|Address||Land On South Side Of Bonnington Walk Bristol
|Proposal||Redevelopment of site to provide 185no residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with vehicular access from Bonnington Walk and Landseer Avenue. Provision of community space/sales suite, car and cycle parking, refuse and recycling storage, hard and soft landscaping together with new and enhanced areas of public open space, children's play space and allotment provision.|
|Type||Full Planning (Regulation 3)|
|Neighbour Consultation Expiry||16-10-20|
|Standard Consultation Expiry||19-10-20|
|Decision||GRANTED subject to condition(s)|
|BCC Planning Portal||on Planning Portal|
|Public Comments||Supporters: 3 Objectors: 135 Unstated: 6 Total: 144|
|No. of Page Views||0|
|Comment analysis||Map Date of Submission|
|Nearby Trees||Within 200m|
Recommendation submitted 17-07-20
We have objected to this application on these grounds:
1. Bristol City Council has:
· Declared climate and environmental emergencies.
· Committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030.
· Committed to doubling tree canopy cover by 2046.
As currently formulated, these plans to build new houses can only set back the work needed to resolve these emergencies and achieve these commitments.
2. The need to build housing to meet sustainable economic or social development objectives should not be allowed to take precedence over ensuring that the development is also both environmentally sustainable and meets Net Gain objectives.
3. Whatever the merits of this application of achieving its primary goal to provide much needed housing may be, it should not be permitted to proceed unless and until it has properly addressed how it will replace and build upon the Green Infrastructure (including trees) that will inevitably be lost if this application proceeds as presently formulated.
4. The existing trees have a significant asset value which should not lightly be ignored. Using CAVAT, we have valued them at £4,674,918.
5. Under the Mitigation Hierarchy, trees should not be removed unless there is no realistic alternative. One alternative would be to build around the trees rather than remove them.
6. BCS9 of the Core Strategy also states that "Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development". Clear felling nearly all the trees to the east of the cycle/footpath should not, as it so often is, be the default option.
7. Trees should not be removed merely because they are diseased or self-sown, or because they are small or not perfect specimens of their species.
8. The removal of existing trees inevitably means that the eco-services they provided will not be replaced for decades, if at all.
The adverse knock-on environmental impact on biodiversity of removing existing trees far outweighs any short-term benefits achieved by replacing them.
Here is a copy of our submission