Committee for this reason.

The plan will create significant additional traffic along Bamfield and its junctions and there are noappropriate transport management interventions or improvements to public transport proposed.

The plan does not protect the historic runway space and fails to protect this as required in theNeighbourhood Plan.

Where are all these extra school places doctors appointment s coming from we havelived here on the airfield for thirty years ever since the cinema pub MacDonald s has been built it sbeen nothing but noise , drunks fighting walking back from there most nights. Rubbish blowingfrom there landing in the front gardens . You can't get a doctor s appointment when you need one, there will be all sorts of antisocial pepole right in front of my home , I wish I could move .. but itsnot an option. Please build on the downs were there is more room ,

I understand that more houses are needed but this is a park!Once these houses are built which cover a huge proportion of the park we cannot bring the landback for use by the whole community.I believe the Neighbourhood plan proposal is the best compromise, which is limits the amount ofhouses and reains the amenity value of the park.This park could be great one day if it is not covered in housing.

This application is still unwanted and totally against all of the residents of our local area.It also completely ignores the outcome of the referendum which took place earlier this year.This slightly modified application has been resubmitted by a mayor who has zero thought or carefor the people who actually live in the surrounding area.The roads we have in Whitchurch (apart from being like farm tracks) now cannot handle theamount of traffic using them at this point in time so how can they cope with the huge number ofextra vehicles that this development would bring.( not to mention the ridiculous amount ofunderused cycle paths that hes wasting money on at the moment! ).these plans also make no mention of Doctors surgeries, schools, dentists surgeries etc that thelocal existing providers cant cope with at the moment.Public transport would need to be greatly improved as the service running wouldn't cope with anyextra demand.this historic site should be kept as a park and not smothered in concrete as is happeningeverywhere!What is wrong with developing rundown and derelict factories and sites like that (apart from its farto expensive to demolish them before you can rebuild on the site.....much easier to bulldoze a

green open space!!).This is also having a massive impact on wildlife through the destruction of habitat.We think in our heart of hearts that this comment is futile and that the mayor and Bristol councilhave already decided that this development will happen,completely regardless of the peoplesviews who have democratically made their views known in the past.So much for living in a democracy!

I strongly object to this planning application on the following grounds:

1. This is a second application to develop 49 hectares of Hengrove Park, which is much used,much valued and much needed green space in a sea of grey, when you look at the map. The firstsuch application was rejected on robust planning grounds, and this one is hardly altered. Theapplicant has not taken on board the several grounds for the rejection, of which the BCC planningdepartment are well aware. On this basis alone, this repeat application should be similarlyrejected.

2. The proposed development will have an impact on the environment in Bristol, proclaimed aclimate emergency city by BCC and the Mayor. They have abjectly failed so far to produceadequate or workable solutions for our abysmal air quality, that threatens the health of all Bristolresidents. Hengrove Park serves several surrounding areas that contain concentrations of some ofthe severest deprivation in Bristol, and even in the UK. To so drastically reduce available greenspace for leisure, to remove nearly 900 trees with their ability reduce pollution and release oxygeninto the atmosphere, and to rob an already struggling population of the invaluable amenities

afforded by the park, is the exact opposite of what is needed for the protection of people, wildlifeand environment. Replacing trees with saplings that will take many decades to mature and takeover the functions of mature trees, is wholly inadequate. It will leave a long term deficit in the treecanopy that is at odds with the Mayor's stated objective of doubling it in the next 20 years.Developing the majority of the park is also contrary to the Local Plan's commitment to maintaincurrent levels of green space in Bristol.

3. The wishes of local people, expressed in the referendum, are being ignored in this proposal.They have asked for a 'Destination Park', and despite the good reasons for that, it is being deniedthem. This is an area which is crying out for more facilities for local employment, transport,healthcare, education and community enterprise, and if their requirements are not calculatedproperly and catered for sufficiently at this stage, pre-development, the social, health, communityand other consequences will accumulate in the future. I refer you to the comments of the CrimeReduction Unit, and to the many comments complaining of the lack of consideration for providingthe infrastructure that the locality is already short of, let alone when the population increases asproposed. If the community's perfectly reasonable wishes and genuine needs are ignored, anddevelopment is pushed through heedlessly, this diverse and in places very needy area willincreasingly be the focus of disastrous consequences in terms of health, achievement, education,employment, social unrest and policing.

4. Please note the objection from Innes Wilkin Architecture, who make points with which I am incomplete agreement. They stress the fact that Hengrove Park is 'an incredibly important asset toSouth Bristol' and that 'Considerable weight should be given to the loss of the public park whenassessing a suitable density. To see it as a purely commercial exercise in making the maximumprofit(which is the general substance of the justification) will waste an opportunity to bring wellneeded housing to South Bristol without squandering public amenity space.' They, like others,point out that the density of the proposed housing is too low and the number of dwellings too high,resulting in 'an outrageous loss of public land ...' . I completely agree with this view, and I ask youto consider it very carefully and accept its merit.

5. The plan fails to comply with council policy with regard to the provision of additional schoolplaces, and there is no provision of adequate mitigation for negative health impacts by means of anew GP practice, which should be factored in given the proposed numbers of new residents andthe notorious pressures on medical services.

6. The funding for proposed bus stops, and complete lack of provision for the infrastructure to dealwith additional traffic, are clearly inadequate and will lead to predictable traffic, congestion andparking problems.

7. The statement from the Thriving South Bristol Group lists policies potentially breached by thisproposal, e.g:

BCS 1 - re the need for a new town centre in the context of the numbers of developments in thearea

BCS8 - insufficient provision of new employment land.

It also highlights the low density of housing proposed and the need for providing employmentopportunities in the several areas of high deprivation, and the failure to address deprivation inSouth Bristol.

This is a flawed application, and is an attempt to deprive thousands of people of rare green spacewith no regard for their future welfare and improvement of their expectations. It is cynicallyexploitative, in breach of many of BCC's policies, and ignores thecwishes of the communitiesinvolved. Please reject it.

use but in tandem with this is the fact many of the results were classed as deviant by thelaboratory. The potential uncertainties arising from these results are not discussed in the reports.

The report does conclude with a recommendation for further sampling per phase of developmentwhich we have no objection to, some remediation has been identified at this early stage in relationto the elevated results encountered.

This will be a phased development, therefore bespoke conditions are likely to be requiredtherefore it is proposed to slightly amend conditions recommended by the Environment Agency

Condition

No individual phase of development approved by this planning permission shall commence until aremediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site has beensubmitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. This strategy will includethe following components:1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous uses; potential contaminants associated with those uses; a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; and potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment ofthe risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.3. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and,based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediationmeasures required and how they are to be undertaken.4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate thatthe works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying anyrequirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements forcontingency action. Any changes to these components require the written consent of thelocal planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

ReasonTo ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring landare minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and toensure thatthe development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours andother offsite receptors. This is in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning PolicyFramework.

Condition

Prior to any phase of the permitted development being occupied a verification reportdemonstrating the completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and theeffectiveness of theremediation shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority. Thereport shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approvedverification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met.

ReasonsTo ensure that the site does not pose any further risk to human health or the water environment bydemonstrating that the requirements of the approved verification plan have been met and thatremediation of the site is complete. This is in line with paragraph 170 of the National PlanningPolicy Framework.

ConditionIf, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the sitethen no further development of that phase shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailinghowthis contamination will be dealt with has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

ReasonsTo ensure that the development does not contribute to, or is not put at unacceptable risk from, oradversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution or risks to human health frompreviously unidentified contamination sources at the development site in line with paragraph 170of the National Planning Policy Framework.

This application fails to follow the park first approach with too small a park and buildsmore dwellings at a lower density at a cost of open space which contravenes the NeighbourhoodPlan.

Although I agree that there is a need for a mixed-use development in South Bristolwhich includes employment, housing, shopping, leisure, sports and open green space, I object tothis application because I believe it does not appropriately address the situation or respect theexpressed wishes of the local community whose lives it will directly affect for many years to come.The proposals made do not comply with the Neighbourhood Plan that was developed during twoyears of consultation between professional planners and the local community, and approved by85% of those who voted in a referendum from the Hengrove and Whitchurch Park NeighbourhoodPlanning Forum.Application 19/02632/PB is in many ways simply a repeat of application 18/03537/PB with a bit oftinkering at the edges that fails to resolve the issues that led to the earlier application beingrejected in March 2019. All six of the valid reasons why the earlier application was rejected stillapply.The Council and its Agent seem to be following the irrational and failed example set by PrimeMinister Theresa May with her Brexit Plan: rather than consult and adapt, repeatedly presentessentially the same proposals, hoping for a different answer.

The six reasons for refusal of 18/03537/PB and why they apply to 19/02632/PB

1. The proposed development is of too low a density (59 dph) and is therefore contrary to PolicyHWNP8 of the Hengrove and Whitchurch Park Neighbourhood Plan.

The new application is for a development of an even lower density, having reduced the number ofproposed new dwellings from 1500 to 1450. It therefore remains contrary to Policy HWNP8 of theHengrove and Whitchurch Park Neighbourhood Plan and must again be refused.

2. The proposed development does not include a large high quality park of "destination" qualityand is therefore contrary to Policies HWNP1 and HWNP8 of the Hengrove and Whitchurch ParkNeighbourhood Plan.

The Neighbourhood Plan anticipated a destination park covering 30 hectares. The area of parkremaining if the proposed developments were allowed has increased from 19 hectares in therejected application to "approx 21.8ha" in the current application, which suggests an extra 2.8hectares of parkland could remain.BUT it may be significant that the word "and" is now omitted before the phrase "areas of formaland informal open space", so I can't help suspecting that the "extra" hectares might simply be this"other space" now described differently to make it look as if it is additional parkland ...Even if there were indeed an additional 2.8 hectares of parkland, this is not sufficient to ensure alarge high quality park of "destination" quality. The application therefore remains contrary toPolicies HWNP1 and HWNP8 of the Hengrove and Whitchurch Park Neighbourhood Plan andmust again be refused.

3. The proposed development results in the loss of a row of poplar trees to the north of the site,which are classed as category A and which form a key landscape feature. Their loss is contrary toPolicy BCS9 of the Bristol Core Strategy adopted June 2011 and Policy DM17 of the SiteAllocation and Development Management Local Plan adopted July 2014.

The Agent's Planning Obligations Statement states that "In order to facilitate the Masterplan 839trees would be removed from the site".Trees play a vital role in protecting the global environment and contributing to cleaner air which isessential for health and helps to make the city a pleasant place to live. The loss of so manymature trees would have a devastating effect on the air quality and visual amenity in and aroundHengrove Park, and would not be sufficiently mitigated by planting the 1,296 replacement treesrequired according to the BTRS (Bristol Tree Replacement Standard).The Tree Planting Principles Plan that has been submitted proposes that 1,100 new trees (anunspecified "mix of species and sizes") would be planted across the development, and 196elsewhere with a financial contribution of £149,981.16 to the LPA "to allow suitable tree planting inthe area" (196 x £765.21).Although this equation superficially appears to provide 457 additional trees (a 54.5% increase in

the number of trees) it would take a very long time before the new saplings were able to maketheir mark on the landscape or to develop the capacity of mature trees for absorbing carbondioxide and other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, ammonia and sulphur dioxide, then storingthe carbon and emitting pure oxygen.Trees also reduce flood risk by soaking up significant amounts of water, which would otherwiserun into drains. There are justifiable concerns about drainage in this area, not only from localresidents but also the Environment Agency. Bamfield is known to be a high risk area for surfacewater, yet the application does not address how to counter the negative impact on drainage ofremoving so many mature trees.Bristol's One City Plan, published in January 2019, sets out the Council's agenda to encouragebiodiversity and calls for the city's tree canopy cover to be doubled by 2046. To destroy so manymature trees and build on 49 hectares of Hengrove Park seems to contradict that plan, as well asmaking it less likely that the Council's stated intention to maintain about a fifth of the city's landarea as various forms of open space will be fulfilled.Having declared Bristol a climate emergency city, the Mayor and Council should reasonably beexpected to translate worthy intentions into practical action at ground level, especially here inSouth Bristol, which is recognised as a disadvantaged and polluted area with poor air quality.

4. The proposal does not include sufficient employment floor space and is therefore contrary toBCS1 of the Bristol Core Strategy adopted June 2011 and Site Allocation BSA1401 included in theSite Allocation and Development Management Local Plan adopted July 2014.

The total amount of employment floor space identified in the current proposal is exactly the sameas it was in the rejected application, the only difference being that 25 square metres of the netadditional gross internal floorspace following development is shifted from the B1(a) Office categoryto the A3 Restaurants and Cafes category.The application therefore remains contrary to BCS1 of the Bristol Core Strategy adopted June2011 and Site Allocation BSA1401 included in the Site Allocation and Development ManagementLocal Plan adopted July 2014, and must again be refused.

5. The proposed development does not include sufficient community facilities and is thereforecontrary to Policy HWNP10 of the Hengrove and Whitchurch Park Neighbourhood Plan February2019.

Application 19/02632/PB gives insufficient information about how the Council intends to mitigatethe problems predictably caused by significantly expanding the area's population, which is set tobe increased by 3,500-4,000 new dwellings on or neighbouring Hengrove Park, including the1,450 proposed in this application.Where the need for additional facilities is mentioned, the attitude behind the application seems tobe "press on and get the housing built first, then hope for the best". The lessons of the BradleyStoke development have not been heeded: massively increasing the number of homes in an areawithout meeting the increased need for social, economic, educational and medical facilities and a

convenient public transport network creates far-reaching and ultimately expensive problems thatare both predictable and avoidable.It would be irresponsible to grant planning permission for so many new homes when the localcommunity facilities, both existing and proposed, are so obviously insufficient to meet theincreased needs. Before permission is granted, there has to be a clear and detailed commitmentto ensuring that commensurate shopping and sports facilities, available places at nurseries,schools, GP and dental surgeries, and nearby open accessible green space are in place alongsidethe new housing and in socially responsible and environmentally sustainable ways.Local schools are already dealing with limited capacity to accept new pupils, and are expected toreach full capacity in the next few years. The number of extra primary places that would benecessary was drastically underestimated as only 210 in application 18/03537/PB and lateragreed to be at least 500. This sort of statistical error could lead to disastrously inadequateprovision within the area of facilities like schools that create and encourage a solid and lastingsense of community. Such issues must be closely examined and resolved by independentassessors before planning permission is granted.Although funding has been secured for a new secondary school, no new site has been identified,and there is a possible threat to yet more of Hengrove Park's open space if this is not resolvedbefore the population of the area is suddenly increased.Where there are detailed references to sources of necessary funding for new facilities, they areworryingly vague, inaccurate, or inadequate. For example, CSJ's Planning Obligations Statementoffers £90,000 for improvements in the Armada Practice GP surgery to "allow an increase in itscapacity". If the 1,450 proposed new dwellings contain the average per household of 2.3 residents(Office for National Statistics 2011 census), this total equates to a woefully inadequate £27 peradditional person. According to an NHS news item dated January 2019(https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/01) a single GP appointment costs the Health Service £30.The application remains contrary to Policy HWNP10 of the Hengrove and Whitchurch ParkNeighbourhood Plan February 2019, and must again be refused.

6. The proposal is an unsustainable car-dependent form of development contrary to Paragraphs 8and 102 of the National Planning Policy Framework February 2019.

Without matching provision of local community facilities that would enable and encourage peopleto access shops, schools, medical, and social facilities including open green space within readilyaccessible walking distance, this development would be a car-dependent new housing estate. Itwould inevitably exacerbate existing problems on the road network and create avoidable extrapollution.The application remains contrary to Paragraphs 8 and 102 of the National Planning PolicyFramework and must again be refused. It also contradicts Policy BSC10 of the Bristol CoreStrategy (Core Strategy) (2011), which seeks to ensure that development should be designed andlocated to ensure the provision of safe streets and reduce as far as possible the negative impactsof vehicles such as excessive volumes, fumes and noise.

Although I live in North Bristol and do not find it at all easy to unravel and understand the tangledweb of complicated planning policy, I have been moved to put time and effort into objecting to thisplanning application because of the empathy I feel for the people who face losing too much of theirlocal green space at Hengrove Park, which is also a haven for wildlife including hedgehogs, foxes,badgers, migratory birds and bats.I do not trust the Council's chosen agent, CSJ Planning, to be honest and straightforward aboutthe details and justifications for their proposals, and am therefore very suspicious of the lack ofdetail in some parts of application 19/02632/PB.My negative opinion of CSJ is based on the firm's approach, acting as agents for Cotham School,to a recent appeal (Ref: APP/Z0116/W/18/3218485) against refusal of planning permission toreplace a derelict pavilion on Stoke Lodge Playing Fields.The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant gave limited details in theevidence, made points that "appear contradictory", presented "comparable" cases that were in factsubstantially different, and did not satisfactorily address "technical highway considerations".In the case of Stoke Lodge, neither the client (Cotham School) nor the agent (CSJ Planning)showed any willingness to engage with the legitimate concerns of the neighbouring communityand even to discuss alternative proposals, let alone consider implementing them.It seems that Bristol City Council and CSJ Planning are adopting a similar approach towardsHengrove Park and the people of South Bristol, which makes me feel angry and sad, anddetermined to stand up and be counted in opposition.

since 2009

South Bristol Business, Unit 5, Bakers Park, Cater Road, Bishopsworth, Bristol, BS13 7TT

Tel: 07890-083359 Email: mikeknight.sbb@cbtg.demon.co.uk

www.southbristolbusiness.co.uk

We were encouraged by confirmation from the Mayor’s Office that South Bristol Business would have the opportunity to further discuss Employment Issues under the review process. Regretfully an invitation to participate in discussions never materialised. We are therefore left, with an unsatisfactory position, of making our further comments at this late juncture.

iii) Second Outline Planning Permission Application – No change on Business and Employment Opportunities.

The position on Employment Land, Business and Jobs Creation and Business Expansion remains essentially unchanged despite the earlier Committee decision on Employment Land. Despite also demand known to the City Council for business/employment space in South Bristol. Furthermore, we were concerned that the Economic Report did not reflect to the development process, known business demand for employment space. It should also be pointed out that an earlier Alder King Employment Land Survey had indicated a business land demand. In addition, we await the delayed City Council Citywide Employment Land Survey which we believe will clearly indicate a significant shortage of employment space in South Bristol. The demand position is re-inforced by the recently constructed Bristol City Council Project - Filwood Green Business Park which has been a highly successful venture, now with a waiting list and Cater Business Park, a City Council Regeneration Project and now a Business Improvement District being equally successful. Both these Parks clearly show the demand and potential for business location within the area.

iv) Bristol City Council – South Bristol SUD Programme. (EU funded) Furthermore, we take the opportunity to bring to attention the South Bristol Sustainable Urban Development Project. Part of its proposals, will be to bring forward 16 new small units. And we believe these units should be built on Hengrove Park, near Western Drive and conveniently close to the successful aforementioned Filwood Green Business Park, as it will likely operate as an FGBP annexe.

v) Project Support. We again convey our support for the major purpose of the project to provide significant new numbers of housing for the City which we hope will be built to appropriate densities. Similarly we support proposals for Parkland and Greening.

vi) Conclusion. In conclusion we trust Members of the Committee will insist upon their original demand for an appropriate level of Employment Land/Business and Job Creation be allocated to Hengrove Park Development proposals. Yours faithfully, Mike Knight for South Bristol Business. Page 2 of 2 pages.

Architecture, Urban Design and Planning Consultants

www.inneswilkin.co.uk

It is our view that the area appearing to be more centred on housing is a consequence of the typology of the local area. A comparison of the makeup of housing types in Hengrove and Whitchurch to Bristol and other Wards highlights this (only those with a similar proximity to the city centre have been compared):

Ward Houses Flats

Bristol 65.6% 34.4%

Hartcliffe and Withywood 68.1% 31.9%

Stoke Bishop 72.1% 27.9%

Brislington East 77.8% 22.7%

St George 78.7% 21.3%

Stockwood 83.9% 16.1%

Hengrove and Whitchurch 88.2% 11.8%

Source: 2011 Census ONS Crown Copyright Reserved [from Nomis] The percentage of flats that make up the Hengrove and Whitchurch Ward is considerably lower than all other wards of a similar proximity to the city centre so naturally there is a focus on housing. Considering the wards holistically the Hengrove Master Plan can seek to address this imbalance. “In addition, Parkview Office Campus, to the south of Hengrove Park, has planning consent for 629 units, with parking, comprising of studios, 1-bed and 2-bed flats. Although this scheme is separate to Hengrove Park and development is yet to commence, it is an important consideration when reviewing the development pipeline in the surrounding area Mix of hoses in the area” These 629 flats added to a hypothetic 1400 flats on Hengrove Park would be a net increase of 2029 flats for the ward. The total residential units for the ward would then be comprised of 30.6% flats, still less then neighbouring Hartcliffe and Withywood and the Bristol average. “If, hypothetically, a developer was obligated to meet a 70 dph requirement then overall delivery would likely be slower” To repeat the early point the land these houses are to be built on is a vital public asset. We see no reason why the project could not be phased (more than it is assumed it will be) to ensure the market is not over saturated. A quick turnaround of housing should not justify low density housing on a public park. “The pricing of the scheme generally needs to relate to the mix of apartments and housing. For example, a 2 or 3 bed house needs to be priced competitively but will always be more than a 2 bed apartment, in this location.” This is our final and most contentious point. We would first contest that this commercial viability assessment be made public. In our experience the higher density of a scheme the

Architecture, Urban Design and Planning Consultants

www.inneswilkin.co.uk

more value you receive for the land, an important point for public land. If however it is shown to be the case – we strongly suggest direct evidence is given as to the justification for two plots specifically: Plots C and D. These two plots represent 6ha of public land. It is proposed that housing is built on them at a density of 33 dph. Compared to other areas of south Bristol Southville is 85dph, totterdown 120dph. If this were an independent application for these two plots alone it would be an outrageous loss of public land, yet seen in the bigger scheme it risks being ignored. Regardless of the outcome on the overall application every plot should seek the council’s minimum of 60 dph as per the draft local plan. I am a young architect with a small practice in south Bristol and do not wish to be in a position in ten years where I am driving past 6Ha of public land, utilised at 33dph, on my way to the green belt to build contentious housing as there is no land left in the city.

Yours sincerely, JAMIE INNES -WILKIN INNES WILKIN ARCHITECTURE

The resubmitted plans still do not comply with the Neighbourhood Plan that allows for30 hectares of park space ,protects the historic runway and connects the park to the HengroveMounds wildlife area. The density of housing is too low and the number of houses too high,breaching the Neighbourhood plan. When added to current new houses being built on Bamfieldand around the sports Centre the total of houses will be in excess of 1800 far more than the 1000identified in the local Plan Site Allocation.Our Neighborhood plan was developed after muchconsultation and work by professional planners and would still deliver a pleasant housingdevelopment but not sacrifice needed parkland. For these reasons I strongly object to theproposed plans 19/0263/PB

The plan fails to comply with the Local Plan and the Site Allocations Strategy whichstates that a large high-quality park must be delivered as part of a development proposal. This isthe only site that could deliver this.

The plan fails to comply with council policy with regards to the provision of additional schoolplaces.

The application fails to provide adequate or acceptable mitigation for negative health impacts suchas an additional doctors surgery etc.

The proposal is excessive with far too many proposed residential dwellings in such a small area.There is currently building works in our area creating yet more new housing sacrificing park spaceand so breaching the requirement for a large high-quality park (site allocations) and a park leddevelopment (Neighbourhood Plan).

The plan will create significant additional traffic along Bamfield and at its junctions and there are

not enough appropriate transport management interventions or improvements to public transportproposed. The air quality will also be impacted by the additional traffic in the local area.

Also, have considerations be made on the impact on the local wildlife? The park is a haven forhedgehogs, foxes, badgers, migratory birds and bats all of which visit the local surroundinggardens enhancing the residents' quality of life.

Has any consideration be made to the rich history of the old Whitchurch Airfield? Surely, weshould be protecting and celebrating our local history within the City. Whitchurch Airfield was oneof the first airports in Bristol and contributed heavily during the Second World War with theestablishment of the No.2 Ferry Pilots Pool which distributed aircraft built in Bristol across theCountry to aid the War effort.

Our park is a lovely open space used for various community events and is one of the few greenspaces left in South Bristol. We appreciate that people need somewhere to live, but use thederelict buildings within Bristol first and LEAVE OUR GREEN SPACE ALONE!

The current plan does not comply with the Approved Neighbourhood Plan as approvedby referendum from the Hengrove and Whitchurch Park Neigbourhood Planning ForumThere is insufficient detail of the landscaping to the retained area of Parkland relating to contours,attenuation ponds, cross sections etc to enable a clear understanding of the proposals.The performance of the attenuation ponds is not suffieintly explained to satify the drainage andflood concernes of the neighbours and park users.Only one building is stated to be involved yet the Rugby Club, Action Sports, Peter Carol Coaches,24/7 Car repairs, and Scout Hut are all to disappear from their current positions.(Demolished!)Clear evidense that provision is made for additional Business uses, Childrens Nurseries,replacement of Facilities removed such as Scouts, Sports recreation, Cycling Centre, Car repairs,

I object to this as a near neighbour who uses this park. Also I have family who live inthis area and feel that it will put extra strain on the already over stretched doctors schools etc inthe area. Also with all the extra housing and businesses proposed it will not only add to traffic andpollution it will also add extra traffic along the new road that passes through Highridge. Which isclose to my home.

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE THRIVING SOUTH BRISTOL GROUP

HENGROVE PARK PLANNING APPLICATION REF NO: 19/02632/PB

The Thriving South Group objects to the planning application on the following grounds.

The application does not comply with Policy BCS1

This states that development in South Bristol (namely Knowle West and Hengrove Park) will be fora mix of uses including 60,000 sqm of offices and up to 10 hectares of new industrial andwarehousing land. In addition the Bristol Citywide Retail Study (June 2007) highlighted theopportunity for a potential new town centre to serve the area.

Since this retail study was written, the number of new homes proposed in South Bristol has risento 13,000. In addition, there over 2000 homes proposed in the urban extension in Whitchurch andnearly 6000 new homes in North Somerset. Therefore, a greater need for a new town centre.

The application does not comply with Policy BCS8 :

"The economic performance of the city will be strengthened by providing a sufficient and flexiblesupply of employment land, addressing barriers to employment and promoting the city as a placeto invest."

BCS8 states - New employment land will be provided in the period 2006-2026. This will include:- Around 60,000 sqm in South Bristol- Up to 10 Hectares of additional industrial and warehousing land focused on the majorregeneration areas in South Bristol

This planning application contains only 4,500 sqm of offices and there has been a loss of 15,000sqm at Parkview. No new industrial land has been proposed in this application. Hengrove Park isadjacent to areas of high deprivation. More local employment opportunities are vital.

There is a need for a new Town Centre and this would enable higher levels of density within thenew town centre, thus reducing reliance on a car. More local employment opportunities will alsoreduce car dependency. A town centre would include shops, services, cafes and restaurantswhich are lacking in this part of South Bristol. A community hub with facilities for larger eventswould provide a focus for the local communities.

Density- the new local plan gives indicative figures for minimum density not maximum. The overalldensity level in this application is 70 dph. However, the density level for Plot D for example is 30dph. Higher densities are advocated on transport corridors and the Metrobus M1 starts atHengrove Park and provides a direct route to the City centre and South Gloucestershire. Terracedhousing provides high density without creating blocks of more apartments. Southville is 85pdh andTotterdown 120 dph according to Bristol Core Strategy document. These areas are predominantlyterraced properties. The density average is too low for this site and should be 100-120 dph.

The Council advocates creating balanced and sustainable communities.

Hartcliffe, Withywood, Knowle West, parts of Stockwood, parts of Hengrove and Whitchurch Parkhave significant levels of deprivation. Hengrove Park is the largest regeneration single site inSouth Bristol.

There needs to be more employment, more amenities which are found in a new town centre, andmuch higher density levels.

This planning application does not contribute to reducing inequalities in South Bristol which iscontrary to the Local Plan.

The Spatial Vision and Objectives section of the Local Plan states:

"A transformed South Bristol - South Bristol will be developed as a counterpoint to the rapidlydeveloping north, and transformed a through comprehensive approach to socio economic andphysical regeneration, together with significant new employment uses, new homes and a potentialnew centre."

The Hengrove Pool and Community Hospital, although providing a local amenity, did not providesignificant net new jobs because they were built as replacements for the Bristol General, FilwoodPool and Bishopsworth Pool.

The Mounds - approximately 30 acres.

This site is releasing methane, a harmful greenhouse gas. Kier Living homes have had toincorporate gas protection measures. This site should be remediated to create more employmentland.Filwood Green Business Park is full with a waiting list.

Cater Business park is also fully occupied. Local businesses have advised that expansion isrestricted by lack of employment land. The Alder King Employment Land study recommended 24.5hectares of additional industrial land should be provided in areas of the city other than Avonmouth.The JLL employment land study has not been made public and it must be assumed that thedeficiency of industrial land still applies.

St Bernadettes Rugby club

With higher density and remediation of the Mounds for employment and higher amount ofcommercial space within a new town centre, there should still be sufficient land available for therugby club to remain on part of the Park. We understand that the rugby club are to be relocated toa potential housing site in Hartcliffe which could provide much needed homes in Hartcliffe. In viewof the high need for more homes in Bristol and the shortage of land, it does not make strategicsense to relocate the rugby club off Hengrove Park onto a potential housing site.

The Thriving South Bristol Group recognizes the need for development in South Bristol. However,we are concerned that the final plan be holistic, attends to the serious levels of deprivation andprioritises employment alongside housing needs, and ensures the necessary infrastructure isprovided for the significant increase in population.

Overall, we object to the planning application as it does not comply with current Local Planpolicies. We support housing but at a higher density and we support the creation of a landmarkpark

The new application fails to meet The Neighbourhood Plan proposing a far smaller parkthan what was voted for.This new plan is virtually the same as the application that was thrownout.Yet again no plan to address a new doctor's surgery promoting people to drive everywhere,nonew schools,nursery in the plan,no provision to incorporate employment for the area,so manyhouses in a small area eating away at Hengrove Park,traffic and pollution will increase with such aplan.Precious trees need to be protected not hacked down.I'm also concerned with the floodingrisk which will be escalated from this plan.

This planning application doesn't comply with the local Neighbourhood Plan, andtherefore also doesn't implement the result of the Neighbourhood Plan referendum. It'sunsatisfactory for these reasons:

1. It proposes the building of too many houses, meaning too much of the existing park will be lost.

2. It does not adequately address the need for the following:- A new supermarket- New dental provision- New GP provision- New schools- New nursery provision

3. The proposed employment provision is also inadequate, so will not bring enough new jobs tothe area.

4. It's non-environmentally friendly; it's too car-dependant and so will increase traffic andcongestion in the area. The limited non-housing infrastructure that's proposed means people willhave to use a car to get around (e.g. to see their GP or to take their kids to school), thus resultingin Hengrove becoming a pollution hotspot.

It is absolutely ridiculous that the previous application that was refused has onlychanged in this new application by reducing the amount of housing by 'approximately' 50 homes,this miniscule reduction goes no way to making the new housing estate less 'car centric', we willstill see no new ammenities, no shops, Doctors, no updates to the road network which is alreadyhorrendous.

Still the council refuse to work with the neighbourhood planning team when a local referendumwas held that ensured they would work with the local residents when submitting a new planningapplication.

This planning application is not welcome to our area which seems to be the dumping ground of allnew homes being built in Bristol, we already have severe problems with access to doctors,dentists and the local schools are already at breaking point. Any new residents will have to drivetheir children to school out of the area which will add to the terrible traffic problems we have in thearea.

This application needs to be again refused and Bristol City Council made to speak to residentsand the planning group and then listen to our voices instead of ignoring us and pressing aheadarrogantly regardless of what locals say.

Cont/d..

2

demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason To protect controlled waters by managing any ongoing contamination issues and completing all necessary long-term remediation measures. Condition Prior to any part of the permitted development being occupied a verification report demonstrating the completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. Reason To ensure that the site does not pose any further risk to human health or the water environment by demonstrating that the requirements of the approved verification plan have been met and that remediation of the site is complete. This is in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Condition If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how this contamination will be dealt with has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved. Reason To protect controlled waters by managing any ongoing contamination issues and completing all necessary long-term remediation measures. Condition No drainage systems for the infiltration of surface water to the ground are permitted other than with the written consent of the local planning authority, in consultation with the Environment Agency. Any proposals for such systems must be supported by an assessment of the risks to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason To protect controlled waters. Note to applicant and Local Planning Authority We have reviewed the Geotechnical & Geo-environmental Interpretive Report Hengrove Park prepared by AECOM 5 November 2018. We note that concentrations of metals, petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) have been detected in excess of controlled waters generic assessment criteria (GAC). These GACs for concentrations of contaminants in soils have been derived using partitioning equations based on a number of assumed parameters. Whilst we consider this an acceptable first level of risk assessment, we recommend that assessment should now

End

3

be undertaken at the next level to determine the significance of these exceedences in terms of risks to controlled waters. Despite groundwater having been encountered on site this has not been sampled to date. The degree of continuity between the potentially contaminated groundwater and the surface watercourse in the east of the site has also not been confirmed. We therefore agree with the recommendations in Section 8 of the report for further site investigation to include level monitoring and chemical analysis of groundwater and surface water to enable assessment of the risk to the watercourse and any requirement for remediation. The above referenced report provides us with confidence that it will be possible to suitably manage the risk posed to controlled waters by this development. Further detailed information including but not limited to that described above will however be required before built development is undertaken. It is our opinion that it would place an unreasonable burden on the developer to ask for more detailed information prior to the granting of planning permission but respect that this is a decision for the Local Planning Authority. In light of the above, the proposed development will be acceptable if planning conditions detailed above are included requiring the submission of a remediation strategy, verification report and proposals for any sustainable drainage schemes, carried out by a competent person in line with paragraph 178 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Note to Local Planning Authority Without these conditions detailed above we would object to the proposal in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework because it cannot be guaranteed that the development will not contribute to, be put at unacceptable risk from, or be adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution. In accordance with the planning practice guidance (determining a planning application, paragraph 019), please notify us by email within two weeks of a decision being made or application withdrawn. Please provide us with a URL of the decision notice, or an electronic copy of the decision notice or outcome. A copy of the letter has been submitted to the agent. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned direct should you have any further queries. Yours sincerely Richard Jenkyns on behalf of Mark Willitts Sustainable Places - Planning Advisor cc CSJ Planning

My opinion is that there are still too many new houses planned in this development, thusnot retaining enough of the existing green spaces. The size of this development will put too muchpressure on existing infrastrurcture (roads/schools/shops/doctors/dentist etc) which do not appearto be compensated by new infrastructure plans and resources.Developments of this size also appear to conflict with anti-pollution initiatives.I understand the pressure and need to build some new houses but this is simply too many in onedevelopment site.

My opinion is that there are still too many new houses planned in this development, thusnot retaining enough of the existing green spaces. The size of this development will put too muchpressure on existing infrastrurcture (roads/schools/shops/doctors/dentist etc) which do not appearto be compensated by new infrastructure plans and resources.Developments of this size also appear to conflict with anti-pollution initiatives.I understand the pressure and need to build some new houses but this is simply too many in onedevelopment site.

The proposed plans are similar to those previously rejected by the planning dept.

The large number of dwellings will mean between 2000-3000 extra vehicles and possibly up to4000 extra people. The local infrastructure will not be able to cope.

Health Centre - additional sums are proposed but this has not been considered if adequate.

Schools - No mention has been made for the provision of extra school places.

Traffic - there will additional traffic on Bamfield

Flood Risk - it is noted that Bamfield is a potential flood risk area.The current grassed areabecome boggy after rain. The recent building has not helped and further building could causeproblems. There is no proper acknowledgement of the risk or adequate mitigation measures.

Park Area. - The amount of park area is considerably smaller than was given in the alternative

plan accepted in the referendum on the subject.

First of all, this application appears to not be substantively different from last year'sunsuccessful application.

Secondly, the park is undeniably well used and serves a large part of south Bristol.

The proposed scheme would bring 3.5k residents into an area that has already been effected (withrespect to traffic and transport, parking, healthcare provision etc) by other building projects. ThePlanning Obligations Statement submitted by Ashley Grant of CSJ Planning, offers a mere £90kfor improvements at the Armada Practice GP surgery - 'which will allow an increase in its capacity'and a derisory £318k for 4 new bus stops/shelters in mitigation of travel/traffic effects. Thesefigures are clearly unrealistically low.

In addition, I believe the proposal will result in a significant net reduction in trees which will furtherimpact on local wildlife, which seems to contradict the One City Plan which sets out BCCs agendato encourage biodiversity. Similarly, I struggle to see how the proposal to build 1450 homes on 49hectares of a park fits with the draft Local Plan Review which states 'About a fifth of the city's land

area is given over to various forms of open space - that overall proportion will be maintainedthrough the proposals in this review.'

It is for these reasons that I feel this application should be rejected.

We Object to this planning application. The Hengrove fields area is a well used greenspace for many family's, dog walkers, sports, car boot ect not to mention the history of the oldairport. the local are already has lots of housing developments under construction Filwood, oldcare home on Bamfield and around the leisure centre. The local facilities like schools, doctors willstruggle to cope with these and will defiantly not cope with another 1,450 proposed houses on thisHengrove development. Traffic and parking is bad at the best of times and will become muchworse with all the new houses being built in the area. There will not be 1,450 parking spaces madeand most houses have at least 1 car if not 2 or 3 per household maybe not now but in a few yearsas the children grow up and get cars.

Once again I object to this planning application as none of the originals concernsresulting in this previous rejection have been addressed! The amount of houses being built is stillexcessive and you are planning to take away our park land. There are so many houses being builtaround the area already (e.g Filwood) so I don't know why we should have to sacrifice our parkland for even more houses! The traffic is already very bad in the area without adding at leastanother 1450 cars on the road! Our schools and doctors are already over subscribed, we simplycan not accommodate this increase in population in the area! Find somewhere to build thesehouses that doesn't put a strain on our infrastructure and doesn't steal our precious green space-once it's gone you will never get it back!

There is still to many houses and not enough parkland remaining. Next there are a lackof facilities to cope with the development like schools and Doctors. Furthermore I see thedevelopment as being still to car dependent especially after the climate emergency announcementby the government. Finally the Park is very popular with the community and a car boot salehappen every Saturday which just shows how valuable the park is to the community

I think that building on the park is bad for the community of South Bristol. It is the onlylarge space that people can relax take their dogs for walks and spend time with family.The roadsaround this proposed development would not coup with the increase of traffic and we would cometo a halt. Please take a look at what has happened in North Bristol with over development.Lets nottake away our only Green Space.

Not at all happy with this latest change to the development. It represents a quitenegligible change to the previous plan and goes no way to reducing the number of dwellings andextending the free areas.When will Bristol Council listen to what local people would like ?

This is valuable parkland being developed. The space is an oasis used by hundreds oflocal people for all different kinds of recreational reasons. The lovely mature trees on the siteprovide enjoyment and the area is a social amenity that should be protected and preserved. Theremust be other places where houses can be built without taking valuable parkland.

Parking around the area is problematic at present, like many areas these days. Especially whenschools turnout, school drop-off parking at peak times is challenging on all busy roads, this will beaggravated by what will be inevitable unauthorised pavement parking on main and other serviceroads nearby.

Whilst we note there is new parking for cars as part of the scheme, it is probable that someoccupiers will be two/three car families and overflow will inevitably be on the adjacent roadwaysand green areas. This predictably, will put pressure on existing parking in the area and especiallyin relation to adjacent buses stopping. This causes a hazard at times at the moment.

There are many new builds going on already in the area and the roads are clogged with traffic at

times. The new development will inevitably increase traffic flows at peak times and aggravate anexisting situation. On street car parking in the area at present is very difficult with cars at timesblocking access ways especially overnight when the main parking congestion will occur. Thisdevelopment is bound to aggravate the existing parking situation a great deal.

Finally, it is very difficult to get doctor's appointments without long waiting times, and without doubtthere will be a massive impact on local schools, and the air quality because of increased traffic,due to the increased population.

With the above noted consideration, we object to the planning application.

The health impact assessment report, states that the provision of 1,500 new homes willimpact on existing schools already limited capacity to accept new pupils and that those schoolswill reach capacity in the next few years.

But does not state how this will be mitigated except through S106 and CIL payments with givingany actual details and does not take into account the additional hundreds of homes already beingbuild in the area.

Also the document also states a contribution of £90,000 to improve Whitchurch health center butdoes not state if this will be sufficient to provide the resources to cope with the additional numberof people that would be using the surgery.

Therefore based on the lack of provision and mitigation information I would like to object to theapplication.

Once again I would like to object to houses being built on park land.This area of spaceis an oasis of land used by thousands of local people for all different kinds of reasons.Park land isthere for that soul purpose.To build on this land I strongly object to.Surely there are other placeswhere houses can be built without taking our park away from us.I remember when Bristol Citywere refused permission to build a new stadium on land that I have never so much as seen a dogwalker on,but an area used by many of the local community is threatened with destruction.I knowthat houses have to be built but not on park land.We have lots of new builds going up already inour area and the roads are clogged with traffic now.Its also impossible to get a doctorsappointment and there will be a massive impact on schools.Please listen to your constituents andre think building on Hengrove park.

We have objected to this application several times. There is far to many houses officesetc on this space due to problems with facilities available in the area ie doctors dentists schoolsetc. Also the amount of extra traffic and housing would increase pollution in the area. There wasalso problems with drainage which would have consequences for housing nearby. There is alsofar to small a park left for such a large housing area. This was rejected because of these reasonsplus more so why are the council putting the application through again.

The pre-commencement and pre-occupation conditions should be applied as previously advised.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING STATEMENT

Hengrove Park

Hengrove Way

Bristol

Prepared on behalf of

Report Prepared By: Ashley Grant (Associate Director)

May 2019

Affordable Housing Statement, Hengrove Park, Hengrove Way, Bristol

1

JB.5382 May 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. This Affordable Housing Statement has been prepared by CSJ Planning to accompany an

outline planning application for the proposed residential-led development of Hengrove Park

on Hengrove Way, Bristol.

1.2. The formal description of development is set out below:

“Outline application for the demolition of existing buildings on site and regeneration of

49ha of land comprising residential development of up to 1,450 dwellings (Class C3); up to

4,515sqm of office accommodation (Class B1a); up to 4,500sqm of education floor space

to enable the expansion of City of Bristol College Skills Academy (Class D1); up to 790sqm

community building (Class D1/D2); up to 2,440sqm of commercial floor space (Classes

A1/A2/A3/A4/A5/D1 - provision of A1 floor space not to exceed 800sqm and total A1-A5

space to be capped at 1,499sqm). Provision of new park of approximately 21.8ha, areas

of formal and informal open space. Transport infrastructure comprising connections to

Hengrove Way, Bamfield, Hengrove Promenade and The Boulevard, and creation of new

footways and cycleways. Access and strategic landscaping to be determined with all other

matters reserved.”

1.3. The site is owned by Bristol City Council.

2.0 PLANNING POLICY

Bristol Core Strategy

2.1 Applications for over 15 dwellings are assessed against policy BCS17 of the Bristol Core

Strategy (2011), which states the following:

“Affordable housing will be required in residential developments of 15 dwellings or more.

The following percentage targets will be sought through negotiation:

• 40% in North West, Inner West and Inner East Bristol;

• 30% in all other locations;

In residential developments below 15 dwellings an appropriate contribution towards the

provision of affordable housing may be sought (either as a financial contribution or as on

site provision) in accordance with any relevant policy in the Site Allocations & Development

Management Development Plan Document.

Residential developments should provide a mix of affordable housing units and contribute

to the creation of mixed, balanced and inclusive communities. The tenure, size and type of

affordable units will reflect identified needs, site suitability and economic viability. All units

Affordable Housing Statement, Hengrove Park, Hengrove Way, Bristol

2

JB.5382 May 2019

provided should remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or, if this

restriction is lifted, for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.

Where scheme viability may be affected, developers will be expected to provide full

development appraisals to demonstrate an alternative affordable housing provision.”

2.2 The map below shows the geographical split of affordable housing across the city.

Affordable Housing Percentage Requirements by Strategic Housing Market Assessment Zone – taken from Bristol

Core Strategy 2011

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance

2.3 The Council’s Planning Obligations SPD (2013) and Affordable Housing Practice Note (April

2018) provide more guidance and information on affordable housing requirements for

developments. The latter states that affordable housing within developments should follow

a tenure split of 77% social-rented and 23% intermediate (shared-ownership) affordable

housing.

Affordable Housing Statement, Hengrove Park, Hengrove Way, Bristol

3

JB.5382 May 2019

2.4 However, the tenure and type / size profile of the affordable housing will be guided by the

Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other local housing requirements. The

SHMA has identified a need for 29,100 affordable dwellings across the city over the 20-year

Plan period 2016-36, equivalent to an average of 1,455 affordable dwellings per year.

2.5 The Affordable Housing Practice Note recognises the need for flexibility to ensure that

affordable housing is able to be delivered at planning compliant levels.

3.0 PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION

3.1 The application site is located within the Bristol South zone, meaning that a target of 30%

affordable homes will be sought. This development proposes to deliver 30% affordable

housing units onsite.

3.2 The tenure split proposed mirrors guidance set out in the Affordable Housing Practice Note,

specifically 77% of homes social rent and 23% shared ownership.

3.3 It is anticipated that the shared-ownership units will be for 40% equity sale, with up to 1.5%

rental on retained equity. Rent on retained equity and social rent units will be index linked.

This approach is intended to ensure affordability of housing units for prospective tenants

and shared-ownership purchasers who cannot afford market sale or market rent.

Proposed Affordable Housing Mix

3.4 As this application seeks outline planning permission only, the precise housing mix will come

forward under subsequent reserved matters applications. The proposed Masterplan for the

site includes an indicative density and mix, and based on this, an expressive schedule of

affordable housing accommodation is set out below:

Housing Type Overall Number of Units

Number of Affordable Units

Affordable Housing Tenure Split

Social Rent Shared Ownership

1 bed flat 456 137 105 32

2 bed flat 457 137 105 32

2 bed house 75 23 18 5

3 bed house 380 114 88 26

4 bed house 52 15 12 3

Flat over garage unit 30 9 7 2

TOTAL 1450 435 335 100

3.5 Subsequent reserved matters applications will define the housing mix across the

development as a whole and, in conjunction with the identified affordable housing need,

the requisite affordable housing provision. The final affordable housing mix will need to be

representative of the proposal as a whole and the affordable housing need in the area at

Affordable Housing Statement, Hengrove Park, Hengrove Way, Bristol

4

JB.5382 May 2019

that time. Accordingly, the final provision may differ from the indicative breakdown set out

above, although the overall allocation of 30% affordable housing and the principles of policy

BCS17 of the Core Strategy will be met.

Service Charges

3.6 It is envisaged that service/estate charge in respect of an affordable house will not exceed

£250 per annum and £650 per annum in respect of an affordable flat. These Service charges

will be index linked.

Size of units

3.7 All dwellings within the development will be designed to accord with minimum floor space

requirements set out in the Government’s Technical Housing Standards document (March

2015), which has been applied by Bristol City Council Local Planning Authority (LPA) since 1st

October 2015.

Affordable Housing Provider

3.8 All affordable housing units will be transferred to and managed by a Registered Provider

that is a member of Homes West.