Thank you for changing some of the project and trying to listen. Sadly, I feel the newplans still do not level to our expectations, especially when it comes to wildlife and currentresidents health.I live in this area and would like to settle for a few years, however, after I found out about thisdevelopment, I feel I must reconsider.For years I have suffered with respiratory problems like short breath. I was told by a GP this wasdue to local pollution. I had to learn to manage this, and one way is to chose where I live. Myproperty is between the green space covered for the development, Stoke park not far and thevarious little green pockets of nature. I cannot stretch enough how hard it is to move home, it's afinancial and emotional strain. Now, I will probably have to move again because my health isunder threat. I cannot imagine the impact of increased traffic of new residents, and air particlesduring the few years this may take to be built. Whilst small trees will be planted, those older onesthat can palliate for the actual atmospheric polution will be chopped.I also suffer from mental health issues such as anxiety and depression. I have been in therapiesand tend to add to my "treatment" with a good dose of natural goodness, looking at the sky, birds,trees, appreciate the sound of wind, bird songs, looking at the clock to wait for the local foxes andsquirrels, ...Since the various surveys and other intrusive and destructive initiatives done by the developersand Council, the wildlife is no longer abundant here, the fox doesnt come every day anymore, birddiversity is gone down, as well as butterflies and other invertebrates. Are you aware of theenvironmental crisis going on around the world, are you aware of the consequences of loss of

biodiversity?My final point is the rodents situation on Lockleaze, there are so many of them, and BCC has nocontrol over it. Now we will add shelter and food for them, creating enclosed gardens for them tosafely breed, whilst removing wild predators... rodents here are everywhere, and I have 2 catsclosely watching them! I live you explore the data available on internet about rodents and how theyproliferate so well in urban areas.May I finish by mentioning the local council representative who take part in social media chats,and talk about things they do not understand. Please do not quote ideas and suggestions made bythe residents and use them to appease our indignation online. We won't get fooled by fakepromises, like keeping the mature trees, and whatever you feel like throwing in the scale so that ittips in your favour.Please do reconsider this development, as mentioned in national news recently, housing is verymuch needed, but not specifically in BS7, or in Bristol in fact, but more in the north of the country.Residents here are fighting for a natural quality of life that could never be replaced by artificialnature, we say no to the Bonnington Walk Housing development!

There is a huge demand for new affordable housing in Lockleaze due to the demolition of council housing stock and its transfer to the private sector in recent decades. We therefore share the city's ambition to tackle the housing crisis and support the building of affordable homes. This development proposes 50% affordable housing, and innovative modular housing design with grade A energy sustainability ratings and low running costs. We support a mix of tenures whereby people are able to settle in to a mixed balanced community and raise their families with various housing options available as their circumstances change. We have worked closely with the Lockleaze Residents Planning Group to pick up issues of concern and ensure good communication between the Council, developers and the local community regarding these proposals.

This has led to some significant compromises and mitigations, particularly on the site layout, wildlife habitat and tree planting. The number of four-storey blocks of flats has been reduced to two and will now be situated towards the centre of the site, to minimise visual impact. As a result, there will be more public green space around the buildings.

We welome that this proposal offers a high level (50%) of affordable housing, including social rent and shared ownership, and would like this to be a condition of planning approval.

However, Bonnington Walk open space is a site that has been highly valued by local residents as a green urban space with mature trees, extensive wildlife habitat, and a community orchard, so there remain significant environmental considerations to take into account if the new development is approved.

The key issues of concern that remain for us include:

1) Community, traffic and transport infrastructure: We wish to see a co-ordinated approach to this and other development sites in Lockleaze, looking at traffic and transport infrastructure, safe road crossings, speed calming measures, and sufficient parking.

Access to school places, GP surgeries ,and the need for more amenities such as shops, cafes and an improved library should also be part of the process.

We would like this to be a condition of planning approval.

2) Loss of allotments from the initial designs: Food growing is a priority in the Our Lockleaze Community Plan 2019-24. Internal council objections have been raised to providing allotments on-site which has come as a huge disappointment to residents.

We would therefore like this decision to be reconsidered, and the community enabled to play a role in managing these allotments. If the developers cannot provide on-site allotments, we would like to see a higher financial commitment to increase allotment capacity very nearby.

3) The cycle path and protection of the Community Orchard:We note that the widening and segregating of the path for cyclists and pedestrians is as a result of new government guidelines on cycling infrastructure. This change has impacted on the Lockleaze Community Orchard, which will now lose a strip of land.

We therefore seek a commitment to the reprovision of extra space adjoining the orchard that will enhance it, and create space for a community garden with raised beds and planters to encourage local volunteering and help build community cohesion.

We are also asking for a clear commitment to residents having input over the use of the community building on site, plus a commitment to providing tool storage for the orchard volunteers and some financial support for developing community volunteering.

4) Tree retention and replanting/green perimeter and wildlife corridor:Regarding tree retention, we object to the number of mature trees being removed and would ask for a reassessment to enable more to be retained as long as they have long term viability. We would like as many trees as possible to be planted on the Bonnington Walk site, to make this a green landscaped area and to uphold the commitment to Bristol City Council's 'One City' Plan, which aims to double Bristol's tree canopy in the coming years.

We are pleased to see that designs have been altered to create an uninterrupted wildlife corridor along the western boundary of the site that will be protected and maintained as a Site of Nature and Conservation Interest.

We would like to see a firm commitment from the Council to managing the proposed wildlife corridor, to enhance management of the grassland and monitoring of habitats and biodiversity.

5) Commitment to affordable housing and a local lettings policy:We would like to see a firm commitment to the maximum level of affordable housing possible.

We also regard a local letting policy as an essential commitment. Local residents were assured by the former cabinet member for Housing, Paul Smith, that a local lettings policy would be supported.

We would therefore like these two commitments to be a firm condition of planning approval.

Lockleaze Councillors Gill Kirk and Estella Tincknell

Objecting to removal of trees and biodiversity in a peaceful, wild natural area. This is notin keeping with The Bristol One City Ecological Emergency Strategy which is aiming to protect theareas where we still have native wildlife.

Loss of green space, removal of current trees are important leading to significant impactand habitat loss and wildlife loss. Loss of community orchard and green space loss of naturallandscape.

Lockleaze is losing a lot of green space to developers,We will have no wildlife left if you keeptaking their natural habitat away.

Loss of wildlife, trees, plants.Too close to plylons, trains.Increase in traffic, polution and parking problems.

My stance has not changed regarding this project. The new proposal still does not countfor the increase traffic and pollution concerns. I have respiratory difficulties due to local pollution inBristol. The height and environment in lockleaze have been beneficial to me. Adding so manyhouseholds and allowing further traffic will only male my health worse.The amenities for wildlife are still not enough. There should be more trees, a buffer zone aroundthe SNCI, live roofs and walls, rain gardens (look them up!), etc. Passages between gardens couldcreate vital corridors too.I am begging the council to make this development an exemplary, one of a kind, new andsustainable development, or to refrain from doing it at all, for people health and environmentalgoals in line with the climate emergency stance Bristol took upon a few months ago!

The proposed changes - as has consistently been the case through the applicationprocess, have ignored the views and made no changes in response to comments from localresidents. They show that the planning department sets its own priorities and is answerable to no-one. It is apparent that the council and planners have no interest in consultation.

As before, there is nothing proposed to reduce the negative impact on tree cover and wildlife ingeneral. Residents have consistently requested - to no avail - that a green corridor be createdaround the site connecting wildlife to adjacent gardens and to act as a green buffer between newand proposed housing.

I am horrified to note that planners also point out that traffic flows would be better if there was afurther access road on Landseer Avenue where there are currently houses. This shows how theirpriorities could not be more different from those of local residents.

These changes illustrate the priorities of the planning department. Rather than considering climatechange, tree cover or biodiversity, they are solely about ensuring there is enough space forparking and turning vehicles, the Concorde Way is of a certain width, etc. As a result these recentchanges have the impact of reducing green space even further. Rather than widen the ConcordeWay by demolishing garages that residents have consistently asked be included in the plans (tono avail) due to anti-social behaviour problems there, this results in the loss of green space at theCommunity Orchard and elsewhere.

- Loss of amenity and a green corridorIt remains the case that all trees and vegetation are proposed to be removed in large areas of thesite including in areas where it has no impact on development, notably along the back of LandseerAvenue and Bonnington Walk. The proposal should have included the retention of a green corridoraround the site, as repeatedly requested by residents.

The removal of trees that are an important part of the local landscape would have a significant andnegative impact.

- Tree and habitat lossNo changes have been made to reduce this. The open space currently provides food and shelteron which wildlife depends.The removal of a green habitat from the back of Landseer Avenue andBonnington Walk will mean the loss of a wild corridor linking existing homes and the site.

- Inaccuracies and omissions in the Arboricultural report remainThe Arboricultural report states that 251 trees would be lost and need to be replaced. This figureexcludes "unclassified" trees and those that are grouped together (and numbers not included).

Many of the trees that are proposed to be retained are on private land outside the developmentsite and cannot be safeguarded. These include numerous trees on Network Rail land. They havestated that they cannot guarantee that these trees will be retained. They have a policy of removingtrackside tree cover for safety reasons. Moreover they have objected to the proposals.

The bird survey notes that trees and scrub provide an important habitat, including forseveralthreatened birds such as thrushes and house sparrows. However this would becompletelyremoved across most of the site, leaving only part of the SNCI as the remaining areawould beplanted.The application proposes that hedgerows and trees on the edges are removedeven when theydon't interfere with development, or could be kept with minimal impact, such asalong the back ofLandseer Avenue and Bonnington Walk.

- Impact on health and well-beingThe removal and degradation of a local space will have a negative impact on the well-being ofpeople in the area. This updated version is worse because it removes an area of the CommunityOrchard in order to widen Concorde Way and other areas to increase the size of parking bays.

- Proximity to electricity power lines: This is unchanged. Parts of this site may not be suitable forhousing as a result.

- Design and layout:The location of housing up to the boundary of the site behind Landseer Avenue and BonningtonWalk remains inappropriate.Three and four storey buildings would dominate the local skyline and

are inappropriate in an area of predominantly low-rise semi-detached and terraced houses.

- Impact on transport, traffic and highwaysWhile existing problems with speeding traffic may be reduced by calming measures and trafficlights, the sites of the proposed junctions onto Bonnington Walk and Landseer Avenue are alreadybusy. Local streets have limited space or problems with parking. Measures would be required onneighbouring streets to reduce the impact of parking and extra traffic.

There remains no acknowledgement that there are potential plans to build a station at ConstableRoad, which is included in the Joint Local Transport Plan published in 2020.

- Noise: This is unchanged. The site would change it from being one left to nature that is seen asan area of quiet and calm for well-being to being one producing the noise of human activity.

- Impact on local services:This is unchanged. The development will have a negative impact on schools and health facilitieswhere there is already considerable pressure on services.

- The proposals are counter to local and national policies:

The council's policy (BCS9) states that "Individual green assets should be retained whereverpossible and integrated into new development". In this case it is clear that no attempt has beenmade to do so at any point during this application process.

Removal of such a large number of trees and hedgerows (although countered by planting) andtheir replacement with housing would increase production of carbon dioxide and pollutants on thesite, rather than removing it as it does at present. Replacement trees at the level proposed by thecouncil would take 25-40 years to compensate for the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere byfelling.

Development runs counter to the council's plan to double the tree canopy.

The increase in traffic would have a negative impact on air pollution.

- Loss of Privacy: remains unchanged. This would be worsened by the removal of green space.

- There is no guarantee that developers will follow recommendations

The height of the flats will cause loss of light and privacy to the houses on landseeravenue. The existing house have the right to light.

The planners have ignored the views and made no changes in response to comments from localresidents. They show that the planning department sets its own priorities and is answerable to no-one. It is apparent that the council and planners have no interest in consultation.

These changes illustrate the priorities of the planning department. Like the proposals, these areclearly counter to various local and national policies.

Rather than considering climate change, tree cover or biodiversity, they are solely about ensuringthere is enough space for parking and turning vehicles, the Concorde Way is of a certain width,etc. As a result these recent changes have the impact of reducing green space even further.Rather than widen the Concorde Way by demolishing garages that residents have consistentlyasked be included in the plans (to no avail) due to anti-social behaviour problems there, thisresults in the loss of green space at the Community Orchard and elsewhere.

The issues remain the same as before:

- Loss of amenity and a green corridor, including areas where it has no impact on development(back of Landseer Avenue and Bonnington Walk). We've repeatedly requested a green corridoraround the site.

The removal of trees that are an important part of the local landscape would have a significant andnegative impact.

- Tree and habitat loss, leading to loss of wildlife

- Inaccuracies in the Arboricultural report remainThe Arboricultural report states that 251 trees would be lost and need to be replaced. This figureexcludes "unclassified" trees and those that are grouped together (and numbers not included).

Many of the trees that are proposed to be retained are on private land outside the developmentsite and cannot be safeguarded. These include numerous trees on Network Rail land. They havestated that they cannot guarantee that these trees will be retained. They have a policy of removingtrackside tree cover for safety reasons. They have objected to the proposals.

- Impact on health and well-being. This updated version is worse because it removes an area ofthe Community Orchard in order to widen Concorde Way and other areas to increase the size ofparking bays.

- Proximity to electricity power lines: This is unchanged. Parts of this site may not be suitable forhousing as a result.

- Design and layout: The location of housing up to the boundary of the site behind LandseerAvenue and Bonnington Walk remains inappropriate. Three and four storey buildings woulddominate the local skyline and are inappropriate in an area of predominantly low-rise semi-detached and terraced houses.

- Impact on transport, traffic and highways

- Noise (long-term) in comparison to the calmness of the site at the moment

- Impact on local services

- The proposals are counter to local and national policies:

The council's policy (BCS9) states that "Individual green assets should be retained whereverpossible and integrated into new development". In this case it is clear that no attempt has beenmade to do so at any point during this application process.

Removal of such a large number of trees and hedgerows and their replacement with housingwould increase production of carbon dioxide and pollutants on the site, rather than removing it as itdoes at present. Replacement trees at the level proposed by the council would take 25-40 years to

compensate for the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by felling.

Development runs counter to the council's plan to double the tree canopy.

The increase in traffic would have a negative impact on air pollution.The adjacent roads have had serious accidents recently and Bonnington walk as a main bus routeis very busy and has already has increased traffic due to the entra5of Lockleaze Sports centre.This is a main walking route to school so more pollution will impact on air quality

Due to additional development surrounding this site there will be an even greater increase in trafficconjestion and lack of parking.

- Loss of Privacy due to the height and proximity of the proposed plans to existing homes.

The proposal to fund improvements for allotments off site instead of green growing space forprospective residents is unacceptable and will rob them of a genuine opportunity for Communityengagement and for mental health and well being.

I strongly object.

I feel the local wildlife will be affected with loss of habitation . The local climate Will beaffect with loss of trees

The height of the flats will cause loss of light and privacy to the houses on landseeravenue. The existing house have the right to light.The development will also cause loss of animal habitat affecting wildlife, and removing trees willaffect the local climate.

The height of the flats will cause loss of light and privacy to the houses on landseeravenue. The existing houses have the right to light.The development will also cause loss of animal habitat affecting wildlife, and removing trees willaffect the local climate.

The height of the flats will cause loss of light and privacy to the houses on landseeravenue. The existing house have the right to light.The development will also cause loss of animal habitat affecting wildlife, and removing trees willaffect the local climate.

The proposals are counter to local and national policy.The council's policy (BCS9) states that "Individual green assets should be retained whereverpossible and integrated into new development". In this case it is clear that no attempt has beenmade to do so at any point during this application process. There are too many dwellings withoutsufficient garden space and is not suitable in a the new pandemic reality.

The community has put forward substantial objection base for the council and theplanning officers to observe before moving forward with the planning process. The new "proposedchanges" have not only not responded to any of the comments made by residents via the planningportal and other means. What is appalling is that the effort each and every one of the residents putin to comment on previous proposals has been categorically ignored.

This was a real moment for the council to prove what it stands for and hopefully it can redeemitself by rejecting this planning proposal that keeps getting less and less community-minded.

Who does the planning department answer to if not the existing residents of the city of Bristol?How can they have gotten their priorities so fundamentally wrong?

Looking at the proposed changes, it is clear that nothing has been accounted for to reduce thenegative impact on tree cover and wildlife in general. In fact, things have gone in the oppositedirection.

1. I object to the current proposed changes (16/10/2020) as there have been no provisions tomaintain the Bonnington Open Space as a local gem, rich in vegetation and wildlife, home of apedestrian/cycle path that is part of the Concorde Way Sustrans network (that went throughplanning with BCC in 2010, not so long ago). The area is also host to a very important community

group, the Lockleaze Community Orchard. As outlined by the changes, I understand that theOrchard has ceased to be protected from the development and if the development does go ahead,it will never be the same. I object to the widening of the cycle path and the creation of a separatepedestrian path. I object to removing the mature trees off the site. In fact, I would support this sitebe used for additional tree planting to meet BCC's target for new trees. Development of this sitewould be detrimental to the overall CO2 emissions within BCC and would be environmentally, andecologically devastating to the area.

2. I object to the changes as there has been no provision made to maintain a site boundary. Theproposed development indicates that the houses have been specifically designed to face green,open spaces to provide an enhanced amenity. It does not spell out that this is done to thedetriment of existing houses along Landseer Avenue and Bonnington Walk. All existing residentsfrom 55 Landseer Avenue to Bonnington Walk will lose the wildlife and green space behind theirgardens as existing screening hedges will be removed to suit plans. The existing green space,including some 200 mature trees constitute a public amenity - this green space is currently visiblefrom the pavement and road along Landseer Avenue. Walking downhill from GainsboroughSquare along Constable Road, one can enjoy the tall Lombardy Poplars of the Bonnington OpenSpace. With the extremely tight packing of predominantly terraced housing and flats in the newdevelopment, and the environmental alterations proposed by the development in question, thispublic amenity will be completely lost, with no sight of the Open Space available from LandseerAvenue and further uphill, up to Gainsborough Square. It seems design has been focused onimproving the amenity of the new houses to the detriment of the existing community. Instead oftrees, three and four story buildings would dominate the local skyline and are inappropriate in anarea of predominantly low-rise semi-detached and terraced houses. I firmly object to this proposalbased on the interference of the design with the existing layout.

3. The application proposes that hedgerows and trees on the edges are removed even when theydon't interfere with development, or could be kept with minimal impact, such as along the back ofLandseer Avenue and Bonnington Walk. Is this necessary? No, not likely. Will it impact birdlife andbird species that are already struggling? The Bird Report says so. I object to the loss of vegetationand wildlife that will occur as a result of the development.

4. I object to this proposal based on the fact that the facts stated in its Arboricultural report are notaccurate and are embellished to provide a more favorable view of the development. The reportspecifies that many trees are proposed to be retained - what it omits to mention is that a significantnumber of these trees are on private land outside the development site and cannot besafeguarded. These include numerous trees on Network Rail land. Network Rail have stated thatthey cannot guarantee that these trees will be retained. They have a policy of removing tracksidetree cover for safety reasons. Moreover they have objected to the proposals. The report needs tobe recompiled with accurate information and presented to the residents for review at once more.

5. I object to building housing in close proximity to electricity power lines. And as the proposed

changes have not altered the design, parts of this site may not be suitable for housing as a result. Iobject to building houses close to the pilons as they do not create a positive community space, nordo they keep people safe.

6. The Bonnington Walk access point is at a very busy crossing point for Concorde Way CyclePath, where several accidents have occurred in the last 12 months. This busy junctions will onlyget more perilous with traffic from an extra 185 properties. Looking at the main access points intoand out of Lockleaze, these junctions are already overstretched. The Bonnington Walkcontinuation into Melton Crescent/Bridge Walk is another area where traffic issues have beenwitnessed in the past. Again, this is without the extra vehicles using the area to access theBonnington Walk development (and not to mention all the other developments that are planned forthe area). Compounding due to the planned removal of tall trees and mature vegetation, theincreased car traffic to and from the area will raise the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.Air pollution and noise pollution will then significantly impact myself directly and the quality of lifefor the local residents. I acknowledge that there have been some beneficial provisions for trafficcalming. However, these proposed changes do not go far enough and do not include the entirecommunity. I object to this proposal based on the limited, tunnel-vision approach to tackling trafficproblems surrounding the development. No changes have been made to the plans to addressnoise, air and light pollution. Please review. Meanwhile, I object.

7. The development does not assign sufficient parking provision for the number of dwellings in thisdevelopment. This will cause parking to spill into the existing streets causing issues elsewhere. Iobject to the development, especially since the planners have somehow thrown in another roadfeeding into Landseer ave from the development. Not only were the residents voices not heard,the planning department went even further to put more car movement onto Landseer by pencilingin a new road where houses are. I object.

8. Local schools and the local Health Centre are at capacity with no actions being taken toimprove them. These vital services will need to serve the existing community as well as all theother folks who move into all the planned houses across Lockleaze. I object to the new plans asnothing has changed in regard to these issues.

9. How will BCC ensure that the developers will follow the recommendations about theenvironment that have been commented upon by the community thus far? It appears the newproposal is even further away from where it was to meeting with existing community members onlocal issues. I hereby argue that the proposed development will cause serious detriment to theenvironment and ecology of the existing Open Space. The developers and the council need totake a really good look and make serious alterations to the plans at hand. My preference would bethat this area be a new park provision with newly planted trees alongside existing ones and theallotment space being resurrected. I am aware that this site is prime for development and BCC iskeen for this to go ahead. It is not my preference as the design is not suitable for the site. Theplans must be revised to allow mature trees to continue to be a public amenity and the green

border to continue to provide screening for existing residents. The Concorde Way Cycle Pathneeds to be considered as an asset and be treated as such, rather than a second-thought puttingthe development first. Widening it to the detriment of wildlife is not a positive outcome. This drafthas my full objection.

As I have already reiterated, the proposed development causes a significant loss of public amenityas the Open Space will be transformed. The proposed development does not make adequatetransport provisions, in line with the current patterns for car use within the city. It has beenhighlighted how major junctions will be over capacity and unable to handle the volume of cars.Vital local services will not be able to cope with the increase in demand from this developmentalone, not to mention the other developments planned for Lockleaze.Unless major improvements are made to both transport infrastructure, schooling and healthcareprovisions the existing services will not be able to cope. Development runs counter to the council'splan to double the tree canopy. It goes against the grain that we must protect what we have inorder to tackle the climate crisis.The increase in traffic would have a negative impact on air pollution. A climate emergency is athand. Protecting existing ecosystems and investing in innovative infrastructure should be ofparamount importance. Compounded by the loss of public amenity, one sees no reason why theproposed development should be approved.

I wholeheartedly oppose the development in its current design on 16/10/2020.

The community has put forward substantial objection base for the council and theplanning officers to observe before moving forward with the planning process. The new "proposedchanges" have not only not responded to any of the comments made by residents via the planningportal and other means. What is appalling is that the effort each and every one of the residents putin to comment on previous proposals has been categorically ignored.

1. Objection to traffic plans: The Landseer Avenue entrance will become heavily congested on aroad that already bears significant traffic issues surrounding speeding and reckless driving. TheBonnington Walk entrance is unfit for purpose given that the Sports Centre will also be bringingtraffic throughout the day. The Parking provision will not be sufficient for the modern family andnew residents will start using either their ownpavements or adjacent roads to park on, stirring up unwanted dispute in the neighbourhood.Traffic calming measures do not go far enough. There needs to be a lot more work done on thistopic by the planning department.

2. The wildlife that has established itself on the site (which is currently being visibly disturbed bythe ecologists working on site without planning permission) is of value to the local neighbourhoodand benefits community wellbeing. It is A public amenity which will be lost in favor of new housing.Many trees not included in the report will be discarded if permission is granted, which will bedevastating for the local birdlife and wildlife. Instead of developing this land, it would make athriving managed woodland, providing a home for the wildlife and a lung for our neighbourhood

where another 800+ homes are proposed to be built. Since no provision has been made to retaina green border (the deforestation on site is already well under way, the disruption is severe), iobject to this draft.

3. With so many of the units in four-storey blocks, reducing community cohesion and increasingenergy and maintenance costs. This will also be completely out of line with what the rest of theneighbourhood skyline looks like. For older residents who have had nothing but trees and wildlifeon one side of the house, it will be devastating having a fast road in the front of the house and awork site with tall buildings behind it. No changes there, it seems. I continue to object.

Destruction of wild habitat, with no where else around like it. There's such little greenspace which is needed for exercise and getting outside with so many working from home, this willtake that away.

This area is becoming increasingly over populated with scant facilities that aren't evensufficient to satisfy the existing local population. Sites that have already been cleared and then leftfor years should be built on and this valuable irreplaceable natural environment left alone. Thelocation directly adjacent to overhead power cables cannot be desirable one would have imagined.

Once again, I comment that I fully object to these plans.

I mirror the same comments that I have made previously. That the cycle path is of incredibleimportance to this Community. For leisure and metal health purposes. I know many people like methat use the cycle path daily for exercise.

My property backs onto the cycle path and I have reaped the benefits of being so close to thebushland that borders my home. The abundance of wildlife that I am able to observe and enjoyeach day honestly keeps me sane. A point I have made long before Covid was a consideration.And will make long after the crisis has passed.

There are many areas already being redeveloped which where previously residential properties,which makes sense. However, I feel it is appalling that the council who have made promises topreserve open spaces around the city would choose to destroy such an important natural habitatand focal point for the community of Lockleaze.

It should not stand that our government make promises to preserve our natural green spaces inone breath, yet are choosing to pick on an already deprived area of Bristol to break this promiseby taking away something that means so much to the residents of Lockleaze.

Please find below an email I have sent to BCC Tree Officers -

I refer to planning application 20/02523/FB Bonnington Walk. The resubmission is proposing towiden Concorde Way cycleway at the southern end of the site to 3m and installing a separate 2mwide pedestrian footpath.

I am shocked and saddened the amendments impact on a great community asset "LockleazeCommunity Orchard", where in June I was able to plant a Rowan Tree to celebrate a dear friends50th birthday, who sadly passed away from Covid 19 in March.

I would be grateful if you could confirm whether this tree will need to be removed, it is on the edgeof the orchard near the existing path, if so please could it be relocated to Rowlandson Gardens(where i live) as part of the Forest of Avon Tree Planting scheme.

I strongly object to the current proposal.This neighborhood has had no chance to adapt to the current accepted projects, pendingconstruction or in construction. We do not know the impact of the new school or newdevelopments on our roads and children safety, on our air, light and noise pollution, on ourneighborhood and shops. Talking about shops, we do not have any. Two off-licences and ahairdresser. This requires local residents to drive to the nearest supermarket, adding to roads thatare not designed for a steady flow of traffic.

There are already four developments pending construction or in construction within a 5km radius,including one 200m from the proposed application, North Side of Landseer Ave. This one mightjust be outside Lockleaze boundaries, but it will add to Lockleaze roads... I hope this has not beenmissed during your review because that many new developments is unsustainable. 185 dwellings= 370 additional cars, on roads (could we even call that a road? or is it more a track? I have seenbetter roads in the middle of the countryside!) that are full of potholes and are so uneven the noiseis a real issue for local residents. Local residents that you choose to ignore, since this proposal isnot only destroying the Community Orchard and the local wildlife this brings, but also adding to thetraffic jams we have seen every weekend due to the Lockleaze Sport Centre that benefited veryfew local residents, if any, since everyone seems to be driving there.

No shops, no road capacity, a neighborhood that is already bursting at the seams with proposalsunder development. But there is one thing that makes this proposal even worse than the others: it

is on the most used cycle path in Bristol. How can anyone justify this? I thought this governmentcommitted to building more cycle paths, safer and single use (not shared with pedestrians), andsomeone thought it would be a good idea to build on and around the Concorde Way?

I would like to confirm my objection to the planning application for the redevelopment ofland to the south of Bonington Walk.

As a long standing resident of Lockleaze, I feel that my objections are fair and valid.

Firstly, the road infrastructure was designed for a period when the traffic was not as heavy as thecurrent time. Landseer Avenue has become a "rat run" for vehicles trying to cut out the Filton Aveand Muller Road. The speeds of some of the vehicles is more suited to a track then the roads. Therush hour period has already seen a major increase in traffic due to the development of the newTrinity Academy secondary school at Romney Avenue. I have lived in Lockleaze for over 40 yearsand this is the worst it has ever been.

Now lets factor in the proposed development of Crome Road / Constable Road. I am sure yourTEMPro growth factor has taken this into account but I am unsure looking at you spreadsheet ifBCC has done so. Anybody who has visited the area will see that the road structure simply will notsustain the increased volume in traffic. It will be very dangerous for ALL residents.

As mentioned above, the land designated for housing on Crome / Constable Roads surely needsto be completed before any further developments can gain planning permission. How are we toknow the full impact of these in advance. The local residents have been aware of the plans to builton this location for some time. Land that was previously used for housing...how can this not be a

priority? Perhaps the council have forgotten about this. I fully understand the need for affordablehousing, but that shouldn't mean any land in lower income areas is automatically available.

Having viewed all of the other objections, I would like to add that the impact on the wildlife andnature is also a major factor. I feel this has been covered but wanted to view my opinion.

Please can you take into account all of the objections highlighted to you, and the views of theexisting residents and the wider community.

Kind regards

I object to this planning application as there is a lot of ground on Constable Road/CromeRoad which has been empty for years which should be developed before anything else, also theland in question is used by a lot of people cycling and walking and will spoil the area for thesepeople as well as the wildlife in this area.

I think the word used in the title ought to be development not redevelopment, and of agreen field site, so it's not missleading.The area is surely a wildlife corridor, or was till recent clearing. this is like brazil gov.allowingclearing rainforest for commercial gain.

Objecting to removal of peaceful community space, and a wild natural area muchneeded to help protect our native wildlife.

I like walking through here because it's more than a grass park.

The beautiful thing about Bristol for me has always been the combination of the amountof green we have mixed with the creative outputs and individuality that we push. Over the pastcouple of years I've seen this dwindle and Bristol start to become a bleak concrete jungle with thelife and soul killed of it for the sake of more buildings that you could see in every other city inEngland. I fully object to this planning as it is another step in the wrong direction for our beautifulcity.

I fully object to this plan.Bristol declaring a climate emergency and then proposing to build 185 homes on green-space isoutright hypocrisy. An incredible area of natural beauty which is full of wildlife will be lost forever.We should be preserving our green space, not destroying it.We need more trees not less.

Some preliminary work appears to be going on already on the site with trenches being duh andfencing erected.

Has a decision already been made perhaps?

More houses on greenfield sites? Not compatible with climate emergency. Find abrownfield site to develop, don't use more of our greenspace for housing

I object to the development on the following grounds:- biodiversity: as someone who commutes daily through this area by cycle early in the morning,the 'dawn chorus' and observations indicate a large number of songbirds use this area for feeding;no doubt some are protected species.- loss of mature tree cover; at odds with BCC's objective to increase tree cover- carbon emissions; at odds with BCC's declaration of a climate emergency; this area has beenundeveloped for many years and the soil will have locked in many years of carbon. How will thisbe mitigated by the development?

Lockleaze needs more housing, including at higher densities and reduced road space; this site isnot suitable for the above reasons.

My husband and I have a number of concerns:

1 The effect on traffic & safety- these are already busy roads, the increase in traffic and footfallincreases the risk of an accident.

2. The detrimental effect on the well-being of local people due to the loss of open space nevermind the impact on the animals!

3. The lack of amenities. There are already plans to build along Chrome Road and Cromwell roadwith no thought given to the provision of amenities. The number of local residents will significantlyincrease with no provision for shops, cafes etc.

4. The loss of privacy. These houses will back directly onto our garden with a clear view into bothour garden and bedroom window. The planned alleys/paths between the houses also go right upto our boundary causing a significant security risk.

5. The detrimental effect on the environment including increased risk of flooding. The bottom ofour garden already floods regularly every winter. The loss of trees and the disturbance of the landwill only increase this further.

I object to this on several grounds:1) This route is one of the few genuinely pleasant cycle paths in the area, it would be a real shameto have it diminished, especially at a time when we are being encouraged more than ever to loseweight and cycle instead of drive.2) During lockdown and not being able to go anywhere, this area was a real lifesaver, being ableto walk through and see the amazing variety of animals and plants (I've never seen so many foxesin a city before). The thought of losing this is tragic.3) This is already a busy area, especially in terms of cars. I don't think cramming more houses intothis area, with the ubiquitous cars this would bring, is the right course of action. Bristol is supposedto be a green city, with many cyclists and environmental pledges, I don't think this plan matchesthat image.

I understand there is a shortage of houses in Bristol, I myself am trying to buy a house in Bristoland finding it difficult, but that doesn't mean that houses should be built in such a haphazard andshort-sighted manner. There are enough brownfield sites in the city to build flats on without takingaway one of the real green pleasures of this area.

This is why I object completely to this plan.

Already to many planned homes in the area and not enough public services, shops etc

I object to the houses being built.

We live in an era of ecocide. Our green spaces are few and far between, and treasured.

The Bristol Mayor has acknowledged the need for a green new deal. His party talk aboutprotecting nature, and say that new homes must not come not at its expense.

Yet here we are, the council are proposing to destroy invaluable scrubland habitat.

The Bonnington Walk open space is a rare gem in Bristol. A large area of scrub, humming withinsects and alive with bird son. I've seen birds such as whitethroat, kestrel, sparrow hawk. I'veheard tawny owls.

The space is invaluable for local residents and loved and appreciated by those who pass throughon their daily commute. I walk there daily for my dose of nature. Stoke Park is incomparable forthe quiet, closeness and richness of life to be found in the open space.

In addition to the natural value of the space, the increase in traffic will not be welcomed. AlreadyBonnington Walk is a dangerous place to walk - its width, lack of proper policing and poormanagement encouraging high numbers of speeding motorists, many at extreme speeds. Theroad is in desperate need of an effective traffic calming system.

I am a completely blind resident of the area and am 34 weeks pregnant. I fear for theloss of the trees and habitat through the "nature corridor" and the impact this will undoubtedlyhave on wildlife. I was personally hoping to introduce my daughter to nature in a manner that islocally accessible to me as a disabled parent but have wider concerns for any parent or any of themany local residents with decreased mobility who won't be able to easily access such a wonderfularea with the variety of species that exist there. As a professional therapist, I am also aware of theimmense benefits to mental and physical wellbeing these places obviously bring to the localcommunity. This factor cannot be outweighed by any financial gain that is to be made by a fewproperty investors. I have heard alternative proposals have been made that impact far less on theactual relatively long standing trees in the area and belive these must be considered above thespeculative cash value of any development.

Dear Sir /Madam,

Thanks for this opportunity to express and opinion about the proposed new homes on land between Bonnington Walk and Rowlandson Gardens.

I regularly walk the dog along the existing cycle track there and it is one of my favourite places for spotting butterflies, admiring the wild flowers and picking blackberries. Consequently, I just wanted to ask if some of the existing established trees and meadowland could be incorporated into the design of the new site. It does seem a waste of wildlife if it is all bulldozed -not just from an ecological point of view but taking into account how this Covid 19 outbreak has highlighted our ongoing need for open space for our physical and mental health.

I also wonder at the wisdom of building so many tightly packed dwellings there - lack of space for these inhabitants is obviously not healthy for their physical and especially their mental well-being. IMHO it is not just homes people need but healthy communities where they are happy to live.

Thanks so much for taking the time to read this - sent at the 11th hour!

Thank you too for the work you do trying to figure out the best way forward in these situations.

Kind regards,Sue Allan

This area has see an incredible amount of development over recent years, and the lossof habitat has been significant, with new house building around Abbey Wood and Lockleaze andthe clearing of the railway embankments and works sites. The label 'European Green Capital'obviously doesn't apply to less affluent areas of Bristol.

Don't the people of Lockleaze and surrounding areas deserve to have a better environment andwildlife area to enjoy? With so many people suffering from the impact of mental health issues, weare advised to enjoy green spaces. Well this is one. People don't have to drive to it as its just onour doorstep. I cycle to work through this site and enjoy the bird-song, that in recent times hascome to the fore without traffic noise drowning it out. We need this space - it is even morenecessary now, to have somewhere to walk to/through and enjoy a small part of the naturalenvironment.

Demand for allotments has risen too and no-one in the council highlighted that this area wasoriginally designated and used for allotments, not for housing development. Which incidentally willbe affordable until the buyers start renting out and putting the rent up!

Why can't we leave this space alone or even enhance it, with more native trees and stop trying todevelop every bit of land that looks like it is 'under-used' and can make a bundle of cash forsomeone's coffers? What will be the eventual cost?

Have a heart BCC and please vote for nature, nurture and ordinary Bristolians in this community.

Downend Road and Dovercourt Road are already used as a rat run for a large amountof traffic. Building more houses at the end of this will make the problem worse. This is also a busyroute used by many cyclists and pedestrians and having more traffic to complete with will not be agood thing.

The adjacent land is an integral green space that needs to be protected and nurtured for both thehealth and wellbeing of the nearby residents and the wider city.

For these reasons, I object to this planning application.

I did leave a comment saying that my stance was neutral for this planning applicationbut I have changed my stance. I believe houses should be built but less than the 185 as it seems aawful lot in quite a small space. This would have a huge impact on the green space, wildlife andlocal infrastructure.

The residential roads of Downend Road (where I live) and Dovercourt Road sufferhorrendous levels of traffic that use them as a rat run to Lockleaze Road and Filton Avenue.Building 185 houses at the top of Dovercourt Road will increase this traffic, causing more dangerto the many pedestrians and cyclists that use these streets and will add to the already high levelsof pollution here. The volume of traffic that uses this rat run already causes high numbers of roadrage incidents, traffic jams and cyclists using the pavements as they try to get around the traffic.Many cars drive along these roads at dangerously high speeds (something I have lodged with thecouncil on numerous occasions).

Bristol has brilliantly and boldly declared a climate emergency. This allowed for impressivenational praise and positive newspaper headlines, but the actions of the council do not seem toreflect this very serious emergency. We need to be protecting well loved and highly used greenspaces like the area proposed for this development, for the people and wildlife that depend on it.We do not need to be destroying well used green space to develop in such a way that will add tothe problems that accelerate the pollution and congestion that is choking our city. Thisdevelopment will take away space that people use to keep active and healthy which seems to goagainst all of the healthy lifestyle promotions that the Government is currently advocating. Givingthis development permission would be an act of hypocrisy that would massively hurt the localcommunities by taking away a much loved green space and increasing traffic and pollution.

The proposed housing development on the former Ford dealership on Muller Road will also add to

the congestion/pollution problems that we already suffer in this neighbourhood, but at least this ison a brownfield site that isn't being used with access from a main road.

There is no logic, in a city that has declared a climate emergency, to grant this developmentpermission. This is why I strongly object. Bristol needs to be leading the way in making bolddecisions that put the wider issues associated with the climate emergency right at the centre.

It is laudable that the Council is looking to build some social housing. However, I objectto this proposal on the following grounds:-The intensity of the proposed number of dwellings: why should people in social housing becrammed so close together?-The proximity of proposed dwellings to the pylons.-The loss of important habitat for breeding birds (including red and amber listed), and other insectsand wildlife.-The loss of important, well used amenity space, used by parents and children for leisure andcommuting purposes, cyclist and pedestrian commuters (including me), and communityvolunteers.-The loss of yet another green space in the Lockleaze, Filton area. If this area is razed, the closestarea of semi natural green space for local residents (excluding the soulless Lockleaze sportscentre playing fields) is some 25 minutes away on foot (Stoke Park, or Horfield common).Please reconsider this scheme. Ideally, find another site. If that is not feasible and there is animperative to build social housing, please redesign the scheme with fewer dwellings, lessintensively built; limit the redevelopment (and disruption to habitat) to the currently less accessibleand least used section of this site, farthest away from the railway line and path, which although nota PROW, has been utilised as such for many years.

Thank you.

Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways (FOSBR) consider that the numerous housing developmentsproposed for the Lockleaze area reinforce the urgency for delivery of the new Horfield/Lockleazerailway station. The Bonnington Walk site (185 homes) is only one of 35 planned or potentialhousing sites in Lockleaze.

The Travel Plan for the Bonnington Walk development mentions the railway services available atFilton Abbey Wood station; from Bristol Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads via Stapleton Road andLawrence Hill.

There is also mention of the new Ashley Hill station to be delivered as part of MetroWest Phase 2.

Horfield/Lockleaze station is not mentioned in the Travel Plan despite its inclusion in WECA's JointLocal Transport Plan Version 4 under the section "Building on MetroWest".

The likely new Horfield/Lockleaze station site lies within 300 metres of the Bonnington Walkdevelopment site - where Constable Road crosses the railway line next to the old DovercourtRoad gas works site. An alternative location is listed on some planning documents as"approximately 475 metres south of Constable Road".

The Dovercourt Road/Constable Road site is 1 mile south of the existing Filton Abbey Wood

station and ¾ mile north of the proposed Ashley Hill station, so significantly more accessible forfuture residents of the Bonnington Walk development.

The Dovercourt Road/Constable Road site is currently on three bus routes - 72 from the Centreand Clifton to UWE, 77 from the Centre via Southmead Hospital to Thornbury, 24 from SouthmeadHospital to Ashton Vale via Eastville & the Centre (every 15 minutes Monday-Saturday, every 20minutes Sunday).

This new station would therefore enable people to travel to Southmead Hospital more easily andprovide links to a wider area for local residents. There is significant unemployment and low incomein parts of Lockleaze and Horfield, with low levels of car ownership and poor public transport linksto employment areas. Local support for a station is evident from the local community's response tovarious current local housing development consultations.

FOSBR also wish to see improved pedestrian/cycle access to the existing and proposed railwaystations at Filton Abbey Wood, Constable Road and Ashley Hill. The re-alignment of the ConcordeWay alongside the development site between Bonnington Walk and Constable Road shouldinclude segregation of pedestrians and cyclists as recommended in the Local Cycling and WalkingInfrastructure Plan (LCWIP), the optimum segregation being 3m cycleway + 2m footway.

FOSBR also comment that expedited delivery of Horfield/Lockleaze station (and Ashley Hillstation) prior to construction of local housing would be preferable. New residents would be morelikely to take up public transport options rather than defaulting to car use with potential associatedcongestion.

Travel planning for new residents will of course be valuable in promoting active travel and publictransport options.

I am concerned by the loss of this green space, which is an important wildlife habitatand social/leisure space for the people of Lockleaze. We need to preserve and promote ourmental and physical health more than ever at the moment, and natural areas are so important forthis. Even if some of the trees felled for the development are replaced by planting when the area islandscaped, it will take years for these new trees to reach maturity. As the Chinese proverb says,"The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is today" - choose the besttime!

The number of dwellings planned seems huge for a relatively small space, making me concernedabout the welfare of the people housed there, all living in each others' pockets with little privacy. Ialso fear that the increase in cars needing access to the area will have implications on traffic,pollution and safety.

I appreciate the need for social housing, but only 50% of the site aims to be for social housing. Ifthe land must be developed, just develop that 50%!

We object to this application. Bonnington Walk is a green site and a habitat for manyanimals and birds. There are many other areas to develop, elsewhere there are better optionsthan this green lung in an otherwise built up area.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to register my objection to the 185 houses being planned on the green space between Lockleaze and the railway. As a local resident, I use the cycle path through this area 2-3 times a week. Such spaces provide an oasis for city wildlife, strengthening natural populations of both plants and animals in a time of ecological strife. Duing the Covid-19 pandemic, many have realised the benefit of green spaces within our city in promoting physical and mental wellbeing, and the preservation and use of these areas will eventually lead to a reduced pressure on our healthcare services, as these benefits filter through local communities.

I am well aware of the need for housing in Bristol, but maybe more effort could be put into making use of the large amount of quality property that stands empty and unused within the city, rather than building hasty estates of generally rather poor quality housing, at the expense of local community and wildlife.

Yours sincerely,

Mr S Pomery

Considering Bristol City Council have been keen to uphold their status since 2015 as agreen capital, this move to destroy already rare wild space in the city and replace it with residentialbuildings and car park spaces seems entirely counter intuitive. Now more than ever, cities andurban centres should be striving to give nature more opportunity to thrive and expand, not less.

On a social level, this development will put even more strain on individuals wellbeing and mentalhealth, limiting our already restricted opportunities to enjoy nature and get out and about,especially during future inevitable COVID-19 breakouts. Not only this, but people nearby will besubjected to months of disruption and construction noise, during an already trying time.

The number of developments being agreed to in the Lockleaze Ward has already crept upsignificantly- with ever more increasing HMOs being constructed in quiet residential streets, forexample. This development will add to that , and will not benefit the existing community in any longterm, sustainable way. It will increase already strained parking problems, noise, litter and possibleanti social behaviour. It is entirely inappropriate for a development of this size to go ahead in thisarea.

My support for this development rests on the fact that it proposes 50% affordablehousing with 69% for social rent - although it would be better if this percentage was higher. I live insocial housing and an affordable, secure tenancy in a well designed home has made an absolutelymassive difference to my family's lives. When I look at the site plans showing each house/ flat Ican't help but imagine families and single people in desperate need of housing excitedly movinginto half of them, and conclude that it would be a good use of the land.

I don't know enough about the subject to take an informed position, but I am aware that there isconcern about the adverse effects to human health from living near pylons. My own house is veryclose to the same string of pylons, but for me the immediate benefits of a secure tenancy in a wellbuilt house far outweighed any potential risks.

I live very near Bonnington Walk. I have no car and greatly value green and 'wild' spaces that I canreach by foot. I enjoy walking along the cycle path en route to other places in the area. However Ido sometimes feel slightly vulnerable walking alone there, and when I have small children with meI have to keep a keen eye out for approaching cyclists to make sure the children are safe (this isnot a criticism of cyclists using the path for its intended purpose). I think that the green spacesplanned will actually enhance people's enjoyment of the area, because of:the places to sit and enjoy greenery and fresh airthe places for children to playthe allotments and community dining table

the segregation of the cycle path and footpath

I hope that the developers will make every effort to retain as many existing trees as possible, andplant plenty of semi-mature ones. I welcome the proposed inclusion of living walls and roofs.

I cycle through regularly through this healthy area free from poisonous fumes anddeadly traffic, still happening 2020 nature area in danger of being half covered in tarmac/concrete,thin end of wedge ( thick wedge) excuse-population excess, is this for 185 homeless families ofcourse not, car free course not , why was this area 'stolen' from Lockleaze in the first place? give itback but with plenty allotments, play area, orchard, wild area, woods( with 100% canopy cover, biodiversity in more open areas like most of this is) got to be wildlife corridor, houses equal cats equalend of fauna, equal dogs and waste on paths, wonderfull park, is lockleaze neglected?then don'tneglect it. Some clearance taking place already just like cowboy developers do, and applicationnot even reviewed , or consultation period over yet. Give Lockleaze some fresh air and awonderful park ! A bit of mowing and a hedge trim wouldn't cost much, 40 acres in Stoke Gifford isan example

The development will cause the destruction of wildlife habitat. The Council has declaredan ecological emergency so should be protecting habitat not be permitting developments thatdestroy it.

I am appalled at the whole prospect of developing the area and the magnitude ofdwellings proposed. This area is an outstanding nature corridor. It is used by many parents andchildren in particular as they go down the cycle track. From that point of view it becomes highlyeducational. It's my nearest bit of wild green and it's inhabited by many species. My home is justfurther down the track than the proposed build and as a Disabled individual it has been my lifelineto connect with the flora fauna and wildlife that inhabit the space. All of our green areas are underthreat and so is our planet. Surely the climate crisis is increased significantly by the constantdestruction of valuable wildlife corridors and yet the council purports to be taking the latterseriously! There are to my knowledge bat's bees many different Moth butterfly and insects, birdsand . Frogs andwho visit my pond iand inhabit the undergrowth. Foxes who don't impinge( to myknowledge on humans do a great job at keeping the number of rhodents down. Lockleaze hasbeen experiencing increased Rhodent activity in houses and gardens. I believe there is a frequentcorrelation between work on the embankments (and the clearing of spaces which have alreadyextended from Filton to here) over recent times. This has constantly broken Nature's chain anddestroyed Animal habitat. By this l refer to the lack of natural predators for disease carrying rats.This piece of land you are proposing to develop is a precious gem in our community.

Why destroy this important area of wildlife protection and recreation to furtheroverstretch the facilities in this area? There are already too many cars parked on local roads anddifficulty with Dr appointments, adding more people seems so short sighted here.

Why take away another beautiful wildlife haven? For locals it provides an importantoutdoor space for exercising and wellbeing. The housing crises needs addressing but not bydestroying valuable and beautiful spaces when brown sites are plentiful.

I am a local resident residing at 83, Landseer Avenue, I object to the proposed housing development.

I cannot understand why you want to destroy the wonderful habitat for the numerous species of wildlife the inhabit the trees and scrub land. I consider this to be an act of vandalism.

Landseer especially is saturated with speeding traffic using Lockleaze ass a rat run between Filton Avenue and Muller road.

The people who live here can find it difficult to park due to the number of cars in the street, indeed they are parking on the green.

This loss of a public amenity and green space can only be to the detriment of people health and mental well being.

The removal of the vegetation can only mean an increase in the carbon footprint in Bristol due to the fact there will be nothing there to help clean the polluted air, this surely goes against the legal obligation to reduce the carbon emissions, after all this is a smokeless zone.

Regards, Dennis Harmer

Let the local community enjoy green space.

I am against the development of this site. It's a lovely green space that I commute towork via on my bike and run through to escape the polluted streets on a regular basis, it bringsgreen space that is needed in this already busy area.

I'd like to object to the proposed construction, for the following reasons:

(1) Access to green space is important to the wellbeing of the local community, both in terms ofphysical and mental health. I have personally used this area for walking, almost daily during therecent lockdown.(2) There will be an ecological impact as it will require the removal/ destruction of a wildlifecorridor, which doesn't feel fitting for a city that prides itself on its 'green' credentials(3) The proposed development of 185 homes doesn't take into account the impact on localinfrastructure. I'm particularly concerned about the impact on nearby roads and their safety - asmany of these are already tricky to navigate for parents/ carers/ wheelchair users. Cars parked onpavement on Landseer Avenue force me to walk on the road when I have a pram with me, whiletraffic calming measures/ limits (e.g. those on Wordsworth Road) are routinely ignored bymotorists. The new development (and accompanying traffic) will further exacerbate this situation.

Hello,I am a neighbour who cycles through this area every day and I am deeply concerned with issues of biodiversity.I was planning to collect seeds from many plants along the sides of the track in the next few months, for propagation to neighbouring spaces. I was devastated to see the sudden removal of all the diversity that was thriving there. I believe every such construction project should involve the intervention of experts in biodiversity in order to propagate any plants that might be otherwise rare in the area.I am particularly angry at the prospect of seeing numerous trees felled for the purpose of this project. Trees are key to more natural processes than any other plants and should be protected at all cost. If there any justifications for felling trees, the construction of housing is not one.I understand Bristol's need for new housing, especially social housing. Therefore I would urge for this project to be modified so that it focuses only on social housing in a way that preserves the trees in the area, while retaining its plan to plant more trees.

The impact study has failed to consider the disruption and negative affect this will have upon the surrounding residents. It has also failed to consider how much additional traffic will increase the air pollution which is currently hovering at levels that affect health.The disruption over a sustained period will be horrendous to live with.The most damaging aspect is the unthinkable destruction of wild green areas at a time when green spaces and access to nature and the outside has been proven crucial for health is equivalent to filling up the NHS with more mental and physical health issues.The people who live and use the green nature have a right to live without let and hinderance and have a right to continue to live and enjoy their surrounding areas without the land grab profiteers removing their quality of life and replacing it with more people and buildings that surround them. What a horrific plan this is. Squashing people in to live together on land that is revered for profit, gain and targets is objectionable. This proposal to create additional burdens for Bristol is ridiculous. Look for brown field spaces and build smaller pockets.

I strongly object to the development of a housing estate being built. I live on Rowlandson gardens with my garden backing onto the proposed site. This will cause noise disruption both during the building and after. My garden will be over looked and I will not get any privacy from properties over looking my house and garden. I feel this will also have an effect on our house prices. I feel this will have a detrimental effect on local wildlife and contribute to poor air pollution as trees and green space will be removed.

I object to this application because it will result in significant loss of green space and wildlife which is scarce in the area. This is a vital space for walking with children and getting enough exercise.

I strongly object to this proposed development due to the impact on the area's biodiversity.

There's not enough capacity on the roads for 185 dwellings, there's not enoughamenities (pubs, cafes) nearby.

This development will destroy an important wildlife corridor in Bristol. At a time when weshould be looking to preserve these pockets of green space, this development goes against that.Concessions to allotment space and keeping some of the trees is not enough. You have a chanceto create and expand on something unique here that's in harmony with the natural surroundings,not at the expense of it. Ive seen trees being cut down and the area fenced off - what are youdoing already without our say so? Seems very underhand to me. We can't keep taking away fromnature like this without putting anything back. As we've seen during lock down, green spaces areso important to our physical and mental wellbeing. I urge you to reconsider this development.

The area in question has been a real bonus to local people, particularly during lock-down. Many people, myself included, have discovered the joy of nature along this section of thecycle track. There are a host of wild flowers growing in this particular area. Plants and trees host avariety of wildlife. It is an area crying out to be improved via footpaths, to encourage people tolearn about and respect nature - particularly young children. There are so many other, moreappropriate sites for housing ie Constable Road, pub site on the square. Not to forget so manyareas in Bristol such as disused warehouses and office buildings, that could be used for thehousing so badly needed in Bristol. We are supposed to be working towards being a 'green city',yet these plans are racing ahead to take away wonderful green spaces such as this.

im writing to express my deepest anger and frustration over development application 20/02523/fb.its absolutely ridiculous and wrong .theres simply not enough living space for more people.this cyclepath is where i go every day to relax.its important for mine and my familys mental health.we the local residents started organizing and we wont let you destroy our landscape.-- szym

I wish to strongly object to this proposal to build 185 new houses on Bonnington Walk.

This area is desperately short of doctors, primary school places, dentists and other facilities, andno provision has been made to add to these vital services, which are already under great pressurefrom the existing number of people in the area, let alone with more people being added.

The green space that will be removed is a vital local amenity for the community. It is used at alltimes of the day by cyclists, walkers, children playing and so on. Personally, I exercise there, Iwalk my child there, I breathe in the fresh air and escape the choking fumes of the many cars thatclog our city. The area has been a sanctuary and an escape in coronavirus times, when I am onlyable to walk a short distance from my house. When you walk there you feel as though you couldbe in the countryside, which is so rare and vital for our city life. This space supports our physicaland mental health.

It also supports many species of animal and plans, all of which will be killed if this developmentgoes ahead. On my many walks through this area I see many interesting species such as bats,moths, wild birds and butterflies, and from speaking to some of the workmen there I know thereare rare newts.

Furthermore, this area of Bristol has already suffered a great deal of development, and theadditional noise and pollution which will be required to complete this large development is

unreasonable. And when finished, it will of course result in yet more cars (which of course lead toaccidents and even greater risk to young people playing in the area), yet more noise, yet moreparking problems and yet more pollution in our area.

Bristol is supposed to be a green city, as evidenced by our win of the European Green City Awardin 2015. Removing green space and replacing it with yet more housing is unacceptable andcompletely goes against the spirit of what this city and area is about.

John

I wish to register my objection to build 185 new houses on Bonnington Walk.I regularly walk and run along the cycle path in this area, this space offers a chance to get awayfrom cars and traffic and is one of the few undeveloped green spaces in the area. It would be ashame see the destruction of this local wildlife habitat for the construction of new homesparticularly as there are other brownfield sites in the same area.

I am also concerned with the impact of this development on traffic in the local area. I live on upperWordsworth road which is used on a ratrun for traffic to and from Bonnington Walk & FiltonAvenue. This road is not built for heavy traffic with no pavements for pedestrians - I presume in themisguided view that traffic will give way to pedestrians. In my four years of living on this street Ihave witnessed a number of near misses, aggressive driving and incidences of road rage. Ibelieve this development would make this issue worse and that an accident in this area is highlylikely to occur.

The loss of green space and trees will lead to the loss of habitat for birds, badgers, batsand small mammals, some of which are under threat.

I fully object these plans. I often take my daughter on this route, where she loveslooking at the birds & insects. We do not need to lose more green space in our apparent 'greencity'.

Loss of Green space - This section of green space has been vital for walking duringlockdown. With such little options around Filton. The wild nature of the space allows for localwildlife to thrive and there is no alternative nearby.

Increasing Filton avenue traffic - This road is already heavily polluted with bad air quality andheavy traffic, adding extra housing with further add to this.

In 2015 Bristol became the UK's first ever European Green Capital in recognition ofwhat we the citizens of Bristol had achieved in making our city a healthier and happier place to livein. How dare Bristol City Council think that they can ruin are our achievements by engaging in anagenda of eradication of our precious open spaces for political and monetary gain. Shame on you.

Having just heard the news about the application to build 185 houses on Bonningtonopen walk, my heart sinks. To think that you, the council would even consider this application isdisgraceful.

I use Bonnington walk nearly every day, be it for cycling to work or taking our Granddaughter therefor a walk. The tranquility of this walk and the natural beauty of the flora and fauna is wonderful.To see and hear all the Insects, birds and bugs is beautiful. Our Granddaughter just loves it andthe stories unfold as we walk along. The loss of this area and to see the wildness of it all beingtorn down will be devastating to many humans, flora and fauna.

The other impact will be the increase in traffic on all the surrounding local roads, including WessexAve (already over used as a cut through to Southmead) and Filton Avenue. What has happened tothe idea of getting Bristol air cleaner. I feel it maybe because you don't live on these very busyroads, so have no concern for others.

On your website you state ' you are committed to improving the local environment and helping toprotect it for the future. That is exactly what you should be doing to this precious area.

Bristol is supposed to be 'Bristol Green Capital'. Think on before you make your decision, and ifyou approve it......you should bow your head in shame. You will be letting the local people downand all the future generations down.

Shame on you if you let this application go through.

This proposal would destroy a safe, traffic free route for walking and cycling on theimportant Concorde Way route, as well as scarce wildlife habitat with a range of wildflowers and acommunity allotment site with potential for a wide range of outdoor education, food growing andother uses

We have an environmental crisis. Removing natural hedging and wild areas in cities willdestroy our biodiversity. Please think again. Money is transient, life, insects up need to be ourpriorirty

For some families this space is the only space they can have easy access to for a quietwalk or bike ride whilst safely away from cars ect. It's someplace families without cars can taketheir kids to safely learn to ride a bike. It's a place for children to learn about wildlife and plants. It'simportant to a lot of families and the animals along there.

2

We agree with TDM and do not believe the current proposal, to keep the dog-leg section of shared

footway along Bonnington Walk, is adequate or safe. The addition of road access to the new houses,

as well as the improved Concorde Way route, will already take a piece of this boundary. It would not

take any extra length of boundary or extra area of green space to move the Concorde Way exit to

better align with the new tiger crossing on Bonnington Walk. If this is not possible, the south side of

Bonnington Walk that includes the dog-leg must be further widened to avoid conflict between

cyclists and pedestrians.

Concorde Way – Constable Road

No improvements are planned to Concorde Way where it crosses Constable Road and continues

towards Dovercourt Road.

We agree with TDM and Bristol Cycling Campaign that this development should be used as an

opportunity to improve the southward connection of Concorde Way, including a parallel crossing of

Constable Road as recommended in LCWIP.

Site access roads

There are two new road access points planned for the site, on Bonnington Walk and on Landseer

Avenue. We agree with TDM that these should each have continuous footways across them.

Access to local shops

We agree with TDM that pedestrian access from the site along Constable Road to local shops in

Gainsborough Square should be eased by providing continuous footways at the junctions with

Landseer Avenue and Crome Road.

Bristol Walking Alliance

21 July 2020 enquiries@bristolwalkingalliance.org.uk

This is the only natural wild space in Horfield/Lockleaze. Other green areas (Common,Muller Rd) are grass deserts. We need to protect this last wild place for wildlife. Hedgehogs, slowworms, bats, birds, numbers have plummeted, they depend on this wild refuge. I walk hereregularly, I need this access to wildlife helping me with my mental health during Covid.

As a long life animal lover and someone who cares deeply for wildlife, I find it sadding toread that the council are planning to redevelop houses over a nature reserve and strongly ask youto rethink about what you are planning and choose a new location.

As a member of the Lockleaze community and a very regular user of the Concord cyclepath I strong object to this development. This area is a beautiful wild area that is constantly alivewith the sights and sounds of our UK wildlife.

This section is the only nearby area where forna and flora are allowed to develop a rich andvibrant biodiverse ecosystem.

With the Government's pledges to increase sustainability and biodiversity within our nation I find itvery disconcerting that the council wishes to remove and destroy the only nearby wild area.

I see this agreement as a disgusting grab for private developer money and a disregard for thenone financial benefits of having such a space for our children and there education of the naturalworld.

I strongly object to this development and will be shocked if the council decide to disregard themany objections from local residents.

I walk/run/cycle through this site a about 8 times a week, and I recently became awareof a planning application to redevelop it.

Although overgrown, it is a valuable community space, public amenity, and important green routelinking to green areas further out from the city.

I am aware there have been crime issues with this area, although personally have not beenaffected.

I have always valued this area for its wildlife, and bringing 'countryside' closer to my house on myway out from the city. If the walkway/cyclepath continue to wind their way through green space,rich in wildlife I will continue to enjoy this space.

I have always been impressed with the concept of the community orchard, and the "allotment",although the execution of these have always appeared to be unofficial, and amateurish. Theapplication indicates both these will be improved/enlarged. I am encouraged by this.

Although the large depth and overgrown nature of the site seems to amount to wasted land, thearea is rich in wildlife, and reducing the area, even to a "nicer" green space will result in less spacefor birds to nest and feed in peace.

Great work has been done to allow nature to develop the site, in the heavily built uparea and developed area of lockleaze. A sanctuary for wildlife and nature should be kept, allowingthe current managed wild site.

This development should be rejected.

We use this path regularly (1-2 times a week) as it is the only area within a short walk that we cantruly get away from the cars and be immersed in wilder nature. Although there are other parks inthis area (we sometime walk in Horfield Common or the Muller Road Rec) but these are eithersurrounded by busy roads or just playing fields without any nature/feeling of getting away from thecity.

We badly need to maintain different habitats and nature corridors in cities - there is a growingrecognition of this need (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190118-how-do-you-bring-wildlife-back-to-the-city) and its really disheartening to see Bristol failing to deliver this.

Furthermore, given recent experience with the pandemic lockdown our city spaces are moreimportant than ever. Why are we yet again squeezing more houses into the few remaining pocketsof green space? I'm not aware of any time we knock down buildings to create green space, itsalways a one-way direction when it come to development.

This development adds more roads, removes a large proportion of the existing green space,destroys the community garden there and will destroy the feeling of nature along the path as it willbecome just another suburb. The next nearest place we can go to get away from the city is stokepart, a 20 minute walk.

I'd like to say that I am well aware of the need for housing in Bristol but I would like thefollowing to be considered and changed1. Not to build houses too close to the pylons. There is lots of INDEPENDENT research to showthat pylons have adverse health affects. 2 people in my street (and there could be more) have hadcancer and I live quite close to a pylon. It's difficult to blame my cancer completely on this but I dobelieve that it has most probably contributed in some way.I am asking you to seriously consider the health affects. Having a lovely house becomes worthlessif you are ill or even dead!2. If you insist on putting people in danger then why are the poorer people with no choice beingplaced there? If it is safe then people will pay for those properties. It should be more mixed aroundthose properties3.Lockdown meant less cars and less pollution. As someone with COPD I could feel the differenceand I'm struggling to understand the high density of housing(and therefore cars) and at the sametime cutting down trees which are so important to reduce air pollutiinWhy are so many trees being cut down? This does not make sense to me. Is there a way ofbuilding houses which considers the need for the big trees we have now.

This green space is an important habitat and amenity space

I am worried about the pylons. Why would anybody build the houses if the research hasproved that it is dangerous to live near by.

Hello,

I am writing about the planned housing development around the lockleaze cycle path between constable road and bonnington walk. There are a number of concerns, but the one closest to my heart is the effect it will have on the local wildlife. There is a wide variety of plants that provide the base layer in the complex food web of numerous insects, birds and larger animals such as badgers, foxes and other mammals. One example is the huige number of sparrows that thrive in this area which has resulted in regular sightings of sparrowhawks in the area. I would like to ask you to reconsider your position on this redevelopment.I would also like to know what consideration you have given the above issues and what effect you believe it will have on the local ecosystem? Have you done anything to avoid the removal of so many species from the local area.

Regards,

Hamish Reid - concerned lockleaze resident.

I am pretty appalled that one of the last vital wildlife corridors into this built up city is upfor destruction to build more houses. As the green spaces in this city are gradually filled in withmore roofs and tarmac don't be surprised if the air quality continues to plummet as we once moreprioritise our needs, over the ecosystems that sustain us. In a ecological and climate emergencywe should be looking to re-wild spaces like this and find ways to maximise the green return theycan give us, not destroy them, and fill in the green spaces in a city which has so few of them.Shameful.

Dear all,

my name is iulia Manolescu, I am a local resident of Lockleaze. I live within 100 meters of the new development. I have already made a comment on the planning portal on behalf of myself.

I am writing today on behalf of Mr. R. J. Maton of 101 Landseer Ave, BS7 9YN. Mr. Maton does not have internet and had not received correspondence from Bristol City Council regarding this proposed development until two letters arrived from Legal & General. He then spoke to me, a neighbour on July 7, 2020. He has asked me to make his story and objections known to the Council.

Mr. Maton's property backs onto his allotment that then backs onto the planned development. He has lived at 101 Landseer Ave since 1957, age 8. He lived in Lockleaze and attended schools in town. Mr. Maton has had an allotment adjacent to his property ( behind it), Lockleaze Allotment Site, Plot 15 since 1970. He planted trees, fruit and vegetables on the plot to feed the family. In October, during the first ecologist visit when vegetation was cut down, Mr. Maton was stood on his allotment and observed them. He engaged the ecologists asking the purpose of their work. The ecologists didn't seem to know of the existence of the allotments backing onto Landseer Avenue. Only a few of them remain cultivated and tended to, Mr. Maton's being one of them.

In a letter dated June 26 2020 Mr. Maton was asked by BCC Allotments Department to pay for his allotment plot. No communication was issued by BCC informing Mr Maton about the new development and how that would affect his tenure of the allotment plot.

Mr Maton objects to the proposed development for the reasons below:1. Objection to traffic plans: The Landseer Avenue entrance will become heavily congested on a road that already bears significant traffic issues surrounding speeding and reckless driving. The Bonnington Walk entrance is unfit for purpose given that the Sports Centre will also be bringing traffic throughout the day. The Parking provision will not be sufficient for the modern family and new residents will start using either their own pavements or adjacent roads to park on, stirring up unwanted dispute in the neighbourhood.

2. The wildlife that has established itself on the site (which is currently being visibly disturbed by the ecologists working on site without planning permission) is of value to the local neighbourhood and benefits community wellbeing. It is A public amenity which will be lost in favor of new housing. Mr. Maton believes that had there been an interest by the Council to improve life of Lockleaze constituents, the Bonnington Open Space area should have been managed and improved as an open space in 2010 when the cycle path was built. And since a Climate emergency has been declared, how has the planning department adjusted its prerequisites for development? How are developers doing things differently, given that retaining what is already there IS already important. There is a substantial number of self-seeded trees that are not even considered by the arboriculturalist due to their small size. These trees will be discarded if permission is granted, which will be devastating for the local birdlife and wildlife. Instead of developing this land, it would make a thriving managed woodland, providing a home for the wildlife and a lung for our neighbourhood where another 800+ homes are proposed to be built.

3. With so many of the units in four-storey blocks, reducing community cohesion and increasing energy and maintenance costs. This will also be completely out of line with what the rest of the neighbourhood skyline looks like. For older residents who have had nothing but trees and wildlife on one side of the house, it will be devastating having a fast road in the front of the house and a work site with tall buildings behind it.

Dear all, I am writing today on behalf of Mr. R. J. Maton of 101 Landseer Ave, BS7 9YN. Mr. Maton does not have internet and had not received correspondence from Bristol City Council regarding this proposed development until two letters arrived from Legal & General. He then spoke to me, a neighbour on July 7, 2020. He has asked me to make his story and objections known to the Council. Mr. Maton's property backs onto his allotment that then backs onto the planned development. He has lived at 101 Landseer Ave since 1957, age 8. He lived in Lockleaze and attended schools in town. Mr. Maton has had an allotment adjacent to his property ( behind it), Lockleaze Allotment Site, Plot 15 since 1970. He planted trees, fruit and vegetables on the plot to feed the family. In October, during the first ecologist visit when vegetation was cut down, Mr. Maton was stood on his allotment and observed them. He engaged the ecologists asking the purpose of their work. The ecologists didn't seem to know of the existence of the allotments backing onto Landseer Avenue. Only a few of them remain cultivated and tended to, Mr. Maton's being one of them. In a letter dated June 26 2020 Mr. Maton was asked by BCC Allotments Department to pay for his allotment plot. No communication was issued by BCC informing Mr Maton about the new development and how that would affect his tenure of the allotment plot.

Mr Maton objects to the proposed development for the reasons below: 1. Objection to traffic plans: The Landseer Avenue entrance will become heavily congested on a road that already bears significant traffic issues surrounding speeding and reckless driving. The Bonnington Walk entrance is unfit for purpose given that the Sports Centre will also be bringing traffic throughout the day. The Parking provision will not be sufficient for the modern family and new residents will start using either their own pavements or adjacent roads to park on, stirring up unwanted dispute in the neighbourhood. 2. The wildlife that has established itself on the site (which is currently being visibly disturbed by the ecologists working on site without planning permission) is of value to the local neighbourhood and benefits community wellbeing. It is A public amenity which will be lost in favor of new housing. Mr. Maton believes that had there been an interest by the Council to improve life of Lockleaze constituents, the Bonnington Open Space area should have been managed and improved as an open space in 2010 when the cycle path was built. And since a Climate emergency has been declared, how has the planning department adjusted its prerequisites for development? How are developers doing things differently, given that retaining what is already there IS already important. There is a substantial number of self-seeded trees that are not even considered by the arboriculturalist due to their small size. These trees will be discarded if permission is granted, which will be devastating for the local birdlife and wildlife. Instead of developing this land, it would make a thriving managed woodland, providing a home for the wildlife and a lung for our neighbourhood where another 800+ homes are proposed to be built. 3. With so many of the units in four-storey blocks, reducing community cohesion and increasing energy and maintenance costs. This will also be completely out of line with what the rest of the neighbourhood skyline looks like. For older residents who have had nothing but trees and wildlife on one side of the house, it will be devastating having a fast road in the front of the house and a work site with tall buildings behind it. I hope these objections reach you in time.

Having just found out about the planned development, I am saddened to see that thevast majority of the green space south of Bonnington Walk is planned to be decimated. The site isan essential wildlife corridor and offers respite for local residents from housing estates and noise.

I am aware that efforts have been listed to improve the remaining green area to the West of thefootpath, however this completely sanitises the area for wildlife to roam free and ultimatelyremoves well over half of the area for housing. This will do irreparable harm to the local area,increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and forcing species into an ever smaller patch of land. I cannotsee how this could be considered sustainable or beneficial to the area, and is contrary to theCouncil's own green policy.

In addition, the proposal mentions that man-made structures offer better roosting opportunitiesthan trees, which simply put is a lie. Around three quarters of British bat species roost in trees, andeven the remaining species only prefer human-made structures because of a lack of suitable andavailable tree habitat (sourced from the Bat Conservation Trust). Therefore any suggestion thatthe development offers better roosting habitat is at best ill-informed, and at worst deception forfinancial gain.

Whilst there has been no evidence of badgers at the site, this offers ideal conditions forhedgehogs to thrive, with local sightings occurring in the area regularly. Placing moreimpenetrable housing through the only wild green space will hasten the hedgehogs demise and

undo all the good work of recent years.

Furthermore, the biodiversity in the area is crucial to the local ecosystem with a mix betweenbrambles, grasses, trees, bushes and wild flowers. Sanitising the area to flat, short grasslandwould offer significantly reduced habitat for local flora and fauna.

There is a lot of talk about improving the management of the green space, which is admirable,however with the housing development plans any efforts are in vain and would only harm the localenvironment for the future. I have been proud to live in Bristol and see the conscious effort tocommit to green policy, however the approval of this development flies in the face of these effortsand can only be taken as a way to make money at the expense of our environment.

It is also interesting to note that a recent tree canopy study showed that horfield and lockleaze had12% coverage, and there is a commitment to increase this going forward. This development wouldremove the vast majority of trees from the area and therefore be contrary to this commitment.

Whilst I do not object in principle to building new, affordable and social housing onbrownfield sites, there are certain shortcomings in the design which I would like to challenge andto seek improvement as follows:1. The cycle path junction with Bonnington Way needs to be aligned to remove the clumsy piece ofshared pavement use; and similarly in the south at the junction of Bonnington Walk with ConstableRoad, more detail is needed in order to approve the application. This is a good opportunity to putinto practice high-quality active travel design for those striving to live their lives in an outer suburbwithout recourse to private motor vehicles.2. The design provides no off-street parking which I support in principle but only if the road is wideenough to allow on-road parking without the perceived need by drivers to park on the pavements.In order to preempt all pavement parking, street furniture such as road signs, seats, trees andplanters need to placed close enough together to prevent parking on the pavement and doubleyellow lines and drop kerbs need to be installed at the outset leading up to all corners andjunctions.3. The Section 106 monies need to be spent on increasing capacity in local schools and healthcentres which I understand are already at capacity.4. I am disappointed that so many of the units are in four-storey blocks. Given the amount of'empty' land required around blocks higher than two-storeys, I understand that architecturally it ispossible to provide the same density of housing in terraces without recourse to lifts and stairs intothe sky which is anathema to children's access to play, reduces community cohesion andincreases energy and maintenance costs.

5. In order to mitigate the loss of a substantial number of self-seeded trees, it is necessary to plantlarger native trees with large canopies and different ecological niches and not merely smaller treespopular with local authorities because they are cheaper to maintain. I hope that this has alreadybeen taken into account and if not, I request that the tree replacement plan takes incorporates tall,large canopy species.6. Steps to mitigate the proven negative effects of the magnetic fields generated by electricitycables so close to residential areas need to be incorporated.

I have recently discovered that Bristol City Council has decided to build new housingdevelopment at Bonnington Walk. A neighbour advised me about the development and why therehas been recent activity seen in this area.The first disappointing note was that the strimming activity was not done in a downward motion inorder to protect any possible wildlife, instead they were hammering the strimmer's downwards tothe ground in a heavy motion which could cause any wildlife injuries or death.The main point of this contact is that as a local resident I was not notified of this building project. Ireceived no notification through the door nor see any posters in the area. I live 0.3 mile from thestart of Bonnington Walk which has proven to be a wonderful area to escape the noise of the roadand to enjoy a little piece of wildlife in the middle of a heavy housing estate. Unlike other localareas to walk, this one is left to be wild allowing for bramble to grow, elderflower trees and plentymore plant species that will be a main source of food and habitat for many animal and insectspecies.This area is a wildlife haven and I would be incredibly sad to see it reduced considering there isnowhere else for the wildlife to escape from this area.According to the Big Hedgehog Map - 148 Holes and 687 hedgehogs were found in this areawhich is important as hedgehogs are in huge decline and we need to support hedgehogs andother wildlife as much as possible. I have already spotted dead hedgehogs on Wordsworth Roadwhich borders this area (photo attached).Considering that Bristol is well known as a European Green Capital 2015, has signed up to theBristol Green Capital Partnership (https://bristolgreencapital.org/projects/) and has won numerous

awards for being sustainable and supporting green actions, I am very surprised that this area hasbeen considered.One of the Bristol Green Capital Partnership themes that Bristol has committed to is nature:"Picture a city full of trees and wildflowers, with bees buzzing, birds singing and otters playing inour docks and rivers. Where habitats and green spaces are connected by 'green corridors',allowing wildlife to move easily around the city and to and from the countryside. A city whereeveryone gets to experience the joys of having wildlife on their doorstep every day"I would argue that this is an important green corridor that needs protecting.I would expect other wasteland areas to be considered around Lockleaze and Horfield first beforeconsidering important nature conservation areas and green corridors that not only support wildlifebut also the wellbeing of the residents. Since lockdown and COVID-19, this area has beenimportant for supporting wellbeing as it is an area you can walk up and be away from housing ornoise. Without this area, as I do not have a garden, I would have had reduced options close by toenjoy the outdoor space. Other options are open parks that do not support the wildlife in the sameway as they are big open spaces without anywhere to hide or burrow.This is also an area with reduced traffic which was also reduced due to COVID-19, but as traffichas once again increased this is an area that you can use as a traffic-free zone. I would be sad tosee more road development and cars parked instead of this wild green space.My main concern is conservation and wildlife. Most areas are not left for wildlife to grow anddevelop with the consideration of the natural habitat.

- Summary:I oppose this application as it stands. Rather than development this site would be better used fornew tree planting to meet the council's target to double the tree canopy instead. However I wouldsupport less development with a green border around its edges to provide a green corridor forwildlife and shield the existing homes.

- Loss of amenity and a green corridorIt is proposed that all trees and vegetation are removed in large areas of the site including in areaswhere it has no impact on development, notably along the back of Landseer Avenue andBonnington Walk. The proposal should have included the retention of a green corridor around thesite. The removal of trees that are an important part of the local landscape, notably but not onlythe Lombardy Poplars, would have a significant and negative impact.

- Tree and habitat lossThe proposals for new planting of trees and other plants among the houses and in the SNCI iswelcome and appears to be in line with best practice. While this may lead to more diverse wildlifein some parts of the site eventually, the loss of birds, bats and other wildlife elsewhere will beconsiderable. The open space currently provides food and shelter on which they depend and theywill not survive without it.

The removal of a green habitat from the back of Landseer Avenue and Bonnington Walk will mean

the loss of a wild corridor linking existing homes and the site. This is particularly important giventhat gardens are an important habitat for wildlife that is under great pressure due to the loss ofhabitats such as this site.

The Arboricultural report states that 251 trees would be lost and need to be replaced. This isdisingenuous at best. This figure excludes the number of "unclassified" trees and shrubs thatwould be lost. A more accurate estimate is that 400 trees will be lost. By grouping several groupsof trees and vegetation in one group it reduces the overall number and lessens the impact of treeslost. For example group G92 covers seven separate areas in the north of the site totalling about athird of the site area.

The bird survey notes that trees and scrub provide an important habitat, including for severalthreatened birds such as thrushes and house sparrows. However this would be completelyremoved across most of the site, leaving only part of the SNCI as the remaining area would beplanted.

The application proposes that hedgerows and trees on the edges are removed even when theydon't interfere with development, or could be kept with minimal impact, such as along the back ofLandseer Avenue and Bonnington Walk.

- Impact on health and well-beingThere is considerable evidence about the positive impact of the nature and the outdoors on well-being. The role of nature is more important in areas where well-being is affected by social andfinancial issues so the removal and degradation of a local space will have a negative impact onthe well-being of people in the area. While it is true that Lockleaze is relatively well-served by openspace many people do not venture far from their homes and use local spaces such as this ratherthan places like Stoke Park. This is a well-used open space where people walk, cycle or justspend time.

- Proximity to electricity power linesNumerous research, including by staff at Bristol University, shows links between ill health andelectricity power lines. Parts of this site may not be suitable for housing as a result.

- Design and layout:The location of housing up to the boundary of the site behind Landseer Avenue and BonningtonWalk is inappropriate. While locating flats in the middle of a development would lessen theirimpact, three and four storey buildings would dominate the local skyline and is inappropriate in anarea of predominantly low-rise semi-detached and terraced houses. Similarly to put 185 homes inan area (in comparison to 100 along this part of Landseer Avenue) is a high density in such aneighbourhood.

While some aspects, such as the proposals for planting and the provision of bird boxes, bug hotels

and natural areas within the development are to be applauded, this does not balance out the lossof tree cover and scrub around the site.

- Impact on transport, traffic and highwaysThe sites of the proposed junctions onto Bonnington Walk and Landseer Avenue are already busyand there are problems with speeding. Local streets, particularly Landseer Avenue, have limitedspace or problems with parking. There are several Houses in Multiple Occupation with more thanone vehicle in the area. Measures would be required to ensure that parking did not impact onsafety at junctions. The approach to the site on Bonnington Walk is particularly problematic: visionis poor at this point due to the narrowness of the railway bridge to the west; it is a busy crossingfor pedestrians on the Concorde Way path; there is a busy entrance to Lockleaze Sports Centre;there have already been accidents here.

Speed calming and other safety measures would be required as a minimum.

The transport assessment states that the site is on several bus routes. While this is true, one isonly hourly and another is currently being reviewed as it is not considered viable. The reportmentions the site's distance from Filton Abbeywood rail station but neglects to mention that BristolCity Council and the West of England Combined Authority plan to build a station at ConstableRoad, which is included in the Joint Local Transport Plan published in 2020.

- NoiseDevelopment of the site would change it from being one left to nature that is seen as an area ofquiet and calm for well-being to being one producing the noise of human activity. There is also thepotential for residents to experience noise from the adjacent railway line.

- Impact on local servicesThe development will have a negative impact on schools and health facilities where there isalready considerable pressure on services. It is in the context of a shortage of school places andthe closure of local GP practices.

- The proposals are counter to local and national policiesRemoval of such a large number of trees and hedgerows (although countered by planting) andtheir replacement with housing would increase production of carbon dioxide and pollutants on thesite, rather than removing it as it does at present. It runs counter to the council's plan to double thetree canopy. Additionally it may make this damp site wetter. The increase in traffic would have anegative impact on air pollution.

- Loss of PrivacyMany existing properties would lose privacy and be overlooked by new houses, especially sincethose on Rowlandson Gardens have their main rooms at the back of their property facing the site.This would be worsened by the removal of green space. Any application should include a green

boundary.

- Ensuring that developers will follow recommendationsThere is no guarantee that developers will follow recommendations about green spaces, thenumbers of social housing or allocate housing to local people. If successful the planningapplication should include measures in place to ensure that the area has maximum benefit towildlife rather than being a manicured green space that looks lovely but has little natural merit andthe numbers of social housing are as expected and are allocated to people with a localconnection. The proposal that 50% would be social housing is welcome.

I accept the need for new homes in Bristol, especially affordable, of which the 50%quoted is welcome, however I feel this site is a valuable habitat for wildlife, walkers, runners,cyclists and children, providing natural beauty to an urban landscape.

Although the site has been left untouched for numerous years, it has developed into scrubland thatprovides a home to invertebrates, reptiles, birds and mammals. By reworking this land, plantingvaluable trees and creating a community forest which will go towards Bristol City Councils goal ofdoubling the urban tree canopy by 2050, this will prevent the effects of climate change and airpollution, protect and enhance biodiversity and promote health and well being to the third deprivedarea in the City.

The removal of the green corridor and screening from the current homes around the perimeter ofthe site, namely Bonnington Walk, Landseer Avenue and Rowlandson Gardens is detrimental tothe lives of the current residents who will loose their privacy, amenity and enjoyment of the wildlifeinhabiting the trees and bushes. The focus of the designs appears to be providing the new homeswith green open spaces to look out over, whereas this is being unnecessarily taken away from theexisting residents.

I am also concerned on the increase of road traffic and the noise, air pollution and potentialincrease in accidents this will create. The roads around the site, namely Bridge Walk, BonningtonWalk, Landseer Avenue and Constable Road are already used as rat runs by frequent speeding

vehicles driving from Filton Avenue through Lockleaze towards Muller Road, therefore trafficcalming measures will need to be considered to maintain road safety for all users, especially at thenew Bonnington Walk / cycle path / Lockleaze Sports Centre junction.

The strain on local services namely, doctors, schools, shops and public transport must also be aconsideration especially due to the high number of housing planning applications being proposedin the Lockleaze area over the coming years. At present there are only 2 bus services operatingthrough Lockleaze, and one of them is current at risk due to not being financially viable. Noconsideration has been given to the reopening of a railway station at the old Constable Road site.

Thank you.

This area of Bristol has already lost trees and landscapes to the raise in the number oftrain lines and reinforcing of the verges. To lose more of the vegetation and green space is notwelcome for many reasons. The number of trains running through has also increased which hasan impact on air quality too.

There are many song birds, foxes, hedgehogs, bats, butterflies, bees and squirrels in this areawhich have crossed into our garden. I am sure their habitats and hunting grounds are in the naturecorridor and surrounding green space. This area of green has been a very welcome refuge duringlockdown a real change of scene. Green space is important for mental health as well as physicalhealth and good for the environment.

Bristol City Council has declared an ecological emergency and the mayor has openly stated: "Ourcommitment to this will extend beyond parks and green spaces. We need our buildings, streetsand open spaces to support wildlife and create a more nature friendly city, and we need newdevelopments to do the same." So why are we building right up to the very edge of a naturecorridor. Why aren't the council celebrating the space in the same way as the community doeswith the Lockleaze community orchard. I have also noticed people seeing up Easter Egg huntsand other treasure hunts with lamented pictures and clues tied into trees and bushes. When I wentto the consultation it seemed the planers weren't aware of the orchard. Perhaps people aren't alsoaware of the popularity of the pathway and the space. Why aren't the council filling in the gaps inLockleaze estate? There are already two fields with boarded edges (one along Constable Road)

and the old empty social services buildings on Romney Avenue plus one derelict pub the squareand an empty one for sale. Surely these brown field sites should be considered first. We have agolden opportunity to enhance the nature corridor now by widening it to include all the greenspace. Bristol could add more trees there to help with the quest of doubling the tree canopy for thecity. This corridor is an important lung for the area.

The high density of houses and the inclusion of flats will not only but a great strain on theenvironment (lose of habitats and increases in traffic) but it will also have a detrimental effect onvital local services, such as schools and the only GP surgery, Horfield Medical Centre, (where italready takes weeks to get a doctor's appointment), these will be totally pushed to the limit.

I have a number of concerns regarding this planning applicationo My first and main concern which I object to is the building of the four storey flats. This will not only impact the use on my back garden due to them overlooking me but also the fact that they will be able to see into my house. This will be an invasion of privacy which is not acceptable. o I am concerned about the impact on the environment and wildlife. To enable this application to go ahead they would have to remove the well-established green area which houses many different species of animal but also has a number of well-established trees that if removed will impact on the environment. Replacing new trees for well-established trees is not going to have any effect on the environment for a great number of years. With the very small area that will be left for the trees to be replanted it will not be a like for like so the environment will be effected. o The amount of traffic will also have an impact on the area and the environment but also cause more parking difficulties which is already a problem in the area. o I am also concerned that although we have been advised that the animals in the area will be re-located the local community especially the children are missing out on seeing the animals.o I have also personally had issues along with my neighbours with flooding at the end of our gardens and have had to remove personal property from this area due to the flooding so this would also need to be addressed.

I look forward to hearing further reports on the development. Sue Morris

From Councillors Estella Tincknell and Gill Kirk

Bristol continues to have a serious housing crisis with many trapped in overcrowded andoverpriced accommodation or on long waiting lists. We urgently need more affordable housing inLockleaze and it remains one of the top priorities identified by the Lockleaze Community Plan(2019-24). This is one of several brownfield sites in the ward to have been allocated for newhousing, and a number of others are currently being developed; these will help to replace the lossof housing stock within Lockleaze over the last decade and will begin to address the shortfallacross the city.

However, we are aware that, while this is designated a 'brownfield' site allocated for housing, ithas been a valued open space for many years and many will perceive it as a greenfield site. It istherefore vital with such a large new development that the voices of local residents are heard andrespected. We have received emails from a number of residents, particularly in Landseer Ave andWordsworth Rd, objecting to the development on grounds of increased noise and disturbanceduring construction, together with concerns about the impact on traffic and parking, the safety ofthe site's proximity to the railway line and electric pylons, the height and location of the flats andthe impact on the outlook and loss of privacy for existing residents, and loss of trees and wildlifehabitat. Some residents have raised the issue of underground springs and poor drainage on thesite, which have prevented previous developments from going forward. These comments havebeen directly registered on-line or by email to the council planning team, or we ourselves have

forwarded them directly to the planning department for consideration. We share concerns aboutthe potential loss of trees and natural habitat for wildlife, and support community desires for aproperly sustainable development using materials that encourage biodiversity and which leavegreen space for a wildlife corridor.

We have also received over the years a consistently high volume of casework concerning poorand overcrowded housing, and the difficulty of finding suitable homes via Homechoice. We have toreflect this need for more and better housing in Lockleaze, particularly with access to gardens andgreen space.

Crucially, this development is planned to have more homes available for council rent than any sitein Bristol for 40 years, and marks an important renewed commitment to well-designed, attractivecouncil housing. In total, 50% of the proposed housing will be offered at social, affordable orintermediate rents. We have also made a strong case for a local lettings policy so that people canremain close to family, friends and support networks, and this will also help with more sustainableuse of local housing stock. We believe that new housing will also contribute to the economicregeneration of Lockleaze, leading to a greater diversity of shops and businesses which willultimately benefit all local residents.

The development has attracted a good level of public engagement through the consultationprocess, and representatives from the council, the architects and potential developers haveresponded to feedback on the designs by reducing the density, improving the layout and alignmentof the houses and flats, and retaining more trees and green space. The proposed flats will belocated further away from existing homes than had originally been envisaged and the 'greenborder' around the development will help to screen existing properties on Landseer Road.

Regarding the protection of green spaces and mitigation for lost wildlife habitat, we want to makesure the community orchard is secure and that communal growing spaces will be provided. Thecycle path needs to be realigned and we welcome the added landscaping and new trees to screenthe railway line. We are also anxious to minimise traffic congestion, parking pressures and airpollution by reducing reliance on private cars and by encouraging as much active travel and use ofpublic transport as possible.

We are also aware that such a development will bring increased pressures on schools and healthservices in the area, and that the latter in particular are already over-subscribed. These concernshave been presented powerfully by residents' groups during the consultation, and we would like tobe assured that they will be taken into account and that the developers will make a commitment toworking with the community.

We would therefore like to flag up the following issues:

1) There will need to be a clear and concise explanation of the impact on wildlife, including

information about who undertook the assessment and when, and details of the findings andproposed mitigating actions.2) We wish to see a local lettings policy implemented.3) There will be a pressing need for: a) highway and junction improvements; b) sufficient on-siteparking; c) effective access to public transport links.4) Detailed liaison with education providers is essential to ensure sufficient space is planned forthe expansion of local primary and secondary schools to accommodate new families.5) The CCG, local primary care centres and GPs must be consulted and given time to plan for theincrease in local populations.6) There must be a rigorous construction management plan that minimises impact on existingresidents, and takes account of other developments in the area.7) The developers must continue to engage pro-actively with local residents and the LockleazeResidents' Planning Group to keep residents informed and updated, and to respect the concernsexpressed above.

To whom this may concern,I'm really anxious about the development proposed. I feel it considers the needs of others byoffering new homes but it denies the current inhabitants of their quality of life. Increased traffic,noise, population, atmospheric pollution and activity will impact on all of us in the neighbourhood inshort and long terms. Bristol already has a growing problem with atmospheric pollution, I invite youto check the Claircity website. Between the activity levels of Filton Rd and Avenue, Ashleigh down,Muller rd and now increasing our neighbourhood, Lockleaze will soon become a hazardouspolluted hotspot.Many of us rent and cannot afford to move to seek better quality of life and improve our physicaland mental health.

I have suffered with mental health issues over the past few years, in and out of depression andhaving anxiety attacks. Following consultation with my therapist and seeking improvement, mypartner and I decided to move house and came to Landseer Avenue. This neighbourhood hasbeen welcoming and we have really appreciated the quality of life in our new home.One of the highlights of our home is the back garden, with view on the cycle path, the wildlife, thepeace and the atmosphere of the area. I have now settled here and feel at home now. The qualityof life has improved for me and I now cope with my illness much better.As you can imagine, the current pandemic has taken its toll on us, like for many. I'm European andhave lost family during this lockdown, not being able to go home for funerals and support themwas devastating. I found solace in having our peaceful green space here, it has helped. I go

running or walking between our home and the railway, enjoy the calm and appreciate thewilderness. Many of us do.

The sunlight is beneficial to physiological processes such as vitamin D production, especiallyhelpful for people who suffer from depression. How much of this beneficial light will I have oncethe 4 storey blocks of flats are erected? We have stunning sunsets here, over the cycle path, whata sad thought to imagine we'll have to look over concrete instead.I'm also very concerned for the wildlife which I deeply appreciate.

The SNCI is considered in the planning but not protected enough. It is a similar case for thehighest trees. No legal protection ensures that the developer won't cut them down. We haveraised this issue during a meeting back in the winter with local council representatives.The alternate environmental measures proposed do not compensate for the loss of naturalresources for wildlife and habitat.A buffer zone and green corridors should be implemented around the SNCI, and to prevent wildlifeincidents such as road kills or infestation. Lockleaze is full of rats, a well known issue in theneighbourhood. Natural predators and habitat disruption will only contribute to the rise of therodents near the houses/flats.

Also, the measures proposed are restricted and anchored in a capitalist mentality. A circulareconomy-inspired project would evaluate the materials and overall proposal to optimise the impactin the long term, possibly advising against some of the decisions.The amendments of accessibility of Stoke Park due to the increasing number of homes in the areais one of the most inconsiderate plan of this whole development. It only takes account of economicvalue, not intrinsic. The park offers ecosystems services that a car park and cafe cannot replace.The balance of this ecosystem will be impacted dramatically by rising traffic and increasingdevelopment. How can the city of Bristol declare a state of ecological emergency in February thisyear whilst considering to eradicate or modify green spaces of value?

The city has been neglecting its green spaces for too long, and allowing destruction of old trees orleaving degradation run its course, such as with the hedges. One of the consequences came tolight when the Concorde cycle path hedge was assessed this year for the proposal and labelled assemi woodland, due to the overgrowth of brambles. This means it cannot be protected and will notbe kept. It is the duty of the council to upkeep the landscape and historical hedges, especiallywhen it has ecological value.Again, this affects the quality of life we currently have. The green spaces here have been a solacefor many during the pandemic.Doubling the population in this neighbourhood will only have negative effects on our health andthat of those who will come to live here.The proposal plans for Landseer Avenue to double the capacity of housing (185 instead of 100),these added housing will be under the high pylons, which has been proven to be detrimental topeople health. Studies results are widely available online. The city cannot ignore science and

people safety, it is alarming to think this is allowed, by anyone standard.

I will not delve into the lack of infrastructure for supporting the new inhabitants, such as school,parking space, doctor surgery, pharmacies, ... I'll leave it to others who may know the implicationsmore than I. However, I believe it only adds pressure on the existing structures, how will this becompensated un the long term? We will then convert a few more green spaces to allow for morebuidlings? When does this end?Were the residents of Lockleaze not told many years ago that their neighbourhood was safe fromfurther development? How can we be sure that this wont happen again in 10 or so years when thecouncil decides more homes are needed?

I'm trying to find the right arguments and words to explain why this development is badly thought.My use of english isn't as effective as perhaps a native person, and my emotions are very much inthe way of my thoughts. I have to manage my anxiety and can no longer comment.So, to conclude, I don't believe this proposal considers the well-being of people, it seems to justticks a box, the box that many councils must tick to look like they address their housing and socialissues. The fact that the original number of housing was cut down mostly in the council housing isflabbergasting. It seems the financial profit outweigh the social benefits; let's build more home tohelp people and solve the housing crisis, but as soon as the project is opposed by residents, wecut down the numbers of homes that are most needed.

Please do reconsider the project for all the residents well-being!

The council has climate change objectives to meet. By building houses on this land youare not going to achieving the SDG goals. My reasons for objectiving are set out below:- The biodiversity on that site is of high value, which is lacking in the surrounding area. Housingdevelopment will ruin this. The green space in this area has postive indirect benefits elsewherearound the city.- Mental health - within lockleaze it is a deprived ward. This green space is vital for children andadults a like to improve their fitness and mental health. Building houses on this area will reducecarrying capacity, reduce the communities interaction with nature and lead to further pandemics.- Whilst housing is required we need to preserve green spaces/pockets in the city to act ascorridors for polination species. This is a prime example of one.- Throughout lockdown, the community has been engaging with this space, learning about thevariety of nature and understanding the importance of it.

- The council has gone ahead with the developement without fully taking on the views of residents.

- Would you really like to live next to a electricty pillon and a railway? The electricity pillion hasbeen shown to be a risk to human health. By building houses here would create further pressureon NHS, reduce quality of living, therefore putting pressure on police services as well.This would not increase the standard of living or the prospects in Lockleaze instead decrease itfurther.

Whilst I understand that you need to meet your 90% housing targets on brownfield land, theclimate change mitigation plan needs to focus stronger. Whilst I understand that bristol is trying toachieve this, development of housing here will just add to the problem.

The current site is a wildlife haven with several species that are rare in the city includingLesser Whitethroats in the historic hedgerows on the site. There are many more nocturnal bats onsite than in surrounding developed areas and some mature trees that are vital for protectingbiodiversity in Lockleaze at a time when the council has declared an Ecological and ClimateEmergency. The site is an important public amenity used for walking, cycling and exploring, givinglocal residents access to wild green spaces that are otherwise few and far between.

The local area has strained public transport with few bus services and not access to the suburbanrailway line. The additional 185 dwellings will increase traffic and parking issues in the area,particularly on Bonnington Walk and Constable Road which are dangerous rat runs where severalaccidents have occurred in the last 6 months. This will also increase air pollution in the area whichwill have health implications for residents in the third most deprived ward in Bristol. If thisdevelopment goes ahead, Lockleaze needs a commitment to be including in the reopening of theSurburban Railway with a station at Constable Road, we need the 25 bus reinstated and moresupport for residents to buy e-bikes will help reduce traffic.

I appreciate that we need more affordable homes in Bristol, but brownfield sites must be prioritisedfor building rather than losing greenfield sites which are high value for people and nature. There islittle information about the true affordability of the houses on this development. It is likely that thiswill contribute to the gentrification of Lockleaze pricing out local residents who were born andraised here.

The apartment blocks will significantly alter the landscape in Lockleaze and will completelydestroyed the character of this public green space where people come to relax and escape. Thedevelopment will also increase flood risk of neighbouring sites due to the reduction of trees andhistoric hedgerows. The council has committed to doubling Bristol's tree canopy, but here you willbe removing mature trees from an ideal site for establishing a community woodland that wouldassist the council in meeting is target. Removing the trees will increase the negative impact onlocal air quality further, again having implications on local peoples health and wellbeing.

In the planning process, an effort was made to engage the community in the plans. However, thishas been completely undermined by allowing the developers on-site ahead of planning permissionbeing granted to remove slow worms. This shows us you have already made the decision and ourvolunteer time that we gave to support the design of the plans was tokenistic. This undermineslocal democracy and will inevitably impact the likelihood of residents engaging in similar processesin the future.

Planning application 20/02523/FB Bonnington Walk

I am writing to raise concerns about this application to develop up to 185 homes on open space atBonnington Walk.

The number of homes proposed is too high. Compared to the same stretch of land on LandseerAvenue, which backs on to the site, there are almost twice as many homes on a similar sizedstretch of land,

I share concerns expressed by others that the proposed development is too high and out ofkeeping with the locality.

There is no guarantee that the proportion of socially rented homes will be delivered.

There is no detail on any local lettings policy that would ensure that homes are allocated to localpeople.

The amount of traffic generated by the scale of this development will add to existing problems atthe junction of the site with Bonnington Walk. This will add to the pressure on local roads expectedfrom the large development at the former Romney House site.

The loss of open space is not mitigated by the amenities proposed within the development.

There is no provision for the maintenance of the remaining open space.

There is no alternative provision for lost allotment land.

The presence of pylons on the site, and so close to the proposed new homes is a health hazard. Ibelieve that there should be a full investigation into potential harmful effects.

The report of community involvement included in the documents accompanying the applicationgives details of a number of the concerns raised here. The majority response to these proposals isthat it is too intensive.

I therefore object to this application and ask the Development Control Committee to turn it downand invite a fresh application that is less intensive and that responds to the issues raised by localpeople in the comments they have submitted to the City Council and its agents.

Dear Bristol city council I am concerned about the quantity of housing planned for the cycle track in lockleaze. I live on Bonnington walk and walk along the cycle track to school Every day. We have been enjoying the space during lockdown and worried it will Be lost. I am not against new housing in lockleaze and support redevelopment but feel this is not the right place and the quantity of housing is too much. I concerned about increase in traffic and pollution. I am worried about the loss of trees and animal Habitats. I support fewer houses but leaving more green spaces. Thank you for considering my views Carly Jenkins

I have a number of concerns about the proposed development, as follows:

1) Impact of pollution and increase in CO2 emissions and noise in the surrounding area. Includingwhether the existing concrete roads will be replaced?

2) Congested access points to the development and potential safety issue for emergency vehiclesto access site.

3) Insufficient parking on the development to meet demand, impacting negatively on thesurrounding area. Causing issues in particular for Landseer Ave and Bonnington Walk.

4) Scale of increased traffic within Lockleaze, particularly when considering other proposeddevelopments, such as Crome Rd/Constable and Romney Ave/Hogarth Walk.

5) Access from Bonnington Walk along through to Filton Avenue and the 'S' bend (MeltonCrescent) which is already extremely hazardous to road users. Due to the number of cars parkedwhich will only get worse when the 7 new builds (already given planning permission for) arefinished. Drivers need to be cautious and with the increase in traffic this will only become worseand an area at increased risk of accidents as already dangerous.

6) Consideration that opposite the Bonnington Walk entrance that this is the site of the Lockleaze

Sports Centre which is open all week. The impact upon traffic and congestion is an issue relatedto this new housing development.

Thank you.

The addition of 185 properties (flats/houses) is not a welcome addition to the area. Theadditional traffic and pollution that comes with an average of 2 cars per house hold is also notwelcome.

The cycle path is full of small nesting birds, and a huge host of wild life. Once you disturb the areaand limit the green space nature will not recover. Foxes, badgers and hedgehogs will have nowhere to go and will not come back. The huge variety of plants, trees and grass land will be gone.Development of the area is a big negative. Locklease is already lacking in such areas like you finddown the cycle path. To remove it and develop the area is a huge injustice.

Developers are interested in making money, not the preservation of nature and wild life. As wasthe case in Horfield when it was developed in the early 1990s. All the wildlife was lost, never saw asingle squirrel in the area. See a huge variety in and around the cycle path.

The cycle path provides a nature corridor to access the MoD and beyond and is a lovely walk foradults and children alike. I firmly object to the development and building of housing alone the cyclepath.

ve. Hopefully the Railway will leave the trees in situ together with existing historicalhedgerows.I am also concerned at the ecological damage and increase in pollution. Damage to the areawould result in loss of wildlife, ie badgers, foxes, bats, birds etc and apparently sloworms arealready being moved, how come, as planning hasn't gone through.I also doubts about the entrance in Bonnington Walk as this appears to be an accident waiting tohappen, a narrow road, cars, bicycles, double decker buses and people don't mix.. Also 184 is fartoo many dwellings for such a small space for the Health Centre and schools to cope with in viewof the large number of houses being developed in the Lockleaze area. Also buy to rent is notpractical, in my opinion, they should be for local families.

ve. Hopefully the Railway will leave the trees in situ together with existing historicalhedgerows.I am also concerned at the ecological damage and increase in pollution. Damage to the areawould result in loss of wildlife, ie badgers, foxes, bats, birds etc and apparently sloworms arealready being moved, how come, as planning hasn't gone through.I also doubts about the entrance in Bonnington Walk as this appears to be an accident waiting tohappen, a narrow road, cars, bicycles, double decker buses and people don't mix.. Also 184 is fartoo many dwellings for such a small space for the Health Centre and schools to cope with in viewof the large number of houses being developed in the Lockleaze area. Also buy to rent is notpractical, in my opinion, they should be for local families.Additional comment: As a long term resident living here since 1965 I have the above concernsregarding this development which could affect our mental and physical wellbeing due to theincreased housing development in the LOCKLEAZE area. There is very little local green spacewith only 1 sports centre and in these trying times it has been an invaluable space to walk andrelax. WE NEED OUR GREEN SPACE. I feel 3 and 4 storey blocks are unacceptable and out ofkeeping with surrounding dwellings and would cause a lack of privacy for the residents inLandseer Ave and an increase in pollution.

There should not be any housing built here because it is too close to the pylons.Numerous studies suggest that the EMFs they emit may be harmful to health with risks in relationto cancer incidence, Alzheimers, miscarriage, infertility, breast cancer, leukemia, brain tumours, asthe studies below indicate. Most of these studies are open access. There are many other reasonsnot to build here - loss of local amenity, beautiful poplar trees, loss of rare biodiversity, wildlifecorridor etc but the main issue is that people's lives are at risk with this development so it shouldnot go ahead.

Karimi, A., Ghadiri Moghaddam, F., Valipour, M. 'Insights in the biology of extremely low-frequency magnetic fields exposure on human health' Molecular Biology Reports2020, in press

'...we discuss recent progress in the understanding of ELF-EMF biology with a focus onmechanisms of ELF-EMF-mediated disease and summarize the results of more recentexperimental and epidemiological studies of ELF-EMF exposure effects on cancer, neurological,cardiovascular, and reproductive disorders... According to our literature review, exposure to ELF-EMF has an adverse biological effect depending on the current intensity, strength of the magneticfield, and duration of exposure. Accumulated epidemiologic evidence indicates a correlationbetween exposure to ELF-EMF and childhood cancer incidence, Alzheimer's disease (AD), andmiscarriage.'

Carpenter, D.O. 'Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer: How source offunding affects results' Environmental Research Volume 178, November 2019, Article number108688

'While there has been evidence indicating that excessive exposure to magnetic fields from 50 to60 Hz electricity increases risk of cancer, many argue that the evidence is inconsistent andinconclusive. This is particularly the case regarding magnetic field exposure and childhoodleukemia. A major goal of this study is to examine how source of funding influences the reportedresults and conclusions. Several meta-analyses dating from about 2000 all report significantassociations between exposure and risk of leukemia. By examining subsequent reports onchildhood leukemia it is clear that almost all government or independent studies find either astatistically significant association between magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia, or anelevated risk of at least OR = 1.5, while almost all industry supported studies fail to find anysignificant or even suggestive association... Based on pooled or meta-analyses as well assubsequent peer-reviewed studies there is strong evidence that excessive exposure to magneticfields increases risk of adult leukemia, male and female breast cancer and brain cancer.'

Esquirol, Y., Turuban, M., Piel, C., Migault, L., Pouchieu, C., Bouvier, G., Fabbro-Peray, P.,Lebailly, P., Baldi, I. 'Residential proximity to power lines and risk of brain tumor in the generalpopulation' Environmental Research Volume 185, June 2020, Article number 109473

'... We found significant associations between cumulated duration living at <50 m to high voltagelines and: i) all brain tumors (OR 2.94; 95%CI 1.28-6.75); ii) glioma (OR 4.96; 95%CI 1.56-15.77).

Esmailzadeh, S., Delavar, M.A., Aleyassin, A., Gholamian, S.A., Ahmadi, A. 'Exposure toelectromagnetic fields of high voltage overhead power lines and female infertility'International Journal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineVolume 10, Issue 1, January 2019, Pages 11-16

'Living in the vicinity of high voltage power lines has brought about a range of health woes, but theeffect of residential exposure to electromagnetic fields from the power lines on female fertility hasnot been explored yet. Objective: To test the hypothesis if residential proximity to high voltagepower lines could be associated with the increased risk of female infertility... After adjusting forconfounding factors, women living within 500 meters of the lines carried a higher risk (aOR 4.44,95% CI 2.77 to 7.11) of infertility compared with women living more than 1000 meters of the lines.Conclusion: The current safety guidelines for electromagnetic fields exposure seems to beinadequate for protecting people from the hazardous effects of the field'.

Amoon, A.T.a, Swanson, J.b, Vergara, X.a,c, Kheifets, L. 'Relationship between distance tooverhead power lines and calculated fields in two studies' Journal of Radiological ProtectionVolume 40, Issue 2, 2020, Pages 431-443

'There is some evidence that both distance from transmission lines and measured or calculatedmagnetic fields are associated with childhood leukemia. Because distance is a key componentwhen calculating the magnetic field generated by power lines, distance from lines and calculatedfields based on lines tend to be highly correlated... we found that calculated fields do appear todiminish linearly with increasing distance from overhead power lines, up to 100 m'

Revueltas Agüero, M., Roque, I., Baqués Merino, R., Beltrán Reguera, R.C. 'Extremely lowfrequency electromagnetic fields and their impact on human health' Revista Cubana de Higiene yEpidemiologia, Volume 52, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 210-227

'International databases, sources and other information resources were explored. Results: of thetotal number of publications, only 4 did not relate exposure to electromagnetic field with onset ofhuman health problems; but the vast majority (55 documents) did so in one way or another'.

I object in the strongest possible terms to this proposed development.

I think it's an absolute disgrace that the council turned down building on this same site some yearsago for a number of reasons, and I can't see how anything has changed since then.

Instead of decreasing the valuable green space which gives the residents of Lockleaze so muchpleasure, how about using the land on Constable Road, which has been left empty and fallow,since they demolished the houses on it years ago? It seems a perfect place with roads alreadythere for access.

Detriment will be caused to wildlife from the increased traffic pollution and the building processitself which will decimate the shrub undergrowth on which so many native species thrive. Thereare many song birds, foxes, badgers, bats, butterflies, bees, squirrels, slow worms (a protectedspecies) and I've even seen a lizard recently, which are now recovering after many trees were cutdown next to the railway line for its expansion when Bristol was Green Capital of Europe! It is aperfect place to walk for a bit of peaceful quiet reflection, only disturbed by an occasional cyclist onthe Concorde Way.

Bristol City Council has declared an ecological emergency and the mayor has openly stated: "Ourcommitment to this will extend beyond parks and green spaces. We need our buildings, streetsand open spaces to support wildlife and create a more nature friendly city, and we need new

developments to do the same."

Bristol City Council has legal responsibility defined in Section 12 of the Health and Social Care Act(2012):"Each local authority must take such steps as it considers appropriate for improving the health ofthe people in its area".

I fail to see how jamming 185 houses into a wildlife corridor, in an area valued by local residentswith its community orchard and attendant health benefits, does anything to improve 'the health ofthe people in its area'.

Also,there's no mention of the proximity to the pylons and cables which affect so many people'shealth locally and internationally, and was a key part of the evidence presented last time anapplication came up to build on this very same space.

Please look at these websites from doctors and scientists where there is plenty of evidence tosupport this:

https://ehtrust.org/ andhttp://phiremedical.org/https://bioinitiative.org/

Also there current applications for 5G masts off Bonnington Walk and Constable Road, so peoplein the area are being totally hemmed in, instead of experiencing the green space and wonderfulgardens and trees and wildlife they've been used to.

Vital local services, such as schools and the only GP surgery, Horfield Medical Centre, (where italready takes weeks to get a doctor's appointment) which are already suffering under pressure,will be totally pushed to the limit.

This area is precious to the people of Lockleaze. Don't let its enhancement of our lives be takenaway!

I object to this development in its current design for the following reasons:

1. The space where the proposed development (Bonnington Open Space) is to be built is a localgem, rich in vegetation and wildlife, home of a pedestrian/cycle path that is part of the ConcordeWay Sustrans network (that went through planning with BCC in 2010, not so long ago). This cyclepath leads the commuter in/out of the city with wildlife and greenery on both sides of the path,mature trees swaying providing moments to breathe and listen to the birds. A true public amenity,this path is where many kids will have memories of riding a bike for the first time with the wind intheir hair. This path is where one can spot a fox in broad daylight. It is where hedgehogs thriveand nightingales sing. This is where babies get taken for a soothing afternoon walks and wherejoggers find some solace.

This site is simply not a brownfield site.

The destruction that occurred during the initial environmental assessment was devastating to thecommunity. A community group was born out of the feeling that the area that is much loved issimply a piece of land where some houses can be brought over. The community cares about thisspace. The fact that the slow worms are to be moved prior to the decision on this planningapplication being granted is nothing short of suspicious.

As it stands, the space is a "greenfield site" - it holds value for local people and it benefits the

public's wellbeing. It is a rich area, boasting with wildlife and a diverse demographic of users,ranging from families with young children, elderly dog walkers, disabled folks in mobility scooters,commuters on the Concorde Way using this link to Aztec West and other communities.

The area is also host to a very important community group, the Lockleaze Community Orchard, agroup that brings people together through growing food and learning skills, it is an inclusivecommunity-building initiative that has strengthened neighbours relationships and their connectionto nature. I understand that the Orchard will be protected from the development but it will never bethe same.

I object to removing the mature trees off the site.

In fact, I would support this site be used for additional tree planting to meet BCC's target for newtrees. Development of this site would be detrimental to the overall CO2 emissions within BCC andwould be environmentally, and ecologically devastating to the area.

2. The proposed development indicates that the houses have been specifically designed to facegreen, open spaces to provide an enhanced amenity. It does not spell out that this is done to thedetriment of existing houses along Landseer Avenue and Bonnington Walk. All existing residentsfrom 55 Landseer Avenue to Bonnington Walk will lose the wildlife and green space behind theirgardens as existing screening hedges will be removed to suit plans. The existing green space,including some 200 mature trees constitute a public amenity - this green space is currently visiblefrom the pavement and road along Landseer Avenue. Walking downhill from GainsboroughSquare along Constable Road, one can enjoy the tall Lombardy Poplars of the Bonnington OpenSpace. With the extremely tight packing of predominantly terraced housing and flats in the newdevelopment, and the environmental alterations proposed by the development in question, thispublic amenity will be completely lost, with no sight of the Open Space available from LandseerAvenue and further uphill, up to Gainsborough Square. It seems design has been focused onimproving the amenity of the new houses to the detriment of the existing community.

The Bonnington Walk access point is at a very busy crossing point for Concorde Way Cycle Path,where several accidents have occurred in the last 12 months. This busy junctions will only getmore perilous with traffic from an extra 185 properties.

Looking at the main access points into and out of Lockleaze, these junctions are alreadyoverstretched. The Bonnington Walk continuation into Melton Crescent/Bridge Walk is anotherarea where traffic issues have been witnessed in the past. Again, this is without the extra vehiclesusing the area to access the Bonnington Walk development (and not to mention all the otherdevelopments that are planned for the area).

Compounding due to the planned removal of tall trees and mature vegetation, the increased cartraffic to and from the area will raise the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. Air pollution

and noise pollution will then significantly impact myself directly and the quality of life for the localresidents.

3. The planned development does not assign sufficient parking provision for the number ofdwellings in this development. This will cause parking to spill into the existing streets causingissues elsewhere.

4. Local schools and the local Health Centre are at capacity with no actions being taken toimprove them. These vital services will need to serve the existing community as well as all theother folks who move into all the planned houses across Lockleaze.

5. I now ask, if the development does go ahead WITH THE NECESSARY alterations, how willBCC ensure that the developers will follow the recommendations about the environment that havebeen commented upon by the community thus far? What about the social housing provision andpriority for local people?

I hereby argue that the proposed development will cause serious detriment to the environment andecology of the existing Open Space. The developers and the council need to take a really goodlook and make serious alterations to the plans at hand. My preference would be that this area be anew park provision with newly planted trees alongside existing ones and the allotment space beingresurrected. I am aware that this site is prime for development and BCC is keen for this to goahead. It is not my preference as the design is not suitable for the site. The plans must be revisedto allow mature trees to continue to be a public amenity and the green border to continue toprovide screening for existing residents. The Concorde Way Cycle Path needs to be consideredas an asset and be treated as such, rather than a second-thought putting the development first.As I have already reiterated, the proposed development causes a significant loss of public amenityas the Open Space will be transformed. The proposed development does not make adequatetransport provisions, in line with the current patterns for car use within the city. It has beenhighlighted how major junctions will be over capacity and unable to handle the volume of cars.Vital local services will not be able to cope with the increase in demand from this developmentalone, not to mention the other developments planned for Lockleaze.Unless major improvements are made to both transport infrastructure, schooling and healthcareprovisions the existing services will not be able to cope. Compounded by the environmentaldamage and the loss of public amenity, one sees no reason why the proposed developmentshould be approved.I oppose the development in its current design on 8/07/2020.

Hi.We own a house with a gardne that backs on to the development site.One of our biggest worry is the loss of privacy as we will have 2.x blocks of flats directly behindour house. We have a loft conversion too so these flats will be directly in looking in to our house -causing huge loss of privacy. Our garden will be overshadowed by the trees losing light. It's alsovery worrying how many trees will be pulled down for this. The birds we can hear daily isabsolutely lovely, and wildlife that will be affected in this must be a big number . When you lookout from our bedroom windows there is so much green and so much trees. Its damaging to wildlifeto tear any of this down.

Our road is also pretty busy with lots of cars parking along here, I would say at peak is the numberof cars to houses. There are approx 100 houses along the same length which will house 185dwellings. There will be lots of parking issues in the new development and increase in traffic

The proposals do not engage the specifics of this unique plot of green urban space, northe transport infrastructure.

What is the transport plan for this new development?Lockleaze is underserved by public transport with expensive, inefficient, public bus services.Road access to Lockleaze is minimal due to the train track. Muller Road and FIlton Avenue arehighly congested.Serious consideration needs to be given to the development of a train station that servesConstable Road area.

What is the strategy for disruption to the Concorde Way cycle infrastructure throughout thisdevelopment - and what improvements are planned for the on-road sections of this important northBristol cycle network?

What traffic calming measures have been planned for Constable Road, Landseer Avenue andBonnington Walk?The design of these roads encourages extremely fast driving. Where speed bumps currently exist,these create increased danger to cyclists as drivers weave all over the road.The entrance to LSC is not designed to receive the traffic it does on busy days - adding thedevelopment entrance to this location will heighten that issue.

The mature trees on this land should be protected as an important part of the visual landscape forthe neighbourhood.

I think the proposal should be adjusted - with less housing, and with greater focus on the existingmerits this unique green corridor has to offer all the wildlife and residents of Lockleaze.

Corncerns about access from bonnington walk as there have been several.RTAs at thecycle path location, also our gp appt are taking up to 3 weeks to get already, more housing is onlygoing to put more pressure on our surgery, we have very few aShops for such a big estate, not everyone drives and we have many elderly residents, the landproposed is a nice quiet walk with much wildlife and singing birds, sad it's going to be destroyedand make Lockleaze a big estate wiv little amenities

I am worried about losing this amazing green space.That is a rare and unique space full of wildlife.I am concerned about the construction traffic and more cars traffic around new houses.More houses and more families in the area will also need more schools and GPs.

I am not a neighbour to this proposed development, but I am a regular visitor of the areaas I have friends that live nearby. This development, should it go ahead, would severely negativelyimpact our enjoyment of the area, and degrade the area for other residents and futuregenerations. At present, it is a rich and unique area of Bristol that has enough green space tosupport the balance of needs we have as citizens. We need to be protecting and supportingbiodiversity, natural spaces, replenishing local ecosystems - not increasing our impact on them.This time during coronavirus has highlighted the need for ample green space, and this area shouldbe dafeguarded. I therefore object to this proposal - the reasons for which I will detail below.

(1) I feel careful consideration needs to be given to the locations chosen for development withinBristol, and the use of this area should not be considered until other more suitable sites have beendeveloped (given this site includes an area of SNCI, complications due to overhead, andunderground electrical cables, the significant number of mature trees - at a time when BCCispledging to reduce CO2 by planting numerous trees - and the statutory allotment spacerequired). I would dispute the official designation of this land as a brownfield site; it is far from"previouslyused industrial or commercial land", but given the nature of the existing site as a wildlifehaven, with green space comprised of wild vegetation with a large number of mature trees it ismore accurately a greenfield site that should be used as a site for additional tree planting to meetBCC'starget for new tree plantations. Development of this site would be detrimental to the overallCO2 emissions within BCC and would be environmentally, and ecologically devastating to thearea.

(2) One of the key statements made in the proposals for the new houses is they have beenspecifically designed to face green, open spaces to provide an enhanced amenity for them. This isquite galling for all the existing residents along Bonnington Walk and Landseer Avenue, who willsee the very amenity being given to the new development being removed from them. Furthermore,the existing green space, and mature trees are currently visible from the pavement and road alongLandseer Avenue due to the spacing between predominantly semi-detached housing. With theextremely tight packing of predominantly terraced housing in the new development, this publicamenity will be completely lost, with no sight of the open space available from Landseer Avenue.It seems design has been focused on improving the amenity of the new houses to the detriment ofthe general public, and existing residents.

(3) Both proposed access points to the development are unsuitable for the number of cars thatwillbe associated with a development of this size. The house opposite the access point onLandseer Avenue is a 7-bed HMO with no off-street parking. Depending on the group of tenantspresent, they often all have 1 car each, leading to a high density of cars parked in this immediatevicinity. Furthermore, within 5 neighbouring properties there are a further two HMOs/Student letswhich have a higher than average number of cars per property. This will cause access issues,poor visibility for egress from the junction, and restrict access for large vehicles such asrefusecollections or Fire Trucks. On the Bonnington Walk access point, it is at a very busycrossing point for Concorde Way, wherethere have been several serious accidents - and this iswithout the added burden of traffic from185 properties. The traffic management plans that weredeveloped for the Romney Avenue development, and the Chrome/Constable Road developmenthighlighted that the junction between Shaldon Avenue and Muller Road was over capacity both atpeak AM and PM times. They also highlighted over capacity issues at the Bridge Walk/FiltonAvenue/Torronto Road junction. This is before the additional housing and subsequent traffic fromthese developments are included. No provision shave been made for improving these junctions.With an additional 185 houses, these junctions are going to go from overcapacity to unusable(some would argue that at times they already are!)unless major infrastructure improvements aremade prior to any new development. Section 6.4.39 of the Transport Assessment states "Whilstthese are material impacts on junction performance, it is acknowledged that the junction will beoperating well above acceptable levels by 2027 with or without the introduction of developmenttraffic. The impact of development traffic is therefore not considered to be "severe." "Each recentlarge development has used this exact same argument - the junctions are already over capacity,therefore this development isn't the cause, so it should be ok. This is frankly disgusting. With noserious mitigation planned for any of these new developments, the situation isonly going to getworse. At what point will enough be enough, and the infrastructure improvements that are vital bemade a requirement for future development. This development hasn't considered traffic impact onthe Muller Road/Shaldon Avenue Junction,which is the most over burdened junction withinLockleaze. One can only assume this was omitted because the impact would be serious, andwould negatively impact the planning application. An additional potential hotspot will be on MeltonCrescent/Bridge Walk, at the 'S'-bend. There was previously a bungalow present here, with three

off-road car parking spaces. There were/are carsparked on both sides of the 'S'-bend, makingvisibility driving round this series of corners poor.Construction has started on a block of 7apartments with just a single parking space. The additional on-road parking that this will cause willfurther impede this main route from the proposed Bonnington Walk development to Filton Avenue.It would further increase the use of the Wordsworth Road (north) as a rat-run, to the detriment ofresidents of this estate. The additional volume of cars using Wordsworth Road as a 'rat-run' willonly increase with this development.

(4) There are simply insufficient parking provisions provided for in this development. This is inpartcaused by BCC's recommendations which do not reflect the current car ownership levelswithinthe city. Whilst it is desirable to encourage sustainable modes of transport, failure to providesufficient parking for the development, will cause parking to spill into the existing streetscausingissues elsewhere.

(5) Concerns have been previously raised over the capacity of the local Health Centre. Theresponse is far from satisfactory, simply stating that additional funding is provided with an increasein numbers, provided the GP surgery has the physical space to accept more patients. However,this has not been confirmed. Experience has shown that the physical capacity of Horfield HealthCentre is at its limits. Waiting times for routine appointments are typically 4 weeks, if not overamonth. There simply is not the capacity for the increase in development currently taking place inLockleaze. Each development that is approved is simply making the demand on these vitalservices worse, with no actions being taken to improve them.

(6) Whilst the new secondary school currently being built will ease provision for older schoolchildren, the admission policy is only partially based on geographical location, so will notguarantee a place for those local. There is even greater demand on primary school places.

To conclude, I believe the proposed development cause serious detriment to the environmentaland ecological of the existing open space, pose a large loss of public amenity to the open space -both in use of the space, but also views from both Concorde Way and from Landseer Avenue. Thetransportation plans are totally inadequate, and have highlighted how major junctions will be overcapacity and unable to handle the volume of cars. Vital local services will not be able to cope withthe increase in demand from this development alone, let alone in conjunction with the otherdevelopments planned. Unless major improvements are made to both transport infrastructure,schooling, healthcare provisions the existing services will not be able to cope. When theenvironmental damage is included there is simply no way the proposed development can orshould be approved.

The consultation process and the design principles for this project have been majorly flawed.Bristol does need to increase its housing stock, but there are many more appropriate, genuinebrownfield sites and vacant industrial sites that would be more appropriate. Lockleaze should notbe used as a 'sticky plaster' for all BCC's housing woes. Development should be community-led,

sensitive and prioritise the highest ecological and social vision of Bristol for future generations.

To planning department,

I do not think this is accecetable of building houses on the cycle track because this is a wildlife haven .The cycle track has lots of memories of mine I lernt to ride my bike there I go on walks whith my family .Think of all the animals habitats you are destroying ,imaqgine if you where an animal living there a fox pehaps and you went hunting and when you came back it was destoyed .On the other hand if you could bild on the abouned fild on constable street .But you want to build on the cycle track ? Already with global warming animals are at risk of extinction. But if you want to ruin all that for some supid houses.yours sincerely Nola age 10

Hi Planning department,

I also agree with my daughter that 185 houses should not be built in this location. It is a lovely natural space in the area and we enjoy spending time there. We use the area every day.

I think housing is essential in Bristol and new houses should be built (Apolgies for my daughter saying stupid houses, I disagree with her here!). But I don't think 185 would be appropriate here. As suggested please can some be located on the derelict land on the hill going up to the square? Surely this is a perfect location for some of the houses to be placed?

Please let me know is there anything more we can do.

Many Thanks

Laura Jenkins

I am writing to object to the proposed housing development of 185 homes on the land between Bonnington Walk, Rowlandson avenue and Landseer Avenue.

I am concerned about the additional traffic in the area, noise and pollution. I have already raised an issue of traffic in the area and filtering through from filton avenue, with people spedding through the area, and I feel with even more houses in an already very condensed area, this will surely increase and get worse.

I am also aware of the nature that is present in this Green space, and have seen foxes, hedgehogs and different species of butterflies and dragonflies in the area. To get rid of this space will be a massive disruption to the nature in this area and so a green boundary must be maintained.

I am also extremely concerned that the privacy in my garden and home will be compromised, with the buildings planning currently looking to overlook my garden (which currently backs onto this area). This new site will decrease the value of my home significantly as well as other people in the area who are trying to do ok in this already downtrodden area. Will there be any compensation to home owners for how much our home values are effected??

I hope you can reconsider this development, and if you do go ahead then I would like to receive information and compensation due to the impact that my home will have.

Thanks

Nehaya Zitawi

We just want to let you know we dispute the above ref for the planning of new housing development 1. The loss of the only greenery left within our area we causing more pollution which will affect our wildlife and our community 2. Bring more traffic which will affect the safety of our children 3. Loss of trees, landscaping and new ideas to encourage nature within the area to encourage the wildlife to prosper 4. Our community has already had a large number of houses erected causing a large amount of greenery and nature to be lost We feel very strongly against this planning proposal and feel the community will be highly affected bringing more crime, traffic, safety of our children A & M Parsons (part of Lockleaze and Horfield Community)

Dear BCC development manager, There should not be any housing built here because it is too close to the pylons. Numerous studies suggest that the EMFs they emit may be harmful to health with risks in relation to cancer incidence, Alzheimers, miscarriage, infertility, breast cancer, leukemia, brain tumours, as the studies below indicate. Most of these studies are open access. There are many other reasons not to build here - loss of local amenity, beautiful poplar trees, loss of rare biodiversity, wildlife corridor etc but the main issue is that people's lives are at risk with this development so it should not go ahead. Dr Karen Bell (Lockleaze Environment Group) Karimi, A., Ghadiri Moghaddam, F., Valipour, M. 'Insights in the biology of extremely low-frequency magnetic fields exposure on human health' Molecular Biology Reports2020, in press '…we discuss recent progress in the understanding of ELF-EMF biology with a focus on mechanisms of ELF-EMF-mediated disease and summarize the results of more recent experimental and epidemiological studies of ELF-EMF exposure effects on cancer, neurological, cardiovascular, and reproductive disorders… According to our literature review, exposure to ELF-EMF has an adverse biological effect depending on the current intensity, strength of the magnetic field, and duration of exposure. Accumulated epidemiologic evidence indicates a correlation between exposure to ELF-EMF and childhood cancer incidence, Alzheimer's disease (AD), and miscarriage.'

Carpenter, D.O. 'Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer: How source of funding affects results' Environmental Research Volume 178, November 2019, Article number 108688 'While there has been evidence indicating that excessive exposure to magnetic fields from 50 to 60 Hz electricity increases risk of cancer, many argue that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. This is particularly the case regarding magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia. A major goal of this study is to examine how source of funding influences the reported results and conclusions. Several meta-analyses dating from about 2000 all report significant associations between exposure and risk of leukemia. By examining subsequent reports on childhood leukemia it is clear that almost all government or independent studies find either a statistically significant association between magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia, or an elevated risk of at least OR = 1.5, while almost all industry supported studies fail to find any significant or even suggestive association… Based on pooled or meta-analyses as well as subsequent peer-reviewed studies there is strong evidence that excessive exposure to magnetic fields increases risk of adult leukemia, male and female breast cancer and brain cancer.' Esquirol, Y., Turuban, M., Piel, C., Migault, L., Pouchieu, C., Bouvier, G., Fabbro-Peray, P., Lebailly, P., Baldi, I. 'Residential proximity to power lines and risk of brain tumor in the general population' Environmental Research Volume 185, June 2020, Article number 109473 '… We found significant associations between cumulated duration living at <50 m to high voltage lines and: i) all brain tumors (OR 2.94; 95%CI 1.28-6.75); ii) glioma (OR 4.96; 95%CI 1.56-15.77). Esmailzadeh, S., Delavar, M.A., Aleyassin, A., Gholamian, S.A., Ahmadi, A. 'Exposure to electromagnetic fields of high voltage overhead power lines and female infertility'International Journal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineVolume 10, Issue 1, January 2019, Pages 11-16 'Living in the vicinity of high voltage power lines has brought about a range of health woes, but the effect of residential exposure to electromagnetic fields from the power lines on female fertility has not been explored yet. Objective: To test the hypothesis if residential proximity to high voltage power lines could be associated with the increased risk of female infertility… After adjusting for confounding factors, women living within 500 meters of the lines carried a higher risk (aOR 4.44, 95% CI 2.77 to 7.11) of infertility compared with women living more than 1000 meters of the lines. Conclusion: The current safety guidelines for electromagnetic fields exposure seems to be inadequate for protecting people from the hazardous effects of the field'. Amoon, A.T.a, Swanson, J.b, Vergara, X.a,c, Kheifets, L. 'Relationship between distance to overhead power lines and calculated fields in two studies' Journal of Radiological ProtectionVolume 40, Issue 2, 2020, Pages 431-443

'There is some evidence that both distance from transmission lines and measured or calculated magnetic fields are associated with childhood leukemia. Because distance is a key component when calculating the magnetic field generated by power lines, distance from lines and calculated fields based on lines tend to be highly correlated… we found that calculated fields do appear to diminish linearly with increasing distance from overhead power lines, up to 100 m' Revueltas Agüero, M., Roque, I., Baqués Merino, R., Beltrán Reguera, R.C. 'Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and their impact on human health' Revista Cubana de Higiene y Epidemiologia, Volume 52, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 210-227 'International databases, sources and other information resources were explored. Results: of the total number of publications, only 4 did not relate exposure to electromagnetic field with onset of human health problems; but the vast majority (55 documents) did so in one way or another'.

between these two modes will not be adequate. We recommend at minimum a 0.3m grass or planted strip between the two paths so it is clear for all users. 

● Southern section - width. We are disappointed that no upgrade is proposed to the southern section of the cycle route. The proposed seating will effectively narrow the usable width. This section should be upgraded to the same 3m + 2m standard as the northern section. If there are width constraints, the cycleway could be routed behind the allotments and orchard, alongside the railway line. 

● Bonnington Walk crossing - alignment. The crossing at Bonnington Walk is a difficult and dangerous section of the Concorde Way route. We understand a parallel crossing is due to be provisioned here. The cycleway should align with this crossing point. The current proposal of a 3m width shared path section is not suitable for an area which will have conflicting cyclist and pedestrian movements. 

● Bonnington Walk - connection to Landseer Avenue. Many cyclists leave the Concorde Way at this point to head east towards UWE. Provision of a separated cycle track along the short section of Bonnington Walk between the Concorde Way and Landseer Avenue would vastly improve safety for cyclists heading in this direction. 

● Constable Road crossing. No treatment is proposed for the crossing of Constable Road and access to the next section of the cycle route on Dovercourt Road. This area should be treated as per comments from BCC Strategic City Transport in the pre-application consultation. 

We would appreciate being consulted again when detailed designs for the cycle route are available. 

CONTACT

Bristol Cycling Campaign

infrastructure@bristolcyclingcampaign.org.uk

http://bristolcyclingcampaign.org.uk

e: ​infrastructure@bristolcycling.org.uk w: ​www.bristolcycling.org.uk 

f: Bristol Cycling Campaign t: @BristolCycling 

Dear sirs / Madam Planning application 20/02523/FB I am writing to you regarding the Bonnington walk and Rowlandson Gardens, Lockleaze housing development. Yes we do need houses but it is very important to also have a green spaces this would be very detrimental to the wildlife within that area and also goes against the council's plan to double the tree canopy so reducing carbon dioxide. Please do not let this housing development go ahead. Kind regards Karen Edkins

Hello, I'd like to comment on the planning application for this area. My comments would be:How can you think it is ok to destroy an amazing wildlife sanctuary with an abundance of houses? Whilst I agree that housing is a need, I don't agree with you taking away an area that is one of the very main reasons I love living where I do. I have had the privilege in lockdown to witness flocks of birds fly in formation from tree to tree and welcome foxes and even a deer. The peacefulness I have in a city with this area is an absolute luxury to me.How can you think it is ok to kill this wildlife off? Please do not insult me with the planned area you have to encourage wildlife as we know this is not acceptable and will take years for anything to be available for wildlife to reform. You are taking away their natural habitat in the process destroying and removing the tranquillity of being in my garden.You have enough derelict areas in Lockleaze to put housing on. Why have you chosen this site to fill with way too much housing and take away my privacy from being looked upon by strangers 7 days a week?Do you think it is ok to force someone to leave the home they love because of this planning application? That is the position I am now in because of this planned building.I do not agree with this area being built on. It is already occupied by wildlife and used daily by the community and cyclists.

I absolutely object to this planning application, this area should be preserved in itsentirety as a green space. For the following reasons:

1. There are many wild species of wildlife and plants that thrive in this area.2. It is part of a cycle route which will be spoiled by this development.3. It will add to an increase in already high levels of congestion, particularly on Filton Avenue andRomney Avenue. This will increase Co2 pollution levels, which are already high.

This development must be stopped. No compromises, no down-scaling. This area should be givenprotected status.

I would like to object strongly to the proposed development for multiple reasons.

(1) I feel careful consideration needs to be given to the locations chosen for development withinBristol, and the use of this area should not be considered until other more suitable sites have beendeveloped (given this site includes an area of SNCI, complications due to overhead, andunderground electrical cables, the significant number of mature trees - at a time when BCC ispledging to reduce CO2 by planting numerous trees - and the statutory allotment space required).

I would dispute the official designation of this land as a brownfield site; it is far from "previouslyused industrial or commercial land", but given the nature of the existing site as a wildlife haven,with green space comprised of wild vegetation with a large number of mature trees it is moreaccurately a greenfield site that should be used as a site for additional tree planting to meet BCC'starget for new tree plantations. Development of this site would be detrimental to the overall CO2emissions within BCC and would be environmentally, and ecologically devastating to the area.

(2) I strongly believe that keeping a wildlife and shrubbery corridor running along the North andEast sides of the site (along the back gardens of those on Bonnington Walk and LandseerAvenue) will act as a buffer between the existing dwellings, and the new development, as well asmaintaining many of the existing mature green space, and providing a better balance than thecurrent plans allow. This would provide an enhanced habitat for existing wildlife, potentially avoidthe requirement for mass displacement of slow worms (amongst others) from their existing

territory.

One of the key statements made in the proposals for the new houses is they have beenspecifically designed to face green, open spaces to provide an enhanced amenity for them. This isquite galling for all the existing residents along Bonnington Walk and Landseer Avenue, who willsee the very amenity being given to the new development being removed from them. Furthermore,the existing green space, and mature trees are currently visible from the pavement and road alongLandseer Avenue due to the spacing between predominantly semi-detached housing. With theextremely tight packing of predominantly terraced housing in the new development, this publicamenity will be completely lost, with no sight of the open space available from Landseer Avenue. Itseems design has been focused on improving the amenity of the new houses to the detriment ofthe general public, and existing residents.

(3) Both proposed access points to the development are unsuitable for the number of cars that willbe associated with a development of this size. The house opposite the access point on LandseerAvenue is a 7-bed HMO with no off-street parking. Depending on the group of tenants present,they often all have 1 car each, leading to a high density of cars parked in this immediate vicinity.Furthermore, within 5 neighbouring properties there are a further two HMOs/Student lets whichhave a higher than average number of cars per property. This will cause access issues, poorvisibility for egress from the junction, and restrict access for large vehicles such as refusecollections or Fire Trucks.

On the Bonnington Walk access point, it is at a very busy crossing point for Concorde Way, wherethere have been several serious accidents - and this is without the added burden of traffic from185 properties.

The traffic management plans that were developed for the Romney Avenue development, and theChrome/Constable Road development highlighted that the junction between Shaldon Avenue andMuller Road was over capacity both at peak AM and PM times. They also highlighted overcapacity issues at the Bridge Walk/Filton Avenue/Torronto Road junction. This is before theadditional housing and subsequent traffic from these developments are included. No provisionshave been made for improving these junctions. With an additional 185 houses, these junctions aregoing to go from overcapacity to unusable (some would argue that at times they already are!)unless major infrastructure improvements are made prior to any new development.

Section 6.4.39 of the Transport Assessment states"Whilst these are material impacts on junction performance, it is acknowledged that the junctionwill be operating well above acceptable levels by 2027 with or without the introduction ofdevelopment traffic. The impact of development traffic is therefore not considered to be "severe.""

Each recent large development has used this exact same argument - the junctions are alreadyover capacity, therefore this development isn't the cause, so it should be ok. This is frankly

ludicrous. With no serious mitigation planned for any of these new developments, the situation isonly going to get worse. At what point will enough be enough, and the infrastructure improvementsthat are vital be made a requirement for future development.

This development hasn't considered traffic impact on the Muller Road/Shaldon Avenue Junction,which is the most over burdened junction within Lockleaze. One can only assume this was omittedbecause the impact would be serious, and would negatively impact the planning application.

An additional potential hotspot will be on Melton Crescent/Bridge Walk, at the 'S'-bend. There waspreviously a bungalow present here, with three off-road car parking spaces. There were/are carsparked on both sides of the 'S'-bend, making visibility driving round this series of corners poor.Construction has started on a block of 7 apartments with just a single parking space. Theadditional on-road parking that this will cause will further impede this main route from the proposedBonnington Walk development to Filton Avenue. It would further increase the use of theWordsworth Road (north) as a rat-run, to the detriment of residents of this estate. The additionalvolume of cars using Wordsworth Road as a rat-run will only increase with this development.

(4) There are simply insufficient parking provisions provided for in this development. This is in partcaused by BCC's recommendations which do not reflect the current car ownership levels withinthe city. Whilst it is desirable to encourage sustainable modes of transport, failure to providesufficient parking for the development, will cause parking to spill into the existing streets causingissues elsewhere.

(5) Concerns have been previously raised over the capacity of the local Health Centre. Theresponse is far from satisfactory, simply stating that additional funding is provided with an increasein numbers, provided the GP surgery has the physical space to accept more patients. However,this has not been confirmed. Experience has shown that the physical capacity of Horfield HealthCentre is at its limits. Waiting times for routine appointments are typically 4 weeks, if not over amonth. There simply is not the capacity for the increase in development currently taking place inLockleaze. Each development that is approved is simply making the demand on these vitalservices worse, with no actions being taken to improve them.

(6) Whilst the new secondary school currently being built will ease provision for older schoolchildren, the admission policy is only partially based on geographical location, so will notguarantee a place for those local. There is even greater demand on primary school places.

To conclude, I believe the proposed development cause serious detriment to the environmentaland ecological of the existing open space, pose a large loss of public amenity to the open space -both in use of the space, but also views from both Concorde Way and from Landseer Avenue. Thetransportation plans are totally inadequate, and have highlighted how major junctions will be over

capacity and unable to handle the volume of cars. Vital local services will not be able to cope withthe increase in demand from this development alone, let alone in conjunction with the otherdevelopments planned.

Unless major improvements are made to both transport infrastructure, schooling, healthcareprovisions the existing services will not be able to cope. When the environmental damage isincluded there is simply no way the proposed development can or should be approved.

I am fully aware of the housing shortage in Bristol and agree for social housing to bebuilt.My concern is that on this case nature and a secure cycle route is being compromised while thereare lots of derelict buildings and land/properties in the city. I understand that it is more expensiveto convert derelict buildings, but Bristol prides itself of being the green capital and nature and wildlife should not be compromised to cut costs.Therefore I object to this development.

Thank you

The Civic Society supports this proposed development. We have been involved at preapplication stage & have attended the consultation meetings. This is an allocated housing site andthe propsals make good use of a previously underused site. Changes to the initial proposals haveprovided better orientation of buildings and provision of open space within the scheme.

With reference to the proposed development to the land behind Landseer Avenue andto the south of Bonnington Walk, this land was a wonderful habitat for wild life, unfortunately dueto the clearing of parts of it to make paths and for site exploration there has been a diminishing incertain species of birds and butterflies that I personally used to see regularly. There has also beenan increase in anti social behaviour by people walking their dogs and throwing the bags containingthe dogs poo over the briars, I have been regularly sprayed with this mess as it is thrown onto myallotment when I strim down the weeds on the paths.Due to this and also the horrific increase in the extra traffic that will be generated LandseerAvenue and the surrounding district will become highly polluted with exhaust fumes. Life will mostprobably become unbearable.With these thoughts in mind I strongly object to the proposal to build on this land

No more houses needed, we need green space, and cycle route too.Be brave, make the right choice and reject.

I am concerned about the extra traffic that this development will bring. People arealready using Bonnington Walk as a rat run and in far excess of the speed limit, causing nearmisses and accidents. My car has been completely written off due to tgis and i am concerned thatextra houses will drastically increase the graffic and the risk of an accident that will sadly causeserious injury of even tragically a loss of life

Part of the reason we purchased this property was for the feeling of being close tonature and feeling of privacy. The birds, squirrels and foxes and even the odd slow wormfrequently visit the garden. We also regularly exercise along the cycle path.

Feeling close to nature has been particularly helpful in treating my anxiety and depression. All ofwhich will be lost if you build on the land to the rear of Landseer Avenue.

Add to this the inevitable increase to traffic, and noise pollution from the development itself, newresidents once the development is complete and from the railway. Which is largely blocked out bythe natural habitat which currently exists.

It is appalling that you intend to build there when you have several other areas in and aroundLockleaze which are essentially waste land, offer nothing to the community and are crying out tobe developed.

I strongly object to this proposal!

The area is an invaluable green space for local residents which improves our health andwellbeing. It is also a very important habitat for wildlife. Please consider this.

It's sad to thing of how many trees will be cut down for this development. There aresome huge old popper trees and so much wildlife living here. So many animals and birds will beloosing their homes.

The block of flats are also being built too close to existing residential houses so loss of privacyoverlooking houses and gardens

We are not happy with the loss of trees which will affect the local birds and wild life. Itsalso very unfair that flats will be built overlooking existing dwellings causing a huge loss of privacy.

I object to this, due to the nature of the woodland being destroyed, resulting in loss ofhabitat to a lot of wildlife and nature!Also obstructing the views from existing residences and the houses currently standing will becomeoverlooked resulting in a lack of privacy.The area is used by walkers and runners for exercise and during these recent times we have allbegun to appreciate how much outdoor exercise and nature need to be protected.Please do not go ahead with this

I object to this planning on the basis of privacy, proximity and health. Buildingapartments/homes so close to transmission lines and railroads cannot be good. The area also hasan abundance of wildlife and trees. I'm strongly against this planning.

The site is a valuable habitat, scrub forms a habitat between open land and enclosedwood ans is recognised as a valuable habitat. I have heard Nightingales sing on this land butmany other less 'glamorous' species use this area including butterflys and moths which breed inthe extensive bramble and nettle patches - this is not waste land but increasingly well recognisedas valuable habitat.

Additionaly BCC have demolished lareg areas of housing in Lockleaze which they have donenothing with - why not build on the cleared areas before contemplating development of a separatesite? these area were cleared years ago and nothing has been done with them - what logic isthere too leaving them undeveloped and starting somewhere else - other than poor planning??

I wish to object to the amount of houses that are planned for the plot. There are severalother empty plots nearby in which some of the planned houses could be built on to prevent yetanother over crowded 'rabbit warren' of houses.

It seems that the application is based on maximum profit for the builders rather than quality of lifeof the future occupants.

I would welcome a reduction in the number of the proposed houses on the plot.

As a frequent user of the foot path, what restrictions will be in place during construction on the wellused footpath/cycle path connecting Constable Road and Bonnington Walk? And if restrictions areimposed, how long will they last?