Application Details

Reference 21/03166/P
Address Land West Of Silbury Road Bristol  
Street View
Proposal Application for Outline Planning Permission With Some Matters Reserved - for phased residential-led development including affordable homes and commercial/community floorspace (Use Classes E and F.2), amenity green spaces; natural and semi natural greenspace; provision of associated infrastructure including footpaths/cycleways and new vehicular and emergency accesses; and provision of associated engineering and landscaping work including SUDs. Approval sought for access with all other matter reserved.
Validated 11-06-21
Type Outline Planning
Status Pending consideration
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 29-07-21
Standard Consultation Expiry 01-09-21
Determination Deadline 10-09-21
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 5 Objectors: 160  Unstated: 2  Total: 167
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

Public Comments

  SUTHERLAND PROPERTY & LEGAL SERVICES LTD   on 2021-10-18   OBJECT

PA

ETM’s site is within the Ashton Gate/ Cala Industrial site which is a Principal Industrial and Warehousing Area, as set out in the Development Management Polices (DMP). As such, it is clearly given significant weight as an employment and commercial area. As set out in 2.13.1 and 2.13.2 of the DMP it is clear that the LPA’s decisions and policies need to support the ‘’location, promotion and expansion’’ of these areas. Bristol Local Policy is unambiguous in protecting important employment and commercial areas, with policy being restrictive to the loss of any floor space (DM17). Policy BCS8 of the Local Plan also recognises the restrained and limited nature of employment land in the city centre:

‘’4.8.17 Retaining valuable employment land is an important part of the council’s strategy. It helps to maintain the city’s diverse economic base by ensuring a wide variety of business spaces of different types, sizes, quality and cost. The built-up nature of the city means that it is very difficult to physically replace employment sites which are re-developed for alternative uses. Employment land provides continued enterprise and employment opportunities across the city, especially for business start-ups and in those parts of Bristol experiencing persistently high levels of socio-economic deprivation. The approach can help to provide employment close to where people live and so helps reduce the need to travel, especially by car. The city’s Principal Industrial and Warehousing Areas represent Bristol’s essential core provision of industrial and warehousing land. Retaining these strategically important areas will help the city meet the latent and future demand for industrial and warehousing development.’’

(Our emphasis added)

As such any application that may impact on the operation of the industrial site must robustly demonstrate that it can introduce suitable mitigation.

Agent of Change

The agent of change principle is established in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF 2012, set out at paragraph 123 the requirement for planning polices and decisions to:

‘recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established;’

The Housing White Paper ‘Fixing our broken housing market’ (February 2017) recognised the importance new development could have on existing business and provided specific mention to it. It is notable that the White Paper looked to incorporate not just noise but other impacts of the new development. The relevant section of the White Paper is included below:

‘’Noise and other impacts on new developments

A.140 The National Planning Policy Framework, supported by planning guidance, already incorporates elements of the ‘agent of change’ principle (this provides that the person or business responsible for the change should be responsible for managing the

PA

impact of that change) in relation to noise, by being clear that existing businesses wanting to grow should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established.

A.141 We propose to amend the Framework to emphasise that planning policies and decisions should take account of existing businesses and other organisations, such as churches, community pubs, music venues and sports clubs, when locating new development nearby and, where necessary, to mitigate the impact of noise and other potential nuisances arising from existing development. This will help mitigate the risk of restrictions or possible closure of existing businesses and other organisations due to noise and other complaints from occupiers of new developments.’’

This has led to the latest iteration of the NPPF (2021) with the inclusion, at paragraph 187 of the following:

Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect ofnew development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.

The main application of paragraph 187 has thus far been that of noise mitigation and the impact an existing ‘noisy’ business may have on a newly permitted development which may in turn object to being situated next to a ‘noisy’ business and curtail its operation. There are two recent High Court Decisions which hold particular relevance, these being:

• Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

• Ornua Ingredients Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2018] EWHC 2239 (Admin) (22 August 2018)

(attached as appendix I and II respectively)

In both cases it was the failure of the decision maker to consider relevant material considerations that led to the quashing of the decision.

Such an approach has had a bearing with Inspectors, with the two notable appeals being recently dismissed

• 3217413 -18-20 Albion Court, Frederick Street, Birmingham B1 3HE • 3234440 - Land to South of Walker Road, Formerly Saint Peters Scrap Yard

(attached as appendix III and IV respectively)

With regard to the Albion Court appeal the paragraph of note is that of 22:

PA

‘‘I conclude that the appeal proposal would not suitably address the effect of noise from nearby commercial premises on the future occupiers of the proposed development. It would conflict with the relevant requirements of the Framework which seeks to ensure that new development can be effectively integrated with existing businesses and community facilities; that where the operation of an existing business would have a significant effect on new development nearby, suitable noise mitigation is provided as part of the development; and that new development provides a high standard of amenity for future occupiers.’’

In this regard the Inspector has identified that the proposal would conflict with the NPPF in integrating the new development with the existing businesses.

Land to South of Walker Road is a useful inclusion as it shows the same rigorous application of NPPF 187 but in this instance the ‘effect’ is that of odour. At paragraph 18 the Inspector draws together their findings:

‘’Drawing all these matters together, I cannot rule out the possibility that future occupiers of the development could be exposed to harmful odour effects from the BWTTS. There is also a realistic prospect that the proposal could lead to further odour-related complaints against the BWTTS. This could result in further costly measures and restrictions being placed on its operations. Not only would this disadvantage an existing business, but it could also unacceptably prejudice the Council’s essential waste management and recycling infrastructure and services. In these circumstances, I consider that a precautionary approach is a necessity.’’

It is the assertion of this submission that application 21/03166/F is the ‘agent of change’ (as referred to and defined in planning policy at a national level) and that the introduction of 510 houses adjacent to ETM will have a deleterious impact on the operation of our ETM’s business. Further it is asserted that the modelling undertaken is not only unsatisfactory with regards to the immediate impact on the operation of ETM’s business, it also fails to give due consideration to any change in operation that may occur (change that could occur either with or without planning permission).

Importance of ETM Site

ETM is a significant local employee that manages the recycling of a large proportion of the regions (including Bristol’s) waste. ETM obtained consent for and has recently implemented a £5m investment in their site to increase throughput to meet the increased recycling needs of the City and are again looking to increase the throughput because of an ever-increasing demand.

The following sets out the importance of ETM to waste management and recycling in Bristol and the wider region.

West of England

• WEST OF ENGLAND CONTRACT STARTED APRIL 2020 – IT IS A TEN YEAR CONTRACT.

PA

• There is no other plant in the region that can handle bulky waste tonnage, the only other alternative for these waste streams is landfill. It cannot be sent as waste to energy as it is not suitable waste for burning.

TONNAGES TO DATE (UP TO 31.05.21):

LOCAL AUTHORITY TONNAGE DIVERTED FROM LANDFILL

COST SAVING

BANES 3965.78 £ 46,280.65 NSC 5140.18 £ 59,985.90 BCC 13666.58 £ 159,488.99 SGC 14795.12 £ 172,659.05 37567.66 £ 438,414.59

The above is based on:

Landfill tip price - £122.50 p/t West of England Tipping @ ETM - £108.77 p/t

In addition to the mixed waste tonnage above ETM segregate all the mattresses from the West of England and process on site. ETM are the only company in the region who can process this volume of mattresses and divert from landfill (closest other company known is Hereford).

Mattresses to Date Diverted from landfill from the west of England – 36,810 units

Over the life of the contracted it is estimated ETM will divert over half a million tonnes away from landfill from the West of England.

Bristol City Council - Highways Contract & Emergency Response Contract

All waste from the BCC Highways contract is processed through the ETM plant, achieving zero waste to landfill.

All hardcore, aggregates are processed on site and used back on the highways work within Bristol. This is closed loop recycling circa 2000 tonnes

Sustainable innovations we are working on with BCC:

- Plastic in to tarmac – divert from landfill, back in to the roads of Bristol, closed loop recycling

- Rubber crumb – shredded tyres being processed in to tarmac to be laid in Bristol

Waste produced in Bristol being used in Bristol

Wider ETM Tonnages:

Last 12 months (01.05.2020 – 31.05.2021)

PA

Diverted – 99,045 tonnes from landfill Mattresses Diverted from Landfill – 76,218 units

Other Local Waste Contracts using the facility:

University of Bristol

University of the West of England

University of Bath

Bath & North East Somerset – plasterboard

Bristol City Council – plasterboard, aggregates, inert, skips and roro’s

ETM Site in the Future

This application is looking to secure the site so it can continue to meet the growing demands of waste and recycling in Bristol and the wider region. There is a climate emergency (as declared by Bristol City Council in November 2018) and Bristol City Council have looked to meet this challenge via a number of ambitious targets and initiatives.

The One City Climate Strategy (February 2020) sets out a number of these approaches and includes delivery theme 5 and objective iv, both of these centre around recycling; with an ambition to reach a recycling rate of 65% by 2030.

ETM are a pivotal partner in achieving these recycling rates. As can be seen by the above, thousands of tonnes of recycling are diverted from landfill each year because of this facility, there is no other facility like it that is conveniently accessible in the Southwest Region.

West of England Waste Partnership

The current waste contract with the West of England Waste Partnership is for 45,500 tonnes per annum. Based on current demand is expected that further capacity will be required in 2022. If ETM cannot create further capacity, then there is a high probability this waste will go to landfill. Based on current contract price every 10,000 tonnes of additional waste that the partnership send to landfill will cost £137,300 (plus it will mean the waste is not recycled, impacting on the One City Climate Strategy). Based on the current tonnage percentage split Bristol City Council account for 36.4% of the waste generated so of £137,300 Bristol City Council would see a fee increase of £49,977.20

Bristol has a large requirement for housing growth (as does the wider area West of England Partnership Area) all of the additional waste generated by these households (and sent to a Household Refuse and Recycling Centre) will also require processing if it is to avoid being sent straight to landfill. With this in mind Bristol has recently (March 2020) approved plans for the Household Reuse and Recycling Centre (HRRC) at Hartcliffe Way in South Bristol (19/05204/F). When this centre it operational items that have not yet been separated (including bulky items and items that have a number of materials in them) will requiring processing, ETM believe they are the only facility within the region capable of processing this waste.

Having reviewed the submission documents and officer’s report for the Hartcliffe application it does not appear it has been documented how the facility intends to process waste which is not immediately recyclable. In viewing the plans, it is clear that there will be no onsite processing of this waste.

PA

It is worth noting the delegated report conclusion for 19/05204/F, with the following stated:

“However, it is also established that there is a recognised need for a new HRRC on Council owned land to serve this specific catchment area and futureproof this part of the city when additional large residential sites are developed (such as Hengrove Park). It is also recognised that Capital funding has been identified for such a facility.”

The Council have recognised the need and requirement for the facility to match the continued growth of the city, it is to keep up with this growth that the application before you has been submitted. Without an increase in capacity the Harcliffe HRRC will struggle to process waste and meet recycling targets.

Additional Growth

It is not just the West of England Waste Partnership that will see continued demands placed on the site. Within the last 12 months the site has seen a 22% increase in fleet sales across the recycling company; this includes, skip hire, roll on roll off hire, bin lorry. ETM bring this waste to their plant for processing and recycling. Other hire companies cannot offer this service which means this waste often ends up in landfill. This type of hiring is vital for the construction industry in Bristol, house renovation, clearance and building projects all create waste that can be recycled but this recycling requires the correct type of machinery.

The increase in tonnage will not only see an increase in waste diverted from landfill but will also help in the creation of more local jobs. ETM itself has forecast it will double the number of people currently employed if this expansion is permitted.

Summary of ETM Site

ETM is an important cog in waste management in the Bristol (and wider) region saving the Council money through its diversion of waste from landfill. ETM has invested heavily in state-of-the-art equipment that has already helped divert large quantities of waste from landfill. A doubling of capacity will see even more waste, that could be recycled, removed from landfill helping Bristol to achieve its Climate Crisis recycling goals.

As Bristol expands its waste are recycling capacity must also grow. The alternatives are to send the waste to a similar plant (ETM have not identified any other operator in the Southwest), send the waste to landfill or find investment to build a new plant of similar specification. It is ETM’s submission that an increase in operational hours and tonnage at the existing site is the most cost effective and sustainable way of continuing to push recycling rates to meet the Council’s target.

Assessment of Noise

The applicant’s discussion on noise impacts is included in “ES CHAPTER H NOISE AND VIBRATION”

The discussion on the noise source of ETM is brief with the following summary of the main points set out below:

(Page 182) Ramboll have recently reviewed a planning application submitted by ETM18 which shows that they are moving the majority of their operations into buildings and erecting new structures along the boundary which should mitigate any existing

PA

noise levels. Therefore, for the purposes of determining Site Suitability for Residential use, it is assumed that ETM would be compliant with the planning conditions imposed by BCC with regard to noise emissions. This approach has been deemed acceptable by BCC

And

(page 23) H4.9 When the proposed development is complete, it is expected that the noise climate would be broadly the same, albeit with reduced contributions from the ETM Recycling Facility resulting from completion of their mitigation measures (as required by Planning conditions).

And

(page 31) Noise from ETM Facility H5.28 The noise from the ETM Facility has been modelled as an area source, calibrated to the measured noise levels on site then corrected in line with ETM’s planning condition. The resulting noise levels within the Application Site of the proposed development are compared with the daytime ambient internal noise level limits. As such, mitigation measures should be implemented to meet these limits.

The applicant is referring Condition 4 of application ref: 17/06938/F, which states:

“The rating level of any noise generated by plant & equipment as part of the development shall be at least 4 dB below the background level as determined by BS4142: 2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound.”

From review of the background sound levels in the area and the noise levels associated with the site which are provided within the previous tables, it is apparent that the introduction of an additional noise sensitive receptor at such close proximity to the site would cause the site to be in breach of condition 4, the criteria of which would become exceedingly difficult to achieve.

The point of condition 4 of 17/06938/F is to protect existing receptors (which it does successfully), not new receptors. It is also worth noting that ETM are not moving their operations into buildings, there is no application in place for a new building so such an assumption is incorrect.

The glossing over, by the applicant, of this noise source is naïve at best, especially as the applicant has submitted an objection to application 21/01169/X (application by ETM) which included its own noise survey which stated that the noise levels achieved by ETM would not be appropriate. It is worth noting that the noise recorded was in the middle of the application site, where there is no current receptor.

Included as an appendix to the letter is commentary from ETM’s noise consultant (appendix V) to assist in the matter.

Summary

Though not objecting the principle of housing it is ETM’s position that the current application will be in breach of NPPF paragraph 187 and the Agent of Change Principal.

PA

Condition 4 of approved application 17/06938/F Requires adherence to BS4142: 2014. This is entirely met by ETM, at existing receptors. The location the applicant wishes to place housing is a green field site with no receptors on it. That ETM currently exceed noise levels at this location is irrelevant as there is no one to hear it.

ETM are an established part of Bristol (and the wider areas) waste management, helping Bristol to meet its recycling targets. Closure or curtailment of this site could have catastrophic consequences on the diverting of waste from landfill.

As such ETM ask that the applicant undertakes a noise assessment that accurately demonstrates there will be no impact on their business. As it stands ETM do not believe application 21/03166/P can proceed as it is in contravention of NPPF187, introducing an Agent of Change that will have a direct impact on their business

Yours faithfully Chris Burton PLANNING CONSULTANT chris@sutherlandpls.com

Appendix I

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 1/22

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales High Court(Administrative Court) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Cemex (UK)Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html Cite as: [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin)Case No: CO/1639/2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONADMINISTRATIVE COURTPLANNING COURT

19/12/2018

B e f o r e :

HER HONOUR JUDGE BELCHER____________________

Between:

CEMEX (UK) OPERATIONS LIMITED Claimant- and -

RICHMONDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL-and-

DAVID METCALFE Defendant

Interested Party

____________________

Miss Jenny WIGLEY (instructed by Clyde & Co) for the ClaimantMr Juan LOPEZ (instructed by Darlington Borough Council Legal Services) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 9 and 26 November 2018 ____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________

Crown Copyright ©

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 2/22

Her Honour Judge Belcher :

1. In this matter the Claimant challenges the decision of the Defendant local planning authority dated15/03/2018 granting planning permission (the Permission") to the IP (the "IP") for the conversion of astone barn into a three-bedroom dwelling with detached garage on land at Quarry Barn, Moor Road,Leyburn, North Yorkshire (the "Property").

2. The Statement of Facts and Grounds contains five Grounds of challenge. By Order dated 20 June 2018,John Howell QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, granted permission on the papers in relation toGround 4 and part only of Ground 5, but refused permission on Grounds 1, 2, and 3, and the remainingpart of Ground 5. He ordered the matter to be listed for one day-based on that permission order. TheClaimant sought to renew the Application for Permission on Grounds 1 to 3 and asked that this beconsidered within the substantive hearing. Those Grounds are substantial, and the net effect was that theone day allowed for the substantive hearing was insufficient. Fortunately, we were able to find a secondday within a reasonably short time frame, but I repeat my advice to Counsel that in such circumstances,the time estimate given should be revisited and, if appropriate, a revised time estimate provided to thelisting officer. Having heard argument over 2 days, I am satisfied that permission should be granted onGrounds 1, 2, and 3. I grant permission accordingly.

3. At the outset of the hearing, both parties sought permission to rely upon further witness evidence, andeach opposed the other's Application on the basis that the evidence in question was inadmissible. Iallowed both Applications on the basis that I considered the evidence to be admissible, and that the realissue was as to its relevance and or weight. There was also an Application by the Claimant for permissionto add, whether as a new Ground or as part of Ground 5, the comments at Paragraph 8 of the Claimant'sResponse. I gave a preliminary indication that I did not consider this to be a new Ground, but in any event,Counsel agreed that all matters should be dealt with by the court within this hearing. References in thisjudgment to the trial bundle will be by Tab number, followed by the page number, for example [15/102].References to the bundle of authorities will be by the capital letters AB, followed by the Tab number, forexample [AB/10].

The Facts

4. The Claimant is a global producer and marketer of cement, concrete and other building materials. Withinthe UK it is a leading producer of ready mix concrete, and the third largest cement and asphalt producer.The claimant operates a major limestone quarry (the "Quarry") on an industrial site which includes anasphalt road stone coating plant (the "Asphalt Plant") at Black Quarry, Leyburn North Yorkshire. TheAsphalt Plant and the Property are located directly opposite each other on opposite sides of a road calledWhipperdale Bank. The Property is located 64 m to the south of the Asphalt Plant. The distance betweenthe Quarry and the Property is 569 metres.

5. The Quarry and Asphalt Plant operate subject to planning conditions imposed on 5 April 2000 in aMinerals Planning Permission granted by North Yorkshire County Council (the "Minerals Permission")[23/161-170]. Conditions 14 to 16 of the Minerals Permission limit the hours of operation of the Quarry,but there is no limit on the hours of operation of the Asphalt Plant [23/166]. Condition 17 of the MineralsPermission, which appears under the heading "Noise Control ", requires that noise from the operations onthe site including the use of fixed and mobile machinery shall not exceed a noise limit of 55 dB (A) LA eq(1 hour) free field at two residential properties, namely Moor Farm, and Stonecroft, Washfold Farm[23/167]. There is no dispute in this case that the Claimant's operations, and the Asphalt Plant inparticular, generate a considerable amount of noise.

6. I have the benefit of an aerial photograph based on ordnance survey land line data [12/86]. I was providedwith an enlarged and much clearer version of this document which was kept loose during the trial. Forease of reference I shall refer to that enlarged aerial photograph as "AP1". AP1 has a number of arrowsand distances marked on it. There are arrows purporting to show distances between Moor Farm and theProperty, and between Washfold Farm and the Property. Miss Wigley advised me that those arrows should

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 3/22

in fact be from the respective farms to the Asphalt Plant, rather than to the Property. There is no dispute inthis case that the distances shown on AP1 are from the respective farms to the Asphalt Plant. Thus, MoorFarm is 1131 metres from the Asphalt Plant, and Washfold Farm is 652 metres from the Asphalt Plant.

7. On 21/01/14 the Defendant granted planning permission for conversion of the Property in a manner almostidentical to the development which is the subject of the Permission which is challenged before me. TheClaimant's case is that it did not receive any notice from the Defendant in relation to that planningapplication, and did not otherwise become aware of it. In those circumstances, the Claimant was obviouslynot able to object to that application. It is the Claimant's case that had it been aware of that application, itwould have objected to it because of the proximity of the Property to the Quarry and the Asphalt Plant,and the adverse impact those operations would have in noise terms for the residents of the Property. (SeeWitness Statement of Mark Kelly, paragraph 26: 25/176]. There is no dispute that the Defendant's ownEnvironmental Health Department was not consulted with regard to noise emanating from the Claimant'soperations in relation to the 2014 grant of planning permission.

8. The Property has been developed. However, there is no dispute that the works undertaken to convert thebarn constituted unlawful development. This is because the pre-commencement conditions contained inthe 2014 planning permission had not been discharged prior to the start of the works. Accordingly, inFebruary 2017, the IP made a fresh planning application to regularise the position, with the proposeddevelopment being the same as that previously approved, save for the addition of a detached garage.

9. On 25/04/2017 the Claimant submitted objections in the form of an e-mail note from Dr Paul Cockcroft ofWBM Acoustic Consultants, raising the issue of noise impacts at the Property. As a result, the Defendant'sPlanning Officer, Natalie Snowball, consulted Lindsey Wilson, a Scientific Officer in the Defendant'sEnvironmental Health Department. Lindsey Wilson made an initial visit to the site to look at therelationship between the quarry and the dwelling. On 23/05/17 Lindsey Wilson sent an e-mail to NatalieSnowball about that visit. In her e-mail Lindsey Wilson describes clearly audible noise from the AsphaltPlant despite the wind direction blowing noise away from the Property. She comments that the noise hadthe potential to have a significant adverse impact on that the proposed dwelling, particularly at night as itwould appear that the Asphalt Plant has permission to operate through the night where background noiselevels will be low. In those circumstances, she recommended that the IP should be requested to carry out anoise impact assessment by reference to BS 4142:2014 "Methods for rating and assessing industrial andcommercial sound", and should give consideration to BS 8233, "Guidance on sound insulation and noisereduction for buildings", with regard to whether recommended noise levels are achievable [16/117].

10. Her email continues as follows:

"I have also sought advice from North Yorkshire County Council mineral planning withregards to the planning permission for the quarry and whether any existing noise conditionswould apply to [the Property] should permission be granted, or whether they could apply anyreview of the planning permission, which I understand is overdue. ….. My initial concern isthat should a noise limit from quarry operations be applied to this property, the quarry may beunable to comply particularly to any night time limit applied, and this would therefore impacton the operations of the existing quarry. I would therefore also recommend that considerationis given to this aspect" [16/117].

11. The IP instructed Apex Acoustics to undertake the noise assessment. Apex Acoustics produced a reportdated 10/08/2017 (the Apex Report") [17/119-138]. I shall have to consider the Apex Report in somedetail later in my judgment, but for present purposes it suffices to say that the assessment carried out underBS4142 indicated a significant adverse effect from noise at the Property for both daytime and night timeperiods, and demonstrated high noise levels at the Property. The assessment results showed levels of noisefar exceeding the threshold for the 'significant observed adverse effect level' as contained in the NoisePolicy Statement for England ("NPSE"). This is the level of noise exposure above which significantadverse effects on health and quality of life occur and the policy aim is to avoid such levels [33/226 and227]. The Apex Report sets out two "Feasible Ventilation Strategies" for achieving satisfactory noise

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 4/22

levels within the Property, which options both include continuous mechanical ventilation [17/122]. Again,I shall return to this in more detail later in my judgment.

12. There is no dispute in this case that the IP did not wish to install mechanical ventilation at the Property. Byway of follow-up to a meeting between Brian Hodges, Planning Consultant for the IP, and NatalieSnowball and Lindsey Wilson, Brian Hodges emailed Natalie Snowball on 08/12/17 to confirm "… theworks proposed to satisfactorily attenuate the noise impact from the nearby quarry operations" [18/139].That email was copied to Lindsey Wilson. He attached a further copy of the Apex Report and referred tothe fact that with respect to internal noise levels, subject to appropriate glazing specification andventilation arrangements, any Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level impacts can be avoided. He thengives details and specification of the existing glazing which had already been installed and which exceedsthe example specification for glazing as referred to at Paragraph 2.9 of the Apex Report. He then goes onto deal with ventilation stating as follows:

"It is confirmed that the trickle vents used on the windows and doors are Greenwoods SlotVents as referred to at 2.10 of the Noise Assessment Report and satisfy the performancerequirements to achieve the acceptable internal noise levels. As detailed in Table 1 of theNoise Assessment Report Summary of minimum facade sound insulation treatment includedin assessment calculations, in order to achieve the acceptable internal noise levels it isnecessary to remove the slot vents from certain windows in the bedrooms."

He then goes on to list the vents to be removed and confirms that the works would be carried out withintwo months from the grant of planning permission and would be the subject of a planning condition. Thereis no reference at all to mechanical ventilation in that email.

13. By further email dated 03/01/2018 Brian Hodges emailed Natalie Snowball (copied to Lindsey Wilson)indicating that in addressing the issue of the reduction of noise levels within the building involving thereduction in the ventilation arrangements, he was conscious of the implications and possible conflict withbuilding regulations. He goes on to confirm that even with the removal of the required vents, theventilation requirements to meet building regulations are still satisfied, and he encloses an email receivedfrom Yorkshire Dales Building Consultancy Ltd to confirm that [19/144]. The enclosed email fromYorkshire Dales Building Consultancy Ltd states as follows

"Further to our discussion regarding the provision of background ventilation… windowswhich will need to have the background ventilation openings (trickle vents) sealed in order tobetter meet the requirement for sound reduction into the building, will not reduce thebackground ventilation provisions required by building regulations as the provision can bemet by the 2nd openings into each of the rooms….[19/147]."

In response to that, by email dated 08/01/2018, Lindsey Wilson replied

"Thank you for the additional information from Building Control who confirmed that theventilation arrangements are satisfactory. I therefore confirm that Environmental Health aresatisfied with the proposed glazing and ventilation arrangements."

14. On 12/03/18 Lindsey Wilson provided her report to Natalie Snowball. I shall visit the detail of this reportwhen considering the Grounds of challenge. For present purposes it suffices to say that Lindsey Wilsonconfirmed that the noise assessment recommended certain glazing and ventilation options all entailing theuse of mechanical ventilation in order to achieve the recommended noise levels. She notes that the IP doesnot propose to use mechanical ventilation "….. and has forwarded documentation from Building Controlwho have confirmed that the current ventilation arrangements are acceptable without the need formechanical ventilation". She concluded that satisfactory internal noise levels can be achieved through theuse of glazing and ventilation arrangements [21/150-151].

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 5/22

15. She also dealt with the question of the Mineral Permission and the need to protect the existing quarryoperation. She sets out advice received from North Yorkshire County Council who advised that theconditions set out in the Minerals Permission for the Quarry are the only conditions that they would referto and are in force until such time as that permission may be subject to a review under the ROMP (i.e.review of minerals permission) regulations or a variation. She confirms that the noise limits containedwithin the Minerals Permission would not apply to the Property and therefore there would be no breach ofthe Minerals Permission [21/151].

16. Natalie Snowball prepared a delegated application report dated 15/03/18. It was referred to throughout theproceedings as the Officer's Report and I propose to refer to it in the same way but using the commonlyrecognised abbreviation "OR". In the OR, Natalie Snowball set out verbatim the final comments receivedfrom Environmental Health [14/94-96]. At paragraphs 6.8 to 6.13 of the OR, Natalie Snowball deals with"Noise and Amenity". The need for noise attenuation measures to overcome the unacceptable noise levelwas recognised and paragraph 6.11 provides as follows:

"Environmental Health commented on the agent's mitigation proposals confirming that theglazing specification of the building would appear to meet the requirements of the acousticreport, but raised concern regarding whether sealing up the trickle vents as proposed by theagent would result in unacceptable ventilation in the dwelling. The agent had this checked bya Building Control Inspector who confirmed that the ventilation in the dwelling wasacceptable and met the requirements under the Building Regulations" [14/99]

17. The OR notes the Claimant's continuing concern about the very high noise levels generated by the AsphaltPlant and the impact of this on the amenity of the Property, and that the Claimant is concerned that if theplanning permission is approved it would have the effect of placing unreasonable restrictions on theCemex Asphalt Plant operations particularly at night time. Paragraph 6.13 provides as follows:

"Environmental Health have looked carefully at the proposal, and the concerns of Cemex, andwhilst recognising that the proposed dwelling will experience relatively high levels of noisefrom the [Asphalt Plant], they have concluded that, with the mitigation measures proposed bythe agent including removing and blocking up trickle vents in certain windows,……satisfactory noise levels…... inside…… the dwelling can be achieved……….. They have alsoconfirmed that the proposal will not conflict with the mineral planning permission whichrelates to the operations at [the Quarry] including the roadstone coating plant" [14/99]

18. On 15/03/18 the Permission was granted by the Defendant's planning manager under the Defendant'sscheme of delegation. The Permission is subject to a condition requiring the removal or blocking up oftrickle vents in certain bedroom windows in the Property. There are no conditions expressly requiring theretention of specified window glazing or requiring the installation of a mechanical ventilation system. The"Informative" on the planning permission states as follows:

"[The Property] is located in close proximity to [the Quarry], and in particular the [AsphaltPlant], which has permission to operate 24 hours per day if required. The occupants of [theProperty] will therefore experience noise from the quarrying operations. By using acombination of glazing and ventilation to the property, guideline internal noise levels inaccordance with BS 8233:2014 'Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction frombuildings' can be achieved with windows closed…" [11/83].

19. The Claimant's Minerals Permission is due for review in April 2025 under ROMP. Any review will berequired to consider operating conditions alongside any change in circumstances, including the existenceof any new dwellings in the vicinity of the Quarry. On the second day of the hearing, the Defendantprovided me with a second aerial photograph showing a number of other properties in the vicinity of thequarry, all of which have been developed pursuant to planning permissions granted since the grant of theMinerals Planning Permission in April 2000. I shall refer to this aerial photograph as "AP2". The Claimantasserts that there is a very real risk that conditions could be imposed under ROMP in order to protect the

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 6/22

residential amenity of occupants of the Property, and that such conditions could have a serious impact onthe quarry operations. They suggest that such conditions could include restrictions on the permitted hoursof operation of the Asphalt Plant and/or noise limit restrictions on the level of noise from the AsphaltPlant measured at the Property.

Legal Principles.

20. With the exception of an issue as to the relevance and or weight of evidence provided by the planningofficer in relation to the decision-making process, there is no dispute between the parties as to the relevantlegal principles. I shall first summarise those areas where there is no dispute as to the legal principles to beapplied. This is drawn from the skeleton arguments provided by both Counsel for which I am grateful.

21. Planning applications are required to be determined in accordance with the statutory development planunless material considerations indicate otherwise (S38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004and S70 Town & Country Planning Act 1990) [AB/1 and 2]. Whether or not a consideration is a relevantmaterial consideration is a question of law for the courts: Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for theEnvironment [1995] 1WLR 759 at 780 [AB/6]. A material consideration is anything which, if taken intoaccount, creates the real possibility that a decision-maker would reach a different conclusion to that whichhe would reach if he did not take it into account: R (Watson) v London Borough of Richmond uponThames [2013] EWCA Civ 513, per Richards LJ at paragraph 28 [AB/16].

22. Decision-makers are under a duty to have regard to all applicable policy as a material consideration:Muller Property Group v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 3323 (Admin) [AB/14]. National Planning Policy isset out in the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") and the National Planning Practice Guidance("NPPG"). National planning policy is "par excellence a material planning consideration": R oaoBalcombe Frack Free Balcombe Residents v West Sussex CC [2014] EWHC 4108 (Admin) atparagraph 22 [AB/15]. The weight to be given to a relevant material consideration is a matter of planningjudgement. Matters of planning judgement are within the exclusive province of the local planningauthority: Tesco Stores Ltd (supra).

23. An OR is not susceptible to textual analysis appropriate to the construction of a statute. Oxton Farms andSamuel Smith Old Brewery v Selby DC [1997] WL 1106106 [AB/12]); South Somerset DistrictCouncil v Secretary of State for Environment [1993] 1PLR 80. The OR should not be construed as if itwas a statutory instrument: R (Heath and Hampstead Society) v Camden LBC and Vlachos [2007] 2P&CR 19. The OR must be considered as a whole, in a straightforward and down-to-earth way, andjudicial review based on criticisms of the OR will not normally begin to merit consideration unless theoverall effect of the report significantly misleads the committee about material matters which are leftuncorrected before the relevant decision is taken.

24. An OR is to be construed in the knowledge that it is addressed to a knowledgeable readership who may beexpected to have a substantial local and background knowledge. There is no obligation for an OR report toset out policy or the statutory test, either in part or in full. R v Mendip DC ex p Fabre [2000] 80 P&CR500 [AB/11]. Policy references should be construed in the context of general reasoning: Timmins vGelding BC [2014] EWHC 654 (Admin) paragraph 83 [AB/17]. An OR is written principally for partieswho know what the issues between them are and what evidence and argument has been deployed on thoseissues. A decision-maker does not need to rehearse every argument relating to each matter and everyparagraph: Seddon Properties v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) 42 P&CR 26 [AB/13].These principles apply equally to a delegated application report.

25. The legal principles set out thus far are not in dispute. In this case Natalie Snowball, the Planning Officer,has provided two Witness Statements setting out, amongst other things, how she asserts she reached herdecisions in relation to matters under challenge. It was suggested on behalf of the Claimant that thisevidence was inadmissible as amounting to ex post facto rationalisation. As already indicated, I grantedpermission for both Witness Statements to be adduced in these proceedings, indicating that I wouldconsider relevance and weight at a later point.

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 7/22

26. Having revisited the submissions made to me in relation to these matters, I conclude that there is in fact noreal difference between counsel on the law to be applied in the circumstances. The law is helpfully set outby Green J in Timmins v Gelding BC [2014] EWHC 654 (Admin) at paragraphs 109 -113 (AB/17). Inthat case, Green J had regard to certain admissions made in the evidence of the principal planning officer(see paragraphs 47 and 55). Only at paragraphs 109 -113 did he deal with the more general issue of therelevance of witness statement evidence from the decision maker.

27. What is clear, for the reasons listed in paragraph 109 of Green J's judgment, is that there are a number ofcircumstances in which witness evidence can be properly received from a decision maker. In order todecide whether to accept or reject such evidence, is necessary for the court to identify the basis uponwhich the impugned statement is relied upon. It is equally clear that it should be rare for a court to acceptex post facto explanations and justifications which risk conflicting with the reasons set out in the decision.In support of that conclusion Green J referred to the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Ermakov vWestminster City Council [1995] EWCA Civ 42, and Lanner Parish Council v the Cornwall Council[2013] EWCA Civ 1290. Mr Lopez submitted that there is nothing in Miss Snowball's Witness Statementwhich conflicts with the reasons set out in her OR which formed the basis for the decision in this case. Iaccept that submission, and I do not understand it to be challenged by Miss Wigley.

28. However, the courts are also reluctant to permit elucidatory statements if produced for the purpose ofplugging a gap in the reasoning. Green J refers to this principle at paragraph 113, citing the judgment ofOuseley J in Ioannou v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC3945. In my judgement this is where the issue lies between the parties in this case. Mr Lopez submits thatthe Witness Statements are not plugging any gap in the reasoning, whereas Miss Wigley submits that isexactly what the Witness Statements are designed to do. Thus, the issue is one of construing the basisupon which the Witness Statements are relied upon, rather than an issue of law. In those circumstances Ishall return to this issue when dealing with the relevant Grounds.

The Grounds

29. The Claimant's grounds of challenge are as follows:

i) Errors as to the scope of the decision making process including as to the ability of the EnvironmentalHealth Officer to object to the proposed development and as to the ability of the Defendant to control thedevelopment (including to refuse the application). [3/24]

ii) Taking into account an immaterial consideration, namely that the Property is occupied "by a long-standing local family aware of the presence of the adjacent quarry". [3/27]

iii) Failure to have regard to policy and guidance in the PPG relating to the reliance on keeping windowsclosed as a mitigation strategy. [3/28]

iv) Failure to take into account the impact on the Claimant of the fact that the Minerals Permission is dueto be reviewed in 2025 and that, at that time, onerous conditions could be imposed on the Claimant'soperation as a result of the grant of the Permission. [3/28]

v) Irrational failure to take into account all relevant considerations when deciding not to include all theconditions recommended by the IP's own noise consultant. [3/29]

Grounds 1 and 2

30. As both Counsel did in their submissions before me, I propose to deal with these two Grounds together.The full Grounds are set out in paragraph 29 above. However, in essence, each of these Grounds amountsto an allegation that the Environmental Health Officer ("EHO") constrained her consideration of the issuesin this case by reason of the fact that the development of the Property had already taken place, and that theProperty was already occupied. Ground 2 suggests a further and more specific constraint on the decision-

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 8/22

making process, namely that the Property was not simply already occupied, but that it was occupied by along-standing local family aware of the presence of the adjacent quarry. The Claimant asserts that thisimplies that the family in residence will be more willing to accept the noise from the quarry operationsthan might be the case for future occupiers, and that it is an improper and irrelevant consideration.

31. In relation to the more general point under Ground 1, Miss Wigley submitted that the EHO haserroneously assumed the principle of residential development in this location has already been acceptedand that the options to control or mitigate noise are limited by the fact that the dwelling is complete andoccupied. The way the EHO approached the matter is set out verbatim in the OR report at [14/94]. MissWigley relies upon the fact that the EHO indicated that if Environmental Health had been consultedinitially, it is likely they would have objected to the development. The EHO then states that as the barnconversion is complete and occupied, she considers it appropriate to assess whether the noise impact canbe mitigated and reduced to provide an acceptable level of amenity for the residents and also that theexisting quarry operations can be protected.

32. Miss Wigley submitted that there cannot be two different standards of what is acceptable, one to beapplied to a planning application for a future development which has not yet been commenced, and onefor a property which is already occupied. She submitted that the EHO's assessment has been influenced bythe fact of occupation and amounts to an attempt to squeeze the application through on the basis of whatthe IP wants because the property is already occupied. Whilst the EHO asked for a noise assessment, MissWigley pointed to the fact that the scope of that assessment is itself limited by reference to the fact that"…. The building has already been constructed, limiting the potential options for facade sound insulationdesign". (Apex Report, paragraph 3.2; [17/123]) Miss Wigley submitted that the assessment by the EHOas to what is acceptable is tainted by that approach, in effect adopting a starting point that "There's notmuch we can do in terms of design and layout". She submitted that the fact that the development has takenplace should not preclude a finding that the mitigation needed to deal with noise does involve changes indesign or layout.

33. Mr Lopez made the point that it is inevitable that the planning authority will approach this application onthe basis of what has been built, precisely because it is an application to regularise the position. Hesubmitted that the planning authority cannot consider the matter in a vacuum. For a future application, theplanning authority of necessity considers plans and proposals; for an application to regularise the position,of necessity, they consider what has in fact been built. He submitted that does not mean they haverestricted themselves, but simply that they have adopted a practical and sensible starting point. He alsopointed out that whilst the EHO had said it was likely they would have objected to the development ifconsulted at an earlier stage, there is no certainty in that respect.

34. During her submissions in reply to Mr Lopez, I asked Miss Wigley to make the following assumptions inrelation to a hypothetical property which was a sensitive receptor for noise. I asked her to assume, if anapplication for permission had been made prior to development, that it would have been granted with anoise mitigation package including alterations in design and layout. I further asked to assume that for thesame property but already built, a perfectly proper package could be achieved to address the noise issuesbut without involving alterations in design and layout. I suggested to her that in those circumstances it washard to see how it could be said that a grant of planning permission with the lesser noise package (bywhich I meant the package without alterations in design and layout) could be challenged on the basis thatthe local authority should have approached matter as if based on plans rather than actual build. MissWigley very properly conceded that would be a proper approach for the planning authority to take,provided it can truly be said that the package of noise measures for the property as built is a properpackage, and even if the planning authority might have preferred something different had it beenconsidering the matter at an earlier stage on the basis of plans only.

35. However, Miss Wigley submitted that concession did not invalidate Grounds 1 and 2 in this case. Shesubmitted that the concern behind Grounds 1 and 2 is that the threshold of acceptability in terms of noisemitigation measures has been compromised by the fact that this is a retrospective application forpermission in respect of an occupied dwelling. In my judgment, it follows from that concession, that the

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 9/22

true source of complaint here is not that the EHO has imposed improper constraints by considering theproperty as built, but rather that the package of noise mitigation measures produced is unsatisfactory forother reasons. There is nothing in the EHO's advice to the planning officer, or in the OR to suggest thateither the EHO or the planning officer did not understand that this was an application that could berejected, or that either failed to understand that mitigation measures going beyond those desired by the IPcould be imposed if the planning authority thought that was the right thing to do.

36. Turning specifically to Ground 2, Miss Wigley submitted that the EHO's reference to the Property"….being occupied by a long standing local family aware of the presence of the adjacent quarry"([21/149] and adopted verbatim in the OR [14/94]) shows that the assessment of appropriate noisemitigation measures has been compromised by an assumption that the environment need not be so goodfor a local family already occupying an unlawful development. Miss Wigley submitted that this was acurious statement to include if it has no relevance to the matter. She submitted it must have been includedas factoring into the assessment on the impact on amenity, as in "This family is perhaps more tolerant ofnoise than others".

37. I agree that it is not immediately obvious why the fact that the Property is occupied by a long standinglocal family aware of the presence of the adjacent Quarry needs to be mentioned by the EHO or by theplanning officer. However, it is a significant leap from the fact of that mention, to the assertion that theeffect was that the EHO and the planning officer were effectively treating this as a personal planningapplication for a family more likely to put up with the noise because they were already occupying andaware of the Quarry. There is absolutely nothing in the documentation to suggest that an error of that sortwas made. The statement about the occupation of the family could equally well be proffered to explainwhy the current occupiers may not have complained about noise, with the implication that futureoccupiers might. I cannot accept that single sentence evidences a constraint of the type argued for by MissWigley. In my judgment, if relevant at all, the issues raised under Grounds 1 and 2 are more relevant toand supportive of the complaint in Ground 3. It follows that I reject Grounds 1 and 2.

Ground 3

38. Ground 3 is the alleged failure to have regard to policy and guidance in the PPG relating to the reliance onkeeping windows closed as a mitigation strategy. At the time of the Permission decision, the relevantNPPF was the 2012 version. In this judgment all references to the NPPF are to the 2012 version.Paragraph 123 NPPF provides (so far as relevant) that planning policies and decisions should aim to:

i) avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as aresult of a new development

ii) recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting todevelop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put onthem because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established.

The above are the first and third bullet points in Paragraph 123 NPPF.

39. The PPG on noise defines the "Significant observed adverse effect level" as "….the level of noiseexposure above which significant adverse effects on health and quality-of-life occur" [33/226]. For ease ofreference I shall refer to this level as "SOAE" or "SOAE level", as appropriate. In a section entitled "Howto recognise when noise could be a concern", there appears the following paragraph:

"Increasing noise exposure will at some point cause the [SOAE level] boundary to be crossed.Above this level the noise causes a material change in behaviour such as keeping windowsclosed for most of the time or avoiding certain activities during periods when the noise ispresent. If the exposure is above this level the planning process should be used to avoid thiseffect occurring, by use of appropriate mitigation such as by altering the design and layout.

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 10/22

Such decisions must be made taking account of the economic and social benefit of the activitycausing the noise, but it is undesirable such exposure to be caused." [33/226]

40. The same section contains a table summarising the noise exposure hierarchy, based on the likely averageresponse. Noise that is noticeable and disruptive crosses the SOAE level and should be avoided. This isdescribed as follows

"…. noise which causes a material change in behaviour and/or attitude, eg avoiding certainactivities during periods of intrusion; where there is no alternative ventilation, having to keepwindows closed most of the time because of noise. Potential for sleep disturbance resulting indifficulty in getting to sleep, premature awakening and difficulty in getting back to sleep.Quality of life diminished due to changing acoustic character of the area." [33/227]

It should be noted that the most serious noise in the table, described as noticeable and very disruptive, andof unacceptable adverse effect, should be prevented, rather than simply avoided [33/227].

41. The PPG goes on to consider what factors influence whether noise could be a concern, pointing out thatthe nature of noise is subjective such that there is not a simple relationship between noise levels and theimpact on those affected. A number of general factors to consider are listed, followed by more specificfactors to consider when relevant, including the following:

"consideration should also be given to whether adverse internal effects can be completelyremoved by closing windows and, in the case of new residential development, if the proposedmitigation relies on windows being kept closed most of the time. In both cases a suitablealternative means of ventilation is likely to be necessary. Further information on ventilationcan be found in the Building Regulations" [33/228]

42. I now turn to the Apex Report, which is the noise assessment prepared for the IP at the request of theEHO. Apex Acoustics measured weekday noise levels at the facade of the Property exposed to noise fromthe Quarry and the Asphalt Plant. As requested by the EHO the tests were carried out under BritishStandard, BS 4142: 2014. Under BS 4142:2014 the methodology is to obtain an initial estimate of theimpact of the specific sound by subtracting the measured background sound level from the rating level.Typically, the greater this difference, the greater the magnitude of the impact. A difference of around+10dB or more is likely to be an indication of a significant adverse impact, depending on the context[38/380].

43. The results in the Apex Report indicated a SOAE for both daytime and night time periods. The differencesbetween the background sound level and the rating level were reported by Apex Acoustics as +35dB fordaytime, and +43dB for night-time [17/126; table 5]. I have a Witness Statement from Dr Paul Cockcroft,a specialist Acoustic Consultant engaged by the Claimant. He explains that the generally accepted rule isthat a change of 10 dB(A) corresponds roughly to halving or doubling the loudness of a sound. The noiselevel for the night-time assessment, which is recorded as +43dB above the background sound level, wouldbe eight times as loud as the level representing a significant adverse impact. [26/182].

44. The Apex Report proposes two alternative ways to address the noise issue and to meet internal noisecriteria. Section 8 of the report deals with "Facade acoustic design to meet internal criteria". The internalcriteria referred to are the noise criteria. The report sets out a proposed provision to meet the issues, whilstemphasising that it is not intended to constitute a ventilation strategy design, which is the responsibility ofthe mechanical engineers [17/127, paragraph 8.7]. In order to achieve the desired internal noise levels, theApex Report recommends the glazing and ventilator performance specifications shown in the summarytable, which is table 1 in the report. The author adds that the current construction design will need to bereviewed to comply with these requirements [17/128, paragraphs 8.24 – 8.25]. Table 1 contains theauthor's summary of minimum facade sound insulation treatment included in the assessment calculations(my emphasis added). Both options set out in Table 1 contain minimum glazing performancerequirements, and continuous mechanical ventilation, Option A being for mechanical extraction with the

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 11/22

use of a single trickle vent to each of the bedrooms for make-up air, and Option B being frame ofcontinuous mechanical supply and extract with heat recovery, which does not require any trickleventilators [17/122: Table 1].

45. Paragraph 2.8 of the Apex Report refers to the proposals in Table 1 as "…a set of minimum glazing andventilation strategy options, interpreted from Approved Document F (AD-F)" [17/121]. The summarygoes on to refer to the glazing options and concludes at paragraph 2.13 as follows: "On this basis it isconsidered that any [SOAE Level] impacts on internal noise levels are avoided…" [17/121].

46. As already mentioned, the proposal includes glazing options, and paragraph 8.13 of the Apex Reportrefers to the acoustic performance of the proposed glazing. There is no dispute in this case that the glazingcurrently installed at the Property meets the acoustic performance recommended. The Apex Reportcontinues at paragraph 8.14 (still under the heading of "Glazing") "Opening windows may be acceptableto provide purge ventilation; all opening lights should be well fitted with compressible seals."

47. Miss Wigley submitted that there is a nexus between mechanical ventilation and purge ventilation, a nexuswhich she submitted is recognised both in the BS 4142:2014 and in Building Regulations. In BS4142:2014 in Section 11 on "Assessment of the impacts" [of sound], amongst the pertinent factors to betaken into consideration is the following:

"The sensitivity of the receptor and whether dwellings or other premises used for residentialpurposes will already incorporate design matters that secure good internal and/or outdooracoustic conditions, such as:

i) facade insulation treatment;

ii) ventilation and/or cooling that will reduce the need to have windows open so as to providerapid or purge ventilation; and

iii) acoustic screening" [38/381]

48. (AD)-F of the 2010 Building Regulations deals with Ventilation. The "Key terms" are set out in Section 3and include the following of relevance to this case;

"Background ventilator is a small ventilation opening designed to provide controllablewhole building ventilation.

Purge ventilation is manually controlled ventilation of rooms or spaces at a relatively highrate to rapidly dilute pollutants and/or water vapour. Purge ventilation may be provided bynatural means (e.g. an openable window) or by mechanical means (e.g. a fan).

Whole building ventilation (general ventilation) is nominally continuous ventilation of roomsor spaces at a relatively low rate to dilute and remove pollutants and water vapour notremoved by operation of extract ventilation, purge ventilation or infiltration, as well assupplying outdoor air into the building. For an individual dwelling this is referred to as 'wholedwelling ventilation'." [36/244-245]

49. Paragraph 5.7 of (A-D) F provides as follows:

"Purge ventilation provision is required in each habitable room….. Normally, openablewindows or doors can provide this function …, otherwise a mechanical extract system shouldbe provided…." [36/257]

Miss Wigley also referred me to Table 5.2a where there is reference again to the need for purge ventilationfor each habitable room, where it is also noted "There may be practical difficulties in achieving this (e.g. ifunable to open a window due to excessive noise from outside), and "As an alternative… a mechanical

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 12/22

fan…. could be used" [36/261]. I note that the same wording is repeated in each of Tables 5.2b [36/263],5.2c [36/265] and 5.2d [36/266], with the addition, in the latter two cases, of an indication that expertadvice should be sought in such situations.

50. Miss Wigley submitted that it is clear from the above matters that purge ventilation is not a binary matter.Where there is another form of ventilation, the need for purge ventilation will be reduced. She pointed outthat the acknowledgement in the Apex Report that opening windows may be acceptable to provide purgeventilation is against a background of the recommendations in that report that a mechanical ventilationsystem is also needed. She further submitted that the alternative ventilation strategy to opening windows isa mechanical system (per Paragraph 5.7 (A-D) F set out in paragraph 48 above), and that there is noquestion of trickle vents alone providing this function. She also referred me to paragraphs 4.15 and 4.16(A-D) F. It is clear from paragraph 4.15 that purge ventilation is ventilation of a separate type to wholebuilding ventilation. Furthermore, purge ventilation is intermittent and required only to aid the removal ofhigh concentrations of pollutants and water vapour released from occasional activities such as paintingand decorating or accidental releases such as smoke from burnt food or spillage of water. It is noted thatpurge ventilation provisions may also be used to improve thermal comfort although this is not controlledunder the Building Regulations [36/251, paragraph 4.15].

51. In paragraph 4.16 there is reference to trickle ventilators being used for whole dwelling ventilation andwindows for purge ventilation [36/251]. Miss Wigley submitted that trickle vents are plainly for usefulbackground ventilation of the whole building and are not a substitute for purge ventilation by the openingof windows and/or the use of a mechanical system.

52. As set out in paragraphs 12 -13 above, the IP did not wish to install mechanical ventilation and there werediscussions between the EHO, the planning officer and the IP's agent concerning ventilation. The agentprovided the email [18/147] from the building surveyor set out in paragraph 13 above. Miss Wigleysubmitted that discussion relates entirely to background ventilation, or whole dwelling ventilation and thatno consideration was given to purge ventilation and whether purge ventilation would be adequate, giventhat mechanical ventilation was not being provided as recommended in the Apex Report.

53. Miss Wigley very properly accepted that the fact that there is no express reference by the EHO or the ORto the PPG is not, without more, a ground for challenging the reports of either officer. She submitted,however, that it must be clear that the issues concerned have been fully covered. There is no disputebetween the parties that the PPG is a significant material consideration because it is government policy.The application of the policy is of course a matter of planning judgement and depends upon the facts ofthe case. The significance of the relevant policy will also depend on the facts of the case. Miss Wigleysubmitted that in this case the PPG is central, particularly as the noise mitigation relied upon in this case isclosed windows, when the PPG clear policy is to try and avoid this. She pointed to the fact that there is noreference to any of these factors in the advice of the EHO or in the OR. She submitted that the OR showsthat the planning officer placed total reliance on the EHO response on these matters as the OR sets outverbatim the EHO's final recommendations. Miss Wigley submitted there is no evidence at all that theEHO has considered the applicability of the PPG and, in particular, the desirability of avoiding relying onwindows being closed to address the noise issues. She submits that the EHO has in effect cherry pickedfrom the Apex Report, and simply relied upon the email from the building surveyor (wrongly described asBuilding Control by the EHO but nothing turns on this) which "…… confirmed that the current ventilationarrangements are acceptable without the need for mechanical ventilation", and that they met theRequirements under the Building Regulations.

54. All the e-mail from the Building Surveyor does is to confirm that the sealing of certain trickle vents toassist with reducing sound in the building will not reduce the background ventilation provisions requiredby Building Regulations. Plainly, that email does not address in any way at all, the impact of noise and theproposed control of noise into the building by the use of closed windows. It simply deals with theadequacy of background ventilation. Obviously, it cannot address, and does not purport to address, howthe residents of the Property might be affected by noise if, for example, they wish to keep windows openfor lengthy periods of time during hot weather. Indeed, the Building Regulations themselves make it clear

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 13/22

that they do not control the use of purge ventilation for thermal comfort (see paragraph 49 above). MissWigley relies upon the fact that nowhere is there any indication that the EHO or the planning officerconsidered that PPG advises that the SOAE level identified in the noise assessment, (a documentexpressly asked for by the EHO), should be avoided and is undesirable. She acknowledged that this isobviously not an absolute requirement, but it is nevertheless relevant policy and the council is required tohave regard to it and take it into account. She submitted that the council should either have ensured thatthe mitigation measures overcame or avoided the SOAE level, or it should have been balanced againstother considerations and an explanation given as to why it was not to be avoided in this case. Shesubmitted that all the guidance in the PPG (quoted at paragraphs 39 – 41 above) contains a link betweenmechanical ventilation and the need to open windows, but no one at the council considered this.

55. She submitted that the EHO and the OR both state that internal noise levels can be met with glazing andthe windows being closed, without any consideration as to the need for mechanical ventilation. Whilst theApex Report allows for windows to be used for purge ventilation, it does so in the context of andcontingent upon the provision of alternative mechanical ventilation, something Miss Wigley submitted,which has been completely missed by the council officers both in construing the Apex Report and infailing to consider the guidance in the PPG.

56. On behalf of the Council, Mr Lopez submitted that the treatment of the noise issues has been perfectlyproperly carried out and is consistent with the PPG guidance. He pointed out that both the NPPF and PPGindicate that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts,but neither is prescriptive. He further submitted that there is no rule that purging must be avoided and,therefore, that it is a matter of planning judgement for the decision taker to consider the acceptability ofpurging. There is nothing in the PPG identifying an acceptable degree of purging, subject to the issue ofnoise. Mr Lopez submitted that it is possible to depart from the guidance without their necessarily beingan error. That is plainly right, and Miss Wigley accepted that in her submissions.

57. Mr Lopez submitted that it is plain on the face of her report dated 12 March 2018 that the EHO has carriedout her own independent assessment and concluded that some purging would be acceptable. He submittedthis is a matter of planning judgement and not open to challenge. The passage in question appears in theEHO report at [21/150] and is repeated verbatim in the OR at [14/94]. I shall refer to the passage from theOR as this was the passage addressed by Mr Lopez in his submissions. Under the heading "Impact onamenity" there appears the following:

"BS 4142 recognises that not all adverse impacts will lead to complaints and it's not intendedfor the assessment of nuisance. [The Property] is occupied by a long standing local familyaware of the presence of the adjacent quarry. BS 4142 also allow scope look at absolute noiselevels rather than just relative levels and for other standards such as BS 8233 to beconsidered. It was therefore recommended that the applicant considered BS 8233:2014'Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings' as part of their assessment inorder to see whether the recommended guideline indoor and outdoor noise levels can beachieved. The report shows that guideline indoor levels can be achieved with a combinationof glazing and ventilation and that some areas of the garden can offer an acceptable amenityspace in accordance with BS 8233.

With regards to internal noise levels, the noise assessment recommended certain glazing andventilation options all entailing the use of mechanical ventilation in order to achieve therecommended noise levels. However, the applicant does not propose to use mechanicalventilation and has forwarded documentation from Building Control who have confirmed thatthe current ventilation arrangements are acceptable without the need for mechanicalventilation. I note the view of Cemex that windows should be sealed shut to protect residents,however, I consider that the option for windows to be openable for the purposes of purgeventilation to be acceptable." [14/94]

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 14/22

58. Mr Lopez emphasised the use of the word "However". He submitted that marks a clear transition. Hesubmitted that prior to the transition the report shows that the EHO was aware of the contents of the ApexReport. The transition shows that the EHO has moved on to make an assessment based on her knowledgethat the IP did not want to use mechanical ventilation. He submitted the transition represented by the word"However" supports the fact that there has been a separate assessment by the EHO. He submitted the EHOhas stood back, with the knowledge and understanding that mechanical ventilation would not be used buthas concluded in her own assessment that purging was an acceptable way of addressing matters. Hesubmitted that relates not just to the issue of ventilation, but also to the issue of noise.

59. Mr Lopez reminded me that the Claimant's challenge on this Ground is not a reasons challenge, or anirrationality challenge. He submitted that the Claimant's challenge is that the EHO has either forgotten thefact that the IP did not want mechanical ventilation or has forgotten that the Apex report was all prefacedon mechanical ventilation. In my judgment that is not an accurate statement of the Claimant's challenge.The challenge is a failure to have regard to policy and guidance in the PPG relating to the reliance onkeeping windows closed as a mitigation strategy.

60. Miss Wigley accepted that Ground 3 is neither a reasons nor an irrationality challenge. Her challenge isthat the policy and guidance has simply not been considered, and because of that there are no reasonsgiven for departing from policy, and thus there are no reasons to challenge. Further there is no irrationalitychallenge which could only follow from an assessment which had been undertaken. The whole thrust ofthe Claimant's submissions in support of Ground 3 is that there is no evidence of an independentassessment or any independent calculations carried out by the EHO.

61. Mr Lopez submitted that the EHO was clearly aware of the Apex Report, a report which gave options, butwhich was not saying these are the only options. He submitted it was therefore open to the EHO to departfrom the options proposed in the Apex Report, and to say why she had done so. He submitted she did notneed to go into figures and that she had everything in front of her to entitle her to make the judgement shemade. He submitted it was completely unreal to suggest that the EHO had not exercised her ownjudgement and made a wholly separate assessment, separate from the Apex Report. He submitted there isnothing in the EHO's report which signposts back to the Apex Report, and he refuted the suggestion putforward on behalf the Claimant that the EHO has effectively cherry picked from the Apex Report, takingbackground ventilation alone and not considering the ventilation strategy as a whole.

62. Whilst I accept that the EHO has clearly recognised that the IP did not wish to use mechanical ventilation,I am wholly unpersuaded by the suggestion that the EHO has necessarily carried out a wholly separate andindependent assessment. The word "however", is at the beginning of a sentence which goes on to placereliance on the documentation described as being from Building Control and relies in that sentence on thefact that Building Control have confirmed that the current ventilation arrangements are acceptable withoutthe need for mechanical ventilation. That is of course a reference to the email set out in paragraph 13above. As I have already said, that email was dealing simply with whether the background ventilationprovision after the sealing of certain trickle vents satisfied the ventilation requirements in the BuildingRegulations. In my judgement the straightforward reading of the sentence commencing with the word"however" is that the provision of the information from Building Control is such that it can properly beconcluded that mechanical ventilation is not needed. The e-mail from "Building Control" [19/147; quotedat paragraph 13 above] refers to the provision of background ventilation. As already set out, the BuildingRegulations address ventilation, not noise in this respect.

63. Mr Lopez made much of the fact that the EHO is a scientific officer. He asserted that she is just as muchan expert as Dr Cockcroft, the Claimant's acoustic expert, although there is no evidence as to the EHO'squalifications. In any event, whatever her qualifications, they do not protect her from the possibility ofmaking a mistake, any more than the professional qualifications of Dr Cockcroft, or indeed thequalifications of any of the lawyers in this case, protect each or any of them from the possibility of makingmistakes. Human beings all make mistakes. Mr Lopez repeatedly submitted that it was unreal to suggestthat the EHO had not made her own independent assessment taking into account not just ventilation, but

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 15/22

also noise impact. Miss Wigley suggested that the reason he kept relying on something being unreal, wasprecisely because he had no other point to put forward.

64. The court is plainly not constrained to assume it is unreal that officers may not have carried out theirfunctions properly. If that were the position, the jurisprudence as to the need for reasons for decisions tobe provided would be wholly otiose. Indeed, there would be no need for this court to have a reviewingfunction, as it would be obliged to assume that all officers had done what they were required to do, andhad done it properly, whether or not they had signposted that fact in the relevant documents.

65. I accept Miss Wigley's submissions that nowhere in the EHO's report or the OR is there any indicationthat, having set aside the provision of mechanical ventilation as recommended as a minimum in the ApexReport, the EHO then made a separate assessment of her own as to the noise impacts in the light of thepolicy guidance as to the undesirability of managing noise by keeping windows closed. Of course, it is notan absolute requirement, but it is relevant policy which the Defendant is required to have regard to and totake into account. In those circumstances, the Defendant should have ensured either that appropriatemitigation measures were in place designed to avoid the SOAE level for internal noise at the Property orhave taken the policy into account and balanced it against other considerations to justify any positionwhich did not seek to avoid the SOAE level internally. I recognise this is not a reasons challenge, but theabsence of any reasons or explanation designed to show why it is appropriate in this case (if indeed it is)to allow a scheme of glazing and background ventilation which does not avoid the SOAE level,particularly in the face of the Apex Report setting out minimum requirements to achieve that and whichare being expressly rejected for the purposes of the Permission application, suggests to me that no suchindependent assessment was carried out. Alternatively, if it was carried out, in my judgment, it is not clearthat it was taking the documents at face value, and recognising they are addressed to a knowledgeablereadership, and must not be read in an over legalistic way. In my judgment, the Claimants challenge onGround 3 is made out.

66. I have before me two Witness Statements from Natalie Snowball [28/198-204] and [29/205-209]. Both areaddressed to issues arising under Grounds 4 and 5. Unsurprisingly, Natalie Snowball does not address thereasoning in relation to Ground 3 as she adopts the advice of the EHO. There is no Witness Statementfrom the EHO, Lindsey Wilson. I regard that as unsurprising. Any evidence which she might purport togive on this subject would, of necessity, involve plugging gaps given the findings which I have made.

67. By Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 the High Court must refuse to grant relief on an application forjudicial review if it appears to the court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would nothave been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. I do not consider Section31(2A) assists me in this case. In my judgment I cannot possibly conclude that the outcome for theapplicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. Hadthe PPG guidance been considered in the context of the need to avoid closing windows as a way ofcontrolling noise, it might be the case that mechanical ventilation would have been required asrecommended in the Apex Report. Equally, some other form of mitigation might have been proposed.These are matters of planning judgement, properly within the sphere of those qualified to make thesedecisions, and not matters upon which I could or should make any judgment.

68. It follows that Ground 3 succeeds and the planning permission in this case must be quashed. Whilst that issufficient to dispose of the proceedings, I should plainly also consider Grounds 4 and 5 in this judgment.

Ground 4

69. Ground 4 is the alleged failure to take into account the impact on the claimant of the fact that the mineralspermission is due to be reviewed in 2025 and that, at that time, onerous conditions could be imposed onthe claimant's operation as a result of the [grant of planning] permission. [3/28]

70. In relation to noise effects and existing businesses, the PPG states as follows

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 16/22

"The potential effect of a new residential development being located close to an existingbusiness that gives rise to noise should be carefully considered. This is because existing noiselevels from the business even if intermittent (for example, a live music venue) may beregarded as unacceptable by the new residents and subject to enforcement action. To helpavoid such instances, appropriate mitigation should be considered, including optimising thesound insulation provided by the new developments building envelope. In the case of anestablished business, the policy set out in the third bullet of paragraph 123 of the Frameworkshould be followed." [33/227]

The third bullet of paragraph 123 of the NPPF is set out in paragraph 38 above.

71. There is no dispute in this case that the EHO properly recognised at the outset that she had to consider thepotential impact on the quarry operations of a grant of planning permission for the Property. This is clearfrom her initial response of 23 May 2017 as set out in paragraph 10 above. The Claimant relies on the factthat the existing Minerals Permission requires that noise from the Claimant's mineral operations shall notexceed a noise limit of 55dB (A) for the two properties named in condition 17 [23/167]. As is clear fromAP1, the two named properties are 1131m and 652m from the Asphalt Plant. The Property is only 64mfrom the Asphalt Plant. Miss Wigley submitted that the fact that such conditions were considerednecessary to protect the residential amenity in relation to those two dwellings, indicates a strong likelihoodthat a similar condition would be considered necessary in relation to the Property, at which the effects onresidents are likely to be more acute given how much closer it is to the Asphalt Plant. The Claimants relyupon the fact that the Apex Report demonstrates that if such a condition were imposed in relation to theProperty, it would be immediately breached.

72. In his Witness Statements ([25/172] and [27/194]) Mark Kelly, the Claimant's Planning Manager, givesdetailed evidence as to the likely impact on the Claimant's business of the imposition of such a planningcondition. Mr Lopez correctly makes the point that none of that evidence was before the planningauthority at the time the decision was made. The objections before the planning authority made clear ingeneral terms that there was the potential for adverse effect on the Claimant's business if the quarryoperations were restrained in the future, but without the level of detail given in Mr Kelly's WitnessStatements. Those statements give details as to potential impacts on the viability of the operation, and as aresult the possible loss of employment for local people, and possible loss of business rates income for theDefendant. Mr Lopez invites me to disregard that detailed evidence on the basis that none of it was beforethe Council at the time it made the decision. In my judgement that submission must be correct. I shouldapproach this on the basis of the information that was before the Council at the time it made its decision.What was before the Council, was the Claimant's concerns that its business might be restricted byplanning conditions on the Minerals Permission in the future.

73. The Claimant's case is that the Council has failed to consider the risk that the Claimant's business could bethe subject of unreasonable restrictions by reason of conditions imposed at ROMP as a result of changes innearby land uses, namely the grant of a residential planning permission for the Property.

74. There is no dispute that North Yorkshire County Council (which is the minerals planning authority)confirmed that the grant of planning permission for residential use at the Property would not amount to abreach of the existing minerals permission. The following appears in the OR, (having been taken verbatimfrom the EHO's report at [21/151]):

"Throughout this application I have been aware of the need to protect the existing quarry. I amalso aware of the concerns of Cemex in this regard. I have therefore made enquiries withNorth Yorkshire County Council Mineral Planning with regards to the existing permissionsfor [the Quarry] and whether any noise limits would be applied to [the Property]. The replyfrom North Yorkshire County Council mineral planning advises that the conditions set outunder the permission are the only conditions that they would refer to and enforce until suchtime that the permission may be subject to a review under the ROMP regulations or avariation, which at the present time is not applicable. They advised that the authority cannot

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 17/22

impose new conditions which would consider any new development which may be nearer to[the Quarry] outside of these remits. The current planning permission names 2 propertieswere existing noise conditions apply. [The Property] is not one of those named" [14/95]

75. The Claimant's case is that neither the EHO nor the planning officer have considered the potential for thenoise conditions to be expanded to include the Property on a review of the ROMP conditions, and that therisk of that happening and its consequences were not evaluated, assessed or taken into account by theDefendant.

76. The first point which Mr Lopez took in reply to this Ground was a highly technical point and one which Iconsider lacks merit. He referred me to the Order granting permission on this Ground, where John HowellQC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge acknowledged that the planning officers considered the effect ofthe grant of planning permission on the Claimant's business pending the review of the Claimant's planningpermission. Mr Lopez submitted that it follows from that that the Council has acted properly in relation tothis issue in respect of the period between now and the ROMP review in 2025. He submitted that it wouldbe open to the Defendant Council to issue a Noise Abatement Notice at any time between now and 2025,and that such a notice would address the same species of noise as would be addressed at a ROMP review.In the light of the permission order, Mr Lopez pointed out that the claimant could not argue that it wouldbe wrong for the Council to issue an Abatement Notice at any stage during that period. He submitted thatthere was no qualitative difference between an assessment of an actionable noise subject to an AbatementNotice, and the tasks to be undertaken in relation to noise on a ROMP review. Since the result of anAbatement Notice might be to require the quarrying activity to be restricted in some way in order to bringabout a satisfactory noise scenario, and given that this could be done legitimately prior to the ROMPreview, Mr Lopez submitted there is no qualitative distinction between that which the Claimant cannotchallenge (i.e. a Noise Abatement Notice), and that which the Claimant seeks to challenge (the impact ofthe ROMP review).

77. Whilst I accept that the scope of an Abatement Notice would target the same noise complaint that mightbe of concern at ROMP, I do not accept that the two procedures necessarily produce the same result. Byway of example, if the Defendant received a noise complaint, it would be entitled to consider, amongstother things, whether the issues could be properly addressed by requiring occupants of the Property tokeep certain windows closed. A ROMP review is directed solely to the Claimant's operations, and not theactions of the occupants of any noise sensitive receptor. In any event, the issue here is whether the Councilfailed to have regard to the possible effects on the Claimant's business of a ROMP review occurring afterthe grant of the Permission in this case.

78. Mr Lopez' next point is that this is a wholly speculative complaint. He referred me to AP2 which showsthe locations of a further four dwellings which have received planning consent since the MineralPermission granted to the Claimant in this case. Notwithstanding those four dwellings, he pointed to thefact that the Minerals Planning Authority (the "MPA") has not caused a review to take placenotwithstanding the erection of those further dwellings. He relied on the letter of North Yorkshire CountyCouncil dated 24 February 2016 which postpones the ROMP review until 3 April 2025 [25/171]. Hesubmitted, therefore, that the indications are that the Quarry is not an issue in noise terms. On the contrary,he suggests this is good news, reflecting the way the Quarry is operating with regards to all thosedwellings. Whilst Mr Lopez accepted that he cannot say that the MPA would not impose a condition, hesubmitted that the Claimant cannot say that the MPA would impose condition in the light of the above,and that the Claimant's Ground is purely speculative. He pointed out it is not for the EHO or the planningofficer to crystal ball gaze or constrain the ROMP review. He submitted, therefore, that there was nothingmore that the EHO or planning officer could do other than have regard to the fact that the powers areavailable to the MPA at the ROMP review.

79. In response to these points, Miss Wigley pointed out that the postponement of the ROMP review to 2025is no indication that the MPA is content with the impact of noise in relation to the further dwellings whichhave been built since the Minerals Permission was granted in April 2000. AP2 was produced by theDefendant on the second day of the hearing, and whilst Miss Wigley has not objected to it, she pointed to

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 18/22

the fact that the Claimant has had no opportunity to check the circumstances of the planning applicationsin respect of the four dwellings in question. She also pointed to the fact that they are all much further awayfrom the Asphalt Plant than the Property is.

80. More significantly, she drew my attention to the statutory provisions which have resulted in thepostponement of the ROMP review until April 2025. It is clear from the letter from North YorkshireCounty Council, that the Claimant had requested a postponement of the periodic review of their mineralpermission until 03/04/2025. It is equally clear that the planning authority had not responded to that withinthree months from the date of the receipt of the request. The letter therefore confirms that in accordancewith Schedules 13 and 14 of the Environment Act 1995 the request for postponement is approved. I havethe relevant provisions at AB3. By paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 13 Environment Act 1995, a company suchas the Claimant may apply to the Mineral Planning Authority for the postponement of the date specifiedfor a first review. By paragraph 7(10), where the Mineral Planning Authority has not given notice of adecision on such an application within a period of three months, the Authority shall be treated as having(i) agreed to the specified date being postponed and (ii) having determined that date should be substitutedas the date for the next review. Miss Wigley made the point that the postponement of the ROMP reviewwas therefore automatic as a result of the failure of North Yorkshire County Council to respond to theClaimant's request for it to be postponed, and does not represent any substantive consideration of themerits of the position, and the noise environment in particular. She submitted that the fact that there areother properties which have been built in the vicinity has no relevance as North Yorkshire County Councilhas clearly not undertaken any substantive consideration in relation to the Minerals Permission since therelevant dwellings were erected or converted.

81. Miss Wigley submitted that it is not mere speculation to look at the existing Condition 17 in the MineralsPermission, and to recognise that the concerns which led to the imposition of that condition are likely tofeed into a similar condition in relation to the Property. She submitted it is not outlandish speculation toconsider that a similar condition would be imposed in relation to the Property which is very much closerto the Asphalt Plant than the two properties named in Condition 17. She submitted it is a clear indicationof the MPA's stance and what the MPA considers necessary to protect the residential amenity near theAsphalt Plant. I accept that submission. In my judgment that is a possibility that could, and should, havebeen considered when considering this planning application, and the impact for Cemex under the thirdbullet point of Paragraph 123 of the NPPF.

82. Mr Lopez' next point related to a further document which was provided to me on the second day of thehearing. This is an elevation plan showing the elevations of the Property, with various windows shaded inyellow. This was referred to at the hearing as the yellow window plan. I shall refer to this as the "YWP",as shorthand for the yellow window plan. This was simply handed to me and there is no evidence as to itsprovenance. Miss Wigley accepted that the yellow highlighting on the YWP accurately indicates thewindows which were required to have the trickle vents permanently closed as part of the planningpermission. That is all she accepts in relation to the YWP. Mr Lopez told me that this was a document thatMiss Snowball had in front of her when considering the issues in this case, but there is no evidence tosupport that.

83. Mr Lopez relied upon the YWP as showing that the blocked up trickle vents are all within the elevationsfronting the Quarry. The property is set at an angle and both the north-west and south-west elevationsfront the Quarry. Within each of the habitable bedrooms, there are windows on other elevations away fromthe Quarry where the trickle vents are not blocked up. Mr Lopez submitted that there is no evidence thatopening of windows in those elevations would cause an actionable noise event. He submitted, therefore,that the EHO was entitled to exercise her own planning judgement and to conclude that there would be nonoise issues on the elevations away from the Quarry, and that there is no merit in Ground 4.

84. Miss Wigley submitted that Mr Lopez had made an enormous leap from the Apex Report to thesubmission that because one window in each bedroom was not required to have the trickle vent removed,it meant that window could be opened without any unacceptable noise effects. In support of this shepointed to calculations in the Apex Report. In particular, she drew my attention to the fact that at

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 19/22

Paragraph 8.21 in the section dealing with "calculated internal noise levels", the cumulative impact isconsidered through all windows to the room under assessment. In the table at Paragraph 8.24, the upperlimit of internal noise levels in the first column is right up against the limit and is calculated quite clearlyafter mitigation levels including both the glazing and mechanical ventilation. The fact that those items areincluded is made clear in Paragraph 8.25. In those circumstances, Miss Wigley submitted that Mr Lopezcannot assert that it is fine to open the non-highlighted windows on the YWP without there being anyunacceptable noise. I accept that submission.

85. Further, and in any event, Miss Wigley submitted that there is no evidence at all that any of this wasconsidered at the time by the EHO. Miss Wigley made the points again about trickle vents beingbackground ventilation and not as a substitute for purge ventilation, a submission I have already dealt withand accepted.

86. I accept the points made by Mr Lopez that there is no power or option for the EHO to second guess whatthe MPA would do. Mr Lopez suggested that when the MPA, North Yorkshire County Council, replied tothe EHO indicating that there would be no breach of the current planning restrictions, there is nothing tosuggest that the MPA was not also forward-looking about conditions it might impose. He pointed to thefact that North Yorkshire County Council did not object to the grant of planning permission in this case. Itdoes not seem to me to be necessarily within the remit of Yorkshire County Council to object to theplanning application. However, what clearly was within the remit of the EHO and the Defendant was toconsider the third bullet point in NPPF paragraph 123, and to recognise that the Claimant should not haveunreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since the business wasestablished.

87. I recognise that there will be matters of planning judgement in considering what restrictions might beimposed in the future, and whether such restrictions might amount to unreasonable restrictions on theClaimant in the future. If it was clear from the documents that these matters had been considered, thatwould be one thing. However, in my judgment, whilst the documents do show that the EHO, and throughher the planning officer, recognised that the quarry business needed protection, I am not satisfied that anyconsideration was given to the likely impact that the grant of planning permission for the Property mighthave on a ROMP review. Whilst in her Witness Statement Natalie Snowball asserts that all of thesematters were considered, I am of the view that amounts to evidence seeking to plug the gaps in thedecision-making process. I regard it as of no assistance to me.

88. Furthermore, Natalie Snowball's evidence is to the effect that the future position on a ROMP review wasconsidered in the context of all the information before her including "… the adequacy of the proposeddevelopment in noise impacts and attenuation terms…" [28/199, paragraph 5]. Given the conclusions Ihave reached in relation to Ground 3, and, in particular, the failure to have regard to the PPG relating tothe reliance on keeping windows closed as a mitigation strategy, it follows, in my judgment, that failurewould inevitably also feed through into the assessment which Natalie Snowball alleges she hasundertaken. I recognise, as Mr Lopez repeatedly reminded me, that this is not a reasons challenge or anirrationality challenge. I equally appreciate that the comment I have made in this paragraph goes to theissue of reasons, but those being reasons which are provided ex post facto in the form of a WitnessStatement. Had those reasons been provided in the OR, no doubt they would have been the subject of achallenge. As with Ground 3, there is no reasons challenge here precisely because the challenge is thatnowhere in the OR is there any indication that the issues have been considered.

89. In my judgement Ground 4 is also made out. I am satisfied that the EHO set out to consider not only thecurrent position as regards the Minerals Permission, but also to consider the future impact on the Quarry.However, based on the EHO reports and the OR, there is nothing to suggest that any consideration was infact given as to whether a condition similar to Condition 17 of the Minerals Permission was likely to beimposed at ROMP, or that any consideration was given as to the risks such a condition would pose to thefuture operation of the Claimant's business, all matters which should have been considered as part of theconsideration under paragraph 123 NPPF. I further note, in passing, that the EHO mentioned the 55dBbeing a limit in a fairly old permission and the absence of a tighter night time condition such as 42dB

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 20/22

[38/440]. This formed no part of the Claimant's case before me and forms no part of my decision in thismatter, but it appears nowhere in the consideration of these issues.

90. In relation to Ground 4, again I do not consider Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 assists me in thiscase. In my judgment I cannot possibly conclude that the outcome for the applicant would not have beensubstantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. Had the likely future impact of asimilar planning restriction to Condition 17 of the Minerals Permission been considered, it might be thecase that this would have informed the adequacy of proposed noise mitigation measures. It could be thecase that mechanical ventilation might have been required as recommended in the Apex Report, or eventhat mitigation going to the physical building and/or it's layout might have been considered. It is evenpossible that the conclusion might have been reached that the grant of planning permission would not beappropriate. These are all matters of planning judgement, properly within the sphere of those qualified tomake these decisions, and not matters upon which I could or should make any judgment of my own.

Ground 5

91. Ground 5 is the alleged irrational failure to take into account all relevant considerations when deciding notto include all the conditions recommended by the IP's own noise consultant.

92. The Claimant's case is that the conditions imposed in the Permission should have included conditions toensure that the standard of glazing for the future was maintained and that those windows where the tricklevents were to be blocked up, could not have trickle vents reintroduced. The Claimant's case is that havingrequired these factors to be included as noise mitigating measures, it is irrational not to include conditionsin the Permission to ensure the mitigation measures are retained in place for the future. Ground 5 isdrafted to include an irrationality challenge for the failure to include mechanical ventilation as a condition,but it seems to me that more properly forms part of Ground 3. This Ground is really based on the premisethat even if the Permission was unobjectionable on the application of PPG, nevertheless there is still achallenge based on the failure to incorporate appropriate conditions. The oral submissions were based onthe failure to include conditions relating to glazing and the retention of the blocked trickle vents.

93. Miss Wigley submitted that there was no consideration by the Council as to the retention of the specifiedglazing properties for the windows, nothing to keep the removal of the trickle vents in the yellowhighlighted windows in place, and nothing to prevent the introduction of new trickle vents. She submittedthat the EHO's report and the OR are silent on these matters, showing that there has been no considerationas to how to secure that these requirements stay in place. She submitted that looking at the documentsthere is a clear lacuna in failing to ensure that the mitigation measures endure.

94. The Defendant seeks to rely on Condition 3 of the Permission which abrogates the usual permitteddevelopment rights, and requires what would otherwise be permitted development to be the subject of aformal application for planning permission. The reason given for that Condition is that it is in the interestsof the appearance of the proposed development and to reserve the rights of the local planning authoritywith regard to those matters [11/80]]. Natalie Snowball deals with this in her Second Witness Statementwhere she asserts that any work involving the replacement of the existing windows or glazing, theintroduction of new opening trickle vents, the removal of blocked up trickle vents, or the insertion of newwindows not incorporating necessary noise mitigation measures required under condition 4 would requirethere to be a full planning application by reason of Condition 3 of the Permission. She expresses heropinion that any such works would materially affect the external appearance of the building, and so wouldamount to development. She asserts that the question of whether proposed works would materially affectthe external appearance of the building is a question of planning judgement [29/206; paragraphs 6-12]. Inreliance on that, Mr Lopez submitted that Ground 5 is wholly misconceived and must fail.

95. In response to this Miss Wigley submitted that a change of the windows would not amount todevelopment. She submitted that I should disregard the evidence of Natalie Snowball on these issues forthe following reasons. Firstly, she submitted that this is ex post facto rationalisation which should not bepermitted. Secondly, she relied upon the fact that the reasons now suggested are different from the stated

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 21/22

reason on the planning decision notice which relates to the appearance of the building and has nothing todo with noise mitigation measures. She further pointed to the fact that whilst in her first Witness StatementNatalie Snowball does rely on Condition 3 of the Permission, nowhere in that statement does she explainhow she considers replacement windows would be development in any event. Miss Wigley submitted thatMiss Snowball's thought processes were eked out over the course of the Witness Statements and areinherently unreliable. None of these reasons is given in the reports and she invited me to disregard them.

96. In response to this Mr Lopez submitted that these are quintessentially matters of planning judgement. Healso pointed to Miss Snowball's evidence that the trickle vents had been permanently blocked and cannotbe reopened. He denied that Condition 3 was limited solely to the appearance of the building, pointing tothe second part of Condition 3 which refers to the reservation of the relevant rights to the local planningauthority with regard to the permitted development matters. I accept that submission in relation to thereasons given for the condition. He submitted that if I accept that submission, there is no reason to attachless weight to the evidence of Miss Snowball on this matter.

97. It is right that I should record that I mentioned that I was aware, from sitting on other cases, that not allplanning officers necessarily regard a change of windows as amounting to development. I thereforesuggested that a future planning officer might not take the same view as Miss Snowball as to whetherwindows amounted to development and whether Condition 3 applied. In response to that Mr Lopezpointed out that any planning decision taker imposing a condition cannot unduly or improperly bind theauthority or other planning officers moving forwards. The planning decision taker must simply exercisehis or her own planning judgement. Mr Lopez submitted that any concern I might have that a futureperson might reach a different view is irrelevant. It is a matter for the planning judgement of the relevantofficer at the relevant time. It seems to me that must be correct. He further submitted that for thischallenge to succeed, the Claimant would have to say that the planning officer's judgement in this casethat a change to the windows would amount to development is irrational. He pointed to the fact that thereis no evidence put forward on behalf of the Claimant to suggest that such a conclusion is irrational.

98. Whilst accepting that she has no evidence on that point, Miss Wigley did not accept that it was necessary.She submitted that it was plainly irrational for Miss Snowball to assert that any works to replace windows,for example simply with different glazing, or simply with a different slot vents, would always materiallyaffect the external appearance of the building. She submitted that is irrational, and that Miss Snowball'sevidence on this is simply not credible. She submitted that this simply was not considered at the time ofthe grant of the Permission and there no decision at all was taken which was designed to retain themitigation measures for the future. She submitted it is not acceptable to rely on the convoluted evidence ofMiss Snowball in seeking to plug the gaps, particularly where such a serious issue of noise exists.

99. In response to questions from me as to whether, rather than this being an issue of planning judgement, itwas a matter of law as to the construction of Section 55 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 whichdefines development, Miss Wigley reminded me that if a future occupier wanted to assert that a change ofwindows would be lawful development, the procedure would be for the occupier to make an applicationfor a Certificate of Proposed Lawfulness on the local planning authority. It would then be for the localplanning authority to decide whether that amounted to lawful development, and any appeal against theirdecision would lie to a Planning Inspector.

100. Having considered the submissions, I do not consider I could properly conclude that Condition 3 is notcapable of covering any future work in relation to the windows given that there is plainly a matter ofplanning judgement to be made as to whether or not any works proposed amount to lawful development. Irecognise that Miss Snowball's evidence is once again ex post facto rationalisation. However, even if theneed to keep the mitigation measures for the future was not addressed by the decision-makers, if there is aroute by which they can properly address those issues in the future, then the fact they failed to considerthem would make no difference.

101. I have come to the conclusion that Ground 5 is made out in that there is nothing on the face of thedocuments to suggest that any consideration was given to the retention of those noise mitigation measures

23/11/2020 Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin) (19 December 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html 22/22

which the EHO and the planning officer thought were necessary and sufficient in this case. I do considerthat the evidence of Natalie Snowball is evidence attempting to plug the gaps in this case. However, inrelation to this Ground, I would not grant relief on the basis that the outcome for the Claimant would nothave been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. I consider that the factthat there are matters of planning judgement involved in the application of Condition 3 of the Permissionmeans that Condition 3 can be used as a method to secure the retention of mitigation measures in thefuture. Indeed, it allows for a degree of flexibility in the future and for the imposition in futureapplications of measures which might not be available now, but which become available withadvancements in technology, development materials and the like.

102. In summary, I reject Grounds 1 and 2. I accept Grounds 3, 4 and 5 are proved. I decline to give any reliefon Ground 5 on the basis that Section 31 (2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 applies in relation to that Ground.However, I also find that Section 31 (2A) has no application when considering Grounds 3 and 4. It followsthat the planning permission in this case must be quashed.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/3526.html

Appendix II

23/11/2020 Ornua Ingredients Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2018] EWHC 2239 (Admin) (22 August 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2239.html 1/8

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales High Court(Administrative Court) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Ornua Ingredients Ltd,R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2018] EWHC 2239 (Admin) (22 August 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2239.html Cite as: [2018] EWHC 2239 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 2239 (Admin)Case No: CO/454/2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONBIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRYPLANNING COURT

Birmingham Civil Justice CentreBull Street, Birmingham B4 6DS

22/08/2018

B e f o r e :

HHJ DAVID COOKE____________________

Between:

R (oao Ornua Ingredients Ltd) Claimant- and -

Herefordshire Council DefendantBarratt Homes Interested Party

____________________

Jenny Wigley (instructed by Burgess Salmon LLP) for the Claimant Hugh Richards (instructed by internal solicitors ) for the Defendant

Peter Goatley (instructed by Shakespeare Martineau LLP) for the Interested Party

Hearing date: 5 July 2018 ____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT APPROVED ____________________

23/11/2020 Ornua Ingredients Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2018] EWHC 2239 (Admin) (22 August 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2239.html 2/8

Crown Copyright ©

HHJ David Cooke :

1. The claimant challenges the decision of the defendant council on 21 December 2017, acting by officersunder a delegated authority, to approve reserved matters including the layout of a housing development atLedbury. That decision was taken in relation to outline planning permission for building 321 houses on thesite that had been granted by an Inspector on appeal in April 2016. The claimant is the owner of a factorymaking cheese adjacent to the site. The Interested Party is now the owner of the development site, havingbought it with the benefit of the outline planning permission.

2. The claim proceeds on one ground only, for which I gave permission on 27 March 2018, that the councilfailed to take into account a material consideration in that it did not take any account of representationsmade by the claimant on 15 December 2017 including a report by acoustic engineers on its behalf which,it says, casts doubt on a conclusion previously reached that it would in principle be possible to produce ascheme for mitigation of noise emitted by the claimant's factory such that it would be reduced toacceptable levels at houses built to the proposed layout.

3. It is not in dispute that the council received the representations and report concerned, and it is acceptedthat no consideration was given to them before the reserved matters decision was taken. The position ofthe council and the Interested Party is that this did not amount to an error of law because the outlinepermission was in any event subject to a condition (Condition 21) that before any development the councilmust first have approved "a scheme of noise mitigation for outdoor living areas, bedrooms and livingrooms" for the houses to be built which would "include details of proposed ameliorative measures tomitigate against noise from operations within the nearby industrial estate… including the [claimant's]cheese factory…". The reserved matters decision did not amount to discharge of this condition, so that if itturned out in due course that acceptable noise mitigation could not be achieved with the approved layoutno development could in any event begin and the developer would have to produce a revised layout, forwhich acceptable noise levels could be achieved. The representations on noise issues were thus, it is said,not material considerations at the point of approving the layout and no error was committed by ignoringthem.

4. The claimant's commercial concern of course is that it should not be at risk in future of claims for noisenuisance by occupiers of the houses that might cause it to have to curtail its operations or pay for noisemitigation measures of its own. Insofar as such measures are necessary, it no doubt wants the developer toundertake them at the outset at its own expense, but it says that to the extent the developer has engaged inany discussion with it as to the measures it is prepared to undertake, they are not capable of producingacceptable levels given the proposed layout. It fears that if the layout is approved, in practice the councilwill come under pressure (and might even be obliged) to approve a scheme of noise mitigation whichcould be presented as the best practically achievable with that layout, but which would not be sufficient toprotect it from future claims and the trouble and expense they would bring.

5. In return the council says there is no question of it being obliged to accept inadequate noise mitigation,and it would be fully entitled to withhold approval for discharge of condition 21 even if that meantrevision of the layout previously approved.

6. It is obvious that there is a linkage between questions of layout of houses on the development and thenoise mitigation measures that may be required to produce an acceptable noise level at and within thosehouses. The nearer a house is to the emitter of a given noise the louder that noise will be, as heard at thehouse itself, so that more effective measures of noise reduction or attenuation may be required to render itacceptable. Noise received in gardens will be less if the gardens are sited on the far side of the house fromthe source, and so shielded to some extent, than if they are on the near side. Noise heard in a given room,such as a bedroom, will also be affected by whether that room is on the near or far side from the source. Inprinciple no doubt the two issues could be considered entirely separately, but in reality anyone seeking todesign a layout would be bound to have some regard to this interaction and the likely effect of noise on the

23/11/2020 Ornua Ingredients Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2018] EWHC 2239 (Admin) (22 August 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2239.html 3/8

houses, not least because it might be very inefficient and expensive to have to revisit the layout if itemerged later that the noise condition could not be satisfied. I do not doubt either that in practice once alayout had been approved there would be a risk that the developer might seek to exert pressure on theplanning authority to accept noise reduction measures it proposed, if the alternative was to revisit thatlayout with the possible delay disruption and expense that might cause. That does not mean of course thatthe authority would be necessarily bound to accede to any such pressure.

7. Noise was an issue before the Inspector. Her decision letter includes the following:

"Dominant noise sources likely to affect future occupiers are the adjacent industrial units andtraffic on Leadon Way and Dymock Road. The appellant's noise report sets out variousmitigation measures that could be secured by condition. The measures that provide thebaseline for the conclusions in the report do not, it transpires, take account of the proposedroundabout on Leadon Way which would, potentially, introduce noise from vehicles brakingon approach, and accelerating away from it. I have no reason to suppose, however, thatassociated noise would preclude development on the appeal site and am satisfied that anappropriately worded condition would deal with the matter and would ensure that acceptableliving conditions were provided for future occupiers.

… As referred to earlier, a scheme of noise attenuation is necessary to ensure acceptableliving conditions for future occupiers "

8. The application for approval of reserved matters was submitted in December 2016. It included, amongstother matters, the proposed layout for the site. It was referred by officers for consultation to the council'sEnvironmental Health Department, and it is plain from the consultation responses that the officers in thatdepartment were significantly concerned by the potential impact of noise on the proposed houses, andwanted to be satisfied that appropriate mitigation measures could in principle be devised for the layoutproposed. The developer's acoustic experts, Wardell Armstrong were asked to submit noise modellingreports to supplement reports they had prepared at the time of the original planning application in 2014and 2015. These were sent in January and April 2017, and in the consultation response dated 8 May 2017,the Environmental Health Department set out what appear to be fairly serious concerns about theinformation provided.

9. They said they did not agree with Wardell Armstrong that the appropriate limit for noise garden areas was55 dB, that the acceptable limit ought to be 50 dB but the modelling provided showed levels between 55and 60 dB. This was described as "not acceptable", and although this particular point seems to be directedat traffic noise, may indicate that the EHO considered that Wardell Armstrong were tending to seek toapply inadequate standards. In relation to noise from the cheese factory, it was noted that the mitigationlevels proposed in the April report produced a worse result than had been suggested in the January reportwith noise levels "likely to be around 5 dB above background sound levels… This is not desirable."

10. It was noted that in the 2015 report Wardell Armstrong had anticipated that the houses closest to thecheese factory would have their gardens facing away from the factory so that they would be screened bythe houses, but the layout now proposed included two houses where this was not the case. Further, theoriginal report had suggested noise mitigation measures being taken on the factory premises but thesewere now omitted (though it was noted that this might have to be reconsidered). Further information wasrequested on this and also in relation to night-time noise where it was noted that "our concern is thatclosest residents may be adversely impacted in their bedrooms at night time when much lower backgroundnoise levels exist. Please can the applicants supply further noise contours of the closest dwellings… toevaluate the impact of this noise."

11. Further noise contour drawings were provided by Wardell Armstrong on 23 May, and the EHO made a sitevisit before submitting a further consultation response on 7 June. In that response it was noted "At visits tothe proposed site both during the day and late evening officers from our department noted the constanthumming noise emanating from [the cheese factory]… which was identified as the dominant noise source

23/11/2020 Ornua Ingredients Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2018] EWHC 2239 (Admin) (22 August 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2239.html 4/8

in the locality and was accompanied by a hissing (pressure relief type) noise every few seconds. Withoutmitigation, this would seriously impact on the amenity of residential properties in close proximity to thesite. Mitigation of the 24/7 sound source on the roof at [the cheese factory] has been mentioned as anoption in a number of Wardell Armstrong reports… Despite this at our meeting 26 May 2017 it wouldappear that… there has been no discussion with [the claimant] on this issue." It was also noted that theinformation provided indicated that during the daytime noise levels from the cheese factory would bebetween 5 and 10 dB above background level "thus indicating a likely adverse impact, depending oncontext." Further, the difference at night time was suggested to be between 23 and 26 dB, significantlymore than the level of 10 dB which the relevant British standard suggested would be "likely to beindication of a significant adverse impact depending on context."

12. Further concern was expressed about low-frequency noise measurements, where the council's ownmeasurements showed a significant difference from those provided by Wardell Armstrong. This wasevidently a serious concern; this document concluded "we would strongly recommend the WardellArmstrong proposed option to mitigate the [cheese factory] sound at source and this needs to be furtherexplored with [the claimant]. Alternatively we recommend the site layout and design should be furtherreviewed to assess the suitability of siting dwellings close to [the cheese factory]… There must either beattenuation of this noise at source or a buffer zone on the site where there is no residential development ora combination of the two so that we could be satisfied that noise from [the cheese factory] (including low-frequency noise) does not impact on the amenity of residents when their windows are open as well asclosed."

13. A further response was sent by Wardell Armstrong on 16 June, in relation to which the EHO commentedon 5 July 2017 "the proposal for mitigation of the noise [from the cheese factory ] at source has beendropped after repeated references to this in earlier submissions. The noise consultants advise that the low-frequency noise can be addressed by residents keeping their windows closed night time. Our submission isthat this is not a reasonable expectation on residents… and is contrary to World Health Organisationguidelines… Our low-frequency noise assessment and the officers' site observations would support theBS:4142 assessment findings in that the [cheese factory] noise source is likely to have a significantadverse impact on the dwellings closest to the noise source. This is especially so at night time…" The"strong recommendation" that mitigation measures and or a change of layout be considered was repeated.

14. This led to a yet further proposal by Wardell Armstrong, which was sent on 10 October. That documentprovided, as had been requested, a specification for proposed mitigation measures on the cheese factorysite, in the form of a 3 m high acoustic fence in combination with sound insulation measures at theprincipal sources of noise from the factory. This led the EHO to send an email to the planning officerdealing with the matter on 17 October in which she said "The proposed mitigation works… will besatisfactory for the site with windows open… as long as the mitigation at the [cheese factory] site namelya) acoustic fencing and b) extract plant mitigation… are undertaken."

15. An officers' report was then prepared for the meeting of the planning committee. It is accepted that itcontained an adequate summary of the consultation that had been undertaken with the EHO and the resultthat had been reached. Members were informed that the layout had been referred to the EHO who hadinitially been concerned that it might not be possible to achieve acceptable noise mitigation but that "thework that has been completed by [Wardell Armstrong] has demonstrated that there are measures that canbe taken. The provisions of condition 21 remain in force and it is incumbent upon the developer to providefurther information for the condition to be discharged, but officers are sufficiently content that noise from[the cheese factory and the road] can be mitigated on the basis of the layout shown above."

16. The minutes of the committee meeting make clear that members of the committee were concerned aboutnoise. They record that they were told by the officer "it was not a requirement of the reserved mattersapplication to address all the conditions imposed by the inspector. With reference to condition 21 relatingto noise, for example, the Environmental Health Officer had to be satisfied that a scheme could beimplemented to mitigate that issue. It was then incumbent upon the developer to submit a suitable schemeto enable the application to proceed. The absence of the detailed scheme at this stage was not a ground

23/11/2020 Ornua Ingredients Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2018] EWHC 2239 (Admin) (22 August 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2239.html 5/8

upon which to refuse a reserved matters application." The committee resolved that (subject to conditionsnot relevant for present purposes) delegated authority be given to officers to issue the reserved mattersapproval.

17. It was only after this that the claimant became aware of the matters that had been under discussion. Therehad been no consultation by planning officers or the EHO with the claimant (it is not suggested there wasany obligation to undertake such consultation) and the measures that Wardell Armstrong proposed by wayof noise mitigation, which would require to be executed on the claimant's land, had not been agreed withthe claimant. On 15 December 2017 the email that forms the basis of this challenge was sent, enclosing areport prepared by Hayes McKenzie, the claimant's acoustic consultants, and:

i) drawing attention to the fact that in its calculations of noise impact the latest Wardell Armstrong reporthad dropped a 6 dB "tonal penalty" that had been applied in its 2014 and 2015 reports, and stated that intheir opinion further measurements showed that the sound from the cheese factory was not tonal in quality.However Hayes McKenzie had performed their own measurements which, in their view, showed a distincttonal quality as a result of which the relevant British standard required a tonal penalty to be applied.

ii) Referring to further background noise data collected by Hayes McKenzie, including measurements forevening and night periods that had not previously been assessed.

iii) Stating that Hayes McKenzie's opinion was that in light of these factors the proposed mitigationmeasures would not prevent a significant adverse impact on residents likely to give rise to complaints, andthat with the layout proposed, it would not be possible to achieve suitable mitigation.

18. The email requested that determination of the reserved matters application should be delayed "until thisissue has been properly addressed and a suitable scheme agreed by [the claimant and the developer]". It isnot clear exactly what happened on receipt of that email; the planning officer did not however refer thematter back to the EHO for any comment, nor did he ask the developer or Wardell Armstrong to respondto it, nor did he refer the matter back to members of the planning committee. There is no note or otherrecord, or other evidence, showing what if any consideration was given to the email and the HayesMcKenzie report. Thus, although the position of the council now is that any information casting doubt onthe advice the EHO had given was irrelevant because it could all be addressed as and when an applicationwas made to discharge condition 21, there is no evidence at all that the relevant planning officerconsidered the matter and came to that conclusion at the time.

19. In fact, as Mr Richards points out, the email may have somewhat overstated Hayes McKenzie's opinion inrelation to proposed mitigation. It is apparent from the content of the report that, whilst it strongly disputesWardell Armstrong's conclusion that the tonal penalty should not be applied, stating that its measurementsshow "a tone at around 600 Hz which has a tonal audibility greater than 10 dB confirming the requirementfor a 6 dB rating correction under BS 4142" the conclusion reached was that "it is therefore possible thatthe only way of achieving an acceptable external noise environment is through greater separation distancebetween the factory and nearby housing." This, Mr Richards says is not a conclusion that adequate noisemitigation is not possible, but only that it may not be possible.

20. It cannot however be said that this is the reason why no action was taken in relation to the email; there issimply no evidence that any planning officer considered it all came to any view of it at all.

21. Ms Wigley's submission is that the law in relation to what is a material consideration and the obligationson officers acting under a delegated power when a material matter arises after a delegated power is givento them but before they exercise that power to make a decision is set out on the judgment of JonathanParker LJ in R (Kides) v South Cambridgeshire DC [2002] EWCA Civ 1370, in which he said:

""material considerations"

23/11/2020 Ornua Ingredients Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2018] EWHC 2239 (Admin) (22 August 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2239.html 6/8

121 In my judgment a consideration is "material", in this context, if it is relevant to thequestion whether the application should be granted or refused; that is to say if it is a factorwhich, when placed in the decision-maker's scales, would tip the balance to some extent, oneway or the other. In other words, it must be a factor which has some weight in the decision-making process, although plainly it may not be determinative. The test must, of course, be anobjective one in the sense that the choice of material considerations must be a rational one,and the considerations chosen must be rationally related to land use issues.

"have regard to"

122 In my judgment, an authority's duty to "have regard to" material considerations is not tobe elevated into a formal requirement that in every case where a new material considerationarises after the passing of a resolution (in principle) to grant planning permission but beforethe issue of the decision notice there has to be a specific referral of the application back tocommittee. In my judgment the duty is discharged if, as at the date at which the decisionnotice is issued, the authority has considered all material considerations affecting theapplication, and has done so with the application in mind – albeit that the application was notspecifically placed before it for reconsideration.

123 The matter cannot be left there, however, since it is necessary to consider what is theposition where a material consideration arises for the first time immediately before thedelegated officer signs the decision notice.

124 At one extreme, it cannot be a sensible interpretation of section 70(2) to conclude that anauthority is in breach of duty in failing to have regard to a material consideration theexistence of which it (or its officers) did not discover or anticipate, and could not reasonablyhave discovered or anticipated, prior to the issue of the decision notice. So there has to besome practical flexibility in excluding from the duty material considerations to which theauthority did not and could not have regard prior to the issue of the decision notice.

125 On the other hand, where the delegated officer who is about to sign the decision noticebecomes aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) of a new material consideration,section 70(2) requires that the authority have regard to that consideration before finallydetermining the application. In such a situation, therefore, the authority of the delegatedofficer must be such as to require him to refer the matter back to committee forreconsideration in the light of the new consideration. If he fails to do so, the authority will bein breach of its statutory duty.

126 In practical terms, therefore, where since the passing of the resolution some new factorhas arisen of which the delegated officer is aware, and which might rationally be regarded asa "material consideration" for the purposes of section 70(2), it must be a counsel of prudencefor the delegated officer to err on the side of caution and refer the application back to theauthority for specific reconsideration in the light of that new factor. In such circumstances thedelegated officer can only safely proceed to issue the decision notice if he is satisfied (a) thatthe authority is aware of the new factor, (b) that it has considered it with the application inmind, and (c) that on a reconsideration the authority would reach (not might reach) the samedecision."

22. Issues relating to noise were, she submitted, inevitably material considerations in addressing the reservedmatters application because of the link between layout and perceived noise at the houses, notwithstandingthe existence of the separate condition specifically requiring acceptable noise mitigation. The council wasobliged, she submitted, to be satisfied at least that acceptable mitigation was possible in principle beforeapproving a given layout, even if the detail was then left to a later application to discharge the condition.Alternatively, if the council was not obliged to take noise issues into account at that stage it was entitled to

23/11/2020 Ornua Ingredients Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2018] EWHC 2239 (Admin) (22 August 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2239.html 7/8

do so if it wished, and since the council had in this case plainly chosen to take noise into account at thereserved matters stage it had become a material consideration even if it need not have been treated as such.

23. As to the first point, that noise was an obligatory consideration, Ms Wigley submitted that it must be so,since otherwise when an application was made to discharge condition 21 it would be argued that thecouncil could not lawfully refuse that application on the basis that acceptable mitigation was not possibleunless the layout was changed. She pointed to Thirkell v Secretary of State [1978] JPL 844, holding thatreserved matters approval could not be withheld on a ground that had already been decided in principle atthe grant of outline planning permission as that would be to reopen an issue already decided and frustratethe permission granted. She accepted this could not be read across directly to the position where acondition is considered after reserved matters approval, but submitted the same would apply by analogy;the council having approved a layout at one stage could not make it impossible to implement that layoutby adopting standards for what constituted acceptable noise levels that could not practically be achievedwith that layout.

24. Mr Richards submitted that there was no question of frustration. The permission granted was dependenton both an acceptable layout and acceptable noise mitigation; the fact that one layout had been approveddid not preclude the developer submitting another and the council would be perfectly entitled to refusedischarge of condition 21 if not satisfied with the mitigation measures proposed, leaving the developerwith the option of submitting revised mitigation measures or a revised layout, or a combination of the two.

25. Counsel are agreed there is no prior authority either way directly in point. For my part, I can see force inMs Wigley's submission, and I do not find particularly persuasive the argument that because the layoutwas approved as a reserved matter the planning authority could in effect compel submission of a revisedlayout by a conclusion that the one approved could not result in satisfaction of an outstanding condition asto noise. Such a condition might equally be imposed on a grant of full planning permission, or on a grantof outline permission where layout was not one of the reserved matters. If it might be argued (aspresumably it could) that refusal to discharge a condition amounted to frustration of a permission in thoseforms, why should it make a difference that the permission in place is a composite of an outlinepermission and a reserved matter approval, as here?

26. No doubt it would be fairly rare for a condition imposed to be absolutely impossible to fulfil. For instance,a condition as to noise could in principle always be discharged by procuring the cessation of the source ofnoise. In practice, the argument would no doubt be that refusal to discharge the condition made itimpossible in the real world to implement the permission because the measures required were impracticalor uneconomic (eg perhaps if noise mitigation to the standard required involved the closure of a road orfactory). It is fairly easy to imagine circumstances in which such an argument could arise, so it cannot besaid that it is so fanciful that the duty argued for cannot exist.

27. In the end however I have concluded that I do not need to decide that point in the present case, becauseMs Wigley succeeds on her secondary argument. The interaction of layout with satisfaction of the noisecondition was in my view plainly such that the council was entitled to have regard to it in considering thereserved matters application. It is evident from the consultation, the officers' report and the minutes of themeeting that it did so, and approached the matter on the basis it required to be satisfied that satisfaction ofthe noise condition would not be rendered impossible. The advice given to members was expressly on thebasis that having regard to the measures the developer had proposed officers and the EHO were satisfiedthe condition was capable of discharge without changing the layout, and the delegated authority given tothe officers was plainly premised on that advice.

28. In this context it is clear, it seems to me, that further information coming to light that cast significant doubton the validity of that advice amounted to a material consideration. It would, adopting the test set out inKides, have been bound to tip the balance of consideration to some extent- if for instance members at themeeting had been told that the acceptability of the revised proposals depended on the developers expertshaving apparently watered down the standards applied by excluding a tonal penalty on a basis that nowappeared open to challenge it is not realistic to say this would not have been considered relevant. This is

23/11/2020 Ornua Ingredients Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2018] EWHC 2239 (Admin) (22 August 2018)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2239.html 8/8

particularly so given the history of concern on the part of the EHO, including apparent concern thatWardell Armstrong had sought to apply standards the EHO considered inadequate and providedmeasurements that did not appear to be supported by her own observations.

29. Such information would not I think be an entirely new material consideration, arising for the first timeafter the grant of delegated authority, such as Jonathan Parker LJ appeared to be envisaging in the passagequoted in Kides, but best considered as material bearing on a matter already taken into account. I ambound to say I have some difficulty in reconciling what he said at para 122, which seems to envisage that anew matter must have been considered by the authority before a delegated power is exercised, but notnecessarily by the officer referring it back to the authority, and para 125 which seems to indicate that if thenew material is received immediately before a decision is taken it must be referred back to the planningauthority, ie members. But in the present context I think the resolution is that the delegated authority itselfconfers on officers a degree of power to consider for themselves new relevant information bearing on theexercise of the power they have been given such that, depending on the terms of the authority conferred,they may properly take a view as to whether in light of such information they should proceed to make adecision or refer the matter back to the members. If they do so, the new information has been consideredby the planning authority, at the level of the officers acting under delegated powers, before the decision istaken and its duty is satisfied.

30. There may of course be issues that arise in a particular case whether the scope of the delegated authority issufficient to allow officers to take their own decision on information they in fact receive, or, if it is,whether the decision they reach on that information is rational. But no such considerations arise in thiscase, because on the evidence before me the officers did not give any consideration at all to the 15December email or the report it attached.

31. Mr Richards submitted that even if such consideration had been given, the result would inevitably havebeen the same because officers would have concluded that the matters raised could (indeed must) havebeen left to be addressed later on discharge of the condition. But this it seems to me flies in the face of theway the matter had been dealt with previously both by officers and members. Although Mr Richardspoints to textual matters in the email and the attached report that he says might have led to a conclusionthey did not raise a strong enough doubt about the previous advice to prevent the decision proceeding,these are not such that the email and report must inevitably have been dismissed out of hand. It cannot besaid, it seems to me, that responsible officers who had advised members they and the EHO were satisfiedthe noise condition was capable of discharge would inevitably have proceeded to a decision onconsidering new information, apparently supported by expert advice, casting doubt on what members hadbeen told, without referring that information to the EHO or members or both.

32. It follows in my judgment that an error of law was committed. The error may be considered either as afailure by the planning authority to consider, either at the level of members or officers, a material factor inthe form of the information provided with the 15 December email, or as a failure by officers properly toexercise the delegated power they had been given by evaluating and coming to a conclusion on thatinformation.

33. In either case, the result is the same and the decision taken must be quashed and remitted to the authorityfor redetermination.

34. I will list a hearing at which this judgment will be handed down. I do not require attendance on thatoccasion, though if there are matters arising that can be conveniently dealt with in 30 minutes I will takethem at that hearing. If a longer or later hearing is required, counsel should submit and agreed timeestimate and joint availability so that it can be listed.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/2239.html

Appendix III

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision Hearing Held on 28 August 2019 Site visit made on 28 August 2019

by John Dowsett MA DipURP DipUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date:11th November 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/W/18/3217413 18-20 Albion Court, Frederick Street, Birmingham B1 3HE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant approval required under Part 3, Class O of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

• The appeal is made by Seven Capital (Albion) Limited against the decision of Birmingham City Council.

• The application Ref: 2018/03393/PA, dated 25 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 June 2018.

• The development proposed is a change of use of a building from office use (Class B1(a)) to a 21no. residential apartments (Class C3).

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Application for costs

2. Prior to the hearing an application for costs was made by Seven Capital (Albion) Limited against Birmingham City Council. At the hearing, a third party, Albion Court Action Group, made applications for costs against both Seven Capital (Albion) Limited and Birmingham City Council. These applications are the subject of a separate Decision.

Procedural matters

3. As originally submitted, the appeal proposal sought Prior Approval for the creation of 23 flats within the appeal building. Before the hearing, the appellant submitted an amended drawing that removed two proposed flats within the basement level of the appeal building from the scheme. The Council and third parties were made aware of this amendment and did not raise any objections to it. It was subsequently agreed at the hearing that the description of the proposal should be amended to read 21no. residential apartments.

Main Issue

4. Class O of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), hereinafter the GPDO, grants planning permission for the change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use falling within Class B1(a) (offices) of the

Appeal Decision APP/P4605/W/18/3217413

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Schedule to the Use Classes Order1, to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses). It is not in dispute that the building was in a use falling within use Class B1(a) on 29th May 2013, and that the appeal site is not within a safety hazard area or military explosives area, nor is the building a listed building or scheduled monument. The Council accept that the change of use would constitute permitted development.

5. Planning permission granted by Part 3, Class of the GPDO is subject to a condition that, before beginning the development, an application is made to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required in respect of the transport and highways impacts of the development; contamination risks on the site; flooding risks on the site; and the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development. The Council resolved that its prior approval was required, and this was subsequently refused. It is common ground between the main parties that the proposed development would not have any adverse effects in terms of transport and highways and that there are no risks to the development from contamination or flooding. The sole matter in dispute is the efficacy of the noise mitigation measures proposed by the appellant and the effect that noise from nearby premises in commercial use may have on the future residents of the proposed flats.

6. Therefore, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of noise from nearby commercial premises on the future occupiers of the proposed development.

Reasons

7. The appeal building is a two storey structure with a semi-basement level. At the time of the hearing site visit, a further floor had been inserted into the roof space of the building as part of works commenced, and later suspended, under a previous prior approval. It is located within the city’s Jewellery Quarter, which is predominantly commercial in nature with some small enclaves of residential uses. In the vicinity of the appeal building are several licenced premises that hold licences for live and recorded music, in particular the 1000 Trades public house which immediately adjoins the appeal building and Acapella on the junction of Albion Street and Frederick Street, opposite the appeal site. The Council state, and it is not contested by the appellant, that the licencing conditions of these premises allow recorded or live music until 03:00 on certain days.

8. Both parties recognise that these premises will be a source of noise that would affect the appeal building. Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) seeks to ensure that new development can be effectively integrated with existing businesses and community facilities, which includes music venues, and that such businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Paragraph 182 further states that where the operation of an existing business would have a significant effect on new development nearby, the applicant/appellant should be required to provide suitable mitigation as part of the development.

9. In order to mitigate the potential for noise nuisance, it is proposed to install secondary glazing behind the existing windows in the appeal building and to

1 The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)

Appeal Decision APP/P4605/W/18/3217413

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

provide sound insulation on the party wall between the appeal building and the adjoining 1000 Trades public house. During the course of the appeal the specification of these mitigation measures were changed from that originally proposed, however, all the relevant parties have had the opportunity to comment on the revised specification. Mechanical ventilation would be provided throughout the building to provide the air changes required by the Building Regulations.

10. The Council have not challenged the technical findings of the appellant’s noise assessments, although these are challenged by Albion Court Action Group who are third party objectors to the proposal and were represented at the hearing. The Council’s primary concern is that the mitigation measures relied upon by the proposal would result in the future occupiers of the building having to keep the windows of the flats and the secondary glazing closed to prevent noise ingress, which would result in unsuitable living conditions.

11. Although it was argued by the appellant that Part 3, Class O makes no reference to living conditions and that there are no policy preclusions on sealed windows, in making a determination on a prior approval application, decision makers are required to have regard to the provisions of the Framework, so far as they are relevant to the proposal. Paragraph 127 of the Framework requires that new development should create places which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. The Planning Practice Guidance also identifies that if proposed noise mitigation relies on windows being kept closed this may have an effect on living conditions.

12. In addition, from the wording of Paragraph O2 (1)(d) of the GPDO, which deals with the conditions subject to which permission is granted, the effect of the proposal on living conditions is implicit in the consideration of the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development. Within this context it is clear that the manner in which it is proposed to mitigate the noise is an integral and non-severable part of assessing the potential effect of noise on the future occupiers.

13. The appellant confirmed at the hearing that the secondary glazing to be installed at the appeal building would be openable and it was also confirmed that the proposed mitigation would only be effective if the windows and secondary glazing are closed.

14. There is no formal policy basis in the Framework that precludes the use of sealed windows, and the Council accepts that the use of mechanical ventilation would meet the requirements of the Building Regulations. Although there may be a psychological effect of living in an environment where it is not possible to open the windows, this is difficult to objectively quantify as it would affect different people in different ways. The Council do not generally support the use of sealed windows or fixed glazing, nevertheless, there is no persuasive evidence that would support the contention that fixed glazing would automatically result in poor living conditions.

15. Whilst the use of sealed windows would not necessarily result in unacceptable living conditions, the key test in this case that has to be met in order to meet the requirements of the GPDO is the effect of noise from commercial premises on the future occupiers and whether that noise can be suitably mitigated in

Appeal Decision APP/P4605/W/18/3217413

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

order to integrate the proposal with existing businesses. The appeal proposal specifically does not include sealed windows or fixed secondary glazing.

16. Although it is suggested by the appellant that people moving into city centre housing are prepared to make compromises in return for the convenience and lifestyle offered by city centre living, future occupiers would nevertheless have expectations regarding their quality of life and it cannot be assumed that any or all future occupiers of the development would necessarily be more tolerant of noise, nor can it be assumed that future occupiers would keep windows closed, even during events that resulted in noise. Whilst a planning condition could ensure that a noise mitigation scheme was put in place, it cannot thereafter ensure that it is used or operated as intended. Regardless of the provision of mechanical ventilation, future occupiers may wish to open the windows for access to fresh air or other reasons, and the actions of the future occupiers are not within the control of either the appellant or the Council.

17. The principal noise sources at this point in time result from evening uses and so windows in the appeal building could potentially be opened without detriment to the occupiers during the day. However, there is no evidence that the activities at the music venues is restricted or do not occur during the daytime. The surrounding area is commercial in nature and other nearby commercial users could at a future date introduce noisier uses or daytime activities that are not necessarily controllable, and the Framework is explicit that existing businesses should not be unreasonably restricted by development permitted after they were established. The ability to open the windows and secondary glazing would, therefore, fatally undermine the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation scheme.

18. In these circumstances, regardless of whether the enhanced glazing and sound insulation on the dividing wall would result in an acceptable internal noise climate and suitable living conditions for the future occupiers, the mitigation proposed is compromised by its reliance on the actions of a third party, namely the future occupiers, which is beyond the control of either the appellant or the Council, and, consequently, the proposal would not suitably address the effect of noise from nearby commercial premises on the future occupiers of the proposed development.

19. I have had regard to Inspector’s decision on 50 Frederick Street opposite the site which allowed flats to be created above the premises now known as Acapella and the Inspector’s conclusion that as a result of the mitigation measures proposed in that case, the impact of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development would be acceptable. However, I note that this resulted in flats that had sealed, non-opening, windows and it was apparent from my site visit that the upper floor windows of this building are sealed units. This is materially different from the case in the present appeal, where the existing opening windows are being retained and openable secondary glazing is being installed. It is not proposed to replace the existing windows in the appeal building with fixed glazing. Nonetheless, I do not consider that this approval represents a precedent to allow the appeal proposal.

20. I have also had regard to the other cases cited by the appellant where the use of sealed windows has been permitted or openable windows have been found acceptable. I do not have the full details of these cases and so cannot be

Appeal Decision APP/P4605/W/18/3217413

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

certain that the circumstances are similar to the case now before me. I note that the Council state in respect of the planning permissions that it has granted that there were other regeneration benefits that outweighed the disadvantages of sealed windows, and I also note that these schemes are markedly different in scale to the appeal proposal. In respect of the appeal decision at Perry Barr2, whilst I note that the Inspector concluded that openable windows were acceptable and that the proposal would provide a suitable residential environment, I do not have any details in respect of the nature or proximity of the noise sources, or of the prevailing noise climate in the area. I therefore cannot tell if this is comparable to the case before me, where there are multiple late night noise sources extremely close to the appeal building and, as a result, I can give little weight to this.

21. A number of conditions were discussed at the hearing relating to noise mitigation. Paragraph W of Schedule 2, Part 3 to the GPDO does allow for conditions that are reasonable related to the subject matter of the prior approval. However, the matter of noise mitigation is in itself a condition of the development permitted by the GPDO, is the principal matter in dispute between the parties, and goes to the heart of the main issue in this appeal. In these circumstances it would not be appropriate to require the submission of a further noise mitigation scheme as this would, in effect, reopen the prior approval process.

22. I conclude that the appeal proposal would not suitably address the effect of noise from nearby commercial premises on the future occupiers of the proposed development. It would conflict with the relevant requirements of the Framework which seeks to ensure that new development new development can be effectively integrated with existing businesses and community facilities; that where the operation of an existing business would have a significant effect on new development nearby, suitable noise mitigation is provided as part of the development; and that new development provides a high standard of amenity for future occupiers.

Other Matters

23. It was argued on behalf of the third parties that allowing the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the operation of the 1000 Trades public house as a music venue. Whilst this pre-supposes that there may be complaints from the future residents in respect of noise, it is also difficult to objectively quantify the likely prospects of success of such complaints. In any event, as this application is for prior approval rather than an application for planning permission, the matter that is before me is ultimately whether the proposed development would provide suitable living conditions for the future occupiers of the proposed development taking into account the existing commercial noise sources in the area and the proposed mitigation measures. It is not for me to determine whether those existing noise sources constitute an actionable noise nuisance but rather whether the proposed noise mitigation is appropriate.

24. The third parties also raised concerns in respect of increased car parking in the area as a consequence of the development. The appeal site has good access to public transport within a short distance of and is within reasonable walking distance of large parts of the city centre. No substantive evidence was submitted in respect of current and future parking demand, or which would

2 Appeal reference: APP/P4605/W/18/3201108

Appeal Decision APP/P4605/W/18/3217413

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

demonstrate that the area suffers from parking stress. I also note that the Highways Authority have not raised any objections to the proposal. Based on the evidence, I have no reason to conclude differently.

Conclusion

25. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

John Dowsett

INSPECTOR

Appeal Decision APP/P4605/W/18/3217413

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms N Pindham Mr K Fenwick Mr N Mann Mr A Moore Mr L Kelter

Barrister, No. 5 Chambers Pegasus Group White Young Green Pegasus Group White Young Green

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr D Wells Mr M Key Ms A Do

Principal Planner, Birmingham City Council Regulatory Services, Birmingham City Council Planning Officer, Birmingham City Council

INTERESTED PERSONS:

On behalf of Albion Court Action Group: Ms S Clover Mr B Albon Mr J Stapleton Mr J Todd Mr P Rose Mr D Mahoney

Barrister, Kings Chambers Sandy Brown Associates 1000 Trades 1000 Trades Birmingham Jazz Jewellery Quarter Development Trust

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING

Updated drawings showing 21 flats (basement flats omitted)

Updated suggested conditions

Written submission from Jewellery Quarter Development Trust

Written submission from Birmingham Jazz

Appendix IV

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 June 2020

by A Caines BSc(Hons) MSc TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 22 June 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/M4510/W/19/3234440 Land to South of Walker Road, Formerly Saint Peters Scrap Yard, 304 Walker Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE6 1AH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Alamoudi (Yasser Alamoudi Limited) against the decision of

Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council. • The application Ref 2016/1060/01/DET, dated 22 June 2016, was refused by notice

dated 28 March 2019. • The development proposed is residential development comprising of 58 units in 3

interlinked blocks of 5-6 storeys including a lightweight penthouse level together with associated hard and soft landscaping and 64 car parking spaces with access from Walker Road.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

2. I have taken the appeal site address from the Council’s decision notice as it is more precise than that given on the planning application form.

3. Prior to the determination of the planning application the scheme was amended and the description of development changed to that set out in the header above. This was the basis upon which the Council determined the scheme and so shall I.

4. The Council’s second reason for refusal references a requirement for an open space and recreation contribution of £145,880. It has been clarified that this was a typographical error and should have been £45,880.

5. Since determination of the planning application the Council’s Development and Allocations Plan 2015-2030 (DAP) has been found sound, subject to a number of main modifications. Given the advanced stage of the DAP, I have given due weight to the relevant Policies contained within it.

Main Issues

6. The main issues are:

• Whether the site is an appropriate location for the development, with particular regard to the effects of odour on the living conditions of future occupiers; and

Appeal Decision APP/M4510/W/19/3234440

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

• Whether appropriate provision would be made for affordable housing and other requirements arising from the development.

Reasons

Odour effects

7. The development would be arranged in three linear interlinked blocks utilising the existing access from Walker Road, which passes initially along the western boundary before turning east into the narrow L-shaped site.

8. Immediately to the north west and adjoining the appeal site is the Byker Waste Treatment and Transfer Station (BWTTS) operated by SUEZ Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd on behalf of Newcastle City Council.

9. The BWTTS is a Mechanical and Biological Treatment waste handling facility, which I am informed is the principal waste treatment and transfer facility for Newcastle City’s municipal waste collection service. It processes a large amount of household, commercial and industrial waste, including both inert wastes and organic material (such as animal tissue, food waste and green waste) under permit from the Environment Agency (EA).

10. There is no dispute that the BWTTS is a known source of odour and that the residential development falls within the high sensitivity receptor category. Due to the prevailing wind direction, the development would lie directly downwind from the odour source. This, together with the proximity of the development to the odour source and an expectation that residents would want to open windows and enjoy outdoor space within the development, means that the pathway effectiveness from odour source to receptor should be regarded as highly effective.

11. During the planning application, the appellant provided an Odour Impact Assessment1. The assessment utilised sniff testing of odour intensity at locations within the site and predicted the likely odour effect to be moderate adverse on the two blocks that have since been removed from the proposals, and slight adverse on the three blocks comprising the appeal scheme. The Council commissioned its own Odour Assessment2, which utilised a qualitative risk-assessment approach, together with a review of the appellant’s assessment. It predicted moderate adverse odour effects across the whole of the development, but its overall conclusions are similar to the appellant’s assessment. Both consider the western part of the site to be at risk of potentially significant odour effects from the BWTTS, with the risk decreasing further to the east where the three residential blocks are proposed to be sited.

12. However, the conclusion of the Council’s odour assessment is qualified with a statement that odours are still likely to be detectable across the entire site from time to time. Furthermore, the appellant’s sniff test results show that on two separate test days unpleasant municipal waste odour was detectable at the eastern end of the site. This is consistent with the history of odour complaints against the BWTTS from greater distances than any part of the development. There is nothing substantive before me to support assumptions that these complaints were a result of abnormal operations at the BWTTS or abnormal meteorological conditions.

1 By Spectrum environmental support, dated 8 May 2017 2 By Air Quality Consultants, dated 4 September 2017

Appeal Decision APP/M4510/W/19/3234440

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

13. The objection from the EA, a statutory consultee, is a very weighty matter. It indicates that in 2018 there was a significant spike in the number of complaints about odour from the BWTTS within as much as a 1km radius of the development. This is corroborated by the objection from the Council’s Waste Management Section, adding that the spike in 2018 complaints came despite efforts made by the facility to control odours after a peak of complaints in 2014-2015. This indicates that even with reasonable odour reduction measures at the source and effective operational pollution regulation in place, the surrounding area still experiences effects from residual odour caused by the BWTTS.

14. I am also mindful that the BWTTS is permitted to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Accordingly, the potential exists for the facility to operate more intensively than at present. The objection from the operator of the facility highlights the importance of flexibility to be able to work longer hours should the need arise, or if waste management requirements and targets change over time. In addition, the Council’s Waste Management Section advises that mandatory weekly food waste collection may be introduced in the future. These factors could further increase the risk of odour effects from the facility.

15. Moreover, I am cognisant that the access for the development closely hugs the western boundary with the BWTTS. It is common ground that the western part of the site could be exposed to potentially significant odour effects. Therefore, irrespective of whether the remaining residential blocks to the east would be exposed to unacceptable odour effects, it is likely that future occupiers of the development could experience the unpleasant odours from the BWTTS on a regular basis as they enter and leave the site, by foot and by vehicle. Whilst this would be for short periods each time, cumulatively, this experience could cause annoyance and increase the potential for odour complaints against the BWTTS.

16. In addition, the amendments introduced a “grass amenity” area in the western part of the site where one of the residential blocks was removed from the scheme because of potentially significant odour exposure in that location. As such, it would be likely that its users could be regularly exposed to unpleasant odours, particularly during warmer weather, thereby impacting on their health and well-being, as well as increasing the potential for odour complaints against the BWTTS.

17. The introduction of dense planting along the western boundary may assist in the dispersion of odour to part of the site, but there is no substantive evidence that it would be highly effective in mitigating the effects of odour exposure from the BWTTS. Indeed, the appellant’s odour assessment acknowledges that this should not be considered as a mitigation plan which is certain to reduce the impact of odour exposure to the proposed development.

18. Drawing all these matters together, I cannot rule out the possibility that future occupiers of the development could be exposed to harmful odour effects from the BWTTS. There is also a realistic prospect that the proposal could lead to further odour-related complaints against the BWTTS. This could result in further costly measures and restrictions being placed on its operations. Not only would this disadvantage an existing business, but it could also unacceptably prejudice the Council’s essential waste management and

Appeal Decision APP/M4510/W/19/3234440

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

recycling infrastructure and services. In these circumstances, I consider that a precautionary approach is a necessity.

19. For all these reasons, I conclude that the site is not an appropriate location for the development, with particular regard to the effects of odour on the living conditions of future occupiers. Thus, the development would be contrary to Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne 2010-2030 (CSUCP), which requires that the wellbeing and health of communities is maintained and improved by among other things, preventing negative impacts on residential amenity and wider public safety from air quality. It would also conflict with Policy DM23 of the DAP, which includes a requirement for development to provide a high quality environment and a good standard of residential amenity for existing and future occupants, ensuring among other things, that smells, fumes and other harmful effects from surrounding land uses and/or associated operations will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity.

20. The development would also be contrary to paragraphs 127f, 180 and 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to ensure a high standard of amenity for all existing and future users; that development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects of pollution on living conditions; and that existing businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established.

Affordable housing and other requirements arising from the development

21. The Council has identified the need for the provision of 15% affordable housing, a financial contribution of £45,880 towards open space and recreation improvements in the vicinity, a Training Employment Management Plan, internal estate road and footpath management details, and the monitoring costs associated with the obligations. These have been identified and calculated on the basis of the specific development proposed and the Council’s adopted development plan policies and supplementary guidance.

22. On the evidence before me, there is no suggestion that these provisions are anything other than necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. I am therefore satisfied that they would comply with the relevant tests for planning obligations as set out in the Framework and in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations.

23. The appellant has indicated willingness for all of the above mentioned requirements and contribution to be secured by a legal agreement, but there is no legal agreement before me. I have noted the request for the provision of a legal agreement to be conditioned; however, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)3 states that a positively worded condition which requires the applicant to enter into a planning obligation is unlikely to pass the test of enforceability. The PPG also adds that a negatively worded condition limiting the development taking place until a planning obligation is entered into is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances, citing more complex and strategically important development, which the proposal would not constitute.

3 Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 21a-010-20190723

Appeal Decision APP/M4510/W/19/3234440

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

24. Accordingly, in the absence of any legal agreement, it is the case that the development would not make appropriate provision for affordable housing and the other identified requirements arising from the development. Thus, it is contrary to CSUCP Policies DEL1, CS5, CS11, CS13, CS18, saved UDP Policies OS1.1, OS1.2 and T7.1, and DAP Policies DM14 and DM27, in so far as they require new development to be made acceptable through the provision of affordable housing, and refer to the specific obligations and infrastructure requirements that have been identified.

Other Matters

25. The proposal would make effective use of previously developed land, which is identified for housing potential in the Walker Riverside: Area Action Plan. It would also add to the supply and choice of housing in the area, create employment opportunities and make a contribution to the local economy from additional revenue and expenditure from future occupiers. These are meaningful benefits of the proposal, but they do not outweigh the significant harm identified and the proposal’s failure to comply with the policies of the development plan as a whole.

26. I have noted the variety of other issues raised by interested parties that have not been encapsulated above. This includes concerns regarding noise, design, traffic, wildlife, privacy, flooding, archaeology, land contamination and stability. However, these matters did not feature in the Council’s refusal reasons and as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it is not necessary to consider these matters any further, as any findings in these respects would not change the appeal outcome.

Conclusion

27. For the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.

A Caines

INSPECTOR

Appendix V

Registered in the UK | Company No. 4850754 E-mail: sales@oaktree-environmental.co.uk | Web: www.oaktree-environmental.co.uk

Lime House, 2 Road Two, Tel: 01606 558833 Winsford, Cheshire, CW7 3QZ

Chris Burton Sutherland Property & Legal Services Ltd 1st Floor 1 Stamford Fort Cottages Stamford Road Plymouth PL9 9SQ

Date: 21st September 2021

Our Ref: 2369_001_v1.2

RE: RESULTS OF NOISE MONITORING DIRECTLY AT NOISE MONITORING POSITION 3, TO THE SOUTH OFT ETM RECYCLING FACILITY, ASHTON VALE ROAD, BRISTOL

I have previously prepared and submitted a Noise Impact Assessment in support of a planning application for the extension of hours and annual throughput at a waste recycling site on Ashton Vale Road (application ref: 21/01169/X ).

As per the document outlining the scope of my assessment, I have undertaken monitoring at Noise Monitoring Position A (NMP A) and NMP B as per the below, previously submitted plan. However, in the interests of completeness I have undertaken monitoring at NMP C, the results of which were not submitted as part of the application.

Registered in the UK | Company No. 4850754

E-mail: sales@oaktree-environmental.co.uk | Web: www.oaktree-environmental.co.uk

Monitoring at this third location has been undertaken in order to accurately ascertain a background sound level for this location to be used in future assessments and to aid in the quantification of noise from the operations at ETM Recycling ltd. As per the scoping document submitted to Bristol City Council via email on the 7th December 2020 attended, hour long background measurements were taken in accordance with BS 7445-1: 2003 by Thomas Benson of Oaktree Environmental Ltd. As per the requirements of BS414: 2014, the survey ensured that background levels representative of the proposed operating hours were captured (i.e. 07:00-23:00 and 23:00-07:00 for Weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays). These were undertaken in 7no. individual visits to the area. With regards to the below, the site was operational during the currently consented operational hours i.e. 06:0-18:00 Monday-Saturday.

Measurement Time

LAeq LAfmax LA90 LA10 Comments

15/01/2021 09:30-10:30

57.6 71.5 46.8 61.3 Site operational – MRF not running.

15/01/2021 14:30-15:30

59.3 79.0 50.7 62.1 Site operational – MRF running for some of the monitoring period

23/01/2021 09:20-10:20

58.0 70.3 53.1 60.9 Site operational – MRF running for some of the monitoring period

23/01/2021 13:00-14:00

53.1 63.6 50.7 55.0 Site closed

25/01/2021 21:30-22:30

49.1 69.4 44.1 51.4 Site closed

26/01/2021 01:00-02:00

43.1 58.0 39.6 45.7 Site closed

30/01/2021 21:15-22:15

47.0 64.5 44.1 49.0 Site closed

It should of course be noted that the background monitoring undertaken during a period of significant national restrictions taking place during January and February 2021. At this time people are asked to stay at home, except for specific purposes and to avoid meeting people with whom you do not live (including working from home where possible). The closure of schools and certain business and venues is taking place during this time. Further discussion regarding how these restrictions may have affected the results are provided further on in this chapter, however from onsite observations the following noise emitting operators/sites were not active during this time:

• David Lloyd Bristol Long Ashton (5m west) – Large sports and gym centre including external sports pitches and

swimming pool. This site was not in use at all during the monitoring and therefore noise arising from; road traffic, external sports and fixed machinery such as ventilation etc. will not be reflected during this round of monitoring.

• Manheim Bristol Auctions (15m south) – Whilst some movements were observed from workers moving stock, it appeared that the site remained closed to the public and no auctions were observed to have taken place during the monitoring.

• Flynn Ltd (20m north) – It is understood that work within the civil engineering yard has ceased completely. • Long Ashton Park & Ride (275m south/west) – Vehicle movements within this area were extremely limited

during the monitoring with no more than 5 vehicles observed per hour. Obviously during less restricted times this would change by orders of magnitude.

• Ashton Gate Stadium (470m east) – At the time of the monitoring football games were being played behind closed doors. Ashton Gate Stadium has a seated capacity of 27,000 which are currently unable to attend games. Evidently noise would arise from associated road traffic, pedestrians, fans attending pubs/eateries etc.

Registered in the UK | Company No. 4850754 E-mail: sales@oaktree-environmental.co.uk | Web: www.oaktree-environmental.co.uk

In addition to the above, a 15-minute plant measurement was undertaken between the hours of 03:00-03:15 whilst other noise sources comprising the surround noise climate are lower or not operational. It should be noted that this measurement does not include the contribution from other onsite noise sources such as; loading/unloading of HGVs, sorting/movement of wastes via the loading plant, movement of HGVs etc.

Location LAeq LAfmax

45m from southern façade

53.8 65.7

Based on the above, it should be considered that the proposed development of the vacant land to housing is completely at odds with the surrounding land uses and based on the relevant standards (BS4142:2014 and BS8233:2014) as well National Planning Policy and would likely arise in significant levels of disturbance.

In addition, Condition 4 of application ref: 17/06938/F states: “The rating level of any noise generated by plant & equipment as part of the development shall be at least 4 dB below the background level as determined by BS4142: 2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound.”

From review of the background sound levels in the area and the noise levels associated with the site which are provided within the previous tables, it is apparent that the introduction of an additional noise sensitive receptor at such close proximity to the site would cause the site to be in breach of condition 4, the criteria of which would become exceedingly difficult to achieve.

I trust that my comments and monitoring will be placed on record and given appropriate weight.

Yours faithfully

Thomas Benson, Senior Consultant

Mrs Sophie Potter-Daniels  7 ARCH CLOSE LONG ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-10-08   OBJECT

This development appears to be all about profit and nothing else is being considered.The proposal only includes the minimum 30% of affordable housing, which is what is really neededright now. There are many brownsights in. Bristol that should be developed way before evenconsidering building on greenbelt. There are less and less green spaces and we should be doingall we can to protect them for the environment and ultimately for people and wildlife. Pretty surethe proposed site is a floodplain so development is a ridiculous plan. Also there are too fewresourses for the population in Long Ashton as it is. I moved to long Ashton to get out of the cityand because of the green spaces around us and do not want it becoming just another suburb ofBristol. This means I have to move further away if this new proposed development goes ahead.How much am I going to be paid to do that? How much to compensate for how our house valuewill decrease as a result?

Mr Stewart Joyce  58 CHARLCOMBE RISE PORTISHEAD BRISTOL  on 2021-10-01   SUPPORT

I fully support this application. Much needed.

    on 2021-09-27  

2

A second possibility is to introduce a new pedestrian link along the route of Longmoor Brook,

continuing to the Stadium via Ashton Vale Road. This would be largely outside the proposed

development, and so avoid increased footfall through the residential area. However, the impact of

using this route on the ecology of the area would need careful consideration.

We believe that getting an agreement that would enable a more direct pedestrian link between the

Stadium site and the Park & Ride should be a precondition of approval.

Bristol Walking Alliance

27 September 2021 enquiries@bristolwalkingalliance.org.uk

Ms Stephanie French BTF Tree Champion  18 OLD SNEED AVENUE, BRISTOL BS9 1SE  on 2021-09-13   OBJECT

There are a few trees on this land, but I confess I doubt that they merit TreePreservation Orders. They should be quantified and measured however because if thisdevelopment goes ahead they do merit replacement under BTRS. Bristol's own Planning Policy tobuild around existing trees is rarely enforced, and we often see clearance of trees as movenumber 1 in any land development.My main comment is about the fact that this area is subject to flooding and I don't think it is one ofthose 1 in 200 year events that Planners tell us to learn to live with and manage, but a regularoccurrence. I went to walk around it on December 26th 2020. It was a personal "exercise duringlock down" expedition.The land outside the Metrobus route was flooded - I have some good photos of the lakes. The fieldinside the perimeter of the Metrobus road was not actually under water - but as soon as onewalked across it one's foot sunk into the ground and did go under water. The land was saturated -the water table at that moment being at grass root level quite literally. I was wearing WellingtonBoots I am glad to say. This was not after a period of unusually heavy rain - just a normal UKwinter.There is usually a good reason that land that has not been built on has not been built on. I think Ifound the reason for this land being house - free. A resident walking by with his dog told mecheerily that the locals call this area "Marshfield".

Mr David Love-Martin  FLAT 6, THE BOOT FACTORY BEACONSFIELD ROAD, ST. GEORGE BRISTOL  on 2021-09-12   OBJECT

I object to this proposed development on green belt land. We should be preservinggreen belt land and only build homes on existing brown belt land

Ms Elizabeth Parker  2 BANWELL ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-09-06   OBJECT

Myself, my partner and my young children love this green space and were delightedwhen we first discovered it when we moved to Ashton. We are saddened and anxious that, like somany green lungs in this busy city, this area is under threat. We are deeply upset that the needs ofpeople who do not live here yet are being put before the existing communities. This is happeningtoo often. At a time of climate crisis, in a city where air quality needs to improve, encouraging morepeople into the city at the cost of the green spaces that make Bristol a pleasure to live in, isirresponsible and disrespectful of the needs of existing communities.

Mrs Penelope Postlethwaite  19 WILLADA CLOSE BEDMINSTER BRISTOL  on 2021-09-06   OBJECT

Western Slopes is a wildlife corridor , home to birds , animals , insects and plantlife . Itshould be taken off the local plan and given the highest level of protection

Mr Neill Talbot  FLAT 1, 42 BELMONT ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-09-05   OBJECT

This proposed development should be turned down as the site is green belt land and itwould remove valuable green space.

The land is a designated wildlife corridor. It also includes part of a Site of Nature ConservationInterest (SNCI) and is next to a more extensive SNCI which is an important site for wintering andbreeding wildfowl and waders. The documents submitted to planning acknowledge theunconfirmed presence of various species, including some protected ones on the site. Theseinclude: water voles, otters, bats, badgers, hazel dormice and hedgehogs. Documents submittedalso acknowledge that building houses on this site will disturb the breeding and wintering birdswho use the Ashton Vale Marshes.

Therefore I wish to OBJECT to this application.

Thank you.

Mrs J P  ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-09-03   SUPPORT

We are a long standing Ashton Drive residents and would like to say we support theLongmoor housing plans. A lady visited us the other day trying to get us to object and was prettycross when we said we supported it.

We do have questions about flooding and building on land fill however we do need housing, andbetter here than on Western Slopes.

Can we make sure Ashton Vale sees benefits from this, for example, we've been promised a kidsplay area for a long time, the roads needs resurfacing, and the schools and GPs need investment.

Mr and Mrs P, Ashton Drive.

Dr John Tarlton  34 ST OSWALDS ROAD REDLAND BRISTOL  on 2021-09-01   OBJECT

Based upon the National Planning Policy Framework this development cannot bepermitted. Clearly, the proposals are "harmful to the Green Belt" and therefore approval requires"very special circumstances" of which there are none. Therefore this development does notcomply with either the NPPF or the Bristol Core Strategy (BCS6) which affirms compliance withthe NPPF; "Land within the Green Belt will be protected from inappropriate development as set outin national planning policy"

The proposal also contravenes BCS9 (Green Infrastructure) and BCS13 (Climate Change) of theCore Strategy and DM17 (Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure) of the Local Plan.

The proposal would damage the Strategic Green infrastructure network, would not be compliantwith either of the councils emergency declarations on Climate and Ecology.

It seems absolutely ludicrous that having protected the green belt and other vital green spacesaround Bristol for previous decades, that now having declared a Climate Emergency and anEcological Emergency, this is the moment the Council are considering allowing development onthese sites.

In general, considering the Climate and Ecological Emergencies, the lack of urgency by Bristol citycouncil on these issues is astonishing. It almost seems that this administration is not seeing what

the rest of us are seeing every night on our televisions.

I recognise that there is a need for new homes, and Mayor Rees would like his legacy to besolution of the Housing Crisis. The housing crisis has been with us for decades and will be with usfor many decades to come, the reason being that the more houses we build the more people willmove to Bristol to occupy them. Indeed, Mayor Rees himself has stated that one of the pressureson housing is due to the enormous number of professionals moving to Bristol from London. Whathis legacy is likely to be is the eradication is the valuable urban green spaces and the proximity ofcountryside that makes Bristol such a great place to live. If our objective is simply to provideaffordable and social housing for citizens of Bristol, this can easily be done with the currentavailability of genuine brown field sites.

As a result of the COVID pandemic, working practices and shopping habits have changed forever,and it is expected that a significant proportion of current retail and office space will becomeavailable for the provision of homes in the next few years. So, this is certainly not a time to beirreversibly destroying our green infrastructure in order to satisfy the needs of developers, ordubious short term political goals.

  MANOR WOODS VALLEY GROUP VICE  on 2021-09-01   OBJECT

documents prepared or sponsored by Bristol City Council (BCC), this means that we

test proposals/applications against the Council’s own stated aims and policies.

We challenge and require, using the words and phrases contained in the strategies,

Council officers and elected representatives, to justify why the proposed development

should over-ride the aims and desired outcomes of the environment related strategy

documents. We will question the worth of the Council’s contribution to, and stated

support for, these strategies if their decision-making processes and outcomes is

contrary to the environmental elements of these strategies.

As a principal, we reject any suggestion that site planning designations contained in

the local plan of 2014 over-ride the aims, conclusions and measures proposed in the

strategy documents. The latter post-date the local plan and highlight the immediacy of

the environmental issues that we face in the city and beyond. These issues were not

as well understood or appreciated at the time the local plan was published.

Referencing the three strategy documents in this document does not preclude MWVG

referencing other BCC or third-party strategy documents or querying other aspects of

the proposal/application, for example the scope and/or veracity of supporting survey

data and/or interpretation of same.

Statements Contained in the Strategy Documents

The Issues Identified in the Documents:

Nature is in decline globally, nationally and within the West of England, threatening our health, prosperity and security. The need to act is urgent, as recognised by declarations of ecological emergencies in the West of England. To reverse the decline and deliver nature’s recovery, we need to work to Lawton’s Principles and create bigger, better, more and joined-up habitats. (ref 3) Bristol has already suffered major losses in wildlife. In urban areas, housing developments, commercial building and roads have replaced and fragmented wildlife habitats. We have tidied away the places where wildlife used to live, we have paved over our front gardens and filled up the holes in our buildings where birds used to nest. These losses matter to all of us because of the crucial role that wildlife and ecosystems play in supporting life on earth.…we need to change the way we’re interacting with nature, because what we’re doing now isn’t working. (ref 2). We don’t have the luxury to delay any longer, time is running out fast. (ref 2) “2021

must be the year to change gear and put the world on track. We need to move from

death to health; from disaster to reconstruction; from despair to hope; from business

as usual to transformation. The Sustainable Development Goals are more important

now than ever.” - Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations (ref 1)

Development has been a significant driver of loss of wildlife in urban areas, with buildings, roads and other transport routes contributing to the destruction and

fragmentation of habitats. We need to ensure that we’re learning lessons from the past and building new houses and transport links that put back lost habitats and wildlife corridors. (ref 2) With the West of England Combined Authority (WECA) and the West of England councils having each declared a Climate Emergency, the strategy is now more relevant than ever ensuring that our network of multifunctional urban and rural green space responds to the climate and ecological emergency. (ref 3) The Solutions proposed in the documents: To reverse the declines in biodiversity and realise nature’s recovery at scale, we need

to work together and, on the landscape-scale to embed the Lawton principles of

Bigger, Better, More and Joined Up into our policies and strategies. This means

protecting and enhancing our existing natural habitats, but also making them bigger,

creating new areas of species-rich habitat, and, critically, ensuring they join up to

create functional and resilient ecological networks that enable nature and people to

thrive. (ref 3)

Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan published in January 2018 includes a

commitment to “develop a Nature Recovery Network to protect and restore wildlife,

and provide opportunities to re-introduce species that we have lost from our

countryside.” (ref 3)

If we are to halt the decline of wildlife and start to restore nature’s abundance, we need

to stop destroying wildlife habitats... (and) … ensure that remaining habitats are

protected, connected and restored. We need to tackle the twin threats of climate and

ecological breakdown to save our planet for people and wildlife. Fortunately, it’s not

too late to act and we know the solutions, but we need to act now. We need to make

the next ten years a decade of transformation, to make Bristol a haven for wildlife by

2030 … (and to) restore the natural systems on which we depend. (We need to) reduce

our city’s ecological footprint. (ref 2) … we will … protect and enhance green spaces

… (ref 1)

WENP has led the development of a vision for a Nature Recovery Network (NRN) in

the West of England as a joined up network of marine and terrestrial habitats where

nature and people can thrive. (ref 3)

“From today, we will work together as a city to ensure that 30% of Bristol’s land is managed for nature. We will create space for nature, and unite to find new, fair and inclusive ways to reduce and eliminate the threats to habitats and wildlife. Together we will take action for nature so that both people and wildlife can benefit.” (ref 1 & 2) The Environment Board aims to accelerate Bristol’s response to the climate and ecological emergencies (ref 1) … all remaining green spaces are now a vital refuge for pollinators and other wildlife. …we need to: Protect remaining wildlife habitats and care for them better. Work together to provide more habitat for wildlife throughout the city … (and) Ensure that

new developments adopt the highest standards of design, working with nature to provide positive benefits to people and wildlife…. (ref 2) Ensure all developments, including strategic projects, within the West of England deliver a net gain in biodiversity and stringent standards for resource efficiency Bristol City Council is working with neighbouring authorities to ensure that net gain is achieved across the West of England Combined Authority area. … we know we need greener developments that retain and integrate habitats and green space and incorporate new green roofs, living walls and amenity spaces. We need to make sure we’re making space for nature, in existing houses, offices and highways. (ref 2) … we also need to replace some of the lost nesting and resting places that our buildings used to provide through the addition of features such as bird boxes, swift chimneys and bat bricks. To meet these goals we must … take significant action on the environment. We are not alone in this challenge, and we will build on the work of many others around the globe. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will help us to put social inclusion and environmental sustainability at the heart of recovery planning, and this strategy is aligned with, and will be measured against the SDGs. … (ref 1) 2020’s lockdown restrictions resulted in …. many experienced a new connection with

and reliance upon the local environment. However, these were not achieved through

voluntary choices and we have been working with the Economy and Skills Board to

ensure that the One City Economic Recovery and Renewal Strategy has the climate

and ecological emergencies at its heart in order to achieve long-term and sustainable

transformation. We aim to ensure that the global recognition Bristol has earned for its

work to become more sustainable to date is matched by its efforts to achieve a green

and fair recovery from COVID-19. (ref 1)

The Results if the proposals in the documents come to fruition: ….the benefits of protecting natural spaces outweigh the costs at least five to one. (ref 2) (Post-Covid) …Our overarching priorities are: … to increase the city’s resilience and environmental sustainability … (ref 1) … (The) pandemic has shown us the importance of nature in Bristol and the interconnectedness of our ecosystem. (In 2021) … Citywide activity launched to engage citizens on pathways to achieving Bristol’s 2030 climate and ecological goals… Ensure community and business led nature-based solutions are delivering multiple benefits e.g. improving habitats and reduce flooding and pollution across the West of England. (By) 2024 … Wildlife-friendly food growing areas have been established in every ward in the city, using regenerative approaches to replenish the soil and manage water.

(By) 2028 … There has been a sustained increase in public engagement with biodiversity, with conservation volunteering and pro-environmental behaviours widespread. (by) 2030 … 30% of land in the city is managed for nature … (By) 2033 … Bristol is supporting a wider range of wildlife, with the return of species such as pine marten, red kite and beavers (By) 2034 …20% of food consumed in the city comes from sustainable producers in the city region (By) 2035 …Tree canopy cover has increased by a 25% since 2018 (By) 2036 … Bristol’s inclusive approach to tackling the climate and ecological emergencies is recognised as world-leading. Bristol’s urban biodiversity and habitats are a key highlight of the city’s tourism industry. (By) 2037 … There is a significant increase in the number of urban farmers and volume of urban food produced for local markets and communities. The long-term decline in the number of bees and pollinating insects has been reversed following identification and protection of key populations and habitats. As a result of measures taken to address the climate and ecological emergencies, health outcomes have improved in every ward. (By) 2038 … 100% of all suitable council owned land is now used for local food production. (By) 2039 … food shops, including supermarkets, are stocked with local food to reduce food miles and improve local food resilience. ‘Nature is important for our existence and we need it to help manage our physical and mental health as well as our wellbeing.’ - Birdgirl (Mya-Rose Craig) (By) 2041 … Everyone has access to excellent quality green space within a 10-minute walk from their home. (By) 2044 ,,, The abundance of wildlife has doubled compared to 2018 levels. (By) 2045 … Tree canopy cover has doubled since 2018. (By) 2047 … Bristol’s ecological habitats and biodiversity are at levels never seen before in the city and amongst the best for any urban environment globally. (By) 2049 … 50% of land across the Bristol city region is managed for the benefit of wildlife and Bristol is playing an active role in wildlife management across the South West. It’s 2050 and Bristol is a sustainable city, with a low impact on our planet and a healthy environment for all. Across the city … tree canopy provides shade, and the birdsong is lively. … Bristol has become a … nature rich and climate resilient city … . Bristol will have an abundance of wildlife, all people will benefit from healthy natural environment. (ref 1)

In Conclusion: For the aforementioned reasons MWVG fails to see how permitting development of greenfield Land West Off Silbury Road will contribute to solving the issues identified, the solutions proposed and the outcomes desired, in the three strategy documents referred to. Indeed, permitting development of the site would contribute to the issues, and be directly contrary to the solutions and outcomes, contained in the strategy documents. Peter Loy-Hancocks BSc(Hons) former MCIEEM For and on behalf of Manor Woods Valley Group

Mr Alan Wilson  ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-30   OBJECT

The exit point for the traffic is outrageous and clearly should exit onto the Colliters WayThe lame excuse that it will cost to much for bridges is disingenuous to the extremeThe chaos of people exiting onto the B3128 will be catastrophic for the area and then the right turnonto the one way section of the B3128 that exits onto the A370 will cause serious congestion

Mrs Michelle Lee Barker  18 LUCKWELL RD LUCKWELL BRISTOL  on 2021-08-27   OBJECT

Green belt land should not be built on. This area is an important wildlife corridor thathelps prevent flooding, absorbs carbon and protects biodiversity. Build in brownfield sites first.

Miss Charlotte Sams  20 SOMERMEAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-27   OBJECT

Something Bristol residents love about our city is that it is green and was named agreen city several years ago. The rate we are going all our green is going to be destroyed and wewill end up looking like London. The people who love here do not want this! This area is enjoyedby local residents and other residents as a place for mental health and enjoyment. The pandemicproved how vital our local green spaces are, so removing them will not only cause more pollution,but also a loss of a great mental health booster too.Let alone all the above, given the carbon crisis and climate change impacts we have going onaround the world, it is absolutely vital of you want your descendants to survive that we take actionto reduce this. Cutting down trees, building on green sites, encouraging pollution is exactly theopposite of what is needed.

Ms Lara Mairs  62 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-26   OBJECT

this is a green field site-and should be protected-other than that this will bring many hundreds of people into this area and create more pressure onschool places- the immediately local schools are over subscribed already-

Ms S Mundy  12 CLIFFORD GDNS BRISTOL  on 2021-08-26   OBJECT

I have borrowed the following statements to articulate my feelings about this project andthey explain my objections very clearly and thoroughly. We are in a climate emergency. We needto keep and protect all green spaces that are left:

1. This proposed development should be turned down as the site is green belt land. Green beltland is protected by national and local planning frameworks.

2. Green belt land should not be built on when there are brownfield sites and previously developedland (PDL) available. Bristol currently has over 200 brownfield sites available.

3. Bristol says it is a leading voice in response to the climate and ecological emergencies. TheOne City plan (third iteration) talks about the improved provision of green spaces across the cityand the role they can play in increased physical activity, reducing obesity and health inequalities.This proposal destroys green belt land and removes green space.

4. Nature and wildlifeAshton Vale Fields is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). Importantly, the SNCI isbigger than the Town and Village Green. The SNCI does not stop at the metrobus route. Itextends into the proposed site of development. The main protection currently proposed is: "a 5 moffset between the development and the SNCI" (C3.41).

The Portishead Branch Line Preliminary Environmental Information Report (vol 4), describedAshton Vale Fields as "an important bird site" (4-12). It noted: "The site's mosaic of wet grassland,open water, ditches, hedgerows and scrub is particularly important for wintering and breedingwildfowl and waders".

The current planning documents note: "Potential indirect effects include disturbance to breedingand wintering birds during construction". And that the SNCI could experience effects as a result ofthe Proposed Development during the construction and/or operational phase.

As well as birds, submitted documents note the unconfirmed presence on-site of various species,including some protected ones, such as: great crested newts, water voles, otters, bats, badgers,hazel dormice and hedgehogs.

Documents, including the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report keep noting thatfurther ecological surveys are recommended, and required in advance of determining the planningapplication. It is not clear if these wider surveys have been carried out.

5. The site is an important amenity to the local community. The proposal should be turned downas it would stop the health and wellbeing benefits associated with the site which include walking,dog walking, access to nature and other activities.

Last time development was proposed on this site (Nov. 2009), objections were lengthy andprogressed all the way up to judicial review. As part of this process Barrister Ross Crail conductedan inquiry which recommended that all of the land should be registered as a Town or VillageGreen (TVG). This was because local people had used the space for lesiure for at least twentyyears.

While the council chose not to designate this piece of land as a TVG, the report and itsrecommendations demonstrate the significant historical and current amenity use of the land to thelocal population.

6. The proposal should be turned down because it does not contain enough affordable homes.The planning application notes that it will deliver up to 510 residential units of which only 30%(153) will be affordable. The Mayor's 2021 manifesto pledged 2,000 homes a year, with 1,000 ofthem affordable: a 50% rate.

Recent housing developments in South Bristol have shown how developers can do even better.

Old Brewery, Ashton Gate. 107 homes - 100% affordable.Totterdown Bridge. 152 homes - 100% affordable.Off Winterstoke Road. 67 homes - 100% affordable.

No one doubts that Bristol needs more "affordable" housing, but 30% is not enough.

7. More pressure on schools and doctorsDuring the consultation, local residents in Ashton Vale expressed concerns about the increasedpressure on schools and doctors in the local area. Increasing homes in the area by more than 500dwellings (1,500+ residents), will put further pressure on local services, negatively impacting thelocal residential amenities.

8. "Five stories high"The current application is an "outline proposal" only, so it lacks a lot of detail. However, ifapproved up to 17% of buildings will be 5 stories high or 18m tall. The rest up to 3 stories or 11m.The visual impact of the development will be significant for those living in the local area. It will beout of scale and out of character compared to the existing developments in the local area. Localhouses may face overlooking and loss of privacy issues or even shading / loss of daylight. Theloss of current views for existing properties will adversely affect an residential amenity of theneighbourhood and the open outlook of the neighbourhood will be lost.

9. The planning application argues that building on this land is necessary to "unlock" the AshtonGate Sporting Quarter (AGSQ). Indeed, this unlocking argument is thought to be exceptionalenough to warrant building on the green belt.

A document submitted during planning notes: "The anticipated value of Longmoor with the benefitof planning permission, is £24.1 million. This accounts for 19% of the total costs of construction ofthe development at AGSQ (£126.5m)."

SAVE is not against the sporting quarter. Nor the founder of Bristol Sport, Steve Lansdown.However if the unlocking potential of this development is cited as being exceptional, then it mustbe noted that Steve Lansdown is a billionaire, estimated in the Sunday Times Rich List 2021(no.124) as being worth 1.365 billion. His wealth having increased by £15 million in the past yearalone. For a man with such increasing wealth any argument that green belt land needs to be builton in order that he can make a mere £24.1 million more seems spurious.

10. FloodingThe National Planning Policy Framework says: "Inappropriate development in areas at risk offlooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whetherexisting or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should bemade safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere." It would seem that developmentof this land would increase the flood risk either here or elsewhere in the local area.

11. LandfillThe site used to be used for landill. There are concerns about pollution issues both during and

after potential building works on old landfill sites (BBC news story).

Dr Claire Greenfield  10 FRAYNE ROAD ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-08-26   OBJECT

This area should not be developed. It is a wildlife corridor and haven. It is on greenbeltland. There are other much better places for development.

Mr Richard Willis  5 CLIFTONWOOD CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-08-25   OBJECT

I object to the proposals to permit construction on Ashton Vale Fields on the followinggrounds:

The area proposed is designated green belt, this should be protected not built upon, especially asBristol has a significant number of brownfield sites and a large bank of potential properties forwhich planning permission has already been granted. I fail to understand why consideration isbeing given to the destruction of green belt space when developers are simply accruing value byland banking.

Bristol's One City plan refers to the value of green space and recognises the climate andenvironmental catastrophes that face us. This alone should prevent the further loss of green beltland, particularly as the area in question provides a variety of habitats for wildlife, including speciesthat are protected. The area also provides an essential wildlife corridor into the City. The site ismarked as part of Bristol's Strategic Green Infrastructure Network - if planning permission isgranted, it will fatally undermine that network and reveal it as a bit of unwelcome, tokenistic'greenwash'.

Building on land that is at risk of flooding is simply stupid. The recent consultation on steps theCity needs to take in view of rising sea levels clearly indicated the task and cost associated withflood proofing Bristol. This may not be a short term issue but it will be in the longer term why add

to the problem?

The Ashton Vale Fields provide considerable amenity value to local people and has done for manyyears, a fact that has been recognised previously.

The outline proposal reveals a disgregard of the scale and character of local architecture,proposing buildings that are significantly higher and more visually intrusive.

The value of this land, with planning permission, represents less than one fifth of the cost of theproposed Sporting Quarter. This is hardly sufficient to justify an argument that it is necessary tounlock that development, especially as the developer has seen a massive (and unearned)increase in his personal wealth over the past year alone.

Ms Tess Green  10 FAIRFIELD ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-25   OBJECT

I strongly object to this application as it would severely impact on wildlife in this area. Atthis time when climate change is beginning to be understood by the general public, if not manypoliticians, we are aware that if we damage the lives of wild creatures, we also damage ourselvesand lessen our chances of a decent future for all life on earth.The area should be a part of the Green Belt to separate Bristol from the nearby villages in NorthSomerset and is a part of a wildlife corridor, which needs to remain intact to protect the ability ofwildlife to move for feeding and breeding and to find appropriate habitat to live successfully. If thearea is developed wildlife will diminish and the land will be further impoverished. This will reducecarbon sequestration and increase carbon emissions into the atmosphere when we should betrying to do the exact opposite to protect our own futures.The land around Longmoor Brook is low lying and currently helps to preserve the balance of waterretention and release. If this land is built upon the fine balance will be impaired and flooding of newproperties may well result.I urge the Planning Committee to reject this totally inappropriate application.Tess Green

    on 2021-08-23  

2

biodiversity net gain unless and until a full planning application is made.

Given the shortage of green spaces available across the city - especially Green Belt land5 and

land which forms an important part of Bristol’s wildlife network and contains an SNCI, we say

that this site should be protected from future development and designated instead for habitat

and biodiversity enhancement. Sensitive and appropriate tree planting (with community

involvement) on the site could also go some way to helping us achieve our target to double

Bristol’s tree canopy over the next 25 years as well has helping to mitigate the impacts of the

climate and ecological emergencies.

Finally, it is hard to imagine how covering the site in buildings and related infrastructure (let

alone using the application to enhance the site’s value in order to fund another development

project) could ever be considered to be ‘very special circumstances’ which justified the

removal of the site’s Green Belt status.

The planning context

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the Mitigation Hierarchy and Bristol’s

core planning policy, BCS9 – Green Infrastructure and DM15: Green Infrastructure Provision, are

the basis on which these goals may be achieved within the planning context now. This is the

case whether or not the Environment Bill has been enacted by the time this application is

decided.

The National Planning Policy Framework

The Framework 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 sustainable environmental development is no less

important than the economic and social development objectives.

The whole emphasis of the environmental objective has changed to become much more

imperative with the publication of the latest version of the Framework last July. It now reads

(previous wording struck out, new wording in blue):

an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting protect and enhancing enhance

our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land,

helping to improve improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising

waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to

a low carbon economy.

Furthermore, with the introduction of a new paragraph 131, trees are made an integral part of

this:

Trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban

environments, and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning

5 Just 8% of the 11,000 hectares that comprise Bristol.

3

policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined50, that

opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as

parks and community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to secure

the long-term maintenance of newly-planted trees, and that existing trees are

retained wherever possible. Applicants and local planning authorities should work

with highways officers and tree officers to ensure that the right trees are planted

in the right places, and solutions are found that are compatible with highways

standards and the needs of different users.

The status of habitat and biodiversity has also been given greater emphasis. Paragraph 181 c)

now makes it clear that (previous wording struck out, new wording in blue):

development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be

supported; while opportunities to incorporate improve biodiversity improvements in and

around developments should be encouraged integrated as part of their design, especially

where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity or enhance public access to

nature where this is appropriate.

With the recent publication of Biodiversity Metric 3.0, (BM3.0), a new way of measuring and

accounting for biodiversity losses and gains resulting from development or land management

change has been adopted. The biodiversity metric defines Net Gain as an:

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

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.

Green Belt Land

Section 13 of the Framework – protecting Green Belt Land – states at paragraphs 137

& 138:

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of

Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the

essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

Green Belt serves five purposes:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other

4

urban land.

Under Proposals affecting the Green Belt, at paragraphs 147 & 148 it states:

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not

be approved except in very special circumstances.

When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that

substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’

will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness,

and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other

considerations.

The Mitigation Hierarchy

Ideally, development should always be planned around existing trees. This is because an

established tree that is retained offers far more benefits and ecoservices than newly planted

trees (no matter how many are planted), whose potential will take decades 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.

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

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

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

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

Local planning policies

Local Planning Authorities have a 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. These are the key planning policies which relate to this

application.6

BCS6 – Green Belt

This states that ‘Countryside and other open land around the existing built-up areas of the

city will be safeguarded by maintaining the current extent of the Green Belt. … Land within the

Green Belt will be protected from inappropriate development as set out in national planning

policy [the Framework].’

BCS9 – Green Infrastructure

BCS9 states that ‘Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated

6 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/34540/Core+Strategy+WEB+PDF+(low+res+with+links)_0.pdf

5

into new development.’

Where habitat damage cannot be avoided (which we would dispute) BTRS and the Biodiversity

Metric are two tools which the planning authority can use 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.

• 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.

DM15: Green Infrastructure Provision

The provision of additional and/or improved management of existing trees will be expected as

part of the landscape treatment of new development. The design, size, species and placement

of trees provided as part of the landscape treatment will be expected to take practicable

opportunities to:

• connect the development site to the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network, and/or

Bristol Wildlife Network

• assist in reducing or mitigating run-off and flood risk on the development site

• assist in providing shade and shelter to address urban cooling

• create a strong framework of street trees to enclose or mitigate the visual impact of a

development.

We have set out Bristol’s planning policies as they relate to trees in more detail here - Planning

obligations in relation to trees in Bristol.

Site tree survey analysis

The applicant has produced an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) which is based

on a survey undertaken in accordance with BS 5837:2012 on 11 March 2021.

The AIA identifies 178 trees growing individually and in groups on and around the site.

We estimate that about 88 of these are growing on the development site. Of these 88

trees, it is proposed that 28 will be removed.

6

The application of BTRS

Applying the Planning Policy DM17 Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS)7, we

calculate that 19 compensatory trees will be required. As the applicant plans to plant

some 236 trees on site,8 we do not anticipate that any off site planting will be required.

Biodiversity Net Gain

We do not take issue with the applicant’s biodiversity metric habitat creation and

enhancement plans. However, we don’t accept their baseline calculation for urban

trees or the version of the metric they have applied.

The applicant has adopted the now superseded version of the Metric, version 2.0

(BM2.0). which the Council accepts for all applications pending even though the latest

version of BM3.0 has now been published. We disagree and say that the latest version

should be used, for the following reasons:

1. The recent changes to the Framework, together with emerging government policy and

recent publicity about the threats to biodiversity (for example, the Biodiversity in the UK:

bloom or bust report by the parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee9) make this an

imperative.

2. Natural England states that BM3.0 ‘…will become the metric used to calculate and

evidence whether a project has achieved the biodiversity net gain requirements set out in

the Environment Bill … Metric 3.0 updates and replaces an earlier beta test version released

for consultation in 2019 … Metric 3.0 significantly updates and improves that earlier metric

… Condition assessment approaches have also been significantly updated and simplified for

Metric 3.0 and some key changes mad e… all habitats, from street trees to woodlands,

green roofs to grasslands are recorded, scored and valued for their importance for wildlife.

At the same time, it provides an evidence-based, transparent, consistent and easy to use

way of ensuring that nature is considered within the design of developments and in land

management practice, leaving nature in a better place than it was before, benefitting

wildlife, people and places.’.10

3. Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (BM2.0) was only ever issued as a beta test version to allow wider

public consultation before the final version was published. This has now happened with the

7 Policy DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure - https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/34540/BD5605%20Site%20Allocations_MAIN_text%20V8_0.pdf/46c75ec0-634e-4f78-a00f-7f6c3cb68398 - page 36.

8 We have assumed that the trees will be Medium-sized trees each with a Root Protection Area on 0.004072 ha.

9 https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6498/documents/70656/default/ 10 https:/naturalengland.blog.gov.uk/2021/07/21/biodiversity-metric-3-0-a-milestone-moment-for-biodiversity-net-gain/

7

publication of BM3.0 on 7 July.

4. BM3.0 introduces a number of improvements and corrects some issues associated with

BM2.0.

5. The BM2.0 Urban – Street Tree habitat has been abandoned with the publication of BM3.0.

A new, combined Urban Tree habitat replaces both it and the other previous urban tree

habitats.

6. There is now a definition of an Urban Tree habitat in BM3.0. There was none for Urban

Street Tree habitats in BM2.0.

7. The new Urban Tree habitat category now gives proper weight to urban trees.

8. BM 3.0 will be the metric that underpins the Environment Bill’s provisions for mandatory

biodiversity net gain in England.

9. If BM2.0 is used instead of BM3.0 to avoid proper mitigation of habitat loss, this should be

rejected on principle, especially bearing in mind recent changes to the Framework, the

proposals set out in the Environment Bill, and the declarations made and goals set by Bristol

City Council.

Whichever version of the biodiversity metric is used, the method for calculating the

habitat area of urban trees is controversial. We say the current approach is unworkable

when valuing baseline urban tree habitats (see Annex 1) because it seriously

undervalues the habitat of the trees on the site by about 69% of the reported combined

onsite Root Protection Areas (RPA).

We have used the full estimated combined onsite RPA of 3,722 square metres (0.3722

hectares) in our calculation and allowed for the retention of 390 square metres (0.039

hectares) of tree RPA on site. We have assigned this habitat a Moderate condition and

used the same strategic significance assignment the applicant has used - Location

ecologically desirable but not in local strategy.

We have allowed for 235 small trees to be included in the onsite habitat creation, which

will provide the 0.96 hectares of new tree habitat the applicant applies.

All the other habitat areas used by the applicant remain unaltered and are as proposed

save that we have factored in a delay of three years between the loss of habitat and

its replacement. On this basis we calculate that the overall net loss will be -16.59% as

summarised here:

8

Our Biodiversity Metric 3.0 calculation is available here - BTF calculation.

The Council currently accepts zero net gain or better, although, when the Environment

Bill becomes law, a net gain of at least 10% will be required.

On the basis of our calculation, it is clear that the current proposals fail to achieve

either of these goals when the true habitat value of urban trees is input.

However, given that this is an outline application, we say that no final decision should be made

about biodiversity net gain unless and until a full planning application is made. If the application

is approved then a planning condition should be imposed requiring a new biodiversity net gain

calculation.

Bristol Tree Forum

23 August 2021

9

Annex 1

Why calculating the habitat area of urban trees does not work

Under both of the Biodiversity Metrics (2.0 & 3.0), the way that trees are sized is based

on this table (this version is taken from the guidance to BM3.011, but it also applies to

BM2.012):

In our view, this table is unworkable when valuing baseline urban tree habitats. It gives

neither guidance nor any logical method for interpreting it such that a given tree with

a given stem diameter can be assigned to one or other of the three tree-size categories.

We say that Root Protection Areas (RPAs) or, even better, tree canopy cover (TCC) offer

a far better approach than assigning trees to these three arbitrary categories. RPA and

TCC values are reported in the AIA, or can be calculated from the AIA, for each tree.

This approach better represents the actual habitat areas of urban trees and does not

run the risk of undervaluing urban tree habitat that this tables does. However, we

accept that we must make the best of what we have for the time being.

With this in mind, we have adopted a compromise methodology. This assumes that the

small, medium and large stem diameters given are the median points in three evenly

distributed tree populations, and will change from Small to Medium at 20 cm and from

Medium to Large at 40 cm.

Of course, large trees are effectively unbounded in their upper range so this population

is not really evenly distributed – the larger a tree is the more it will be undervalued.

Most of the trees on the development site have been undervalued as a result. If (as we

have seen done elsewhere) the step changes are set at 30 cm – Small to Medium – and

50 cm – Medium to Large – then this undervaluation is even larger.

11 Biodiversity Metric 3.0 User Guide 12 Save that here the title of the second column is wrong. It should read ‘Girth [circumference] at Breast Height (cm)’.

10

Why should urban trees suffer such an arbitrary discount when no other habitat used by

BM3.0 does? It makes no sense.

This graph shows the impact of adopting even this compromise approach:

-41%

-22%

15%

-12%

-27%

0%

-12% -12%

42%

-56%

44%

-69% -65% -69%

125%

0% 0%

-17%

-61%

0%

-31%

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6

P

e

r

c

e

n

t

a

g

e

D

i

f

f

e

r

e

n

c

e

Tree ID

Ashton Vale FieldsBaseline Tree analysis

% difference BM3.0 RPA /Actual RPA

Mrs Rachel Hall   7 NORRH RD ASHTON GATE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-19   OBJECT

Are you mad? You want to build on the last remaining farm in Bristol, on land that ishugely bio diverse, managed organically providing essential ground for pollinators, wild flowers,grasslands, bird and mammal life, trees, all of which help stave off this Climate disaster we havecreated. Its about time this Council woke up to the facts and cherished these landscapes nor soldthem for endless housing when there are brownfield sites which should be used. Its utter madnessand you should be ashamed for even thinking it.

Councillor Tessa Fitzjohn  18 ELDON TERRACE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-17   OBJECT

I am writing to raise my concerns for the proposed development application No 21/03166/PLongmore Village. For the reasons as stated below:

This site has a complex and controversial history, and has many issues that need to beconsidered very carefully if it is to go ahead.As a stand alone application, its in an odd position as its linked to Appl No 21/03165/F for the newsporting quarter at Ashton Gate, that if successful the financial benefit incurred through the sale ofthe land will provide finance for the additional development in Ashton Gate. So it's necessary totake both applications into account.

The main issue is the fact that the applicant is applying to build on Green Belt land. The site hashad planning permission for a football stadium in 2011. Recognized as an exceptional case, whichlapsed in 2016 but was included in the local plan 2018 but this was thrown out by the governmentand is still pending a re-application.

So to be successful, the application needs recognition as 'exceptional', either by the quality of theproposed design, or by sustainable passive haus standards, or for design excellence andinnovative approach to place making, creating public space that encourages community cohesion .

All these aspects would help to make this 'exceptional'.Though the fact its an outline planning application makes this unlikely since there will be nocontrols as it will be sold, and possibly sold again to the highest bidder and residents by that timewill have no say in the density, design or heights since those will be agreed at this stage.

Green Belt were set up for the principal of stopping urban sprawl, keeping land permanently open,a buffer between town and countryside. Which is exactly what its doing on the boundary betweenBristol and North Somerset providing a natural border between Long Ashton Village and BristolCity.It will also provide much needed green space for public access, when we have growing evidenceof the health benefits of our parks and green spaces in our cities. So this alone is an indication ofthe importance of this land and why it should be protected.

Bristol Council is committed to a climate emergency action plan, including delivering a significantlow carbon energy infrastructure in the city, which is why the Council should be building on ourmany brown field sites rather than Green Belt.

The Ashton Vale Town Green lies alongside the site, and if allowed to combine with the LongmoreVillage site could become a Nature Recovery Network, a wildlife Trusts initiative to protect andjoin-up important places for wildlife.

There is no evidence to show how this population increase will include new facilities for health oreducation, and we know its likely to increase noise, pollution and need for car parking.

This application has been objected to on Air Quality grounds by theProgramme Coordinator for Sustainable City and Climate Change Service, who has looked at thetwo applications together has expressed Concern for increasing levels of N02 and objected to theincrease in N02.

English Heritage has objected to the fact it will have negative impact on the historic landscape ofAshton Court.

The Environment Agency has objected to the application with regard to the possibility of flood risk,as well as recommending improving conditions for contaminated land, pollution prevention, andbiodiversity

We welcome the inclusion of 150 units of affordable housing, however this is only 30% of theoverall development the minimum required by Bristol Council.

This is a significant development of 510 new homes with up to 1500 + new residents, which willhave a considerable impact on Ashton Vale residents, and South Bristol unless these issues arefully addressed.

Mr David Stephens  99 SILBURY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-16   OBJECT

This site is on green belt land . There are 200+ brownfield sites waiting to be built on. Itis a vastly important area for wildlife and one of the only true wildlife area left in Bristol. It is a floodrisk and has been identified as such by the environment agency. The plans include only 30%affordable homes attracting more out of town investment as opposed to helping locals on to theproperty ladder.

Mr Bernard Thomas  45 WESTON ROAD LONG ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-08-13   OBJECT

This is Breen Belt land. As per council policy, all Brown Field sites should beredeveloped ahead of green belt redesignation.

Miss Jenna Gardner  97 LUCKWELL RD ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I use this area for fitness, well being, walk my dog and my children use it for the samereasons

Miss Lorne Hodgson  16 SWISS DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I object to the building of "Longmoor Village" primarily on flooding risk. This area is aflood plain, and is the emergency water discharge route. Also the embedding of concretefoundations for 500 homes will displace water and be a further flooding risk to existing housing.The area is a haven for wildlife and people from all areas of Bristol are using this as a recreationroute for their wellbeing. We have just heard warning re global warming and extreme weatherhappening, so to build on a flood plain is just money grabbing with no thought for nature norpeople and a disaster waiting to happen. Why not use this as an area to teach people aboutnature. It has the unique advantage of being accessible to City dwellers without their owntransport, so gives them a chance to get to an area where you can go bird spotting, ottermonitoring etc. This is too precious to lose. The development at 5 stories high is out of proportionwith the locality.

Miss charlie scott  SILBURY ROAD ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I am a 15 year old girl who moved to the area 3 years ago from an inner city area. Theoutside space and countryside surrounding my house is a massive benefit. Me and my sister usethese fields on a regular basis to walk our dog or to go and view the wildlife in the area. its a greatsafe space for us to be able to use as we are 1 minute from home and are aware that there arealways people from the area around if needed. Through the past two years of covid times outdoorspace and social interaction outside has been massively important to everybody and theoppertunity to get outside when school and everything else has been closed has had a massiveeffect on my mental health. Please dont take the fields away from us the people from the areareally need this space.

Miss l louise  SILBURY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

i have taken my time to read all of the information being commenting and to be frank isee no reason why this development is even being considered.GREEN BELT - is a buffer between towns and contryside to prevent urban sprawl by keeping landperminantly open, green belt land is to improve air quality in urban areas and to ensure dwellershave access to countryside.Green belt land should only be built on in exceptional circumstances. there are no exceptionalcircumstances to this land being built on as there are hundreds of brown land avaliable to be builton in bristol infact from what i have had read in these attached reports there are more than enoughreasons for this land not to be built on that it should never have got to this stage.FLOOD RISK - this site is predominantly within flood zone 2 with areas of the site flood zone 3.from the reports submitted i have pulled the following information* Metro bus lane was raised to get it out of the floodplain, the removal of the guided busway routehas the potential to displace the floodlevels elsewhere.*Ground elevations of any property built on this land should be elevated 600mm above flood level.*these fields work as a functional floodplain.*the goverment has policies stating that councils should be relocating development to land thathas a lower probability of flood.All in all the flood risk is massive by raising the elevations to get the properties out of the floodlevels and by doing that you are looking at the height of the metro bus lane which leaves the waterone place to go and that is towards the exsisiting residents of ashton vale.

Air Quality - The planned area was used as a landfill from 1985-1991. on that happpeningresidents were told that by allowing the tip to be put there that there was a guarantee that as it isMarshland plus a landfill site there was no way that it would ever be allowed to be built on. i havepulled out some air quality issues i have from the report.*exsisting contaminant control measures in place are unknown and may cause environmentalrisks during construction and operational phases.* the landfill material is variable with both industrial and residential waste but is largely unknown.*Commercial waste including asbestos was found onsite during an investigation.* development with low permability hard standing cas cause lateral gas migration so the proposeddevelopment could increase ground gas risks in the area outside of the development.*The current cs2 classification of the land is at a safe level and is coping well the reports statesthat due to the likelyhood of disturbance of development this would rise would to cs5 levels whichare extremely high and pose a serious high gas risk.*carbon monoxide and methane gases could be generated from the underlying landfill these havethe potential to migrate and buold up in buildings, potentially affecting futures site workers andresidents.Report from steve crawshaw the quality air control programme co ordinator today states that* i must object to the development on the grounds of air quality.* the impact of longmoor village scheme on its own is acceptable but with the modelling of NO2arising from the scheme being classed as NEGLIBLE!!

MINES"due to the presence of former mine workings in the area there is a risk of abandoned sub surfacemine workings.Based on the coal mining assessment reports the site is classed a HIGH DEVELOPMENT RISKAlso the area of land is in a high risk area of disturbing bombs.

RADON - the area is known to exceed the radon levels for residential properties .

AFFORDABLE HOUSING -If house prices are any where near the average at ashton rise which i suspect they will be higher!the average house price there is £332,386. even with the discounts/ shared ownership pitiful dealsthat are offered they will still be out of reach for the npeople they are intended for.add into that that as they are on high flood risk land most mortgages will insist on a 25% deposilon purchase.These properties will probably not be able to get flood insurance or if they can they will have topay excessive premiums for it.Selling a property that is in a flood risk area is a potential nightmare and approx 10% is written of ahomes value.all of these points suggest to me that the poor people purchasing them are going to be overstretched by this amazing "affordable living" you are providing and will be stuck in the houses.

On top of all this as if it is not enough Ashton Vale cannot sustain and provide adequate facilitiesfor any more residents.The local school since ashton rise has been built are having to turn away exsisting residents ofashton vale as they have reached capacity. One person who lives in ashton vale has had therechild sent to ashton gate school so is now faced with a 30 minute walk twice a day with a 5 yearold child in all weathers.The local gp service is dismal it is completly over run, you phone and your 50th in the queeventually get through and theres no appointments avaliable and your told to do the same againtomorrow!!! the local dentist has a year waiting list for nhs patients .The neighbourhood notification list was not carried out, the public posters were not put out until itwas forced.

Ashton vale is a really nice place to live we have already lost our allotments to allow you to build inthe street, we have a bright orange bus passing our back gardens and windows every 10 minutesplease dont take away our right to exercise and socialise and the wonderfuls views that we allbought these properties for.

And please dont let the pressure of development put all these exsisting and new residents at risk,the information is all here in front of you as to why this development should NOT take place.

Mr Adrian Clark  23 SWISS DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I object to the planning proposal as the site is green belt land. There does not appear tobe any provision made for public services, schools, nurseries, doctors which are currently at fullcapacity already and struggling for funding.The site is of Nature Conservation Interest important open space for wintering and breeding ofwildfowl and waders.

Mr Joseph Beard  FLAT 26 DRILL HALL BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I am totally against any building on greenbelt land that is serving the community andserving wildlife and nature.

The ecological emergency should mean emergency and nature recovery is essential to theplanet's and our survival.

In the short term the flood risk from the river, climate change and Bristol water's reservoir would behighly dangerous for the residents of the new development (that should not be built) and residentsof Silbury road and Ashton.

Mrs Judith Gough  230 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I have lived here all my life, starting off in silbury Road.This is a field I have played in, walked the dog and continue to enjoy the wildlife there.My house overlooks this field.It would cause a lot of sadness and stress if I was unable to continue looking out on the green fieldand walking there, after 74 years.

Mr Conor O'Neill  7 RAGLAN PLACE, BISHOPSTON, BRISTOL, BRISTOL BS7 8EQ  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I object to this planning application because it is building on Green belt land.There is a substantial amount of Brownfield land available within Bristol; this should be usedinstead.Also, Ashton Vale Fields is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI).Finally, the site is an important amenity to the local community. The proposal should be turneddown as it would stop the health and wellbeing benefits associated with the site which includewalking, dog walking, access to nature and other activities.

Mr Alistair C  SILBURY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   SUPPORT

I've lived here for over 30 years and in an ideal world it would be great if this didn'thappen but with the clear need for housing, and with everyone saying they don't want housingnear them, we have to make difficult choses and I think this place would be as good as any. I don'tknow how young people will ever be able to own a house or even rent one.

Since the landfill was covered up, we've known housing, or worse, a supermarket or stadium wascoming here for years. Those who were involved in the previous application will remember theagreement on this.

My ask is that affordable housing is maximised, that local people are prioritised, that there arebenefits for Ashton Vale, that noise from ETM is reduced and the wetlands is protected.

Mrs Sandra Downs  28 SILBURY ROAD SILBURY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

This is a designated green belt land and is used by myself on a daily basis, as well asother local people enjoying the open spaces and wildlife.

Mr Robert Downs  28 SILBURY ROAD ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

This was designated a village green, not to used as stadium or built upon. It is anamenity for the people of ashton vale . We already have ashton rise, not that good. And as yousee Silbury road from Aylesbury road to ashton drive has collapsed, my point being the field was arefuse tip and would be prone to subsidence.we all see the methane tubes.will the tenants bemade aware of the pitfalls of living on this site.

Miss catherine withers  26 MANSFIELD STREET BEDMINSTER BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I am objecting to this development on many grounds, the first being the ecological emergency andclimate crisis, both should be given priority over a poor excuse for allowing precious greenbeltdevelopment.The exceptional circumstances do not add up- the owner of site is a billionaire, he does not needthe money from this to build the sports quarter.The flood risk with 'code red for humanity' is too great.The value of the green field site is far greater than building, we have a large supply of brownfieldsites available with ever more being added to the list- large dept. stores in broadmead, offices intown and the bonded warehouses to name a few.We should be earmarking any land left in Bristol as nature recovery areas.The green party make up a large proportion of the council now as we as citizens are more awareof the total collapse of insect life which will lead to human destruction. If you approve this you willbe part of the catastrophe and will be judged as such by future generations; who may be the last.

Mr David Barker  1 TREGARTH ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I am objecting to the planning permission on the Land West of Silbury road on thefollowing grounds:

This is green belt land and is protected by planning frameworks. It is my understanding that thereare over 200 sites which have been previously developed or are designated as brownfield siteswhich should be considered first.

Green space such as this is essential to nature and wildlife in the area. The site itself is considereda Site of Nature and Conservation Interest. Areas of green space need to be protected in order toprovide corridors for wildlife across the UK.

Regards,

Mr Philip Wingfield  145 ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL TEMPLE MEADS  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I would like to object to this plan on the grounds that:1) This is green belt land, and there are plenty of brownfield sites around Bristol that are availablefor development.2) This is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and a wildlife corridor.3) The proposed five-story buildings are significantly taller than anything else in the area, includingthe recently built Ashton Rise development adjacent to the site.4) The Ashton Rise development has already added 133 new homes right next to the proposedsite, placing extra pressure on schools and GPs.The site is a flood risk - building here would increase the risk of flooding to the local area, and theEnvironment Agency objected to the plans on flood risk grounds

Miss Jasmine Beard  YEW TREE FARM BRIDGWATER ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I am writing on behalf of Bedminster Down and Uplands society to object to this development.We are aware of many similar schemes planned for most of the remaining greenbelt around SouthBristol. This development will set a precedent for other green fields to be covered with houses-both in Bristol and North Somerset;with the very real climate and ecological emergency we areobjecting to any further development of carbon grabbing green space.Taylor Wimpy are planning on a 292 hectare development on green belt within 50m of this site.Bristol city council are planning on building on another 11 (approx) hectares of greenbelt land allwithin 10m of the vale development, how can this work within the declared emergencies?No exceptional circumstances have been met, the sports quarter can be built by the owner of theland.South Bristol is unique in it's pastoral nature- residents are prepared to put up with few facilities toenjoy the green space that decent planners and politicians put in place before us.

Mrs Lisa Colledge  ROSAPENNA, ABBOTS LEIGH ROAD, LEIGH WOODS BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I am a concerned local resident who has consistently witnessed the erosion of ourprecious greenbelt land. We must protect our wildlife and preserve these educational sites forfuture generations. We have to make a stand against the sweeping developments that are denyingour childrens and grandchildren's rights to enjoy the green spaces and nature that we haveenjoyed.

Dr Miles Thompson on behalf of SAVE  28 ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

The objections below have been submitted on behalf of SAVE (Save Ashton ValeEnvironment - https://save-21.co.uk/) under 12 headings:

1. GREENBELT2. BROWNFIELD AND EXISTING PLANNING PERMISSIONS3. CLIMATE EMERGENCIES4. NATURE AND WILDLIFE5. LOCAL AMENITY6. AFFORDABLE HOMES7. LOCAL RESIDENTIAL SERVICES8. HEIGHT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT9. EXCEPTIONAL UNLOCKING ARGUMENT10. FLOODING11. LANDFILL12. ETM RECYCLING

1. GREENBELTThis proposed development should be turned down as the site is green belt land. Green belt landis protected by national and local planning frameworks. The National Planning Policy Framework

(Feb 2019); "attaches great importance to Green Belts" and notes they "should only be alteredwhere exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation orupdating of plans." (p.40).

Exceptional circumstances have not been met, see point 9 below. Moreover, the Local Plan hasnot been updated to remove this area of green belt. A draft Local Plan was not adopted (seebelow). Bristol is still operating from earlier versions, with our current core strategy dating from2011 (Bristol Development Framework - Core Strategy). Here, Policy BCS6 supports the nationalplanning policy in terms of the green belt. As such, until any Local Plan review is completed, nodevelopment on green belt land should be permitted.

It is worth noting that, unlike Longmoor Village, "Ashton Rise" (previously Aldermans Moore'sformer allotments) was listed in the Bristol Site Allocations and Development Management PoliciesLocal Plan 2014 (BSA1001). But it was not on green belt land, nor land that is a flood risk (seepoint 10).

Proposed changes to the green belt status of this site were noted in the draft consultationdocument Bristol Local Plan Review: Draft Policies and Development Allocations (March 2019),under Section 17, DS10. But this draft Local Plan was not adopted. And in the summary ofconsultation responses - (published September 2019) just 3 comments supported the removal ofthe green belt with 55 comments objecting (p.59-61). Reasons for objection included: lack ofexceptional circumstances; land performing its purpose as green belt; preference for brownfielddevelopment; cumulative impact of green belt release; failure to demonstrate sustainabledevelopment; pressures on infrastructures and services. All of these objections remain as relevantif not more so and provide reasons to turn down this proposed development.

Moreover, in documents available in the planning portal, Peter Westbury, Team Manager for MajorDevelopments at the council noted on the 6th March 2019: "At the present time, there would be anin principle objection to any application for planning permission for [a] combined development. [As]The land at Silbury Road remains in the Green Belt". This in principle objection remains.

As such, if determining this proposal in accordance with current National and Local Plans or eventhe councils own advice to the owners of the land in 2019, this and any future proposals should beturned down due to the areas continued status as green belt.

2. BROWNFIELD AND EXISTING PLANNING PERMISSIONS.The green belt land at Ashton Vale should not be built on when there are brownfield sites andpreviously developed land (PDL) available which are not on green belt land. Bristol currently hasover 200 brownfield sites available. As we come out of the pandemic many more previouslydeveloped sites could become available and be redeveloped for housing.

Moreover, as recently as 6th July 2021 the Mayor confirmed: "We now have a healthy stock of12,750 homes in planning permissions". This is the number of housing units that have beengranted planning permission by the Local Planning Authority but not built. With such a "healthystock" already in place, building on green belt land should not take place.

3. CLIMATE EMERGENCIESBristol says it is a leading voice in response to the climate and ecological emergencies. Moreover,the One City plan (third iteration) talks about the improved provision of green spaces across thecity and the role they can play in increased physical activity, reducing obesity and healthinequalities. This proposal destroys green belt land and removes green space, at a time we shouldbe protecting it. The importance of green, open space for humans and nature is heightened by therecent floods in Europe (see also 10 Flood risk) and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), the latest report being "a code red for humanity".

4. NATURE AND WILDLIFEThe entire proposed development site is a designated "Wildlife Corridor". The site should not bebuilt on, especially as other local wildlife corridors have been reduced through recent housingdevelopment. Specifically, the Alderman Moore allotments (now Ashton Rise).

The Portishead Branch Line Preliminary Environmental Information Report (vol 4), describedAshton Vale Fields (next to the development site) as: "an important bird site" (4-12). It noted: "Thesite's mosaic of wet grassland, open water, ditches, hedgerows and scrub is particularly importantfor wintering and breeding wildfowl and waders". However, the current planning documents note:"Potential indirect effects include disturbance to breeding and wintering birds during construction"and even that the area could experience "effects" as a result of the Proposed Development duringthe operational phase, after construction has been completed.

As well as birds, submitted documents note the unconfirmed presence on-site of various species,including some protected ones, such as: great crested newts, water voles, otters, bats, badgers,hazel dormice and hedgehogs. Documents, including the Environmental Impact AssessmentScoping Report, keep noting that further ecological surveys are recommended, and required inadvance of determining the planning application. It is not clear if these wider surveys have beencarried out.

Finally, Ashton Vale Fields is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). Importantly, the SNCIis bigger than the Town and Village Green area alone and extends into the proposed developmentsite. It should be protected from being built on, or built near. The main protection currentlyproposed is only: "a 5 m offset between the development and the SNCI". This does not feel likeadequate protection.

5. LOCAL AMENITYThe proposed development site is an important amenity to the local community. The proposalshould be turned down as it would hinder the health and wellbeing benefits associated with thesite which include walking, dog walking, access to nature and other activities.

The last time development was proposed on this site (Nov. 2009), objections were lengthy andprogressed all the way up to judicial review. As part of this process Barrister Ross Crail conductedan inquiry that recommended that all of the lands should be registered as a Town or Village Green(TVG). This was because local people had used the space for leisure for at least twenty years.While the council chose not to designate this piece of land as a TVG, the report and itsrecommendations demonstrate the established historical and current amenity use of the land tothe local population.

Taken with point 4 above, aside from its green belt status, under Bristol Core Strategy PolicyBCS9, the proposed development site represents part of the "Strategic Green InfrastructureNetwork" for Bristol and so should not be built on. Indeed, the site is marked as such in diagram4.9.1. of the Core Strategy (page 79).

6. AFFORDABLE HOMESThe proposal should be turned down because it does not contain enough affordable homes. Theplanning application notes that it will deliver up to 510 residential units of which only 30% (153) willbe affordable. Recent housing developments in South Bristol have shown how propertydevelopers can do much, much better.Old Brewery, Ashton Gate. 107 homes - 100% affordable.Totterdown Bridge. 152 homes - 100% affordable.Off Winterstoke Road. 67 homes - 100% affordable.No one doubts that Bristol needs more "affordable" housing, but 30% is not enough at outlineplanning. We are all aware, that once planning has been granted developers have been known totry to reduce the level of affordable properties still further.

7. LOCAL RESIDENTIAL SERVICESThis development would put increased pressure on schools, doctors and other services in thelocal area. Increasing homes in the area by more than 500 dwellings (1,500+ residents), will putfurther pressure on local services, negatively impacting the local residential amenities. 133 homeshave recently been built in Ashton Rise, without any increase in local residential services,providing a further reason why this development should be turned down.

8. HEIGHT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The current application is an "outline proposal" only, so it lacks a lot of detail. However, ifapproved up to 17% of buildings will be 5 stories high or 18m tall. The rest up to 3 stories or 11m.The visual impact of the development will be significant for those living in the local area. It will beout of scale and out of character compared to the existing housing in the local area. (Ashton Riseis a maximum of 4 stories in height and sits between existing buildings, including the ImperialTobacco offices). Local houses may face overlooking and loss of privacy issues or even shading /loss of daylight. The loss of current views for existing properties will adversely affect the residentialamenity of the neighbourhood and the open outlook of the neighbourhood will be lost.

9. EXCEPTIONAL UNLOCKING ARGUMENTBuilding on green belt land is only possible in exceptional circumstances. The planning applicationargues that building on this land is necessary to "unlock" the Ashton Gate Sporting Quarter(AGSQ). Indeed, this unlocking argument is thought to be exceptional enough to warrant buildingon the green belt. A document submitted during planning notes: "The anticipated value ofLongmoor with the benefit of planning permission, is £24.1 million. This accounts for 19% of thetotal costs of construction of the development at AGSQ (£126.5m)".

SAVE is not against the sporting quarter. Nor the founder of Bristol Sport, Steve Lansdown.However, if the unlocking potential of this development is cited as being exceptional, then it mustbe noted that Steve Lansdown is a billionaire, estimated in the Sunday Times Rich List 2021(no.124) as being worth 1.365 billion. His wealth is reported to have increased by £15 million in thepast year alone. For an individual with such increasing wealth, any argument that green belt landneeds to be built on in order that he can make £24.1 million more seems questionable. At the veryleast it does not seem that exceptional circumstances have been "fully evidenced and justified" asthe National Planning Policy Framework requires.

10. FLOODINGThe National Planning Policy Framework says: "Inappropriate development in areas at risk offlooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whetherexisting or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should bemade safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere." (point 155). The site is at risk offlooding from: i. rivers or the sea, ii. surface water and iii. reservoirs (Barrow Tanks). Some areasof the site are in Flood Zones 2 and 3. It would seem that the development of this land wouldincrease the flood risk either here or elsewhere in the local area. Recent extreme flooding eventsin Europe should be telling us that we cannot ignore flood risks. Moreover, in their comments onthe application, the environment agency objected to the proposal on flood risk grounds (27th July2021).

11. LANDFILL

Despite the site being green belt, it has previously been used for landfill. The Geoenvironmentaland Geotechnical Desk Survey in the planning portal concludes: "Overall, it is considered likelythat significant soil/ groundwater contamination is present and the associated potential risks fromcontaminated land for the proposed development are anticipated to be moderate" (p.40). Theseinclude risks such as: ingestion and inhalation of contaminated dust and soils and vapours;ingestion of homegrown produce from contaminated soils; uptake of contaminants in plants;inhalation of fibres, particularly asbestos. These do not sound like sensible risks for futureresidents to be exposed to without considerable remediation of the site. It seems important thatthe councils Contaminated Land Officers define an assessment framework that explicitly takes intoaccount the risks raised in this report and ensures satisfactory remediation measures are detailedand stipulated before any planning permission is granted.

12. ETM RECYCLING.The proposed site borders an existing ETM Recycling Centre. This has implications in terms ofodour, dust and noise. In terms of noise, past planning permissions have been given to ETM onthe understanding that residential properties have been more than 250 metres away. And morerecently, even behind a sound reduction barrier.

WHO recommends that steady, continuous noise should not exceed 55 dB in outdoor living areas(balconies, terraces etc.), with moderate annoyance, being caused by noise above 50 dB (LAeq).In ETMs recent planning application (application: 21/01169/X; doc: 21_01169_X-PART_1_-_NOISE___VIBRATION_MANAGEMENT_PLAN-2901469.pdf; table 6.1), noise levels were foundto be at 59.9 at a point 45 metres away from ETM, on the proposed site for Longmoor Village. Thisseems to be above the threshold level of noise. The outline planning application seems to proposeto only deal with these noise levels through the use of thick glass in windows. Worryingly, this maylimit the potential of people in these homes to have the enjoyment of outdoor living space close totheir homes, or indeed opening the windows in their homes.

Relatedly we also hope the council does not intend to give planning permissions for any affordablehomes to be used as a "noise buffer" as has recently been proposed by Lovells elsewhere inSouth Bristol (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/anger-social-housing-described-noise-5761189).

These objections have been submitted by SAVE (Save Ashton Vale Environment).

Mr Martin Floyd  19 TREGARTH RD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

This is green belt land, the wildlife living in the area needs to be protected, as a familywe often walk around this area, it needs to be protected.Also the lack of doctors and 1 primary school in walking distance of the development. Could itcoupe with an influx of families? Would mean families driving children to school in other areas ofbs3.No community facilities is also an issue only meaning people will be driving into bedminster etc topurchase grocery etc.

Miss Julia Pimenta  61 HEADLEY LANE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I object to the development on Ashton Vale fields because I do not agree that we, as acity, should be building on any more green space. I disagree that during a ecological and climatecrises, as declared by Bristol City Council themselves, that we should be building on green beltland.

Mrs Sarah Breaux  29 ISLINGTON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

This is green belt land! There is no excuse for building on green belt when there arenon-green belt sites available, especially in a city that claims to be sustainable and wants to be netzero. This proposed development is completely at odds with the One City Ecological EmergencyStrategy and One City Climate Strategy. The Council continuing to approve such proposeddevelopments undermines its stance and makes the strategies look like all words and no actions.How can the Council wilfully act in opposition to its own strategies? The Council's reputation isonly one thing that would be damaged should this development go ahead. Most concerning is theproposed damage to a Site of Nature Conservation Interest which has a wealth of species,including protected ones. It is an invaluable wildlife corridor which is a treasure so close to the citycentre. It is so important to local residents who care deeply about preserving and enjoying thelocal flora and fauna. We the local residents are taking environmental concerns much moreseriously than the Council - shame on you! Please show us we can still have some faith that BCCwill act in the best interests of Bristol's residents and Bristol's physical space. Our confidence israpidly dwindling.

Mr Alastair Donnelly  29 ISLINGTON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

This is green belt land! There is no excuse for building on green belt when there arenon-green belt sites available, especially in a city that claims to be sustainable and wants to be netzero. This proposed development is completely at odds with the One City Ecological EmergencyStrategy and One City Climate Strategy. The Council continuing to approve such proposeddevelopments undermines its stance and makes the strategies look like all words and no actions.How can the Council wilfully act in opposition to its own strategies? The Council's reputation isonly one thing that would be damaged should this development go ahead. Most concerning is theproposed damage to a Site of Nature Conservation Interest which has a wealth of species,including protected ones. It is an invaluable wildlife corridor which is a treasure so close to the citycentre. It is so important to local residents who care deeply about preserving and enjoying thelocal flora and fauna. We the local residents are taking environmental concerns much moreseriously than the Council - shame on you! Please show us we can still have some faith that BCCwill act in the best interests of Bristol's residents and Bristol's physical space. Our confidence israpidly dwindling.

Mr Tony Pitt  40 BROOKLYN ROAD, BRISTOL BS13 7LA  on 2021-08-11   OBJECT

I object to any type of building on this green space. As a city we've declared climate andecological emergencies. We need to find alternatives to where we build much needed housing, sothat we do not further destroy the limited amount of wildlife habitat we have in the city.

Housing developments of this type should not be linked to other leisure or business proposals.The business proposals are not viable if they require this much housing development on such arich ecosystem.

We must use all available brownfield sites first and not continue to destroy habitat as this is inconflict to the One City Ecological Strategy.

Mrs Maggie Froude  44 RISDALE ROAD ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

I strongly object to the proposed plan to build 500+ homes in Ashton Vale on Green BeltLand for the following reasons:

It's green belt land and the need for open space has never been greater.

Brownfield sites should be used as a priority before considering green belt land. Once green beltland is built on it's lost forever.

The need to save the environment..........................Previous applications to build on this former tiphave been refused.

The concreting over of the land and the increased risk of flooding as this is a high risk flood area.

The impact on local schools.

The extra noise and pollution that will come from congested traffic on the A370 which alreadysuffers with this problem and the increased parking that will occur, especially on match days.

The visual impact ....................The damage to the environment with the building of an out ofcharacter to the area housing development with tall buildings, and the loss of an important amenity

to the residents of Bristol. We currently enjoy uninterrupted views across the countryside to LongAshton. All of this will be lost to this proposed plan.

The loss of our local wildlife and their habitat ............Has an assessment been carried outregarding the loss of the wildlife and their habitat including any protected species? Bristol CC hasdeclared an ecological emergency which highlights the loss of many of our birds, insects andmammals.

Ms Cathrine Svendsen  237 ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

As a local resident and close neighbour to this proposed development, I stronglyoppose the plans to build on this green belt land. We are facing a climate crisis with very little timeleft to act, and we're no doubt facing an uncertain future with more extreme weather. Building ongreen belt land when there are alternatives is not the decision of a responsible council, evenworse when you take into consideration the moderate risk of flooding (either to this land or nearbylocal areas) and the potential pollution that will be released into our local area when the land thatused to be a landfill site gets disturbed. For the environment, the future of our children and,indeed, the health of current local residents this development must be opposed. The developermust be urged to reconsider, choose a more suitable brown field site and make more of theproposed homes affordable if this is to help Bristol in anyway - and not just line the pockets of abillionaire.

This site, with its risk of flooding and landfill pollution, is simply not suited for development.However, as undeveloped green belt land it is precious to wildlife and local residents - it's acherished site for bird watchers, dog walkers, children and recreational runners. This localcommunity needs this green field to remain undeveloped, the local schools and infrastructure can'tsupport the proposed additional traffic and inhabitants. Just one match day currently brings thewhole area to a standstill, we're unable to leave our area without queuing for hours.

If the council grants this application, it would send a message that the environment/conservation

isn't worth protecting above a few individuals' profit, that we're blind to the recent IPCC report andwill head into climate extinction.

Mrs Rachel Sellers  46 ALPHA ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

I object to this proposal because it aims to build only a small % of affordable homes, onGreen belt land (protected by national and local planning frameworks!) when there are perfectlyappropriate brownfield sites available nearby.We are in a climate emergency (as officially stated by the council) so we must act like it.Developing on green belt land reduces our carbon absorption capacity, is detrimental to localwildlife and biodiversity and removes the areas well-being and health benefits.Bristol's One City plan includes improving provision of green spaces across the city, quite theopposite of building on a Site of Nature Conservation Interest.

In addition, this application needs to be considered in conjunction with Ashton Gate proposal (alsoa major application but full rather than provisional/outline). The 2 are interdependent particularly inrelation to transport, water/drainage, additional infrastructure needed (to support significantincrease in dwellings e.g. school, GP surgery etc.) and wildlife corridors. At present both sites arein the same ownership but will not be going forward

Mrs Imogen Waite  3 CHURCH LANE LONG ASHTON  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

This area is a beautiful wild place with a large amount of wild flowers, animals, birds andinsects, developing this land would without doubt damage this wilderness.

Development of this area also undermines Long Ashton being a seperate village outside of Bristol

Mrs Samantha Bird  129 ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

Although I am in support for the development of the stadium and surrounding are,especially if a car park is built, I am strongly opposed to using this precious bit of green belt land tobuild houses on.. I have many reasons for this, one of which it being green belt land and don't seethe need to ruin this lovely important environment used by so many local residents and wildlifewhen there are plenty of brown belt site that can be utilised. This area was amazing to have on ourdoorstep when the pandemic hit and helped with so many locals mental and physical health, it'scrazy that we could lose this. I also strongly object if the need to build the houses is in order to payfor the sporting quarter to be developed as that is absurd! That should be funded in it's own rightand peoples lives shouldn't be messed with in order to make a profit. Also, not only was this site aland fill in the not too distant past, it is also prone to flooding. How can humans continue to buildon areas that flood when we've seen the devastation is causes to peoples lives and the millions ofpounds spent rebuilding everything?! I don't believe that enough affordable housing has beenconsidered and I have heard there will be building of over 5 storeys involved which in no way fits inwith the current community. Finally, Ashton Vale has recently had to put up with the new link roadgoing in which has bright with it pollution, emissions wise and nose wise, but this will also beincreased with this houseing. Use brown belt land first!

Ms Hannah Klewin  39 QUANTOCK ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

I object to the proposal based on:

- the known risk of flooding (as referenced in the Environment Agency's comments);- the negative impact on biodiversity on the site, the SNCI and the existing wildlife corridor;- the Council's own One City Emergency Strategy which commits to 'at least 30% of the land inBristol to be managed for the benefit of wildlife by 2030';- and also the National Planning Policy Framework (chapter 13, para 137-151) Protecting theGreen Belt, which sets out that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptionalcircumstances are fully evidenced and justified (which they are not) and that all other reasonableoptions for meeting the identified need have been fully examined (which they have not).

Mrs Joyce Orum  42 RISDALE ROAD ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

I would like to object to the proposal on the following grounds:

The site is on greenbelt land and is an important amenity for wildlife and local people. Unless100% of rainwater runoff is dealt with on site, then this will lead to an increased flood risk in thislow lying catchment to the Avon. All development should be taking place on brownfield sites tominimise CO2 emissions, unless there are extraordinary reasons. No such reasons have beengiven.

The proposals contain only the minimum percentage of affordable homes and this is totallyunacceptable given the homelessness crisis in Bristol. At least 50% affordable homes should beincluded in the mix.

We are currently experiencing a climate crisis, a flooding crisis and a homelessness crisis, andthis proposal, makes all three worse. This is totally unacceptable.

Mr Stephen Thompson  157 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

I object to this application as the land is in a flood risk area which the environmentagency has objected to for this reason. We have seen recently how the weather has changed withmuch more localised flooding and we are told this is only going to get worse. There are hundredsof brownfield sites waiting to be built on which would be much more appropriate.It's an important local amenity for people to use for their health and well-being. Throughoutlockdown it was apparent, this area was very important to provide a safe outside space. This isgreen belt land and provides habitat for an abundance of wildlife which would be lost. The loss ofhabitat world wide has been highlighted and every square acre saved is very important.If this many homes are built it will put lots of pressure on schools and GPS and also traffic willincrease.The plans show buildings 5 stories high which are higher than homes allowed in Ashton vale. Theaffordable quota of only 30% is the lowest percentage possible for any new builds which could ofbeen higher to provide housing for local young and low income families.I hope consideration of these few main factors will be discussed and used before any outcome isfinalised.

Mr ian staynings  38 RISDALE RD ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

i object as this is greenbelt land and all that nature brlngs with it will be gone forever

Mrs Jodie Partington  14 HOWARD ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

This area has naturally become an area rich in wildlife as it has been left alone byhumans. It is a huge asset to the local area and should remain a nature reserve.Also it very easily becomes a marshy wetlands which I wouldn't think would be very good forbuilding on.We need more green areas in and around Bristol, not less.

Mr LANCET LANCET  SCHOOL FARMHOUSE BARROW STREET BARROW GURNEY  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

Long Ashton Nature, Community & Environment Trust (LANCET) is a new groupcreated in response to the declaration of the climate and ecological emergencies. The group'sfocus is to maintain and improve biodiversity within the parish of Long Ashton both to mitigate theeffects of climate change and to ensure the health and well-being of habitats and species. In orderto achieve these aims, the group liaises with similar organisations in neighbouring parishes since,as we all know, the maintenance of healthy wildlife corridors and refuges are vital to create a'living landscape'.

As such, the group objects to the proposed development at Ashton Vale for the following reasons:

The National Planning Policy Framework states that 'The purpose of the planning system is tocontribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, the objective ofsustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'

In our examination of the proposal the group is concerned that these future needs will not be metsince this development does not appear to follow these guidelines to satisfy the criteria for'sustainability'

FLOODING: the Environment Agency believes that the data used in flood risk assessment

provided by the developers is inadequate and this could lead to potential flood risk.

GREEN BELT AND EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: the group notes that the land withinAshton Vale is designated as Green Belt and the National Planning Policy framework says thatdevelopment on such land should only be granted in 'exceptional circumstances'. In this case, wewould expect a development to take into account both the Climate and Ecological Emergencies(CEE). Yet there is little to be seen in this development that either helps to mitigate climate changeor addresses the problems caused by the depletion of nature in Britain in the last fifty years. Withcrises like these, we need radical solutions right now. Housing accounts for 40% of UK emissions,with the average house using 50 tonnes of CO2 to build so what is the carbon cost of thisdevelopment? And if, as it seems, to be unduly high, surely it could be reduced.

INCREASED TRAFFIC: Increased traffic will lead to further congestion, pollution and low airquality on Cumberland Basin and within the Avon Gorge as well as Long Ashton and thesurrounding area. Where is the commitment to create a community that could thrive in a low-carbon environment connecting to and engaging with the natural setting?

HEALTH & WELL-BEING: Britain also has a health and well-being crisis, particularly among youngpeople. Nature and green spaces have a vital part to play in addressing these problems and theGreen Belt has alleviated urban sprawl so that villages on the outskirts of Bristol, like Long Ashton,have been able to maintain their distinctive characters and sense of community. Building 510houses on this site would merge Ashton Vale with Long Ashton and reduce the ability of people inboth areas to enjoy nature and green spaces on the edge of the city. It will increase the footfall inAshton Court and surrounding areas creating undue stress in these areas.

NATURE: Britain is the most nature-depleted country in the G7 and is one of the lowest ranking inthe world so, again, a radical solution is needed to address this problem. Data collected by localresidents shows the site is admirably rich in terms of species and a Site of Nature Conservationextends into the site proposed for the development. If the Ecological Emergency is to befundamentally addressed, much could be done to increase the biodiversity of this area andconnect other areas rich in wildlife such as Ashton Court, Tyntesfield and the Failand Estate.However the documents associated with Biodiversity Net Gain seem to lack the vision needed totackle these urgent issues.

ECO-HOUSING: We believe, unlike the Long Village proposal, that there are exciting examples ofsustainable urban and rural developments both large and small-scale in Britain that address thecomplex problems of providing housing whilst addressing the CEE successfully so we aredisappointed that the City of Bristol isn't pursuing developments such as these more aggressively.

MISTRUST OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: Finally, after studying the Environment AuditCommittee's report "Biodiversity in the UK: bloom or bust" published on 23 June 2021 and usingthe evidence below, we note that the construction industry has what can best be described as a

chequered history. Our question is how can communities put their trust in the mitigatingstatements made in the planning proposal?

1. "A lack of compliance monitoring, non-implementation of mitigation measures, and a failure toconsider the cumulative effect of small losses of biodiversity at the landscape level have beenhighlighted as further challenges to implementing net gain. For example, a 2013 study found thatonly 30% of mitigation measures are implemented, and hardly any monitoring commitments aremade."2. The Committee also states "We welcome the Government's efforts to secure biodiversity gainsin development: but the biodiversity net gain policy, in its current form, does not go far enough incontributing to the transformative change necessary to address biodiversity loss in the UK. Aseries of deficiencies with the policy have been identified over the course of this inquiry. "3. The Committee concludes that the failure to move towards a system of net environmental gainrisks undermines the government's plans for a green recovery and allows developers to focusentirely on biodiversity, rather than treat the environment as a system. This could lead to severehabitat fragmentation."

Whilst we wait for the Government's response to this report, LANCET believes that the currentproposal cannot prove its a 'sustainable development', will compromise 'the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs', undermines the planning system and, on these grounds,should be rejected.

Mrs Jill Bealey  25 SWISS DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

We are opposed to this proposed development, for the following reason. The proposedland is 'green belt' and as such is a valuable asset to the people of Ashton Vale and beyond forrecreation purposes. It is not suitable for any development, particularly housing as it is on a knownarea which floods regularly. Any development, would undoubtedly put more pressure on thealready stretched local resources eg schools, GP practices and shops etc, bearing in mind that thenew development of Ashton Rise has already added several hundred new residents to what is avery small area. The proposed buildings are five storeys or 18 metres which would blot all viewstowards Ashton Court. Added to this the residents would have to drive on the already congestedroads surrounding the site to get to the nearest supermarket, and this is hardly in keeping with thetrend to use cars less. The local bus service is nowhere near and the metro bus has a very limitedroute, so again people would just get in their cars to go anywhere. This development is notneeded, and should be built on one of the many brownfield sites which are waiting to be built on.

Mr Mike Karthauser   58 SOUTH LIBERTY LANE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

I object to the proposed plans for the following reasons

- Access to the fields are insufficient and will overload the junction by David Lloyd and alsodamage existing wildlife boundaries.- The number of properties in this proposal is too dense compared to the number properties inadjoining Ashton vale.- The addition of 500+ houses in an area where both the nearby primary school (Ashton valeprimary) and nearest secondary school (Ashton park school) are already over subscribed and notable to take local children will mean that any children living on this new development will have totravel to school. This will then mean additional car journeys out onto the neighbouring roads,which are already at capacity at rush hour.- A condition of this development is that it will provide the means to enhance nearby wildlife areas.The presence of 1000+ more people in this area using the local fields and footpaths for recreationand dog walking will be detrimental to the local wildlife.

Miss Esma Pearcey  58 SOUTH LIBERTY LANE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

There are a number of major issues with this site and the proposed development. Thesite has very poor access and cause an increase in traffic on the already busy A370 and S BristolLink Rd. There is no provision for extra places in local schools, which are already oversubscribed,local GP services are already overstretched, public transport links are minimal. On top of all thisthe area is wet, adjacent land on one side is prone to seasonal flooding and on the other side isoccupied by the recently built and very noisy rubble recycling plant.

It will be an unpleasant development to live in, hemmed in by a noisy industrial site on one sideand a busy major road on another, poorly served for infrastructure and amenities.

Mrs Catherine ONion  45 ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

I have lived in the Ashton Vale area for 38 years and enjoy the blend between urbanand city dwelling. There is limited green land dividing Ashton Vale and the City and I would wish toprotect the proposed land proposed for development. By building on this land would deplete thegreen belt even further.Building at the level proposed on the land will impact on several areas for consideration including:habitat and danger to the local wildlife,traffic to and from the development would impact on neighbouring roads and volume of trafficschools and doctors which are already oversubscribedthe visual impact to the area with high rise properties which is unattractiveI am strongly averse to this building application as, although I fully support the development ofhomes, this application does not provide the social housing required in a suitable area and whichcould be accommodated in the brownfield developments available in the city.

Mrs Julia Halpenny  67 DONALD ROAD UPLANDS BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

I object to this application on several groundsi) this is Green Belt land, building on green belt land sets a dangerous precedent - it encouragesthe destruction of precious green spaces in Bristol, especially South Bristol - 'green lung' of thecity.ii) whilst acknowledging the needs for social housing, other ways of providing this must beconsidered, before destroying wildlife habitats, and open green spaces which are essential forresidents' mental and physical healthiii) all local authorities have declared a climate emergency. In view of this and the recent UNclimate report, and the current ecological crisis, loss of native animal and plant species, pollinatorsetc. - deliberate and wilful destruction of existing natural habitats cannot be justified and must bestopped

Mr Jeremy Halpenny  67 DONALD ROAD UPLANDS BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

I object to this application on the following grounds.The events of this week must have surely convinced the world that we are facing a climateemergency so we should we should be preserving our last few green spaces surrounding Bristolnot concreting all over them to line the pockets of developers and big business.Once this piece of land is built on there will be a domino effect and all the green space inside thering road will be built on and lost forever from Long Ashton up to Bishopsworth.Building new houses contributes to climate change by using up valuable scarce resources. Wehave vast amounts of aging and derelict housing stock inside the green built which could bemodernised an/or extended and many brownfield sites being sat on by greedy developers whilst itincreases in value.We were promised by the people that run the city that the land inside the ring road would remainas green belt.The argument used by the owner that he needs the money by selling it for houses to fund sport inBristol does not stack up as the last time i looked he was a multi millionaire and this would only besmall change to him.What will it take for the rulers of our city to finally wake up to the climate emergency we are facing.i can forsee in about 20/30 years time when most of the houses are being flooded out around theCumberland that those in charge are will be cursing the steps taken by their predecessors in theshort term nature of their actions.

Ms G Laure  13 TREGARTH ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

1. Green belt land should not be built on when there are brownfield sites and previouslydeveloped land (PDL) available2. to protect Nature and wildlife. needs to be preserve in response to the climate and ecologicalemergencies.3. The site is an important amenity to the local community4.The proposal should be turned down because it does not contain enough affordable homes.5. . More pressure on schools and doctors6. risk of Flooding7. the site used to be used for landfill. There are concerns about pollution issues both during andafter potential building works on old landfill sites (BBC news story).

Mr Samuel Gay  12 FRAYNES CLOSE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

Opposed on the following grounds.

The Greenland and wildlife perspective, for, bees, birds (Kite seen on the day of this opposition),regular bats and birds.

From the community perspective as its used extensively by locals for picnics, dog walking andberry picking.

Also opposing on behalf of potential new owners. Given its proximity to the noisy recycling centre,noisy outdoor gym and regular flooding.

Believe it's very important to build new homes however there are many other sites nearby whichare just as suitable that are not as green and full of wildlife, or inappropriate for such properties.

Ms Alice Cranston  110 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-10   OBJECT

I strongly object to this proposed development on green belt land that is also animportant local amenity for wildlife and local residents. This is a vital green spot in the local area.Furthermore it is a flood risk to build on this land (as highlighted by the Environment Agency) andwill put more pressure on already stretched local infrastructure, such as schools and surgeries.

Mrs Jill Sutton  5 SILBURY ROAD ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

It's will destroy out wildlife also I'm very worried about the flood plains being floodedmany years ago. We haven't any amenities here in Ashton Vale. Hardly any bus service for our oldpeople and the disabled. That was taken away from us.

Miss Lisa Collier  42 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

I would like to object to this project based on these reasons;1. It is already a green belt land2.There are 200+brownfield sites waiting to be built on3.it is an important local amenity for people and wildlife4. It is a flood risk - the environment agency rejecting this project previously for this exact reason5. We already struggle with the pressure of schools and GPS in my area this on top would send itover the edge!6. The height of the proposed buildings will be ridiculously tall!7. The plans include a pretty poor percentage of affordable homes by 30%.

Mr Ian Loats  2 CLARENCE GROVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

I am a local Wildlife Photographer Bristolian who has only recently moved from SouthBristol to North Somerset. I am also a member of the North Somerset Kestrel monitoring team.I have been monitoring and recording Kestrel breeding and activity on the proposed developmentsite for Several years. There are currently several Kestrel territories on the proposed developmentsite. Kestrels are a declining species and require the kind of habitat currently provided by this landsite as well as Kestrel the site also provides habitat for a host of other species including Barn OwlsBuzzards and Little and Tawny Owls. Should these development proceed this habitat will beseriously undermined and a host of these threatened species are likely to disappear from the area.I am happy to be contacted to discuss further.Thank you. Ian Loats.

Mrs Colleen Hunt  165 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

We've had enough of building and changing the vale with the new road infrastructureand cars using it as a drive through and at night you can hear all the motorbikes racing, we needpeace and our bit of green space for our wild life...go put planning in on Clifton downs and see ifthey will put up with it.. as we are not.

Mr John Lines  246 ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

The proposed Ashton Vale development is on a old Council landfill site dating back, asfar as I remember, to the 1960's.Back then, as Bristol City Council told the people of Bristol, no records were kept of what wastipped, with this in mind and the amount of cancer in the area is it safe to dig this tip up?Also The Environment agency is against this as it could result in flooding in fact the land oppositefloods badly when we have a lot of rain, photos are available if required.Schools in the area cannot accommodate the present population let alone this development andwith this pandemic, kids are already way behind in schools and more students would not helpthem or the teachers catch up.5 stories is far to high for an area bordering on the edge of the countryside, what sort of aneyesore will that be to visitors entering Bristol

Ms Anne Badger  149 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

I want to object to the Longmoor village proposal as a resident of Ashton vale because:1. It is a recognised area of green belt land and an important site of nature conservation.2. I recognise the need for more affordable housing but there are 200 brownfield sites in Bristolwaiting for building on and this proposal fails to include enough affordable homes as it onlyproposes the minimum possible percentage3. According to the Environment Agency it is a flood risk4. As a local resident who moved to this area at the beginning of 2020, I saw at firsthand howinvaluable this open space was for local residents during this difficult year- for physical andemotional wellbeing. It is well used by walkers, families, cyclists, dog walkers. It provides asanctuary not only for humans but for wildlife, birds and amazing wildflowers5. I would also be concerned about an increase in traffic, pollution and pressure on local schoolsand GP surgeries and other amenities

Ms Nikki Davey  148 SWISS DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

Why are we building on green belt when we have loads of brownfield sites that can beused? And how can BCC demonstrate its commitment to climate and ecological issues whilebuilding on such an important area for nature and wildlife? I strongly object to this planningapplication.

Mr Roy Lane  20 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

I object to this proposal because it is green belt and a flood risk and an important localarea which is used by the general public and vital for wild life.

Mrs Sonia Hemmings  198 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

I would strongly object to this development. The land is green/brown belt and AshtonVale residents have strongly opposed this for as long as I can remember. I have lived here forover 36 years using the field and surrounding fields for decades walking our children and dogs onan almost daily basis. The cows that graze in the fields have never been an issue whilst walking.ETM recycling center has already had a detrimental effect of the country side vegetation and airthat smells and produces dust that can sometimes be visible on the vegetation. Surely there areenough disused open spaces that housing can be built on. Our country side is ever decreasingand the new road has meant the wild life is already suffering.

Mr Ricky Hemmings  198 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

I object to this development as the land is green/brown belt. I've used the field andsurrounding fields for decades walking our children and dogs on an almost daily basis. The cowsthat graze in the fields have never been an issue whilst walking. ETM recycling center has alreadyhad a detrimental effect of the country side vegetation and air that smells and produces dust thatcan sometimes be visible on the vegetation. Surely there are enough disused open spaces thathousing can be built on. Our country side is ever decreasing and the new road has meant the wildlife is already suffering.

Mrs Emma OShea   297 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

The open space is green belt and should be left as it is. It's is also a flood risk theenvironment agency has already objected to this for this reason. I bought my house because ofthe views not to look at buildings that are 5 stories high.

Mrs Jennifer Smith  59,AVEBURY ROAD, ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

Having just experienced housing building works end of Silbury Road I was alarmed tofind more intended building work is being considered on our green belt with a view to build over500 homes. The roads around Ashton Vale have been so damaged with increased cars and lorriesroads have become extremely dangerous. We have over the last 18 months been encouraged touse our open spaces but it seems planning for housing has taken priority. With so much brownbelt land still underused I find it incredible that wild life will be destroyed without consideration. Wehave seen how much global warming has affected all parts of the world and flooding being a majorbecause of the constant building on green belt land can only add to this problems. Ashton Valehas very few amenities so I am wholeheartedly against this planning application

Mr Mark Jones  237 ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

The chosen site for the proposed development is green belt land. It is protected to helpstop urban sprawl, preserve the character of existing settlements and encourage developmentwithin existing built-up areas. Not to mention, it has important environmental impact.

The proposed development appears to be driven by profit rather than with any real interest inproviding affordable housing (it will offer the minimum threshold of household affordability). Bristolhas 200 brownfield sites available which could be utilised, while there are now inner citydevelopment opportunities as a result of less demand for office space.

Overall, I object to the use of precious green belt space being used for a development whichseeks to maximise profit. This development will benefit a small, well-off few, while encroaching ona Site of Nature Conservation Interest that's enjoyed not just by local residents but people from thesurrounding areas.

If the council refused this application, it could and would send a message to citizens that theenvironment/conservation is a matter of importance and worth protecting, and that greenbeltpromises are worth honouring for this reason. If the council grants it, it sends exactly the oppositemessage.

Mr Steven Metcalfe   43 RISDALE ROAD ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

It is a green belt site also not enough schools and or doctors. Also there is nothing thattall in area and 200 or so brown belt site awaiting development as well as being a flood risk areafor or the local wild life

Mr Martin Meiler-Windisch  42 SION ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

The proposal should be turned down as the site is an important amenity to the localcommunity. The site should not be built on as it would stop the health and wellbeing benefitsassociated with the site which include walking, dog walking, access to nature and other activities.Also the entire development site is a designated "Wildlife Corridor"

Mr Owen Newman  47 YANLEY LANE LONG ASHTON  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

I object to the proposed development at Ashton Vale for the following reasons:

The land is designated as Green Belt and the National Planning Policy framework says thatdevelopment on such land should only be granted in 'exceptional circumstances'. Yet, in this case,the exceptional circumstances globally, nationally & locally point to NOT developing land such asthis.

On 9th August 2021, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released areport that shows greenhouse gases are unequivocally driving extreme weather but if everyoneacts 'aggressively' nations can still prevent the worst impacts. However, as the report shows, weall have extremely limited time in which to make fundamental change on both a national and locallevel.

To their credit, both North Somerset District Council and the City of Bristol were quick to declare aClimate and Ecological Emergencies but news in the last couple of extreme weather events inboth this country and around the world highlights the urgent need to address both emergencies interms of action and not words.With this in mind, it is relevant to quote from the National Planning Policy Framework:

'The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable

development. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarisedas meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs'

This sentence is absolutely key yet the points below show the Longmoor Village developmentproposal will compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs:

1. The Environment Agency points out that the submitted flood risk assessment provided by thedevelopers misses key elements of the potential flood risk.2. Housing accounts for 40% of UK emissions, with the average house using 50 tonnes of CO2 tobuild. There are developments in the UK that focus on creating a community thriving within a low-carbon environment connecting to and engaging with each other as much as the natural settingyet we see no commitment like this in the Longmoor Village proposal.3. Cars create pollutants, reduce air quality and contribute to carbon emissions yet little is shownthat residents of Longmoor Village will be encouraged to reduce/negate their use. The danger isthat increased traffic will create noise and disturbance in the immediate and neighbouring areas4. We face a catastrophic ecological collapse with natural support systems for life on earth underincreasing stress so maintaining and increasing biodiversity is vital for both the planet and humansocieties. The documents associated with Biodiversity Net Gain shows little regard for increasingthe species and providing connectivity between vital wildlife refuges provided by places such asAshton Court and Tyntesfield. Some developers in large eco-builds such as this provide effectiveliving roof gardens to replenish and nurture local wildlife. Effective wildlife corridors and greenspaces are provided. Yet little attention is paid to these. And what attempt would be made toreduce the impact of increased human footfall and their associated predators such as dogs andcats on neighbouring wildlife?5. The Government faces mounting pressure over its commitments to reducing the ecologicalcatastrophe from the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee. As we wait for the Governmentresponse at the end of August 2021, it's worth pointing out that in June 2021, the Committeestated "The NCC were concerned that a focus on biodiversity net gain could lead to increasedhabitat fragmentation because it did not include a natural capital focus and did not consider theenvironment as an integrated system. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and EnvironmentalManagement (CIEEM) supported this, emphasising that as the BNG metric uses habitats as aproxy for biodiversity value, other important elements such as species and ecosystem services arenot accounted for."6. It is also important to bear in mind that the Committee also reports that "within the constructionsector, there is little, if any, appetite to monitor successes of biodiversity mitigation (if actuallydelivered) due to a lack of enforcement. Baseline data collected pre-planning is generally notplaced in the public domain so whilst there is a volume of data collected in locations andenvironments ... this is not made available in a timeframe that could enable more efficient use,benefitting biodiversity and understanding outcomes."7. Added to this "A lack of compliance monitoring, non-implementation of mitigation measures,and a failure to consider the cumulative effect of small losses of biodiversity at the landscape level

have been highlighted as further challenges to implementing net gain. For example, a 2013 studyfound that only 30% of mitigation measures are implemented, and hardly any monitoringcommitments are made."8. The Committee also states "We welcome the Government's efforts to secure biodiversity gainsin development: but the biodiversity net gain policy, in its current form, does not go far enough incontributing to the transformative change necessary to address biodiversity loss in the UK. Aseries of deficiencies with the policy have been identified over the course of this inquiry. "9. And finally the Government has failed to define what it means by net environmental gain as setout in the 25 Year Environment Plan, as its ambition for future development. The failure to movetowards a system of net environmental gain risks undermining the government's plans for a greenrecovery and allows developers to focus entirely on biodiversity, rather than treat the environmentas a system. This could lead to severe habitat fragmentation."

As set out above, the Longmoor Village development proposal does not address the needs of theClimate or Ecological Emergencies and will compromise the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs. In this way, it seriously undermines the purpose of the planning system andshould be rejected

Ms Sharon Bohin  36 SANDBACH ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-09   OBJECT

Unnecessary loss of wildlife habitat s & wetlands. There are numerous brownfield sitesand unused industrial sites dotted around Bristol that should instead be used.

Mr Adam Luckett  222 ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-08   OBJECT

Roads , schools and doctors can't cope,It floodsYou refused the new city groundToo few affordable homesBuild on brownfield sites firstYou have already build a new estate within yards of this planned development

Mr Roy Mills  220 ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-08   OBJECT

We bought our home in Ashton Vale around 60 years ago and much has changed overthat time with a huge land fill site, a park and Ride, a ring road plus new homes on part of theallotments, to name but a few. The noise levels have increased dramatically. Now new houses areplanned to be built on one of the land fill sites. This last open field in Ashton Vale needs to be leftas it is. It is used by local people, along with people from further afield who use the local footpaths.

Miss Gillian Belcher  200 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-08   OBJECT

Ashton vale has already had new homes built in this area and this will causeovercrowding.This green space is enjoyed by many.There are not enough spaces at local schools and surgeries are already stretched.

Mr Laurence Bryant  79 AVONSMERE RESIDENTIAL PARK STOKE GIFFORD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-08   OBJECT

I am writing to object to the proposed planning application, as I believe the land it isintended to be built on. Is important to the local community as a green open space and amenity. Itis also important to keep greenbelt land free from development.

Miss Carys Greenwood  6 FRAYNES CLOSE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-08   OBJECT

The Green Belt Land in Ashton Vale should not be built on. It is a place that provides animportant connection to nature for the local people and have been a place of solace in what hasbeen a difficult time. The open space is Green Belt Land and should be protected for both peopleand wildlife. Why build here when there are so many (200+) brownfield sites in Bristol to build on?The planned housing estate also has buildings up to 18m tall which will destroy the skyline of thearea. I firmly object to the planning proposal put forward.

Mr Jason Hughes  127 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-08   OBJECT

I object to this development as it is environmentally damaging to the biodiversity in thearea and will increase atmospheric pollution. We should be repurposing brownfield as a priorityand increasing the amount of affordable housing in all developments to at least 50%.

Mr peter neale  113 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-08   OBJECT

This is a designated green field site. Prior to that it was water meadows. Alwaysflooded. The land fill which followed was unlicensed and for most of its life it was unmanaged anunfenced. No one knows what is in there. Will the site be cleared and refilled in the interests ofpublic safety if planning permission should be, for some reason, be granted.

Miss Stacey Thomas  54 SILBURY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-07   OBJECT

Planning permission for a stadium was declined around 10 years ago due to the fieldbeing registered as green belt land, the need for flood prevention is still very much needed for thehouses on silbury road. our local service for school places, go practices and dentists are alreadyover stretched with having to compete to get appointments with a go that already has 30,000+patients already registered and a years+ waiting list to be even register at a dental practice evenwithin Bristol alone. With schools unable to expand especially Ashton vale school where it'ssurrounded by residential houses already at full capacity. Ashton vale

Mr Ben Anthony  1 PEMBROKE RD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-07   OBJECT

Think Climate EmergencyAll new developments must be based on improving / developing existing buildings such as thethousands of empty offices in Bristol ( these could be converts Ed to flats).The proposed massive development will destroy natural habitat and bring a massive increase incar usuage to central Bristol.The proposed Ashton development will only just be completed as the full effects of the climateemergency hit. The resources which will be needed to bring it to fruition should be usedelsewhere, in ways which nourish and to text the environment and provide modern/ radical socialhousing solutions not lots more private housing.Please please do not let this development go ahead. I'm old enough to to have seen so manysuch developments turn out wrong and this can not happen during an emergency.Thank you.

Miss Emily Shipley  16 CLYDE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-07   OBJECT

Green belt land in Bristol provides a vital haven for biodiversity within the city. The cityhas an ecological emergency therefore plans to build on green belt land is not only outrageous it iscompletely against the logic of declaring an ecological emergency. The oh cool should use this toreject any planning applications on green belt land.Aside from biodiversity, the human cost of developing on green belt land is high - green spacesprovide vital mental health and physical health benefits which have only been exacerbated duringthe lockdowns in the pandemic.

Mrs Claire Smith  75 ASHTON RISE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-07   OBJECT

My family object to the plans to develop longmoor village,as is a local amenity forpeople and wildlife,natural and beautiful unspoilt very peaceful and tranquil landscape

Miss Charlotte Webb  63 AVEBURY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-07   OBJECT

As a local resident, I strongly object to the proposed development to build such a highnumber of houses on this site.Given this is green belt land, and the number of brownfield sites in the area, this seems a highlyunnecessary development, particularly given the hugely detrimental impact this will have on thelocal environment. Not only will the habitat of many animals be destroyed, this would alsosignificantly reduce the local insect population, which has already fallen dramatically over the pastfew decades.As seen with the recent floods in Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium building on an areasusceptible to floods seems to be a very short term solution to the housing problem, and one weshould not disregard as the risk increases - not only could this area flood, but this could causingflooding in the Ashton vicinity, which would not occur if this development was not built.The traffic in the local area, and the state of the roads (particularly Silbury Road) has already beennegatively impacted as a result of Ashton Rise - such a large development would causing furthertraffic issues to an already busy area which does not have adequate public transport.Finally, I do not believe this development is necessary to 'unlock' the Sporting quarter - as itcontributes less than 20%, I'm sure Steve Lansdown could use some of his ever growing wealthinstead.

Mr Jamie Scragg   53 AVEBURY ROAD ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-06   OBJECT

It's a 2 mins walk from home and I can walk the dogs in the morning before work andwhen I get home from work it's a place where I can see the wildlife like the wetland birds.

Miss Hayley Thomas  54 SILBURY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-06   OBJECT

This development should be turned down as the site is green belt land. Lets look a littlemore at green belt land.

Green belt land is protected by both national and local planning frameworks. As the Open SpaceSociety says, green belt land acts as a buffer between towns, and between the town andcountryside. It prevents urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. This proposeddevelopment would clearly both destroy the green belt and allow urban sprawl.

Both National and Local planning frameworks note the importance of green belt land as did BristolCity Council when the land owners contacted them about this development (see below).

National Planning Policy Framework

Chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Feb 2019); is about "Protecting Green Beltland". It starts by noting that: "The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. Thefundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanentlyopen; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence." (133,p.40).

The proposed Ashton Vale development will both threaten the openness and permanence of this

section of green belt land and lead to urban sprawl, as such it should not be allowed.

Point 136 in chapter 13 states: "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be alteredwhere exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation orupdating of plans." (p.40).

The Local plan in Bristol has not been updated to remove this area of green belt land. Proposedrevisions were rejected and the whole Bristol Local Plan is still under review. Until any Local planreview is completed, no development on green belt land should be permitted.

Chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework notes repeatedly the "exceptionalcircumstances" that need to be met in order for green belt land to be built on. We discuss on thegrounds for objection page what the landowners think are exceptional circumstances. They are notexceptional. And so this application should not be allowed.

Point 144 notes: "When considering any planning application, local planning authorities shouldensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances'will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and anyother harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations". The harmto the green belt caused by this proposed development is not outweighed by any otherconsiderations and so it should not be allowed.

Bristol's Local Plan

The current core strategy for Bristol dates from 2011 (Bristol Development Framework - CoreStrategy). Echoing the National Planning Policy Framework regarding the green belt, Policy BCS6states: "Countryside and other open land around the existing built-up areas of the city will besafeguarded by maintaining the current extent of the Green Belt. Land within the Green Belt will beprotected from inappropriate development as set out in national planning policy." (p.60). Theproposed development would no longer maintain the current extent of the green belt nor protect itfrom inappropriate development.

Like national policy, the local policy states "that the general extent and boundaries of the GreenBelt should be altered only exceptionally" (4.6.5, p.61). As noted, exceptional grounds have notbeen met.

It should be noted, that no details proposing this development were proposed in the Bristol SiteAllocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan 2014. This is unlike the nearbyrecent development of "Ashton Rise" (previously Aldermans Moore's former allotments). This waslisted in the Local plan 2014 (BSA1001) and is not situated on green belt land. As such anycomparison between the "Ashton Rise" development and this proposed one is not relevant.

Nor was this development even listed in the 2019 Consultation "Bristol Local Plan Review - AnnexDraft Development Allocations" (Consultation - March 2019). However proposed changes to thegreen belt status of this land were noted in the draft consultation document Bristol Local PlanReview: Draft Policies and Development Allocations (March 2019), under Section 17, DS10 -"Changes to the Green Belt in South Bristol". Four points need to be noted regarding this:

This draft local plan was not adopted. Bristol is still operating from earlier versions.The proposed DS10 noted that: "On each site 40% of the new homes should be in the form ofaffordable housing and 5% of the new homes should be in the form of community-led / self-buildhomes." Neither of these criteria is met by the proposed development.The proposed DS10 also noted that: "Detailed development considerations for these sites will beincluded in a future version of this Local Plan, which will be informed by responses to thisconsultation". This has not happened, as the draft of the Local Plan was not adopted.Section 17 of the responses to the consultation noted above (Bristol Local Plan Reviewconsultation - March 2019. Summary of consultation responses - published September 2019)highlights just 3 comments in support of this proposal and 55 comments in objection to theprinciple of green belt release (p.59-61).

Reasons for objection include: lack of exceptional circumstances; land performing its purpose asgreen belt; preference for brownfield development; cumulative impact of green belt release; failureto demonstrate sustainable development; pressures on infrastructures and services.

All of which remain relevant and provide further reason to turn down this proposed development.The owner's discussions with the council about this proposal

Moreover, even in the documents available in the planning portal, Peter Westbury, Team Managerfor Major Developments at the council noted on the 6th March 2019: "At the present time, therewould be an in principle objection to any application for planning permission for this combineddevelopment. The land at Silbury Road remains in the Green Belt".

The land still remains in the green belt. This in principle objection remains.

In short, if determining this proposal in accordance with current National and Local plans or eventhe councils own advice to the owners of the land in 2019, this and any future proposals should beturned down due to the areas continued status as green belt land.

Mrs Kate Hather  165 LONG ASHTON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-06   OBJECT

I feel this development is far too big for the area. There is an issue with traffic, services,noise.Most importantly this is a green belt site which mustn't be built on. There are plenty of brown fieldsites that can be utilised. Please do not consent to this huge development and consider theenvironment.

Mrs Lianne Dicks  261 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-06   OBJECT

I have lived in Ashton Vale all my life. We already have had a new road built through ourgreen space and Ashton Rise housing development. Ashton Vale has always been the outskirts ofBristol, this now changing. enough is enough.

Mrs Claire Price  20 RISDALE ROAD ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-06   OBJECT

As a resident of Ashton Vale, I strongly object to the development application21/03166/P. There are many other brownfield sites available for development, which wouldprevent sites of interest, like Ashton Vale from being lost. Myself and my family use the fields forwalking and watching the wildlife. We have lived in Ashton Vale for over 25 years and have sentour children to Ashton Vale Primary School, which is a small school with limited class sizes. Ourlocal nursery will also not be able to cope with the extra demand for places. We do not have anylocal doctors or dental surgeries with capacity to take new patients. We already have moreresidents from the Ashton Rise development which has increased the population, traffic anddemand for services in and around Ashton Vale. Parking on South Liberty Lane is difficult tonegotiate with cars parked on double yellow lines and traffic serving the industrial estate, keepingthe area busy. Ashton Vale is already used as a rat run for access to the new road and thesurrounding areas. The area around the metro line is marshy and prone to flooding, which putsother residences at risk of flooding, should the area be developed.The development of green sites like Ashton Vale would have a detrimental effect on the wildlife,environmentally the area would be subject to more pollution and the mental health and well-beingof residents, who use the area for exercise and to be closer to nature without having to travel,especially during covid when restrictions have been in place, would all be severely impacted.There are no play facilities in Ashton Vale for children, who would have to cross a busy main roadto access the park. The view of Ashton Court and countryside would be lost as well.We have already lost our local post office and had our bus service limited. Ashton Vale is a small

community with few facilities and not enough space to accommodate considerable populationincrease and demand on already stretched services.

Brownfield sites should always be utilised first before considering applications for developinggreen sites, like Ashton Vale. The impact on the close knit community should be taken intoaccount and the lives and well being of all residents, currently living in an area of importance, putbefore profit.

Mrs Corrina Gardner  101 SILBURY ROAD ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-05   OBJECT

This area is a flood risk and green belt landWhy are decent people having to constantly fight for what s right!! Because of money grabbingidiots!!Only affordable by 30% What s the point!!This is local to me and my mental health and I could not think of anything worse to happen to thecommunity of Ashton vale

Mr A Pratley  155, SWISS DRIVE, ASHTON VALE, BRISTOL  on 2021-08-05   OBJECT

PLANNING APPLICATION 21/03166/P

I am totally against this planning application due to the following reasons:-

The land which this development is intended to be built on in my opinion is totally unsuitable dueto the following reasons.

1. This land is a former landfill site which didn't have 24 hour security on it. (This could possiblymean that many poisonous items were dumped on the land)?See below for problems with landfills.

Why are landfill sites so harmful to the environment.

Landfill sites are partially responsible for global warming as they generate and release biogas intothe atmosphere.Sometimes methane produced by waste from landfill sites can cause explosions and fires.Landfill sites are often responsible for the contamination of soil and groundwater, as thecontaminating materials (such as heavy materials like lead, etc.)Landfills alter the fauna. Landfill sites have particularly negative effects on bird migration.Landfills reduce the value of the surrounding areas. The bad smells that emanate from landfill

sites cannot be effectively controlled and, almost inevitably, reach nearby populations.

Building on landfill sites.I would like to emphasise that, if at all possible, building on landfill sites containing putresciblematerial, and which therefore is likely to be generating landfill gas should be avoided.It has been found that landfill sites are continuing to produce significant volumes of landfill gas, formany years and many sites are still producing gas in excess of thirty years from closure.2. This land is Green belt land and an important open space for the people of Ashton Vale whouse it regularly. It was even more beneficial to the residents for exercise, etc. during the recentCovid 19 period.

3. This is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest which has many Birds, Mammals and reptiles onand around it including Otters. Peregrine Falcons also use this land looking for its prey.

4. This site is also a wetland that has been made worse since the building of the Metro bus routewhich is higher than the land, causing more rain water to run onto it.

5. In the present climate, due to global warming, we have rising sea levels, increasing amounts ofvery heavy rain causing flooding to an increasing number of properties, etc. The taking of floodplain land will be so very wrong.

6. There isn't any mention of a doctor's surgery or school. The area has already had more housesbuilt (Ashton Rise} without any of these amenities being added which in my opinion are required

Miss Louise Gardner  21 SILBURY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-05   OBJECT

I purchased my house only two years ago and nothing was mentioned in any searchesabout the field behind my house being built on. To be honest the view from the back of myproperty was the main reason we purchased the property. I even asked the estate agent if the landwas likely to be built on in the future and I was told no as it was green belt land that couldn't bebuilt on. Its the only real green space we have left in the area. And the fact that some of theseproperties are going to be 5 storeys is really over the top and really not necessary. We havealready had 133 new homes put on silbury road with no extra infrastructure to adjust to theincrease of population, we have a tiny local school that is always full with people living in ashtonval having there children being sent to alternative schools that are not local. We have no localdoctors or dentists in the area so I dread to think the effect that all these houses will haveregarding these issues. The fields are used by hundreds of people its not an unused area. Thereare lots more suitable alternatives that are better equipped to be built on. Also the wildlife that Isee in my back garden that live in these fields will be destroyed by the proposed plans.

Mr Richard Scott  SILBURY ROAD ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-05   OBJECT

The field is at the rear of my property. The field is a swamp with minimal amounts of rainso flood risk alone is a massive problem. The proposed housing estate that is planned isunacceptable. It is green belt land that should never be built on well thats what we were led tobelieve on purchasing our house. The fields are used by myself and lots of other dog walkers andfamilies and will be a real loss to the area. Facilities around the area are not sufficient to cope withthe amount of extra people that will be bought into the area by the proposed plans. We havealready had to accept losing allotments and green spaces for the 133 houses built on silbury road,our roads are trashed by the development and now you are expecting us to bow down and acceptthis further disruption for many more years. Five storeys is totally unacceptable.

Ms Patrica Hemmings  13 SILBURY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-05   OBJECT

In a time when outdoor space and exercising for mental health has become soimportant why are you even considering taking the only green belt 'safe' land that ashton vale hasleft. It is a massive benefit for residents that should not be taken away. People in ashton vale havechose to buy a property on the edge of town and a very rural area which is slowly being strangledby developments surrounding it.

Mrs Joanna Kiernozek   58 SILBURY TD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-05   OBJECT

I am not agree with those plans, ashton was nice place to live but no more, we as aresident not agree!!!!

Ms Bonnie Hewson  24 HENGASTON STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

I am wholly unconvinced at this time of climate emergency that our housing need shouldbe met by permitting urban sprawl on to green belt land, particularly an SCNI which is importantfor wildlife and wetland birds. No amount of unlocking a sport quarter or claiming to build anunimpressive affordable homes justifies "unlocking" a development scramble to build upwards andoutwards in this area. To do so would be a slippery slope and developers should be encouraged tomake more use of previously developed and brown field sites in Bristol, ina leaner and moreflexible way, rather than creating whole new villages. The people of Bristol need their greenspaces as much as the wildlife does so by all means build the sporting quarter and improvewalking and cycle access tto green spaces, but please don't build a new village on it.

Ms Winnie Love   46 CHALCROFT HOUSE LOWER SIDNEY STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

Please decline this planning application on the grounds that the area is at risk offlooding and development would further increase this risk.Also why approve building plans on a green field site when there are brown field sites available.Biodiversity needs to be protected, please help nature and mankind survive, don't go againstBristols green city pledge. Thank you.

Mrs Helen Price  11 PARK ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

Really, for goodness sake, do we really need to justify the objection after all we knowabout how important green spaces are (evidence has emerged, if we needed it, during thepandemic)and with climate change happening?

Miss Melanie Gogarty  37 APSLEY ROAD BASEMENT FLAT BRISTOL  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

The land is green belt land. The development site includes part of a Site of NatureConservation Interest (SNCI) and is next to a more extensive SNCI which is an important site forwintering and breeding wildfowl and waders. The site is also an important open space and amenityfor the local community and a floodzone (2 & 3). In this time of climate emergency andincreasingly extreme weather events this development would not make sense. I agree that Bristolneeds more affordable housing, this proposal contains only 30% affordable homes - the minimumpossible amount any application could get away with. The development will also put more strainon already stretched local schools and GP services.Bristol made headlines when declaring a climate emergency. To allow this development tohappen, to lose this important green belt will be seen by all as hypocritical.

Mx Jasmine Tribe  20 BALMORAL ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

I object to this proposal because it aims to build only a small % of affordable homes, onGreen belt land (protected by national and local planning frameworks!) when there are perfectlyappropriate brownfield sites available nearby.

We are in a climate emergency (as officially stated by the council) so we must act like it.Developing on green belt land reduces our carbon absorption capacity, is detrimental to localwildlife and biodiversity and removes the areas well-being and health benefits.

Bristol's One City plan includes improving provision of green spaces across the city, quite theopposite of building on a Site of Nature Conservation Interest.

This proposal makes even less sense because there are over 200 brownfield sites and previouslydeveloped land (PDL) available. AND the proposed 'affordable housing' is only 30% of thedevelopment.

Please reconsider this, for the benefit of our health, wildlife and the climate.

Mr Jeremy McNeill  25 EMMANUEL COURT GUTHRIE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

I object strongly against this proposal. This green belt land is a vaulable resource forpeople and the environment, providing a useful green lung for the Bristol area. Continualdestruction of green belt land is unsustainable. There is a climate emergency and concreting overthis green space will contribute even more to the emergency

Ms Dawn Adams  33 CALCOTT ROAD KNOWLE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

I feel very strongly that we need to keep our green spaces for our communities andmost especially for our native species. As someone who support feeds hedgehogs in my area, Iknow all too well the need wildlife has for space to thrive and natural wildlife corridors. Once builtover, green space is lost forever to us and wildlife alike. Whilst not financially productive theseareas are needed for our mental health and wellbeing and to combat the increasing environmentalconcerns. We need to stop covering areas like this with sprawling areas of housing, takingvaluable habitats away from our wildlife. We must find a balance. Green space is ideal to combatglobal warming, with its grass, shrubs and trees, whereas housing and paving and the resultingsterility that housing brings in the form of wildlife deserts. We're not even using all this empty officespace in the city, even more now with Covid and the resulting increase in home working. If wecontinue as we are, we are going to find ourselves bereft of wildlife, green and wild spaces. I amglad I'm not going to be around in 30-40 years to see how little wild space we will have left but Iworry about our wildlife in the UK and our young and future generations, what kind of place we areleaving behind for them?

Mrs Emmylou Wherlock  22 GLEBE ROAD LONG ASHTON  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

What provision will be given to building services eg schools and doctors/dentists. Wealready don't have enough school places to accommodate the growing population, dentists don'texist and the doctors waiting list is ridiculous.Traffic in the area is already congested, particularly though this area, the A370 and Winterstokeroad - where most of these new homes would wish to drive - more cars on the road in this area willlead to a complete roadblock.

Mrs Samantha Parker   153 ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

Ashton vale has already had hundreds of new homes built in this area. Allotments andgreen space have been reduced by this as well as the addition of the metro bus link. The greenspace is vital to the community and our area will not be able to cope with the addition of 500 newhomes!! There aren't enough schools, doctors, dentists as it is in this area. Building these homeswill only exacerbate these problems.

Dr Clive Weston  43 FRIEZEWOOD ROAD, ASHTON ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

I object to this application for many reasons. The main reason is that Bristol needs moregreen space in order to meet it's commitments regarding the Climate and Ecological Emergency. Itis therefore inconceivable that permission be given to build on Green Belt Land. This land is usedby people like me for fitness, well-being and connection with nature; it is one of the few areas ofgreen space in easy walking distance. In addition it is a haven for wildlife and we need to doeverything possible to enhance biodiversity - this application does the opposite. Yes we needmore genuinely "affordable" homes in Bristol but this application contains no genuinely socialhousing. We should build social housing on Brownfield sites, not on the Greenbelt. For all of thesereasons I object to the application.

Miss Danielle Emerson  56 SOUTH LIBERTY LANE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

You should not be granting permission to build on green belt land. Build houses onbrown land and don't destroy the little nature and biodiversity that we have left in BS3

Mr Luke Robinson  56 SOUTH LIBERTY LANE CITY OF BRISTOL  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

Already can't park outside my house!What is going to happen to all of the wildlife? Bio-dicersity needs to be protected.Find somewhere that is not green belt. The area is at risk of flooding already and would increasethe flood risk for current residents in Ashton Vale.The plans would be a contradiction to Bristol's one city climate strategy.

Ms Alexia Wdowski  FLAT B, 233 NORTH STREET BEDMINSTER BRISTOL  on 2021-08-04   OBJECT

I am a local resident and object to development on this greenfield site used by thecommunity. We need to save every bit of green space that we can and there is no excuse fortaking away a greenfield site. Every choice to remove slices of green space from Bristol takesaway our city´s lungs, reduces its ability to absorb heat, rain and C02, and destroys wildlife andwildflowers. It also reduces any wellbeing and mental heath benefits´for people who live nearbyand use it. We are in the middle of both a pandemic and environmental crisis and decisions likethis have never mattered more. We have enough concrete.

Mr Paul Mizen  73 BRIDGWATER ROAD UPLANDS BRISTOL  on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

There are no exceptional circumstances in this development that would justify buildingon the Greenbelt. Please respect the law. When all alternative Brownfield Sites have beenexhausted, you may have a case, but not till then!

Mr Steve Woods  18 LAWRENCE AVENUE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

This is a major open space in south Bristol and as such a valuable asset to the area.

It is also home to protected species such as badgers and bats, as well as other species such askestrels, buzzards and sparrowhawks.

Any development should prioritise brownfield sites, not undeveloped green space, which is vital topeople's well-being and recreation.

Miss Caroline Vans  84 RISDALE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

There is already a problem with amenities locally and new housing needs new schools,shops, cafes, doctors, dentists.

Also have concerns about environmental impact particularly with regard to flooding in the localarea.

Mrs Susan Brown   SILBURY ROAD ASHTON VALE  on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

Leave as is we do not want any more housing, the houses already built are causingnoise pollution and more cars and vans causing more pollution, you need to save the planet notdestroy it

Dr Pam Morgan  27 ASHTON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

The following statement illustrates my objections perfectly and I agree with thesegrounds for objection 100%. I wish to add that thousands of new homes are being planned veryclose to Grenville Smyth Park yet the plans for the Cumberland basin will make travel into the cityfrom south of the river absolute gridlock. Facilities and infrastructure are woefully inadequate tosupport existing plans and applications and you consistently fail to consider the big picture and thethe absolute chaos you will be creating.

1. The key point: This proposed development should be turned down as the site is green belt land.Green belt land is protected by national and local planning frameworks. For much moreinformation on the status of this land as green belt, see here.

Why else should this development be turned down?

2. Green belt land should not be built on when there are brownfield sites and previously developedland (PDL) available. Bristol currently has over 200 brownfield sites available. As we come out ofthe pandemic many more previously developed sites could become available and be redevelopedfor housing.

3. Bristol says it is a leading voice in response to the climate and ecological emergencies. TheOne City plan (third iteration) talks about the improved provision of green spaces across the city

and the role they can play in increased physical activity, reducing obesity and health inequalities.This proposal destroys green belt land and removes green space.

4. Nature and wildlifeAshton Vale Fields is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). Importantly, the SNCI isbigger than the Town and Village Green (below). The SNCI does not stop at the metrobus route. Itextends into the proposed site of development (see here). The main protection currently proposedis: "a 5 m offset between the development and the SNCI" (C3.41).

The Portishead Branch Line Preliminary Environmental Information Report (vol 4), describedAshton Vale Fields as "an important bird site" (4-12). It noted: "The site's mosaic of wet grassland,open water, ditches, hedgerows and scrub is particularly important for wintering and breedingwildfowl and waders".

The current planning documents note: "Potential indirect effects include disturbance to breedingand wintering birds during construction". And that the SNCI could experience effects as a result ofthe Proposed Development during the construction and/or operational phase.

As well as birds, submitted documents note the unconfirmed presence on-site of various species,including some protected ones, such as: great crested newts, water voles, otters, bats, badgers,hazel dormice and hedgehogs.

Documents, including the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report keep noting thatfurther ecological surveys are recommended, and required in advance of determining the planningapplication. It is not clear if these wider surveys have been carried out. Please contact us if youcan find them on the planning portal.

5. The site is an important amenity to the local community. The proposal should be turned downas it would stop the health and wellbeing benefits associated with the site which include walking,dog walking, access to nature and other activities.

Last time development was proposed on this site (Nov. 2009), objections were lengthy andprogressed all the way up to judicial review. As part of this process Barrister Ross Crail conductedan inquiry which recommended that all of the land should be registered as a Town or VillageGreen (TVG). This was because local people had used the space for lesiure for at least twentyyears. The report can be downloaded here or here. It is worth scanning the report to appreciatethe long history of local people using the site (warning: the report is 276 pages long).

While the council chose not to designate this piece of land as a TVG, the report and itsrecommendations demonstrate the significant historical and current amenity use of the land to thelocal population.

6. The proposal should be turned down because it does not contain enough affordable homes.The planning application notes that it will deliver up to 510 residential units of which only 30%(153) will be affordable. The Mayor's 2021 manifesto pledged 2,000 homes a year, with 1,000 ofthem affordable: a 50% rate.

Recent housing developments in South Bristol have shown how developers can do even better.

Old Brewery, Ashton Gate. 107 homes - 100% affordable.Totterdown Bridge. 152 homes - 100% affordable.Off Winterstoke Road. 67 homes - 100% affordable.

No one doubts that Bristol needs more "affordable" housing, but 30% is not enough.

7. More pressure on schools and doctorsDuring the consultation, local residents in Ashton Vale expressed concerns about the increasedpressure on schools and doctors in the local area. Increasing homes in the area by more than 500dwellings (1,500+ residents), will put further pressure on local services, negatively impacting thelocal residential amenities.

8. "Five stories high"The current application is an "outline proposal" only, so it lacks a lot of detail. However, ifapproved up to 17% of buildings will be 5 stories high or 18m tall. The rest up to 3 stories or 11m.The visual impact of the development will be significant for those living in the local area. It will beout of scale and out of character compared to the existing developments in the local area. Localhouses may face overlooking and loss of privacy issues or even shading / loss of daylight. Theloss of current views for existing properties will adversely affect an residential amenity of theneighbourhood and the open outlook of the neighbourhood will be lost.

9. The planning application argues that building on this land is necessary to "unlock" the AshtonGate Sporting Quarter (AGSQ). Indeed, this unlocking argument is thought to be exceptionalenough to warrant building on the green belt.

A document submitted during planning notes: "The anticipated value of Longmoor with the benefitof planning permission, is £24.1 million. This accounts for 19% of the total costs of construction ofthe development at AGSQ (£126.5m)."

SAVE is not against the sporting quarter. Nor the founder of Bristol Sport, Steve Lansdown.However if the unlocking potential of this development is cited as being exceptional, then it mustbe noted that Steve Lansdown is a billionaire, estimated in the Sunday Times Rich List 2021(no.124) as being worth 1.365 billion. His wealth having increased by £15 million in the past yearalone. For a man with such increasing wealth any argument that green belt land needs to be builton in order that he can make a mere £24.1 million more seems spurious.

10. FloodingThe National Planning Policy Framework says: "Inappropriate development in areas at risk offlooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whetherexisting or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should bemade safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere." (point 155).

The site is at risk of flooding, with some areas in Flood Zones 3 and 2 it would seem thatdevelopment of this land would increase the flood risk either here or elsewhere in the local area.

11. LandfillThe site used to be used for landill. There are concerns about pollution issues both during andafter potential building works on old landfill sites (BBC news story).

Miss Parvin Sepehr  14 FRAYNES CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

I don't see the reason to build on green belt land when there are plenty of brownfieldsites available to be built on. Not only that but you claim to be building 'affordable housing' when infact you are planning on building the bare minimum 'affordable' houses on the site. This will nothelp anywhere near enough young people to be able to get on the ladder. You would also betaking away a large natural green space which many of the residents nearby use to walk their dog,do their daily exercise and enjoy the nature, of which there is little else within close walkingproximity. Why build on green belt land when their is currently a climate crisis, we are supposed tobe improving green spaces not building on them. Also to build high tower blocks would severelyruin the breathtaking view which can be seen from the suggested spot.

Mrs Bonnie Maxwell  40 UPTON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

I object to the planning application for 500+ new homes on the land west of silbury road,Bristol. I understand that the minimum requirement of these homes will be affordable therefore thisis not helping the housing situation for many people/families. Also this land is green belt area andconsidering the environmental issues and challenges that we all face and the impact of climatechange, I object to the potential loss of wildlife and the impact on the local environment if thesehomes are built on this land.

I am concerned about the increase in traffic from the cars that will use these new homes, theissues with parking which is already a major problem in this area.

Such a huge number of homes would put significant pressure on local schools and GP surgeries.How will these services manage with such an increase in demand?

Mrs Joanne Copleston  5 MARTIN STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

This area is a greenfield site which should be at the back of the queue when there areover 200 brownfield sites registered in Bristol which should be built on first.We are in a climate and ecological emergency and cannot afford to loose yet more green spaceand habitat.

Miss Jodie Pugh  36 SILBURY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

This land supports our wildlife, by taking yet more green land away from our nature isappalling. The amount of foxes, rabbits, hedgehogs, snakes, birds, deer etc which use this landwill be killed.

Miss Jodie Bancroft  7 SILBURY ROAD CHARLBURY  on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

1. The key point: This proposed development should be turned down as the site isgreen belt land. Green belt land is protected by national and local planning frameworks. For muchmore information on the status of this land as green belt, see here.Why else should this development be turned down?2. Green belt land should not be built on when there are brownfield sites and previously developedland (PDL) available. Bristol currently has over 200 brownfield sites available. As we come out ofthe pandemic many more previously developed sites could become available and be redevelopedfor housing.3. Bristol says it is a leading voice in response to the climate and ecological emergencies. TheOne City plan (third iteration) talks about the improved provision of green spaces across the cityand the role they can play in increased physical activity, reducing obesity and health inequalities.This proposal destroys green belt land and removes green space.

4. Nature and wildlifeAshton Vale Fields is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). Importantly, the SNCI isbigger than the Town and Village Green (below). The SNCI does not stop at the metrobus route. Itextends into the proposed site of development (see here). The main protection currently proposedis: "a 5 m offset between the development and the SNCI" (C3.41).

Ms Ruth Lucas  26 RYECROFT RISE LONG ASHTON  on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

It is important this Green Belt land is protected. We do not need to build unsustainablehouses on valuable wildlife corridors and habitats. The infrastructure in this area would also notsupport this development and there are already amenities stretched beyond sustainable levels.

Mr James Thomas  94, WESTON ROAD LONG ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-08-03   OBJECT

Building on the green belt when there are more than enough brown field sites availableis not acceptable. Yes, more housing is needed but lining the pockets of the already extremelywealthy by allowing this to happen would be a travesty & go against all that is good and honest inthe city of Bristol.Please, please, please be reasonable. There are other options available & protect the amazingcountryside around our wonderful city.

Ms Miriam Kirsten  75 BERKELEY ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL  on 2021-08-02   OBJECT

.

Mr Tim Purser  20 BROOK CLOSE LONG ASHTON  on 2021-08-02   OBJECT

It is called a green belt for a reason. There are plenty of brown sites in Bristol that canbe used for housing. Long Ashton is a village in North Somerset, not Bristol and should not be atrisk of being gobbled up by Bristol. I fundamentally object to this proposal.

Ms Sophie Kilgour  84 SWISS DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-02   OBJECT

To build on this piece of land which is part of Bristol's green belt is completelyunnecessary and would be detrimental to not only residents in the immediate vicinity but to Bristolas a whole.The Mayor declared a climate emergency in Bristol yet here we are looking to build on the greenbelt.

Green belt land is protected and should not be built on when there is brownfield land available.Bristol currently has over 200 brownfield sites which could be built on instead, including many inand around BS3.

Not only does developing existing brownfield sites protect the much needed green belt, it improvesthe area around the brownfield site. We have scores of dilapidated buildings which are targets forgraffiti and vandalism. Many are on good transport links and walking distance to local amenities.Why not develop them and improve the areas they are in, potentially attracting more people to thearea who would then make use of local shops etc.

This area is full of a huge array of wildlife and provides a much needed green break between themain road and Ashton Vale.

The area is used by many people to walk in and to see wildlife. It has bern a godsend over the

past 18 months during times when people weren't able to go far from their homes. To have anarea of such biodiversity (something which we are trying to improve as a city aren't we?) on ourfootsteps is priceless. Many people in Ashton Vale are older or have small children so walkinglong distances isn't an option.

Additionally the area is currently under pressure in terms of available amenities such as schoolplaces and doctors appointments. Providing a further 500+ houses in the immediate vicinity ofAshton Vale would only exacerbate this.

The development provides only the absolute minimum of "affordable" housing and will therefore dolittle, if anything, to address the city's housing crisis. Affordable housing is often not reallyaffordable anyway, forcing people to rent properties which they end up paying 50-100% extra forcompared to the mortgage they would pay. Undoubtedly landlords would buy properties atLongmoor, actually exacerbating the housing crisis rather than helping solve it.

When Bristol Sport wanted to build a stadium on this land it was designated as a village green sothey were unable to do so. Surely the land is still designated as village green and therefore cannotbe built on at all.

The area is marshy/wetlands and therefore to build on it would either result in a change to theenvironment due to drainage (it is bordered by Colliters Brook which would no doubt suffer if theland was drained to be suitable for construction) or that the properties build on the land wouldsuffer from subsidence and/or be difficult/expensive to insure.

Ms Jan Edwards  12 GATHORNE RD BRISTOL  on 2021-08-02   OBJECT

As a resident of Southville and a passionate wildlife enthusiast I am writing to object tothe development of Longmoor Village for the following reasons:1. Green belt land should be protected as such as stated in government guidelines . There hasbeen no change to this status which would allow for this development2. Connected to point 1 : Bristol has declared a climate emergency and outlined an emergencyecology strategy which aims to ' develop, protect and enhance green infrastructure and naturalenvironment'. It notes the importance of blue and green infrastructure in mitigating the effects ofclimate change and enhancing health and well-being of its citizens. This is a green space that isused by families, individuals and wildlife enthusiasts. Dog walkers, birdwatchers, families in thefresh air and green from neighbouring residential areas. Building on it does not fit comfortably withthe city's avowed commitment to action in the face of a climate and ecological emergency.3. From an ecological point of view, this is a valuable wildlife site. The planning application showsno proper scientific study or logging of the wildlife in this area. There are references to the possiblepresence of various species - that is too vague. Those people who use and value this space couldname twice as many species on a single day. Relocation of slowworms and a heightening of abridge for bats are tokenistic and are not seemingly supported by proper thorough consultationwith an established wildlife organisation.4. Flooding: the environment agency have pointed out the liability of this land to flooding, andthose of us who live nearby and walk the fields and paths daily can testify to what we see andexperience in autumn and winter particularly.

I hope you will consider these objections on behalf of local residents who have enjoyed andcontinue to enjoy many happy hours walking in this area away from the polluted, crowded streetsof a large city. Many thanks

Mr Glenn Vowles  85 SOMERSET ROAD KNOWLE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-02   OBJECT

This development and many like it are designed to make a large profit, not to meethousing needs, especially for those who are poorest and most vulnerable.

A needs based approach to housing is required to tackle both housing problems and the climateand ecological and human wellbeing crises.

If we don't tackle the climate and ecologocal crises ultimately nobody's needs are met, so nothingis more important (thus the declarations of emergency by the Council and by Parliment).

The land proposed for development is green belt land designated not to be built on, so what is thepoint of the designation if it is then concreted over?

There are many brownfield sites yet to be built on, so these should be used before any green landis even considered eg see the research from the University of the West of England stating that inEngland 'Local authorities have identified capacity for at least 1 million new homes on brownfieldland' here https://www.uwe.ac.uk/research/centres-and-groups/spe/projects/availability-of-brownfield-land-for-housing-development-in-england

I understand that competing uses for land are sometimes very difficult to resolve - I've spent morethan 40 yrs working on such issues, including 20 yrs teaching environmental decision making and

management in higher education.

In that 40 yrs whenever objections to developments on green land are aired someone says, yesbut '...housing shortage...' or similar - yet after the building is done there is still, apparently, ahousing shortage or the housing crisis for those in the biggest need is even worse than before.

My objections to these plans are well beyond the housing being close to people - its aboutunprecedented global and local issues with catastrophic consequences unless we act urgently.

The BS3 Planning Group  BS3PLANNINGGROUP BRISTOL  on 2021-08-02   OBJECT

Longmoor Village

Links to Ashton GateWhilst we are glad that this development, although connected has not been bundled with theAshton Gate proposals, we are concerned that the two will need to be considered together if theyare approved. They will both have impacts on traffic and also water use and sewage output forinstance. We would like to see some joint surveys regarding these and any other connectedmatters should approval be given.

WaterThe development affects both Colliters and Longmoor Brooks. (There also seems to be someconfusion about which is which on some of the plans). There is a separate group set up to reviewthe plans from the ecology perspective of these watercourses - the Friends of Colliters Brook.They will wish to be consulted on any further development plans should outline planningpermission be granted. Any issues of water quality need to be considered alongside the ecologyissues below.

Flooding concerns need to be more carefully considered and indeed the Environment Agency hasopposed the site on the grounds of flood risk. Water usage and the effects on the local water tableand sewage requirements will also need to be considered in more depth for a site of this size.

EcologyThere are a number of vague points made about the wildlife on the site and surveys that may ormay not be completed. We would wish to see the details of exactly what is to be considered, whenit will be done, who will undertake this and how and what areas will be reviewed. There seems tobe little in the way for surveys and impact prepared to date apart from that relating to bats. This isnot the only wildlife in the area.

We would like to see a clear 30 year habitat management plan produced. The site is very close toa local SSI and this needs some protection from pollution during the development process at least.

There is provision for 'wildlife corridors' but these simply appear to end at the edge of thedevelopment without further consideration. Wildlife does not respect or even have an awarenessof human boundaries, what is to happen to any animals getting to the end of a safe corridors?Links across roads and other sites need to be considered in order to ensure a complete solutionhere. It would appear that a good deal of the land outside the corridor is under the same control asthis site so this should not be beyond the realms of possibility.

Once the site is being developed (if permission is given) and when the properties are completedwho will be monitoring and looking after the wildlife? A proposal for an independent wildlifeorganisation to do this work would be considered a positive move here. The Portishead naturereserve may be worth reviewing for information on how this can be done effectively.

Amenity SpaceLocal residents have commented that they will lose the ability to ramble, play and walk dogs in thearea to be developed. This amenity has been available to residents for many years and will besorely missed. If this space is no longer available then parks nearby will receive a greater influx ofpeople, increasing the pressure on those green spaces.

Obstruction of viewsAny final plans for a development here must be considered from the perspective of views up andover to the suspension bridge and Ashton Court. Any views currently enjoyed should not becompromised.

Transport/Footpaths 'It is considered that there is no desire line for residents of the proposed Longmoor site to use thefootway along the southern site of the A370 carriageway as a safe and efficient route to AshtonPark School can be provided via Festival Way and more attractive routes to Ashton Gate and theA3029 Winterstoke Road will be available via the Cala Industrial Estate and/or the existing off-roadfootway/cycleway which runs along the south of the site parallel with the Metrobus route.'

We're not convinced this is accurate. At the very least for part of the site, this will be the most

direct route and really N Soms/BCC should be maintaining it, or the development provide animprovement scheme as it does not currently meet design standards due to vegetation narrowingthe footway.

'The main access to the site will benefit from a 2m wide footway to the north side of the accessroad and a 5.5m wide shared footway/cycleway on the south side of the access road and 4m wideTOUCAN crossings across the Longmoor site access road and the unnamed road.'

If providing a shared footway cycleway the developer should justify how this accords to LTN1/20,which states: "Shared use routes in streets with high pedestrian or cyclist flows should not beused." (note the developer argument to get out of this is that table 6.3 of LTN1/20 permits it at amin 4.5m width, but it would be good to see this justified)

Why doesn't the site access design provide a pedestrian/cyclist connection to the Metrobusshared use path? Users will have to walk in the carriageway for 20m to enter the Metrobus shareduse path which is really disjointed planning

The applicant hasn't clarified if their Trip Rates are total vehicle trip rates or Total People Trips, ifthey are Total People Trips, the trip rates are very very low.

Local schools/Surgeries/NurseriesThe size of the development would suggest that further pressure would be put on local schoolsetc. We would be interested to see what provision has been considered for this.

Affordable HousingProposals currently include some affordable housing but we are concerned that once permissionhas been granted that any developer will reduce the level of affordable properties claiming thatthey are simply not viable given the financial case that will need to be made for the site.

Greenbelt areaWe are aware that this development is planned in a green belt. Whilst we understand that Bristolrequires more housing building on our green spaces does not seem to be a good option. TheBrislington Meadows development was recently denied permission due to issues with the greenfield site use reducing biodiversity and we would suspect the same case can be made for thisproposal. Surely the point of designating an area as green belt is to prevent such or anydevelopments.

Final thoughtsIf this area has to be developed we wish it to have the best housing for residents and sustainabilitythat it can possibly have and will review any proposals very carefully. In saying this it wouldactually appear that the proposed developments could be built at a higher density than that

currently being planned - to protect other local green spaces by housing more on this one site.Although we would not wish to see more than 3-5 storeys here.

Mr John Lines  246 ASHTON DRIVE ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-08-02   OBJECT

These buildings are going to built on a old tip, going back to when Bristol city FC wantedto build a new stadium on that site Bristol city council were asked what was tipped in the groundon that site and the answer came back, no records were kept at that time, everyone who still livesaround the area will tell you that there were some very dubious products dumped at all times ofthe day AND night. Ever since then there seems to be quite a high cancer rate in the surroundingarea, think about this before making a very rash decision that could impact on thousands of livesincluding children

Mr syed farhan  1 ASHTON RISE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-02   OBJECT

I object to this development as the proposed site is on a green belt when there areplenty of available brownfield sites and amenities - the local schools, doctors surgeries etc arealready struggling to fit everyone in.

Mr Laurence Copleston  5 MARTIN STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-08-02   OBJECT

The area concerned is green belt land, so it has been designated to be part of apermanently open area around Bristol which controls urban sprawl and conserves the environmentto make it available for a wide range of purposes.

The National Planning Policy Framework says that exceptional circumstances are required inorder for development on green belt land to be permitted.

Not only are there no exceptional circumstances sufficient to override the substantial weight theplanning committee are required by law to give to the potential for damage to the green belt - thereare exceptional circumstances not to develop on green land because of the critical period theworld is in with regard to our environment.

In November 2018 Bristol City Council and its elected mayor declared a climate emergency andthis year we have all seen the climate news stories, from the loss of many lives in Europe due tomassive flooding, to the smashing of maximum temperature records in Canada and North WestUSA, both of which scientists have said could not have happened without climate change.

To help in tackling this extremely serious and urgent problem we need every bit of carbon-absorbing green space we have in and around Bristol - and we need to improve and enhance theability of all those spaces to absorb and store carbon, such as through rewilding.

There are hundreds of brownfield sites that should be developed in Bristol ahead of this site.

It is a double climate loss to permit this development. The extent to which cities like Bristol do ordon't further develop, where they develop and how they develop is a critical part of the picture, soplanning committees have a vital role to play.

The National Planning Policy Framework states:

'The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainabledevelopment. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarisedas meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs'.

If Bristol City Council's planning committee permit this development on green belt land it would be:reducing the permanently open area around Bristol which controls urban sprawl and conserves theenvironment; reducing the current ability of Bristol to fight climate change; reducing the currentcapacity of Bristol to increase its biodiversity; reducing the scope for activities that enhance humanhealth and wellbeing; and so the committee would be compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs.

Their action would thus be contrary to achieving sustainable development, the purpose of theplanning system.

Mr Martin Howard  20 FRAYNE ROAD ASHTON GATE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-01   OBJECT

I am writing on behalf of the Friends of Colliter's Brook, a group set up to encourage theenjoyment and good stewardship of the Brook and its surrounding natural environment, whichincludes the Longmoor field site.We are writing to object to the proposed Longmoor development for the following reasons, whichare described in detail in the following sections.1. Loss of greenbelt land2. The climate & ecological emergency3. Flooding4. The linking of two unconnected planning applications5. The ecological impact of the construction phase6. The impact on local ecology & wildlife

If however the committee are mindful of its approval, we make the following proposal. Based onthe reality that 'wildlife knows no boundaries', it is clear that it is the wider area that is a valuedecological resource, not just the site under discussion. The Longmoor site and the adjacent TownGreen are both in the ownership of the applicant. Most of the Town Green is already designatedas an SNCI [Site of Nature Conservation Interest], and the applicant [the owner] states that 'Part ofthe ... proposals would include making better use of the Town and Village Green, improvingaccess to it as a local amenity resource'. Our proposal is that, as part of any planning approval,the SNCI becomes a managed nature reserve for the enjoyment of the public, with the owner

entering into an agreement with a recognised independent wildlife organisation for the long-termactive management of both the SNCI and Longmoor. This could be via a Section 106 agreement.A local example is the very successful Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve.

1. Loss of greenbelt landThe applicant argues that the Council's approach to development on this greenbelt land wasdetermined at the time of the Stadium application in 2009, and also that there are 'specialcircumstances' that should override national and local policy. However, at judicial review, the sitewas recommended as being retained as a wildlife amenity and Town & Village Green. Theapplicant states that they believe the Council's policy on greenbelt land may change. However, weunderstand that the current policy remains as being "the general extent and boundaries of theGreen Belt should be altered only exceptionally". An application cannot be based on a perceivedintention of the Council to review its Local Plan to a favourable outcome for the applicant. The landis performing its purpose as green belt, and exceptional grounds have not been met.

2. Climate and ecological emergencyThe One City Ecological Emergency Strategy talks about the improved provision of green spacesacross the city, and in particular the commitment that 'at least 30% of land in Bristol to bemanaged for the benefit of wildlife by 2030'. In the words of the Strategy, 'extinction is forever.'The proposal to take up to 10ha out of Bristol's green space directly contradicts the Strategy.

3. FloodingThe application seriously underplays the risk of flooding in the light of the changing climate. Thecomments submitted by the Environment Agency point this out very clearly. We too areconcerned, and wish to be kept informed of how these risks will be managed.

4. The linking of two separate planning applicationsThe application is submitted as being intrinsically linked to the detailed planning application for theAshton Gate Sporting Quarter. The application, and particularly the applicant's informationpresented to the public, talks of 'a two-site development', and in public literature the expectedbenefits of one development are conflated with the other. We believe that the public presentationof the two proposals as linked has been misleading and therefore warrants an amendedapplication. The linking of the two applications is specious, and we ask that the two applications beconsidered separately on their own merits.

5. The ecological impact of the construction phaseThe application gives no information as to how the impact of the construction work on existingwildlife will be monitored and assured.

6. The impact on local ecology and wildlifeThe applicant's Biodiversity Report & Habitat Surveys seriously under-report the value of theexisting wildlife, and thus the negative impact of the proposed development. In addition, the claim

of 'net biodiversity gain' is misleading. Thirdly, the application does not truly acknowledge that'wildlife knows no boundaries'. Whilst the application describes ´landscape buffer zones´, inpractice it treats the site as if it is independent of the adjacent Ashton Wetlands/SNCI and nearbyAshton Court, all of which form the true ecological environment and corridors for wildlife.As the applicant points out, the ecology survey is largely a desk study, with only two site visits,during which the observer spotted just four species of birds. The study reports only on habitats[e.g. grasses and trees], rather than the full breadth of wildlife that is regularly noted and enjoyedby local people visiting the area. The assessment speculates, for example, that 'there might beotters'; in their own words, 'the absence of a particular species [in the report] cannot definitely beconfirmed by a lack of field signs'. By contrast, an observational log made by just one localresident over the last two years [available on request] notes over 80 different types of birds,mammals and butterflies, including fox, deer, little egrets and Speckled Wood butterflies. Webelieve that before the application is considered by the committee, a much fuller wildlife andhabitat survey needs to be undertaken, across the seasons. Local citizens may well be able toassist with this.The applicants claim that the development could achieve 'net bio diversity gain'. The claim itself isflawed for two reasons. The claim is based on the desk-based study, and thus, as stated above,gives a very incomplete assessment of the current state. Secondly, the purported 'gain' iscalculated from guidance that awards points to various forms of habitat. In the applicant's reportthe overall score for the current mix of habitats [with categories such as 'poor semi-improvedgrassland'] is 'low'. Therefore it is not hard to outline plans to increase the score. However in reallife, the site, along with the neighbouring SNCI, is a very diverse eco-system.

Ms Amanda Barrett  47 YANLEY LANE LONG ASHTON  on 2021-08-01   OBJECT

I object to the proposal on the Longmoor Village proposal for the following reasons.

The creation of 510 homes will increase the population in this area by 1,224 people (averagehousehold size in the UK) and 612 cars (average cars per house in the UK).

This will add considerably to the noise, disturbance and loss of privacy and may, arguably, lead toan increase of some degree in anti-social behaviour both in the immediate area and surroundingland.

The views from Yanley and Hanging Hill Wood may, as Historic England has pointed out, becompromised. At present, the views retain much of the historic aspect of Bristol. One can still seethe marshland that used to surround the city and get a sense of perspective of the gorge,Suspension Bridge, Clifton and Hotwells that is found nowhere else.

The Green Belt was created to prevent the physical growth of large built-up areas and has beensuccessful in protecting Long Ashton from merging with the City of Bristol. So any developmenthere should be exemplary on all levels yet the current proposal falls far short of this.

We live in a time of extreme and catastrophic Climate and Ecological Emergency yet, despite theCity of Bristol officially recognising these in 2018 and 2020 respectively, a development of this size

appears to ignore the warning signs that we can all see.

Cement is a major emitter of carbon dioxide globally with much yet to be done to mitigate thiswithin the industry. The Environment Agency warns that the flood risk assessment may miss keyelements of the potential flood risk.

The Biodiversity Net Gain appears to ignore the impact of so many people, cars, motorbikes andassociated pets such as cats and dogs both in the immediate habitat and surrounding areas suchas Ashton Court, Tyntesfield and Failand Estate. Cats, dogs, people and vehicles can cause majordisturbance and many deaths in vulnerable, protected species such as amphibians, reptiles, birdsand mammals.

Added to this, it has been shown that connectivity and wildlife corridors are vital to link upprotected areas such as those listed above yet the measures to ensure these within and aroundthe development appear to be minimal due to the reasons listed above.

A development of this size may also increase the strain felt both by the Fire, Ambulance & PoliceServices as already pointed out by the Fire Service.

I understand that many people need affordable homes in which they can feel safe and secure butmy belief is that there would be fewer objections if a proper eco-building development wasproposed that took care of the climate, the environment, the natural world and social justice. Thereis nothing in this planning development that persuades me this is the case

Mrs Caroline Rigg  56 LIME ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-01   OBJECT

GREEN BELT LAND:This development would destroy a much used and enjoyed area of Green Belt when there arecurrently literally hundreds of brownfield sites available in Bristol, with the likelihood that there willalso be increased numbers of previously developed sites becoming available for redevelopmentfor housing in the immediate future (resulting from the economic downturn associated with thecurrent pandemic). To justify building on the Green Belt, the developer cites the "exceptionalcircumstance" exemption, maintaining that building on this particular area of land is necessary to"unlock" the development of the Ashton Gate Sporting Quarter (AGSQ). I have absolutely nothingagainst the developer's plans for the AGSQ, in fact I entirely support them. However, I understandthat the anticipated value of Longmoor (with planning permission) amounts to less than 20% of thetotal costs of the AGSQ development. Given this relatively small proportion of AGSQ costs whichthe Longmoor development would unlock, together with the unquestionable availability ofbrownfield sites and/or PDL sites elsewhere in Bristol, I seriously question the "exceptional" needto destroy a much loved and appreciated wildlife-rich haven in the Green Belt in order to realisethe AGSQ development plans.

CURRENT POPULAR USE AS ACCESSIBLE OPEN GREEN SPACE:Bristol's One City Plan (2021) talks about improved provision of green spaces across the city,citing their proven value for improving mental and physical health. However, this developmentproposal removes a relatively large area of green space which has, especially over the course of

the pandemic, proved itself to be an invaluable and highly popular leisure resource for localresidents (both within nearby Ashton Vale and beyond). Very many people regularly use the sitefor general outdoor exercise, dog-walking, wildlife watching and generally enjoying the site's greenand open character. When development was last proposed for this site in 2009, an inquiryrecommended that all of the land known as Ashton Vale Fields (i.e. the land now proposed fordevelopment as well as the current TVG) should be designated as a TVG. This was because itwas recognised that local people had used all of this space for leisure purposes for at least 20years. Whilst Bristol City Council chose at that time not to fully act on the recommendations (failingto designate the now proposed development site as part of the new TVG), the report and itsrecommendations comprehensibly demonstrate the significant historical and current amenity useof the land to the local population. As such it remains relevant to the current proposal to develop it.

INFRASTRUCTURE PRESSURES:The recent completion of the extensive new Ashton Rise housing development, just metres awayfrom this proposed Longmoor Village development, has already placed increased pressures onthe limited local services of this area. This proposed Longmoor development will further increasethe number of homes in the area by more than 500 dwellings (1,500+ residents), putting evenmore pressure on local services, particularly schools and doctors, and negatively impactingalready sparse local amenities. Further, given the countryside-edge location of the development,and with only the restricted route of the Metrobus directly serving this new village-sized community(since the one other "ordinary" bus service for nearby Ashton Vale has already been severelycurtailed), heavy reliance on car use will be "built in" to the development, contributing yet morepollution and congestion to South Bristol.

NATURE AND WILDLIFE:Ashton Vale Fields is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). This SNCI mostly occupiesthe Town and Village Green (TVG) area on the other side of the Metrobus route from theLongmoor proposed development site. Importantly, however, the SNCI is bigger than just theTVG, extending over the Metrobus route into the proposed development site. Even with theproposed offset between the development and the SNCI, the strong likelihood is that the entiretyof the SNCI would be severely compromised and permanently damaged by the development.

The SNCI in its entirety, including the perimeter Longmoor Brook, is currently an extremelyimportant and effective resource for wildlife in this area of South Bristol. Species present year-round include fox, badger, hedgehog and slow-worm and Ashton Vale Fields has long beenrecognised as an important bird site. As well as the "usual" small birds such as starling, songthrush and house sparrow, there is year-round presence of e.g. buzzard, kestrel, sparrowhawk,grey heron, great spotted woodpecker and green woodpecker. The SNCI is particularly recognisedfor its importance for wintering wildfowl and waders. Birds present in the autumn and winterinclude such local rarities as little egret, snipe, whimbrel, water rail, moorhen and kingfisher.Meadow pipit, meadow bunting and stonechat can also be found. In the spring and summer the

whole area is important for small birds such as goldfinch and for pollinators such as beetles, beesand many species of butterflies, all of which abound in and around the wide swathes of wildflowerswhich line the TVG and the Metrobus route and extend into the portion of the SNCI in theproposed development area.

There can be little doubt that the proposed development of the Longmoor site will seriouslyundermine and diminish this whole currently thriving eco-system, not just during the constructionphase but also on a permanent basis into the future. As well as an ongoing increase in noise andday-to-day activity from the new development, a sizable proportion of the +1,500 new residentscan naturally be expected to bring with them considerable numbers of domestic pets. The SNCI'sground nesting and feeding birds will be at risk from increased unsupervised dog activity, butgreater numbers of cats, in particular, will pose the most threat to the birds here. It is inevitablethat a rise in the number of cats right next to this important SNCI would seriously and negativelyimpact on the number of birds (particularly the wintering visitors) inhabiting and relying upon thissite.

South Bristol has little enough natural green space so abundant with wildlife; it would beindefensible to irretrievably damage it at a time when there must be so many other more suitablebrownfield sites available. Taking a wider view, the damage that building on this area of GreenBelt will cause to the Ashton Vale Fields SNCI cannot be acceptable given that the UK as a wholehas recently been found to be the most wildlife-depleted country of all the G7 nations, with the UKacknowledged to be failing to halt a catastrophic loss of wildlife amidst a "biodiversity crisis" everybit as urgent as the climate crisis.

Ms Christine Cook  20 FRAYNE ROAD ASHTON GATE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-01   OBJECT

I am writing to object to the proposed Longmoor development for the following reasons,described in more detail below:1. Loss of greenbelt land2. The climate & ecological emergency3. The impact on local ecology & wildlife

I believe that the applicant should be held accountable for their stated intention to 'include makingbetter use of the Town and Village Green, improving access to it as a local amenity resource'. Thisneeds to be a robust and binding commitment, not simply a matter for 'discussion' with localresidents. I suggest that, if the proposal is to be taken further, then the SNCI becomes a managednature reserve for the enjoyment of the public, with the owner entering into an agreement with arecognised independent wildlife organisation for the long-term active management of both theSNCI and Longmoor. A local example is the very successful Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve.

1. Loss of greenbelt landThe applicant argues that the Council's approach to development on this greenbelt land wasdetermined at the time of the Stadium application in 2009, and also that they believe the Council'spolicy on greenbelt land may change. However, we understand that the current policy remains asbeing "the general extent and boundaries of the Green Belt should be altered only exceptionally".The land is performing its purpose as green belt, and exceptional grounds have not been met.

2. Climate and ecological emergencyThe One City Ecological Emergency Strategy talks about the commitment that 'at least 30% ofland in Bristol to be managed for the benefit of wildlife by 2030'. The proposal to take up to 10haout of Bristol's green space directly contradicts the Strategy.

3. The impact on local ecology and wildlifeThe applicant's Biodiversity Report & Habitat Surveys under-report the value of the existingwildlife, and thus the negative impact of the proposed development. In addition, the claim of 'netbiodiversity gain' is misleading. Thirdly, the application does not truly acknowledge that 'wildlifeknows no boundaries'. The applicant treats the site as if it is independent of the adjacent AshtonWetlands/SNCI and nearby Ashton Court, all of which form the true ecological environment andcorridors for wildlife.The ecology survey is largely a desk study, with only two site visits. It reports only on habitats [e.g.grasses and trees], rather than the full breadth of wildlife that is regularly noted and enjoyed bylocal people visiting the area. By contrast, an observational log made by just one local residentover the last two years notes over 80 different types of birds, mammals and butterflies. We believethat before the application is considered by the committee, a much fuller wildlife and habitat surveyneeds to be undertaken, across the seasons. Local citizens may well be able to assist with this.The applicants claim that the development could achieve 'net bio diversity gain'. This claim isflawed for two reasons. The claim is based on a desk-based study and thus gives a veryincomplete assessment of the current state. Secondly, the purported 'gain' is calculated largelyfrom guidance that gives points to various forms of habitat. In the applicant's report the overallscore for the current mix of habitats is 'low', and so it is not hard to outline plans to increase thescore. However in real life, the site, along with the neighbouring SNCI, is a very diverse eco-system.

Mrs Suzanne Haxell   ROBBINS COTTAGE FILKINS LECHLADE  on 2021-08-01   OBJECT

In this age of climate emergency a long term stance is the only thing that will stop thedestruction of our planet and home.

Mrs Michelle King  66 SWISS DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-08-01   SUPPORT

Having lived in Ashyon Vale all my life, I believe it will be a travesty to build on thegreenbelt land. Greenbelt legislation was put into place to prevent urban sprawl and safeguardgreenspaces. The Ashton Vale Community regularly use this area for leisure activities, includingdog walking, nature walks and to maintain general mental well being. The children in the area arefortunate enough to see a huge amount if wildlife in this area along with farm animals. This areaneeds to be secured and remain as greenbelt to protect its use for future generations. Once areassuch as these are gone they are gone forever.

Mrs Rachel Hall   7 NORTH RD ASHTON GATE BRISTOL  on 2021-07-31   OBJECT

I have already objected to this, but feel the need to do so again having read variouscomments in the local free paper. Mark Bradshaw talks about supporting biodiversity in the plans;how on earth building on Greenbelt land can be classed as such is beyond me. The hypocrisy ofour Council in claiming that Bristol is leading the way in our ecological emergency beggars beliefwhen plans are even contemplated for building on an SNCI site, not to mention further proposeddevelopments on the Northern and Western Slopes and on Yewtree farmland. The amount of So-called affordable homes would be minimal- not affordable to most and the impact on wildlife andthe environment would be devastating, no matter how many 'ecological coridoors' you deign toleave. When will this Council get the message that our Green spaces are vital- and stop theendless sprawl, especially South of the city? It is a truly depressing prospect.

Miss Lhosa Daly  28 ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-07-31   OBJECT

I wish to object to this proposed development, as I am a resident of Ashton Vale, whoregularly exercises at Ashton Vale Fields and enjoys the area as a Site of Nature ConservationInterest (SNCI). Please note that the SNCI is bigger than the Town and Village Green, and it doesnot stop at the metrobus route, it extends into the proposed site of development. This area is alsoGreen belt land which is protected by national and local planning frameworks and should not beused for housing development, especially when there are brownfield sites and previouslydeveloped land (PDL) available in Bristol.

Having been involved in the creation of the Bristol One City plan (third iteration), I am veryconcerned that this green belt site is not being protected so that it can continue to be important toenabling increased physical activity, which reduces obesity and health inequalities. The site is animportant amenity to the local community. The proposal should be turned down as it would stopthe health and wellbeing benefits associated with the site which include walking, dog walking,access to nature and other activities.This proposal destroys green belt land and removes greenspace from the community, who use it everyday.

I believe that everyone needs nature and should have equal access to green space, especially inareas like this: close to urban populations, including schools, children and young people. This areais an important habitat to a range of species, including some protected ones, such as: greatcrested newts, water voles, otters, bats, badgers, hazel dormice and hedgehogs. This proposal

would destroy these habitats and in turn prevent the community from engaging with nature on theirdoorstep.

Mr David Worskett  CUCKOO DRIFT CLUTTON HILL CLUTTON  on 2021-07-30   OBJECT

This formal objection is lodged on behalf of CPRE Avon and Bristol - the CountrysideCharity

CPRE Avon and Bristol objects to this proposed development on the following grounds.

1. The area concerned is within the Green Belt. As a matter of principle it should not therefore beused for development. The Government has promised that protected land will be afforded moreprotection in future because of its huge importance for health, mental health, and well-being. It isespecially important when areas of Green Belt are in relatively closes proximity to, and accessiblefrom large urban areas, whee the need for such countryside is very great.

It is also now widely understood that the retention of as much Green Belt and Green field land aspossible is essential for helping to mitigate both the climate emergency and the ecologyemergency. Allowing development in this location would run counter to the excellent policiesadopted by Bristol City Council in both these respects.

2. Part of the site involves an SNCI.This further underlines the point made above about thesignificance of the site for ecological reasons.

3. CPRE is aware of substantial scope still for "brownfield" site development within the Bristol City

boundaries. Until these sites have been "built out", using best planning and architectural practiceto achieve acceptable and attractive higher densities. We also consider that there is scope forimaginative redevelopment of large areas of commercial activity where single storey commercialor light industrial premises could be redeveloped to allow attractive residential accommodation onupper floors, close to good public transport. This approach is beginning to emerge in soen Londonboroughs. Until all these measures are deployed in Bristol the use of Green Belt land shouldremain off-limits.

4. Although the proximity of good bus serviced and a park and ride site on the face of it make thesite attractive, CPRE is highly conscious of the "knock-on" effect on the adjacent roads andvillages in the rural areas to the south and south west of the site, in North Somerset. These roadsare already operating at well above design capacity with serious implications in terms of safety,pollution and quality of life for rural residents and the life of the countryside. We se no plausibleway in which these adverse effects can be mitigated to an acceptable degree, and it is importantthat the City of Bristol recognises and accepts responsibility for this.

David WorskettChair, CPRE Avon and Bristol30 July 2021

Mr David Worskett  CUCKOO DRIFT CLUTTON HILL CLUTTON  on 2021-07-30   OBJECT

This formal objection is lodged on behalf of CPRE Avon and Bristol - the CountrysideCharity

CPRE Avon and Bristol objects to this proposed development on the following grounds.

1. The area concerned is within the Green Belt. As a matter of principle it should not therefore beused for development. The Government has promised that protected land will be afforded moreprotection in future because of its huge importance for health, mental health, and well-being. It isespecially important when areas of Green Belt are in relatively closes proximity to, and accessiblefrom large urban areas, whee the need for such countryside is very great.

It is also now widely understood that the retention of as much Green Belt and Green field land aspossible is essential for helping to mitigate both the climate emergency and the ecologyemergency. Allowing development in this location would run counter to the excellent policiesadopted by Bristol City Council in both these respects.

2. Part of the site involves an SNCI.This further underlines the point made above about thesignificance of the site for ecological reasons.

3. CPRE is aware of substantial scope still for "brownfield" site development within the Bristol City

boundaries. Until these sites have been "built out", using best planning and architectural practiceto achieve acceptable and attractive higher densities. We also consider that there is scope forimaginative redevelopment of large areas of commercial activity where single storey commercialor light industrial premises could be redeveloped to allow attractive residential accommodation onupper floors, close to good public transport. This approach is beginning to emerge in soen Londonboroughs. Until all these measures are deployed in Bristol the use of Green Belt land shouldremain off-limits.

4. Although the proximity of good bus serviced and a park and ride site on the face of it make thesite attractive, CPRE is highly conscious of the "knock-on" effect on the adjacent roads andvillages in the rural areas to the south and south west of the site, in North Somerset. These roadsare already operating at well above design capacity with serious implications in terms of safety,pollution and quality of life for rural residents and the life of the countryside. We se no plausibleway in which these adverse effects can be mitigated to an acceptable degree, and it is importantthat the City of Bristol recognises and accepts responsibility for this.

David WorskettChair, CPRE Avon and Bristol30 July 2021

Mrs Christine Pratley  155 SWISS DRIVE ASHTON VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-07-30   OBJECT

I am against the planning application 21/03166/P for the following reasons:-This land used to be a tip and anything could have been put in it as it wasn't secure for 24hrs aday.It is also on a flood plain. Due to climate change, global warning & flash floods due to this situationit is even more important that flood plains aren't built on.There is no new school, doctors etc. planned. The local school is already oversubscribed, DoctorsSurgeries are full up.It will cause more traffic on the Long Ashton Bypass, this gets clogged up as it is now without evenmore traffic, which is against the ozone layer.There are no local bus services only the Metro bus & The Long Ashton Park & ride bus. To get theNo. 24a you have to walk up and down Silbury Road (A hill) which isn't easy if you have shopping.The No. 24 bus is even further to walk to.This land is valuable for local residents to be able to walk to, to have exercise especially during thepandemic.It has long been said by Bristol councils that neighbourhoods should have access to green spacesto maintain the health and well being of its residents.Wildlife would be affected, yet again, and probably killed off due to their natural habitat beingdisturbed. Many were affected due to the Metro bus route built & Ashton Rise.There is plenty of brown field sites that can be built on, green field spaces should be kept for futuregenerations to enjoy, once gone they are lost forever.

Mr Joshua Roberts  5 WINTERSTOKE CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2021-07-29   OBJECT

I object to the proposed development for the following reasons:

Firstly, I am not opposed to the development of the sports quarter. However, I object to the factthat this development is considered essential to the development. It is not. Bristol has declared astate of 'ecological emergency' and therefore there is no excuse for developing green belt siteswhen Bristol is awash with Brownfield sites, perfect for development. These plans as proposed willhave an enormous impact on the biodiversity of the area, including the variety of birds and smallerspecies.

Secondly, this area is of great importance to the neighbourhood as a much needed green spaceclose to town. It has long been said by Bristol councils that neighbourhoods should have access togreen spaces to maintain the health and well being of its residents.

Thirdly, there will be a massively increase in pressure on services such as schools and doctorssurgeries which can barely cope with the demand there already. These extra homes will place acrazy amount of pressure on services already running thin.

Mr Glenn Vowles  85 SOMERSET RD KNOWLE BRISTOL  on 2021-07-29   OBJECT

I object to the planned development on Ashton Vale (application reference 21/03166/P).The area concerned is green belt land, so it has been designated to be part of a permanently openarea around Bristol which controls urban sprawl and conserves the environment to make itavailable for a wide range of purposes. The National Planning Policy Framework says thatexceptional circumstances are required in order for development on green belt land to bepermitted. Not only are there no exceptional circumstances sufficient to override the substantialweight you are required by law to give to the potential for damage to the green belt - there areexceptional circumstances not to develop on green land because of the critical period the world isin with regard to our environment.

In November 2018 Bristol City Council and its elected Mayor declared a climate emergency andthis year we have all seen the climate news stories, from the loss of many lives in Europe due tomassive flooding, to the smashing of maximum temperature records in Canada and North WestUSA, both of which scientists have said could not have happened without climate change. To helpin tackling this extremely serious and urgent problem we need every bit of carbon absorbing greenspace we have in and around Bristol - and we need to improve and enhance the ability of all thosespaces to absorb and store carbon, such as through rewilding*. If the Council and the Mayor reallymeant it when they declared a climate emergency and if we are going to act at the scale and in theway the best scientific evidence requires then we cannot afford to allow developments that replacegreen land with concreted over, grey land that is a net emitter of carbon. It is a double climate loss

to permit this development. The extent to which cities like Bristol do or don't further develop, wherethey develop and how they develop is a critical part of the picture, so planning committees have avital role to play.

In February 2020 Bristol City Council and its elected Mayor declared an ecological emergency.Bristol is a biodiversity depleted and depleting city in a biodiversity depleted and depleting world. ASite of Nature Conservation Interest extends into the site of the development that is proposed.Many species have already been recorded in and around the area concerned - but there is greatpotential for the area to be even more biodiverse than it is, from more hedgehogs to more swifts tomore bees and perhaps even species currently extinct in the city. If the Council and the Mayorreally meant it when they declared an ecological emergency then we cannot afford to build oversites like Ashton Vale. Not only are they vital to the retention and improvement of biodiversity(such as through rewilding*), an increase in biodiversity is needed to help tackle climate change -the two issues are causally interrelated.

Along with climate and ecological crises we also have a health and wellbeing crisis. The Covidpandemic has illustrated to us all, with crystal clarity, the value beyond price of green spacesaround and inside cities for physical activity and for relaxation, especially if they are semi-wild. It isa key purpose of green belt land that it remains permanently open for purposes which includerecreation. Loss of green land to development is a loss of ability to improve our physical andmental health through being more active in semi-natural spaces. One of the best things we can alldo for our health and wellbeing is to go for a walk in a green space. Many people from Ashton andthe surrounding area have walk themselves, their family and their dog in the area proposed fordevelopment, as was firmly established in the Town/Village Green application and assessmentprocess.

The National Planning Policy Framework states:'The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainabledevelopment. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarisedas meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs'

If you permitted this development on green belt land you would be: reducing the permanently openarea around Bristol which controls urban sprawl and conserves the environment; reducing thecurrent ability of Bristol to fight climate change; reducing the current capacity of Bristol to increaseits biodiversity; reducing the scope for activities that enhance human health and wellbeing; and soyou would be compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Your actionwould thus be contrary to achieving sustainable development, the purpose of the planning system.

Miss Lucy Osborne   14 TREGARTH RD BRISTOL  on 2021-07-29   OBJECT

I don't think this land should be built on as it provides the local community and childrenwith a place to explore nature . It's home to a variety of wildlife .

Mr Brad Sanders  109 ASHTON DRIVE BRISTOL  on 2021-07-28   OBJECT

This will in essence be catastrophic for numerous species of wildlife, birds and insects.The council seems to want to intentionally eradicate all green spaces around Ashton vale, andeven in the wider city. This space is utilised by hundreds of local residents who already live in theAshton vale and surrounding areas for walking, Dog walking etc and has been exceptionallyvaluable especially given the recent pandemic to have an outside space that is safe for peoplewho live in the local area to enjoy. The ground itself absorbs a great deal of rain water - key onfuture flood prevention. I believe the land itself is greenbelt and therefore should be protected andnot be built on? There also is not suitable roads to get in and out of the area as it is localneighbourhoods are congested and this will only exasperate the problem. There are multiplereasons as to why this is an absolute catastrophe and should not be given the go-ahead toproceed

Miss Julie Beer  1B ASHTON GATE ROAD ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-07-28   OBJECT

Want to save this land being built on as I walk my dogs there with my sister which helpsher mental health and my own which leads onto my friends farm parsonage farm long Ashton!

Mr Nick Cowley  16 POPLAR ROAD UPLANDS BRISTOL  on 2021-07-26   OBJECT

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to register my strong/robust objection to your plans to build on this land.My reasons to strongly/robustly object against your plans are as follows.

Additional pollution, when your plans should be to reduce.The road infrastructure could not cope with all the additional traffic that would be created.The land is used for recreational walks and exercise, stress relief, fresh air.Wildlife would be affected, yet again, and probably killed off due to their natural habitat beingdisturbed. yet again.The likelihood of Yew Tree farm being given no option but to fold, due to the loss of the fields theyrent for cattle grazing and growing of hay.The loss of a farm and livelihood that has been in their family for 120 years, using ethical farmingmethods.Local Doctors, Dentists and Schools are already over subscribed.Fields are used by children to play sports, getting them out in the fresh air and exercising, and alsofamily picnics.Removal of open spaces likely to have impact on already increased mental health issues.It has been proven that green open spaces are help to solve and alleviate symptoms.

Why are you not using existing derelict land inner city to build upon, which would then not have theimpact on Green belt land.You gave planning permission to build houses off of Kings Walk, and the contractor illegally wentoff plan.I would hope that you come to an ethical conclusion and realise Green Belt land is there for areason, and not for it to be built upon and disrupt both human and animal welfare.

Miss Laura Williams   14 LONGMOOR ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-07-25   OBJECT

Stop building in green belt land!! The UK is one of the least bio diverse countries inEurope. We need to protect our green spaces and value them. This because even more apparentwith the recent pandemic. Redevelop brownfield sites first where there are old factory units etc.Leave our green space alone.

Mr John Payne  53 ZETLAND ROAD BRISTOL CIVIC SOCIETY BRISTOL  on 2021-07-20   SUPPORT

Bristol Civic Society has no objections to the proposed road access arrangements for this site.We have the following comments on the proposals for pedestrian and cycle access (D&AS2.7/4.4/6.5.3):- the proposals (both in diagrams and words) elide together the proposals for pedestrian and cycleaccess. The two modes of transport have different considerations and the proposals for eachshould be kept separate. In particular, the access northwards along Colliter's Brook is currentlyseparate for pedestrian and cyclists, and it should be made clear that this will remain so.- there is a paragraph in section 6 on parameter plans for pedestrian routes, but not one for cycleroutes- section 6.5.3 rules out a pedestrian route along Longmoor Brook to connect with Ashton Gate,because "pedestrian links, with requirements for external lighting and the like, would adverselyimpact the neighbouring habitats". The Society hopes that the development team will encourageBristol City Council and North Somerset Council to facilitate a walking and cycling route (and acycling route alongside Longmoor Brook between the Long Ashton Park and Ride and thestadium, as it is such an obvious desire line

The Society is supportive of residential development on the Longmoor Village site. The indicative

masterplan is helpful in setting out the direction of travel towards the detailed proposals to come.The Society would not wish the 5 storey height of some of the proposed residential blocks to betaken as a given without further consideration in a full application. We will also be looking for avariety of unit sizes and tenures. The indicated distribution of private and public open spacethroughout the development is welcome.

Ms Deborah Rahman Lane  76, CAMBORNE ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL  on 2021-07-18   OBJECT

I strongly object to the use of greenbelt land for commercial, housing, or any otherdevelopment on this irreplaceable site of outstanding natural beauty & biodiversity, when there isplenty of brownfield sits within Bristol.,

The fact that this is even being considered after the Mayor & BCC have declared an ecologicalemergency & was only recenty featured in the National Press lauding his commitment to theecology of Bristol, is greenwashing hypocracy at the highest level.

This city does not need another socially cleansed, private housing development aimed solely atincomers, & our more affluent citizens. How many people in the area...or indeed the whole city canafford to buy even these so-called 'affordable' properties? The part-ownership scheme is ascandal waiting for the lid to be blown off.

Bristol & the surrounds, need well built & fit for purpose COUNCIL HOUSES...& NOT unfit socialproperties housed in concerete blocks, which are designed to act as sound barriers to the privateestate enclosed within (Lovell Homes/Knowle West)

It is an absolute insult to the very people who voted for this council. It is social cleansing viagentrification...& that this comes from a Labour led council, makes me feel sick to my stomach.

Ms Danica Priest  FLAT 7 BARRINGTON COURT BRISTOL  on 2021-07-17   OBJECT

Bristol has declared a climate and ecological emergency and this development wouldbe in breech of the one city policy.This application gives back nothing to the community and causes far more harm than good to theresidents of Bristol.If developers were required to build on brownfield only in Bristol they would find a way.We can't afford to lose any more of our green spaces. Once they are gone they are gone forever.

Mr David Campbell  103 ILCHESTER CRESCENT BEISTOL  on 2021-07-15   OBJECT

This area is greenbelt and with the current ecological crisis to think it will be turned tohousing is wrong and upsetting.

The farm located in this area is a vital source of education for local children and supports wildlife.its the last working farm in the city limits.

there are huge amounts of empty units and brown field in the city to be developed beforesacrificing greenbelt area.

Mrs CATHERINE Robson  50 DURSLEY ROAD SHIREHAMPTON BRISTOL  on 2021-07-15   OBJECT

This proposal beggars belief. This land is currently part of Yew Tree Farm, which isBristol's last working Farm. This Farm produces local, organic high-quality food. It should be aplace Bristol is proud of, this is exactly the kind of sustainable business Bristol needs. In the midstof your self-declared ecological emergency, please take the time to re consider this matter. Thereare plenty of empty offices in Central Bristol which should be converted to housing before you dareencroach on the Green Belt. Have you even stopped to think how nonsensical it is to talk ofproviding amenity green spaces and natural and semi natural greens pace on a site which iscurrently outstanding for nature as an organic wildflower meadow? I object to this proposalbecause it will lead to the destruction of rare and important habitat, destroy the green belt (nomatter what the Mayor has said, this is green belt and everyone knows it) and make it impossiblefor a fantastic local business to continue operating. This development is the wrong thing in thewrong place at the wrong time. It is unacceptable. Please withdraw it.

Mr Barry Cleverly  1 OSBORNE ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2021-06-22   OBJECT

I'm very concerned at the impact this development would have on wildlife. We haveprecious little of it remaining, and there are plenty of brown field sites where housing could be built

Mrs Rachel Hall   7 NORTH RD ASHTON GATE BRISTOL  on 2021-06-21   OBJECT

I have no objection whatsoever to the development around the current stadium- itseems a great use of land, but UTTERLY object to the proposed building of homes on Longmoorfield. This is a site of significant wildlife importance, on the very edge of the city providing abreeding and feeding habitat for many species. Given that it was previously a landfill site andregularly is sodden, it doesnt make much sense to build on it. Bristol is led by a mayor whosupposedly has Green issues at heart- it would be good if this was actually seen in action. To buildhere would be to completely wreck the most diverse, beautiful and important wild space andhabitat which would have knock on effects on the surrounding wild spaces, as well as deprivingmany people of a much valued wildlife haven.PLEASE do not grant permission.

Miss Jasmine Beard  YEW TREE FARM BRIDGWATER ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-06-21   OBJECT

I am writing to express my concern about the development of one Bristols precious fewgreen belt spaces. In the context of Bristol declaring an ecological emergency, the development ofan area of biodiversity and habitat cannot be defended.

Bristol has a number of suitable brownfield sites not earmarked for development. Why must wecontinue to rape our precious open spaces. I am sure that with the money and influence tied tothis development there will be no problem in securing alternatives to green belt development