2

2. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Section 192 Certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development.

(1) If any person wishes to ascertain whether—

(a) any proposed use of buildings or other land; or

(b) any operations proposed to be carried out in, on, over or under land,

would be lawful, he may make an application for the purpose to the local planning authority specifying the land and describing the use or operations in question.

(2) If, on an application under this section, the local planning authority are provided with information satisfying them that the use or operations described in the application would be lawful if instituted or begun at the time of the application, they shall issue a certificate to that effect; and in any other case they shall refuse the application.

(3) A certificate under this section shall—

(a) specify the land to which it relates;

(b) describe the use or operations in question (in the case of any use falling within one of the classes specified in an order under section 55(2)(f), identifying it by reference to that class);

(c) give the reasons for determining the use or operations to be lawful; and

(d) specify the date of the application for the certificate.

(4) The lawfulness of any use or operations for which a certificate is in force under this section shall be conclusively presumed unless there is a material change, before the use is instituted or the operations are begun, in any of the matters relevant to determining such lawfulness.

193 Certificates under sections 191 and 192: supplementary provisions.

(1) An application for a certificate under section 191 or 192 shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order and shall include such particulars, and be verified by such evidence, as may be required by such an order or by any directions given under such an order or by the local planning authority.

3

3. The original planning permissions

1873P/62 - 62/01873/U | Layout of the edged red on plan as a Public Cemetery including

Crematorium, Administration Block, Superintendent's House | Bridgwater Road Bristol BS13

7AS

The plan edged red has not been produced.

4

1694/69 - 69/01694/U_U | Crematorium buildings including flower display area, scattering

area, car park and Superintendents house. | Bridgwater Road Bristol BS13 7AS

No development site plan has been produced.

5

4. The Land Registry titles and plans

BL119313 - South Bristol Crematorium & Cemetery, Bridgwater Road, Bristol (BS13 7AS)

BL119223 - Bedminster Down Common, Bridgwater Road, Bristol

No Title Plan published, but there are plans available which are, presumably, held by the

Council:

6

7

5. The Bristol City Council Asset Register

This map shows the land designated as South Bristol Crematorium (grouped as Cemeteries and

Crematoria) is bounded in yellow. The proposed development site is bounded in red.

The proposed development sites are not within the boundaries of the crematorium - they are

on land designated as Parks Landscape Heritage Estates and form part of the title BL119223

- Bedminster Down Common, Bridgwater Road, Bristol

Bristol City Council holds both titles as Title absolute (freehold).

The land to the west of the most westerly part of the South Bristol Crematorium sites belongs

to Yew Tree farm under title BL103051.

8

Bristol Tree Forum 31 October 2021

9

Appendix 1 – related emails sent 28 October 2021

Many thanks for your email, xxx. Yes, xxx did indeed bring this matter to our attention... You will recall that both Mayor Rees and members of his cabinet recently declared that Yewtree farm would not be built on. I am also mindful of the recent successful 'Golden' motion protecting spaces such as this was passed at the last Full Council meeting.

However, it goes much further than this for these reasons:

1. The proposed expansion site is in Green Belt so subject, as you know, to strict planning control under NPPF and Bristol's core policies (BCS6). As such, as I understand it, any decision to proceed with this plan could be called in by the Secretary of State.

2. It is also a designated SNCI, so subject to the planning controls set out in BCS9 & DM19 (and other policies).

3. It is hard to tell given its scale, but it looks like the site is also one of the sites identified as a Valuable Urban Landscape under DM17. This is the map annexed to M17 (looking at the legend, it is defined as 'Permanent Green Hillside'):

4.

10

5. It is clear from the plans that a number of hedgerows and trees will be damaged or destroyed - about 10 metres of hedge will be removed to give access to the new site and the routes of the proposed drains will pass through trees and hedging. Given the age, length and location of these hedges, the provisions of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 will apply. In this case, a separate application to undertake any works which will involve the removal or alteration of any part of this hedge is required before any such work can be done. To do otherwise is a criminal offence.

6. A key part of the plan involves installing a detention basin within what is otherwise an undisturbed meadow. Drainage runoff (and other effluent?) from both the new burial ground and the existing ground to the north (why does the northern burial ground now need to be drained in this way when this has never happened before?). The overflow from this detention pond will then be discharged into Colliter's Brook just 120 metres away (you may have heard that otters were recently spotted in the brook). What has the Environment Agency and other statutory bodies have to say about this, I wonder?

7. Finally, we doubt whether the proposed development site is indeed covered by the original consent of July 1969 that the Council relies on. I have superimposed a map taken from the Council's asset register. This shows the land designated as South Bristol Crematorium (grouped as Cemeteries and Crematoria) bounded in yellow. The proposed development sites are bounded in red. As you can see, the proposed development sites are not within the boundaries of the crematorium - they are on land designated as Parks Landscape Heritage Estates:

11

8. If this is the case then the LPA may not rubber-stamp this proposal by relying on a Lawful Development Certificate because the land being developed did not form a part of the original consent on the evidence presented.

Whether or not a Lawful Development Certificate can be relied on, surely, given all the changes in our approach to planning over the last 50 years, it cannot be right that these proposals should be waved through without any proper scrutiny and with on such inadequate documentation?

… a public footpath appears to run very close to or through the planned detention basin, so that is another matter that will need to be dealt with both from a possible rerouting application and public safety perspectives.

I want to make it clear that we do not object in principle to these plans - though we would like to know the reasoning behind why this site has been chosen rather than others.

One small correction - I refer to 'the existing ground to the north (why does the northern burial ground'. It is of course the southern burial ground. Apologies.

For completeness, here is a map I have created using Google Earth of the key features proposed in context:

Dear Sirs,

We have been considering these proposed works and note that the plans to install drains and other structures are likely to impact upon the trees growing on this site. We note that you are relying on a consent which is over 50 years old.

Here is a plan we have superimposed on a Google Earth Image:

As far as we can see, no arboricultural report or biodiversity net gain evidence or calculation has been published. Are these available? If so, may we please have copies?

Given that the site is both an SNCI and on Green Belt, what steps have been taken to ensure that these proposals comply with the requirements of both the NPPF and Bristol's planning policies relating to green infrastructure?

We also note that it is planned to discharge the contents of the detention basin into Colliter's Brook. Has the Environment Agency been consulted about this?

Regards

Mark CD AshdownChair - Bristol Tree Forum