Application Details

Reference 21/00531/P
Address Hengrove Leisure Park Hengrove Way Bristol BS14 0HR  
Street View
Proposal Outline planning application for demolition and residential-led redevelopment comprising up 350no. Use Class C3 dwellings (including affordable dwellings), and up to 1,650sqm of flexible Class E uses, of which 150sqm is also Sui Generis (Hot Food Takeaway), along with cycle accesses, parking, servicing, landscaping, public realm, and associated works. Approval sought for Access, with all other matters reserved.
Validated 01-02-21
Type Outline Planning
Status Pending decision
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 24-03-21
Standard Consultation Expiry 15-04-21
Determination Deadline 03-05-21
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 3 Objectors: 59  Unstated: 2  Total: 64
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 22-02-21

We have submitted our objection to Bristol Planning Authority about the planned development at Hengrove Leisure Park - Bristol Tree Forum Submission - Hengrove Leisure Park.

 
See also - 20/05651/SCR | Request for a Screening Opinion as to whether an Environmental Impact Assessment is required.

Public Comments

  OBJECT

2

Introduction

The Bristol Tree Forum would like to draw your attention to the following concerns

about the future of the trees on the site of the proposed development at Hengrove

Leisure Park:

1. The Mitigation Hierarchy, described below, says that trees should not be removed unless

there is no realistic alternative. One option would be to build around the trees rather

than remove them. The trees on this site have been growing here for at least 20 years.

They were clearly planted as part of an earlier development and have survived despite

being in a car park.

2. Bristol City Council has declared climate and environmental emergencies and is

committed to:

• becoming carbon neutral by 2030

• doubling tree canopy cover by 2046.

As currently formulated, these plans to build new houses will set back the work needed

to address these emergencies and achieve these commitments.

3. The need to build housing to meet sustainable economic and social development

objectives should not take precedence over the need to ensure that the development is

also both environmentally sustainable and meets Net Gain objectives. This is a clear

directive under the National Planning Policy Framework (see below).

4. The existing trees have a significant asset value which should not be ignored. Using

CAVAT, we have valued them at more than £ 2,864,000.

5. BCS9 of the Core Strategy also states that "Individual green assets should be retained

wherever possible and integrated into new development". It is clear that this is possible

in this case - felling many of the trees on the site should not be the default option.

6. The removal of existing trees inevitably means that the eco-services they provide will not

be replaced for decades, if at all.

7. There is no evidence that these proposals will achieve adequate Biodiversity Net Gain.

The adverse knock-on environmental impact on biodiversity of removing existing

trees far outweighs the short-term benefits achieved by replacing them.

Whatever the merits of this application, it should not be permitted to proceed until it has

properly addressed how it will replace and build upon the Green Infrastructure (including trees)

that will inevitably be lost if this application proceeds.

3

1. The background

The site in its context

Hengrove Leisure Park is a seven-hectare1 site which forms part of three proposed

developments: the other two are Hengrove Park to the east and Christopher Brain Street

(already under development) to the south. The plan is that they will provide over 1,800

units of housing and related services. Figure 3 shows how the sites will eventually

look.

Figure 3: All three sites integrated

The impact of cumulative tree loss

Plans to remove 723 trees from the nearby site at Hengrove Park have already been approved,

subject to their replacement with 1,280 trees as part of the subsequent development. A

1 Using the plans provided, we have measured the site at about 71,900 sq. metres.

4

substantial number of these will be from around the play park to the south-east of the leisure

park. (Some of these trees will be thinned but we estimate that about 75% of them will be lost.)

The fact that these trees were only planted some 12 years ago to create a screen around the

play area will not save them2.

Figure 4: Trees identified for thinning and removal around the play park

Taken as a whole, these three developments will result in the removal of over 1,500 well-

established, mature and semi-mature trees. We are told that these lost trees will, in due

course, be replaced. How and when this will happen remains uncertain, however, and in any

event, it will take at least another 20-30 years before any new trees can replace all the benefits

of the existing trees. In short, we are being asked to accept the replacement of what already

exists with a promise of future trees that may never be realised.

The impact on Hengrove Mounds

Hengrove Park is a site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). The adjacent Hengrove

Mounds is a UK Priority Habitat.

The presence of a dual carriageway, Hengrove Way to the north, and Whitchurch Lane to the

west effectively isolates Hengrove Mounds from the green infrastructure to the west. The only

remaining green access is eastward into Hengrove Park via a narrow corridor between Hengrove

2 See 19_02632_PB-ARBORICULTURAL_OFFICERS_COMMENTS-2171141, part of the documents published in planning application 19/02632/PB

5

Leisure Park and the development at Christopher Brain Street to the south.

The developer’s ecological report3 describes the Mounds as in poor condition; to mitigate this

£80,000 has been set aside for its management and maintenance as part of the Planning

Obligations agreed for the Hengrove Park development4. Once the Hengrove Park development

is complete, the Hengrove Mounds will effectively become isolated from their surrounding

habitats and so suffer yet further environmental degradation. This has not been considered in

these plans nor, so it seems, in the other development plans. The Arboricultural Planning

Officer also raises this concern (see their comments below).

Hengrove Leisure Park

In January 2021 the developer published an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) in

accordance with BS 5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction –

Recommendations. We have used the values given in this AIA survey for this analysis.

While the survey appears to be somewhat formulaic, this is perhaps understandable given the

large number of trees surveyed. However, it is unclear why this healthy population of relatively

young trees should be allocated only 10+ or 20+ years of estimated remaining life expectancy

(the terms ‘10+’ and ‘20+’ need to be defined). Many of the trees surveyed have life

expectancies of much more than 100 years. Nothing has been disclosed which says that this is

not the case.

Figure 5: Some of the car park Planes

We have also read the comments of the Arboricultural Planning Officer, who commented in

screening application 20/05651/SCR (a request for a screening opinion as to whether an

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was required for the demolition and redevelopment of

3 21_00531_P-ECOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT-2860107 4 19_02632_PB-PLANNING_OBLIGATIONS_REVISED_SCHEDULE-2481904

6

the leisure park) as follows:

The report negates to mention the extensive tree planting within the car park which

provides canopy cover and some ecological value. The re-development of the site will

likely require the removal of most if not all of these trees and therefore adverse effect

on the canopy cover of the site.

Hengrove Mounds are located on the south western boundary of the proposed

development and therefore the connectivity of green infrastructure with surrounding

environments needs to be assessed.

Despite his view that an EIA was needed, none was obtained. This application assigns low

connectivity values to the habitats on this site. We do not agree with this assessment for the

following reasons.

The ecological report5 makes the following observations about the trees growing in and around

the site:

Semi-mature ornamental trees

Throughout the site the pedestrian routes are lined with planted street trees for amenity

value…. Species include; London plane Platanus x hispanica, birch Betula sp., ash

Fraxinus excelsior, pear Pyrus communis and cherry Prunus avium. These were planted

as part of the leisure park development and have amenity value, however, due to their

setting within a well-lit, urban landscape their value for wildlife is poor.

Alder Alnus glutinosa and willow Salix sp., and ash Fraxinus excelsior, were also noted

around the perimeter of the site and within the south western parcel.

Semi-mature woodland

Around the boundary of the site to the south west are areas of semi-mature

woodland…that, based on historical aerial imagery is self-seeded. Woodland species were

dominated by sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, alder and field maple Acer campestre. The

woodland to the south west had limited understory vegetation with bramble and ivy

Hedera helix noted.

In our view the report undervalues the importance of the linear tree features running roughly

north to south and east to west across the car parks. These comprise healthy populations of

maturing trees which have developed interconnected canopies, some with associated hedge

features below. Taken as a whole, these form valuable networks of wildlife corridors.

5 21_00531_P-ECOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT-2860107

7

Why does ‘self-seeded’ always have negative connotations when used in a planning context?

Most woodlands are self-seeded and the mixed native woodland around the site boundaries –

nearly 3,000 sq. metres of which is identified for removal – is typical of these natural habitats

and sustain a rich biodiversity.

Our calculations

The survey identified 296 tree features, of which ten are tree groups and the rest individual

trees. The developer plans to remove or partially remove 277 of these 296 tree features. We

calculate that, in fact, 816 trees are identified for removal, of which 271 are individual trees.

The remaining 545 trees make up the six tree groups identified for either complete or partial

removal. We have calculated the number of trees in each tree group by dividing the group areas

identified for removal by the average tree canopy cover (TCC) of the trees for each group.6

On this basis, we calculate that the trees on site have a TCC of 6,720 sq. metres. The percentage

TCC of the site is therefore 9.3%. Of this TCC, the plan is to remove 6,508 sq. metres. This is

97% of all the TCC that the site provides.

Using this information, we have calculated that 602 replacement trees will need to be planted

under the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS).

We have also undertaken a biodiversity metric calculation using the current (beta) version of

the Biodiversity Metric 2 (BDM)7. We calculate that the site has 13.09 baseline biodiversity units

(BU). We have applied the parameters for the Woodland and forest - Other woodland;

broadleaved trees habitat category to all the trees surveyed. In our view, this better represents

the ecosystem services provided by the trees on this site rather than the Woodland and forest

- Other woodland; mixed and Urban - Street Tree categories used in the application.

The developer has set Ecological Connectivity at Low. Given our observations above we have

set it at Medium. We have also set Habitat Condition at Moderate rather than Low.

On this basis, the trees growing on the site have a baseline BU value of 5.91 and those identified

for removal have a baseline value of 5.73 BU. If removed, these trees would require

replacement, on a Zero Net Gain basis, with 28,319 sq. metres of new habitat8. With 10% Net

Gain added, this increases to 31,151 sq. metres of new habitat required – 6.30 BU.

Based on a Time-to-Target of 30 years for the Woodland and forest - Other woodland;

broadleaved trees category – Select Standard trees with a stem diameter of 34 mm planted

6 TCC is calculated as πr2 where r = the average reported branch spread. We have used TCC rather than RPA (Root Protection Area) because branch spread is reported in the AIA and more accurately reflects the ecoservices that trees provide than does a RPA value which is based on a standard formula - RPAr = 12 x DBH (called ‘stem diameter’ in the AIA). – used in BS5837:2012. 7 We understand that version 3 is due to be published in the Spring. 8 TCC is used as a proxy for BDM tree habitat areas.

8

today will have a canopy of 13.6 sq. metres by the end of the 30-year Time-to-Target period –

then we calculate that 2,290 replacement Select Standard trees will be needed to replace the

ecoservices lost if these trees are removed.

The developer plans to plant 305 replacement trees on site. This will provide immediate TCC

of 1,379 sq. metres9 and, eventually, 4,148 sq. metres by the end of the 30-year Time-to-Target

period (assuming they survive and grow this large).

This leaves a balance of 27,003 sq. metres of TCC needing to be replaced offsite. At 13.6 sq.

metres per tree (by the end of the 30-year Time-to-Target period), then 1,985 Select Standard

trees would need to be planted. If it were considered that the cost of doing this would be

prohibitive10, then, as an alternative, woodland areas could be planted with whips at a density

of one tree per 9 sq. metres. This would require 3,000 whips to be planted instead.

The developer could also to mitigate its tree replacement obligations by transplanting trees

growing in the carpark to the planned onsite locations and/or to offsite locations approved by

Bristol City Council.

A summary of this analysis is set out at the Annex 1 below. Our detailed analysis can be

downloaded here - Hengrove Leisure Park - BTF Tree Analysis.

2. The justification for our approach

The National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to ensure that new development is

sustainable. It stresses the importance of Green Infrastructure as one of three overarching,

interdependent objectives – economic, social, and environmental. This means that the

presumption in favour of sustainable environmental development is just as important as any

which are related to economic or social development objectives.

Trees are an integral part of this because of the importance of trees in relation to the

management of air, soil and water quality along with other associated ecosystem services,

climate change adaptions and beneficial health effects. The NPPF also seeks to achieve the

protection and enhancement of landscapes and achieve Net Gain in biodiversity.

BDM provides a way of measuring and accounting for biodiversity losses and gains resulting from

development or land management change. It defines Net Gain as an:

…approach to development that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably

9 According to the BDM formula for a small tree. 10 The BTRS cost for planting a tree on open ground is £765.21. It costs £3,301.88 to plant it in a tree pit in hard standing.

9

better state than beforehand. This means protecting existing habitats and ensuring that

lost or degraded environmental features are compensated for by restoring or creating

environmental features that are of greater value to wildlife and people. It does not

change the fact that losses should be avoided where possible, a key part of adhering to

a core environmental planning principle called the mitigation hierarchy.

The mitigation hierarchy

Trees should not be removed merely to facilitate the developer’s vision. Ideally, development

should always be planned around existing trees. This is because, in all cases, a tree retained

offers far more benefits and ecoservices than newly planted trees, no matter how many, whose

potential will take years to be realised, if indeed it ever is.

The mitigation hierarchy provides a cascading decision process: only if the preceding choice is

unavailable is the next one considered.

• Avoid - Where possible, habitat damage should be avoided.

• Minimise - Where possible, habitat damage and loss should be minimised.

• Remediate - Where possible, any damage or lost habitat should be restored.

• Compensate - As a last resort, damaged or lost habitat should be compensated for.

Local Planning Authorities (LPA) in the UK have a statutory duty to consider both the protection

and planting of trees when considering planning applications. The potential impact of

development on all trees is therefore a material consideration.

BCS9 – Green Infrastructure

BCS9 of Bristol’s Core Strategy states that "Individual green assets should be retained wherever

possible and integrated into new development".

BTRS and the Biodiversity Metric are two tools which can be used by the planning authority to

ensure that:

The integrity and connectivity of the strategic green infrastructure network will be

maintained, protected and enhanced.

Opportunities to extend the coverage and connectivity of the existing strategic green

infrastructure network are taken.

Individual green assets are retained wherever possible and integrated into new

development.

10

Appropriate mitigation of the lost green infrastructure assets is required. Development

should incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure of an appropriate type,

standard and size.

Where on-site provision of green infrastructure is not possible, contributions will be

sought to make appropriate provision for green infrastructure off site.

We have summarised Bristol’s planning policies as they relate to trees here - Planning

obligations in relation to trees in Bristol.

Bristol Tree Forum

February 2021

11

Annex 1

Biodiversity Metric Calculation Summary

Mrs Rachel Starr-Elliott  28 ASHWICKE BRISTOL  on 2021-09-09   OBJECT

I object to any plan to build housing on this site, we see from Bristol city councilswebsite that proposals to build on the northern slopes along Hengrove way will add a substantivenumber of dwellings to an area that already has a large number of building projects approved orstarted!

As a regular user of the cinema and having lived in the area my whole life I would like the planningcommittee to oppose plans and meet publicly with locals to discuss how best use the site for localentertainment and leisure!

I feel that this application has played on using Covid19 and the limited info sent out to the wholeBristol south to push ahead with plans rather than looking toWork with local people who clearly value the site but feel that what is available is expensive orinsufficient! This could be rectified by community working. Failing this I propose the leaseholdersell the lease to a community run group who will manage it for local people!

Mrs Deborah Bryson  128 TARNOCK AVENUE BRISTOL  on 2021-09-09   OBJECT

There are enough non affordable houses going up in the area already, no extra Drsurgeries being built, no extra schools being built, and you are wanting to take away the onlyleisure facilities in the area for young and old, not to mention all the green space that is used mydog walkers, runners, cyclists etc. There is no proposal for extra road infrastructure, publictransport. The whole thing is an absolute joke and I very, very strongly object to these plans.

Councillor Fabian Breckels  22 ROSEBERRY PARK BRISTOL  on 2021-08-19   OBJECT

I write to object in the strongest possible terms to this application which would seeSouth Bristol lose its only cinema. As a long standing DC member I know you must make adecision on the application before you. I am urging you to reject it so the developer can be forcedto come back with something better.

I was on the planning committee that approved the Hengrove Park residential development whichis a huge investment by this administration in a huge number of quality and affordable homes. Oneof the reasons that application was considered sustainable was that it was close to employmentand leisure activities, as both were on the doorstep. If this application is granted one of the keyreasons that the huge Hengrove Park housing development next door was sustainable will begone. I don't like agreeing to something only to find the goalposts have been shifted, and to findnearby facilities we considered essential for the success of the Hengrove Park development nextdoor will, if this developer gets their way, be gone before those homes can be occupied.

Before the elections I requested and attended a virtual presentation on the proposal before you bythe site owner and developer. We were told that the Cineworld Cinema, closed during another lockdown at the time, had closed permanently and would not re-open.

I confirm that is not true.

I visited the Cineworld Cinema at Hengrove Leisure Park on Monday 16 August and saw a film

"The Suicide Squad" in Screen 5. On the way there I drove past more housing being built alongAirport Road. The potential customer base for the leisure facilities is already growing. As thephotographs I took on the day show, despite two restaurant buildings being dis-used the car parkwas still full and the cinema is open, clean and well kept. To be honest it is in better condition thansome other cinemas in Bristol. I spoke to a member of staff who told me six screens were currentlyin operation but as the pandemic draws to a close and attendance improves, the plan was to openmore screens. Not close the place permanently.

A possible solution for the Hengrove Leisure Park could be a mixed use development ofresidential and leisure use. Done well this could be a new town centre for the wider area, a realdestination for the new and existing residents in the area. That would be out of the question if theapplication before you is approved.

Cineworld have a number of smaller multiplexes with six or so screens where that is moreappropriate. So, if in the long term they no longer need all 14 screens currently at Hengrove, theycould retain some of them, such as the screens along the back of the cinema building and thecentral entrance. One or both blocks either side of the entrance could then be converted intorestaurants or retail on the ground floor and flats above. That would be far more sustainable thanknocking the whole place down now, then someone having to find another site and build a newcinema from scratch at a later date, if at all.

If other tenants also want to stay on the site that should be accommodated and included in theplans. You could have a new pedestrianised boulevard of shops and restaurants with flats abovethem with the cinema at the end of it. The surface car parks could be replaced with a multi-storycar park, cycle parking and bus stops. Bus services currently terminate on the inhospitable laneoutside the bus depot on the other side of of Airport Road. If services terminated in the LeisurePark instead that would be safer for regular passengers and enable people from further afield toget to it without having to drive. Forcing people to travel (and in most cases that means drive) toleisure facilities elsewhere in the city is not sustainable.

For the real potential of this site to be considered this application must be rejected. Otherwisewhen the Hengrove Park development is completed nearby, those residents, and those alreadyliving in the area, will have no-where local to go. I might live in East Bristol but I think the residentsof South Bristol deserve better than to lose their leisure facilities, and their only cinema, just so adeveloper can make a few quid.

I will submit a similar statement to the DC on 22 September 2021

Mr Craig Snell  121 SWISS DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-07-27   OBJECT

South Bristol needs a cinema and there are plenty of other areas being built on. Leisureneeds to be supported not smashed down.

Mr Chris Gould  2 BANTOCK CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-07-08   OBJECT

I am vehemently opposed to the demolition of the park, which serves as a much-neededlocal community hub and source of entertainment for local residents. The cinema alone is the onlyone in reasonable travelling distance for many in the local area and the situation will only beexacerbated once the extortionate CAZ cuts Bristol in two and yet again disadvantages thoseSouth of the river.

Mrs Lyndsay Hill-Lawson  36 PAYBRIDGE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-06-27   OBJECT

There are already thousands of homes being built in the area we don't need anymore!!!There are no extra schools, doctors, amenities being built to accommodate the homes that aregoing up already. We need other leisure facilities like the cinema instead of more box like housesthat people cannot afford.

Miss Shane Dale  2 RUPERT ST REDFIELD BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

My partner lives near this park and we regularly go to the cinema here as after she hashad a long week at work as a support worker it's helpful for her relaxation and mental healthWe walk to the cinema to save using the car on the road which means then we are helping protectthe city.Taking away this leisure park is forcing people to have to spend lots on petrol, parking etc just tohave a chance to go watch a film which everyone should have access too.The area is massively lacking and this would just be another way of killing the area. You areforcing local kids in to more trouble as taking away options to go and enjoy a film along with olderpeople who can't go to bingo.

This is wrong

Mr Harry Perrett  76 SHERWELL ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

I object to the environmental impact on the local area as well as the destruction of amuch loved leisure area for local families. keep the cinema.

Mr John Lawson  36 PAYBRIDGE ROAD WITHYWOOD BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

The demolition of the cinema would be devastating for the local area. We have no otherleisure facilities anywhere near here. The closest cinema would involve driving into the centre oftown or all the way round the ring road. There are already hundreds of houses being built literallyover the road and another load already on another area by the leisure centre. The area cannotsupport another 350!! Where are the schools ? The pubs? The churches? Houses and morehouses is just not sustainable. Where will any of the kids in these new houses play? The airfield isalready being set up for houses so I strongly object to the whole area being turned into the ghettoof South Bristol.

Mrs Lisa Andrews   20 ASHWICKE WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

Stop taking our facilities away. There is nothing in this area

Mr Rhidian Evans  55 BIDEFORD CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

It's destroying our community

Mr Jeffrey Povey  3 HOLST GARDENS BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

I simply cannot understand why a well used facility is potentially going to be lost tohousing !

South Bristol is severely lacking in facilities as it is, if you take away this leisure park, there will beeven less amenities in the area !

Miss Hannah Ponsford   59 CANNONS GATE CLEVEDON  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

There are already 2 new housing estate being built a 5 minute walk from here, neither ofwhich are affordable housing that is needed.The leisure facilities are needed to improve the area for current residents and those moving intothese new complexes.

I travel to the area to use the cinema at least 3 times a week, also shopping and using the foodfacilities in the area each time which I would no longer do if the area was converted to residential.

Mrs Tracey Dennis  32 ELMTREE DRIVE WITHYWOOD BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

The Cineworld building should be left as it is, it is a place where familys can go which isaffordable to all. Many elderly and disbled people go here because it is close to home. Taking thisaway would affect them. Schools and other groups also visit the cinema. I know that if this is takenaway we will have even less to offer residents here in South Bristol. My family and most of myfriends would not be able to travel to another venue, due to cost and disability. . Tbere is enoughland without touching the Cinema. Even building a new building to the right would be goodbecause that area is unused and would link it to the restaurants and hotel. Dont take away theonly Cinema we have here.

Mr Jason Lloyd  38 HILLYFIELD ROAD HEADLEY PARK BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

Again more precious jobs to be lost in South Bristol and some very important localamenities.

Miss Emma Sewell  69 EXMOUTH ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

The area around the park is already being heavily developed, but it isn't balancing thiswith leisure and community facilities for the influx of people that the area will see once the housingis built. This area should be maintained for this purpose and expansion to bring in new businessesin should be encouraged. It's a prime out of town spot for a larger complex similar to that out atLongwell Green for those who don't want to travel into central Bristol.

Mr Adrian Wyatt  35 SHAW GARDENS HENGROVE BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

The idea of closing the leisure park and it's facilities is unbelievably short sighted and akick in the teeth for local people and those who need facilities for mental health and physical wellbeing.

The new houses on Airport Road already puts stress on local services. Have those proposing thistried to get a doctor's appointment. Is it part of the legal requirement to provide this.

South Bristol is so devoid of facilities as it is and public transport into town and the CAZ make thiseven more problematic especially in winter and for the more vulnerable.

Has there been a disability impact assessment?!

In addition if this is given over the housing where is the parking for using the already proposeddiminishing park on the old airport facility.

Those of us in this part of Bristol have already been stripped of resources enough while havingadditional housing forced upon us. I strongly object to this

Mrs Rita Taguercifi   103 TARNOCK AVE BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

The children NEED the play park and cinema. The play park is the biggest for miles andmost able to be used by a large age range of babies and children due to the wide variety of playequipment, its especially essential for local people that do not drive. It also enables parents tomeet in a covid safe outdoor area to boost mental wellbeing.Teens use the bike/scooter park (without things for them to do/places for them to go crime will rise.The surrounding areas do NOT have spaces in schools and GP surgeries to accommodate newresidents ESPECIALLY in the special needs schools which are extremely over subscribed. Thecinema is also one of the very few who screen foreign films for the Asian, Polish and Russiancommunities.Dog owners use the green area along with joggers. There isn't a section of society that doesn'tbenefit from this area. It needs to stay!

Mrs Norma Bullock  6 BRACTON DRIVE WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

We have no other sports facilities like the hengrove leisure centre in the area for allages I cannot believe that the council would r en think of demolishing it for more housing! Thegovernment talk about getting everyone to exercise and now I hear you want to demolish afantastic LeisureCentre I'm absolutely appalled

Mr Chris Gleed  11 GLADSTONE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

South Bristol needs recreational facilities more than houses. Fees like Bristol citycouncil is hell bent on building houses in every possible space. South Bristol requires furtherinvestment to boost the area rather than allowing it to become so densely populated.

Mrs Penny Buckland   6 BRACTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-06-26   OBJECT

My child and myself use this gym on a daily basis and I totally object to having thisdemolished and built on, I really would wish you would stop building new homes on every bit ofland available or not available as so to speak!This gym is widely used by adults, children, schools and swim clubs, physio this is just totallyunacceptable.Think about the on going obesity problems the NHS have to continually fund if places like theseare to be forced to shut.Gyms like these help Mental and physical conditions for the local and wider community'sThis application is absolutely ludicrous.

Mr David Rowsell  60 MAYNARD ROAD HARTCLIFFE BRISTOL  on 2021-06-25   OBJECT

We do not need more housing.

Hengrove leisure park has provided many jobs over the last 20 years giving people stable workthe site may only currently employ 50-100 people but these business provide great first time jobsthat people not only learn how to be an adult in but learn what work is all about in a safe securefun way. The proposal will remove jobs from the area. New housing will only be temporary work.

South Bristol is already lacking leisure activities removing the Cinema and Bingo will bedetrimental to those that depend on them for social interactions and social health.

We need bigger better schools, Doctor's surgery's and Dentists the current infrastructure is notenough and with all the proposals going on in the area this isn't being done fast enough.

The Hengrove mounds are protected due to a species of crested newt and wildflowers buildinghere will increase footfall on the mounds damaging their eco-system and killing them off.

We need to keep our leisure! We need investment in the site not repurposing, its Leisure for areason!

Mrs Leanne Hall  42 IMPERIAL ROAD KNOWLE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-20   OBJECT

Car parking on this site provides vital access to nature and the play park. Bus is just notviable for many people- I regularly take 3 under 5s and a dog here and could not manage themthat way. The buses crossing south Bristol are infrequent and slow. There are very few large parksin this area so people do need to travel. Nearby are areas of high childhood obesity anddeprivation so easy access to play is vital. By taking away parking you deny access to nature,exercise and play for hundreds of people. Please consider allowing some public car parking forthis reason.

Mrs Kelly Parsons  12 LIME STREET HENGROVE BRISTOL  on 2021-04-12   OBJECT

I object to the proposed plans for the following reasons;1) There is already a considerable amount of houses that have been built or is being built in thearea. One major development will be taking away our much loved and well used airport playingfields. I purchased one of the new builds in Urban Quarter to be close to this field as regularly useit as a running track, to walk the dogs and for the kids to have a run around. I was devastated todiscover the plans to build houses on this land.2) There isn't many amenities in the area for our children/families as it is yet you want to get rid ofthe cinema. This was ideal for those that do not drive and could walk there. The next closest oneis probably avonmeads.3) Extra strain on doctors surgeries and schools. With the amount of houses planned, no one hasconsidered where we will educate all of those extra children let alone the difficulties we face tryingto get a doctors appointment now.

I agree that something needs to be done with the site as there is a lot of unused space, however Ifeel there are better things to build than houses, we do not need more houses. One of the things Ihave noticed we could benefit from is a small convenience store, like a Tesco express,somewhere that the kier development and the future airfield development would benefit from oreven those that are visiting hengrove park with the children and want to grab a bite to eat thatwon't cost the earth and is a little healthier than the fast food options.The closest shop if you need to grab some bread/milk is either belland drive or 24hr garage, oneof which involves crossing a dangerous busy main road and the other would be too far for an

elderly or disabled person to walk.

Mrs T Withey  9 COULSONS ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-04-11   OBJECT

I oppose the planning application of the demolition of the cinema. Bingo restaurants inthis area.. we already have hundreds of home built all around Whitchurch, hengrove, Knowle..Why do we need more houses when we haven't got the schools doctors to accommodate theresidents that will reside in these properties.. the local schools and doctors already struggle tocope with the amount of residents..Why do the council think that people do not need places to watch a movie play bingo are go to arestaurant for a meal.. a place for teenagers to go to get together.. why do they think that peopledon't like open spaces to walk for exercise.. the football teams and rugby teams have alreadybeen pushed out of Area.. these facilities provide entertainment and leisure time in walkingdistance for my local residents in the surrounding area.. why do the council just want to buildhouses but don't want to provide places for people to socialise and have space..

Mr Brian Giles  33 STONEBERRY ROAD WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-03-25   OBJECT

I am objecting to this development of the demolition of pleasure facilities for yet morehousing. Not only are you taking away places to go especially for the elderly but also the youngergeneration and families who with even more housing will create more people in the area which willwithout nothing to do will create more crime.We already lack Doctors surgery's etc.We already lack Police Stations and offices on the beat so where does this logic lie?

    on 2021-03-24   SUPPORT

Mr Philip Taylor  175 EASTDUNDRY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-03-22   OBJECT

There is very little social venues in South Bristol and if these are built on you are notproviding sustainable venues for the locality in line with planning for community

Mr Mike Parker  51 COULSONS ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-03-20   OBJECT

You are joking more house,s on hengove park we need more green space forrecreational purposes not house,s &roads , you're already trying to build thousand,s of house's onthe old airport , why not a youth center , NOT MORE HOUSE'S.

Miss Patricia Adams  20 BUTTON CLOSE WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-03-17   SUPPORT

I object to proposed planning for Housing at Hengrove leisure Park has there issubstantial housing developments in the area already and we need leisure facilities such has theCinema and Bingo Hall has there is very little leisure opportunities in the area already and localpeople would lose there jobs, Housing is being done on Hengrove Park already and taking awayValuable Parks and green space for local community and the impact on the environment re noiseand pollution and pressure on resources in the area re Drs.ThankyouPatricia Adams

Mrs Lesley Clark  20 VALENTINE CLOSE WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-03-16   OBJECT

There has been a substantial loss of green space in this local area with the building ofmany unaffordable houses. If this is going to continue then there must be areas of leisure facilitiesthat this site already has ie, the park, bingo hall and the cinema (which I have used constantly overthe many years of living here) and eateries. If you are to increase the amount of people living inthe area you have to see that there are the amenities to cope with this increase with Drs surgery'sand adequate schools. It is not good that we continue to lose our walkable parks and play areas. Isuppose the problem is that everything in Bristol seems to revolves about money and the views ofthe people who live in the area are always ignored.

Mrs Lesley Clark  20 VALENTINE CLOSE WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-03-16   OBJECT

There has been a substantial loss of green space in this local area with the building ofmany unaffordable houses. If this is going to continue then there must be areas of leisure facilitiesthat this site already has ie, the park, bingo hall and the cinema (which I have used constantly overthe many years of living here) and eateries. If you are to increase the amount of people living inthe area you have to see that there are the amenities to cope with this increase with Drs surgery'sand adequate schools. It is not good that we continue to lose our walkable parks and play areas. Isuppose the problem is that everything in Bristol seems to revolves about money and the views ofthe people who live in the area are always ignored.

Dr Sam Royston  13 CRANWELL GROVE BRISTOL  on 2021-03-03   OBJECT

Ref: Public comment to planning application 21/00531/P

Dear Case Officer,I am writing to raise my concerns with the proposed outline planning application 21/00531/P.Whilst my residence is not located within the official 'neighbour notification list' I use and traversethe site regularly and feel there are a number of opportunities that have not been taken in theproposed development.A primary concern is the loss of leisure facilities and with it employment, and open, public realm toprivate, residential properties. It feels disingenuous for the Design and Access Statement todescribe the existing facilities as "disused" when the cinema and bingo hall (and hotel and pub)sites were operational prior to the coronavirus pandemic and subsequent Government-mandatedclosures. The cumulative impact on local job availability with the recent conversion of Parklandand development of other sites is inappropriate and there should be some provision ofreplacement employment opportunities (Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BCS8).With the cumulative impact of on-going building works at Christopher Brain Street (17/03943/F)and Jessop Park (18/02055/P) and the outline planning consent for over 1,400 new properties atHengrove Park (19/02632/PB), there needs to be due consideration in the cumulative of provisionof and access to employment, medical, educational, retail and leisure facilities and infrastructure,and of public transport and green transport options to places of work (Bristol DevelopmentFramework Core Strategy Policies BCS10, BCS11). Meanwhile with these developments, outdoorpublic realm will be substantially decreased with potential impact to local residents' access to

recreation and wellbeing.The removal of established habitat and interruption of green linkages between sites ofconservation and leisure value is also of concern. The removal of several hundred mature treesfrom the site is in direct opposition to the Council's adoption of the Mayor's Climate EmergencyAction Plan where the City Council pledged to "make the city of Bristol carbon neutral by 2030"and the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy BCS13, where development should aim tomitigate climate change and reduce carbon emissions. The Hengrove and Whitchurch ParkNeighbourhood Plan (HWP5) indicates the Hengrove Mound SNCI has special designation as a"quiet wild area" with recreational and ecological value. Bristol Development Framework CoreStrategy BCS22 requires development to be sited in such a way it does not impact biodiversity - inparticular I am concerned that residential built development up to 3 storeys in height adjacent tothe Mounds will contribute to noise, light and pollution disturbance to the SCNI. Also the BristolDevelopment Framework Core Strategy BSC9 requires "Where development would have animpact on the Bristol Wildlife Network it should ensure that the integrity of the network ismaintained or strengthened." I do consider the retention of the main pathway through the centre ofthe site from the play area and one perpendicular path from the pub to the Mounds as sufficientlypermeable or attractive to wildlife and recreational users to meet the requirements of the localplans. The cumulative disturbance of habitat during the development and inevitable wait, up to 20years, for tree and habitat maturity from the multiple sites being developed will lead to the isolationof the Hengrove Mounds SNCI and the potential local extinction of key species like bats andbadgers who rely on mature tress and undisturbed corridors. The development must endeavour tolink wider Wildlife and Recreational Corridors (Hengrove and Whitchurch Park NeighbourhoodPlan HWP2).There are other opportunities in developing the site that also seem to have been overlooked, suchas enhancing the children's play area, including Public Art, Creative Industry and HeritagePromotion, and, providing allotments (Hengrove and Whitchurch Park Neighbourhood Plan HWP1,HWP2, HWP3, HWP7).

Yours Faithfully,Sam Royston13 Cranwell Grove BS14 9QR

Mr Haydn Gill  1 DE LA WARRE COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-03-03  

Page 68 of the DAS states that the green spine will be a "hoggin" which is loose gravelin order to slow down people on bikes. This surface will end up as a muddy puddle during wetweather, preventing anyone from using the path. I'd suggest that a bound material such as asphaltor resin is used. If people on bikes are a concern, they should be sufficiently segregated frompedestrians, as a shared use path is not ideal for both pedestrians and people on bikes. I am alsonot a fan of the "wiggle" on the path, as this increases distances required to walk through the siteunnecessarily and will lead to poor visibility along the spine. Where the green spine crosses theprimary road, there should be priority for those walking and on bikes, so a parallel zebra crossingshould be used.

Mr Haydn Gill  1 DE LA WARRE COURT ST. ANNES PARK BRISTOL  on 2021-03-03  

Page 68 of the DAS states that the green spine will be a "hoggin" which is loose gravelin order to slow down people on bikes. This surface will end up as a muddy puddle during wetweather, preventing anyone from using the path. I'd suggest that a bound material such as asphaltor resin is used. If people on bikes are a concern, they should be sufficiently segregated frompedestrians, as a shared use path is not ideal for both pedestrians and people on bikes. I am alsonot a fan of the "wiggle" on the path, as this increases distances required to walk through the siteunnecessarily and will lead to poor visibility along the spine. Where the green spine crosses theprimary road, there should be priority for those walking and on bikes, so a parallel zebra crossingshould be used.

Ms Michele Tedder  20 MAXSE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-03-02   OBJECT

InfrastructureThe site was originally developed as infrastructure to support housing.A huge amount of housing development is happening in South Bristol - in this vicinity alonedevelopment is happening at Filwood Park, Airport Road, Hengrove Park. Hartcliffe Campus toname but a few.Whilst affordable houisng is needed, I believe there is a strong case for retaining localinfrastructure, alongside housing, supporting and investing in the existing "infrastructure" in orderto contribute to sustainable communities rather than losing it.Designing out local leisure facilities and amenities is contrary to the principle of sustainability. Asingle new coffee shop does not seem to be the answer.The absence of leisure facilities and amenities in this part of South Bristol, to serve a a rapidlygrowing population, will most likely result in more car journeys across the city at a time whenBristol is trying to reduce emissions. Alternatives are more than 3 miles away and public transportoptions are not sufficiently advanced to meet these needs.

Zero CarbonThe planning statement refers to: "The proposed development will deliver a biodiversity net gainand meet the Council's objectives in terms of energy reducing residual emissions by 20% throughrenewable technology sources" ...I feel that further assurances are needed relating to how this proposal will contribute to the 2030

Zero Carbon target.

Tracy Edwards-Brown  COMMENT   on 2021-02-18   OBJECT

I would like to raise my concerns regarding the planning application submitted for Hengrove Leisure Park (application 21/00531/P) and request for it to be rejected.

The initial development of the site was part of Hartcliffe and Withywood's Community Regeneration Plan. The aim of developing the site was to include provisions such as a cinema, the hospital and college that back in the 50's was never established. This proposed development will take away a provision that has been long overdue and employs local people. I understand the concerns expressed by the owners of the site and of the businesses there, but the situation we find ourselves in regarding COVID will change and the wider community, who have supported the businesses over a number of years, will return.

The proposed development will be taking away the provision for local employment in the area. It will also be demolishing the only blockbuster cinema provider in South Bristol. The development has the potential to increase the amount of traffic using adjacent streets and the carriage way. The air quality will have an impact on those residing in the houses once built. Public realm will be limited and mentioning the mounds and woods as potential public spaces isn't enough for an area that will potentially have 2 large housing developments. Both sites have continuous use by residents who reside outside the immediate area.

There is a need for affordable and accessible housing in the area but not at the detriment of loosing leisure facilities in the South of Bristol that have been long over due, valued and supported.

Ms Angeline Ryemill   21 CRAYDON WALK BRISTOL  on 2021-02-17   OBJECT

There are not many centres like this left in Bristol people enjoy the open space andparking. Also the loss of the buzz bingo hall will affect a lot of people who do not see anyone apartfrom when they visit to play. There will be a lot of job losses too which this area cannot afford

Mrs Karen Watts  15 CHILTERN CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-02-17   OBJECT

More people will be driving to town causing more congestion,traffic and pollution as thiswill make limited leisure activities in this area. People won't be able to park there as the parkingspace is being greatly reduced so people will go there less for that reason.People will lose jobsand this plan does nothing to promote jobs in an already deprived area.Other leisure parks arethriving in other areas so more could be invested to improve Hengrove Park. There are alreadygigantic housing developments in South Bristol being done,people need local leisureactivities,local jobs and ample parking which all will be destroyed by such a plan.

Miss Kelly Webster   18 ROWACRES ST GILES ESTATE BRISTOL  on 2021-02-17   OBJECT

We have had no official letter from Council. Why have they not gone out to all localresidents that this will have an impact on.

The figures for the housing submitted will they be deducted from the hengrove Park plans.

All the developments being made in this area and what amenities are being made for the area,housing will be doubled if not tripled in the next few years.

Mrs Michelle Clegg  40 ST WHYTES RD KNOWLE BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

This area of South Bristol does not need more housing. We have lost Filwood Park to ahousing development. All the grass along Airport Road, being ripped apart for housing. HengrovePark soon to become housing.

With all this extra housing it stands to reason more leisure facilities will be needed to serve boththe existing residents of Knowle, Knowle West, Whitchurch, Hengrove and Hartcliffe - all of whichhave had major housing developments forced upon them in recent months bringing thousands ofnew residents.

As well as recreational facilities - more needs to be done to tackle the infrastructure of said areas.These areas are already lacking in decent amenities, schools, health care, green space, leisurefacilities and jobs.

More needs to be done to retain and invest further into leisure facilities, to create employment andprovide for the residents of these areas as the population is rising.

There is enough housing now in this already overstretched area - it's time to look beyond moneymaking and think about the quality of lives of those that reside there. We need recreationalactivities, leisure facilities, places to eat, play and socialise - not another cheap looking, poorlybuilt, run down housing estate.

Miss Gail Oaten  12 LANGHILL AVENUE INNS COURT KNOWLE  on 2021-02-16   SUPPORT

The children of Knowle enjoy going to Hengrove Park it's beautiful for children to play inyour taking ever bit of ground for housing it's asham to take something that children enjoy

Mrs Elizabeth Milkins  4 MORETON CLOSE WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

There is far to much traffic this side of town without more house being built , this areacannot cope with this amount of volume of houses and more people with the small about ofdoctors , schools , shops etc !! we have had enough of you taking all our green space and shop !Go and built else where !!!!!!!

Mrs Sarah Flower  3 GARAMOND COURT SOMERSET STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

I object to this application on the following grounds:

Noise and traffic - will be greatly increased in the area which will have a negative impact on thequality of life for local residents.

Tourism will also be affected as it stands at the moments local residents and residents from furtherafield in Bristol enjoy a night out to the restaurants, Buzz Bingo and Cineworld. If these premiseswere to be removed then there would be no other options available to people in South Bristol toenjoy a night or day out.

I also have concerns to local residents on the building of new accommodation as has it stands atthe moment places are very limited for schools and doctors surgeries.

Parking may also be a concern as this would be reduced for parents and carers visiting HengroveLeisure Park.

Mrs Emma Dunn  9 RAYMILL BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

Object.

Mrs Heather Aldred  2 WANSDYKE COURT WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

Don't take away any more from us.Invest in buildings we already have.

Mrs Kate Ince  158 GREAT HAYLES ROAD WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

I understand the need for more homes.However, it seems the whole of this area is becoming a giant housing estate. There will be nogreen space left, no real facilities to cope with the influx of people. Are we to get extra doctorssurgery's and police? We all need space to live and breath and this development is a hugedestruction of more open spaces. All along the Airport Road there are houses being built.Has anyone actually been up here to see what an asset this green space is to us? We have nohuge parks here. The play park that is here isn't that big. We need to have places to go forentertainment. We'd have to go to Bedminster for swimming and into town for the cinema. Moretraffic on the roads, more pollution. Please reconsider and think about the people who will have tolive here.

Miss Sarah Hayward   16 LISBURN ROAD KNOWLE BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

There is hardly any green space left for are children as is it and you want to take awaythe main one in south Bristol it's good making new homes but not at the expense of our childrenand future children

Mr Thomas Pearce  108 CHURCH ROAD BISHOPSWORTH BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

I object to this planning proposal as the leaseholders have not properly consulted orworked with the local community.There are no local facilities for entertainment in the area. Covid19 is temporary, but the lack ofinvestment in the area is not.Transport links are poor (this is something we are trying to improve in the area) but the councilhousing project in Hengrove will already put it under strain.The few jobs in the area mean that a lot of commuting would be required- is this acknowledged inthe the bid?

Mrs Paula Clatworthy   71 ALLERTON CRESCENT WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

So more houses to be built what about us pensioners who,like to have a bit of asocial,life what happens if they pull the cinema down, Bingo etc what have we got in south bristolnothing whatsoever don't these planning officers think about anything but making money moneymoney totally disgraceful, please re think on this idea and have a bit of compassion for those of acertain age who arnt quite ready for the scrap,heap

Mrs Joanna Barrington   36 CUTLER ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

We need more parks and open spaces rather than less. Build on brown land there isenough about in Bristol. We have enough unused business units that aren't used. Use that land.Leave the old airfield alone.

Ms Annemarie Ince  103 BAMFIELD WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

With the 1000+ homes already planned for the airfield the hengrove site would be bestused as a social space or even best used as infrastructure site/well needed community space.

Mr Ben Anthony  1 PEMBROKE RD. SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

There is massive amounts of housing being built in the area and scarce services to cope with thatamount of new families living in the community. Covid has hit the pocket of those renting privatelyand first time buyers so unless these new proposed houses are council housing then they are notaffordable to enough people to make them desirable. The land should be used for recreation inwhatever means necessary, Children should be able to play outdoors in a safe environment andtheir families need to socialise just as much. The proposal is not about liveable neighbourhoodsand developing the area in a progressive way. We need mixed, balanced communities and notconcrete jungles. The proposal is very poor and not dynamic. Please consider all the people livingnear by the area. There is a desperate need for more recreation facilities particularly for youngpeople. This proposal will not enhance the area but will make a profit for the developers. Thanksfor reading .

Mrs Laura Jones  86 GREAT HAYLES ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

Yes this area needs some attention but more housing is not the answer.The local community and wider area NEED leisure facilities and restaurants. We don't alwayswant to travel miles to get to the cinema or have to go to Cabot circus for a meal.This area with good facilities will bring investments and jobs to an already struggling part of thecity......please let's not become forgotten....

Miss Stephanie Evans  15 EASTNOR ROAD WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-02-16   OBJECT

There won't be enough local amenities for residents if these dwellings are built. It wouldbe best to redevelop the area and encourage more leisure facilities such as restaurants, gyms etcfor the residents of south Bristol.

Mr lee Starr-Elliott  28 ASHWICKE BRISTOL  on 2021-02-15   OBJECT

I object to this planning proposal as the leaseholders have not properly consulted orworked with the local community who have vocally objected to plans for more housing on top ofthe 1400 we have being built on the old airfield in an already over subscribed area of building! Wehave literally no local facilities for entertainment and the fact that the leaseholders havnt investedany money into the area and are using the financial situation of Covid19 and tennents leaving thesite to push through housing is a disgrace! We have very little local jobs and our transportinfrastructure is struggling as it is with the existing plans with Hengrove airport!The leaseholders have made their arguments to a small group of people yet havnt listened orlooked at the surrounding areas of knowle west fillwood hartcliffe all of which are growing and thenthe proposed plans around Bristol south's boarders by BANEs and N,Somerset For large scalebuilds which would impact on bristol and the need to provide social and leisure outlets. Thisproposed plan is shortsighted and if the leaseholders cannot support what local people want thenthey should forfeit their lease and allow the city and its people develop it for the communities notprofit!

Mrs Angela Cornick  43 VALENTINE CLOSE WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-02-15   OBJECT

Can you confirm adequate provision is included for access to police officers, education,access to Dr's and hospitals? There is a large amount of building happening within this local areabut other services do not appear to have been considered or provided for in these plans. Where isemployment coming from to support new residents to the area? It's not enough any longer to justbe building houses in this area. Can I have a breakdown on what "affordable housing" looks like inthis site? What are proposed selling or rental costs? What sized homes will be set aside for theaffordable quota?

Mrs Debbie Trotman  2 WHARNECLIFFE GARDENS WHITCHURCH BRISTOL  on 2021-02-15   OBJECT

The ongoing changes to the face of Whitchurch, Hengrove, Hartcliffe and even Knowleare showing an already agreed massive development of homes on sites adjacent to this leisurefacility. The impact of the loss of a cinema, bingo hall and potential for further leisure development- a bowling alley would be ideal for this - means that you are creating a whole new community withno where to go and nothing to do. Infrastructure is vital for the success of any area and whatneeds to happen is for this area to be supported and invested in for the purpose it was intended. Itis not enough to simply build and build again. Please protect the future of South Bristol byensuring it has facilities to serve its residents. We have accepted every development withunderstandable reluctance. The gym and hospital meant loss of extensive parts of our playingfields. Enough is enough. This land is for commercial use - allow us the opportunity to enjoy thisspace. Invest in it. Build the bowling alley.As a resident, parent and teacher of the local area I am all too aware of the need for affordableleisure that can be reached within walking distance.

Miss Rachel Patrick   62 HITHER BATH BRIDGE BRISTOL  on 2021-02-15   OBJECT

There are already plans for housing on the old airport with no thought to how the currentinfrastructure of schools, Drs, shops and roads will take the increase in population. There is littlegreen space in this area at present and not a lot to do socially. Removing this park with thecinema, restaurants, bingo and such will just ensure that there is even less to do and will lead tomore anti social behaviour.. Houses are also being built along Airport Road so why do we needmore??

Mrs Lisa Stannard  4 BEECHMOUNT GROVE BRISTOL  on 2021-02-15   OBJECT

Too much housing, too much traffic, not enough schools/doctors/secondary schools!

Miss Tracy Ross  9 SANDBURROWS WALK HIGHRIDGE BRISTOL  on 2021-02-15   OBJECT

This park is a great area for kids to play for all ages clean & tidy with eating areas nearby it needs to stay open for somewhere for kids to go

Ms Kerry Bailes  37 BORVER GROVE HARTCLIFFE, BRISTOL, BRISTOL BRISTOL  on 2021-02-15   OBJECT

There are already massive amounts of housing being built in the area and no amenitiesto cope with that amount of new families living in the community. Covid has hit the pocket of thoserenting privately and first time buyers so unless these new proposed houses are council housingthen they are not affordable to enough people to make them desirable. The land should be usedfor recreation in whatever means necessary, Children should be able to play outdoors in a safeenvironment and their families need to socialise just as much. Mental health issues are on the riseand unaffordable and undesirable housing alone will not solve it. Youth provision is so desperatelyneeded in South Bristol and especially the wards surrounding this site, give the next generationsomething to look forward to, a space they can call their own. We need mixed, balancedcommunities and not concrete jungles.

Miss Claire Coleman   109 TARNOCK AVENUE BRISTOL  on 2021-02-15   OBJECT

Enough is enough now our area can't take anymore loss of public amenities and publicspace. We are going to be literally trapped in our homes surrounded by housing developmentsand the only thing I can see being is given to the area is a double sized new school. We aresaturated with building of houses already in this area and we have gad enough.