Good Afternoon,

I am writing to ask you to save the western slopes by not allowing them to be built on.We need to preserve all the greenfield sites we can, especially as there are so fewremaining in our city.

There is an abundance of wildlife and mature trees on this site which, once gone, cannever be replaced here. The site is a lung for south Bristol, providing much neededoxygen and clean air for our residents amongst the pollution.

Hartcliffe way would not cope with the extra traffic, and the site is so steep that roads inwould be dangerous for service vehicles such as recycling lorries and ambulances.

It is not suitable for development and therefore please do not let anyone build on it, let itremain a wonderful, diverse place for nature and please build on brownfield sitesinstead (or redevelop empty buildings across the city).

Yours hopefully,

To whom it may concern

I am strongly opposed to the plans to build on Novers Hill / Western Slopes.Building on such a steep gradient does not seem logical with the amount the ground willneed be leveled. This means there will be a lot of destruction to the ground anddisruption to the wildlife around, let alone the release of greenhouses that will happenwhen the ground is dug up.The hill is a Greenfield site and requires protection for the thousands of speciesinhabiting it.

It is a natural space in an area that is becoming more and more developed and thecommunity are losing spaces where they can relax, play and connect to nature.We are in a time of an increasing need to save our planet and be more environmentallyfriendly and yet this development destroys these objectives.

Where will these species go when their habit is torn down and their once home built on?We need to focus on protecting our wildlife and environment so we can extend thelongevity of the planet. Without the planet, it will not only be the wildlife struggling to bealive, but us and our children.

It is important that we have natural spaces in South Bristol, where our children can learnand our community can grow. It is important for us to have clean places to play andbreathe and live, which will be taken away if you destroy the trees (hundreds of maturetrees), hedges, wildflowers. It will completely change the environment and the quality ofhealthy living.I see so many issues with access, not only for the public but also with the contractors.

Not only is the hill itself a muddy bank, access from Hartcliffe Way just isn't appropriateand will just cause even more congestion than there already is, resulting in even morepollution from cars at a standstill for us locals to breathe in.Public transport is very limited for residents. The area cannot handle more throughtraffic which unfortunately Parson St School children, parents and staff are alreadytaking the brunt off, being busy, congested and full of pollution which vegetation onNovers Hill / Western Slopes absorb due to their fantastic qualities of turning gases intooxygen for us.I think it is completely unethical and to build on this Greenland and believe there shouldbe more commitment to building on brownlands around the city.

I ask the planning committee to reject plans to build on this site and find appropriatebrownland for this development to be built.

To whom it may concern

I am strongly opposed to the plans to build on Novers Hill / Western Slopes.Building on such a steep gradient does not seem logical with the amount the ground willneed be levelled off. This means there will be a lot of destruction to the ground anddisruption to the wildlife around, let alone the release of greenhouse gases that willhappen when the ground is dug up.The hill is a Greenfield site and requires protection for the thousands of speciesinhabiting it.

It is a natural space in an area that is becoming more and more developed and thecommunity are losing spaces where they can relax, play and connect to nature.We are in a time of an increasing need to save our planet and be more environmentallyfriendly and yet this development does not appear to meet these objectives.

Where will these species go when their habitat is torn down and built on? We need tofocus on protecting our wildlife and environment so we can extend the longevity of theplanet. Without the planet, it will not only be the wildlife struggling to live, but us and ourchildren.

It is important that we have natural spaces in South Bristol, where our children can learnand our community can grow. It is important for us to have clean places to play andbreathe and live, which will be taken away if you destroy the trees (hundreds of maturetrees), hedges, wildflowers. It will completely change the environment and the quality ofhealthy living.

I see so many issues with access, not only for the public but also with the contractors.Not only is the hill itself a muddy bank, access from Hartcliffe Way just isn't appropriateand will cause even more congestion than there already is, resulting in even morepollution from cars at a standstill for us locals to breathe in.Public transport is very limited for residents. The area cannot handle more throughtraffic which unfortunately Parson St School children, parents and staff are alreadytaking the brunt of. This area is already extremely, congested and polluted whichvegetation on Novers Hill / Western Slopes absorb due to their fantastic qualities ofturning gases into oxygen for us.I think it is completely unethical and to build on this site and believe there should bemore commitment to building on brownfield sites around the city.

I ask the planning committee to reject plans to build on this site and consider findingmore appropriate brownfield sites away from south Bristol for this development to bebuilt.

Regards

This is total wildlife and biodiversity destruction. The local people don't want this, that'sclear and obvious.

The area is used by protected species of bats, along with birds on the RSPB conservation red list.

The council declared a climate emergency, so back it up with actions, not words.

I object to this current planning aplication, largely due the wanton destruction of over700 mature trees across the site. This is a habitat to lots of wildlife, and in a time of global warmingcrisis, we cannot afford to destroy this amount of wild space, a habitat for birds, plants andprotection of the landscape. Any offer of "Replacement trees" is no compensation for the maturesite that is already there. I appreciate that Bristol requires housing but with these planningapplications, we know they will change goalposts when given permission, affordable housing willbe squeezed over profit, with no real gain for the city.

It came to my notice that Bristol City Council are considering allowing the removal of awell established area of woodland for the purpose of it being replaced with dwellings.

I wish to object on the grounds of this creating an ecological disaster given the diverse nature ofthe tree species in question & the amount of wildlife & other biodiversity they support, whichshould be protected, definately not destroyed, especially when brown sites could be given over forthis building project.

I object to this development due to the proposed loss of mature trees and hedgerowswhich form habitat for countless species of birds, plants and animals. Britain is one of the mostnature depleted countries on earth so saving this plot of land in its current state is more importantthan bulldozing it for financial gain for a few and a small increase in housing.Please I implore you to stop this development so as to save this precious habitat for everyone toenjoy. There are plenty of brownfield sites that can be redeveloped.Thanks.

I had long-term plans to move to this area of Bristol later on this year, re-locating mycompany to the area too, providing many jobs for the local community. Unfortunately this 'de-forestation' and development has caused me to change my mind. If this action is indicative of theapproach and mindset of Bristol council it would be in direct conflict with the nature of mybusiness, which promotes ecological awareness and environmental and social sustainability. I callupon the Council to block this development.

Bristol is renowned for being a forward thinking, cool & green city. How can you justifythis in light of climate change? Build on brownfield sites, disused sites, regenerate existing sites -don't destroy an area of mature trees that are of huge benefit to the environment and also offerhome to varied wildlife. It's outrageous to allow development to take place here. Take note thatwhen a similar project went ahead in Plymouth, Twitter went crazy and councillors haveresigned/been sacked and there are now several court cases being pursued. This is not a decisionto take lightly as people are angry at the lack of protection for our environment and for wildlife.

I've come to learn of the destruction of a mature woodland on the edge of a muchbeloved city and would like to object this development. Nothing can replace the destruction ofmature trees such as hawthorns and oaks, which support an innumerable number of species.Replacement of these trees with younger equivalents *do not* replace the ecological niche thatthese hold. Bristol is seen as a green city- don't let a small number of houses take away a greenbelt that benefits everyone

At a time when we are facing a climate crisis, and our natural environment is beingdecimated, to approve a housing development in such a large area of woodland is abominable.

Do not approve this.

We cannot keep destroying our countryside. The habitat for wild species is an essentialpart of land management and this clear cutting to make way for unsustainable housing solutionsmust stop.

Bristol calls itself a green city - and it must do as much as possible to preserve greenspaces if it is to maintain its status thereof! The ancient hedgerows uphold thousands of species ofwildlife; it would be devastating to have them entirely killed in the name of 'development'.Replanting trees after demolishing this area will not help the fauna survive: they will already havebeen massacred. Do not let the beautiful biodiversity we are blessed with in Bristol die.

Losing more natural habitat when there are still many brown fields sites to build on inBristol is wrong.

I object

The destruction of this woodland should not be allowed, we need trees and more treesto combat climate change and bring a place to go for wildlife.

Why more woodland, more greenery, less room for wildlife when our city is supposed tobe a green city?Why not build on brownfield sites?How when we are facing mass extinction of wildlife are we doing this?Is this all about the money?

The proposed planning is a kick in the face to all residents of Bristol - myself included.

The devastation to wildlife will be catastrophic to this area if so many trees are to be felled,regardless of whether new trees will be planted, they take years to grow to a mature age wherethey can successfully benefit nature, wildlife and capture carbon. The housing is unaffordable tolocals and a giant eyesore in amongst what is now a beautiful setting of natural biodiversity.

The UK has recently been declared one of the most nature depleted countries on the planet andwith reckless plans such as this being put forward we'll soon be at the very bottom of the list.

I strongly oppose. As do my friends, family and coworkers who will also be signing.

Please do not allow this monstrosity to go ahead. It does not benefit a single person in the localcommunity, and it will negatively affect our wildlife and residents for years to come if it were to beapproved.

I am a resident of Novers Hill and enough is enough! Protect our green spaces!

Strongly object to the proposed destruction of this unique natural woodland environmentin exchange for housing. Yes we have an enormous housing shortage here in Bristol as well ascountry wide but it cannot continue to be at the expense of the natural environment. Brown field/exindustrial/poor quality farmland maybe but not well established urban green spaces cherished butthe community and essential to bird, insect and animal life alike. Build elsewhere and designatethe land as community land and as a conservation area now!

This ruins habitat's that cannot be replaced for years and years.

As someone who had lived and worked in Bristol and with family here, I strongly objectto trees and shrubs being ripped out. Yes, we do need affordable housing, but no, not in areas likethis. Plenty of inner city sites, but not nearly enough green spaces in Bristol. It is vandalism , andpeople will live to regret it.

The level of destruction to an important urban woodland that this development wouldbring leads me to strongly object to this proposal.

Absolutely abhorrent to consider this project going ahead and removing so muchwildlife.

This would be criminal, sacrificing yet more of children's future. This must not beallowed. You're using the %age of affordable housing as a smoke screen for profit making. Thereare numerous brownfield sites for (re)development in Bristol. BristolIs one of the greenest cities in the UK - you should be proud of it not part of its destruction. If youallow this you will be soooo regretful in the years ahead when every tree will count and £££s willbe worthless.

We need to preserve the ecosystem the woodland contains. It would be an ecologicaldisaster.

I object to this planning application. The land should be left as wild and no building ofdwellings should ever be allowed. The environmental damage to the existing wild habitat therecould not be condoned for building on. Once the established green space at Novers Hill is gone , itcan never be replaced.

It is an absolute disgrace that in the current well documented climate breakdown andbiodiversity crisis, you are considering the destruction of this vital habitat. We cannot continue tobuild houses in the way we do, we need taller buildings rather then semi detached and small flats.There will be soon nothing left apart from cement, roads, intensively farmed fields and overly tidytowns, parks, gardens and road sides. The removal of this green space will also cause anincrease in pollution and diseases such as of the airways and cancers. Not to mention the purposethese area represent for high winds and floods mitigation purposes. You have got the moral dutyto oppose to this shamble. If you don't you will be responsible for having failed nature and futuregenerations from a livable world . It is disgusting. Humans are not the only specie on this planet,which we, are running down. I hope you will make the wise choice to oppose to this trulydepressing catastrophe, which in no time will be classified as ecocide. On a final note, the UK isone of the most natural depleted countries on the planet. And this is evidenced by the like of thisproject. Criminal.

Best wishes

Michele

I believe this felling of trees is a travesty: unaffordable housing scheme for Bristol withthe loss of these historical trees. Climate change being ignored. We need these trees.

The area is an important habitat for much wildlife and provides a corridor to Manorwoods and Hengrove mounds. Blackthorn, hawthorn etc provide flowers for nectar in early springand berries for birds in autumn. There may not be many big trees but smaller shrubs are evenmore important for wildlife. Replacing established native shrubs with scattered trees does notreplace the wildlife habitat. Please do not build houses on this vital piece of wildlife habitat.

I object to this application on the grounds of the ecological damage that would besustained by killing the rich local habitat. It takes time for habitats to become rich and diverse.Every time we destroy growing natural spaces we set back the regeneration of nature. Bristol hasdeclared a climate crisis and now has a responsibility to protect and encourage sustainable,diverse ecosystems. I do not live in the direct area but have friends and family who do and I careabout the lives of my children and grandchildren. Please do not allow this planning application togo through. Please redirect the developers to a brown site. Thank you

I object to the destruction of nature for house building.

How can Bristol claim to be a progressive city that is prioritising the climate crisis andbiodiversity collapse if it rips out the 700 native Hawthorn, Blackthorn and Elder, known forsupporting hundreds of species of invertebrates and wildlife on this site?

More unaffordable housing being built in a city I cannot afford to buy in anyway. There isno way that these new houses will provide any meaningful value to the area, particularly whenweighed up against the destruction of green space ecosystems

Why are you proposing to tear down over 100 trees, when everyone is jumping up anddown over green issues?You say you will plant more to replace them,?How long will it take for them to do the job that is already being done,Plus where does all the wildlife go?Birds,mammals, insects etc,destroying their homes with no intention of replacing them,.I'm sure you can define other land to build your rabbit hutches on,Although someone probably has fingers in pies where they're not meant to be.You disgust me, as much as Plymouth council, and the cambridge council and their bloody busway,Big reset my arse,

A frequent visitor to the city of my birth, I am devastated to hear that a woodland isslated to be destroyed if this development goes ahead. A few replacements will be of no use to thewildlife already occupying the space. The UK is too nature depleted for woodland to be a viablesite for construction, particularly when woods and soil store carbon and we are in a climateemergency that has been acknowledged by the council. There are brownfield sites available. Ifthey are considered too expensive to redevelop, the value of woodland is set too low and does notaccount for its role in reducing heat and risk of flooding. I object to this development proposal.

Plymouth City Council will take a long time to recover the trust of its residents (my current nearestcity), and they cut down a fraction of what this development proposes.

As a Bristol resident, I object to this development on the grounds that it will destroy alarge natural habitat.

Over 700 native Hawthorn, Blackthorn and Elder, known for supporting hundreds of species ofinvertebrates and wildlife, will be ripped out.

It is claimed that replacement trees will be planted but this is a false equivalence. These trees willmost likely die because they will be inappropriately planted and not cared for. Planting them is allthe developer is obliged to do to offset the damage they do. Even if they do survive, they willalways lag behind the environmental benefits provided by the existing habitat.

Stop destroying these natural habitats when there are plenty of other options for providinghousing.

This site represents an urban woodland. The UK is already one of the most nature-deficient countries in the world; why destroy even more for housing, which could be located on abrownfield site of little conservation value?

What an abject disregard for the nature of the local area - as seen in the online episodeof David Attenborough's Wild Isles, more needs to be done to protect the ever depleting naturalwoodland. How about more is invested in renovating and occupying the almost 250 thousand longterm empty properties in the UK instead?

How can this be allowed to happen. I visit Bristol frequently and am always amazed howprogressive the city is. We need to hold onto British wildlife and biodiversity

The destruction of woodland and native hedgerows is absolutely unacceptable, andcannot be replaced by some minor tree planting (which will likely not end up taking place, as wehave seen elsewhere in Bristol). Whilst new housing is needed across the city, it is just asimportant to ensure that our public green spaces remain as they are - public green spaces, to beused by our communities. Building soulless housing units that will not actually be affordable tolocal people does not solve our housing shortage, and broadly makes the area less attractive.

We cannot destroy this natural area. There are many alternative areas, such asbrownfield sites, we simply cannot destroy this area. It is heartbreaking.

Absolutely horrific plans to destruct wildlife area, trees and habitat. DO NOT ALLOWTHIS TO HAPPEN!!

Under no circumstances should anything be removed.

Think of the environment for crying out loud. It's a habitat in a fragile ecosystem WE arepart of.

No tree replanting can replace the loss of existing habitat. Right when we need more ofnature to offset our own damage, we want to destroy more? I must object in the strongest possibleterms to this development.

This application is absurd and should not go ahead under any circumstances. You haveno right to tear down a natural habitat in this way, killing so many animals for your poor quality andunaffordable housing. Distasteful and disgraceful company.

we cannot keep tearing out established, mature woodland for the sake of more andmore houses, redevelop areas that are rundown or "brown field" sites. if we are serious aboutpreventing serious climate change we must look at the mass destruction of natural habitats andreplacing mature trees with saplings does not replace the established wildlife habitats that are lostor the CO2 capture from the atmosphere

Nothing can make up for loss of a woodland in a city, not even the supposed"replacement tree planting" as part of the development.

It should be the primary responsibility of Bristol City Council to protect the environment againstgreed and exploitation, especially where the natural habitat is already well-established andsupports a myriad of wildlife.

Yes undoubtedly, there is a need for cheaper housing but there are many other brownfield sitesthat can be used for this purpose without affecting the environment and the wishes of the peoplewho live within the vicinity.

I trust that the councillors responsible for the decision-making will look closely at figures readilyavailable of the considerable damage being done by housing developers not only to theenvironment but to the local infrastructure, lifestyle and social attitudes and adjudicate against inthis case.

It really is time for each one of us to stand up and say 'enough is enough and NO to greedydevelopers looking to exploit every little loophole and parcel of land for their already overfilledcoffers.

I remain

Yours sincerely,

Darryl Antonio

The value of native tree species to our already depleted biodiversity can not beoverstated. Please consider using land that is less valuable for wildlife.

Desecration of wild spaces and habitat should not be happening in 2023.

I do not live in Bristol now but grew up there. This project will be devastating for natureand should be withdrawn on environmental grounds. Bristol has been leading in Green issues andthis plan goes against all those principles. These trees and woodlands cannot be "replaced" in anyshort-term act and will have only a detrimental effect on the wider environment and quality of livingfor all those around.

This proposed development will impact on the wildlife & flora massively.Loads of animals live there & insects.No amount of post development reintroduced plants & shrubs can replace these once lost.

The development is also unnecessary as there are a huge number of other developments nearbyincluding a vast array of rental accommodation already earmarked for brownfield sites inBedminster. Some approximately 300 in East Street alone already being built opposite StCatherine's Place.

St Catherine's is also earmarked for further development. The roads within South Bristol & Theinfrastructure such as Dr & Denistry are already full.

There is also a very large development at the end of North St plus numerous other developments.

Constantly building on green field such as Novers also effects the absorption of water & willincrease the risk of flooding onto Hartcliffe way due to overrun.

I therefore strongly object to this as a local resident.

There are too few green field sites left in Bristol, and many brownfield sites to use. Thisis not an acceptable way of providing more housing.

The woodland should be preserved - new building plots should be made on brownfieldsites.

As a country, we are trying to maintain biodiversity, and call ourselves a nature leavingnation. How can that sit well with destroying established woodland, that takes decades to grow,and provides habitat for so many species of flora & fauna.Planting new trees is needed, yes, but not at the cost of established woodland.

If Lockdown taught us anything, it's that nature is absolutely vital to the well-being of humans, yetyou propose stripping it back to the benefit of no one except money-hungry property developers.

This destruction if wildlife habitats, and decades-old trees should never be a consideration.

Killing 700 trees, virtually an entire woodland and native hedgerows to build anotherugly housing estate is criminal. This site is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest and should bepreserved, for the sake of both wildlife and future generations to enjoy.

This site is home to 700 native Hawthorn, Blackthorn and Elder, known for supportinghundreds of species of invertebrates and wildlife.It is an established urban treee habitat, full of life.

Nothing can make up for loss of a woodland in a city, not even the supposed "replacement treeplanting". It takes 100's of years for trees to establish.

This would only devalue Bristol as a city, green spaces are vital for pur wellbeing and for theclimate.

Find a location that doesn't involve pulling down established trees for housing.

With the poor air quality and biodiversity in Bristol we cannot afford to lose further treesand hedgerows. This is detrimental to the city and environment.

Destruction of vital habitat. Loss of yet more woodland and bio diversity.

Leave the trees in the ground! We are in a climate crisis and the last thing we need isyet more ecocide, ripping up our remaining woodlands. The U.K. is one of the most naturedepleted countries in the world , this behaviour MUST STOP. Find somewhere else for yourhouses, which will cause less damage to our environment.

I have been watching developers eat up the land in the area (I am based in Southville)and I object to this particular plan as the decision seems to have been made by a planning officerwho has no idea what this space means to the people of the local area, as well as the naturehabitat that will be destroyed. I understand housing is needed, but there's an underlying air ofcorruption and foreign investment that has ZERO to do with building beautiful spaces for poeple tocall home.

Will ruin the local look of the area

This is an inappropriate use of green space. Bristol promotes how it is a green city, thiscontradicts that. Trees provide a buffer for the traffic noise and fumes, the wildlife needs itshabitats. There are plenty of other sites that are sitting abandoned which could be used. It isdisappointing that the council is so short sighted yet again

I object due to the removal of hundreds of established trees which are really importantas a break from urban space in a city. I would expect better coming from Bristol especially to buildmore houses that aren't affordable. The trees that will supposedly replace are just fragmentedsaplings that won't take as well or support no where near as much habitat.

Vital green space and animal habitats will be lost so I object.

Yet another application to destroy an area of importance to wildlife, biodiversity and thelocal area. Is there no more respect and understanding of the crucial role these areas ofestablished trees and hedges are to the health of us all? Planting new trees will take years to be ofbenefit - don't be hoodwinked by yet another developer. Protect your areas of woodland and givethem the value they deserve. Find a brownfield site somewhere else.

I object to this piece of environmental vandalism.

This is unacceptable, to be removing vital habitat that's is required for a healthy Bristol!This must not go ahead due to the destruction of vital habitat for EVERYONE

There is no second option of 'continuing as usual' in our current state. Scientists timeand time again are saying that we cannot continue in our current way of living, we HAVE tochange to avoid catastrophic consequences to our climate, people and planet. And yet, anotherhousing development is being planned that would remove a whole headland of native, establishedwoodland? Replacing trees by planting more elsewhere does NOT counteract this effect. It takesdecades and decades to establish networks of roots, fungi and wildlife to cultivate an establishedwoodland. You cannot tear one down and replace it somewhere else. We do not have that kind oftime.Bristol is a city I have always admired for being modern, inclusive and sustainable. Please do notchange this by building mostly unaffordable (70%) housing in an area that is vital to the protectionof the natural environment. Invest in brownfield sites. Invest in repurposing unused land. Do not bea part of the problem - we are only a few generations away from catastrophe, and we are alreadypast the turning point for change. You can limit the damage Bristol inflicts on the climate crisis byrejecting this proposal on the grounds of climate concerns.

Stop building on wildlife reserves there's plenty of brown field sites. Use a modicum ofsense.

Completely and whole heartedly object against the cutting down and removal of awoodland and habitat for wildlife. New tree planing cannot replace the habitat and ecosystems thatalready exist here. It's morally unacceptable to chop down woodland to build more houses.

leave nature spaces alone please, please build on a brown site and please stop cuttingdown our nature

I object to this application on the grounds of amenity value, and the loss of trees.This area of grassland and woodland is used by locals as a recreational area; this would be lost ifthis proposal goes ahead. The proposal does include some landscaped areas, but these do notinclude the semi-mature and semi-wild nature area which currently exists.There are a significant number of mature and semi-mature trees, which it seems would be felled. Icannot see how this can accord with the declaration of a climate emergency, even if supposedlymitigated by planting (young) trees elsewhere. Mature trees, within the city boundary, are a veryvaluable asset.

As someone brought up in Knowle and who still visits friends there, I find the proposal todestroy this part of the country in the city to be wrong for many reasons. I feel because it is KnowleWest and not Clifton means to some people that every bit of Green space can be built on to thedetriment of those already there.

Other = Bristol resident.

I am writing to object to the erection of 157 homes on Novers Hill.

I understand that this development would entail the destruction of a beautiful and vital woodland,comprising over 700 native Hawthorn, Blackthorn and Elder and known for supporting hundreds ofspecies of invertebrates and wildlife. Replacement tree planting cannot make up for the loss ofestablished woodland. The loss of wildlife in the UK since the 1970's is terrifying (see BBC articlebelow), and we must protect what is left.

I realise people need somewhere to live, but they also need spaces to walk, be around trees,connect with nature, relax. Given the mental-health crisis this is all the more important.

Developers need to be building on brown-field sites and refurbishing empty buildings. Bristol CityCouncil needs to take bold action, and use the Compulsory Purchase framework to acquire emptybuildings, in order to turn them into council houses.

Thank you for reading this.

Reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58859105

Ruining natural, established habitats for unaffordable, profiteering development isentirely wrong. The green spaces this city has (soon had) is a major selling point soon to bewrecked by greed.

We absolutely have to stop destroying native wildlife habitats for housing, especiallywhere these contain large numbers of large native trees. There are so many disused brownfieldsites in and around Bristol which would be better for housing and closer to amenities etc butdevelopers/planners don't seem to want to use them. Why not? Please stop and think of whatwe're doing to the environment and how we can make better decisions to protect nature.

This is not acceptable, to destroy this amount of natural woodland, it's been woodlandsince before 1600 ad with semi natural woodland for recreation health culture and historicalinterest not to mention carbon capture and the fact none of these houses are affordableHistorical woodland should be left alone or nothing will be leftI am beyond sadness that this is even being considered

Stop putting profit over the environment

Please find an alternative site that doesn't require destruction of nature.

I refer to the seemingly relentless war on nature and the devastation of precious wildlifehabitat all over the UK. We are amidst a grievous biodiversity crisis. People just don't realise inthat humans cannot exist as a species without a rich diversity of flora and fauna. We have toprotect and preserve any existing pockets of precious habitat, areas such as this one. Please,please reconsider

Disgraceful application that needs to be thrown out immediately!

I am a resident of Bristol and object to the development plans due to the sheer amountof biodiversity in this area which will be lost if this goes ahead. Please, think of future generations.Our Earth and animals are precious.

Please can this be thrown out immediately

This habitat is important for wildlife and human population alike and should be protectedas a green lung of established trees and hedges

THIS IS DELIBERATE ECOCIDE. THE REPERCUSSIONS WILL BE MANY ANDIRREVERSIBLE. YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. YOU ARE PROPOSING THEMASSACRE OF A VIBRANT, THRIVING ECOSYSTEM. FUTURE GENERATIONS, INCLUDINGYOUR OWN GRANDCHILDREN WILL SHUDDER IN HORROR AT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE.THEY WILL NEVER FORGIVE AND NEVER FORGET, WE WILL MAKE SURE OF THAT.

I lived near the site and in Bristol for 60 years until I moved down.This woodland is treasured not only by people but the innocent wildlife living there.

I have family who love near here and we've already lost so much biodiversity. It wouldbe awful to lose more

Object

Destroying the wildlife in this area is tantamount to environmental terrorism. We are inan ecological crisis. There is nothing more important than preserving trees and nature in the area.There are plenty of brownfield sights to build on. To bulldoze this beautiful area of conservation ismorally repulsive, greedy and an act of evil. History will not remember fondly the city that wouldcharge its people a fortune to drive in a clean air zone and indiscriminately bulldoze preciouswoodlands in the same breath. Do the right thing. Leave our green spaces ALONE. you are paidby us to represent us. Do the right thing for once.

I have lived in Bristol for over 60 years and feel very angry that Bristol Council agreed todestroy this very important woodland.

I live in north Bristol and have seen vital green spaces disappear at speed which isdetrimental to the health and well-being of those who live in these highly populated areas. Theremust be a change to protect a proportion of space to give the lungs to built up places in the widerBristol area.

Leave the trees alone. The wildlife will have nothing left and the houses are neveraffordable anyway!

DO NOT DESTROY ALL THE GREENERY. We NEEF plants and plantlife!!!

You need to be stopped from ruining this lands ecology! Greedy with no care for theenvironmental future for our children and beyond.STOP now

This seems like a scandalous destruction of wildlife and far from in line with a "climateemergency"?

I strongly object to this proposed development as this is an area of natural beauty, filledwith a huge variety of trees, supporting an enormous range of wildlife including rare species ofinvertebrates, insects, mammals and birds.Please reconsider these plans and look for an alternative brownfield site

Bristol is already seriously lacking in green space, and this development will onlyworsen that crisis for both people and our dwindling biodiversity. Furthermore, it will not alleviatethe housing crisis, as this is due to the rental market rather than absolute supply.

The loss of trees will cause an irreparable drop to air quality for the city, not to mentionthe loss of habitat. Tree removal of this scale is not acceptable, and can not be mitigated.

This is so short sighted and damaging. When will you realise that our ecosystems areinextricably linked? Have you not heard of climate change? Please, please, please reconsider thedestruction of such valuable life in the city I love!

In this climate crisis, with lack of animal and plant habitats and diversity, why are youtearing down an established woodland when you could build on brown site that is alreadydestroyed.

This is WRONG!

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:It is an absolute disgrace that in the current well documented climate breakdown and

biodiversity crisis, you are considering the destruction of this vital habitat. We cannot continue to

build houses in the way we do, we need taller buildings rather then semi detached and small flats.

There will be soon nothing left apart from cement, roads, intensively farmed fields and overly tidy

towns, parks, gardens and road sides. The removal of this green space will also cause an

increase in pollution and diseases such as of the airways and cancers. Not to mention the purpose

these area represent for high winds and floods mitigation purposes. You have got the moral duty

to oppose to this shamble. If you don't you will be responsible for having failed nature and future

generations from a livable world . It is disgusting. Humans are not the only specie on this planet,

which we, are running down. I hope you will make the wise choice to oppose to this truly

depressing catastrophe, which in no time will be classified as ecocide. On a final note, the UK is

one of the most natural depleted countries on the planet. And this is evidenced by the like of this

project. Criminal.

Best wishes

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Nothing can make up for loss of a woodland in a city, not even the supposed

"replacement tree planting" as part of the development.

It should be the primary responsibility of Bristol City Council to protect the environment against

greed and exploitation, especially where the natural habitat is already well-established and

supports a myriad of wildlife.

Yes undoubtedly, there is a need for cheaper housing but there are many other brownfield sites

that can be used for this purpose without affecting the environment and the wishes of the people

who live within the vicinity.

I trust that the councillors responsible for the decision-making will look closely at figures readily

available of the considerable damage being done by housing developers not only to the

environment but to the local infrastructure, lifestyle and social attitudes and adjudicate against in

this case.

It really is time for each one of us to stand up and say 'enough is enough and NO to greedy

developers looking to exploit every little loophole and parcel of land for their already overfilled

coffers.

I remain

Yours sincerely,

These slopes are an important part of Bristol's ecological diversity. They must remainand brownfield sites or empty buildings used for house building instead.

This area is vital wildlife corridor. It is a particularly important habitat for a wide variety ofbirds, mammals and rare wildflowers. The proposals will destroy a critical area of maturewoodland destroying 700 trees and a mature hedgerow.. The consequential loss of habitats andspecies will be devastating.

Keep the woodland intact.

I object to this development due to the number of trees that are going to be cut down.We are in an ecological crisis and this area of trees provides vital habitat for local wildlife. Thetrees also help provide clean air in a city with toxic levels of pollution. They also help regulatetemperature which is desperately needed as our summers are getting hotter. I think to removethese mature trees would be a crime

Unbelievable that you would even think to cut down so many precious trees!! Should beunlawful.

I very much object to the destruction of mature woodland for housing. This is a climateand biodiversity emergency! I do not agree that replacement planting will mitigate these losses tonature and to the community.

The felling of trees and hedgerow is completely unacceptable, please please reconsiderthe way these homes are built and ensure this woodland area is not destroyed.

Object to the potential loss of much needed green space in south Bristol

I oppose this project because such a huge number of trees will be destroyed. Manyhousing developments have already been built all over the south of England and we are one of themost severely nature-depleted countries in Europe. The housing is not affordable and will not helpthose who work in the area.

To whom has planned this housing area, I ask of you, though not local to Bristol butconsiderate to the facts that our country is depleted of nature, to consider avoiding the senselessdestruction of the hundreds of trees and hedgerows that will fall victim to this planning system.

There is a group online who ask of you to be gracious and spare the woodland which is home tomany wildflowers and wildlife that thrive for survival from the rich eco source the wood provides.

We are in a state of a Climate crisis and emergency. The same for the Biodiversity; our Bees arein decline which is vital for crops to bring food to all. Other Pollinators are suffering and many havenoticed there is less activity of the insects. What makes them important is also the food chain;birds of many need insects as do we but we can't provide if we allow the felling of trees andcomplete removal of hedgerows.

Let me need remind you that every year from 1st March to 1st September is Nesting Season and itis ILLEGAL to fell any trees and hedgerows that birds will have chosen to build their nests. Thisgoes for the same to the public and should not be overlooked or ignorantly destroyed!

While wildflowers are being planted and people are demanding for their Councils to not mow thegrass verges that have been sown for the Pollinators, they have ignored this as well as ourpetitions. Our voices and protests have gone unnoticed but not by supporters.

Another problem is mitigation. While some areas agree to replace trees they've felled, the lack ofunderstanding that what grows is saplings that need over 10+ years to reach maturity; their

crowns are the sign of their ability to provide for wildlife as well as shelter from intense heat andclean the air of carbon emissions that is required for a healthier lifestyle is misunderstood.

So I ask of you to please spare this land of horrific destruction your idea of housing will inflict onthe land as well as distress for the wildlife and shock from the public that hundreds of trees aredown because of the lack of knowledge of what we're going through right now.

This is the group - please read and acknowledge their concerns.https://m.facebook.com/groups/2560966744207814/

The plans to uproot hundreds of trees and remove a home for countless mammals,birds, and bugs are abominable. This area is a habitat and plans to remove this will no doubt killthousands of organisms. This area might be a home for hedgehogs and birds that are in seriousdecline. This area is invaluable as it is a natural carbon storage as we try to reach net zero. It alsoprovides shade for nearby properties which is invaluable as temperatures are due to rise becauseof climate change. This is extremely unhealthy for the planet and outright murderous.Please think of the planet and not your wallets.

Having visited Bristol in the past I was impressed at the natural environment containedwithin and around the city. We are co stanrly being told that we need to protect our planet and thisproposal would appear to be the opposite of that. Many species will be destroyed if this goesahead.

I object to this application in the strongest possible terms. It would be utterlyreprehensible to allow this development to go ahead and as a result, cause the destruction ofcrucial wildlife habitats. Over 700 native trees currently live on this land and they must be leftalone. Retaining areas such as this is absolutely vital if we are to halt the environmental andspecies collapse currently taking place.Do NOT allow this development to go ahead.

There is no justification for developing a woodland site. We are in an ecologicalemergency, and climate change means that replacement planting is very likely to fail. Noreplacement planting can mitigate the loss of established woodland. There is no excuse fordeveloping this site. As an expert in EIA, I can only assume that the impact assessment is eitherincompetent or corrupt. This development must be stopped.

No , I don't live in the City but I object on the grounds of maintaining biodiversityTree planting elsewhere is greenwashing and doesn't replace the biodiversity generated by yearsas a natural environmentI visit the City and do realise that in Bristol and elsewhere there is a shortage of housing but thereare brownfield sites , redundant office and industrial buildings that are more suitableThis plan looks even worse than the devastation in Plymouth recentlyPlease reject

700 native trees and hedges would be cut down for this development. Utter destructionof a habitat that is crucial in fighting climate change and home to our wildlife. These establishedtrees cannot just be replaced. Shocking that an application has been made to build here and cutdown an entire woodland.

Ancient woodland is a rich diverse habitat that now covers just 2.5% of the UK. Much ofwhat we have left is being damaged and once it's gone, it can't be replaced. Building houses onthis land will be a disaster for biodiversity in the area.

Although I don't live in the area, I frequently visit friends there. I object to thisdevelopment because it will involve the destruction of important urban woodland. This area hasover 700 native Hawthorn, Blackthorn and Elder, known for supporting hundreds of species ofinvertebrates and wildlife. It is vital not only for the protection of nature, but also for the well-beingof the residents. Nothing can make up for loss of a woodland in a city, not even the supposed"replacement tree planting" as part of the development.

This application should be refused.

We are undergoing a climate catastrophe and nature is under threat and yet we still seeschemes such as these that appear to have no concept of the disaster that is impending. Naturesuch as this cannot be replaced. Replanting schemes are not the answer. These are ancient treesand bushes that are inhabited by birds and insects and mammals that will not cope with theplanned removal and vandalism of their habitats.

There's plenty of light industrial sites in the city which could be redeveloped for housingwithout destroying valuable green spaces and woodland. I strongly object to this proposeddevelopment.

This is an appalling idea.Horrific environmental vandalism at a time when this monstrously nature depleted country needsmore biodiversity growth than ever.This cannot be allowed to happen.

This is well established woodland containing a wide array of tree species and animportant habitat for wildlife. As the UK is one of the most nature depleted counties in the world,keeping established green spaces is vital. There is a climate emergency and green spaces needto be saved.

Destruction of hedgerows and trees is indefensible.

This project would destroy irreplaceable mixed woodland at a time when habitats likethis are vital in combatting climate change. Every tree is needed now, there has been wantondestruction by building contractors in Plymouth, we cannot afford to lose another habitat, and'replacement planting' no doubt with hundreds of birch saplings, is no replacement!!

To destroy native woodland and natural spaces for yet more development is criminal.The UK is already the most wildlife depleted Country in Europe, leave some spaces for nature andsay no to this planning application. Your children, your grandchildren and their children will thankyou for taking a stand.

Removing the trees for houses is wrong on every level. Think of the current and nextgeneration, the environment and climate change and what type of city you want, as well as yourlegacy as a council.

we shouldn't keep destroying nature for houses which people can't even afford - thereare other options but no to keep destroying nature and what's left of our beautiful planet.

As a bristolian, born in 1963, I'm delighted with so much positive change in Bristol toimprove the urban environment, however,this application is not a step in the right direction. We allknow the importance of natural habitats to support bees and a range of plants, trees, insects andanimals especially with climate change and the threats that poses. No amount of replanting a fewtrees amongst the concrete sprawl would replace this area. I strongly object to this planningapplication.

It is impossible to replenish trees in a city, we need a biodiversity of trees within citiesand there is important animal life there which would be destroyed for the selfishness of humans.

we need to leave alone nature and let it do it's thing - not keep building on it.

stop destroying nature for housing - there are other options.

Our planet needs every tree and more. There should be no consideration for theremoval of mature trees and shrubs in the middle of a climate crisis.

We are in the midst of a ecological and biodiversity crisis, and such habitat loss andspecies displacement will only compound this.Replanting is usually poor and unmanaged and would take years to recover and provide the food,shelter, corridor of passage and breeding grounds.Nature would be fighting for the already depleted UK countryside and tree cover, species wouldmove away and potentially not return as they would be outcompeted in a vastly reduced area.Visiting these areas of nature beauty would be ruined and residents would have a poorer natureexperience.Woodland is the beating heart of a food chain for millions of creatures, from top predators raptors,foxes to the bugs and insects that form the base from where it all thrives.The UK is already one of the poorest in Europe for tree cover and habitat loss this destruction issurely not needed and we can put nature first!What will your legacy look like?

Please do not murder the woodland and hedgerows. There is far too much ecocidehappening thanks to councils and planning departments not thinking about/ ignoring the impact onwildlife and environment.

There are plenty of houses- the trouble is too many are now owned for holiday purposes .

The proposed destruction of woodland, and the habitat that it provides for numerousspecies which are vital to the eco-system, is barbaric.

The only locations that should be considered for this housing development are brownfield sites.

An unforgivable disgrace of a decision if this atrocity goes through!

No amount of replanting or other schemes can replace the woodland that will bedestroyed by this development. This should be rejected based on the removal of habitats,woodland and the affect it will have on the climate emergency that has been established by thecouncil themselves.

Re: Proposed removal of woodland on Novers Hill for housing.

This country has already lost two-thirds of its wildlife since the 1970s, according to:https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/new-report-reveals-two-thirds-decline-in-wildlife-populations-on-average-since-1970/

I strongly object to the removal of mature woodland for housing. The housing ought to be builtelsewhere.

Replanting takes decades for plants to grow and support wildlife. It's not the answer. The housesneed to be built in areas where houses already dominate wildlife, rather than lose more wildlife.

To destroy such green spaces, especially in a city such as Bristol, is out and outvandalism.

Too much loss of nature and the character of the area. Learn from Plymouth andSheffield.

The loss of habitats that would he cleared would be devastating to the local wildlife.Replanting of trees is better than nothing but will not replace the habitats and the ecosystem whichis established, which will simply die. As am environmental scientist, I strongly object to thisdevelopment. And, if the development must go ahead, I implore those in charge to incorporate thisestablished ecosystem into their plans rather than destroying it.

I understand the need for new houses but please we need to protect the alreadyestablished woodlands. Don't tell me you will then spend money to replant some trees somewhereelse. Surely you can see this makes no sense at all.

There should be no more loss of nature. New planting does not replace old growth

In a climate and biodiversity crisis, we cannot be tearing down precious wildlife habitatsin order to build homes. The trees in this area will support a vast array of species, from plants,insects to birds. The root systems of our trees help slow the flow of water, they support insectsand a vast array of life which will take decades to hundreds of years to re-establish if the woodlandis cut down.

not even building a million houses could make up for destroying a habitat and all thosetrees. This is desecration and if this goes ahead it will be a very sad day for Bristol and the wholeof the UK. Insanity

Stop chopping down trees and damaging wildlife habitats purely for commercial gain.

Building should not be happening on this site because it is valuable for wildlife. We arein a climate crisis and we cannot afford to lose this type of habitat.

On ecological grounds - this would be a terrible retrograde step when we are in aclimate emergency. Pls consider brownfield sites first

It will be disgusting for all that green land to be used for housing. Ther is a lot of animalsthat use that green land and all the trees,bushes and green land is good for the animals and theair.All greenland should be kept and any housing built on free land where business have packed in. Iwrite to oppose the buildings as do all my neighbours who have asked to be involved

Dear Peter,

I object to the Novers Hill development. With so much brownfield around - underusedindustrial and retail parks, boarded-up shops in high streets, empty office complexes -there's no excuse - none - for taking out natural wild places and mature trees in aseverely nature-depleted country such as ours.

Sincerely,

It's absolutely criminal, cutting down well established trees and hedgerows, grasslands,wild flower areas. Knowle is home to hundreds of animal and insect species that need to beprotected! We are supposed to be in a eco city - It's an absolute joke! Not to mention managinglaws slip, subsidence and flooding! Our natural world are key to our present and our future! Whydon't you see it? Why do you put money above the lives of animals, insects, birds and humanbeings. Global warming is real, and BCC you are key contributors to it, you should be ashamed ofyourselves. We will have no green space left for future generations to enjoy and learn about.Schools use our green spaces to teach generations of kids about all sorts of vitally importantecological,environmental and social issues and you destroy it! What are you doing?! How can youjustify your behaviour? This can't continue, this has to stop now before it's you late and thedamage is irreversible.

The land cannot hold on to water if we concrete over it all. Yes everyone needs a hometo live in but we'll all be dead a few generations down the line if we don't stop paving over our wildspaces. These pockets of wilderness within cities are more vital than ever, for us and also all thenon-human lives that pass through it. Building on these spaces makes short term easy gain forhousing development businesses that priorities profit over well-being. Soon we will be drowning inthe waves of concrete we flood our world with, or the world will drown us out as we have upset thebalance of the eco system so much. The western slopes are a vital wildlife corridor - a spacewithin the house that is only to be passed through not lived in. We cannot squeeze houses into acorridor. It is unfair for all involved. Everyone needs a place to live but we need to reallyunderstand what a place to live really means and it doesn't just mean four walls for wealthyprofessionals new to the city.

I have already submitted my comments to the previous application and they haven'tchanged -I still strongly oppose the application for the following reasons;Novers is a calm natural space, contains much wildlife some of which, some of which is protected.For locals it's a gem in an already built up area, enjoyed by residents and wildlife. Green areas likethis are essential in terms of absorbing carbon, protecting wildlife and helping bring peace toresidents. It should be protected - all of it. Building in this location, if allowed, will also set aprecedent for other developments with the possibility of Novers becoming covered in housing.There are plenty of other options open to Bristol city council - I see them every day when drivingaround Bristol. It is a conservation issue, and it is morally wrong to ruin an area like this anddeprive wildlife of its habitat. I understand access to the site is also a problem for local residentsare strongly oppose this application

Hello Bristol City Council,

Thank you for sending me this letter informing me of the proposed 157 dwellings on thegreen space on the west side of novers hill.

Firstly I would like to point out that this letter "sent on 6th March" arrived on ourdoorstep today 20th March which is unacceptable when you are expecting all commentsby today - I would recommend you at the bare minimum extend the period forcomments so that the wider community affected by this proposal can comment.

Secondly my household object this planning proposal. We areobjecting as Bristol was supposedly the green capital of Europe in 2015 and since thenhas continued to build on green spaces. There are plenty of new builds in the area andthis would cripple the already struggling local services around it. What I wouldrecommend the council should propose is we stop building outwards, start protectinggreen spaces and instead build upwards on already derelict industrial spaces. Alsowhen building houses consider the impact on local services or ensure new localservices are part of the application.

Thirdly, how many times does an application on green space like this have to beobjected before the council step in and stop it from trying again.

Thanks,

Why are Bristol City Council allowing such an ecologically destructive proposal? It clearly has very little to do with the need for “affordable housing”, because the developer is now proposing even less - from 47 “affordable” homes, to just 43. We object on the basis that the developer is now providing even less affordable homes than first proposed and is still using these properties as a sound and odour buffer for the rest of the development.

This is a city that has introduced a Clean Air Zone. Parson Street junction, the second most polluted junction in the city, is less than half a mile from this development site. It is incomprehensible that alongside such declarations, the same council is potentially allowing a developer to do this to one of the city’s most species-rich wildlife sites. No amount of “affordable homes” or replacement trees can compensate for the loss of an ancient, established habitat such as that of Novers Hill.

We object to the increased loss of hedgerow, due to the change in access points for the development. This hedgerow is designated as a TVG and is clearly integral to the ecosystem of the site. Virtually none of the ancient hedgerow will remain, should this application be approved.

We are continually told that the city is striving for “Net Zero by 2030” and “managing at least 30% of land for nature”, so how exactly is removing this amount of tree cover and habitat aiding these declarations?

We object on the basis that the Landscape and Visual Impact assessment was incomplete. What was submitted, was not at the correct scale and omitted the visual impact of retaining walls, roads and had street signage being taller than the homes itself.

What was submitted, in February 2022, shows houses being shown not to scale and distinctly reduced in size in one photo, then floating above existing houses in another, along with some floating trees. Similarly, the visuals do not include any roads/hard surfacing and have clearly included meadow and trees which will not remain, with houses sitting amongst grass. (See appendix).

This is deliberately misleading. The inaccuracies of these submissions make a mockery of the planning process and the council should be holding the developer to account, not least because they have had two years for this process. It is absolutely disrespectful to the community to be potentially altering a prominent South Bristol landscape in such a destructive way and fail to provide local people with any accurate, realistic and honest visuals. And as usual, Bristol City Council remains silent on the issue.

We object because no new LVIA has been submitted to consider all the new changes that the developer has made.

We object on the basis that there are sufficient brownfield sites alongside this site which could be used instead. To the east of this site, is an old school site at Belstone Walk, on which the council are now planning to build at least 50 homes, with the majority being affordable. This would easily account for the same amount of affordable homes proposed by Lovell, thus highlighting that we do not need to be building on green space.

We object because the local community wishes to retain the green space of Novers Hill in recognition of the wildlife and precious habitats. The community here has had to fight for decades to protect Novers Hill and it is time we are listened to. This application should be refused. It should have been refused months ago.

The comment is in addition to our previous objection.

The Friends of the Western Slopes Novers Hill 19th March 2023

Appendix:

The wildlife and woods are healthy and plentiful. Any development will destroy these

There is lots of natural habitat around here it would be a shame to lose it!

This land is an important and much loved asset to the local community as a naturalspace. I object to the proposals as they currently stand on the basis they are inappropriate for thisspace, and would destroy a rare and rich habitat that has been protected by the local communityfor decades and would be impossible to replicate.

The area in this proposal is important for nature conservation. Once it is gone, it can notbe brought back or replaced. It is important to balance development and not just build in an area'because it's there'. We want intelligent development taking EVERYTHING into consideration.PLEASE DO NOT DEVELOP THIS AREA!!!!!

Absolutely shocked that this development is being considered. South Bristol is an urbanarea that is in desperate need to preserve its green sites for its residents physical and mentalhealth, exercise and the opportunity to be out in nature without having to travel. And for childrenand their children to grow up with the ability to have local and natural (not man made) green sitesto play. This plan is to destroy an essential area and sanctuary for an abundance of wildlife. Theimpact on destroying this in a time when we should be preserving our natural green areas will besuch a great loss to local people, South Bristol and wildlife. The wildlife surveys and impactstudies have not been thorough enough. To use affordable housing units as "sound barriers" iswrong. To offset biodiversity loss in Nailsea is ridiculous. It is too far away. But the comment saysit all "biodiversity LOSS".

We still object to this application.It is frustrating that the developer has been given so long to pursue this ridiculous application on asite of importance for nature conservation and we are dismayed to learn that even more trees andhedges will now be lost if this goes ahead, and even fewer affordable houses are being offered up.The application has not been improved on, and seems to be far worse in fact.It is shameful that a nature corridor might be built on, at so little gain for the local community (sofew affordable houses for example). The transport and infrastructure issues have not beenaddressed properly either.Please reject this damaging housing application.

I completely object to Novers Hill being built on, even more so now that there will beeven less affordable homes and more natural habitat lost with the amended plans.We see so much wildlife up there. The whole of Novers Hill needs to be left alone to protectvulnerable birds of prey and bats.I have lived here for over 30 years and it used to be so quiet. Now the traffic is increasing and weare getting lots of road accidents and it is only going to be made worse by this.I think it is madness that the Council is allowing this to happen on Novers Hill. I should also saythat the land is not stable round here, many of the houses have subsidence issues. The same willhappen to these new homes I am sure.I think it is a really bad idea.

I strongly object to any part of Novers Hill being built on, both the Council ownedsouthern end and the privately owned northern end (the subject of this current planningapplication). The whole site constitutes an important wildlife corridor and is very unsuitable forhousing.I am not sure why the developer has been given so much time and opportunity to amend itsproposal. The time allowed to the developer seems to be unusual and a bit concerning.Regardless, the new proposal is still extremely flawed and should be rejected, for the followingreasons.

1) Planning approval has been refused on this site five times previously, and the reasons for therefusal have still not been addressed by the current application. It has been refused on thegrounds of irreparable damage to wildlife; the negative affect of development on the prominenthillside; the sustainability and access of the site and the overall benefits of development beingoutweighed by the reasons for it not being built. These issues are even more relevant today.

2) Novers Hill is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and a vital part of the MalagoWildlife Corridor. The SNCI status has been recently re-asserted by Bristol City Council. TheBristol Local Plan 2014 states that the site "is of city-wide importance to nature conservation".Bristol City Council's own Nature Conservation team has stated that if this site is used for housing"most of the habitat affected could not be recreated elsewhere within a reasonable timescale,there is no potential for appropriate mitigation, and the integrity of the Wildlife Network will beseverely undermined".

3) Novers Hill is also identified by the West of England Nature Partnership as being part of a"nature recovery network" encompassing "strategic grassland" and "woodland opportunities". BCChas itself endorsed this wildlife network strategy as part of the Forest of Avon action plan.

4) The golden motion to protect our vital green space passed at full Council, with not a singleCouncillor voting to oppose it. Novers Hill was specifically mentioned in this motion as one of thesites that must be protected. Nothing has changed at Council to change this.

5) The ecological crisis declared by Bristol City Council obviously still exists.

6) The CPRE have stated that up to 30,000 homes could be built in Bristol on brown field sites, sothis site should not even be considered for housing. There is an old brownfield school site just tothe east of Novers Hill that will have 50% affordable homes built and will make up for thescandalously small amount offered up by Lovell for the privately owned site (which is greenfieldand ecologically rich).

7) The developers amended proposal is to offer even less affordable homes than their previousproposal! And even greater loss of woodland and hedges! Most local people will not be able toafford these homes and will instead see even more of their much-loved green space taken fromthem.

8) The proposed Wildlife corridor is much too small. The development will not maintain theintegrity and connectivity of the wildlife network. Too many habitat units will be lost, with a largenet loss of biodiversity on this SNCI. Policy 2.19.15 of Site Allocations and DevelopmentManagement Policies states that "Sites of Nature Conservation collectively represent the city'scritical stock of natural capacity. In some areas of Bristol, SNCIs offer people their only valuablecontact with wildlife. Therefore, development proposals which would harm the nature conservationvalue of an SNCI will not be permitted". This point alone should be enough reason to stop thisapplication - the meadow, woodland and hedges are part of the SNCI and will be harmed bydevelopment.

9) The ecological survey commissioned by the developer is now hopelessly out-of-date. There hasbeen significant change to the meadows and other parts of the SNCI, given that the horses wereremoved in June 2021 and the previously overgrazed areas were growing abundantly in 2022.Otters have since been confirmed as using adjacent Pigeonhouse stream. The RSPB launchedtheir annual bird watch from Novers Hill and recorded lots of birdlife - egrets, sparrowhawks, andmany others. Peregrine Falcons have also been spotted flying over Novers Hill very recently. Thedeveloper has had plenty of time to commission a new survey, the fact that they have not meansthat this application should be rejected. Even the original survey failed to carry out an invertebrateand winter bird survey. Ethos did not carry out an invertebrate study because the grass was tooshort from horse grazing at the time of survey. The grass has since been allowed to grow, and anupdated survey for invertebrates must be undertaken. The out-of-date ecological report is also a

concern in regard to the large established badger colony, which we have had no recentinformation on.

10) A key finding in the ecology report was the presence of Greater & Lesser Horseshoe bats onNovers Hill. These are rare species that are in decline in the UK. The developer has claimed thatthey have left enough of a bat tree corridor to allow them to continue their commute through thesite, but I think this misses the point. These bats require meadows to do their foraging, notwoodland. It is these valuable meadows that Lovell is planning to bulldoze. What is more, theupdated proposal would see even more woodland and hedges removed, and the developer hasfailed to acknowledge the impact of street lighting on the new roads on a supposedly dark batcorridor.

11) The ecological mitigation measures suggested by the developer are inadequate, with themitigation site proposed being in Nailsea (not even in Bristol, adjacent or nearby). I am also veryconcerned that the BNG metric is also out of date, and version 3.0 has not been adopted. Thedeveloper has been given ample time to address this but has failed to do so.

12) In the Site Allocation and Development Management policies, DM17 2.17.3, the entirety ofNovers Hill is classed as "prominent green hillside". It states that "proposals which would harmimportant features such as green hillsides, promontories, ridges, valleys, gorges, areas ofsubstantial tree cover and distinctive manmade landscapes will not be permitted". Anydevelopment on Novers Hill would harm the important feature of Novers Hill being a green hillsideand therefore directly go against this policy. This point alone should be enough to stop thisdevelopment. The landscape and visual impact assessments offered by Lovell are verymisleading; the houses are drawn too small (not in scale with surroundings), and they also do notshow the new roads or the huge retaining walls!

13) My other main concern with this application is the increase in road traffic and pollution it willbring, particularly with the proposed road change. The area around Parson Street Primary Schoolis already one of most polluted areas in Bristol. This is not just about the 200 or so new cars, butthe fact that the one-way system will force many more existing vehicles onto Bedminster Road,Parson Street and the Hartcliffe Way, affecting the School and local people. There are too fewshops and employment opportunities in this area. Most local people travel elsewhere for thesethings. This is not a sustainable location because of the heavy reliance on car use. There is nopublic transport on Novers Hill, with the nearest bus stop being over 800 metres away and onlyaccessible up a very steep hill. In response to this the developer has not improved on its transportplan, perhaps because there is nothing that can be done. As stated previously, this site isunsuitable for housing.

In summary, this planning application is wholly inappropriate for Novers Hill. Building here willdamage the environment, the wildlife network and the health of local people. What's more, giventhe recent golden motion passed to protect this site at full Council, it will also damage people's

faith in local democracy. Instead, let's protect the entirety of Novers Hill and follow the call from thecommunity to get it protected once and for all as the Nature Reserve it should always have been.People here have had to fight this battle for over 40 years. The same issues of wildlife damage,access, effect on the landscape continually arise. Enough is enough, leave the Novers Hill SNCIalone.

The negative impact on green space is well documented. It would be a great shame tolose this area and somewhat contradictory at best, of the council, given the ecological emergencyin our area.The other more practical objection is on the infrastructure, or lack of, in our area.Doctors surgery's, schools, dentists and all other amenities are already stretched and addinganother population surge will not improve this outlook.The last "new build area" at Bridge Views opposite Camberley Road has caused nothing but trafficissues leading to confrontation between residents. Lack of available parking space in Bridge Viewshas spilled on to Novers Hill/Novers Lane and in to Camberely Road.

I live locally and am appalled that Lovell Homes are continuing with their application tobuild houses on Novers Hill.

This project will cause environmental harm and effectively destroy this nature rich and preciouswildlife rich site and green space.

It is contrary to Bristol Council's policy of reducing carbon emissions and also as it is currentlylooking at where and how more green spaces can be managed - I would suggest the first step issurely to stop destroying existing ones.

With the new alterations to the application it appears that even more hedgerow and trees will beremoved and if it goes ahead will result in the loss of meadow and the removal of an establishedbadger sett. This is a site of nature conservation., a valued local nature reserve and many birdsand other wildlife are present in this location and give local residents and visitors joy and apeaceful green space. We know green spaces are important for people's health and well being.

Most of the housing proposed is not even addressing the real need for council and affordablehousing but if it goes ahead will destroy a beautiful and important nature site for good.

Please do not allow Lovell Homes to build here.

To Bristol City Council

I am writing with my objection to planning notice 21/05164/F

I am not from the Bristol area but I have been closely following the planning regardingLand on West Side Of Novers Hill Bristol.

I am passionate about keeping our precious green areas which are full of wildlife, aswith other green fields it has a complex eco system. Novers Hill site has been enjoyedby local peopIe for many years and I can see no advantage of building of this land apartfrom the council backing down to developers . Why was this site even considered?Build on brown fields site first and protect our green fields.

Unfortunately after fighting to keep land what was suppose to be safe guarded by theGreenbelt status in my our local area, Tewkesbury and Gloucester county council neverlistened to local people and in their wisdom decided to build on this land which is on avery large floodplain, any concerns from local people were selfishly ignored.

Any housing developments should be planned on brownfield sitesI fully support the local people in the area that are fighting to save Novers Hill, Anydevelopment would seriously damage the ecosystem and habitat for many wildcreatures that currently live in and around this area, these creatures have as much rightto a home too. We can't keep destroying habitats, once it's gone it gone.

I appeal to Bristol County Council to see sense and turn down the revised application21/05164/F and protect this precious area from developers. I would like it to be

saved it from what can only be described as destruction of natural habitat which wouldbe a disaster for the wildlife and the local people who love this area,By making Novers Hill an official nature reserve it can enjoyed for years to come and forfuture generations to enjoy this wonderful area.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Over the whole of this application and other applications I have consistentlyOBJECTED, and feel proud that I represented local residents in support of Bristol City Council init's defence against Persimmon Homes's application to the Secretary of State to grant it'sapplication to build much fewer dwellings. This was back in 2001 or thereabouts and was lost bythe developer, which was further supported by the Secretary of State with his remarks beingbasically, why would anyone consider build on this GREENFIELD site.Please note .. absolutely NOTHING has changed in any way and moreover BCC has withdrawn itsown (Goram Homes) application for the immediate adjacent GREENFIELD site.As previously said this is a valuable asset for the citizens of South Bristol more for the immediatearea for it's local Residents and hopefully the workforce who pass through or in local work areas.The asset is in general health and also mental health.REMEMBER, THERE ARE A HUGE AMOUNT OF BROWNFIELD SITES .. SO APPLY FORTHOSE AND BUILD TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT AND THAT OF YOUR SHARE HOLDERSPOCKETS.

Whilst this is a slight improvement on the previous plan with regards to the reducednumber of homes being proposed this is still adding to the total number of homes being proposedin the area:

34 on Kingswear Road71 on Leinster Avenue12 on Marshall Walk30 at Filwood Broadway (Cinema)50 at Western Slopes94 on Airport Road47 on Broadbury Road29 at Filwood Broadway (Swimming Pool)157 on Novers Hill (This application)

524 in total

Including those where planning permission has already been granted and work has started.

There shouldn't be a problem with new homes being built, but the complete lack of any criticalinfrastructure being planned for the local area means even more strain on the alreadyoverburdened schools, doctors, dentists and other vital services as they try to provide for thesenew residents.

This, along with the slow but steady removal of public transport links in the area, will only createmore issues both immediately and in the years to come.

I think the cumulative planning permissions being proposed and granted while ignoring the needfor basic amenities show a distinct lack of foresight and understanding of city planning which willbe to the detriment of both current and future residents.

We object to this planning application. There is already numerous housing developmentsites taking place in the surrounding South Bristol area. We need to preserve our green spacesand the bio-diversity of this area for everyone to enjoy. This is not a suitable location for housing.There are better suited brown sites for housing in Bristol. Let these green spaces benefit thehealth of the local residents.

I used to live in the area & its important to protect calm green spaces for the well-beingof residents & to preserve biodiversity in a terrible awful climate crisis. This is an important greenspace.

The proposed site on Novers Hill is an area of Special Scientific Interest and should notbe built on. Bristol City Council are supposed to be promoting green initiatives in this climateemergency but this development will destroy a vital wildlife corridor if allowed to go ahead. Despiteprevious objections and feedback from local groups the developers are now planning to destroyeven more trees and protected hedgerows than the previous proposal. This must be stopped toprotect the wildlife and the local air quality, which will also diminish if these trees are removed. TheWestern Slopes are a beautiful and vital landmark in South Bristol and once this area is gone it willbe gone forever.

This area is home to a tremendous amount of wildlife. Novers hill is also already subjectto an incredible amount of traffic. Adding more homes will only impact the environment, increaseair pollution and impact the local services such as the schools and doctors. Unless plans for newdoctors surgeries and schools are planned for the area, I don't see a benefit to having moreresidents when our current services are stretched well over capacity already. Local people havemade their feelings on the building on Novers Hill very clear and it is not wanted as there is noecological, economic or environmental benefit, only that of lining people's pockets!

This is an unsuitable area for development and would further reduce the amount ofbiodiverse, green spaces in south bristol

Don't build on green areas when so many othe non gree are available

I am against the building of homes on the western slopes and I think this would beextremely detrimental to the area. Not only is the site a nature reserve and provides a greencorridor which to remove would make bristol city council hypocritical in their claims to becomingmore eco friendly, the site would not be suitable to building due to the slope that this is on and thelack of infrastructure for access on the surrounding roads that would cause no end of disruption forresidents. Do not build on the western slopes and protect bristols green spaces

The land is totally unsuitable to build houses on. It's a very steep slope. There has beengarages on the Novers hill which has already suffered subsidence and collapsed. It's also a veryimportant ecosystem for the environment and gives plants and animals a very important home inBristol. The access to the houses would not be suitable, the road leading up the hill is too small forsuch heavy traffic. You can't keep building all these houses without putting in extra doctorssurgeries and schools and dentists. Where are these people supposed to sign up to such thingswhen everything is already full? Build the schools and the doctors surgeries, then maybe thinkabout houses on already brown land not the only bit of green space around this area

I live nearby to this proposed development in Bedminster Down. My objection is onenvironmental grounds.Novers Hill is an important green space which connects to Crox Bottom, Manor Woods, and theNorthern/Western Slopes to form a vital wildlife corridor. Thirteen protected species, includingotters and kingfishers, were found in the wider area during an ecology survey published in 2014.The land is currently used for grazing horses and enjoyed by locals as a vital green space for thecommunity.I understand the need to build more affordable housing in Bristol but strongly disagree with thishappening on vital greenfield spaces rather than exploring brownfield land as the first option.

This area of South Bristol is home to a huge amount of wildlife and the space is used bylots of the community for walks, classes and education. There is nothing within the submission thatadequately responds to the removal of green space or homes for wildlife. The submission alsodoesn't adequately cover the impact of the additional vehicles into that area, the surroundingroads already struggle with the existing population.

The revised application does not address any of the concerns put forth in my previousobjection, therefore I continue to object to the loss of valuable green space that providesthousands of people with access to exercise and improved mental health so that landlords canbenefit from the income from 157 rented flats.

This development will strip out highly valued naturalOpen land, which is massivelydetrimental to the welfare of localPeople and damaging to the environment. In my view, if thisdevelopment is to go ahead, it shouldonly do so ifit's 100% affordable. Bristol isbeing sacrificed to the needsofdevelopers and theirpockets, while the welfare of localpeople is trampled over.

I object to destruction of green spaces such as this at Novers Hill. My feeling is thathousing should be built on brown field sites as a priority. I also object to increase in number ofdwellings in that area without sufficient infrastructure being put in place first - food shops (asopposed to convenience stores), schools, GP surgeries, libraries, public transport.

Again Bristol City council are going to sell out to the devolopers.Not one word of the benefits for the local residents!We lose our green spaces and money talks, as usual.

It is of great concern that allocated land is being sold off and develop film. I stronglyobject to this, especially since I live in a local new build which was actually built upon oldcommercial land/brownfield

It is is completely ridiculous to use his land for this purpose when there is plenty of unusedbuildings and Brownfield available in the area

I wish to restate my objection, slightly amended, to this development made on 1November 2021.

Although the number of homes has been lowered by 13 it is not clear what the changes mean foreach of the two site allocations in the Local Plan that this application covers. It would have beenhelpful to have had a revised or amended Design and Access statement to make things clearer.

In the Local Plan the site allocation (BSA114) states that the potential housing is estimated to be50 homes.

This is the area of development immediately uphill of the Bristol Waste depot. I understand thatthis is the "northern allocation" in the application.

I am concerned that if agreed (and the number of homes to be provided is above that in theBSA114 allocation) the application creates an intensity of buildings and people not envisagedwhen the Local Plan was developed; but also sets a precedent for similar sites across Bristol to bedeveloped using figures that are significantly in excess of the Local Plan.

The site identified for this development isn't unused waste land or brown sites, it's a wellused bio-diverse nature reserve area tended to by community volunteers, relied upon by locals forwalking in nature whilst being in a city and kids playing and learning about wildlife in their localarea. This green space is crucial to the eco system of this area and if we lose it we will all beworser for it.

More homes are needed in Bristol but this is not the site for it. The proposal of destruction of somuch green space and the habitat of so many animals and insects and greenery is veryconcerning and not in the interests of local people.

Not to mention the local infrastructure is insufficient to cope with hundreds of more people living inthis area. Wherever you do build these 147 homes, a new doctors, dentist, pharmacy, nursery,primary school and post office must be built too in order to make it sustainable and feasible. Thissite can't accommodate that so why even pursue it as an option. It's not appropriate.

I objected after the first plans, and I still object now. I think the animals that are thrivingthere should be left to do so! I still believe that novers hill is not suitable for the traffic it holds at themoment, let alone more traffic. I still believe that even with the new plans, there are not enoughlocal amenities to suit the new houses. They are still using the social housing as a buffer for thenoise. We have lost so so so much green space round this way over the years. Please just let theanimals keep this bit!

The first thing to note is the lack of help in understanding all the changes to theapplication. No public consultation or events, the developers' website has been down for sometime, there are a mass of new documents uploaded to the portal but their numbering does notmatch the list provided by the developer.

Attention to detail does seem to be an issue for this developer, the boundaries on their maps moveabout all over the place, sometimes directly against the buildings on the Honeyfield and ETMproperties, other times it wanders metres away. The same happens on the top edge with the roadon Novers Hill, sometimes the hedge is in, sometimes out, the hedge that is Town and VillageGreen and protected for the people of Bristol. The boundary on the southern edge also wanders,with the developer sometimes counting trees not even on their land. There are still roads leadingto nowhere, definitely not needed now that the council has right announced it will not build on theslopes following ecological surveys.

Not enough has changed in the application and all the same planning and transport policy failingsremain. The ecological surveys are out of date and given findings on the council owned land mustsurely be held in some suspicion about their accuracy. Wildlife doesn't know about land ownershipand there is no significant barrier to prevent it crossing from one to the other.

The scheme will still cause significant destruction and change to a prominent hillside. The houseshave increased by a storey, being even more intrusive to the wide and steep green hillside. Theroads have been slightly widened on the corners to allow a rubbish truck to actually get aroundthem, but this relies on people not parking in the wrong places. And are the trucks driving all the

way down and reversing back out? These are two cul-de-sac estates. There also don't seem to beenough electric vehicle charging points.

If we look at the smaller extent of the Site of Nature Conservation Interest SNCI area (which ofcourse I don't agree to the reduced boundary, as there is nothing to document the change beingmade, as others have argued far more fully then I have), the works would significantly disturb anddamage the SNCI. There is a massive amount of disturbance to the SNCI; the building of a playarea and 'woodland' walk, the large drainage ditch from the upper estate to the lower, removal ofsome trees and the adding of trees to this meadow, relocating a badger sett, removing theJapanese Knotweed, unnecessary ornamental planting of non natives, the large embankment tosupport the road on the lower edge of the upper estate. Further large scale removal of trees andhedge is suggested for the ancient Town and Village Green hedge along the road of Novers Hill.

The site is so steeply sloped that the addition of new paths between housing and also puncturedthrough the TVG hedge in an attempt to make the site more accessible simply show howinaccessible the site is, as they have a large amount of steps. Anyone with mobility issues willstruggle significantly to move around these estates.

The social housing, even with it's amended design is the sound barrier between the industrialareas along Hartcliffe Way, including the recycling and reprocessing plant of ETM, and the privatehousing with it's views across to the Clifton suspension bridge.

No access to Hartcliffe Way is available, the most obvious route is through Honeyfield BusinessPark, but they seem stubbornly against providing access across their site (there is of course a linkin ownership between Honeyfield and the Novers hillside). Even so, suggested paths through hereor the ETM yard would involve paths across secluded, hidden areas with no overlooking housing.These are not paths that any sensible person will use, if they were ever to become reality which ofcourse no credible evidence of this possibility is given or presented in the public domain. The ETMland is on a long lease, with no indication they want to move, and no suggestion of how they couldsafely accommodate pedestrian across across a site busy with large trucks.

The drainage area has had a few changes, presumably for possible future path connection but allthis has done is present the possibility of dangerous dead end paths tucked behind housing,leading to nowhere. It's clearly not safe. Suggested tree planting locations have been moved to dothis and at times wander out of the site boundary, depending on the map you are viewing. Thislack of attention to detail is a worry.

There is no credible traffic solution suggested for Novers Hill (the road). No meaningful changesseem to be given to the suggested cycle and footpath, tucked behind the hedge - how they canget lighting here to help safety and not ruin the wildlife habitat/corridor of the hedge? Of course thehedge no longer acts as a wildlife corridor with the large holes suggested for two roads and a pathwith steep steps. Presumably in an attempt to make the lower entrance/exit to the path safer and

to give more visibility of traffic on the road of Novers Hill and coming out of the new estates, aneven larger and longer section of hedge is now suggested to be removed.

They are too many constraints on this site to make usable housing, with safe and accessibleroutes in and out. And the disruption and destruction of an valuable SNCI area is just too great.There's no offsetting or mitigation for the habitat loss made on the site or nearby. The onlysuggestion seems to be Nailsea which is much too far away. Currently the whole of this meadowand wooded hillside offers a large habitat and wildlife corridor from Hengrove Mounds and CroxBottom, through Inns Court along the side of Hartcliffe Way, and down along Pigeonhouse Streamand the Malago, to the Berry Maze, Northern Slopes and Knowle West Health Park.These areasare natural, existing heat sinks, carbon stores and flood prevention. Retaining these areas andlooking after them is far cheaper than actions to increase our tree canopy or habitats to meet OneCity Climate goals.

This site is not appropriate for housing, with it's current issues around lack of permeability, loss ofwildlife habitat, rare meadow and tree loss, and visual impact to a prominent green hillside, whichcan be clearly seen from the suspension bridge and Royal York Crescent in Clifton, and from thedescent into Bristol from Dundry.

We need truly affordable housing, but this site is not a reasonable place for it.

This has always been a green space between Knowle and Hartcliffe , a green belt thathas stopped urban spread. As a child I played on these slopes, always horses and wildlife there inbetween the council estates.Trees and hedgerows are important part of the ecosystem . Do we want to destroy a meadow andbadger set? Generation's have enjoyed this green space

The area does not support additional housing, the infrastructure is not in place,it cannot supportextra cars.

The site is still a Site of Nature Conservation! And developing this half of Novers Hill will impactthe ecosystem of the rest of it!

I object to this development. Save this green space for future generations to enjoy

It is important that natural spaces, particularly those contained within urbanenvironments are protected for the health and wellbeing of the local people, and to preserve theecology of the local area.

I object massively to this hideous desecration of a small green lung in the area in WhichI live however I will use some comments of younger members of my family. Being that we shouldbe building for their future - why are the trees being destroyed for bricks - they don't help us live ahealthy life. Why are they killing all the animals, where will they live - they can't live in a house. WillI be able to live there ? Well no is the answer because "affordable " is not "affordable" oraccessible to the majority. Parson Street school is one of the most polluted schools in Bristol thisnew development will make this increasingly worse with more traffic pollution being outside theclean air zone offers no protection from this. Give our children the opportunity of clean air youwere once afforded and now are setting out to take away from them.

Bristol is severely lacking open space for wildlife, building on this space would bedestructive for wildlife and our enjoyment of natural space. New building should be on brownfieldsites, and new facilities should be included (eg doctors surgeries, schools, parks, shops etc)

I live with my family in South Bristol. I am writing this statement to object to the planningapplication submitted by Lovell for Novers Hill- Western Slope.I would like to object to this planning permission based on below points:There are now, even more, hedgerows and trees being removed.The BNG LOSS is still massive! It's an embarrassment for a city trying to go "net zero" if thisapplication is approved!The BNG offsetting site is not even in Bristol.Social housing is still in the worst parts of the development and is used as a buffer for the openmarket, expensive housing.The actual roadway of Nevers Hill cannot cope with the extra cars.The complete loss of meadow and removal of an established badger settThe site is still a Site of Nature Conservation! And developing this half of Novers Hill will impactthe ecosystem of the rest of it!Bristol needs all the green areas for residents' health, mental well-being, and wildlife. These greenareas are crucial for our lives; both humans, and wildlife. What Bristol needs is not building morehouses by destroying the green areas. Building on green space is a backward method whichshould be left in the very past times.What Bristol needs is:1. Only build on brownfields.2. Making it compulsory for developers to allocate more and real affordable houses in theirprojects.3. Introduce the capping system on the renting rates. There are enough accommodations/houses/flats in Bristol. The high rate of rent makes it almost impossible for people to afford it.

4. Make sure that we all stand up and support and protect our green areas and wildlife. When theGolden Motion was passed with the support from all the councillors in 2022, it showed how muchBristol cares for green spaces and its positive impact on all our lives.Building on Green space for expensive houses on Western Slopes is just making rich minoritieswealthier and bringing more damages by the risk of bringing more floods and destroying thewildlife corridor. This is not something that people in Bristol want or need. Our older generation isagainst it; our younger generation is against it as they can see how it will impact their future too.I would like to ask the planning committee to show their full support and commitment to whatpeople and locals in south Bristol want and REJECT LOVELL'S PLANNING APPLICATION ONWesterns Slopes Bristol.

Kind Regards,Nasim Dumont

I am writing this statement to object to the planning application submitted by Lovell forNovers Hill- Western Slope.I would like to object to this planning permission as it is destroying all the precious wildlife on theWestern Slope.The planning application has so many issues, and it has been created only for profit- moneymaking. It has shown no care and compassion for the environment. The environment is one of themost important factors in everyone's life. As a retired member of society, I am extremelyconcerned that our green spaces in Bristol are disappearing one by one under the false name ofaffordable housing when we are all aware that the worst parts of the development have beenallocated to social housing and are used as a buffer for the open market, expensive housing. Inthis planning application, more hedgerows and trees are being removed. The BNG LOSS is stillmassive! It's an embarrassment for a city trying to go "net zero" if this application is approved!The BNG offsetting site is not even in Bristol. The actual roadway of Nevers Hill cannot cope withthe extra cars. The complete loss of meadow and removal of an established badger sett will beunreversible. The site is still a Site of Nature Conservation! And developing this half of Novers Hillwill impact the ecosystem of the rest of it.It is our responsibility to support green areas in Bristol. I object to this planning application andwant the Bristol city council planning committee to LISTEN to the objections, do the right thing,and reject the application.

To follow on from my previous objection in November '21, this area does not have thecapacity to cope with more homes and it is also an area which has a well established eco systemwhich needs protecting. Novers Hill is already a very busy road. Local schools and Health Centresare at full capacity. Bus service has been reduced.

I write in objection to the proposal to erect 157 dwellings on the west side of Novers Hill.If this application is granted the impact of this development will be wide ranging and felt long termby local people, protected species and Bristol's green credentials.

To support my objection:

1. There is now even more hedgerow and trees being removed in comparison to the originalproposal2. The social housing section of the proposal is still being used as a buffer between the rest of thedevelopment and the busy Hartcliffe Way, including the recycling centre and other businesses.The quantity of social housing to private housing is vastly skewed in favour of the open market,expensive housing.3. The BNG losss is huge. It's a huge setback for a city trying to go "net zero" if this application isapproved. The BNG offsetting site is not even in Bristol so no resident in the affected area or evenin the Bristol area will benefit.4. The proposal doesn't propose how the actual roadway of Novers Hill wil cope with the extracars.

5. The complete loss of meadow and removal of an established badger sett. A number of rare andprotected species have been found across the Northern Slope area, including otters, bats andbirds of prey.6. The site is still a Site of Nature Conservation. The impact of the development on this half ofNovers Hill will impact the ecosystem of the entire Hill.

Bristol has a number of brownfield spaces that I feel haven't been adequately explored beforeremoving another rare green space in Bristol. The site is of huge importance to local people,allowing access to a green space so scarce in the South Bristol area.

Keep green spaces available to local residents, redevelop brownfield sites and help Bristol hit itsnet zero targets.

I live with my family in South Bristol. I am writing this statement to object to the planningapplication submitted by Lovell for Novers Hill- Western Slope.I would like to object to this planning permission based on below points:There are now, even more, hedgerows and trees being removed.The BNG LOSS is still massive! It's an embarrassment for a city trying to go "net zero" if thisapplication is approved!The BNG offsetting site is not even in Bristol.Social housing is still in the worst parts of the development and is used as a buffer for the openmarket, expensive housing.The actual roadway of Novers Hill cannot cope with the extra cars.The complete loss of meadow and removal of an established badger sett.The site is still a Site of Nature Conservation! And developing this half of Novers Hill will impactthe ecosystem of the rest of it!Bristol needs all the green areas for residents' health, mental well-being, and wildlife. These greenareas are crucial for our lives; both humans, and wildlife. What Bristol needs is not building morehouses by destroying the green areas. Building on green space is a backward method whichshould be left in the very past times.What Bristol needs is:1. Only build on brownfields.2. Making it compulsory for developers to allocate more and real affordable houses in theirprojects.3. Introduce the capping system on the renting rates. There are enough accommodations/houses/flats in Bristol. The high rate of rent makes it almost impossible for people to afford it.

4. Make sure that we all stand up and support and protect our green areas and wildlife. When theGolden Motion was passed with the support from all the councillors in 2022, it showed how muchBristol cares for green spaces and its positive impact on all our lives.Building on Green space for expensive houses on Western Slopes is just making rich minoritieswealthier and bringing more damages by the risk of bringing more floods and destroying thewildlife corridor. This is not something that people in Bristol want or need. Our older generation isagainst it; our younger generation is against it as they can see how it will impact their future too.I would like to ask the planning committee to show their full support and commitment to whatpeople and locals in south Bristol want and REJECT LOVELL'S PLANNING APPLICATION ONWesterns Slopes Bristol.

I very much object to any of the Novers being built on. It's an important green space formany humans, animals, wildlife, meadow, hedgerow and trees. Although you say you replant, thisis not good enough. I am sick and tired of this excuse, we are supposed to be ecologically friendly.The whips that get planted will not do anything for the environment for at least 20 years and that'sif they survive. I am sick and tired of having our precious green space built on by profiteeringcompanies with very little affordable housing.There is so much green belt you could consider instead.

I am objecting again to this application, all my original reasons still stand. (Copiedbelow)I note that Nash/Pegasus have dumped around 50 revised documents on 01 03 23 with only 20days for people to read, understand and respond. This really isn't enough time.I think it's a sign of the lack of respect the developers have for the public.They also say in their covering letter that "As discussed, our revision suite will not be fully realisedin time for public consultation ahead of March committee with accompanying reports remainingbeing finalised"So if there isn't enough time for public consultation, time needs to be made.It's up to the developer to get accurate documents out and allow a reasonable time for them to beread.It's obvious from all these revisions that the original plans they put forward were badly thought outand ignored the basics of planning a project of this scale.Either they didn't get it right first time because they thought they would take a chance that theywould get away with ignoring regulations, or they don't really know what they're doing.Whatever the reason it makes me wonder what the build would be like if they actually gotpermission.They have already reduced the number of buildings to try and get this application through, I guessthey will try reducing the number until it is accepted.Is this the kind of developer you really want? Or would it be better to have an organisation thatlooks, listens and plans appropriately for the site instead of one that hopes it will "get away withit"?

Original objection:I am objecting to this application.There are a lot of practical reasons this site is not suitable for this development.The site is soft soils on sloping bed rock. I saw a lot of testing done, digging 10m deep pits , soilsamples, geophysics etc repeated.I think there is serious doubt that this is an easy or suitable site to build on from a technical point ofview.The development will destroy an important green area within a city, along with its wildlife.It will increase pressure on infrastructure and facilities in the local area.RoadsSchoolsHealthSewersIncreased local pollution -Parson st is regularly 200% of the government limit. School kidscampaigning to get people to turn off their engines.157 dwellings how many more school places?Will the new residents be able see a doctor/dentist or even register?Where will all the rain water and sewage go during extreme weather?The developers are suggesting doing work at Crox Bottom to offset damage caused by theirworks, to avoid breaching regulations.I don't believe this project has been well thought out.Yes we need houses, how many and where?

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I live with my family in South Bristol. I am writing this statement to object to the planning

application submitted by Lovell for Novers Hill- Western Slope.

I would like to object to this planning permission based on below points:

There are now, even more, hedgerows and trees being removed.

The BNG LOSS is still massive! It's an embarrassment for a city trying to go "net zero" if this

application is approved!

The BNG offsetting site is not even in Bristol.

Social housing is still in the worst parts of the development and is used as a buffer for the open

market, expensive housing.

The actual roadway of Nevers Hill cannot cope with the extra cars.

The complete loss of meadow and removal of an established badger sett

The site is still a Site of Nature Conservation! And developing this half of Novers Hill will impact

the ecosystem of the rest of it!

Bristol needs all the green areas for residents' health, mental well-being, and wildlife. These green

areas are crucial for our lives; both humans, and wildlife. What Bristol needs is not building more

houses by destroying the green areas. Building on green space is a backward method which

should be left in the very past times.

What Bristol needs is:

1. Only build on brownfields.

2. Making it compulsory for developers to allocate more and real affordable houses in their

projects.

3. Introduce the capping system on the renting rates. There are enough accommodations/

houses/flats in Bristol. The high rate of rent makes it almost impossible for people to afford it.

4. Make sure that we all stand up and support and protect our green areas and wildlife. When the

Golden Motion was passed with the support from all the councillors in 2022, it showed how much

Bristol cares for green spaces and its positive impact on all our lives.

Building on Green space for expensive houses on Western Slopes is just making rich minorities

wealthier and bringing more damages by the risk of bringing more floods and destroying the

wildlife corridor. This is not something that people in Bristol want or need. Our older generation is

against it; our younger generation is against it as they can see how it will impact their future too.

I would like to ask the planning committee to show their full support and commitment to what

people and locals in south Bristol want and REJECT LOVELL'S PLANNING APPLICATION ON

Westerns Slopes Bristol.

Kind Regards,

As confirmed by the Avon Wildlife Trust, this is a VITAL WILDLIFE CORRIDOR.

"Avon Wildlife Trust recognises Bristol's Western Slopes as a vital wildlife corridor, and stands withthose people calling it to be protected from development.This area, located on the slopes between Novers Hill and Hartcliffe Way, is a particularly importanthabitat for a wide variety of birds, mammals and rare wildflowers. We recognise that there isconsiderable concern from local residents that it may be vulnerable to development, and we echotheir calls for it to be protected."https://www.avonwildlifetrust.org.uk/news/support-bristols-green-spaces

The ecological survey carried out by Ethos Environmental Planning shows that the slopes arehome to wildlife including badgers and many species of bats, including rare horseshoe bats.

https://novershillconsultation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Novers-Hill-draft-ecological-assessment-with-location-of-badger-sett-redacted.pdf

There is no excuse for building on this green space when there are brownfield sites available,especially in a city that claims to be sustainable and wants to be net zero. This proposeddevelopment is completely at odds with the One City Ecological Emergency Strategy and One CityClimate Strategy. The Council continuing to approve such proposed developments undermines itsstance and makes the strategies look like all words and no actions. How can the Council wilfullyact in opposition to its own strategies? The Council's reputation is only one thing that would bedamaged should this development go ahead.

Most concerning is the proposed damage to a biodiverse wildlife habitat which has a wealth ofspecies, including protected ones. It is an invaluable wildlife corridor which is a treasure so closeto the city centre. It is so important to local residents who care deeply about preserving andenjoying the local flora and fauna. We the local residents are taking environmental concerns muchmore seriously than the Council - shame on you! Please show us we can still have some faith thatBCC will act in the best interests of Bristol's residents and Bristol's physical space. Our confidenceis rapidly dwindling.

Unsuitable place to build houses. We should conserve this green space for futuregenerations.

Dear Sir/MadamMy concerns relate to increase of traffic in the area. Without widening of Novers hill and thejunction of parson street and hartcliffe way, there will be longer ques of standing traffic causingmore pollution in an area where lots of school children will be affected ( even more children withthe extra people ). We have children travelling to Parson street primary and Bedminster downschools using the parson street / hartcliffe way junction and children going to Greenfield primarybeing effected at the other end of novers hill. Also with increase of traffic there also the increase insafety concerns with small children who are not always concious of how fast cars are moving.We have quite a lot of traffic already and feel the roads in the area are not fit for more.RegardsChris Rodd

Thank you for inviting my further comment on the proposed housing development on the WesternSlopes of Novers Hill.

You have said that my previous comments have been taken on board; which is good since theseraised various important concerns that I have; firstly, about the impact of the location of theproposed site on the movement of traffic and pollution levels around the direct and wider areas;and, secondly, about Lovell Housing's plans to mitigate the negative impact that the activities oflocal industry might have on the quality of life of those occupying their new-builds.

I have nothing to add regarding my comments on traffic flow. They remain the same.

My concerns about quality of life and noise pollution also remain unchanged, as I note from the'Noise Assessment' report put together by SLR Consulting, in February 2023, that, it is still thecase, at this point, that '...mitigation levels can only be outlined...'. I also note that 'trickleventilators' continue to be mentioned as a way of addressing the noise issue which will beexperienced in some of the builds.

I would like to add further comment though, as activity close to the proposed site has moved onsince my original observations and this has raised additional/associated concerns for me. Thisstems from the fact that at the time of making my previous comments there seemed to be muchless activity from the bigger industries in the area. However, between then and now, thosebusinesses have obviously continued to adapt, expand, and introduce new products. I noticed, for

instance, that in January 2022, ETM, which backs onto the proposed site and faces onto theHartcliffe Way, advertised the fact that they were 'now' offering concrete batching. This new facilitywas offered some time after Lovell's Homes sent their original proposals in to the City Council'splanning office.

I note that this facility's existence has been picked-up and acknowledged in SLR's recent updated'Noise Assessment' report but I cannot find it mentioned anywhere else. I do acknowledge that Imay have missed information when looking through all the documentation - but if this is not thecase, then I would like to state that I consider that the impact of this newly introduced concretebatching service on air quality should be taken-into-account along with all other dust releasingactivities, when considering pollution mitigation actions. I say this because I am aware thatconcrete batching activities clearly create particulate matter (to a greater or lesser extentdepending on the system used). Concrete and associated particulate matter can contribute toserious health issues in human beings or other creatures; causing - for instance - lung problems,cancer, and skin irritation. The potential for environmental damage from these particulates is ofcourse also extremely concerning.

Additionally, it appears that natural dispersal of airborne particulates from the area might beaffected somewhat by the position of the ETM site - which is relatively low lying - between thehigher locations of Knowle and Bedminster Down.

This raises further concerns for me about the position of Lovell's proposed site since it has two ofits borders abutted by local industry and the 'newer' arrivals have clearly gone on to either adoptnew practices or expand others as their businesses have settled-in and grown. This aim for growthwill, no doubt, see a future increase of airborne particulate matter in the area.

This observation brings me back to the use of trickle ventilators and pollution.

Although Lovell Housing seems to be considering trickle ventilators in some builds in order toaddress excessive noise pollution, basic research appears to show that their use will not beadvisable where outside air pollution levels are not good; because the ventilators let the outsidepolluted air into the building. At present, the housing plans show that the buildings which are mostlikely to have this kind of ventilation will be the ones situated closest to the industrial units soresidents there would possibly be most affected. However, where pollutants might not easily benaturally dispersed, perhaps because of the topography of an area, they will linger and potentiallyaffect all residents and users of the area - not just those residents in buildings close to the units,who are already obliged to keep their windows shut.

My observations, have led me to believe that projections based on present activities in relation topossible/probable future pollution levels, are not going to be good enough. Assessments of air-flow etc using different 'similar' sites are not going to be good enough. I have very major concernsabout the potential increase and dispersal of dust particulates around the area.

In conclusion, based upon the points discussed, I find the building of a housing developmentdirectly in the vicinity of, and abutting, industrial units worrying and of course unacceptable. Oncehoused, many people will have little option but to stay - regardless of the impact on their mental orphysical health that any changes to nearby industrial working procedures and practices mighthave. Because of this and the issues I previously raised which have not been addressed, Icontinue to be unable to support this application.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear Sir/Madam

My concerns relate to increase of traffic in the area. Without widening of Novers hill and the

junction of parson street and hartcliffe way, there will be longer ques of standing traffic causing

more pollution in an area where lots of school children will be affected ( even more children with

the extra people ). We have children travelling to Parson street primary and Bedminster down

schools using the parson street / hartcliffe way junction and children going to Greenfield primary

being effected at the other end of novers hill. Also with increase of traffic there also the increase in

safety concerns with small children who are not always concious of how fast cars are moving.

We have quite a lot of traffic already and feel the roads in the area are not fit for more.

Regards

The loss of hedgerow will have significant effects on drainage. Flooding is a majorconcern with heavier rainfall episodes. This could cause loss of soil and floodwater.Biodiversity is also under threat. Hedgerows are required for many birds, mammals and insects.More than ever we need to ensure there is no loss of habitat when the animal kingdom is underthreat.

It would destroy all wildlife thereIt is a lovely place and as been all my life taking my children and dogs thereA great quiet place for daily walks and to see the sun going down on eveningsLovely for young children to seeAlso great for people 2 wonder round and see many wildlifeHouses there would be a absolute eyesore

Will not reiterate previous objections by myself nor itemise all the technical details asthis has been well stated and documented.My objection runs along the line that there are a huge amount of brownfield sites available,including in South Bristol, why are we fighting to save a site which should be protected as an assetto the area and generally to Bristol. Another point I would like to put is taken from the IndianConstitution and is Article 51 which states that no human should preserve all living things by notadversely effecting all things nature viz forests, woods, trees, rivers and all living things there on.This has a knock on result which helps the wellbeing of the population in both regular health andmental health. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION.

I am writing to restate my original objection on behalf of my household. We currently liveon Novers Hill and have been residents of South Bristol for over 10 years.

Having tried to review the re-submitted documents by the developer there are still significantexisting concerns and new ones from their planning application. Significantly, a revised Designand Access statement has not been submitted which made consideration of the revisions difficultto fit into context and examine in more detail what has happened.

In the January covering letter it is suggested that a 'full detailed response' would be provided toexisting concerns. The February letter contained only a summary of concerns and responses, thisis not good enough for a potential development that has such an impact on the natural and builtenvironment of Novers Hill/ Western Slopes.

Novers Hill/Western Slopes has always been held by us as an important wildlife corridor andvisual reminder of how valued these greenspaces are to the urban landscape. Bristol is meant tobe a city leader against climate change having declared an 'ecological emergency' so we needactions not just empty words and promises in protecting our valuable green spaces.

Ecology:Secretary of States 2003 appeal decision against Persimmon Homes' development of Novers Hillstill holds true in all its key arguments. The inspector of this report noted that the site had city wideimportance and the 'adverse and permanent effects of the built development would be sufficientlylimited to be offset.' The offsetting strategy outlined by Lovells continues to be very flawed. With

the removal of Crox Bottom as an option for providing off site mitigation, there is concern thatother parts of the West of England would be benefitting, while existing and future residents ofNovers Hill would not benefit from the development.

Novers Hill is an important section in a belt or chain of open grasslands, hedgerows and scrub -development would break and reduce the degree of ecological linkage with amongst othersNovers Common and Northern Slopes.

This linkage cannot be easily mitigated by modals andassumptions of how wildlife will react to the destruction of their habitats. Novers Hill is such a richmix of habitats and areas that it can support such a diverse range of species such as badgers,foxes and smaller mammals such as field mice, voles, moles and rare horseshoe bats. Birds ofprey including kestrels and buzzards are regularly spotted flying over the slopes.

Novers Hill was previously given the status of a Site of SNCI (Site of Nature Conservation Interest)- with citywide importance. This is why the writer of the Secretary of States report concluded that"It is its openness and its prominent 'natural' or undeveloped qualities that are in his view its mostimportant visual attributes. 'He goes on to comment that he does not consider this a degradedlandscape' but one which is obviously thriving.

What is also very concerning is that The Ecological Impact Assessment and Biodiversity Net GainAssessment have not been made publicly available. This is critical information bearing in mind thesensitivity of the habitats and species involved.

Traffic, Transport & Amenities:Access roads in newly submitted documents would further damage the protected ancienthedgerow and ruin connectivity - this situation has not changed since Oct 2021. The lack of anupdated Transport Assessment or Travel Plan means the public cannot comment on theimplications of the changes on these issues. Impact on the TVG is directly related to this lack ofupdated Transport Plan.

Even with the overall size of the development reducing to 144 dwellings in this development, withadditional traffic from other proposed developments in South Bristol (such as Hengroveairfield(1400 houses), BokLok (173 currently being built) as well as sites in Inns Court, BroadburyRoad, Health Park and the Youth Zone) the cumulative effect of all these developments wouldmean not only the traffic on Novers Hill increasing but also local roads in the area and Hartcliffeway would become even more congested than they already are. Quite simply the localinfrastructure cannot cope. Lovells have still not made a junction improvement to the bottom ofNovers Hill and Lynton Road.

There are highway safety issues related to all the increased traffic across the whole of Filwoodward as well as those neighbouring the development. Especially with Parson Street primary school

and Greenfield ACT primary school. The measured pollution levels are already dangerously highat both schools. There are obvious noise and light pollution aspects to also consider as well as theair pollutants from all the increased car use.

Bristol City Council even before the pandemic, struggled to make timely bin collections so addinga further 144 dwellings will only exacerbate this. Access around the site for 2 panel bin lorries ispoor and the gradients and corners involved are the reason the Transport department originallyobjected, a lot of these concerns still remain. The same can be argued for the increased demandson local medical services and school class sizes. Again the cumulative impact of developmentsacross the whole of South Bristol will make these issues completely unmanageable.

Proposed Site Housing Issues:Town and village green - TVG - from studying the map, I still do not believe this to be a trueequivalent and I certainly do not believe the equivalent by function can be achieved in the areasearmarked by Lovells. The enjoyment of the TVG space will not be equal for locals as well as allresidents of Bristol so Lovell's open space strategy is questionable.

It says part of the site is land locked and an existing access can't be used. This means Lovells arebreaching the planning policy of the protected TVG green space through the middle. It alsoappears they are double counting by providing the public open space POS within the safe guardedcorridor. Again this brings into question the validity of this application as TVG status changeshould have been approved prior to the application submission.

There is an important function performed by the site as recognised in the Secretary of State reportin separating residential development to the East of Novers Hill from the industrial and commercialdevelopment to north and west of the site.' This open space is a 'visual amenity even provides anoutlook, or variety in the urban scene. There is a definite visible impact of the designated openspace. From more distant viewpoints, such as the Clifton Suspension Bridge. There is also thevisible impact of a lost hillside. This is felt along and around the Malago greenway. Visible openspace affords a relief to the adjacent built up area.

It is a concern that Visuals (for example - Nash Partnership - Series 6001 to 6006) are critical forhelping local people understand what is happening to the landscape and the full impact of this -especially with the amount of cut and fill occurring on the slopes around the development. In theoriginal Design and Access statement 2D and "3D" pictures were provided; this has not happenedin the re-submission. There is reference to a 'fly through' in the cover letter but due to file size thiscould not be uploaded. It is essential that at least smaller files of visual stills from the fly thoughare uploaded to better understand visually how the development sits within the landscape.

Although Block 6 has now been moved from in front of 53-77 Novers Hill with 60 dwellings beingproposed on the slope to the left of these houses there are clear implications for loss of light andovershadowing for residents on Novers Hill. The sun sets behind Headley park and this is in the

direct lines of the development. This loss of light and over shadowing will impact all the residentialproperties from numbers 53-77 on Novers Hill. As well as a lesser extent, Haven House up tonumber 99 on Novers Hill. With these new dwellings being in an elevated position directly acrossfrom numbers 53-77 there are clear privacy issues with windows breaching the tree line andlooking directly across at these houses. Again a 3D would show this a lot more clearly but this hasnot been provided by the developer.

Alternative Vision:Ultimately, I do not feel this land should ever have been included in the outdated 2012 LocalRegeneration Plan. Regenerate brownfield sites, regeneration of a green field site is an oxymoron.This delicate eco-system can only be destroyed by a housing development.

This part of the city is relatively poorly provided with public parks in the local Filwood ward, and thelimited amount and distribution of the ward's publicly accessible space. So why not make thisunique site into what it is already in all but name - The Novers Nature Reserve.

Just like we all look back on disastrous post war town planning decisions, the next generation willnever forgive us if this decision goes against our precious green space to further harm andaccelerate the climate crisis.

I would like to restate my objection to the planning application concerning the WesternSlopes/Novers Hill.

This application goes against Bristol taking the lead in declaring the 'climate emergency.'Greenfield sites such as this one on Novers Hill provide important wildlife corridors supporting avast array of species from Badgers to Birds of Prey. Human impact of housing developments cannever be mitigated against.

Brownfield sites should be brought forward and prioritised and greenfield sites should be anabsolute last last resort. Novers Hill has a diverse mix of shrub, grassland and trees, there are noguarantees the installation of bat corridors and new badger setts will work, and if not, thesehabitats will be permanently disturbed and potentially lost.

Traffic around the Novers Hill site on neighbouring roads and especially Hartcliffe Way is alreadyat breaking point, standing traffic is resulting in very dangerous levels of pollution at Parson Streetschool. Another 157 homes alongside all the other developments in South Bristol will onlyexacerbate these problems which are already acute.

I'm concerned about flooding due to increased runoff into Pigeonhouse stream and along theMalago, and the steep gradients make me further worried about subsistence issues across thesite.

Ultimately an alternative use could be a nature reserve and city farm which would be a great asset

for residents of Knowle West who have limited access to green spaces and opportunities to benefitfrom the incredible green space that is Novers Hill.

My family and I still feel very strongly opposed to this planning application so would liketo restate our objection.

Greenfield sites such as this one need to be protected for future generations. This is such shortterm thinking to put up to 144 dwellings across this unique wildlife corridor. Lovells failed to buildhere 30 years ago and the site hasn't changed, it is even more valuable now as an ecology sitebecause so many green spaces have already been lost or are under increasing threat acrossSouth Bristol.

I also feel that much more public consultation should have be done with local people, feelingsamongst local residents across Filwood really haven't been listened to. There is a digital divideand digital exclusion which the developer has not taken into consideration. Knowle West and theFilwood ward is one of the poorest economically in Bristol so greater efforts should have beenmade to engage with all residents. Against this Knowle West has one of richest green spaceswhich needs to be preserved as an asset for them all and not the privileged few.

Let's be very clear 'affordable' housing is at 80% market value so it's a technical term rather than areality for anyone living local to the site on low wages. Illegal levels of pollution are regularlyrecorded at Parson Street street adding 157 houses initiallywill only add to this and the strained infrastructure around Hartcliffe Way. Impact of more houseswill affect air quality and light pollution will further accentuate these issues across South Bristol.

Please Bristol City Council take note of how Bristolians feel at large about building on green

spaces. Prioitise brownfield sites, only use any green spaces as an absolute last resort.

Protect this green space and make it into the south Bristol nature reserve it deserves to be.

I've been a resident of Novers Hill since 1968 and would like to re-submit by objection tothis destructive development.

The wildlife on the hill has been a constant source of fascination for all the family and should beprotected for many generations tocome. Any housing will destroy this delicate ecosystem.

Traffic is too heavy on the Hill as it is, 144 extra dwellings here, plus all the others across SouthBristol will mean traffic chaos. Pollution and littering is very bad on Novers Hill and this will getworse. I'm concerned council and healthcare services won't cope with the additional houses hereand across South Bristol. With primary schools at Novers Lane and Parson Street all the extracars and pollution is a worry for all the kids that travel to these schools.

I believe for large parts of the site local residents will experience loss of light, privacy and overshadowing due to the front of the Novers Hill houses all getting the afternoon/evening sun. Pleaseprotect this vital green space for all the people of Bristol.

NB: Due to my age my neighbour has kindly submitted this online application on my behalf but Ihave agreed to this in advance.

I strongly object to this planning application as this is in total opposition to the aims ofBCC trying to be carbon neutral by 2030. Destroying a Site of Nature Conservation is not the wayto achieve net zero. It will lead to a huge BNG loss which is not even being offset locally. Therewould be huge losses of hedgerows , trees ,meadows and removal of an established badger sett.The wildlife corridor into the city would be lost and the adjacent sites of the Northern Slopes andCrox Bottom and would be compromised. It would impact on Manor Woods Valley also as wildlifedoes not recognise boundaries.This is not acceptable given our shameful status as the most nature-depleted country in Europe.The social housing is still in the worst parts of the development and being used as a buffer againstnoise and pollution, for the open market, expensive housingThe actual roadway of Novers Hill cannot cope with the extra carsBuilding on established green spaces is not the way to solve the housing crisis.

I strongly object to the proposed development of the greenfield site to the west ofNovers Hill.

I have lived near this site for 23 years during which time I have seen buzzards,peregrine falcons. Kestrels and sparrow hawks on or near this open land and in mygarden. Also badgers and foxes.

If this site is tarmaced concreted over the wildlife will disappear and cannot be broughtback.

This site is a valuable resource for the health and wellbeing for the local community. Wedo not need more pollution on Novers Hill.

This part of South Bristol has already been overdeveloped with no regard toinfrastructure to support the additional population.

Let common sense prevail please stop the desecration of this beloved and needed opengreen space.

Subject: Concerns about proposed building project

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing this email to express my concern and opposition against the proposed building projectof 144 dwellings, including 43 affordable housing. While I understand the need for housing in thearea, I feel that this project is not being carried out in an environmentally responsible manner.

In particular, I am worried about the potential harm that this construction project could cause to thenatural environment. The proposed project fails to even meet 10% savings of its biological harmcaused by such a huge construction project. As a member of the community, I believe that it isessential for all new developments to be carefully planned and constructed in a way thatminimizes harm to the environment.

I would like to request that the project be thoroughly reviewed by an independent body to ensurethat it meets all applicable environmental regulations and standards. I believe that this isnecessary to ensure that the project does not have any long-term negative effects on the localecosystem or the quality of life of nearby residents.

I understand that there are many factors that must be taken into account when planning andconstructing new developments, but I think that it is important to consider the long-term impact ofthese projects on the environment and the community as a whole.

Thank you for taking the time to read my email. I hope that you will carefully consider my concernsand take appropriate action to address them.

Sincerely,

Nick Haskins

Dear Sir

I am writing this email to express my concern and opposition against the proposed building projectof 144 dwellings, including 43 affordable housing. While I understand the need for housing in thearea, I feel that this project should really take into account our concerns about the protectedancient hedge rows we have looked after for many years.

The hedge rows, which form an important part of our local ecosystem, have been home to severalspecies of birds and small animals. Moreover, they serve as essential habitats for insects andwildflowers, which are necessary for pollination and maintaining the biodiversity of our region.Therefore, any construction that would impact these hedge rows, particularly the ancient ones thatdate back many decades, would ultimately lead to their destruction and loss of biodiversity.

Additionally, when constructing the buildings, the project would entail heavy-duty machinery andlarge vehicles running through the areas that would further disturb the environment. The addedconstruction noise and increased traffic flow would also disrupt the peace and tranquility of thesurrounding residential areas.

I urge you to consider these concerns before moving forward with the proposed project. Ifpossible, I would like to set up a meeting to further discuss these issues and explore alternative

options that can benefit both the community and the environment.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns.

Sincerely,

Nick Haskins.

Subject: Appeal Against Building of Dwellings and Affordable Housing Units on NoversHill Grounds

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing this email to express my concern and opposition against the proposed building of 144dwellings including 43 affordable housing units along with 2 access points from Novers Hill. Thisproject also includes the provision of 2 play facilities and public open space with associated workson the grounds of consideration.

As a member of the local community, I strongly believe that this construction project will lead toserious ecological harm, and I am therefore appealing against this development once again. WhileI am aware that the proposal provides for affordable housing, I am also aware of the need tobalance such benefits with the protection of our environment.

I strongly believe that the construction of such a large number of dwellings and the associatedinfrastructure will have a significant effect on the ecology of the area. The increased population willput additional pressure on the local environment, and this will have serious consequences for boththe flora and fauna in the area.

Furthermore, the proposed development could lead to an increase in traffic in the local area,resulting in road congestion and noise pollution. This will no doubt impact the quality of life ofresidents in the area and lead to further degradation of the environment.

I, therefore, appeal once again to the City Council to review this development proposal and takeinto consideration the potential ecological harm that may result from this project. I urge you toreconsider the decision to allow this development and explore alternative solutions that wouldpreserve the ecological integrity of the area.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Nick Haskins

Subject: Concerns Regarding Species Surveys

Dear Sir/Madame

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the recent surveys on species that have beenconducted by your organization. Upon review of the data collected, I strongly believe that thesesurveys were inadequate and have not been conducted appropriately.

As someone who values the conservation of our natural environment and the protection ofspecies, I am deeply disappointed in the lack of attention given to this matter. I feel that it isimperative that a proper survey be conducted to ensure that accurate and comprehensive data iscollected.

I would like to offer my suggestions for improving the surveys, which may help to ensure that theyare more effective in the future. Firstly, it is important to have a clear and concise set of objectivesfor the survey, which should be communicated to all involved parties. Secondly, the survey designshould be evaluated to ensure that it is appropriate for the species being studied. Finally, it isimportant to collect data from multiple sources to ensure accuracy and minimize bias.

I completely understand the challenges associated with conducting such surveys, but I believe thatmaking the necessary improvements will benefit all involved parties in the long run. I would behappy to provide further suggestions or input should you require it.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns.

Sincerely,Nick Haskins.

Subject: Response to Your Report on Ecology of Novers Hill Site

Dear Sir

I hope this email finds you well. I wanted to touch base with you regarding your report on theecology of the Novers Hill Site. While I appreciate the effort and time you put into creating thereport, it has come to my attention that there are several errors and unsubstantiated claimsincluded in the document.

As you know, ensuring accuracy and credibility in any report is of utmost importance, particularlyin the field of ecology, where our actions can have a significant impact on the environment.Therefore, I would like to request that you review the report carefully and revise it as necessary toensure that all information included is supported by valid sources and accurately reflects the stateof ecology at the Novers Hill Site.

I understand that creating this report may have been a challenging task, and I appreciate yourdedication to the project. However, accuracy is crucial, and I am confident that, with someadditional time and effort, we can produce a report that meets our standards and accuratelyreflects the state of the ecology at the site.

I look forward to receiving your revised report and to continuing to work together towards the goalof protecting and preserving the environment.

Thank you for your hard work, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,Nick Haskins

Dear Sir, I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed building on the west side of theNovers.The addition of 157 dwellings in a place where air quality is already bad and next to a refuge sitecan only make the local environment much worse for people already living here and those whomight live in the newbuild.The access onto Novers Lane will also exacerbate a traffic problem that we have. Alsoconsideration should be given to wildlife that may suffer as a result of the build.I hope you will consider this objection

There are so many reasons to object this application. This whole area must bepreserved! The importance to wildlife can never be recreated once lost. How could BCC possiblyjustify the following being ok when also attempting to have green credentials and work onimproving Clean air?The leading concerns being:There is now even more hedgerow and trees being removed in these plans.The BNG LOSS is still massive! It's an embarrassment for a city trying to go "net zero" if thisapplication is approved!The BNG offsetting site is not even in Bristol!The social housing is still in the worst parts of the development and being used as a buffer for theopen market, expensive housing.The actual roadway of Novers Hill cannot cope with the extra carsThe complete loss of meadow and removal of an established badger settThe site is still a Site of Nature Conservation! And developing this half of Novers Hill will impactthe ecosystem of the rest of it!

How could you even consider this as an appropriate development site BCC?I whole heartedly object for the sake of the wildlife and the future of my children's lungs!

Bristol clearly needs more housing - though also clearly far more services for the newhousing - but this greenfield site is completely unsuitable given the intense ecological loss it wouldbring to the locality, city & wider area. It is an afront that this council should both declare anecological emergency & then try to sign off this destruction of an important pocket of nature.

Commenter Type: Amenity - Residents Group

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Subject: Concerns about proposed building project

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing this email to express my concern and opposition against the proposed building project

of 144 dwellings, including 43 affordable housing. While I understand the need for housing in the

area, I feel that this project is not being carried out in an environmentally responsible manner.

In particular, I am worried about the potential harm that this construction project could cause to the

natural environment. The proposed project fails to even meet 10% savings of its biological harm

caused by such a huge construction project. As a member of the community, I believe that it is

essential for all new developments to be carefully planned and constructed in a way that

minimizes harm to the environment.

I would like to request that the project be thoroughly reviewed by an independent body to ensure

that it meets all applicable environmental regulations and standards. I believe that this is

necessary to ensure that the project does not have any long-term negative effects on the local

ecosystem or the quality of life of nearby residents.

I understand that there are many factors that must be taken into account when planning and

constructing new developments, but I think that it is important to consider the long-term impact of

these projects on the environment and the community as a whole.

Thank you for taking the time to read my email. I hope that you will carefully consider my concerns

and take appropriate action to address them.

Sincerely,

Commenter Type: Amenity - Residents Group

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:

Dear Sir

I am writing this email to express my concern and opposition against the proposed building project

of 144 dwellings, including 43 affordable housing. While I understand the need for housing in the

area, I feel that this project should really take into account our concerns about the protected

ancient hedge rows we have looked after for many years.

The hedge rows, which form an important part of our local ecosystem, have been home to several

species of birds and small animals. Moreover, they serve as essential habitats for insects and

wildflowers, which are necessary for pollination and maintaining the biodiversity of our region.

Therefore, any construction that would impact these hedge rows, particularly the ancient ones that

date back many decades, would ultimately lead to their destruction and loss of biodiversity.

Additionally, when constructing the buildings, the project would entail heavy-duty machinery and

large vehicles running through the areas that would further disturb the environment. The added

construction noise and increased traffic flow would also disrupt the peace and tranquility of the

surrounding residential areas.

I urge you to consider these concerns before moving forward with the proposed project. If

possible, I would like to set up a meeting to further discuss these issues and explore alternative

options that can benefit both the community and the environment.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns.

Sincerely,

Commenter Type: Amenity - Residents Group

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Subject: Appeal Against Building of Dwellings and Affordable Housing Units on Novers

Hill Grounds

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing this email to express my concern and opposition against the proposed building of 144

dwellings including 43 affordable housing units along with 2 access points from Novers Hill. This

project also includes the provision of 2 play facilities and public open space with associated works

on the grounds of consideration.

As a member of the local community, I strongly believe that this construction project will lead to

serious ecological harm, and I am therefore appealing against this development once again. While

I am aware that the proposal provides for affordable housing, I am also aware of the need to

balance such benefits with the protection of our environment.

I strongly believe that the construction of such a large number of dwellings and the associated

infrastructure will have a significant effect on the ecology of the area. The increased population will

put additional pressure on the local environment, and this will have serious consequences for both

the flora and fauna in the area.

Furthermore, the proposed development could lead to an increase in traffic in the local area,

resulting in road congestion and noise pollution. This will no doubt impact the quality of life of

residents in the area and lead to further degradation of the environment.

I, therefore, appeal once again to the City Council to review this development proposal and take

into consideration the potential ecological harm that may result from this project. I urge you to

reconsider the decision to allow this development and explore alternative solutions that would

preserve the ecological integrity of the area.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Commenter Type: Amenity - Residents Group

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Subject: Concerns Regarding Species Surveys

Dear Sir/Madame

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the recent surveys on species that have been

conducted by your organization. Upon review of the data collected, I strongly believe that these

surveys were inadequate and have not been conducted appropriately.

As someone who values the conservation of our natural environment and the protection of

species, I am deeply disappointed in the lack of attention given to this matter. I feel that it is

imperative that a proper survey be conducted to ensure that accurate and comprehensive data is

collected.

I would like to offer my suggestions for improving the surveys, which may help to ensure that they

are more effective in the future. Firstly, it is important to have a clear and concise set of objectives

for the survey, which should be communicated to all involved parties. Secondly, the survey design

should be evaluated to ensure that it is appropriate for the species being studied. Finally, it is

important to collect data from multiple sources to ensure accuracy and minimize bias.

I completely understand the challenges associated with conducting such surveys, but I believe that

making the necessary improvements will benefit all involved parties in the long run. I would be

happy to provide further suggestions or input should you require it.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns.

Sincerely,

Commenter Type: Amenity - Residents Group

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Subject: Response to Your Report on Ecology of Novers Hill Site

Dear Sir

I hope this email finds you well. I wanted to touch base with you regarding your report on the

ecology of the Novers Hill Site. While I appreciate the effort and time you put into creating the

report, it has come to my attention that there are several errors and unsubstantiated claims

included in the document.

As you know, ensuring accuracy and credibility in any report is of utmost importance, particularly

in the field of ecology, where our actions can have a significant impact on the environment.

Therefore, I would like to request that you review the report carefully and revise it as necessary to

ensure that all information included is supported by valid sources and accurately reflects the state

of ecology at the Novers Hill Site.

I understand that creating this report may have been a challenging task, and I appreciate your

dedication to the project. However, accuracy is crucial, and I am confident that, with some

additional time and effort, we can produce a report that meets our standards and accurately

reflects the state of the ecology at the site.

I look forward to receiving your revised report and to continuing to work together towards the goal

of protecting and preserving the environment.

Thank you for your hard work, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

I strongly object to this development on the grounds of bio diversity loss- the fact it stillis an SNCI makes this development illegal in planning policy.The offsetting in Nailsea as proposed is beyond insulting to the people of South Bristol, are we notworthy of wildlife and fresh air?This is an appalling proposed development.

No, this is our green belt, we live in an illegally polluted city and we need the green beltmore than we need this kind of development.There is no infrastructure in place, there are only a few local shops in walking distance, schoolsand doctors are already full.There are no bus routes that go close enough to the site to be a viable alternative.Novers Hill is too narrow to take extra traffic and there is no space for a footpath. Traffic aroundhere is already increased because the clean air charge forces people to drive around the south ofthe city rather than through it.

There is a beautiful hedgerow on the site which should be protected and the meadow itself is asite of nature conservation. There are badgers on the site, it has bat routes through it.The 'affordable' social housing is at the site that overlooks the refuse centre, buffering the moreexpensive houses from the reality of living next to a tip. That is disgusting planning.Planting young trees does not offset the removal of grassland, meadow and established trees andhedgerows. Please refuse this application, it will negatively impact upon all who live around it andwill not live up to any of the developers promises to prospective owners.

HIGHWAY SAFETY, TRAFFIC & PARKING ISSUES, NOISE:I object to this development on the basis firstly of the increased traffic from 157 new homes. BristolCouncil's own road experts have said: "Novers Lane too narrow to cope with the extra traffic"AMENITY:I also object in terms of amenity, not just for local residents but for all Bristol residents, who benefitfrom south Bristol's 'green lungs'- The wildlife-rich fields of the Western slopes provide a wonderful amenity to south Bristol, with itstrees, views and tranquillity- Bristol has huge challenges with the high level of traffic generating air pollution, causing anestimated 300 deaths pa, with an annual health cost to Bristol of £83m. City Mayor Marvin Reeshas said: "We have a moral, ecological and legal duty to clean up the air we breathe"- The western slopes - described as one of south Bristol's green lungs & visible from across thecity - make a significant contribution to air qualityLOSS OF WILDLIFE HABITAT:I object because of the wildlife habitat loss.- despite lowering the number of houses, Lovell's plan involves the destruction of more treesincluding 48 mature trees and more habitat space. The BNG loss is increased from 12% to 16%- This site is nationally significant for invertebrates- it is home to 11 out of 17 bat species including greater horseshoe bats- The ancient hedgerow adjoining Novers Hill which is a TVG will be destroyed- There are no updated species surveys- There is no winter bird survey or otter survey (despite otters being spotted in the stream onsite),and they spent just one day on a breeding bird survey. I myself have spotted buzzards soaring

over the treetopsCONSERVATION:- the development involves the destruction of a nationally significant nature site, a wildlife habitatwith rare bats in Knowle West, one of the poorest areas in Bristol, & paying a wealthy privatelandowner in a different council miles away, an offsetting site which would be inaccessible to theSouth Bristol community- Nailsea is in the 'Bristol, Avon Valleys and Ridges character area' so it looks like they are tryingto hide the fact that they do not have an offsetting site in Bristol- This looks like an example of 'pay to pollute'- They intend to plant more new trees onsite. However it can take 40 years or more for a tree tomake a significant contribution to air quality. To reduce traffic pollution it's more effective to reducetraffic than to plant new trees.DESIGN:Social housing flats to be used as a noise barrier for the market rate units. These residents wouldrequire 'alternative ventilation' because opening their windows will expose them to unacceptablenoise levels. Bristol MP Karin Smyth said: "... it is deeply alarming to read in the documentationthe three story apartment blocks which will contain many of these homes described as a 'noise-buffer for the rest of the development'" Mrs Smyth said she was 'surprised' someone was evenproposing houses on such a steep slope in the first place. "The consultation documents producedby Lovell Homes correctly identify other challenges to development including topography, limitedaccess and proximity to light industry," she said.I object in the strongest possible terms to this development, damaging not just to local residentsbut to the entire population of Bristol, now and into the future.

I have previously objected to this development but feel drawn to make another due tothe new 'revised' application which has not swayed my view at all. Over the past year there hasalso been major objections from leading wildlife campaigners, this has also been fuelled by the'Off Set' from the site that is in a totally different area to me, where I live!The fact that there is an offset proves that building this development would have a catastrophiceffect on the area not only with emissions but also the wildlife that I can clearly see out of mywindow on a daily basis from Badgers, Foxes, Hawks and the array of wild fauna and flowers.What was also highlighted to me was the spokesperson from Lovell homes on the group Teamsmeeting said that there would be no way he would have this built on his own doorstep and wouldobject himself! The only reason Lovell are pursuing this, is because they can, as there is still anoutdated order on the land that needs to be stopped now!The need to get to net zero targets and clean air with wildlife in the original habitat is much muchmore importance than building wherever developers think they can... Please Bristol council makethe RIGHT DECISION !!!

I continue to strongly object to the planning application submitted by Lovells. Theupdated plans involve the removal of even more hedgerows and trees, which would have acatastrophic effect on local ecosystems and constitute a further attack on nature.

The Mayor's Climate Action Plan of 2019, made a pledge to make the City carbon neutral by 2030.Green spaces store many tons of carbon - when a green space is disturbed, all this carbon isreleased into the atmosphere. We need to ask how can continually building on green spacespossibly support the pledge to make the City carbon neutral by 2030, when this adds to existinggreenhouse emissions? We also need to ask how developers can make any claim that aBiodiversity net gain can be achieved when a green space has its habitats destroyed, ancienthedgerows ripped up and oxygen-giving greenery is removed?

The Golden Motion passed in Sept 2021 stated that no green spaces should be built on and thatpriority should be given to brownfield sites. The removal of valuable hedgerows & trees cannot bepermitted under these circumstances and most certainly not to make a profit for developers.Furthermore, the ONLY housing that is required in Bristol is that which is truly AFFORDABLE orCOUNCIL HOUSING.......and there are sufficient brownfield sites in the city for this.

Bristol City Council was the first to declare a Climate Emergency, it was also the first to declare anEcological Emergency. Here is a chance for the planners at BCC to UNITE and set yet anotherexample to the rest of the United Kingdom.....by making a commitment to 'No more building ongreen spaces!'

I object to these proposals in the strongest possible terms.

Please stop cutting down our much needed green spaces , we need this not only to helpthe environment but to also cut down on pollution and help keep congestion down. Building newunaffordable houses that only the construction companies win and profit by is not helping Bristol ,it creates more road infrastructure , more congestion in and around that area and overload onparking.

I object to these proposals on the grounds that an important wildlife habitat will bedestroyed when Bristol has declared an Ecological Emergency.

Furthermore BCC's Golden Motion passed Sept 2021 states that no greern spaces should be builton & priority should be given to brownfield sites. The removal of valuable hedgerows & treescannot be permitted when we know nature needs our help more than ever.

We do not need any more homes being built in South Bristol, there is already significantbuilding applications already in progress and more to come. The relief roads were built to easetraffic and this has helped therefore adding more people increases more cars so we will be back tothe same congestion and even more than before. Schools, Doctors Surgeries social groups ,respite facilities are at bursting point so to bring more prople into the mix is ridiculous, the cinemais closing to build house, whitchurch airfield which is massively used everyday by hundreds ofpeople is being built on, where are we ment to go were encouraged to make use of green spacesduring covid which people did now your wanting to remove these spaces so where are localpeople ment to go with out resorting to using there cars or public transport to get there, addingmore pollution rather than be able to walk to what's on our doorstep. Hedgerows are beingdestroyed in England mile after mile and these are so important for all our wildlife, the house somemany pollinators within nature so we dhould not be destroying these areas . Use areas of land thatare derelict and not used. The old site for Filwood swimming pool is already concrete use that.You have to stop tear up green spaces, nature animals people we all need it to breath

Planning Application No.21/05164/f (Land On the west Side Of Novers Hill Bristol)I am writing to you to object to the above planning application on the following grounds:

- Traffic and transport:Clean air zone in Bristol only for chosen but no consideration to South Bristol residents who haveto deal with drastically increasing traffic volume completely not adapted to these streets. This willimpact local air quality and pedestrians' safety, particularly local school children.Novers Hill currently exists as a street with no footpath, used as a rat run by the South Bristolcommunity, with no investment from the council in improving surfaces and road conditions.In addition this planning application shows limited parking spaces, which means new owners willtake some spaces on a side road, which is already narrow. As this happened in recentdevelopment up the street on Novers Lane.

- Poor design:It's been highlighted by many rapports that are designed are very poor, narrow streets access onlyfrom Novers Hill, which is a small local road nor designed for a great volume of traffic. 30% ofaffordable houses are located in the most disadvantaged development areas, with the function ofnoise buffer to the more expensive part of this planning. Clearly, this is not an acceptable attitude.In addition, there will be a massive sacrifice of local wildlife in the process, and virgin green land,which, according to government and council policy, should be protected. As long those words areaddressed to all Bristol community, not only to selected areas where people who make thisdecision own their own houses.

- Proof of Need:Bristol has much more suitable areas for developing new houses than land with treasure wildlife. Ifwe cover all of Bristol in concrete, there will be no oxygen, only noise and car fume.

- The local impact:There is no existing local structure as schools, GP practices, and local transport, which havealready received any additional investment from the council and government, to be adapted toabsorb such a huge number of new households. The consequences will be painful for existing andnew residents.

- I also object to the application because the West Side of Novers Hill is still a Site of NatureConservation, and any development in this half of Novers Hill will impact the ecosystem of the restof it.

I am writing to express my strong objection to the updated planning applicationsubmitted by the Lovells. After reviewing the new plans it has become apparent that there are amultitude of significant issues, some pre-existing and some new.

Firstly, the updated plans involve the removal of even more hedgerows and trees, which will havea detrimental impact on the local environment. This is particularly concerning given that the site isdesignated as an SNCI, and developing this half of Novers Hill will have a significant impact on theecosystem of the rest of the area.

Secondly, the proposed development will result in a significant loss of Biodiversity Net Gain(BNG), which is already a major issue with the original plans. It is an embarrassment for a city thatis trying to go "net zero" if this application is approved.

Furthermore, the offsetting site for the BNG is not even in Bristol, which raises serious questionsabout the developer's commitment to sustainable development in the Bristol, let alone theimmediate local area.

Thirdly, the social housing is still located in the worst parts of the development and is being usedas a buffer for the expensive open market housing. This is a clear indication of the developer'sdisregard for the needs of the local community, especially those who are most in need ofaffordable housing.

Fourthly, the roadway of Novers Hill is already struggling to cope with the existing traffic, and the

additional cars generated by the proposed development will only make matters worse. This willhave a severe impact on the safety and quality of life of local residents.

Finally, the complete loss of meadow and removal of an established badger sett is a cause forconcern, and something that realistically cannot be resolved in the context of having a housingdevelopment in the area.

In conclusion, I urge you to reject the updated planning application. The developer has hadenough opportunities to submit revised applications, it's time to nip this in the bud completely.Protect the Western Slopes for us now and for future generations.

I totally object to the destruction of what little green space we have left. Not to mention adecimation of wildlife. With the UK being at the bottom of supporting wildlife habitats even morereason to object to this silly planning. Surely there are many more suitable brownfield sites morethan suitable for development. All we see is greed, ignorance, laziness and money. Nothingsupporting healthy living or our rapidly disappearing wildlife.No forward or sustainable planning or thought process.

This is an unacceptable attempt to extract as much value from the land at the expenseof valuable wildlife habitat. These tree and hedgerows are vital mature green corridors whichBristol city council claim to be so desirable. This is already one of the least green areas in Bristoland now this vital habitat is being targeted for profit. There is a complete lack of imagination todesign homes around existing wildlife habitat and once it is gone, it's gone.

Too much removal of natural habitat.

30 per cent affordable housing is not sufficient.

1. In Britain today, see report by CPRE, theres enough brownfield sites to build OVER 1MILLI0N HOMES.2 BRISTOL has more than enough of such sites to provided the proposed 157 HOMES (47 BEINGAFFORDABLE) so why destroy this cities ever dwindling green areas and their dependent wild lifefor the sake of profit to the contractors.3 This planet is on the cliff edge WE ALL KNOW THIS and how any person, city council,government, world wide, can allow any further destruction of this planets life blood, ie its greenspaces, forests, trees &hedgerows, oceans and the vital biodiversity this magics planet creates isA CRIME and INSANITY IF THE FUTURE IS TO EXIST & yr children & mine & their childrenHAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE IN A CITY/ COUNTRY /ON A PLANET THAT IS ALIVE, SELFGENERATIVE IF ALLOWED TO BE SO & not in a hell of fires, floods, chocking pollution causedby ever increading co2 as Nature is a sacrificial lamb to construction industrues greed basedslaughter.Co2 kills for example the regenerative green oxygenating spaces, the carbon absorbing oceansand so so much more destructive blind choices for profit such as plans like this one, one of manyin Bristol right now needlessly adds to the planets destrution. See I &2.4. BE BOLD, BE INNOVATIVE, BE AN EXAMPLE. BUILD BROWN NOT GREEN !

I object to Destruction last remaining wildlife habitats in Bristol that promote biodiversity,including, trees, hedges and scrub that provide shelter, protection, nesting and food for wildlife.That sequester carbon to reduce co2 levels, pollution and prevent flooding and offer green spacesfor local people and their mental health and wellbeing.

Hi there, just to point out this application has been shared on some Facebook groupswhich represent a minority of people who are motivated by fairly NIMBY objections. I am skepticalof the value of council comment portals for planning applications, as far as I can see every singledevelopment in Bristol gets brigaded by malcontents who would rather nothing changes thenproceed to complain about housing being expensive.

Please build some homes, please ignore the adoption of Green sloganeering about supposed"harms" to some meadows. We need more homes in Bristol and are building nowhere nearenough to combat the huge amounts of demand for housing the city attracts. If we want to create avibrant, diverse, and affordable city we need projects such as this one to be rapidly approved andignore the know nothing NIMBY brigade.

My only comment is that ideally the development would have some more apartment buildings toincrease the number of homes in the plot. Otherwise support the plan greatly!

Once again I write to request that this application be refused. Novers Hill is adesignated SNCI, so if this development is permitted, what message does this send out about theseriousness with which Bristol City Council views its self-declared Climate Emergency? Destroyingthis important green lung is in direct contradiction to the Council's stated aim of being carbonneutral by 2030. Please reject this application and protect the immense ecological value of NoversHill.

Please reconsider this development , this area has increased in wildlife and is enrichingfor the people who live in this area .There is plenty of brown field sites within South Bristol .Bristol city council has declared its belief supporting the environment , it would be wonderful if thisarea could become a designated area for wildlife . Bristol city council should look at building onbrown field areas and truly affordable housing .

Objectio to ERECTION of 157 dwellings, Novers HillI wish to raise objections to Lovell's amended proposals as(a) the number of houses is not sustainable in this area : schools are not designed to largeincreases of children, medical facilities will become over stretched, retail is insufficient.(b) the amended development, which shows removal of trees will affect air quality, damage to landby building plant, there will be increase in cars, are all detrimental to the area.(c) the price will be beyond the means of those who need housing most.

I am writing to object to the proposed housing development on Novers Hill. Theproposed development will have a significant impact on the rare bat species that reside in thearea. These bats are a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and their habitatmust be protected at all costs.

Additionally, I am deeply concerned about the proposal to use the affordable housing flats as asound barrier for the rich units. This proposal not only shows a lack of concern for the residents ofthe affordable housing units, but it is also a clear example of social segregation. This developmentshould provide affordable housing options that are integrated into the wider community, not usedas a buffer for the wealthy.

The use of affordable housing units as a sound barrier is not a suitable solution for noisemitigation. It is essential to consider other options that do not have such negative impacts on thecommunity. The development should incorporate measures to mitigate noise pollution withoutaffecting the affordability or quality of life of the residents.

In conclusion, I urge you to reconsider this development proposal and take into account theimpacts on the rare bat species and the negative effects of using affordable housing units as asound barrier. We need to ensure that any development project is sustainable, equitable, andrespects the environment and the community it serves.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to express my strong objection to the planning application for Novers Hill that hasbeen submitted to Bristol City Council. As a concerned citizen, I believe that this development willhave a detrimental impact on the local wildlife, particularly the greater horseshoe bats.As you may know, greater horseshoe bats are a protected species and are known to beparticularly sensitive to light pollution. This species is listed as "Near Threatened" on theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, which means that any negativeimpact on their habitat could have serious consequences for their survival.It is well documented that light pollution disrupts the natural behavior and migration patterns ofbats. In addition, bright lights can attract insects, which in turn attract bats, leading them to spendmore energy foraging and less time resting and reproducing. This can ultimately result in a declinein bat populations.Given the sensitivity of greater horseshoe bats to light pollution, it is imperative that Novers Hillremain dark, wild and undeveloped. I strongly urge you to reconsider this planning application andto work with local experts to find a solution with the landowner that protect this SNCI fromdevelopment and ensures the protection of this vulnerable species.Thank you for your consideration.

Dear Council,

I strongly object this planning.

West side of Novers Hill is a green space that should NOT be allowed to be built on. It is one ofthe last few green belts in South Bristol, it's natural habitat to many animals, provides fresh air andwalking areas to the local residents.

The BCC introduced the Bristol Clean Air Zone at autumn of 2022, with the aim to reduce pollutionin the city centre. We need the same in South Bristol in the residential areas.

None of the planning updates have been addressing previosuly riased concers of exisitngresidents. The roads are already congested and narrow. So many new houses and new occupantswill bring even more cars and traffic and pollution to an area that is already under pressure.

It's not considering the green belt, relocating nature is just not possible. Such major interruption tothe natural habitat of many species that live here is not recoverable.

Using affordable houses as a protecting area between industrial estates and the rest of the non-affordable houses is simply disgusting.

I am certain that more prosperous areas of Bristol such as the Clifton Downs would not be allowedto be built on, so we deserve the same!

I want the BCC to listen to the voice of their community and not to let this planning go ahead!

Bristol city Council should not be building on this beautiful wildlife haven. Build onbrownfield sites only. I strongly object to this and want to register my objection with you.

As a local resident I object to this development. We have a huge variety of flora andfauna living in the woodland and Green space including hedgehogs bats badgers slow worms owlsand variety of tits and other native birds. Plus a large variety of bees wasps butterflies anddragonflies. It would be an environmental disaster to build here

I strongly object to this application. There have already been objections to previousplanning applications. These have expressed serious concerns for the safety and very existenceof wildlife in a known wildlife corridor. The latest plans will still have a negative impact on thewildlife & destroy their environment. Reference to a nature area in Nailsea that they plan to use to"offset" the biodiversity loss is so laughably distant from the site of the actual development that I'msurprised it has even been proposed. Though the number of houses may have been reduced theroad infrastructure will not sustain the increase in traffic movements and is likely to increasequeuing at the ParsonStreet/Hartcliffe Way junction. This is already a "pinch point" with vehiclesqueuing back towards Novers Hill causing a negative impact on air quality and road safety at atime when families are walking to the local school. It also isolates and compromises the adjacentsites of the Northern Slopes and Crox Bottom and breaks the wildlife corridor into the city. The hillbecomes unstable once disturbedWe are in a climate and nature emergency - now more than ever we need to protect our preciousgreen spaces and areas of biodiverse richness before it is too late, not to mention an area ofessential green space for residents of Knowle West at a time when urban areas are so deprived ofnature. There have been too many applications and amendments, each, unsuccessfully, trying tocircumvent the overall concern of environmental impact. It is ludicrous to let this continue so,Please do not let this proposal go ahead and take action to protect all the land from any futurespeculative planning applications!

I strongly object to this application. There have already been objections to previousplanning applications. These have expressed serious concerns for the safety and very existenceof wildlife in a known wildlife corridor. The latest plans will still have a negative impact on thewildlife & destroy their environment. Reference to a nature area in Nailsea that they plan to use to"offset" the biodiversity loss is so laughably distant from the site of the actual development that I'msurprised it has even been proposed. Though the number of houses may have been reduced theroad infrastructure will not sustain the increase in traffic movements and is likely to increasequeuing at the ParsonStreet/Hartcliffe Way junction. This is already a "pinch point" with vehiclesqueuing back towards Novers Hill causing a negative impact on air quality and road safety at atime when families are walking to the local school. It also isolates and compromises the adjacentsites of the Northern Slopes and Crox Bottom and breaks the wildlife corridor into the city. The hillbecomes unstable once disturbedWe are in a climate and nature emergency - now more than ever we need to protect our preciousgreen spaces and areas of biodiverse richness before it is too late, not to mention an area ofessential green space for residents of Knowle West at a time when urban areas are so deprived ofnature. There have been too many applications and amendments, each, unsuccessfully, trying tocircumvent the overall concern of environmental impact. It is ludicrous to let this continue so,Please do not let this proposal go ahead and take action to protect all the land from any futurespeculative planning applications!

I strongly object to this application. There have already been objections to previousplanning applications. These have expressed serious concerns for the safety and very existenceof wildlife in a known wildlife corridor. The latest plans will still have a negative impact on thewildlife & destroy their environment. Reference to a nature area in Nailsea that they plan to use to"offset" the biodiversity loss is so laughably distant from the site of the actual development that I'msurprised it has even been proposed. Though the number of houses may have been reduced theroad infrastructure will not sustain the increase in traffic movements and is likely to increasequeuing at the ParsonStreet/Hartcliffe Way junction. This is already a "pinch point" with vehiclesqueuing back towards Novers Hill causing a negative impact on air quality and road safety at atime when families are walking to the local school. It also isolates and compromises the adjacentsites of the Northern Slopes and Crox Bottom and breaks the wildlife corridor into the city. The hillbecomes unstable once disturbedWe are in a climate and nature emergency - now more than ever we need to protect our preciousgreen spaces and areas of biodiverse richness before it is too late, not to mention an area ofessential green space for residents of Knowle West at a time when urban areas are so deprived ofnature. There have been too many applications and amendments, each, unsuccessfully, trying tocircumvent the overall concern of environmental impact. It is ludicrous to let this continue so,Please do not let this proposal go ahead and take action to protect all the land from any futurespeculative planning applications!

Planning developments on nature conservation sites when the city is trying to achieve"net zero" does not help a city achieve "net zero". There are plenty of brownfield sites to developon.

This alteration still doesn't address the effect that the extra parking requirements willhave on neighbours and businesses in the area (the 'ban on car ownership' that the developershave said they will put in place is very clearly unenforceable and cannot apply in the longer term).

There is no details on the size or layout of the proposed play area and 'public open space'. This,together with the fact that these alterations have obviously been put together at the last minute totry and push the plans through, doesn't give me any confidence in their public amenity value. Theoriginal theatre is still a far better option as a useful community space.

As a local resident who will be directly impacted by this development I strongly object tothis application. There have already been objections (myself included) to previous planningapplications. These have expressed serious concerns for the safety and very existence of wildlifein a known wildlife corridor. The latest plans will still have a negative impact on the wildlife &destroy their environment. Reference to a nature area in Nailsea that they plan to use to "offset"the biodiversity loss is so laughably distant from the site of the actual development that I'msurprised it has even been proposed. Though the number of houses may have been reduced theroad infrastructure will not sustain the increase in traffic movements and is likely to increasequeuing at the ParsonStreet/Hartcliffe Way junction. This is already a "pinch point" with vehiclesqueuing back towards Novers Hill causing a negative impact on air quality and road safety at atime when families are walking to the local school. It also isolates and compromises the adjacentsites of the Northern Slopes and Crox Bottom and breaks the wildlife corridor into the city. The hillbecomes unstable once disturbedWe are in a climate and nature emergency - now more than ever we need to protect our preciousgreen spaces and areas of biodiverse richness before it is too late, not to mention an area ofessential green space for residents of Knowle West at a time when urban areas are so deprived ofnature. There have been too many applications and amendments, each, unsuccessfully, trying tocircumvent the overall concern of environmental impact. It is ludicrous to let this continue so,Please do not let this proposal go ahead and take action to protect all the land from any futurespeculative planning applications!

As a local resident who will be negatively impacted by this development I strongly objectto this application. There have already been objections to previous planning applications. Thesehave expressed serious concerns for the safety and very existence of wildlife in a known wildlifecorridor. The latest plans will still have a negative impact on the wildlife & destroy theirenvironment. Reference to a nature area in Nailsea that they plan to use to "offset" the biodiversityloss is so laughably distant from the site of the actual development that I'm surprised it has evenbeen proposed. Though the number of houses may have been reduced the road infrastructure willnot sustain the increase in traffic movements and is likely to increase queuing at theParsonStreet/Hartcliffe Way junction. This is already a "pinch point" with vehicles queuing backtowards Novers Hill causing a negative impact on air quality and road safety at a time whenfamilies are walking to the local school. It also isolates and compromises the adjacent sites of theNorthern Slopes and Crox Bottom and breaks the wildlife corridor into the city. The hill becomesunstable once disturbedWe are in a climate and nature emergency - now more than ever we need to protect our preciousgreen spaces and areas of biodiverse richness before it is too late, not to mention an area ofessential green space for residents of Knowle West at a time when urban areas are so deprived ofnature. There have been too many applications and amendments, each, unsuccessfully, trying tocircumvent the overall concern of environmental impact. It is ludicrous to let this continue so,Please do not let this proposal go ahead and take action to protect all the land from any futurespeculative planning applications!

I just want to remind planning officers that you can't condition species surveys.Lovell/Pegasus have suggested this in their recent documents. The government information onthis states:

'Planning conditions:

You should not usually attach planning conditions that ask for surveys. This is because you needto consider the full impact of the proposal on protected species before you can grant planningpermission.

You can refuse planning permission if surveys:* are carried out at the wrong time of year* are not up to date* do not follow standard survey guidelines without appropriate justification* do not provide enough evidence to assess the likely negative effects on protected species'

Source:Protected species and development: advice for local planning authorities - GOV.UK

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-species-how-to-review-planning-applications

It is very clear that this application should be recommended for refusal.

I strongly object to this planning application on the grounds that:

- it will destroy an essential wildlife area (for which insufficient studies have been performed);- the use of Nailsea to "offset" the loss of biodiversity is ridiculous - we should be protecting whatwe already have;- it will add to already congested roads in the local area, some of which are already toonarrow/dangerous;- it will increase both light and air pollution in an area with a high number of residents/schools; and- the use of affordable housing units as a noise barrier for the industrial businesses on HartcliffeWay is disgusting.

Please do not let this proposal go ahead.

Strongly object to losing even more Green space in south Bristol.

I object as it will cause a loss of green space, a loss of wildlife, an increase in pollutionand more congestion on local roads.

This is a vital green space to Bristol and the local area. Not only is it of great benefit tohumans for beauty and wellbeing, but by helping support an already polluted hartcliffe way withthe number of trees. To build on this area is an awful idea.

As mentioned, we need the trees for pollution management but what about the local wildlife, thishabitat is a pocket of safety for many species, and with nature threatened nationwide, we need tobe protecting it not killing it!

Furthermore, this area is already extremely heavy with traffic. Building more homes and bringingmore cars here is a very poor idea with the road systems in place, along with bringing morepollution to this area.

Lastly, this is obviously another purely profit focused scheme. 'Affordable housing' in this area isridiculous and far from affordable.

We don't want this building here. Find a brownfield site elsewhere. The slopes do not need this.

Apart from the following points, my main objection is that the roads can't cope with the traffic. Welive on Bedminster Road, in the one way system and have noticed huge increases in traffic outsideour house since first Malago Road was closed and the diversion goes past our house, andsecondly since the CAZ zone was introduced the traffic has got even heavier. Our cars andhouses are coated with a permanent film of dust and grit which cannot be good for our health. Addto this the cars that will join this route from Novers Hill and it will be a nightmare. I feel that BristolCouncil are happy to clean the air in the centre of town but don't care about where the pollutionends up. Parson Street School at the bottom of the hill already have really poor air quality and thiswill only get worse.

There are now even more hedgerow and trees being removed, which will not help the air qualityimprove.

The BNG LOSS is still massive! It's an embarrassment for a city trying to go "net zero" if thisapplication is approved!The BNG offsetting site is not even in Bristol

The social housing is still in the worst part of the development and being used as a buffer for theopen market, expensive housing

The actual roadway of Novers Hill cannot cope with the extra cars.

The complete loss of meadow and removal of an established badger sett

The site is still a Site of Nature Conservation! And developing this half of Novers Hill will impactthe ecosystem of the rest of it!

I object to this plan hugely. This plan results in the removal of yet more hedgerows andtrees, and green space and nature which is essential - especially within this poor and neglectedpart of the city. The local community need green space for their well-being, this site has uniquenature living on it from birds to animals, and it must be protected.aside from this there is hugedamage to the environment as a whole from this plan - increased traffic in a city already blockedup - and the end of biodiversity in this area. The "social housing" supply is also only in the plans toget the sign-off, and should not be used to offset unaffordable housing for more people toMove to a city already full. The roads already cannot tolerate traffic in that area, and we do nothave the infrastructure for more homes here.The loss of wildlife such as badgers and beautiful meadow spaces are unforgivable in a timewhere green space is rare. Anything done on this site will have irreversible damage to the ecosystem and in turn to the health of people living around it. This plan must be rejected.

This would adversely impact access to green spaces in the area, contribute to morepollution and generate more road congestion in an already very congested local area.If more developments like these are allowed to go ahead we will see all green spaces around usbeing developed on. Access to large public green spaces is critical for physical and mentalwellbeing.

This green belt is essential to the locality and is highly valued by the people who livealongside it and enjoy it. It shouldn't continously be threatened . You should not build on it

The slopes are extremely important to the eco system and health and well being to ahuge amount of people. Living next to one of them I hear owls, see badgers and hedgehogs,amongst a huge abundance of other more common species. There's constantly people visiting theslopes for pleasure, walking and running, taking pets and children for outside activities and toexperience nature on their door step is hugely important to help people appreciate and understandnature and the huge benefits it has and therefore helping the next generation to tackle climatechange.Infrastructure surrounding can not cope with the influx of more cars, services around are notcapable of supporting more people in the local community.I object any green spaces being turned in to concrete jungles when there is no clear need to crammore people in to an already bursting community.

We do not have the infrastructure in place to support the increase in the localcommunity. Lack of decent shops, unable to buy the simplest ingredients. It is near impossible toget a doctors appointment, if you do its over the phone. Schools are oversubscribed, lack ofsupport for those children who need additional help. It is shameful the lack of consideration forthose who have been struggling to improve the local community. The only time any money is putinto the area is when it lines the pockets of those who clearly do not need it. Invest in improvingthe area then we can welcome new neighbors.

We need spaces for wildlife too. As I understand the entire area (including NorthernSlopes / 'Bommi') serves as a wildlife corridor. We have currently a sparrow hawk visiting ourgarden, and regularly see Bussards and bats flying across. These wildlife heavens need to beprotected and treasured. Especially during the recent pandemic, these green spaces also servedfor peoples mental health. I understand the need for houses, but wildlife need spaces to live too.Surely, there must be spaces to build houses, that don't destroy an existing ecosystem and causesignificant damage to existing wildlife.

Monday 6th March 2023

I strongly object to he proposed building of 157 homes on this site for the reasons listed below.

The loss of important meadowland, hedgerows and trees and the removal of an establishedbadger sett is totally unacceptable.

The destruction of half of this wildlife area, which is much wanted and needed, will be detrimentalto the wildlife that thrives there, it will also be detrimental to the local population.

The site is still a Site of Nature Conservation, developing this half of Novers Hill will impact theecosystem of the rest of it.

The narrow roadway of Novers Hill, which is little more than a lane, is totally unsuitable for theextra traffic that this proposal will bring.

The suggestion to use out of Bristol Nailsea for the biodiversity net gain offsetting site is an insultto the people of Bristol.

The whole green area of Novers Hill and the Western Slopes must stay as it is for futuregenerations to enjoy.

There are many brownfield sites to consider before the wanton destruction of this environmentally

important site.

Therefore this planning application should definitely be rejected.

This area is rich in wildlife which cannot be offset off site. Building on grassland andcutting trees and replacing them with new plantings 10miles away still destroys the habitat forbirds, bat's and insects that rely on them. We have to find better ways to house people thanconstantly destroying nature to do so.

I strongly object to this planning application on the grounds that it will destroy anessential wildlife area, an area of nature and sanctuary for Knowle West residents, and becauseusing the affordable housing units basically as a "sound barrier" for the other housing is bothethically and morally repugnant. The relevant impact studies and wildlife surveys have not beencarried out to an adequate standard, and the nature area in Nailsea that they plan to use to"offset" the biodiversity loss is so laughably distant from the site of the actual development that I'msurprised it has even been proposed.We are in a climate and nature emergency - now more than ever we need to protect our preciousgreen spaces and areas of biodiverse richness before it is too late, not to mention an area ofessential green space for residents of Knowle West at a time when urban areas are so deprived ofnature. Please do not let this proposal go ahead.

The revised plans do not change my original objections, the revisions do not addressany of my original objections. I'd like to note my objection still stands following these revisions, asper my original comments.

This nature habitat is conducive to the health both physically and mentally for localpeople. It is a green lung sitting between busy and stinking cars and roads. Perhaps the moreprosperous areas of Bristol would like a glut of housing thrown into the mix of their natural andgreen habitats?

CPRE Avon & Bristol's reasons for objecting to this application include, but are notlimited to, the following:

Housing targets: at Bristol City Council's Full Council on 8 November, all four major parties votedunanimously to push back on government, to allow Bristol to set its own targets, based on landidentified within the city as suitable for house building. This was also reported in the Bristol Cable .Nationally, there have today been reports that national housing targets are to be scrapped.Needing to meet nationally-imposed housing targets could not, therefore, be an excuse forinappropriate development.

Housing: Bristol City Council's latest Housing Delivery Action Plan (July 2022) states that in 2021there were 13,508 dwellings with planning permission, or agreed subject to S106. As 1,350 homeswere completed in 2019/20 , a large number of homes are still to be built. How, therefore, can anyfurther planning application, especially to build on greenfield, be justifiable or necessary?

Housing / brownfield: CPRE has a clear, longstanding Brownfield First policy, and has, by workingwith partners across England, including Bristol, supported successful implementation of this policy. Bristol City Council's own Brownfield Land Register shows that there are at least 14 brownfieldsites in the BS4 postcode and 36 in the BS3 postcode with planning permission . This availabilityof brownfield land in the vicinity of Novers Hill suggests strongly that building on this greenfield siteis unnecessary.

Empty homes: according to data from 2022, Bristol has 1,727 empty homes ; or 1 in 50 of Bristol's

homes are currently empty - an increase of 56 per cent from 2021. We are trying to obtain abreakdown by postcode area of these homes, but, meantime, some food for thought: if we dividethe 1,727 figure by 34, the number of wards in Bristol, we get a figure of 52, i.e. fifty two emptyhomes per ward. We do not need to build houses on the Western Slopes or any other greenfieldor greenbelt sites.

Ecological emergency: Bristol's One City Ecological Emergency Strategy cites the importance of'protect[ing] remaining wildlife habitats and car[ing] for them better' as necessary in order toachieve the 30% by 30 target: for a minimum of 30% of land in Bristol to be managed for thebenefit of wildlife by 2030. We cite this as counter argument to any developers' intentions orobligations to incorporate wildlife enhancement into developments: leaving wildlife habitats as theyare, save for essential management, is better for wildlife than creating new ones. The (rare)Horseshoe bats and badgers that live on Novers Hill would be severely affected, possibly killed, bythis development.

Finally, we agree with all the reasons for objection published on Friends of Western Slopes' FBpage, namely: net loss of ecological diversity that would be caused by this development, protectedspecies on the site, no affordable housing being offered, the already dangerous levels of pollutionand noise in the area, the site's status as a Prominent Green Hillside, Valuable Urban Landscapeand a Site of Nature Conservation Interest.

ENDS

I object to this planning application. When you've just installed a Clean Air Zone,chopping down tress and destroying the natural habitat is absolutely ridiculous.

I would like to object to Lovell's application to build 157 homes on part of Novers Hill.This development goes against what the council voted for which is to prioritise brownfield sites. Iam a resident of Knowle West and know how important it is to stop these green spaces fromdisappearing. They are valuable to the local people but more importantly to all the wildlife that livethere. The idea that a colony of badgers can just be uprooted and moved to an artificial settbecause they 'in the way' is scandalous.

Building homes so near to the industrial units and new recycling centre cannot be good for anyfuture tenants health due to the noise and pollution. Social housing should mean housing withrents that local people can afford. Just 47 out of the total of 157 will be available for rent/sharedownership, this is not my idea of social housing, council housing is.

I would like to finish by saying that not enough notice was given to the local residents regardingany changes, as they were not made available at the public consultation stage.

BS3 is subject to ongoing overdevelopment fuelled by profit - this area will see a largeinflux of people with no additional infrastructure to support health and wellbeing. We are in a globalenvironmental crisis so to allow this green site to be lost to developers for profit would be an act ofenvironmental vandalism.

I heavily object to the application of houses on this plot of land. Avon Wildlife Trust havealso submitted an objection that its a wildlife corridor that links the area around Eastwood Farmwith Stockwood Open Space. In the middle of an ecological and climate emergency this is not awise move. Also considering the fact that the trees are vital for keeping the air in thatneighbourhood in South Bristol clean.I understand the pressures of housing on the community but I think building houses on Greenfieldland is not the way forward. Specifically ones that have been designated a Site of NatureConservation Interest.I ask that the organisation in charge of the decision on this plot of land think about the future of thiscity and its environmental impact upon future generations and the climate crisis.

The site represents a natural green space break between neighbourhoods. Justbecause it's an informal green space doesn't mean it's unimportant. Us residents of South Bristolare fed up with the council carving up, selling off and profiting from our beloved green spaces,handing them over to developers who have no investment in communities and little intention ofproviding housing that is genuinely affordable. We love the trees that have matured here, and thefact that they clean our air of the pollution from our very busy roads. We don't want to travel out ofSouth Bristol to find a tree, keep the well established green canopy that is already here, keep ourwildlife habitats on our doorstep and keep these filthy greedy developers from ruining our doorstepgreen havens.

I object on the grounds that this is a valuable green space which should be preserved.In the current climate and ecological crisis, what is the point of establishing a clean air zone whengreen spaces are being destroyed. There are alternatives to building on greenfield sites, whichshould be take seriously -e,g. compulsory purchase and refurbishing of existing empty buildings.

There would be a build up of traffic as road can't be widened,this Part of the hill isaccident black spot. The increase in traffic as in danger local children and residents. Traffic wouldqueue to be turning in and out of the road due to neighbours parking on access road due to lack ofdrive ways and space.

The Novers Hill is an open space and as such a valuable site as it stands. This is oneobjection to this development. Other objections are lack of ameties in the Filwood/Knowle Westarea to accommodate the influx of inhabitants in the area. Brownfield sites are acceptable fordevelopment.

Western Slope (both private and council part) must be allocate as 'Protected NatureReserve'. It is not for the profit making developers who only see money. Building on green areaspecifically on western slope will not benefit anyone, houses will not be affordable so only rich withso much money will be able to afford. It will destroy the natural habitat of all the wildlife living in itand will create an even more air and noise pollution to the area specially for 2 nearby schoolchildren and all the elderly residents in the area. No developer should be allowed to disrespect thisamazing and magastic land for profit. Please refuse the planning application and protect this landfrom any future greed.

I live on Parson Street and own a property on Novers Hill which is occupied by a youngfamily. The loss of the green fields will greatly impact on their and others personal environmentand mental health. The development will lead to a great increase in traffic further affecting thelocal environment. Novers Hill is a narrow Lane and not suitable for large numbers of vehicles andis likely to result in traffic queueing along Parson Street from the new light controlled junction withHartcliffe way. This further impacts on my and other neighbours along Parson Street. It will alsoimpact on the safety of children walking to Parson Street School.I am also concerned about the heavy traffic needed to service the development as Novers Hill isnot suitable for this type of traffic.

I have already mentioned that Novers Hill is a narrow Lane and the siting of access points on theHill will be further hazard to residents and other road users. Particularly at busy commuter times,morning and evening.

The designated area is a haven for many types of wild life and it's development would have adetrimental effect on their sustainability.

As a former resident of BS3 who regularly exercised on Novers Common, I stronglyobject to any attempt to stop this important area from offering its existing benefits to wildlife andlocal people.

I used to be able to go to the end of my street (Stanley Street South, BS3) & see green hills, this isso important for well-being. One of my favourite running routes was to cross the railway, thenMarksbury Rd & run up the steps to Nover's Common - I got so much mental & physical benefitfrom this & I know many other runners do too.

There is so much brownfield land in south Bristol which remains undeveloped, these areas shouldbe explored long before the important green spaces which provide countless benefits to wildlifeand local people are destroyed. Once these habitats are lost they cannot be restored.

Green spaces have also been shown to provide important mental health benefits for local people,from a place to exercise pets to a way to get away from it all. The wildness & semi-unkempt natureof Novers Common is vital for those living in a city to feel they can escape, it's completely differentto the relatively manicured feel of local parks.

Please preserve this important space for the benefit of local people and wildlife for many years tocome. We know green spaces have a positive impact on air quality which is a big issue in Bristol.The houses can go somewhere else.

2

The Site Allocations Inspector’s report of 2 April 2014 makes no mention that he appreciated that the sites were in a designated SNCI. The Inspector wrote:

“BSA1114: Land at Novers Hill, adjacent to industrial units

119. In the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan, land at Novers Hill, adjacent to existing industrial units, is allocated for housing and business purposes. Questions have been raised concerning the need for further business land bearing in mind also potential access, topographical and visual problems.

120. To my mind, the proposed allocation would reflect the Council’s aspirations for economic development and regeneration in South Bristol as set out in Policy BCS1 of the Core Strategy. I can conceive of acceptable solutions to the perceived development problems. The allocation in its proposed form is entirely appropriate.”

There is no mention of site allocation BSA1108, nor any indication that the Inspector had any knowledge that either of these sites formed part of an SNCI.

The ecological experts who sat on the Local Site Partnership had designated it as a Local Site that should be protected for local nature conservation and BRERC had registered it as such. If the Inspector knew this, it is reasonable to assume that he would have addressed the SNCI designation. And if the Inspector did not know that the sites allocated for housing were designated on an SNCI, the SA1 allocation stands on very shaky ground.

While we cannot know what was in the Inspector’s mind, the written evidence does not suggest that he approved the SA1 allocations for Novers Hill knowing that the sites had been designated as an SNCI. This was not clearly spelled out for this site in the submission documents.

Consequently, BSA1114 & BSA1108 were, to my mind, misallocated for housing as the correct procedures for identifying the site as an SNCI were not followed.

2. Dual Allocation – priority between SA1 or DM19?

BCC’s position is that these sites have been dual allocated: designated as an SNCI and allocated for housing. The Council’s view (as expressed in emails from the planning department) is that policy DM19 does not apply to SNCI sites designated as SA1.

However, there is no mention that SA1 should effectively “trump” DM19 in any of the local plan documents. If anything, DM19 would appear to have priority over SA1, as it states that “development which would have a harmful impact on the nature conservation value of a Site of Nature Conservation Interest will not be permitted” (DM19).

3

While it may be possible as a matter of planning judgement to disapply the Council’s DM19 policy to individual sites, this would have to be expressly undertaken and should be justified on both ecological and social grounds.

BRERC list the sites as SNCIs on ecological grounds on behalf of the LSP. I have seen no indication from them that the site should be de-designated.

3. Mapping and Transparent Decision-making

While the Pinpoint map accurately reflects SNCI boundaries, echoing BRERC’s map, the local plan map shows only a partial SNCI. The designation underneath the SA1 allocation does not appear when the site allocation layer of the map is removed – all that remains on the map is a truncated SNCI.

If it is BCC’s position that Novers Hillis dual allocated (for both SA1 and as an SNCI), then both allocations should be visible on the local plan map. At the moment only the SA1 designation is visible on the local plan map, which is consequently inaccurate. This matters as informed and transparent decision-making cannot take place with an inaccurate map.

Local plan map for BSA1114 & BSA1108 with site allocations layer

switched on.

Local plan map for BSA1114 & BSA1108 with site allocations layer switched off – the sites

should be hatched to show that they are designated as an SNCI.

4

An accurate local plan map is critical to fair and transparent decision-making. The current map does not accurately reflect the SNCI designation and so cannot be relied upon by decision-makers.

4. Lack of Acknowledgement of SNCI status

Novers Hill was not de-designated as an SNCI site (one recent confirmation of this is the map submitted to North Somerset LPA as part of a scoping opinion, 22/P/2218/EA2). Yet this information is not included in the constraints section of BCC’s website for this planning application. It is also clear that agents acting on behalf of the developer suggest that the site was de-designated, without public correction from BCC, for instance, by way of a press release. How are decision-makers to know that they are determining applications on a site designated as an SNCI if this is neither included on the constraints section or included on the local plan policies map? Such an omission raises fundamental questions of procedural fairness.

5. The Social Context: Access to Greenspace and (Im)mobility

The social context for development should be taken account when deciding whether or not to give planning permission for development. While this is not a formal ground, there is increasing understanding of the health and wellbeing benefits of spending time in greenspace and nature. (see for instance, Public Health England, 2020) The ward report for Filwood indicates that a over a third of all residents have no access to a car or a van. Consequently, the only way in which these citizens can access greenspace independently is to walk, cycle on tricky roads or – if they can afford it – take relatively expensive and unreliable public transport.

The social context and access to greenspace are issues that we must factor into decision-making. If spending time in nature benefits health and well-being, should people who lack access to a car, often through economic circumstances, be unable to access these benefits? While Bristol’s previous (2008) Greenspace strategy used ANGSt standards to try to assess relative access to greenspace, these criteria appear to have disappeared from the Council’s decision-making processes.

While the West of England Nature Partnership (WENP) are mapping access to nature, their use of the OS greenspace layer conflates green spaces that are not accessible (allotments and playing fields) with green spaces that are (such as Novers Hill). We need accurate data to understand how people can access greenspace and nature, particularly larger areas,

5

where traffic is no longer audible and nature connectedness is possible. These are critical concerns for people who lack the economic resources to drive to dedicated greenspace sites (such as Ashton Court, Blaise Castle and Leigh Woods).

The NPPF provides significant support for policies that protect access to nature. Paragraph 92 states that “Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which … c) enable and support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs – for example through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure…”. Paragraph 98 emphasises that “Access to a network of high-quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities, and can deliver wider benefits for nature”. While habitat sites are distinguished from local nature sites, plans should (according to paragraph 175) “allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework” as well as “take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries.” As it seems that the SA1 allocation for Novers Common was mis-allocated (see point 1), these provisions still apply. Housing should not be built on a designated SNCI in a ward where access to nature and greenspace is so important for local people, many of whom will rarely be able to leave their locality.

6. The Presumption in favour of sustainable development

The consequences of the latest housing delivery test clearly pose a challenge for BCC. However, paragraph 11 of the NPPF is clear that while the presumption operates, it is not determinative. The NPPF states that development need not be approved where “[i] assets of particular importance [provide] a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in [the] Framework taken as a whole.” This means that SNCI policies are still applicable – the NPPF is a material consideration but does not dictate that applications for development have to be approved.

The implications of the housing delivery test clearly raise broader questions for BCC and other decision-makers to grapple with. Logic dictates that we cannot permanently build new housing within city boundaries without building on greenspace land. However, while green field sites are cheaper for development, social, spatial and ecological context – including the socio-economic conditions of neighbourhoods as well as ecological designation – are relevant to decision-making.

As noted by Bristol CC planning officer, socially rented and affordable flats areconcentrated in the northern corner of the development. These individuals will be left isolated atthe bottom of a steep hill with no alternate access and long walks to any public transport routes.Overall the prdestrian access to the site is poor and insufficient and will leave residents locked inand isolated from the wider community.Buffer margins labelled as ecological corridors and habitat around the majority of the site are sothin as to provide no real benefit other than to add surface area to the developers' BNGcalculation.

The council should respect the Green spaces motion it passed last year and focus onbrownfield sites for new developments.Green spaces are needed to support mental and physical health and general well being. This is agreen field site and it's development in this way will be devastating for biodiversity.

The council must respect the Green spaces motion it passed last year and focus onbrownfield sites and protect this area.

The council must respect the Green spaces motion it passed last year and focus onbrownfield sites and protect this area.

We need to keep our green areas that we have left green.

I object to the planned development of 157 new homes based at Novers Hill. Mygrandparents live near by and I have many special memories of being taken for walks down in thebeautiful green spaces of Headley Park and Novers Hill.

Apart from my personal nostalgia for the site I also object on the grounds that people need thesewild, green places for their mental health, there is already far too much concrete and depletednatural land around Bristol when there is derelict brownfield sites much more suitable fordevelopment, which Bristol City Council I believe have said are the only places considered fordevelopment and green spaces to be left alone.

Possible development will be devastating for biodiversity in a time where quite frankly we cannotafford any more losses and is irresponsible to the natural health of South Bristol, depriving futuregenerations the simple health and wellbeing they get from being in wild places.

Regards,Alex

Traffic and parking : There are very few shops near Novers Hill, and no pubs, so theamount of traffic on Novers Hill, Novers Lane, other surrounding roads and especially HartcliffeWay will increase significantly, adding to noise and toxic levels of air pollution and danger for localchildren who walk to school at the E-Act Academy from the surrounding streets.Highway safety : City Transport Development Management submitted an application response inDecember 2021. The local authority transport development manager felt the proposed walking andcycling enhancements on Novers Hill were 'unacceptable' for safety reasons.Amenity : The land is a 'prominent green hillside' so can't be altered. Policy DM17 identifiedImportant Open Space which mandates that "development on part, or all of an Important OpenSpace as designated on the Policies Map will not be permitted".Wildlife : The site is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest- The development will cause unacceptable ecological harm to a nationally rare habitat and wildlifecorridor, and fails to meet 10% biodiversity net gain onsite- Access roads would damage a protected ancient hedgerow and destroy connectivity of thewildlife corridor- The Council's Motion to Protect the Green Belt and Bristol's Green Spaces, passed unanimouslyat full council meeting on 7 September 2021 specifically mentions this site and dictates its removalfrom the local plan

Terrible place to position more homes, there isn't alot of green space for us localresidents to walk anymore and view, with the expansion of the retail parks (Hengrove area ) Ithought the old airport would be more appropriate with excellent transport links to the centre andshopping areas, motorways the roads around novers Hill and the area in general are alreadyovercrowded with housing, I understand its a business and the BS4 postcode is more attractive forprofitable reasons but it really will have a negitive impact to our area, Thanks Dave

I'm writing about the late inclusion of mocked up views of what the development on Novers Hill may look like for application 21/05164/F. The views selected are not representative of the scale of the green hillside. They are from low down on Manor Park, over in Headley Park and on Hartcliffe Way. A much more representative view of the scale of the prominent green hillside would be from Bedminster Down, Ilchester Crescent, Brooklyn Road, Lewis Road etc. The photos are taken in high summer when leaf cover is greatest. It looks very different now in winter with bare branches. The new recycling centre on Hartcliffe Way is now further on in construction. Buildings are newly created and a large amount of trees removed for vehicle access. Some of the trees will be replanted but it will be many years before they cover the view of the recycling centre buildings. None of the images seems to include both of the proposed estates. The northern most estate nearest to the Parson Street end is not included. This feels misleading and very unhelpful. The prominent green hillside that is Novers Hill breaks up the large industrial units on Hartcliffe Way and the housing on Novers hill (the road).

Hartcliffe Way, large areas of trees removed and new buildings now in place.

Northern estate not shown (very misleading and inaccurate), trees now removed and new recycling centre buildings visible.

Recycling centre buildings and missing trees not shown, northern estate not shown. A view from Ilchester Crescent would look more directly into the northern estate and the prominent green hillside.

Please can you seek more recent photos that reflect the changes to the recycling centre and trees not in leaf. And seek a view from Ilchester Crescent that actually includes the whole proposed

development, not just one part of it. Many thanks Tony Pitt

These green spaces have been a life saver for so many, we need to respect and protectthese amazing spaces.

Hello Council and Developers

I strongly object to this wild land being developed for housing or any other use.We need wild corridors of land for insects and pollinators to live and recover after decades ofdeclineThe Council have declared quite sensibly an ecological emergency. The Council need to stand bythat declaration and the initiatives they pledged including green field wild sites .The Bristol Council will have no positive reputation and the elctorate will have no trust in them ofthey go back on thisThere are 1000s of brown site areas in the city including unused Council properties which can beconverted to social housing which is affordable.None of the development will be affordable for the majority of those needing socia;l housing.Please see sense and abandon this development and instead redevelop the grotty brownsitesespecially along the Feeder Road areaThank you and God Bless

I object to this development. I object for a number of reasons, predominantly the impacton the local wildlife and environment. I understand the need to build new housing, however it is soimportant to protect our local environment for our children and future generations.More and more green spaces in South Bristol are being earmarked for development.Please can you consider the impact on wildlife, the environment and our children enjoying thesegreen spaces.Also in South Bristol, we have huge problems accessing services, such as GP surgeries. Are newGP surgeries going to be put in place for all of these new developments? We cannot even getappointments and wait for 1 to 2 yours on the phone to get through to someone at the surgery.

I done the to the proposal on the grounds of it causing significant irreversible damage tolocal ecosystem by destroying ancient hedgerows and tree systems. The need for 'market rate'houses isn't a good enough reason to destroy our ecological heritage for the profit of the few.

We need to build on existing build on land.

The proposals to build on green areas such as the western slopes grossly contradictsthe mayor's messages on protecting the environment. Previous pledges on 'affordable housing'have been utterly deceiptful.

If Bristol is serious about attempting to be carbon neutral then stop allowing buildings onour rich green meadows and build on derelict sites instead

In this age of climate change it is more important than ever to leave areas of greenspace for wildlife to flourish and for people to enjoy.

I object to a builder who doesn't come from Bristol developing more buildings on theGreen space we have at Novers Hill, there is so much undeveloped city space that could be usedfor development, and I suspect a small percentage of this development will be affordable housingproject property, we dont need further development in that area of Bristol where the roads are notable to deal with such a large development programme.

It's disgraceful to build on green virgin land. There isn't enough facilities/services for thecurrent population.

It would be a real shame for the community to lose this green area

I object to building on the Western Slopes and the Knowle West Health Park on thegrounds of the additional numbers of cars increasing pollution in areas where traffic polution isalready above a safe limit; lack of facilities for an increased population; the fact that greenfieldsites are being used once more in an area where we have lost a large amount of open spacerequired for wildlife and for human relaxation.

1) To be as Carbon neutral as possible as a city we should conserve as many trees aspossible...lungs of the earth2) we need to build good quality social housing on brownfield sites3) South Bristol has had numerous green swathes of land already repurposed away from nature tohousing. South Bristol, still a very needy area, does not need it's future children to be starved ofgreen space.4) please do your homework. Look at the history of the area regarding flooding etc. This is not landto build on.

Maintaining the wildlife corridor is more important!

Climate emergency and mental health dictate that this should be rejected. Explorehousing options on empty High Street shops and brown sites..

The area should be left as a habitat for the local wild life as these type of places arebecoming less and less. There is to much building of new houses in South Bristol and it needs tobe reduced

If this project goes ahead all the numerous people who have objected to it will lose hopeand faith that the green lungs of Bristol can be saved, in spite of the Council's declaration of anEcological Emergency. We need to prioritise the protection of our natural resources and not buildon them. This is an area which is clearly loved by local residents, important for nature, fresh air,exercise, and mental health and its loss would have severe impacts on the local environment,including the human residents. It is clear that the mitigation proposals are inadequate and illthought out. In the face of the crises we face which threaten everyone on Earth it is our naturalhabitat which has to be prioritised. Please, please, please reject this proposal and protect thisland.

No point in writing what I object to as you won't read it anyway. So keep it simple ... IOBJECT...Many houses are being built in this area. More pressure for schools, Doctor surgeries. I wantsome wildlife in my life. I want some trees and grass in my life . I OBJECT.

I live locally and am very concerned about the environmental impact of a developmenton this valuable green space.

I live locally and am very concerned about the environmental impact of a developmenton this valuable green space.

I object to 157 homes to be built on this site for many reasons, including the destructionof habitat of wildlife and plants. Just because a green space is not currently easily accessible tothe public that does not detract from its value as a greenspace - as a green lung separatingharcliffe way and knowle reducing air pollution, as a greenspace creating a visual separation ofbuilt areas, visible from across the city. Simply being able to see a green space in a sea ofbuildings has a positive effect on mental health.The proposal to make Novers Hill one way ( regardless of direction) would be a disaster. It is awell used access road for the people of knowle to go to town via bedminster and from town toknowle, hartcliffe, Whitchurch, imperial park shopping centre etc. It is used as a shortcut instead ofgoing via hartcliffe way, which is already a heavy traffic route. The addition of cars from 157 newhomes plus one direction of traffic diverted from Novers Hill will make Hartcliffe Way moregridlocked than it already gets. People already want to avoid hartcliffe way. Making a section ofNovers Hill one way will drive traffic through Knowle instead, Redcatch Road, Wedmore Vale etcwill become the new 'shortcut' leading to increased traffic through knowle, a residential area.Please do not allow 157 homes to be built with no improved infrastructure to cope with the peopleand traffic. The new recycling centre on Harcliffe way will already lead to increased traffic. It isunrealistic to think that everyone will use the propsed cycle lane on Novers Hill instead of drivingtheir cars. Please do not allow the natural habitats to be destroyed and allow another band ofgreen land to dissappear. Please encourage building on brownfield sites instead.

As someone who recently moved away from the area but whose parents still live onNovers Lane, I oppose this application. Too many of our green spaces and wildlife havens arebeen taken for the sake of homes, let alone homes which the local people cannot afford to buy butinstead being constructed to further line the pockets of the rich whilst being rented to those lessfortunate. There are already homes recently built on Hengrove Way with more currently beingerected on Airport Road.I know from my own experiences of the wildlife in this area which will be destroyed; hedgehogs,foxes, rabbits, squirrels, birds etc, not to mention insects. With COP26 currently ongoing and theneed for more trees and fauna, I feel taking away what we already lack, especially in cities is notthe correct thing to do. Let us think of our planet and not our pockets.

I grew up around knowle and the slops are good for you're mental health if you need toget out and go for a walk, plus the wildlife you get up the slops are amazing to see ..!!

I think it's an absolute disgrace building on this land. Far too much has been taken awayfrom us for housing.

The land is an important green space for nature in the city. The council has agreed thatwe should not be building on green field sites. Green spaces are key to having a pleasant city.Bristol should be leading the charge for better nature and climate awareness. This building projectsends the wrong message.

There are many reasons why consent should not be granted to this development.

The Western slopes is a vital Wildlife corridor (as noted by Avon Wildlife Trust in their report.

https://www.avonwildlifetrust.org.uk/news/support-bristols-green-spaces

We need to protect our wild spaces. As stated in the report:

"Avon Wildlife Trust recognises Bristol's Western Slopes as a vital wildlife corridor, and stands withthose people calling it to be protected from development. This area, located on the slopesbetween Novers Hill and Hartcliffe Way, is a particularly important habitat for a wide variety ofbirds, mammals and rare wildflowers. We recognise that there is considerable concern from localresidents that it may be vulnerable to development, and we echo their calls for it to be protected."

Nature matters. It matters for the climate crisis, for the well being of the citizens of Bristol and forthe legacy that we impart to our children and our children's children.

The ecological survey carried out by Ethos Environmental Planning shows that the slopes arehome to wildlife including badgers and many species of bats, including rare horseshoe bats.

https://novershillconsultation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Novers-Hill-draft-ecological-assessment-with-location-of-badger-sett-redacted.pdf

Bristol City Council needs to work on a joined up strategy for development that strengthens theCouncil's net zero commitment and declaration of a climate emergency. Of course development isrequired. But Bristol has a lot of Brownfield sites that are available for development but are lyingunused. As long as planning consent continues to be provided for Greenfield sites, developers willalways dispute the financial viability of Brownfield development. But if Councils and governmentup and down the country starts to take a stand against the degradation of our green spaces, it willforce the developers to change their approach. But it is vital that local government commits to astrategy of protecting green spaces.

Local residents really care about this space. I remember the first time I really saw the WesternSlopes, when I was exploring Manor Valley Park for the first time and looked across to see horsesgrazing on open grasslands. The value of this is huge.

I would urge the council to consider the profound implications of granting planning permission onNovers Hill. This is bigger than one piece of development. Every time a green space is lost itsends a message that such natural amenities are not valued by our leaders and those in power.That message is amplified and the inevitable consequence is the loss of more of the naturalhabitats that improve all of our lives.

Bristol is one of the best cities in the world. I was brought up here and returned in my early 20sbecause Bristol is a beautiful place to live. The green spaces of the city are one of the vitalcomponents of that.

We also mustn't kid ourselves that developer managed wild spaces are any such thing. Oncedevelopment occurs on a wild space, biodiversity is always lost. It is tokenism and greenwashwhen a developer claims that their actions will not cause fundamental and far-reaching harm. Youcan not develop a site without this occurring.

Please do your bit for preserving this beautiful and immensely valuable natural resource for thecitizens of Bristol, today, tomorrow and long into the future. Go and visit for yourself. Stroll acrossthe fields. Spend spend time watching the bird of prey that hunt over the grasslands. Observe thebadgers at dusk. Just spend half an hour watching the bats as the sun goes down. Then you canstart to really appreciate the value of this space.

I am not anti-development full-stop. I recognise the need for housing. But this needs to support thefuture sustainability of the city not forever take away forever the natural green spaces that helpmake Bristol the great city it is.

Thank you for your consideration and I really, really hope that the council will make the rightdecision on this and refuse the planning application for Novers Hill and in doing so send a clearmessage to local residents, developers and the wider world that Bristol values the natural world,recognises the vital part it plays in everybody's lives and will ensure its preservation for future

generations.

Wildlife:In declaring a climate and ecological emergency, the city council has a goal of 30% of land to bemanaged for the benefit of wildlife. Permitting development on this or any greenfield site wouldreduce the amount of green space in the city, reduce the amount of land available to wildlife, andreduce biodiversity.

In addition, this is an ecologically important area; it has been deemed a vital wildlife corridor byAvon Wildlife Trust, with a rich habitat that's important for many species including rare and legallyprotected horseshoe bats and a large clan of badgers.

Other:I also have concerns regarding:- the resultant increase in traffic, air pollution, and noise,- the low proportion of affordable housing in a development in a deprived, low income area of thecity,- the way the affordable housing is placed in inferior positions on the site and used to screen themore expensive housing (discrimination),- building more housing in a deprived area and not instead focussing on improving the area andamenities for the people that already live there,- and the high costs of the housing.

No to losing our green belt!

I often pass by this pretty area on our way out of Bristol, and am shocked at what will bethe destruction of this important area for both wildlife and local residents. What will happen tocreatures such as badgers which do not take well to being forcibly relocated ?The benefit of such green spaces on human mental and physical health needs to be considered,as well as the ecological emergency. Only a small minority of proposed dwellings are 'affordable'.and even less are social housing. It is social housing which is needed to bring down social housingwaiting list, so proposal will have little social benefit.

We need green space in a big city like Bristol. Filling every inch of a city with peoplecondensing them in adds to pollution increased pressure on services. Where is the balance. Weneed to keep green space to keep nature and wildlife more in balance as green spaces effectmental health. Green space is scientifically proven to improve health - car fumes and masspopulation doesn't. There is no more room in Bristol we have to spread out not ruin what we have!

I object

We object to the construction of 157 new homes on an established wildlife corridor onour doorstep. We regular have foxes, owls and songbirds in the garden and would be such ashame for them to lose their habitat.

Any new residents would be car dependent as the public transport links in the area are notsuitable or accessible. Our child has suffered from asthma since an early age and has beenhospitalised multiple times. By replacing the expansive green space with more homes andincreased traffic would be detrimental to his health. The dust generated by the construction workwould also be of concern.

I cycle daily on Novers Hill, often with my son onboard, which has no form of traffic calming and isincreasingly dangerous due to vehicles speeding. The road is also in a very poor state of repair.An increase in traffic for construction workers and HGV deliveries would make it completelyunsuitable to cycle.

There are a number of brownfield sites across the city which would be far better suited to thisscale of development.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to strongly object to the proposed development of Novers hill application number21/05164/F.

Green spaces are crucial for maintaining people's mental health not to mention biodiversity.Therefore, developing green spaces such as Novers hill will be detrimental both to mine and myneighbours health and Bristols ecology.

Please consider developing brown field sites instead of this beautiful green urban gem.

Yours sincerely,

Katy M

I am horrified by the proposal to build houses on this green area. Surely we, as a city,should be protecting green areas as nature reserves for the benefit and well -being of not only thislocal community but the future generation as well. I can't see any benefit to this proposal and injectwhole heartedly. It is a short sighted plan and will not address the housing crisis as claimed. It willonly diminish the quality of life for those living in the area, and set a precedent for futuredevelopment on green field sites.

Bristol City Council need to stop building on green space and use the brownfield sites.There is a a lot of wildlife and trees on this site that help filtering the air.

To have free, woodland areas for local people to use need to be cherished not built in.

I would like to object to this built as this is a beautiful area that should not be built on.Use brownfield sites not green areas, that need to be protected in central Bristol. Yes we do needmore housing but this is not the way to go about it.

Bristol City Council passed a motion on September 7th 2021 to protect our greenspaces and prioritise brownfield sites. Since then, PM Boris Johnson used his 2021 ConservativeParty Conference speech to announce intentions for what appears to amount to a brownfield firstpolicy. While both motions and speeches have yet to become formalised, the council could besetting an example and acting knowing they are coming - protecting this green space.

Our local plan in Bristol is currently under review. We should wait until that review process iscomplete, and national policy has been updated before approving any planning permissions onsuch precious spaces. Until then we should prioritise brownfield sites, Bristol's current list containsnearly 250 such sites.

Bristol city council has previously declared a climate and ecological emergency and adopted a onecity plan - both of which should lead to less building on green spaces. Green space soaks upcarbon and water, provides space for nature and enhances the quality of life for Bristol residents.This site is an important local amenity for many reasons and should be protected.

As well as being one of Bristol's green spaces. This area:- Is a site of nature conservation interest (SNCI).- Is a prominent green hillside (DM17).- Contains a town and village green, which itself contains an ancient hedgerow (HedgerowRegulations 1997) - both of which are protected and would be affected by this development.- Has many mature trees, which should be protected rather than cut down.

It seems that the proposed site can only deliver a biodiversity net gain, if another council-ownedsite (Crox Bottom) is "enhanced". Many would argue Crox Bottom is already in a good state anddoes not need enhancement. It is also already an SNCI. An alternative point of view is BCCshould manage its existing site (Crox Bottom) better, if necessary, without the need to build 157homes on a nearby green space.

Moreover, the biodiversity net gain calculations seem to have been made using the outdatedversion 2.0, not 3.0. The application was submitted in October this year, and yet 3.0 was launchedin early July.

It is unclear how suitable it is to build new housing so close to nearby established and new localindustry sites. If these sites will be noisy to the new residents and will prevent them from openingtheir windows or enjoying their outside spaces, is it sensible to grant permission for this housingdevelopment? In the pre-application, the developers seemed to be suggesting that they weregoing to use the social housing on the site as a "noise buffer" for the privately-owned housing.This received coverage in the local press (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/anger-social-housing-described-noise-5761189). It seems important that the council ensure that peopleshomes are not used in this manner, and that sound level disturbance is minimised for any and allpotential residents while at the same time ensuring all residents are able to open the windows oftheir accommodation without being unreasonably disturbed by noise.

The ecological surveying and reporting carried out by the applicants appears to be inadequate atthis time. It is, as yet, unclear the extent of and what will happen to the protected and otherspecies found on this site, including the bats.

The development seems to considerably exceed the amount of housing allocated for it in the localplan (BSA114 - July 2014). The estimated number of homes for the site was 50 - with the listingdocumenting the city-wide importance of the site for nature conservation. There must be a concernthat increasing the number of dwellings on the site to 157 will damage the lands natureconservation value.

At the same time, the number of affordable homes that are being proposed is disappointingly bareminimum. Other sites in South Bristol are showing how development can contain up to 100%affordable homes. The council could be demanding and enforcing more from the developers.

The development will likely add to pressure and demand on local amenities, including alreadyover-subscribed primary schools.

For all of the above reasons I object to the proposal.

The land is an important wildlife corridor which connects many open sites from the outercity through to the inner city sites and would compromise colonies of species therein.The land in question is at the end of an escarpment which has proved to be unstable and subjectto movement in wet and dry weather patterns.The site holds water, breaking into it will cause problems with flooding and drainage.Any development in the area should not be allowed to damage or compromise the Common Landadjacent, or the ancient protected hedgerow. As an historically undisturbed site any archaeology isunknown.Fresh Air - development of the site will block the airflow of the prevailing westerlys bringing freshair into city areas.Many trees will be felled, replanting with saplings will not mitigate the removal of mature trees andshrubs for many years thereby a negative carbon exchange.As this land has been regularly grazed the site has a unique eco culture and types of wild animals,bats in particular, dependant on it will diminish or disappear.Highway safety - the proposed layout will present hazards for the proposed usage of cycles andscooters.Climate Change - this proposal goes against the Mayors statements on climate change and theenvironment.Units already under planning in Bristol - there are many units in planning on brownfield sitesacross the city the numbers meeting the required quota without using up greenfield sites.Previous planning applications for this area have been rejected in the past.

I absolutely object to this development. This is a very important untouched area forwildlife and more. Bristol is always claiming to be a council that wants to protect green spaces andprides itself on wanting to be a green city. This development and others go completely against thatand contradict everything ever claimed. If this development goes ahead I will for sure be movingme and my family from the area and probably even Bristol. For this to even have been consideredI feel council planners of Bristol need to take a good hard look at themselves and really considerwhat they want for this city.

Not happy with this application, save our conservation area!!

The roads are not safe for housing dye to traffic and we really don't need housing there

I strongly object to these plans for multiple reasons:

- the infrastructure to support current residents, for South Bristol, is already over stretched &building more houses will make this even worse. I have a tough job getting a prompt doctorsappointment as it is. Where are the plans to build more schools, doctor surgeries, dentists etc?

- building on the land will result in a net loss of habitat to many species, including protectedhorseshoe bat's & badgers

- it will not create enough social housing

- it goes against a recently council passed motion to protect our green spaces

I object for climate change reasons, this will cause more carbon, pollution and traffic.If the council really are green they should be stopping all house building in Bristol, it's becoming aconcrete jungle with no open spaces for nature

I object to this land being built on as I believe its is of great importance to the wildlife inthe area. I often see kestrels and buzzards hovering over this area. We are losing so much todevelopment in bristol when there are plenty of areas that could be developed that would havelittle impact on wildlife.

I am objecting in the strongest terms on environmental grounds. This area is anenvironmental haven for plants, wildlife and people. It forms part of a wider network of greenspaces. Bristol city council has declared an ecological emergency. If ever there was a test of thispolicy it's this planning application. Housing should be built on brownfield sites.

Development should not be allowed on this important natural site in Bristol. Loss ofgreen space in this area should be considered regarding its impact on the environment.

No do not allow what us left of our green space to be taken up by more houses whichwill lead to more cars and pollution in an over populated area already.

I strongly object to these houses being built for various reasons. The first is the lose ofgreen space in a historically deprived area of Bristol. Many people here do not have the luxury ofgetting in a car for day trips and to have a huge green space built upon would impact localresidents. The is also a huge range of animals that have made the Weston Slopes their home,animals don't tend to do so well when they only have a wildlife corridor to live in instead of a hugespace. Being in a slope will make the built more difficult and longer and I'm not sure residents willwant to be so close to the new waste incinerator currently being built on the Hartcliffe Way.As a resident of Novers Hill I will live directly opposite the new development, which may take upsome of the natural light that we currently get having no buildings opposite us. I would also beworried about the increase in traffic the one way system would introduce, on a road that is alreadyworn down and in terrible condition.

Wrong development in the Wrong place. In the climate emergency as declared byBristol City Council every blade of grass matters. Western Slopes is a wildlife haven in an urbansetting and should be protected. Pollution from nearby Hartcliffe Way and Bedminster Road/Parson Street area has to be absorbed somewhere and the trees on the Slopes do that; ifremoved and replaced with brick and mortar already illegal pollution levels will increase. In theweek of COP26 Bristol must follow the global pledges and reject this unwanted development. Wehave a planet to save.

No more houses affordable or not we do not need it in knowle.

I would like to place my objection to this application as it is totally inappropriate to thearea and the present climate. Our Mayor and council have declared a ecological emergency andyet are planning to remove the very thing that could help. There are many trees and shrubs alongthis plot of land which help to absorb the CO2 produced by the nearby Hartcliffe way which attimes can be extremely busy.I also notice that many organisations with vested interest in trying to reverse the effects of theecological emergency are also objecting to the application. There are many plants and animalsthat are quite rare living in this area and this will all be destroyed never to return.There are many many brownfield sites that should be used first before attacking and destroyingour precious greenfield sites, these sites will be needed during the oncoming emergency.I just find the council and Mayoral attitude confusing and not logical to attack sensitive ecologicalsites before unused and vacant brownfield. Then of course there is the extra vehicular trafficaround Hartcliffe Way and Knowle that can handle the present volume of traffic never mind amajor increase. The traffic lights at Parson Street cannot handle the current volume of vehiclesand Novers Lane and Novers Hill just cannot handle more traffic. Then again the extra vehicleswill add more pollution to an already high level.

Too many green spaces being taken up for development in South Bristol, leaving noleisure areas, in what is already widely known as as deprived area. Inadequate facilities for thearea as it is. This will only benefit a favoured few

I visit this site with my grandkids, who live on Novers Lane. They enjoy the horses.This is a deprived area with few green space amenities.Build these in Clifton!

A detestable attempt do dump housing on another green space in south BristolThere is no point in adding more reasons for my objection many others have already done thisIt is obvious to Bristol council and the house builders that this was to be astupid attempt to remove from the community a required green space andwould be shouted down by Knowle West as a wholeAlso note the attempt to aquire TVG protected land as part of the processthis request to steal protected land should be totally rejectedThe TVG land belongs to the local community that is why it is protected, wewill decide what happens to our protected areasA TVG should be give to the Western Slopes to stop any future developments.

We have very few facilities in the area and more housing and people will put more of astrain on the services in the area i.e. doctors, schools. Our green space is getting used up, whynot try building more housing the other side of town instead of taking up what little we do have!

This is a wildlife sanctuary which should be protected for future population of thiscrowded and busy city Homes should be on existing built up land areas

Protection of Green SpaceThe recent success of the Golden Motion at Full Council demonstrates the overwhelming desire toprotect green spaces and the green belt - together with previous declarations of a climateemergency and ecological emergency - there is a clear priority to protect green space.The Western Slopes, Novers Hill, is mentioned in this - for removal from the local plan during thecurrent review stage and granted Nature Reserve status, because of its' contribution to wildlife andbiodiversity.The Avon Wildlife Trust have long stated that Novers Hill should be protected from developmentbecause of its' ecological importance and contribution to wildlife for the city.

Building over the Western Slopes would damage the environment and in my view is not a"sustainable" development.

The Western Slopes/Novers Hill green space is vital to sustainability in that it provides keyecological and environmental function benefits in an urban area.

The wildlife corridor will be greatly impacted by this development. The value of this site is in theconnectivity with nearby green areas. The amount of green space left (from this proposeddevelopment) is not sufficient to maintain this connectivity, in particular the width of the greencorridor is too narrow. Proposed mitigation measures do not appear to be anywhere nearadequate.

Developing brownfield sites

Permitting appropriate development on suitable brownfield sites - in contrast to green spaces -would help ensure that the housing needed is achieved. It is estimated that circa 12,000 housesalready have planning permission in Bristol, awaiting development. Why develop on green space?

There is also an opportunity to repurpose offices and shops, turning them into homes and toprioritise social housing, especially for local people, which this development does not seem to do.

NoiseIt is very worrying that some properties situated close to the industrial sites will need alternativeventilation, due to noise levels. The developer states that "predicted noise levels across thecentral area of the site are expected to meet the upper limit of 55dB". This appears unacceptableand raises the question of actual readings of noise levels for all areas of the site.

It is very concerning that the developer has admitted that "further mitigation may be required forthe ...properties which would overlook the recycling centre". This highlights the unsuitability of theproposed development, given it is surrounded by industry on two sides. It is highly questionablewhether it is appropriate to subject residents of new builds to such daily disturbances, given likelyimpacts on health.

Air QualityParson Street School is just 0.6 miles from the development site. It has the fourth worst level of airpollution in the city and often exceeds the World Health Organisations' upper limits for pollution.The developer's proposals mean that even more vehicles will be using Parson Street andBedminster Road as a route onto Hartcliffe Way. They will pass this hotspot at the junction ofBedminster Road and Parson Street School. This is unacceptable, given the already dangerouslevels of pollution in this area and additional cars that will inevitably come with this development,impacting on the health of local people. It shows how unsuitable this site is for development.

Affordable HousingThe proposed development is for 157 properties: 110 open market; 11 shared ownership; 36social rent (only 15 of which are houses). (30% affordable - of which 77% social rent and 23%shared ownership).Unfortunately, he affordable will not be affordable to the majority of first-time buyers with pricescurrently in excess of £280K in 2021 for a house in South BristolThe "affordable housing" will do little to deal with the level of family homelessness in Bristol. 1000families currently living in temporary accommodation (reported in Bristol 24/7 - 1st Nov).

Nature ReserveI agree with the alternative vision proposed by The Friends of the Western Slopes, Novers Hill,that the site of Novers Hill should be a Nature Reserve for the people of South Bristol. The wildlife;the biodiversity; the landscape; the connectivity to nearby wildlife corridors makes it perfect for thisuse. They have a great vision of turning this into a site for the local community, contributing to the

future health, well-being and resilience of future generations.

This proposed development does not tackle the housing crisis - the majority will beneither shared ownership nor socially rented, and does not align with the recent motion passed atFull Council to prioritise brownfield sites over greenfield in the local plan. It also contradictsBristol's Ecological Emergency Strategy, destroying a Site of Nature Conservation Interest andresulting in an loss of ecological diversity that isn't mitigated by the developer's plans.

The Council must prioritise building council houses, improving air quality and protecting wildlife. Allof these priorities are at odds with approving destructive, private profit-led developments such asthis.

This development seems excessively large for the limited space.It will remove valuable inner city green space that is important for recreation, health (both mentaland physical), carbon capture and wildlife.Many local residents lack the ability or means to visit green spaces outside of the city, so the onesinside the city are of great importance.Allowing these green spaces to disappear will have detrimental effects for future residents of thearea.

I believe that more houses are needed, particularly affordable ones, but surely this should happenthrough expanding the city rather than squeezing more into the existing boundaries.

The building of these houses will be detrimental to our community. People use the landon a daily basis to exercise, socialise and enjoy a space normally impossible to access in a city. Itshould be the right of the residents to make the decision on this matter and that has clearly beenignored in the name of so-called progress. Housing will be overpriced and unobtainable to many.This is being done purely to meet housing targets, but it doesn't take into consideration the localcommunity, please reconsider.

There are so many reasons why I object to the proposed building work on the landoutlined in this proposal.

Firstly, this is an area of natural beauty and home to wildlife. Daily we see hawks and manydifferent birds flying overhead and know that in a mostly suburban area, the green space isintegral to biodiversity and maintaining areas of outside space for residents to walk in and enjoy.

The additional homes will also add pressure to local services - we already see bad traffic,oversubscribed schools and doctors surgeries - how is this going to be dealt with if more servicesaren't created to reduce demand?

I wholeheartedly object this planning application and do not understand why the council wouldchoose to build on green hillside when there are plenty of brown sites across the city which arealready easily accessible and so not require the destruction of nature

My family and I feel very strongly opposed to the this planning application. Greenfieldsites such as this one need to be protected for future generations. This is such short term thinkingto put up to 600 houses across this unique wildlife corridor. Lovells failed to build here 30 yearsago and the site hasn't changed, it is even more valuable now as an ecology site because somany green spaces have already been lost or are under increasing threat across South Bristol.

I also feel that much more public consultation should have be done with local people, feelingsamongst local residents across Filwood really haven't been listened to. There is a digital divideand digital exclusion which the developer has not taken into consideration. Knowle West and theFilwood ward is one of the poorest economically in Bristol so greater efforts should have beenmade to engage with all residents. Against this Knowle West has one of richest green spaceswhich needs to be preserved as an asset for them all and not the privileged few.

Let's be very clear 'affordable' housing is at 80% market value so it's a technical term rather than areality for anyone living local to the site on low wages.

Illegal levels of pollution are regularly recorded at Parson Street street adding 157 houses initiallywill only add to this and the strained infrastructure around Hartcliffe Way. Impact of more houseswill affect air quality and light pollution will further accentuate these issues across South Bristol.

Please Bristol City Council take note of how Bristolians feel at large about building on greenspaces. Priotise brownfield sites, only use any green spaces as an absolute last resort.

Protect this green space and make it into the south Bristol nature reserve it deserves to be.

In February 2020 Bristol became the first major city to declare an 'ecologicalemergency', yet just over 18 months later a building site is being proposed on a vital wildlifecorridor . Thirteen protected species, including otters and kingfishers, were found in the wider areaduring an ecology survey published in 2014, undertaken as part of the Knowle West RegenerationFramework. In 2010, local waterways including Pigeonhouse Stream were found to have"exceptionally rich arrays of woodland floor plants", including rare and uncommon species.Residents report seeing bats, badgers, buzzards, kestrels, owls and sparrowhawks. While theproposed building does not extend to this area it will undoubtedly have an impact, most likely anegative one, with increase in local noise and ground disturbances all of which wildlife is verysusceptible to. There a number of brownfield sites across the city that would be better used forhousing rather than disrupting an established green field site. It has already been proposedin2019, is to designate the Western Slopes as a Local Green Space or Reserved Open Space,offering protection from 'most forms' of development, subject to regular review but yet BCC saythis is not expected to be adopted until late 2023, too late for this well loved and used wild greenspace. Also Bristol experiences poor air quality, Clean air is essential for health and helps to makethe city a pleasant place to live. "We monitor air quality around the city and are working to improveit." taken form BCC website. The western slopes are vital in supporting clean air in the South ofthe city, it is an area that doesn't need any alteration and improvement .

I would like to object to the building of the new dwellings as this would destroy animportant wildlife corridor in Bristol. That area is home to numerous wild species from mice topheasants and foxes. The dwellings would also creat issues regarding schools and GPs as thearea is already overloaded and the delays on the building of the new school are extending.

Why destroy more of our disappearing green spaces..Why do we have to be held hostage by greedy developers and why is the council always on thereside...well that's what it looks like

The destruction of our green spaces and the increasingly belligerent approach by theMayor in first railing against objections and subsequently ignoring them is disgusting.

I wish to object to this planning application. Loss of green spaces across Bristol arecontributing to the ecological emergency we are all facing and which this city was proud ofdeclaring.

Novers Hill is an untouched wildlife haven, and any on paper environmental off setting in planningreports cannot realistically mitigate the significant harmful impact this would cause on these fragileecosystems this space supports.

Hartcliffe Way is already one of the busiest and most polluting roads in the city which is fringedwith industrial and light industrial buildings. Removing this green lung would have a detrimentaleffect not only on South Bristol but Bristol at large. The decrease in air quality from alreadydangerous levels of air pollution particularly recorded outside Parson Street school can only bemade worse by an additional 157 houses on this site.

Filwood ward needs these green spaces for the benefit of future generations who have come fromsome of the most impoverished backgrounds in the city.

So please do not take this natural landscape away from them with approving this planningapplication.

As a resident that lives directly opposite the proposed, (21/05164/F | Erection of 157 no.dwellings, including 47 no. affordable housing units (30%), along with 2 no. access points fromNovers Hill, the provision of play facilities and public open space with associated works. (MAJOR).| Land On The West Side Of Novers Hill Bristol), I strongly object to this proposed housingdevelopment. The land is one side of a vital 'green lung' corridor that goes from Dundry, all theway through to Avon Gorge. You are prosing to squash 157 homes between the Hartcliffe Way upto my front door, stripping out the grassland and destroying millions of protected habitats. Thesehouses would be stacked up from the road, behind the newly sited recycling centre for the South,adjacent to an industrial park, bus depot and major A road junction. This corner of Bristol, close toParson Street school is already highly polluted with vehicle emissions. If you take away theoxygen produced by stripping out the green belt land this will become diabolical. The WesternSlopes should be protected by the council, bought back off Lovell Homes and nurtured as adiamond in the rough for future generations to continue to breath!

I would like to register my disapproval of planned housing on novers hill. I am a residentof Bedminster and feel strongly against these latest plans. Already the air is highly polluted aroundour local school (parson st) and traffic highly congested. There is already shortage of amenitiesand green space for wildlife. Please rethink and consider local residents

I object to this development on the following grounds:

EcologyThe harm caused by this development would outweigh the proposed mitigation. It would be abiodiversity net loss and contrary to the eco objectives of the City Council. The proposeddevelopment would sever the wildlife connectivity / corridor to the Northern Slopes. Uniquemeadows along with rare mammal, reptile and insect habitats would be lost forever.

Health & WellbeingThe 'green lungs' of South Bristol are necessary to provide clean air to residents, many of whomsuffer lung complaints (only exacerbated by the recycling plant, bus depot and increased vehicleuse from the multiple local housing developments being approved and built in the area). Thisdevelopment would not only increase pollution but remove the green eco system that cleans it.

TransportCumulative traffic impact reports (which consider this development along with approveddevelopments as well as future developments in the area that are likely to receive permission inthe next three years) do not seem to have not been carried out - contrary to National PlanningPolicy Framework. The proposed one way along Novers Hill, which supports this application,hasn't been consulted upon with the community.

Consultation

Furthermore the community consultation for this housing application was rushed, an afterthoughtand a box ticking exercise. The proposed housing isn't necessarily suitable to the needs of localpeople. Whilst doctors and schools may continue to take on new patients and pupils, the servicesare nonetheless strained (try making a doctors appointment here!). Therefore this applicationwould only exacerbate the issues faced by a severely undervalued community in Bristol.

In summary this proposed development would remove a vital green space and provide little for thecommunity in return. The effects would be immeasurable lasting damage to the vegetation, wildlifeand people of the area.

Reasons for Objections:1. Loss of green space without even retaining the minimal 10% for an essential wildlife corridor.2.Further loss/damage of greenspace to enable site access.3. Significant increase in housing without any space for services of community support.4.Paultry offer to improve surrounding green space using section 106 contribution which is justwrong.5. Further creation of basic off the peg designed housing that will continue the mindset of the areabeing a place people live in because it is their only choice.

We have lived here for over 30 years and during that time have seen planningpermission for houses on this site refused on a number of occasions due to the value The WesternSlopes has for wildlife and we believe that it should be protected not built on. We see so manybirds and other wildlife on the slopes, in the spring and summer it is full of wildflowers and we alsolove seeing all the people come to see the horses, it really should be made a nature reserve andleft alone.We also concerned as our house backs on to the slopes and although it is not part of the Lovellsplan to build at the back of me right now I am very worried if that get the go ahead then the councilare then getting Goram homes to build 400+ more houses and road right at the back of my fence.The problem with this is all the houses that back on to the slopes already have subsidenceproblems which are only going to get worse, then what ? it'll be bad enough to lose this wonderfulgreen hill to housing but what about people losing their homes or having to shell out for expensiveremedial works, We are retired and very worried about this as it has been bought up in the pastthat this land is not stable enough to be built on and the council knows it.This area is already short of GP's & dentists and the schools who are already struggling to copewith enough places for kids already in the area not to forget more traffic, more pollution in an areathat already has very high pollution levels, it is just not a good idea. As for affordable homes, thatis a complete joke, none of the homes that are being built in this area are affordable and neitherwill these proposed houses be affordable at least not to local people. At the moment it seems inthis area where every you see a piece of green space houses are being put up, soon there will benothing left.We are appalled that once again there are plans to build here and we object to any building on thewhole of the Western Slopes and agree with the majority of people who have objected to this that

this needs to be made a nature reserve and stop taking all the green spaces away in south Bristol.

RegardsTerry & Sandy

Please don't ruin where we live.

I object to this proposal for a number of reasons:Climate Change - we are currently hearing so much about striving to become carbon neutral thatis unbelievable that instead of preserving our precious green spaces the council is consideringbuilding on them - they should be planting more trees on this area rather than building houses andas a whole creating more green spaces across the city.Wildlife- with the demise of green spaces comes a loss of wildlife crucial to the sustainabledevelopment of our city.Lack of local amenities - more housing equals more strain on already pressured doctors surgeriesand schools.With more housing, and alongside the new recycling centre on Hartcliffe Way, comes increasedtraffic - also adding to climate change issues.

I strongly object to this initiative.

I feel strongly that this initiative is wholly unsuitable and should be rejected. The lack ofaffordable housing is a travesty, especially during a period where house prices and cost of livingare increasing while consistently outstripping wage increases. Moreover, the destruction of a wellloved and important habitat which is undoubtedly home to numerous animal species for the sakeof 147 houses and to line the pockets of property developers is unacceptable

We need to protect our green belts!Reuse existing empty buildings.

Western slopes is a critical wildlife corridor between Novers slopes and Manor WoodsValley & Crox Bottom. We have a ecological and biodiversity crisis so this development on greenfield land does not make sense. The pandemic has also shown how we need more green spacesfor the good of our communities' mental wellbeing.

I support developments on brown field sites like Hengrove airfield, as long as there are suitableamenities for that housing provision. This meets neither very basic requirement.

I am also extremely disappointed with the way in which the "low quality" land next to the plannedBristol waste centre is where all the so called "affordable" housing is. We need housing, but highquality council housing.

I do not object to the application in principle, but am concerned that maximumopportunity is taken to provide:

1. affordable housing;2. public access to, and benefits from, the land.

At present, as far as I can tell, public access is very limited (one path always seems blocked) ornon-existent.

Also, that there should be minimum negative impact to nature conservation on the site; balancedalongside the above.

I object to this planning proposal and any further proposed housing on this establishedand wonderful green wildlife corridor, all of this area, from the new recycling centre all the waydown to past Imperial Park down towards Hengrove on both sides of Hartcliffe way, needs to begiven the protected status it deserves, for now and for the future.After Bristol City council declared an ecological emergency AND then a motion was passed at cityhall to save our green spaces I am saddened that I even need to be summitting this objection aspromises have been made and nothing has changed, shame on you.I could write more but I believe all the reasons I STRONGLY object to have already been laid outclearly and in details in the other hundreds of objections submitted.I will also like to add I am not anti-housing or anti development however I feel that the mayor andBristol city council would be best served keeping to the promised they made and instead ofwasting time going head to head with it's own citizens use their time in finding alternative solutionsto the housing crisis. The housing crisis is always at the fore front of any come back regardingbuilding on green spaces but do you seriously think that the people in Knowle West and Filwoodare unaware of the housing crisis or the need for affordable homes.Do some research, look to other countries for solutions, anything but a change needs to be madeby the people that have the power to do so, so do it now as honestly time is running out.

I object because it does not fit with the existing area. The plans are not in keeping. Theydestroy a meadow and the animals and green plants. It kills nature and provides no infrastructure.Just years of misery while a poor build project disrupts the lives of people. A one way road systemfor Novers Lane with access at two points is a joke. It adds dangerous levels if traffic. Thehorrendous amount of parked cars on this single carriage lane from the tiny housing at the top hascaused awful congestion and danger to pedestrians. The loss of birds of prey and bat habitats isevil just for houses and profit and quotas. This should not even be at this stage. The land is not forbuilding on. If this does get built those living near will lose a quality of life, those building it andgranting permission won't. That is why this shouldn't get built. The people with the power haveabsolutely no interest here just their own personal gain.

The local area is congested, the traffic infrastructure is already inadequate. There arelittle or no routes currently available to walk or cycle without being by a main road and being nextto cars sitting in traffic. This development would worsen the issue.There are few areas of green space that have an abundance of wildlife like the slopes. Thedevelopment would create an urban jungle destroying natural habitat but also taking away greenspace from an already deprived area. Over the 16 years I have lived in Bristol I have lived in manydifferent areas, and loved the green spaces that each has, whether in St Pauls, Westbury onTryme, Cotham. I have valued that the city seems to try and provide an equality of green spacesregardless of the demographic of the residences or the wealth of an area. This development feelslike the sense of equality for a living environment has been disregarded.

The local area is congested, the traffic infrastructure is already inadequate. There arelittle or no routes currently available to walk or cycle without being by a main road and being nextto cars sitting in traffic. This development would worsen the issue.There are few areas of green space that have an abundance of wildlife like the slopes. Thedevelopment would create an urban jungle destroying natural habitat but also taking away greenspace from an already deprived area. Local schools would be subjected to more road pollution.What is the point of pushing pollution out of the city centre to only create pockets of pollutionelsewhere.

I believe this development will be detrimental to the local area, and to the wildlife andgreen space that is needed.

The whole area is being over developed without taking into consideration the needs of the localcommunities that surround the proposed building plot.

I object to this planning application for the below reasons;

- I live opposite the planning site and this will impact on my privacy and loss of light. The view isbeautiful from our back garden and it attracts different wildlife which is unheard of living in Bristol.

- The extra impact on the surrounding roads to support more cars will be dreadful. We are alreadyat a disadvantage because of the recycling centre. if you approve this the roads will be evenbusier! not to mention the extra parking issues.

- Bristol is lacking in green space. This is one areas of Bristol which is untouched and we need tosee more spaces like this to encourage wildlife and natural gases to flourish.

I object to this planning application for the below reasons;

- I live opposite the planning site and this will impact on my privacy and loss of light. The view isbeautiful from our back garden and it attracts different wildlife which is unheard of living in Bristol.

- The extra impact on the surrounding roads to support more cars will be dreadful. We are alreadyat a disadvantage because of the recycling centre. if you approve this the roads will be evenbusier! not to mention the extra parking issues.

- Bristol is lacking in green space. This is one areas of Bristol which is untouched and we need tosee more spaces like this to encourage wildlife and natural gases to flourish.

The number of new homes being built on green space in the Knowle area is a disgrace.Especially when there are numerous unused commercial and industrial spaces in South Bristolthat could be repurposed. There don't appear to be any plans for infrastructure to support the newhomes either, where are the schools, play spaces and gp surgeries needed for these newresidents?

Totally oppose against housing planning on The Northern Slopes. The area should beperceived as a nature reserve with the luscious green belt that attracts a lot of wildlife and home tomany species. Environmentally it will help reduce all the carbon in the air from cars that havemassively increased and continue increasing with the high percentage of houses being built inSouth Bristol. Long term it will have a detrimental impact on our environment taking away all thegreen belt in communities that will impact health and long term extinction of wildlife because theirhabitat is being unearthed and destroyed by man.

Green spaces in the city need to be protected the western slope is a vital wildlifecorridor. Bristol council have declared both an ecological and climate emergency in recent years.Approving this project is not in line with Bristol's long tern plans to be a green and sustainable city.

There is not enough infrastructure in this area to support another development of thistype. You can't just keep adding homes without also providing schools, doctors, dentists etc.The wildlife corridor will also be greatly damaged if building is allowed here. It's just not worth therisk, especially considering that the new builds will not be affordable in the true real sense (veryfew people in the area will be able to afford even the cheapest ones).

WHaM response for application 21/05164/F

Erection of 157 no. dwellings, including 47 no. affordable housing units (30%), along with 2 no.access points from Novers Hill, the provision of play facilities and public open space withassociated works. (MAJOR).

WHaM strongly objects to this development on the following grounds:

1. The site is specifically identified as a prominent green space within Bristol City Planningdocumentation, which states that development should not occur on this site unless the use isancillary to the open space use. The use as a housing development is definitely not this.2. It is also registered as a park and open green space, and as such should not be built on.3. As Bristol has declared a biodiversity crisis, it would not be fitting with any aim of tackling thecrisis to allow a major development on a greenfield site that identifies a net biodiversity loss.Making up for this elsewhere will not be acceptable if the existing biodiverse situation is notreplicated.4. National planning policy has recently been rewritten to emphasise the need to protectdevelopment and improve biodiversity. This development clearly does neither.5. The green space provides many recreational benefits to Bristol, contains many old trees and ispopular with families. This development will harm these characteristics. The upcoming local planyet to be released would offer the chance for further protection of this green space and we wouldurge the planning department to refrain from making decisions on major developments with

significant implications for green open spaces until such planning policy is in place as it clearlybelieved improvements were necessary when the document was put out to consultation in 2017.6. Given the slope of the site, the development will be prominently visible from south Bristol andwill contribute to a wall of development.7. We are also concerned about the recycling centre proposed to be built locally and theimplications concerning the suitability of this site for long term habitation in such close proximity,and the likelihood of nearby vermin, odours and other hazards that could arise.8. We note that there is a well thought out sustainability statement but worry that the strategy doesnot go far enough. The rejection of gas boilers is commendable but in today's market of highpriced energy, we worry that more should be done to provide higher levels of onsite energy tooffset the gains for using heat pumps. We also think that given that heat pumps work optimallywithin well-sealed and insulated buildings, that performance criteria should be set for the envelopeto ensure that they are effective.

Dear Sir/MadamI am expressing my distress for losing our beautiful rare green spaces.It is massive concern to ourneighborhood especially our young children.

The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted how important green spaces are for our mental health andwellbeings. By taking them away means there will be more people with depression and mentalhealth issues. Additionally, the animals and nature that are being pushed out of thier habitats.

Please stop this proposal now and listen to the neighborhood and local community.We are strongly object this proposal which and it needs to stop.1.The development will creates noise pollution and as majority of the neighbours have schoolchildren they will not be able to concentrate to their study.2. It will have high environmental impact.3. Loss of our green spaces means , more mental health problems.4. More traffics.5.More crime

Thank you

I object to the loss of green space and natural habitat. We need to protect these vitalspaces and build on brownfield sites.

Once land has been built on it is gone. Bats,Badgers, Reptiles and birds need their habitatprotecting, we need wildlife and in light of the climate change we have a responsibility to futuregenerations to safeguard wildlife corridors/spaces as much as we can.

I am also concerned about flooding.

The local plan is dated and needs reviewing urgently.

The site allocations plan where the land was identified as being suitable did not take into accountthe situation we are in now. Biodiversity/climate change are improtant factors that must be takeninto account.

There are little facilities in the area and Hartcliffe Way is hardly a high street and the area will beaffected by the new waste facilities as will any new residents if the houses are built. With the manyhouses being built on Airport Road and likely development of the old cinema & swimming pool atFilwood Broadway I do not believe there are adequate facilities or infrastructure to cope with anyfurther development in this area, there are few work opportunities.

The common (Village?) Green and hedgerows adjacent to the proposed site need protecting and

should not be disturbed.

We object most strongly to the destruction of wildlife and pollution caused by traffic soclose to local schools. With COP26 talking of the deforestation of land destroying Novers Hillslopes goes totally against Government guide lines. Broadmead is becoming a ghost town now isthe opportunity to revitalize & breathe new life into this area instead of desecrating Our beautifulNovers Hill Slopes.

It seems that every green space in South Bristol is being built upon. I feel that this is nota good idea in the current situation that we live e.g. climate change.

No

I strongly object to the building of houses on a vital wildlife corridor within the city ofBristol. I live on Novers hill and the plan has no access from the Hartcliffe way so the increasedtraffic would not be manageable. The proposed new homes would add a 1000+ car driving up anddown the narrow hill of Novers Hill. The road just isn't build for this project. I thought we weresaving green spaces and not building on them?? Matt Brooks

Given that Bristol has declared a climate and ecological emergency, building on thisbiodiversity rich land in close proximity to the city centre should no longer be considered possible -especially when BCC has now pledged to protect its existing green spaces. South Bristol is part ofBCC! Housing should instead be concentrated on existing brownfield sites. This is a harder taskfor BCC, as it may require compulsory purchase orders for disused sites - innovation is what isneeded, not the exploitation of the green spacesadjacent to some of our most vulnerableneibourhoods.Should any homes be build here their construction and lifetime energy use/needs shoukd also fitwith the zero carbon requirements of the BCC Climate Strategy and aim for carbon zero. Inaddition, for the 47 homes that may be affordable within this proposal, it is important to recognisethat to encourage community cohesion for future generations, affordable homes should be"pepperpotted" throughout the development and not be segregated in anyway from privatelyowned homes. A home should be a home, irrespective of who owns the deeds.

Western Slopes Planning application Dear Sir or Madam,

Sorry I have been unable to find the planning application number for the Western Slopes. So can you please confirm that you have received this email & it is being put against this planning application? Many thanks.

Please see my concerns regarding this planning application and why I am against them:

The site is on the nature-rich Western Slopes which stretch from Novers Hill down to Hartcliffe Way - an area of meadow and woodland.

It is a wild life corridor, home to birds, animals, insects & plant life. It is a site of nature conservation interest to be protected as it is a vital wildlife corridor

It is an ancient habitat which has never been cultivated so there are rare wild flowers which can be seen

If you drive along Harcliffe Way you can see how green it is, you can see horses in the field & birds flying overhead.

If the plans are passed the vast eco system will be destroyed. It is so very essential for this site to be kept for future generations.

Western Slopes is an asset to Bristol, it is one of the steepest points in Bristol, hence not suitable to be built on.

Re, the ozone layer etc. We should be protecting green field sites & only be building on brown field sites.

There are many pieces of land where buildings have been knocked down & left for years, builders should be made to build on these sites first.

I hope you will look into these matters for me and refuse the planning application. Yours sincerely.Mrs. C.J. Pratley,

My husband John and I wish to stand with the Bristolians who love our city. We realisethat this wildlife corridor contributes to the air we all breathe and is providing an accessible areafor outdoor recreation for our children's children. Look at the Downs! Ashton Court! It's timely tosafeguard these slopes now.

This development would only bring more traffic and pollution to an already busy andpolluted area.

This development would only bring more traffic and pollution to an already busy andpolluted area.

This application is for a site that has previously been marked as an area for natureconservation due to the wildlife it possess. Also, there has been no increase in infrustructure forthe increase in the number of motor vehicles that it would bring into the area. Not to mentionschools, gp surgeries or even amenities that aren't being increased to cope with this development.

To add to my previous comments...

The drains already struggle to cope. Whenever it rains, the drains overflow from all the draincovers on Novers Hill. Additional load on the local drains will only make this worse.

Also, Emergency services are already stretched very thin. In recent years I have called forambulances for non-life-threatening incidents (head injury and broken hip) and had to wait up to 5hours for the ambulance to arrive. More houses means more stress on emergency services andcould mean the difference between life and death for someone.

I am objecting to this application as I believe it is not compliant with the agreed2011/2014 Local Plan, and sets a precedence for similar sites across Bristol.In the local plan the site allocation (BSA114) states that the potential housing is estimated to be 50homes.This is the area of development immediately uphill of the existing Bristol Waste depot. Iunderstand that this is the "northern allocation" in the application.The applicant wishes to provide 75 homes (Planning Statement Para 4.2) on 69% of the spacewithin that site allocation (Planning Statement Para 7.14).This is an increase of 25 homes above the local plan figure, or an increase of 50% - on a smallerarea.

I am concerned that if agreed the application creates an intensity of buildings and people notenvisaged when the Local Plan was developed; but also sets a precedence for similar sites acrossBristol to be developed using figures that are significantly in excess of the Local Plan.Please note this is a personal objection and does not reflect the views of any organisation I aminvolved in.

The One City Ecological Strategy states we need to protect green spaces in Bristol.Developments like this should be built on brown land, not green areas like the Western Slopes.

The damage done to the ecology of Bristol by developments such as the proposed would beimpossible to mitigate for, and would cause irreversible damage to the ecology of the local area,both in terms of flora and fauna (meadow grass, badgers, bats etc)

Further, the benefit of this green space for the health and mental wellbeing of the local populationis immeasurable. Added to this is the increased burden on the already strained trafficinfrastructure once the development is populated.

This application must be rejected.

This application is an appalling proposal. The loss of such diverse woodland that cannotbe replaced. Bristol City Council is trying to champion climate action this is not reflected in theapplication. Not to mention the detrimental affect on mental health to local residents this will bringby taking away a green lung from South bristol. The absolute horror story of the affordable housingbeing a noise buffer between the recycling and roads and the more expensive properties isabhorrent. The drainage in this area is currently under emense pressure and struggles to copewith the more frequent wet weather.

In view of the drastic climate situation, this application should be rejected as our greenspaces act as the lungs of the city . A motion was passed by Bcc to stop all future developmentson green spaces using brownfield sites instead. The Mayor has said there is an ecological disasterand the loss of meadow, shrubs, trees and the valued wildlife will only hurry this. The area alsoprovides mental and physical wellbeing for the residents of one of the most deprived areas of thecity

This proposal is shockingly inadequate and spews out false claims in the hope that noone checks the validity of any of them.The concerns of building on this vital wildlife corridor, which has been voiced by all environmentalgroups around bristol - espeically the avon wildlife trust and the bristol tree forum. The claims thatthey will be 'building wildlife corridors' into this vast housing estate is a myth, it has been proventime and time again by many studies that within 3 years all wildlife disappears completely. Theyalso claim to be planting new trees down in crox bottom, which is already at 85% tree cover anddoes not need any more trees - a mythical statement.

Although most of my concerns for this development are for environmental reasons, there is a hugeincrease in occupancy in an area without providing additional public transportation, wastemanagement or road services to factor in the additional 600 residents expected in the area. Or thepotential increase in crime or traffic in the area as a result.

This sort of development has a HUGE impact on the local area and the proposals try to pretendlike they have covered all bases but they actually havent. I understand we have a housing crisisbut we also have a huge environmental crisis and the one is not more important than the other,mayor.

This comment is made on behalf of Sustrans to clarify our view on this development,following the inclusion of our informal comments in the Statement of Community Involvement.

Sustrans was contacted via email requesting a meeting regarding the development. Due to themany projects we are currently working on this invitation was declined, but a standard emailresponse was sent by Sustrans offering general encouragement for the inclusion of new walkingand cycling infrastructure and a list of useful resources. The line from our response - "That is greatnews that you are considering adding a dedicated walking and cycling path along the length of theproposed Novers Hill development" - has been used several times in the planning document.

While we stand by our encouragement for the inclusion of cycling infrastructure, we would like toclarify that this does not in itself constitute support for this development. We have not scrutinisedthe plans for the development or the walking/cycling infrastructure so we are not in a position tooffer an opinion on the suitability of these.

I'm concerned that this development will have a detrimental impact on wildlife in thearea which has already been negatively impacted by the recycling centre development. As thecouncil passed a motion to protect green spaces in the city approving this development would becontrary to this.The provision of 30% affordable housing is also completely insufficient given the green spacebeing removed. This area is already losing a lot of it's green spaces with other housingdevelopments in the area and the new recycling centre. The increase in traffic caused by thesenew developments will also increase pollution levels. I can't imagine that many of the newresidents will use the bus service as the routes are generally into central Bristol which is of no usewhen getting children to school locally before travelling.Please do not approve this planning application - once the greenbelt is built on it is lost forever.

I'm concerned that this development will have a detrimental impact on wildlife in thearea which has already been negatively impacted by the recycling centre development. As thecouncil passed a motion to protect green spaces in the city approving this development would becontrary to this.The provision of 30% affordable housing is also completely insufficient given the green spacebeing removed. This area is already losing a lot of it's green spaces with other housingdevelopments in the area and the new recycling centre. The increase in traffic caused by thesenew developments will also increase pollution levels. I can't imagine that many of the newresidents will use the bus service as the routes are generally into central Bristol which is of no usewhen getting children to school locally before travelling.Please do not approve this planning application - once the greenbelt is built on it is lost forever.

I object to building on this land, my bungalow backs on to the slopes and aside from allobvious reasons for objecting, saving green spaces, protecting habitats and wildlife an increase intraffic therefore more noise and more pollution. However a big concern is subsidence, in thishousing estate from houses 3 to 15 all which back on to the slopes , all of them have issues withsubsidence. I have spoken to a few of my neighbours and they have the same concerns and inprevious planning attempts when they weren't allow to build the fact that subsidence is an issuewas bought up time and time again. apparently the land is unsafe for building on it is bad enoughwhen some recent road works were carried out and the houses rumble and vibrate even when it isjust heavy traffic. I think building here is the worse ideal and in this area people do not haveenough green spaces or places to get out in to nature

As a local resident of Bedminster, I would like to formally state my opposition to theproposed plans for the Novers Hill development.

My understanding is that the development will result in the destruction of a significant Site ofNature Conservation, removing yet more of South Bristol's local green space and destroying thehabitat and hunting grounds of a huge number of species which are reliant on the area. Iunderstand the ancient hedgerow will be impacted and that a number of trees will have to befelled. This seems almost counter-intuitive at a time when the capacity of trees for carbon captureis so widely applauded. The biodiversity of any new planting space within the proposeddevelopment could not even begin to come close to that of such a mature and well-establishedgreen space.

In addition to my environmental objections, I am also concerned about the impact this newdevelopment will have on the local roads and the increased amount of vehicular traffic it will bring.This area is already heavily polluted with exhaust fumes and a nightmare for cyclists to navigatesafely, and I cannot imagine that making Novers Hill a one-way route will in any way improve thesituation.

This is shameful. Building car dependent sprawl on vital green spaces with the vastmajority of housing completely unaffordable and zero council housing. Tweeting aboutsustainability and how much you care about the environment means absolutely nothing when youare building over the green spaces Bristol people and nature need. You're not 'providing openpublic space' you're destroying it permanently for the benefit of developers. Oh, and addinghundreds more cars to Bristol illegal levels of air pollution in the process. Green city- what a joke

The loss of the green space and trees will add to the air pollution problem alreadypresent in this area. The increased traffic especially when running idly in queues will add to thepollution which will affect the health of everyone including those at the local primary school. This isin addition to the traffic already to beexpected from the siting of the new Recycling Centre.We can all enjoy the presence of a green wide open space together with the wildlife and localhorses. This will not be matched with the public space promised by the property developers.The noise of the traffic moving along Hartcliffe Way is already a constant hum similar to beingclose to a major highway, this will be exacerbated with the loss of the quiet outdoor that we alldeserve to be blessed with.Bristol South is becoming more and more densely populated and built up with no evidence ofimprovement and expansion of local amenities. We do not have competitively priced, regular andreliable public transport links to all areas of Bristol (except to the centre of Bristol) meaning peoplewould rather travel by cars causing more congestion and pollution. There is a lack of wide, safecycling lanes (and in fact some have been removed) and traffic calming systems in this area ofSouth Bristol. Therefore this new population are probably going to be car users.

I fully object to building on this site it flies in the face of everything COP26 stands for aswell as contradicting the Labour Mayor and Bristol City Council's manifesto

BIODIVERSITY - rare Horseshoe Bats, Badgers and ancient hedgerows will have their habitatdestroyed

NOISE AND POLLUTION - there is new recycling centre being built nearby, so nearby thedevelopers have suggested finding alternative ventilation for the properties. Increase in number ofcars in an already highly polluted area, increased traffic in the area again more noise andpollution. All without sufficient public transport infrastructure (now, not some nonsense about afuture underground system)

BUILDING ON GREEN FIELD SITE - there are many brownfield sites undeveloped in Bristol, let'sstart on these. Novers Hill is classed as "Prominent Green Hillside" and mapped as a "valuableurban landscape" in Bristol. Novers Hill in its' entirety is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest. In2.19.15 of Site Allocations and Development Management policies, it states that: "Sites of NatureConservation Interest (SNCIs) collectively represent the city's critical stock of natural capacity. Insome areas of Bristol, SNCIs offer people their only valuable contact with wildlife. Therefore,development proposals which would harm the nature conservation value of an SNCI will not bepermitted."Building here goes against everything Labour stand for.

The increase in pollution from traffic and the proposed change to one way Novers Hill isharmful to local people.The nearby area around Parson Street School has one of the highest levels of pollution in the cityand more cars will use these roads because of the changes caused by this development.

This does not create enough social housing for local people - only 47 homes will be sociallyrented/shared ownership. This is NOT council housing.The other 110 homes will be at "open market rate" - which is still unaffordable to most.We are losing yet another precious green space that so many benefit from.

The increase in pollution from traffic and the proposed change to one way Novers Hill isharmful to local people.The nearby area around Parson Street School has one of the highest levels of pollution in the cityand more cars will use these roads because of the changes caused by this development.

This does not create enough social housing for local people - only 47 homes will be sociallyrented/shared ownership. This is NOT council housing.The other 110 homes will be at "open market rate" - which is still unaffordable to most.We are losing yet another precious green space that so many benefit from.

Green belt land was put there for a reason. The quality of life is more important than justa question of squeezing as many new homes as possible out of an area that is especially loved bythe local population. We regularly walk on this land and therefore recognise it as a wildlife refuge.Bristol is supposed to be a green city and quite rightly so. Please think again.

South Bristol is having an inordinate amount of massive developments. This proposaltakes away yet another green belt , open field site, close to Hartcliffe in particular but also othersouth Bristol wards.

I object to any planning permission of any kind to be given on Novers Hill in belowgrounds:Preventing Global warming is not possible if planning permission continuously given on greenlands in Bristol and specially in south Bristol. It also conflicts with BCC's November 2018announcement on climate emergency and by the mayor's recent update on addressing both thedirect and indirect sources of the emissions that are responsible for climate change.South Bristol is suffering from poor air quality due to heavy traffic and lack of green spaces. Thishas been the result of excessive building projects on green lands in and around the area. Thegreen spaces are disappearing one by one with no hesitation on how much negative affect theyhave and will bring to local's health which includes children, ill people and elderly. Trees are beingcut and replaced with buildings for the past few years under the name of affordable housing yetthere is no control on rent prices which is much easier solution. Why not build on many brownfields for the purpose of increasing affordable housing if this is the main concern of the council.Novers Hill is a great asset to the area in every aspect. The nature is a home to variety of wildlifesuch as bats, badgers and birds which are very important and it is our responsibility to protectthem. It also has a unique combination of trees, flowers and plants which cannot be replaced onceits destroyed. The area has become a refuge to locals since the lockdown and continues to be theonly green area that those who suffer from mental health issues can use to relax and recuperate.This is essentially important for low income locals who can't afford traveling or paying forexpensive alternatives. Low income families with 2-3 children live in the area that need council'ssupport in terms of offering a safe and healthy area to live in. These children are our city's futuregeneration and their physical and mental health should be the main concern. Making them live inpolluted area for the purpose of generating income and profit for companies like Lovell is an

unforgivable crime. Increasing the population of the area that is already suffering from everyaspect is not a sustainable and responsible decision. People need houses and equally need greenareas around them to produces clean air and visually stimulates their mind. This is called quality oflife which everyone regardless of their income deserve it.Building houses on Novers Hill will bring so much air, noise and land and mental pollution that thelosses are way more than just offering few affordable houses. Low income locals won't afford anyof the expensive houses priced over £300,000 as part of this project.I would like to remind you that people who live in south Bristol are as important as any other areasin Bristol and you need to listen to their views, requests and do as they ask. Novers Hill if not moreis as unique and important and valuable as Clifton Downs for it's local and the whole city.I would like to remind you that recently, the full council passed Golden motion to protect all greenareas in Bristol which was remarkable and one big step towards the right direction to protect greenand wildlife which needs to be respected and followed.The full Novers Hill site must become officially a ''Nature Reserve'' to be protected from anycurrent or future attacks. I trust you listen to people's view and reject this planning permissionrequest for everyone's sake.

Destroying Novers Hill for the purpose of building houses is a wrong decision. This sitemust become officially a ''Nature Reserve'' to be protected from being destroyed. We need freshair and greens around us and no matter what part of Bristol we live in, air pollution in one areameans trouble for all Bristol. We are one city and my neighbours pain is my pain and we all shoulddo what we can to prevent the disasters from happening. Global warming is serious and wee needto save our green areas.

I am writing to object to planning application 21/05164/F. Principally, my objection is onthe grounds that this greenfield site should be retained in favour of development on brownfieldsites (of which Bristol has 248 according to the Brownfield Land Register). I note the application'sdeclaration that through off-setting there will be a bio-diversity net gain, however the potential ofthe green space for future biodiversity gain will be lost for good.

Having reviewed the planning documents, I believe there are a number of pros to thedevelopment, namely: good transport links; inclusion of footpaths and access through the area;inclusion of air source heat pumps; and majority of plots including gardens.

There are also a number of cons that I believe need to be addressed: The children's playground isvery small and appears to be the bare minimum to meet the planning requirement; Novers Hill isalready dangerous for pedestrians, this development offers nothing to improve that situation; thereis no provision of electric car chargers, car share, or visitor parking in the development plans;there appears to be no provision for bicycle storage.

I take issue with the conclusions of the Biodiversity report. In particular the conclusion that "shouldBristol City Council not agree to the use of the site as an offset, an alternative is to use a 3rd partyprovider to provide a net gain. Ethos Environmental Planning are working with a landowner nearNailsea on a biodiversity offset project." There is a risk that the proposed biodiversity offset will notbenefit either the local residents, or the occupiers of the proposed development. Surely more canbe done within the Novers Hill site to reduce the biodiversity loss; has the inclusion of a communitygarden and allotment been considered? Could there not be regeneration of the Pigeonhouse

Stream?

In addition, it is impossible to judge the proposal's compliance with the criteria "Integrateappropriate landscaping to ensure that green infrastructure links to the surrounding area aremaintained, including links to the Northern Slopes and Crox Bottom" and, "Maintain or strengthenthe integrity and connectivity of the Wildlife Network", as in the developer's own report they statethat the "The remainder of the allocation BSA1108 is to be delivered under a separate planningpermission, with an application yet to be submitted."

In conclusion, I fundamentally object to the proposed development of a greenfield site when somany brownfield sites remain undeveloped in Bristol. I also have a number of objections with thespecifics of this application and have proposed some improvements.

I object to this application for a number of reasons.

- Firstly, air quality is a real issue in Bristol, and to propose a development that would destroy anenvironment that captures carbon, whilst adding to carbon production (households, vehicles etc) isillogical. I live near the site and there is a 40mph road surrounding it which reduces air quality, plusindustrial sites nearby with more polluting heavy goods vehicles (which will only increase once therecycling centre is opened). This space (and others) acts as a buffer for residents and should beprotected and encouraged. When I was reading the Lovell literature and attended on onlinemeeting with them in July, it seemed air quality surveys had not been carried out.- Secondly, the plans for mitigating damage in the plans are insufficient and cannot get anywherenear the established hedgerows and tree growth. The area is a site of interest in terms of wildlife,valuable habitat and as such approving this would contradict the city's ecological strategy.- Another reason is there was a council vote in September on a motion to protect green spaces inthe city and prioritise brownfield, and I think the local plan should be updated reflecting this beforebuilding developments are approved.- The plans do not address the housing crisis in any meaningful way, which I acknowledge is anissue - with under 50 being allocated as 'affordable' (shared ownership/socially rented).- In addition, as far as I can see the plans for the development do not take advantage ofsustainable building methods like passive housing, or plan to have solar panels as standard.- Green space has been recognised as vital for ecological reasons and also health ones. For thepeople of South Bristol like me, we are proud of, and value the spaces we have near to us whichhave been vital sources of exercise and nature interaction, especially for those unable to travelfurther afield for cost or mobility issues.

- South Bristol's green spaces could be promoted in the same way other parts of Bristol have suchas Frome Valley Walkway and the Downs, bringing visitors who will help local businesses andhelp south Bristol shed some of the stigma is has had associated with it. A housing developmentcatering for car users next to the Hartcliffe Road will lead to people leaving the area to spend(which I suspect is happening at the Filwood Park development given the design, which could leadinto Filwood Broadway and help regenerate that area, doesn't, bafflingly) .

In conclusion, there are too many unknowns (air qual estimates) and known detrimental effects(habitat loss, carbon capture depletion) to do anything other than object to this proposal.

I object to the destruction of the beautiful hillside that is a very important and hugehabitat for may species of wildlife. It is a very important green corridor in south Bristol.

The development will not improve this large hillside that dominates the view from BedminsterDown. I can see horses grazing and many birds of prey flying overhead. I know that badgers,foxes and a huge amount of birds live on the slopes.

I think the increase in traffic will have a devastating impact on the local community, including at thepollution hotspot of Parson Street School. Hartcliffe Way is already congested at peak times, andthis is before the new recycling centre has even opened.

There are already many green spaces being lost to housing in this area. We should be building onbrownfield sites and saving our precious green spaces.

The development offers nothing to the local community and only includes a small number ofaffordable houses. They will be out of reach to most local people.

We already have overstretched services, such as doctors, dentists and schools, that won't havethe capacity to cope with these extra people. There are also no local shops within easy walkingdistance and no pubs or cafes.

I want to object to planning new housing on the land on the west side of Novers Hill inBristol, with planning application number 21/05164/F.It will significantly impact the whole neighborhood, overloading already heavy traffic as there is noplan to improve existing infrastructure, apart from making part of it a one-way street.So what then will happen with Novers Road and other streets?It is not a solution to this problem.There will be significant numbers of cars on the road creating heavy traffic and looking for parkingspace, and this will overload already busy streets, making it even more dangerous to walk anddrive.Not mentioning traffic noise affecting residents of Novers Hill, which rises on any occasion whenlocal streets are blocked. Novers Hill never complained before about too much attention of thelocal council regarding surface condition, cleaning frequency, or safety of users.Additionally, this is an area of green space and wildlife which is going to be lost forever. Any greenspace, especially one where we have established wildlife, should be protected, as Bristol councilstated many times, so if that is what we should keep and protect, why are Western Slops ofNovers Hill are exemption?There is no infrastructure to support those extra 157 houses, no roads, no school spaces forpupils, and you can't have health appointments because local GP Surgeries are too busy. There isvery weak public transport. It all will go with the cost of current residents' wellbeing and health nadmake more problems in future.

Yours sincerely

Dorota Mela

I do not want 150+ new homes built on green belt land thus destroying sorely needednatural habitat when there are other options for so called "affordable housing".Novers Lane and the surrounding roads are ill equipped to deal with the levels of traffic that thiswould bring.

The proposed development of 157 houses on the Western Slopes should be rejectedfor a number of reasons:

1. The removal of trees would increase the amount of air pollution in the local area. Parson StreetPrimary School, near to the proposed site has one of the highest levels of air pollution recorded ata Bristol school. There will also be an increase in traffic from the proposed development adding tothe existing congestion along the Hartcliffe Way and by Parson Street School. When you alsoconsider the increased traffic from those using the new recycling centre (currently being built), itwill be too much for the area which currently has cars sitting with engines idling in numerouslocations on a daily basis. Novers Hill will become even more of a rat run to avoid this, a one waysystem will not prevent that. This situation is unacceptable and will put local children's lives at risk,especially those with breathing conditions such as asthma.

2. There is a complete lack of any new amenities to serve the proposed development. Where willthe new residents work and attend school? Will there be new doctors' & dentists' surgeries andshops to help boost the local area? It currently looks like this will just add pressure to the existinginfrastructure and services. Lovell have stated in their research that "with regard to schoolscapacity, there is some evidence of primary schools in the area being at or above capacity". Iknow from personal experience that local GP and dental practices are at capacity and operatingwaiting lists. Similar developments in Hengrove and around Imperial Park are already increasingdemand on local amenities while simultaneously reducing the availability of green space. A lack ofamenities for the 157 proposed houses will force the new residents to use their cars and spendmoney elsewhere each time they need something.

3. The quality of the proposed housing is not acceptable. Lovell have admitted that the affordablehousing section (if delivered) is to be used as a noise barrier for the other houses. Affordable doesnot mean cheap so why should it be poorer quality? Even when discounted from market rate, theproperties will be too expensive for a lot of local people to afford. Why should the new residentshave to choose between the noise and smells of a recycling centre or keeping the windows closedon a hot day. AC is not a cost effective or environmentally friendly solution in 'affordable' housingaimed at poorer families. The design of the proposed cycle path in Lovell's plan is also very unsafe- it weaves in and out and straight onto the entrance to the industrial estate. How are thedevelopers going to ensure cyclists are kept safe given the increased amount of traffic in theimmediate area?

4. This location is designated as a 'prominent green hillside'. This means that development shouldnot be permitted unless the development is ancillary to the open space use, however this proposalwill not enhance the existing open space and goes against Core Strategy policy BCS9. This is alsocontrary to the recent motion passed on 7th Sept 2021 by the full council, to protect our greenspaces and prioritise brownfield sites. No building should take place on green space until the localplan is updated to reflect this democratic vote.

5. As a Site of Nature Conservation Interest, the unspoiled nature of the Western Slopes allows ahuge variety of plants, insects and other animals to be supported. It also feeds into the ecosystemof other local areas such as Pigeonhouse Stream, the Malago, Manor Woods and the NorthernSlopes. Destroying these habitats will cause huge ecological damage which is the completeopposite of BCC's Climate and Ecological Emergency Programme. This application is NOT one of"sustainable development". It will result in a significant net loss of ecological diversity that cannotbe mitigated on other green spaces. Mitigation on Crox bottom is not suitable because we arelosing a type of meadow that cannot be recreated. There is no space for this meadow at CroxBottom. There is also no room for additional trees - it is an already thriving ecosystem.

6. Animals from rare and protected species will be threatened if this application is allowed. RareHorseshoe bats and a well established, large colony of badgers will lose their habitat along withmany birds of prey that hunt in this area. The badger sets are due to be destroyed by the work toremove the Japanese Knotweed but the plan to move them to a man-made set has no guaranteesof success, especially with all the noise and disruption caused by the building work and then theproximity to the new development. The same applies to the bats. A recent survey has found 11species of bats including 2 very rare species in this location, yet this development would removemost of their habitat. The bat corridor is NOT sufficient and the noise and light from the buildingwork/new houses will disturb and disrupt their natural behaviour.

In light of all these objections please reject the application. The developer should use a moreappropriate brownfield site to build on and the valuable meadows on the Western Slopespreserved.

With little green space left in bristol it's vital we do our upmost to protect what we haveleft.We are trying to combat pollution and climate change internationally but yet here we aresqueezing hundreds of unnecessary housing in a built up area.The traffic this is going to cause will be incredible.It's so sad to see!Save our greenery, me, my future children and their children's children need fresh oxygen notpollution.

The Northern Slopes Initiative is a group of local volunteers who wish to the see theNorthern Slopes become a nature reserve for the health and well-being of people and wildlife.The Northern Slopes are 4 areas of green space (including Local Nature Reserves) to the east ofthe development site. Its most easterly site is covered by the Town and Village Green.The proposals for the TVG requires the loss of 92 square metres of land included in that area, atthe junction of Lynton Road and Novers Hill.We object on the basis that:- The area identified for the reprovision of this area does not fall within the Northern Slopes andtherefore is not likely to benefit users of the Slopes, both people and wildlife.- The proposals provide a function for users which is not the same as that provided on the Slopes -in that a LAP is provided within the reprovision.- We do not understand why the details of an application for the TVG change have not beenprovided at this stage so that people can fully understand the implications of what is beingproposed.- We note it is intended that area is repurposed to improve vehicle access to the area. Wequestion whether full consideration has been given to the road safety implications of thisdevelopment and potential harmful interactions between vehicles, cycle and scooter users andpedestrians.

We also object to the loss of green space through the development through an area whichprovides a critical link with the Northern Slopes and Crox Bottom/Manor Woods Valley andbeyond. This affects the way that wildlife reaches the Northern Slopes and return to sites furtherwest. To add more housing to the corridor increases the risk that wildlife further to the east on the

Northern Slopes will not travel to and from them, reducing the variety and richness of wildlife onthe Slopes. We believe that the whole of the Western Slopes (including the area owned by theCouncil) should be turned into a nature reserve and formal park to support the health and well-being of people and wildlife.

The Northern Slopes Initiative has noted that poor ground stability and drainage have causedsignificant delays and additional cost to construction projects on the slopes. Given the geologicalsimilarity of the Northern and Western Slopes it is likely that this will factor in any newdevelopment on the Western Slopes which in itself is an additional argument against using thearea for housing development.

I object to the application to build housing on the Western Slopes. It is a wildlife corridorand one of the 'Green Lungs' of South Bristol. It is necessary as an area for local wildlife to thriveand should be preserved. It is often noted by visitors how part of the cities character is that it hasthese green rural spaces amongst the housing. These places must be kept - they make the cityspecial. I enjoy the view over to the Western Slopes from where I live.

I dont want it to happen as it would make more traffic on the roads and it is a part of thegreen lands in the area that I live in which I walk around Daily

As a resident and home owner on Novers Hill , this development, if given the go aheadis going to cause absolute traffic chaos on what is already a very busy and dangerous hill. Theamount of pollution this will cause us will have a detrimental effect on our health as residents .Also the loss of what is a beautiful green space where we walk and take time to relax and take inthe wildlife around us . We often sit and watch nature at its best . To lose this is going to have aneffect on our wellbeing .

I fully object to the proposed development.

Building on this site would result in a tragic loss of green space and wildlife, impacting localpeoples mental health as well as the wildlife and biodiversity in the area. The land has beendeemed a vital wildlife corridor and no amount of mitigation could truly compensate for thedisruption and harm this would cause to the wildlife that inhabit the space.

There are plenty of brownfield sites that should be used before such historic, green spaces shouldbe used for housing. Approving this site will go against a recent motion passed by BCC to protectour green spaces and prioritise brownfield sites.

I am fortunate enough to enjoy a view of the green hills of this site, and take great joy in drawingmy curtains back in the morning and watching the horses on the fields, or admiring the sun peakover the horizon. I will lose privacy into my home from this development, and many choose to livein this suburb for the green spaces and building on this land would be a real travesty. My housedeeds date back to the 1900s and detail the rich history of these historic hedgerows and the landwhich surrounds us.

For a city which apparently is 'green', we do a pretty good job of trashing the few remaining greenspaces around us. This space is referred to as the lungs of South Bristol and even though the airaround here is still illegally high, how much worse will it be with 300 extra cars on the road whichwill come as a result of this development being approved?

That brings me to my next point, which is how the amenities in the area just are not set up to copewith any more houses. Having recently moved here I know how difficult it has been to getregistered with a local surgery- what is the plan for these new houses?

The prospective residents of these houses are also going to have to live with the noise pollution ofthe nearby trading estate and recycling centre, many having to leave their windows closed in thedaytime just to bring levels down to within the upper end of what's reasonable. With many nowworking from home, that doesn't strike me as a very realistic solution for the summer months?

If the council even consider passing this application then at least stipulate that the provision ofaffordable housing is increased, something with this city very much needs whilst there are luxuryhomes and apartments being built centrally.

This is an objection to the proposed Lovell development of 157 homes on Novers HillWesternSlopes.I live directly opposite the proposed development. We have lived here since 2014 at number 85Novers Hill.We chose this place for its privacy and light and knowing our neighbours. We believe it to be ahealthy place to bring up our young family.Here are the following reasons why this Lovell housing development will negatively impact us andthe area.Increase traffic making the roads more dangerous and pollution at a higher level. In an area wherethere is not the capacity on the roads or pavements to support the current population of the area.Where the pavements are not maintained by the council and brambles prevent them from beingused, and the road has continual temporary road surfaces, accidents are waiting to happen.With added work traffic already in the area with the developments that are happening here. HGVS,bikes, scooters, cars, mobility scooters and pedestrians (including many young families) all usethisroad together. There is no protection between road and pedestrian.If it is trying to avoid pot holes, not taking the bend tight enough, people driving too fast, bikehittinga pot hole, these are just some of the things I have witnessed as a pedestrian, driver and observerofthe road.Irreparable Damage to the established local ecosystem. Currently we have bats, magpies,

sparrowhawks, buzzards, kestrels, goldfinches, chaffinches, sparrows, badgers, hedgehogs, foxes,woodpigeons, slow worms, weasels, are just some of the creatures we have seen here.It will block our light by 90%. The impact of the housing development completed in 2016 which hasblocked light and is directly opposite part of this terrace of houses where we live, has given us ataster of what is to follow.Negative impact to physical and mental health. It is ironic that Knowle West was built because ofneeding to move people out of the built up, central city slums and now in 2021! It is becoming anever increasing built up area, that the delicate environment has not the capacity to cope with.

I'll open by pointing out that South Bristol is currently groaning under the weight ofhousing development with seemingly every bit of spare green space being grabbed and concretedover. If we are to have any regard at all in this city for 'the Earth beneath' then surely commonsense should prevail here. Clearing a space and felling trees to provide more space for aburgeoning population to dispose of more of their waste will produce more light, noise and trafficpollution in an already congested area - to then even consider building on a wildlife corridor thatnot only provides local people with the opportunity to feel like they are out in the countryside ontheir very own doorstep, it also provides visual respite and a way to watch the seasons comingand going - my house looks out on this site from across the way and not a day goes by when Idon't cast my eyes over to the green space and drink it in. This 'green finger' is an important bufferzone for wildlife in a city where such things are touted as being important but in reality are pushedaside in the name of progress. Wildlife thrives here as surveys have confirmed, local people valuethis site for relaxation and the chance to explore - if this land goes it will be gone forever - it is astable and established wildlife site on virgin land - it provides a breathing space - a green lung ifyou like - it is also a natural part of the geography around here - a steep sloping grassy areawhere the landscape can absorb rainfall and allow it to soak away. There is so much at stake here- housing needs must be met we are led to believe but avarice is a destructive thing and it cansteamroller through decisions that do not have future generations in mind - green belt and sitessuch as this should not be built on otherwise we just end up with urban sprawl - Bedminster,Withywood, Hartcliffe, Hengrove and Ashton Vale will all soon be joined up and there will be littleor nothing in between - in effect another town is being built in South Bristol but with all the bittyplanning applications it was difficult to keep tabs on - this site deserves better than that - as do thepeople and wildlife of South Bristol. A mature tree or a meadow cannot be replaced in any one

lifetime.

I am writing to object on behalf of my household. We currently live on Novers Hill buthave been residents of South Bristol for over 10 years. Novers Hill/Western Slopes has alwaysbeen held by us as an important wildlife corridor and visual reminder of how valued these greenspaces are to the urban landscape. Bristol is meant to be a city leader against climate changehaving declared an 'ecological emergency' so we need actions not just empty words and promisesin protecting our valuable green spaces.

Ecology:Secretary of States 2003 appeal decision against Persimmon Homes' development of Novers Hillstill holds true in all its key arguments. The inspector of this report noted that the site had city wideimportance and the 'adverse and permanent effects of the built development would be sufficientlylimited to be offset.'

The offsetting strategy outlined by Lovells is weak. They have proposed to this being offset at CroxBottom - this site is owned by the council and from their report it does not look like that thedeveloper has agreed with this approach. As this land isn't in the control of the applicant how canthey ensure that the management maintenance and monitoring of the net gain is secured in theirproposed time frame of 30 years?

As Crox Bottom is publicly accessible this makes it harder to deliver the management and 'netgain' they are attempting to offer. Alternative site suggested at Nailsea is a long way away andimportantly provides no equivalent benefit to local residents.

From the Pegasus report provided by Lovells it states 'remainder of the allocation BSA1108 is tobe delivered under a separate planning permission, with an application yet to be submitted. Thisportion of the allocation would address any connectivity to Crox Bottom located further south.' Thissuggests that this planning application is premature as it can't be demonstrated that thisconnectivity can actually be delivered. Lovells have also used out of date biodiversity metric 2.0where they should have used 3.0.

Novers Hill is an important section in a belt or chain of open grasslands, hedgerows and scrub -development would break and reduce the degree of ecological linkage with amongst othersNovers Common and Northern Slopes. This linkage cannot be easily mitigated by modals andassumptions of how wildlife will react to the destruction of their habitats. Novers Hill is such a richmix of habitats and areas that it can support such a diverse range of species such as badgers,foxes and smaller mammals such field mice,voles, moles and rare horseshoe bats. In the pastweek, I've spotted on four occasions birds of prey including kestrals and buzzards flying over theslopes.

Novers Hill was previously given the status of a Site of SNCI (Site of Nature Conservation Interest)- with citywide importance. This is why the writer of the Secretary of States report concluded that'It is its openness and its prominent 'natural' or undeveloped qualities that are in his view its mostimportant visual attributes. 'He goes on to comment that he does not consider this a degradedlandscape' but one which is obvioulsy thriving.

It also appears the Council haven't followed EIA regulations correctly as they have published theirEIA screening opinion in accordance with regulation 5 of the EIA regulations 2017. Pegasus say ithas been done but it isn't available on the planning portal.

It would appear statutory consultees such as the Environment Agency, Historic England andNatural England have not been consulted, which for a development of this size is of graveconcern.

Traffic, Transport & Amenities:I walk up and down Novers Hill every day for work. There are ways to make the road safer whichshould have been done many years ago. Making the road one way is not the only solution. Amuch simpler one would be to add traffic calming give way triangles along the length of the road,to slow traffic and provide safer pedestrianised areas.

In 2011 Bristol City Council installed traffic counters. These measured traffic Monday-Friday 7am-7pm. 2214 journeys down the hill, and 1619 up the hill were made daily on average. Regardless ofwhether the hill would be made one way, adding 157 houses in this development as well as theadditional traffic from other proposed developments in South Bristol (such as Hengrove airfield(1400 houses), BokLok (173 currently being built) as well as sites in Inns Court, Broadbury Road,Health Park and the Youth Zone) the cumulative effect of all these developments would mean not

only the traffic on the Hill increasing but also local roads in the area and Hartcliffe way wouldbecome even more congested than they already are. Quite simply the local infrastructure cannotcope.

There are highway safety issues related to all the increased traffic across the whole of Filwoodward as well as those neighbouring the development. Especially with Parson Street primary schooland Greenfield ACT primary school. The measured pollution levels are already dangerously highat both schools. Significantly, Lovells have also made no junction improvement to the bottom ofNovers Hill and Lynton Road. Should the actual validity of this application be brought intoquestion? Any major road planning changes need permissions before a planning application issubmitted and these have not yet been sought by Lovells.

In the Secretary of States report he 'did not find the site to be particularly well located in relation torailway stations and bus stops.' Its accessibility in modes other than the car was the only realoption for many. Apart from the addition of the M1 bus stops, which are not particularly close toeither end of the site therefore these traffic comments still remain valid.

There are obvious noise and light pollution aspects to also consider as well as the air pollutantsfrom all the increased car use.

Bristol City Council even before the pandemic, struggled to make timely bin collections so addinga further 157 houses will only exacerbate this. The same can be argued for the increaseddemands on local medical services and school class sizes. Again the cumulative impact ofdevelopments across the whole of South Bristol will make these issues completely unmanageable.

Proposed Site Housing Issues:

Town and village green - TVG - from studying the map, I do not believe this to be a true equivalentand I certainly do not believe the equivalent by function can be achieved in the areas earmarkedby Lovells. The enjoyment of the TVG space will not be equal for locals well as all residents ofBristol so Lovell's open space strategy is questionable. It says part of the site is land locked andan existing access can't be used. This means Lovells are breaching planning policy of theprotected TVG green space through the middle. It also appears they are double counting byproviding the public open space POS within the safe guarded corridor. Again this brings into thequestion the validity of this application as TVG status change should have been approved prior tothe application submission.

There is an important function performed by the site as recognised in the Secretary of State reportin separating residential development to the East of Novers Hill from the industrial and commercialdevelopment to north and west of the site.' This open space is a 'visual amenity even provides anoutlook, or variety in the urban scene. There is a definite visible impact of the designated open

space. From more distant viewpoints, such as the Clifton Suspension Bridge. There is also thevisible impact of lost hillside. This is felt along and around the Malago greenway. Visible openspace affords a relief to the adjacent built up area.

In analysing EBB768B404BF0FA73286FCCF11464FD1/pdf/21_05164_F-SITE_SECTIONS-3044944.pdf on the planning portal section 2 shows the building height of Flat Type A block 6 ashigher than the tree line, this is even with the provision of the block being 'sunk'. With the height ofblock 6 being so high this has a clear implications for loss of light and overshadowing for residentson Novers Hill. The sun sets behind Headley park and this is in the direct lines of the development.This loss of light and over shadowing will impact all the residential properties from numbers 53-77on Novers Hill. As well as a lesser extent, Haven House up to number 99 on Novers Hill. Photos ofthe loss of this light will be provided in photos emailed separately.

There are also clear privacy issues with balconies being installed down the sides of block 6 due tothe height breaching the tree line.

The topography of the site is steep in many areas so unless the build quality is very high, there arereasons to believe significant sections of the site could succumb to subsistence.

Point 7.9 on the housing allocation states that 'while the target yield of 50 dwellings is more thanmet within the proposal, this must be considered in the context of the extensive escalation ofhousing need' This shows that the numbers of housing on the smaller allocation far exceed policyso this isn't policy compliant.

On the same report 7.14 states 'application proposals only address 69% of allocation BSA1114,with the remaining south-western field within Council control. This area could therefore comeforward for employment development in future should the council elect to do so.' This brings intoquestion why haven't Lovells worked with the council to prepare a comprehensive masterplan forthe entire allocation which seeks to deliver a policy compliant scheme of 50 dwellings andbusiness uses that also seeks to deliver a 10% biodiversity net gain. While the applicant statesthat they have future proofed /safeguarded the remainder of the allocation, it is of a size andshape that would make it difficult to develop and therefore is unlikely to be developed in the future.Lovells should have demonstrated how the entire allocation could have been brought forward in away that delivers comprehensive and good design in accordance with the National Planning PolicyFramework.

Alternative Vision:

Ultimately, I do not feel this land should ever have been included in the outdated 2012 LocalRegeneration Plan. Regenerate brownfield sites, regeneration of a green field site is an oxymoron.This delicate eco-system can only be destroyed by a housing development.

This part of the city is relatively poorly provided with public parks in the local Filwood ward, and thelimited amount and distribution of the ward's publicly accessible space. So why not make thisunique site into what it is already in all but name - The Novers Nature Reserve.

Just like we all look back on disastrous post war town planning decisions, the next generation willnever forgive us if this decision goes against our precious green space to further harm andaccelerate the climate crisis.

I'll open by pointing out that South Bristol is currently groaning under the weight ofhousing development with seemingly every bit of spare green space being grabbed and concretedover. If we are to have any regard at all in this city for 'the Earth beneath' then surely commonsense should prevail here. Clearing a space and felling trees to provide more space for aburgeoning population to dispose of more of their waste will produce more light, noise and trafficpollution in an already congested area - to then even consider building on an adjacent wildlifecorridor that not only provides local people with the opportunity to feel like they are out in thecountryside on their very own doorstep, it also provides visual respite and a way to watch theseasons coming and going - my house looks out on this site from across the way and not a daygoes by when I don't cast my eyes over to the green space and drink it in. This 'green finger' is animportant buffer zone for wildlife in a city where such things are touted as being important but inreality are pushed aside in the name of progress. Wildlife thrives here as surveys have confirmed,local people value this site for relaxation and the chance to explore - if this land goes it will begone forever - it is a stable and established wildlife site on virgin land - it provides a breathingspace - a green lung if you like - it is also a natural part of the geography around here - a steepsloping grassy area where the landscape can absorb rainfall and allow it to soak away. There is somuch at stake here - housing needs must be met we are led to believe but avarice is a destructivething and it can steamroller through decisions that do not have future generations in mind - greenbelt and sites such as this should not be built on otherwise we just end up with urban sprawl -Bedminster, Withywood, Hartcliffe, Hengrove and Ashton Vale will all soon be joined up and therewill be little or nothing in between - in effect another town is being built in South Bristol but with allthe bitty planning applications it was difficult to keep tabs on - this site deserves better than that -as do the people and wildlife of South Bristol. A mature tree or a meadow cannot be replaced in

any one lifetime.

Inappropriate development on valued important open space and wildlife habitats.Destruction of this green lung would occur and loss of bio diversity at a time when Bristol shouldbe leading the way in preserving and valuing such natural spaces for future as well as currentBristolians, and which it purports to do.

I'm just astounded how this can be considered when Bristol has a declared climateemergency. I understand the need for affordable housing, but most of these plans only include avery small amount of this, and generally the affordable part isn't that affordable. Social housing issurely whats needed considering the rising cost of rents. I understand that there are plenty ofbrownfield sites identified by the University of the West of England.

More importantly, I live on the Parson Street gyratory system and the amount of pollution cominginto our homes and over our cars is truly alarming. If you build all the houses the you areconsidering, then it can only get worse. Already Parson Street school has illegal levels of pollution.

The green slopes offer a green lung to the south of Bristol and it will be a sad day if these are lost.

Disgusting to even think about using this land. What will happen to the horses, thewildlife that lives there. You BCC are building all over South Bristol, go build in Clifton if you haveto build anywhere.Also, what doctors are going to be used for the residents moving in, what schools? The local HC'sare too busy as it is and the education establishments.You are ruining Bristol with your cycle lanes, narrowing of pavements, cutting off roads, Bristol CityCentre, the shops in Broadmead will be closed within 10 years. Your ideas are selfish just to winbrownie points from the Government, to be the 1st, the top Council and no thought to theresidents.I schooled at Merrywood Girls, Knowle West was local to me and Novers Hill was part of that.You will get your own way though, you will bully your way through and sod the public, I can't waitto leave Bristol even though I was born and bred here 58 years ago, I'm starting to despise itbecause of BCC.

We should not be building on green spaces within the city, especially those which havenever been built on before and provide sanctuary for local wildlife, like the badgers we had thisspring!

Green spaces are also important for air quality, outdoor space to walk and play in, and have beenreally important for mental health, especially over the pandemic.

South Bristol's green hillsides are beautiful, and building over the green space will change the waythat the area looks forever. The Western Slopes are a slice of countryside in the city and I don'twant to imagine them being built over.

This area is close to one of the busiest and most polluted junctions in Bristol (Hartcliffe Way withBedminster Road). Additional homes will bring additional cars onto the road, and will contribute topollution in the area.

Finally, as a local resident I'm also concerned that houses are being built with no thought to localamenities, adding pressure to existing local services like GP surgeries and schools.

I wish to object to this Planning application as it goes against Bristol taking the lead indeclaring the 'climate emergency.'

Greenfield sites such as this one on Novers Hill provide important wildlife corridors supporting avast array of species from Badgers to Birds of Prey. Human impact of housing developments cannever be mitigated against leaving these green spaces well alone. Brownfield sites should bebrought forward and prioritised and greenfield sites should be an absolute last last resort.

Novers Hill has a diverse mix of shrub, grassland and trees, there are no guanrantees theinstallation of bat corridors and new badger setts will work, and if not, these habitats will bepermanently disturbed and potentially lost.

Traffic around the Novers Hill site on neighbouring roads and especially Hartcliffe Way is alreadyat breaking point, standing traffic is resulting in very dangerous levels of pollution at Parson Streetschool. Another 157 homes alongside all the other developments in South Bristol will onlyexacerbate these problems which are already acute.

I'm concerned about flooding due to increased run off into Pigeonhouse stream and along theMalago, and the steep gradients make me further worried about subsistence issues across the

site.

Ultimately an alternative use could be a nature reserve and city farm which would be a great assetfor residents of Knowle West who have limited access to green spaces and opportunities to benefitfrom the incredible green space that is Novers Hill.

I would like to register my OBJECTION to the Planning Application by Lovell Homes.The application has put in for 157 homes on part of the site.This would create terrible chaos because of the increased vehicles, also the lack of facilities ..school, Medical, shops and Public Houses for the total good and welfare of the Residents.This site was refused Planning once before for Lovells and in 2002 by the BCC and the Secretaryof State who wondered who would want to build on an asset such as this in Bristol.Nothing has changed in fact just two years ago a BCC Researcher identified that this and it'sadjoining site, all within the area known as the Western Slopes has a high value from anEcological aspect.BCC are leading the way to a Clean Air City and also very Ecological conscious but to grantpermission would be flying against their own beliefs and aspirations.It is also noted that on the 7th September 2021 a Full Committee passed a Resolution not to buildon any GREENFIELD SITES in Bristol.It must also be noted that all the Residents in the immediate area, plus those from Dundry,Headley Park, Bedminster Down, Kingsdown, Clifton and the multitude of public who pass throughthe area of the site which is part of the Western Slopes would be deprived of the current statusand would only have vision of houses. This would adversely effect their physical health andprobably more importantly, their Mental health.

I use these slopes for exercise and recreation, they should belong to the people andwildlife not be sold to developers to sell onto private landlords. Our green spaces make Knowlesuch a nice place to live and without them our mental health and physical health and fitness wouldsuffer.

Full Council vote to protect green spaces:Full Council voted in favour of keeping all green belt and green spaces in the city. No councillorsvoted against the motion. I don't think any further planning permissions should be granted forgreen space until that democratic wish has been put into the new Local Plan. The Local Planreview should be a priority and delivered way ahead of its current schedule. Because of theinterest generated by the Full Council vote there is a genuine opportunity to get a high level ofengagement and participation from local communities in shaping the new Local Plan.

Local Plan and Knowle West Regeneration Framework:The existing Local Plan is beyond its shelf life. And stuck in review. Site allocations were madebefore our knowledge of the climate and ecological emergencies had increased. Allocations thatwe may have felt comfortable with, now feel very out of date. The Local Plan itself is not widelyunderstood or known about by local people. The number of local people who responded to theLocal Plan or it's review is tiny, this will be very different now as communities begin to finallyunderstand how large chunks of their local green spaces get assigned for building. The Local Planalso took a shortcut on sites in the Filwood Ward by relying on the Knowle West RegenerationFramework. This approach has meant that communities surrounding Novers Hill who were not inthe Filwood Ward have never been invited to participate in shaping any ideas about the slopes.Novers Hill tips up to face neighbouring communities of Headley Park and Bedminster Down, yetthey have not been part of the discussion of its future.

Unsustainable development:Progressing Bristol's Development (the document that aims to fill the gap left by the out of date

Local Plan) talks about support for sustainable development but this proposal is not sustainable. Itwill result in a net loss to conservation, we can't carry on building like this. The design is veryintrusive and destructive of the hillside, at its highest the retaining wall between houses in4.8metre high, with a 1.8metre fence above it. That height is excessively high and will result ingardens with very little sunlight in them as the sun rises behind Novers Hill and sets at the front ofthe properties. A retaining wall the height of a double decker bus does not suggest asustainable low impact build. Little of the land left for nature will be left undisturbed. A large slopewill hold up the road, with crash barriers on the edge, much of the soil will be disturbed in thisconstruction, and there will be two areas of significant soil disturbance to remove knotweed and afurther third point of disturbance to dig out an artificial badger sett, and they will be a temporaryconstruction road between the two estates. There will also be a large number of trees lost in thebuild. Grassland will be lost. Subsidence issues are well known on the Western and NorthernSlopes, Torpoint slipped down the hillside, houses on Novers Lane have garden walls and shedsslipping down the hillside. Considerable parts of the hillside are old landfills that continue to slipand slide.

Previous applications refused:Previous applications for house building on this site have been refused. The reasons to protect thewildlife corridor of the ancient hedgerow are still valid, even more so now that the city has declaredan ecological emergency.

Environmental Impact Assessment:There doesn't seem to have been done, or not made available, why is that?

Ecological importance:Novers Hill is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), the whole of the hillside. Avon WildlifeTrust has spoken of the importance of this meadowhabitat.https://www.avonwildlifetrust.org.uk/news/support-bristols-green-spaces - It is a completeecosystem that supports many species. The development will result in a net loss to habitat andecology. The mitigation proposed on the site is flawed, for example counting new trees in backgardens as these will have no protection and if they survive will take 20 or 30 years to reach anylevel of maturity. But there is nothing to stop the homeowners or tenants from cutting down treesthat interrupt their views of the suspension bridge. Mitigation is not possible on the slopes, CroxBottom has been suggested but that site is not suitable to take meadowland as it is woodland andwater habitat.

The whole of Novers Hill is recognised by the West of England Nature Partnership as being part ofa nature recovery network, specifically as grassland network. In the proposed development theamount of land suggested to be left for wildlife is far too small, it won't sustain the vast numbers ofspecies on this hillside where I regularly see Kestrels, Buzzards, Sparrowhawks (and lessregularly) owls. The combination of meadow and tree cover is needed to provide all the speciesthat support these top level predators. 11 species of bat are recorded as using these slopes. The

moth diversity must be enormous as this is such a large unlit area. Bird life is very active, and youcan hear a vast variety of birdsong even above the traffic noise of the Hartcliffe Way and thesound of the industry alongside.

Tiny biodiversity enhancement areas:In the proposal there are tiny bits of land classed as "biodiversity enhancement areas", these arereally just scraps of land not big enough for housing. Although better than just paving them overthey are too small to make a significant contribution to biodiversity. Private gardens can be paved,astro turfed or concreted at the whim of the resident. This all points to a site that is not workinghard enough for biodiversity and unable to mitigate the loss on site. Lovell also used a betaversion of the Biodiversity net gain calculator despite a more recent version having been madeavailable. So even if the data they have come up with is inaccurate and especially cannot be reliedupon for the more 'wild' type of plantlife, which is exactly the habitat we need to maintain andincrease species in Bristol. Biodiversity offset is suggested at Crox Bottom but has not beenagreed, and the site seems unsuitable to recreate the lost meadowland. The importance of thespecific habitat on the Western Slopes is further demonstrated in this application by the othersuggested location for net gain being far outside Bristol in Nailsea. This does not benefit localresidents or the wider people of Bristol. Does the narrowness of the remaining nature strip reallyallow the wildlife corridor across the slopes to remain viable.

Business use missing from the proposal:The allocation BAS1114 is for a business and housing mix. Housing up to 50 homes. Thisproposal is using more housing than suggested in the allocation (74 homes) and the reasoning isnot well argued, as it leaves it to be resolved on the other allocation BSA1108 which doesn't havebusiness use in it. This opportunity to create local jobs could be lost. The proposal is across twoallocations, both should be considered together in full. This planning application should be linkedto any future application for the allocation BSA1108 and both be considered together due to thecombined business, housing, ecological, transport and pollution issues across the whole hillside.There has been no consultation on the allocation BSA1114 as only for homes, it has always beenconsulted on as a mix of employment and residential.

Pollution increase:There appear to be no or very little recent traffic surveys done, no data for the new recyclingcentre. No convincing consideration of the cumulative impact of all the new housing being builtnearby and the new increase for the recycling centre. These are all unverified predictions. Trafficpollution at Parson Street School is already dangerously high, and this site is not well served bypublic transport.

Noise pollution:Noise surveys carried out after the first lockdown when journeys and industry were not at usuallevels. Lovell describes the industrial buildings on the "...edge of the site to the north and eastabout a light industrial area with a garage, builders merchant and other light industrial uses..." This

doesn't seem accurate as there is already a large waste transfer site in the large blue buildings,https://www.recyclingbristol.com/waste-transfer-centre/ - The noise emitted from the new recyclingcentre currently being built is not known. The noise from the ETM waste transfer station just belowthe proposed estate can be loud. I can hear it over in Bedminster Down if the wind is blowing inmy direction. It is not unbearable at a distance but it surely will be incredibly loud to live right nextto this existing business. Surely we're not expecting the residents, especially of the social housingnoise buffer, to live inside with their windows shut and to stay inside. Will they not be sitting ingardens or strolling next to the drainage pit we are told is a nature feature, or by the 'orchard', afew trees at the car turning circle at the end of the estate. Will this existing business be forced tomove and take their jobs with them?

Local inaccuracies and lack of local knowledge:Lovell says "...a range of nearby facilities and amenities required on a day to day basis areavailable along Hartcliffe Way, with typical high street stores available...." There are no high streetshops on Hartcliffe Way (there are vehicle hire, hand car wash, waste transfer station), there areno pubs nearby. Headley Park is not near enough and not easily reached by foot from that topedge of Novers Hill (with no access through the industrial estate or across Pigeonhouse Stream).Bus stops on Hartcliffe Way are beyond the recommended walking distance and other stops on Novers Lane and heading south, not north into town.

Strain on local services:Further increase in housing will put strain on existing local services such as schools, GPs anddentists. The Health Impact Assessment seems to do little more than list local services. It is notjust the 157 homes from this proposal that need to be considered as there are so many projectsunderway or lined up. The new school is already delayed.

Loss of Town and Village Green protected land:More of the TVG is taken than is given back as a useful habitat. What is given is a playpark, thisisn't the same habitat. And this is on the strip of land that is not in either of the site allocations andcannot be built on anyway. To change the status of the TVG the council will need to apply to thesecretary of state, and I think would need to consult separately to this planning application withlocal people, as this TVG is clearly aiming to protect the land and hedgerow. This loss of habitatcannot be mitigated. Previous planning applications have been refused in order to protect thisancient hedgerow as a wildlife corridor.

Prominent hillside:The viewpoints and photos used in the application are misleading. For example the view fromManor Park is actually very low down on the Bedminster Down hillside. A more accurate view ofthe dominance of this hillside as a large green space with grazing horses can be seen fromBrooklyn Road, Ilchester Crescent, Ilchester Road, Valley Road, Eastlyn Road and so on. Walkingoff Bishopsworth Road onto Ilchester Road, as you reach the peak of the hill and start to movedownwards the huge green expanse of the Western Slopes tips up in front of you, breaking up the

buildings of the housing on the farthest side of the road of Novers Hill from the industrial units, forexample the large blue ETM building on the industrial estate that joins Hartcliffe Way. And loss ofthis green space of grass and trees will upset the existing balance and create anoverabundance of buildings with little or no greenery to break them up. This has been anundisturbed green hillside for years and has recovered from previous use as a landfill site. It hasnaturally recovered itself from previous use.

Road changes and cycle path:Changes to the road and cycle path need to be a separate consultation. Are these safe? The cyclepath if coming from the south begins on the right side of the road, half way along Novers Laneyou'll need to cross over the road to the left hand side. Then cross the first of the roads in and outof the upper estate (the only access), to join the cyclepath behind the hedgerow. Behind thehedgerow there will be low level lighting in an effort not to disturb the many bats that live or passthrough the site, will this be safe for cycling or walking when it's dark? At the other end of thehedgerow you need to cross the other road into the other estate (again the only access road inand out) and rejoin Novers Hill, At this point the hill is very steep and you'll need to go past theonly entrance and exit to industrial units, including a windows factory. Lovell have made acomparison with the lack of accidents involving bikes on the Hartcliffe Way cycle path. But thesetwo locations are not comparable, Hartcliffe Way has levelled off by this point and is wide, with notree cover or hedgerows obscuring entrances. Novers Hill is a steep, narrow hill and entrances tothe factory cannot be seen until you are level with them.

Will making the road one way mean more large lorries and local residents' cars need to pass bythe school children in the Greenfield Academy. Currently lorries can come and go using the lowerend of the hill at Parson Street. Length of journeys will be increased as lorries and cars will needto pass by more houses. Also there don't seem to be enough parking spaces, 3 and 4 bed housesonly have 2 spaces and 3 bed flats only one space. It is really unlikely that future residents are yetready to reduce car use, especially as the alternative public transport here is not good. Will thiscreate parking issues for the existing streets? This is local resident parking, not commuters, so it'sdifficult to see any parking scheme helping to solve the problem.

Flood protection:Drainage currently occurs naturally across the vast hillside, it can retain water for long periods oftime, releasing it slowly in the local waterways. A drainage pit that releases directly intoPigeonhouse Stream does not allow any time for pollutants to evaporate and sounds like apotential health and safety risk if the pond is not typically experienced as containing deep water.This will literally be a dark secluded backwater at the bottom edge of the estate and also seemsdesigned to encourage anti-social behaviour.

Future care for the natural areas:Lovell proposes to set up a Residents Management Company to run the common areas on theestates, so there will be ongoing costs to live here, presumably also for the affordable/social

properties. How do we know that future residents will not want to change the use or access of thecommon areas of the estates. I'm thinking of a scenario such as some anti-social behaviour in theplay park that causes residents to make these areas residents access only. These aren't reallyareas given to the wider community, they could become gated.

Pedestrian access across the slopes:In the proposal there is a secluded footpath that goes down towards the Hartcliffe Way end of theestate, around the back of a bin store, next to the drainage pit. It doesn't lead anywhere and feelsa very dangerous design, even if it were to be opened up to the industrial estate below. Accessdown the slopes to the Hartcliffe Way is needed if this site is to be properly linked to publictransport, but safety of that secluded route needs to be considered. It's the same landowner andshould be resolved in the one application. Also routes across the hillside are poor and onlyprovided by roads. This is not improving the landscape by creating green spaces that are pleasantand desirable to use.

Accessibility:Disability living allowance claimants in Filwood are almost twice the city average, yet the numberof accessible properties is low and links to public transport are not good. Overall there is very littlegiven back to the community in this proposal which harmfully encroaches onto views looking at thehillside and away from it. Paths across it are steep and winding, the extreme topography makes itdifferent to see a future resident being able to get easy access in and out without a car. Thenumber of adverse impacts surely outweigh any claims to provide homes, which seems to be theonly positive that it does fulfil.

Pre application consultation:The pre application consultation was poorly handled. There was a restricted access meeting(Zoom only) with Knowle West Future. Followed by an open meeting, also Zoom only despite achange in Coronavirus restrictions. This is in an area with below average access and use of digitalservices. Only one date was given, no documents shared ahead of the meeting and documentspresented were too small and detailed to follow easily during the meeting. No options werepresented and no changes appear to have been made to the proposal at all. Minutes of thediscussion were not made available. There were no further meetings or chances to ask furtherquestions or get answers to issues raised. The process felt very rushed.

Volume and complexity of planning application documents:There are a huge amount of complex and very large documents attached to this planningapplication. It feels almost deliberately designed to make it impenetrable to the average resident.There appears to be very little effort to plain English the proposals in a way that will be easilyunderstandable to the widest range of people. In all the many documents there are no mock ups ofhow the hillside will look with the proposed hillside.

Novers Nature Reserve:

We have an opportunity to provide something really good for local residents, something they canbe proud to have in their neighbourhood. The slopes should be protected as the nature reserve ithas become. Creating a Novers Hill Nature Reserve and truly opening up access for all will be areally valuable regeneration facility for local people, improving mental wellbeing and physicalhealth, maintaining and increasing biodiversity in the city. The slopes are already a completeecosystem, the type of environment we are now trying to shoehorn back into other parts of thecity. It's much harder to recreate once it's lost.

I am wholly against the building of these homes on land that is green space. Regardlessof percentages across the city this is our little piece of greenbelt, used by myself to walk and watchthe birds of prey and at night the bats. To lose this would greatly disadvantage our part of the cityfor people and animals. Another concern is the access points being on Novers Hill. This is anarrow lane with houses directly fronting one side and hedgerow the other. It's gradient is steepand it has no pavements either side. Last week the main part of Novers Lane was closed for work.The traffic was unbearable for noise and pollution but equally safety! The sheer volume and speedof traffic was dangerous. On two occasions I had to avoid other motorists and was very worried forpedestrians on the hill. This is not fit for access for this proposed development. Based on theparked cars outside the small recent estate at the top of the hill the plans fir 157 homes are notsatisfactory to give enough on road parking for residents of these new homes let alone deliveriesand visitors. This is a badly thought out and designed development that doesnt fit. I would suggestthe developer finds some of the numerous brownfield sites and builds there.

I've been a resident of Novers Hill since 1968. The wildlife on the hill has been aconstant source of fascination for all the family and should be protected for many generations tocome. Any housing will destroy this delicate ecosystem.

Traffic is too heavy on the Hill as it is, 157 extra houses here, plus all the others across SouthBristol will mean traffic chaos. Being a more elderly resident I do not agree with the one waysystem as this makes a very long round trip, should I just need to pop out for a short trip asunfortunately I'm ever more reliant on my car in later life.

Pollution and littering is very bad on Novers Hill and this will get worse. I'm concerned council andhealthcare services won't cope with the additional houses here and across South Bristol. Withprimary schools at Novers Lane and Parson Street all the extra cars and pollution is a worry for allthe kids that travel to these schools.

I believe for large parts of the site local residents will experience loss of light, privacy and overshadowing due to the front of the Novers Hill houses all getting the afternoon/evening sun.

Please protect this vital green space for all the people of Bristol.

NB: Due to my age one of my neighbours has kindly submitted this online application on my behalfbut I have agreed to this in advance.

I am strongly apposed to this land being used for housing at this stage due to ecologicalconcerns. We need to protect green spaces and prioritise building on brownfield sites. The habitatloss and net loss of ecological diversity cannot be mitigated. I am particularly concerned about therisk to the Horseshoe bats, although the hedgerow is 'protected' it is being altered in two places,there will also be a significant increase of light pollution and traffic pollution to this and otheranimals that are established in the area.

I am greatly concerned about the increase in pollution form traffic due to the new houses but alsodue to making Novers road one way - meaning hundreds of people will have to drive furthercausing more pollution and congestion.

I understand the need for more housing but using this valuable ecological area will havehorrendous consequences at a time when Bristol Council says it wants to fight the ecologicalemergency.

You will also impact the mental wellbeing of those around the area. Public transport links in thisarea are already poor, meaning locals rely on the green spaces around them for mental wellbeingand quality of life. This proposal sets a president for further development of the Western Slopes,an area of prominent green hillside.

My property will also be directly impacted by this development. I will loose my views of themeadowland and a huge chunk of my views of the wider city due to the houses and blocks of flats.This will directly impact the value of my property. BUT worse than that, it strips local recourse from

the area when in reality the properties will not actually be affordable to the average demographicof the area.

Having lost some of our local greenbelt land to development (which is on floodplain) it'san utter disgrace that councils especially Tewkesbury borough council do not support local peopleor do not have any power it what happens to our precious land. I strongly object to the plan ofbuilding on Novers Hill on the Western Slopes in Bristol, this land should be protected fromdevelopment to protect wildlife and ecosystem that obviously exists there. It is always withoutdoubt a better options to develop on Brown field sites other than destroying an beautiful areawhich local people are passionate about saving from the greedy developers who don't care. Thishas to stop. This area should be recognised as a nature reserve and protected.

I moved to the area because of The Western Slopes. Novers Hill is a local meadow landbeloved by the community. I often bump into people who are visiting the area to see the horsesand enjoy nature. The pocket of nature in an otherwise quite depressing landscape hugelyimproves the wellbeing and mental health of local people. This land should be protected. Thedeveloper claims the plans will "opening up" the site but the plans show fenced off areas and amassive loss of ecological diversity.

In addition, the plans have been publicised as if they are a social housing project or communitylead initiative. When in reality the consultation with residents was a joke and at times offensive.The plans do not create enough social housing for local people. The 'affordable housing' is sociallyrented/shared owner ship and the area's suggested for the shared ownership properties are (againoffensively) dumped next to the nearby industry/new recycling centre.

The people of Knowle West already feel let down by Bristol City Council and forgotten. ThisDevelopment needs to be seriously reconsidered for the sake of Knowle West and for the sake ofthe environment.

What makes a city a good place to live is not just having the kind of cheap shoddyhousing that has been built on the Northern Slopes, it is having a good quality of life, and amassive part of this comes from green spaces.

South Bristol is already lacking in good quality green spaces that north Bristol has. There isnothing in south Bristol to rival Stokes Park, Snuff mills, Oldbury court, Rodway Common andMangotsfield golf course. The Western Slopes is one of the few large green spaces and you wantto take this away. Green spaces aren't just for nature - they boost our mental health too and in sodoing provide a massive boost for our city.

A recent article in the New Scientist says "But even as the pandemic has highlighted them [thelinks between green space and mental wellbeing], it has also exposed that, in an increasinglyurbanised world, our access to nature is dwindling - and often the most socio-economicallydeprived people face the biggest barriers. Amid talk about building back better, there is an obviouswin-win-win here. Understand how to green the world's urban spaces the right way and it canboost human well-being, help redress social inequality and be a boon for the biodiversity we alldepend on."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24933270-800-green-spaces-arent-just-for-nature-they-boost-our-mental-health-too/amp/

And here you are, a labour council wanting to destroy green spaces in our most deprived cityareas. Far from "greening the world's urab spaces", you're actually destroying them. It's sickening.

Your hypocrisy is sickening. You're meant to be standing up for people in deprived areas, and bybulldozing the Western Slopes you're showing how little you actually care about social inequality.These green spaces can't be brought back once you concrete them over to win some votes bycreating yet more cheap yet unaffordable housing.

I understand that new housing is important, but if it was so important, why would all the brownfieldsites in bedminster be earmarked for students instead of families and local residents?

Do not destroy our city. Please reconsider. If not your names will go down in history in the sameway as Colston's has. You will be shamed for hundreds of years as the people who built over ourprecious green spaces and inner city biodiversity even as world leaders met for crisis talks abouthow to save our planet.

I object to this. The land is an important green space, one of the few remaining areas ofsouth Bristol that has remained undeveloped. It retains rich diversity of animal and plant life thathas almost disappeared from the area. It is valuable to both nature and local residents and isecologically important to Bristol as a whole. It can not be replaced. This de elopement will also addpressure to an area already overwhelmed by development, putting further pressure on strainingroads and services, reducing the quality of life further for local residents and taking away a largeand important portion of what rural land is left. Concrete and brick on this kind of land in thislocation is not the answer to Bristol's housing problem. It needs protecting for wildlife and thehealth of the residents of south Bristol, not building on.

I am objecting to this application.There are a lot of practical reasons this site is not suitable for this development.The site is soft soils on sloping bed rock. I saw a lot of testing done, digging 10m deep pits , soilsamples, geophysics etc repeated.I think there is serious doubt that this is an easy or suitable site to build on from a technical point ofview.The development will destroy an important green area within a city, along with its wildlife.It will increase pressure on infrastructure and facilities in the local area.RoadsSchoolsHealthSewersIncreased local pollution -Parson st is regularly 200% of the government limit. School kidscampaigning to get people to turn off their engines.157 dwellings how many more school places?Will the new residents be able see a doctor/dentist or even register?Where will all the rain water and sewage go during extreme weather?The developers are suggesting doing work at Crox Bottom to offset damage caused by theirworks, to avoid breaching regulations.I don't believe this project has been well thought out.Yes we need houses, how many and where?

I am writing to object on behalf of my household. We currently live on Novers Hill buthave been residents of South Bristol for over 10 years. Novers Hill/Western Slopes has alwaysbeen held by us as an important wildlife corridor and visual reminder of how valued these greenspaces are to the urban landscape. Bristol is meant to be a city leader against climate changehaving declared an 'ecological emergency' so we need actions not just empty words and promisesin protecting our valuable green spaces.

Ecology:Secretary of States 2003 appeal decision against Persimmon Homes' development of Novers Hillstill holds true in all its key arguments. The inspector of this report noted that the site had city wideimportance and the 'adverse and permanent effects of the built development would be sufficientlylimited to be offset.'

The offsetting strategy outlined by Lovells is weak. They have proposed to this being offset at CroxBottom - this site is owned by the council and from their report it does not look like that thedeveloper has agreed with this approach. As this land isn't in the control of the applicant how canthey ensure that the management maintenance and monitoring of the net gain is secured in theirproposed time frame of 30 years?

As Crox Bottom is publicly accessible this makes it harder to deliver the management and 'netgain' they are attempting to offer. Alternative site suggested at Nailsea is a long way away andimportantly provides no equivalent benefit to local residents.

From the Pegasus report provided by Lovells it states 'remainder of the allocation BSA1108 is tobe delivered under a separate planning permission, with an application yet to be submitted. Thisportion of the allocation would address any connectivity to Crox Bottom located further south.' Thissuggests that this planning application is premature as it can't be demonstrated that thisconnectivity can actually be delivered. Lovells have also used out of date biodiversity metric 2.0where they should have used 3.0.

Novers Hill is an important section in a belt or chain of open grasslands, hedgerows and scrub -development would break and reduce the degree of ecological linkage with amongst othersNovers Common and Northern Slopes. This linkage cannot be easily mitigated by modals andassumptions of how wildlife will react to the destruction of their habitats. Novers Hill is such a richmix of habitats and areas that it can support such a diverse range of species such as badgers,foxes and smaller mammals such field mice,voles, moles and rare horseshoe bats. In the pastweek, I've spotted on four occasions birds of prey including kestrals and buzzards flying over theslopes.

Novers Hill was previously given the status of a Site of SNCI (Site of Nature Conservation Interest)- with citywide importance. This is why the writer of the Secretary of States report concluded that'It is its openness and its prominent 'natural' or undeveloped qualities that are in his view its mostimportant visual attributes. 'He goes on to comment that he does not consider this a degradedlandscape' but one which is obvioulsy thriving.

It also appears the Council haven't followed EIA regulations correctly as they have published theirEIA screening opinion in accordance with regulation 5 of the EIA regulations 2017. Pegasus say ithas been done but it isn't available on the planning portal.

It would appear statutory consultees such as the Environment Agency, Historic England andNatural England have not been consulted, which for a development of this size is of graveconcern.

Traffic, Transport & Amenities:I walk up and down Novers Hill every day for work. There are ways to make the road safer whichshould have been done many years ago. Making the road one way is not the only solution. Amuch simpler one would be to add traffic calming give way triangles along the length of the road,to slow traffic and provide safer pedestrianised areas.

In 2011 Bristol City Council installed traffic counters. These measured traffic Monday-Friday 7am-7pm. 2214 journeys down the hill, and 1619 up the hill were made daily on average. Regardless ofwhether the hill would be made one way, adding 157 houses in this development as well as theadditional traffic from other proposed developments in South Bristol (such as Hengrove airfield(1400 houses), BokLok (173 currently being built) as well as sites in Inns Court, Broadbury Road,Health Park and the Youth Zone) the cumulative effect of all these developments would mean not

only the traffic on the Hill increasing but also local roads in the area and Hartcliffe way wouldbecome even more congested than they already are. Quite simply the local infrastructure cannotcope.

There are highway safety issues related to all the increased traffic across the whole of Filwoodward as well as those neighbouring the development. Especially with Parson Street primary schooland Greenfield ACT primary school. The measured pollution levels are already dangerously highat both schools. Significantly, Lovells have also made no junction improvement to the bottom ofNovers Hill and Lynton Road. Should the actual validity of this application be brought intoquestion? Any major road planning changes need permissions before a planning application issubmitted and these have not yet been sought by Lovells.

In the Secretary of States report he 'did not find the site to be particularly well located in relation torailway stations and bus stops.' Its accessibility in modes other than the car was the only realoption for many. Apart from the addition of the M1 bus stops, which are not particularly close toeither end of the site therefore these traffic comments still remain valid.

There are obvious noise and light pollution aspects to also consider as well as the air pollutantsfrom all the increased car use.

Bristol City Council even before the pandemic, struggled to make timely bin collections so addinga further 157 houses will only exacerbate this. The same can be argued for the increaseddemands on local medical services and school class sizes. Again the cumulative impact ofdevelopments across the whole of South Bristol will make these issues completely unmanageable.

Proposed Site Housing Issues:

Town and village green - TVG - from studying the map, I do not believe this to be a true equivalentand I certainly do not believe the equivalent by function can be achieved in the areas earmarkedby Lovells. The enjoyment of the TVG space will not be equal for locals well as all residents ofBristol so Lovell's open space strategy is questionable. It says part of the site is land locked andan existing access can't be used. This means Lovells are breaching planning policy of theprotected TVG green space through the middle. It also appears they are double counting byproviding the public open space POS within the safe guarded corridor. Again this brings into thequestion the validity of this application as TVG status change should have been approved prior tothe application submission.

There is an important function performed by the site as recognised in the Secretary of State reportin separating residential development to the East of Novers Hill from the industrial and commercialdevelopment to north and west of the site.' This open space is a 'visual amenity even provides anoutlook, or variety in the urban scene. There is a definite visible impact of the designated open

space. From more distant viewpoints, such as the Clifton Suspension Bridge. There is also thevisible impact of lost hillside. This is felt along and around the Malago greenway. Visible openspace affords a relief to the adjacent built up area.

In analysing EBB768B404BF0FA73286FCCF11464FD1/pdf/21_05164_F-SITE_SECTIONS-3044944.pdf on the planning portal section 2 shows the building height of Flat Type A block 6 ashigher than the tree line, this is even with the provision of the block being 'sunk'. With the height ofblock 6 being so high this has a clear implications for loss of light and overshadowing for residentson Novers Hill. The sun sets behind Headley park and this is in the direct lines of the development.This loss of light and over shadowing will impact all the residential properties from numbers 53-77on Novers Hill. As well as a lesser extent, Haven House up to number 99 on Novers Hill. Photos ofthe loss of this light will be provided in photos emailed separately.

There are also clear privacy issues with balconies being installed down the sides of block 6 due tothe height breaching the tree line.

The topography of the site is steep in many areas so unless the build quality is very high, there arereasons to believe significant sections of the site could succumb to subsistence.

Point 7.9 on the housing allocation states that 'while the target yield of 50 dwellings is more thanmet within the proposal, this must be considered in the context of the extensive escalation ofhousing need' This shows that the numbers of housing on the smaller allocation far exceed policyso this isn't policy compliant.

On the same report 7.14 states 'application proposals only address 69% of allocation BSA1114,with the remaining south-western field within Council control. This area could therefore comeforward for employment development in future should the council elect to do so.' This brings intoquestion why haven't Lovells worked with the council to prepare a comprehensive masterplan forthe entire allocation which seeks to deliver a policy compliant scheme of 50 dwellings andbusiness uses that also seeks to deliver a 10% biodiversity net gain. While the applicant statesthat they have future proofed /safeguarded the remainder of the allocation, it is of a size andshape that would make it difficult to develop and therefore is unlikely to be developed in the future.Lovells should have demonstrated how the entire allocation could have been brought forward in away that delivers comprehensive and good design in accordance with the National Planning PolicyFramework.

Alternative Vision:

Ultimately, I do not feel this land should ever have been included in the outdated 2012 LocalRegeneration Plan. Regenerate brownfield sites, regeneration of a green field site is an oxymoron.This delicate eco-system can only be destroyed by a housing development.

This part of the city is relatively poorly provided with public parks in the local Filwood ward, and thelimited amount and distribution of the ward's publicly accessible space. So why not make thisunique site into what it is already in all but name - The Novers Nature Reserve.

Just like we all look back on disastrous post war town planning decisions, the next generation willnever forgive us if this decision goes against our precious green space to further harm andaccelerate the climate crisis.

My objections are as follows:-1.Traffic and Parking issues:-This site, if built on, would cause more traffic/ pollution, on the Heartcliffe Way, As well as, increased traffic, to and from the new Recycling Centre currently being constructed.

2. Amenity:- There is no 'infrastructure ' being built, to cater for the increased people, who will live there.e g. Shops/ G P surgeries/ schools/Dentists/ Chemists/Hairdressers, Barbers/Children's Play areas, as well as, reducing 'green areas', for 'well being' and exercise.

3.Wildlife:- It is a site of Nature Conservation, and acts as a 'corridor' for other wildlife/green areas. Wildlife lives there, which will be driven out.The ancient hedgerow, along Novers Hill, will be cut through, for access to this new, proposed, development. Hedgerows are a vital, shrinking, wildlife habitat, and I object to them being damaged in any way.

4.This 'Green Lung' , called Novers Hill, can be seen from Bristol City.The horses acted as management of the wildlife on this site.It is already reverting to scrub!They have been removed, so their influence has gone as well.This area has seen a great deal of our 'green spaces' being built on.This development will be the 'thin edge of the wedge' as far as I am concerned, and it should stop here,

Mr James Smith, local resident.

I object to this application because it is important to keep our green space for theenvironment and wildlife.I live on a already very busy road opposite a primary school I believe it would add more traffic tothe area therefore more air pollution

I believe we should have green space left in south bristol. This could be put to muchbetter use by putting a park in part of it for example.

There are plenty of brown field sites to build on in bristol and I don't see why south bristol takessuch a battering. We need more facilities before we build that many homes. Doctors areoversubscribed. No nhs dentists taking on patients. Schools oversubscribed. A and E over ran.You need more amenities before you pit in more homes!!

Novers Hill SNCI is completely unsuitable for Housing;planning has been refused on this same site twice previously (documents of which can berequested on the planning portal), which Lovell have failed to mention. It has been refused on thegrounds of irreparable damage to wildlife; the negative affect of development on the prominenthillside; the sustainability and access of the site and the overall benefits of development beingoutweighed by the reasons for it not being built. I believe these issues are even more relevanttoday.

Novers Hill is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and a vital part of the Malago WildlifeCorridor. The Bristol Local Plan 2014 states that the site "is of city-wide importance to natureconservation". Bristol City Council's own Nature Conservation team has stated that if this site isused for housing "most of the habitat affected could not be recreated elsewhere within areasonable timescale, there is no potential for appropriate mitigation, and the integrity of theWildlife Network will be severely undermined".

Novers Hill is also identified by the West of England Nature Partnership as being part of a "naturerecovery network" encompassing "strategic grassland" and "woodland opportunities". BCC hasitself endorsed this wildlife network strategy as part of the Forest of Avon action plan. Novers Hillcontributes significantly to the 'Ecosystem services' that central government have incorporated intonational policy.

Avon Wildlife Trust has recently announced that Novers Hill should not be built on, and numerouswildlife experts (including Chris Packham!) have also echoed this same position.

Recently we have had a golden motion to protect our vital green space passed at full Council, withnot a single Councillor voting to oppose it. Novers Hill was specifically mentioned in this motion asone of the sites that must be protected.

It is well known that Bristol City Council has declared an ecological crisis, one of the first Council'sin the Country to do so, and now it must step up and prove that it can act appropriately. Both theMayor and BCC have recently confirmed that the city has planning permission for 12,000 newhomes already approved. What's more, the CPRE have stated that up to 30,000 homes could bebuilt in Bristol on brown field sites! Given everything described above it seems scandalous to methat this site is even being considered for housing at this time.

Reasons why this specific application should be refused;110 of these homes will be at open market rate, far more expensive than any local resident canafford. It is worth noting that the area of Fillwood is one of the most deprived in the UK. How willlocal people afford these homes, which will undoubtedly be more than £300,000k? And yet, thesesame people are seeing their much-loved green space of Novers Hill being taken from them.

I am also questioning how this allocation can be so different to what is allocated in the local plan.This site is BSA 1114, which has an allocation of 50 homes and mixed use with business. Thedeveloper is proposing solely housing and the number of dwellings on this specific allocation is farmore - 74. Also the allocation of part of BSA 1108 is part of a separate allocation for councilowned side. It is frustrating and seems like abuse and cherry-picking of the local plan.

The proposed Wildlife corridor is much too small. The development will not maintain the integrityand connectivity of the wildlife network. It has not strengthened it. Too many habitat units will belost, with a large net loss of biodiversity on the site. The majority of the meadow area is going tobe destroyed. The meadows count as a valuable part of the SNCI. Policy 2.19.15 of SiteAllocations and Development Management Policies states that "Sites of Nature Conservationcollectively represent the city's critical stock of natural capacity. In some areas of Bristol, SNCIsoffer people their only valuable contact with wildlife. Therefore, development proposals whichwould harm the nature conservation value of an SNCI will not be permitted". This point aloneshould be enough reason to stop this application - the meadow is part of the SNCI and will beharmed by development.The ecological mitigation measures suggested by the developer are inadequate.

Crox Bottom is not a suitable site for mitigation off-set because it is a very different habitat fromthat which will be lost on Novers Hill. Crox Bottom does not contain the type of ecologicallyvaluable grassland on Novers Hill, particularly calcareous grassland, lowland meadow and neutralgrassland. It is therefore not appropriate mitigation. The Friends of Crox Bottom have not beenapproached by Lovell and neither have BCC Parks department. As this has not been agreed yet,how can we be sure this will even take place? This should have been agreed prior to submission

of the application. The fact it has not been agreed suggests to me that the developer rushed thisapplication through and most likely knows the mitigation strategy is extremely weak and will not beaccepted. It is very obvious that Crox Bottom is not a suitable area for mitigation. It is anestablished habitat - densely wooded, with water pools. It has no grassland area that could beconverted to the kind of meadow lost on the Novers, over any reasonable timescale.

A site in Nailsea has also been suggested as an alternative site for mitigation. Nailsea is in NorthSomerset not Bristol. We would be losing a unique ecosystem in south Bristol, with the mitigationin another completely different geographic area. This suggests to me that the developer cannotfind an appropriate mitigation sites. In the Site Allocations and Development Management policy2013, it states that Novers Hill contains "the SNCI element of the site contains a number ofPrinciple Habitats and Species, which might be lost or harmed dependent on mitigation". It isevident that Lovell are struggling to mitigate adequately, meaning the SNCI will be irreparablyharmed, thus contravening policy.

A key finding in the ecology report was the presence of Greater & Lesser Horseshoe bats onNovers Hill. These are rare species that are in decline in the UK. The developer has claimed thatthey have left enough of a bat tree corridor to allow them to continue their commute through thesite. What they neglect to mention is that these bats require meadows to do their foraging, notwoodland. It is these valuable meadows that Lovell is planning to bulldoze.

Ethos ecological consultants carried out their botanical surveys during the period when heavyhorse grazing was still occurring on the site. Since the horses were removed in early June 2021,the wildflowers in the meadows have responded well. This was clearly evident from the roadside inAugust, and the ecology consultants should have carried out additional surveying to reflect thetrue botanical interest that was by then clearly obvious.

Similarly, Ethos did not carry out an invertebrate study because the grass was too short fromhorse grazing at the time of survey. The grass has since been allowed to grow, and I feel that anupdated survey for invertebrates should have been undertaken. They also stated that the horses"damaged the reptile mats" and made no attempt to re-do this survey, which to me, isunacceptable for an SNCI site such as this.

The large established badger colony is also a concern. The area proposed for their re-location ismuch smaller than the area they currently have accessible to them, and this may cause harm to acolony of this size.

The TVG proposed swap is not like-for-like in terms of function. The two areas have a completelydifferent ecological uses and function; we are losing ancient hedgerow in return for a small area ofplay. They are not the same.

In the Site Allocation and Development Management policies, DM17 2.17.3, the entirety of Novers

Hill is classed as "prominent green hillside". It states that "proposals which would harm importantfeatures such as green hillsides, promontories, ridges, valleys, gorges, areas of substantial treecover and distinctive manmade landscapes will not be permitted". Any development on Novers Hillwould harm the important feature of Novers Hill being a green hillside and therefore directly goagainst this policy. This point alone should be enough to stop this development. I wonder if this iswhy the developer has not provided us with any 3D artist impressions of what the development willlook like from a distance?

My other main concern with this application is the increase in road traffic and pollution it will bring,particularly with the proposed road change. The area around Parson Street Primary School isalready one of most polluted areas in Bristol. We continue to let these children down. This is notjust about the 200 or so new cars, but the fact that the one-way system will force many moreexisting vehicles onto Bedminster Road, Parson Street and the Hartcliffe Way, affecting not onlythe School but also traffic flow in & out of the new Waste/Recycling depot, which the BCCHighways department already had concerns about even before taking this application intoaccount. There are few shops and employment opportunities in this area. Most local people travelelsewhere for these things. This is not a sustainable location because of the heavy reliance on caruse.

The traffic assessment was carried out by Lovell during the lockdown! It's obviously not indicativeof the real situation on our roads. There is no evidence either that Lovell have considered thecumulative effect of all the many nearby developments that have been approved or have likelihoodof approval (too many to list). Good city planning would involve the investment in localinfrastructure and facilities before all this housing, to adequately support increased numbers ofpeople.

There is not sufficient public transport to support this application. The Lovell documents say thatthe development will be "well located for access into the centre of Bristol via regular bus routealong the Hartcliffe Way". The problem is that you can't actually get to Hartcliffe Way from theLovell development unless you wade across Pigeonhouse stream. Their proposed cut throughfrom the SUDS area through a non-existent lane down to the Hartcliffe Way, is exactly that -proposed. Again they are using theoretical "what ifs", to justify what is clearly an unsustainabledevelopment. Lovell doesn't own the land that the lane would go through and no application hasbeen made for it. Again, with bus stops, they mention Highbury Road. Only southbound busesstop here. Nobody travels southbound for any reason other than returning home. This bus stop isalso a huge walk from the development site and will not make any use of Lovell's other proposedpedestrian/cycle path as it is in the opposite direction.

From the beginning community engagement from Lovell has been very poor. The consultationphase was particularly shambolic, with Lovell attempting to carry it through in just three weeks.Many residents were locked out of the public consultation because Lovell decided to hide behindONE online zoom meeting. Covid restrictions had already ended by this time - it was an excuse for

them to avoid public scrutiny. Another huge issue with the allocation of this site is that it has neverbeen consulted on properly. Lovell continually peddle the notion that it is "an allocation in the localplan" and Knowle West Regeneration Framework. Neither of these plans consulted with residentsof Bishopsworth or Bedminster for what is clearly a cross-ward site. Residents of these areas arearguably closer to it than anyone in Knowle West, yet they were never included in consultations.This is a major flaw of the local plan allocation and therefore development of this site should behalted until further review.

The ecological report, crucial for a site such as this, was not made available before this meetingeven though the surveys had been carried out more than a year before! At that late-stage Lovellcould not tell concerned residents which way the proposed one-way system on Novers Hill wasgoing to go. When asked about how the increasing number of vehicles that might affect the trafficcoming in and out of the new Waste & Recycling depot on Hartcliffe Way, Lovell representativeshad shockingly, absolutely no knowledge of its' existence. Many important documents have onlybeen uploaded a few days away from the deadline for public comments. We have had to waitmore than a month for them to finally redact the location of the badger colony, which is alsocompletely unacceptable.

Finally, I want to mention the pub debacle. Lovell have stated that this development will be goodfor pubs in the surrounding area. But there are no pubs in that area, they have all closed. If Lovellhad taken the time to get to know the area they would already realise what an unsustainablelocation this is. When we pointed this out, they updated their documents to suggest the Maytreepub in Headley Park. The Maytree is 1.3 miles away on the other side of the Hartcliffe Way and anunbridged Pigeonhouse Stream!

Summary, and an alternative vision for Novers Hill;Both the site allocation for housing and this planning application are wholly inappropriate forNovers Hill. Building here will damage the environment, the wildlife network and the health of localpeople.What's more, given the recent golden motion passed to protect this site at full Council, buildinghere will also damage people's faith in local democracy.Instead, let's protect the entirety of Novers Hill and follow the call from the community to getNovers Hill protected once and for all as the Nature Reserve it should always have been. Peoplehere have had to fight this battle for over 40 years. The same issues of wildlife damage, access,effect on the landscape continually arise. Enough is enough. Its' protection will give so much hopeand positive wellbeing to thousands of local people. The support it provides to the hundreds ofspecies that have been recorded here (see BRERC) must be acknowledged once and for all.Leave this site alone.

There are so many empty or derelict buildings in Bristol that could be made intohousing. Please STOP building on green spaces. Bristol is supposed to be a green city but feelslike the exact opposite.

Save our slopes

I object to this development as I feel it is of great detriment the local area. Bristol is heldup as being a green city, and this development would go against that. Novers hill provides animportant wildlife corridor to crox bottom and manor woods valley, and this new developmentwould have a hugely negative impact on the wildlife in and around these areas. I feel that thisdevelopment is incredibly short sighted, due to the fact that there is no infrastructure to support it.There has been no thought for any additions of local amenities, shops, doctors, and the busservice is appalling. My wife has had to wait 40 minutes for a bus on more than one occasion thatnever turned up, which has forced her to walk through areas of Bristol late at night. The lack of busservice is surely going to force many (if not all) of the residents to be driving their own cars, whichwill clog up the roads in and around novers hill.

I'm concerned that this development will have a detrimental impact on wildlife in thearea which has already been negatively impacted by the recycling centre development. I believethe council passed a motion to protect green spaces in the city so approving this developmentseems contrary to this.

I love to walk in this beautiful place and it would be destroyed with the new housesbeing build

With already large developments of new housing in South Bristol and current housingareas requiring regeneration the further building on wildlife rich areas flies in the face of localconservation and Bristols commitment and policies re environmental protection and sustainability.The site further diminishes the green areas available to local wildlife and the slopes are anestablished bio diverse area of habitat. The destruction of these area do not only impact on theimmediate site under consideration but will separate wider surrounding areas of habitat for ourunder pressure local wildlife including protected species.With available grazing areas the slopes provide a crucial habitat that could continue to develop asa key area of nature and wilding for manyendangered species and are an important part of supporting local communities to have access tonature.Bristol City Council must not pretend that construction on these vulnerable sites can in any way beprotected or offset by developers plans .. once they are gone, they are gone.South Bristols local communities must have affordable housing but there is ample opportunity todevelop current under invested housing areas without sacrificing the last tensing areas of localnatural habitat.

This is a very valuable area of meadow grassland which supports animals, insects and protectedspecies, the loss of which will be devastating to the local area, residents and visitors.

Mental health and wellbeing are of paramount importance and local people will be directlyimpacted on both counts if this development goes ahead.

It is a much loved and well used green space and as such should have automatic protection fromany developmental proposals.

This development should happen, but not here. Secies rich grassland should not bedeveloped. COP 26 starts tomorrow

This ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING!We need to protect the eco system and the wildlife, the community needs this space!

I object to this development.

This is a 'prominent green hillside'

This location provides a unique location within South Bristol, to increase the tree canopy whichforms a essential part of a wildlife network. An important section of a chain of open grasslands,hedgerows, scrub and trees that extends from the South edge of the City via Manor Wood, CroxBottom and the Hengrove mounds, towards the city centre.This development will have a significant adverse effect on the feature.

Traffic, I live across from the Greenfields Academy and the parking of ever larger cars, theaddition of a Metro Bus route, and now the the possibility of 7.5 + tons vehicles are causingproblems for elderly and those with mobility problems. As the ever increasing size of the cars aretaking up more and more of the pavement. Forcing us to either cross the road onto the oppositeside of even sometimes Walk up the centre of the road. As the pavements are often unpassableduring school pick up times.

The proposal from the Friends of the Western slopes will provide much needed wellness andmental health benefits for the locals. And a Great addition for the rest of the city.

Thank you, Mike

The development on this green space would be a significant and permanent loss of awild life habitat at a time when Bristol City Council has declared an Ecological Emergency andalso when the government has announced that it will develop brown field sites over green spaces.How can this be allowed to happen taking into account the above?The green spaces in our city are valuable for wildlife and should be protected for futuregenerations to enjoy. They provide habitats for many protected species and wild life corridors &hedgerows for nature to thrive at a time when it is in decline, we should be doing all we can topreserve these environments and not destroying them.During lockdown we have benefited and appreciated our green spaces, the connection with naturehas helped our mental well being and encouraged an interest and love of the natural world aroundus, please do not allow this development to go ahead on this wild life rich green space.

I'm objecting due to the amount of traffic it will bring to the area, the anti socialbehaviour, the wildlife will be all put at risk.

I wish to object to this planning application on the basis of two main concerns:

- I am concerned about the loss of green space in this area of the city. Given the recent motion toprioritise building on brownfield sites and Bristol City Council's apparent commitment tosustainable development, granting permission to build on a space with significant ecological valueseems to completely contradict much of the local authority's communications.

- I am concerned that in return for this significant loss of green space, this development offers verylittle for the majority of local people. The provision of 30% 'affordable' housing is completelyinsufficient given the green space being removed in an area with such high levels of deprivation.

There is insufficient infrastructure in the area to support that number of new houses.The loss of green space and wildlife is inexcusable, given the amount of brown field sites availableto build on.

I am a born and raised Bristolian. I am very proud of that.

When growing up and going to school I used to get stuck in horrific amounts of traffic, the air wasdirty and it was a disgusting place to walk. The long Ashton bypass was supposed to fix that, andwhilst it made it better it is still bad. Adding 157 houses would not help this at all. Bristol roadscannot cope with that amount of traffic. We need to be providing clean air to our population, notmaking it sick. I was diagnosed diagnosed with Ashtma as a teenager and i believe the pollution inbristol was a contributing factor.

Living in a city has its positives and drawbacks. Every morning when I woke up and went outsidering my parents garden (Eastlyn road) I would be gifted gifted the site of Novers Hill and thewonderful horses than gallop on these slopes. To take this away would be a an unnecessarytravesty. My life would never be the same without watching those horses. Or without the gorgeousgreenery the slopes offer. We have already had houses built there, they are enough.

I please urge you to serious reconsider this planning application. Think of the wildlife that rely onour consciousness to survive. Think of those like me, who in difficult times such as the pandemicuse the view as a relief from the city. Please reject this application.

Thank you,

Grace Rees

The slopes house so much widelife, wildlife that already find it hard to live in a concrete jungle.Just honestly for once in our lives can we put wildlife first? Without wildlife there would be nopollination and with pollination, no food. Let's not think of ourselves.

I've lived here nearly all my life, I am now bringing up my 3 children here, they needspace, somewhere to go to get away from things, they need some freedom and walk along theslopes helps their mental health, everywhere else is built up, the amount of wildlife we would losewould be devastating, the birds, badgers foxes and many more is a asset to this area, do not buildon this green land, once it's gone it's gone forever

I strongly object to the development. Once precious green field land is lost it is goneforever. Wildlife habitat corridors should be protected and preserved. Brown field sites should beused not lovely areas such as this.If this land were in more well to do parts of the city it would noteven be considered it must be said.

I grew up near this site and enjoyed the green space and wildlife that enriches the areaso much. I am dismayed to hear that the land may be lost to development. Please do not grantplanning. In this day and age we must protect nature.

This lovely land is opposite my grand parents house, I can not believe that it may be lostto a housing development lining the pockets of developers to destroy a wonderfully diverse wildlife habitat. Nature needs protecting. I strongly object to the application.

Please do not grant planning for this housing development. The area greatly benefitsfrom the beauty and nature it provides. Nature corridors are precious and should be beingprotected. Use a brown field site instead, Bristol has too many of those. So much talk about airquality in Bristol surely preserving green field areas should be a priority in helping with this?

A recent report stated that the UK was one of the most nature depleted countries in theworld. We must, therefore, keep the green spaces we have left in the city for the benefit of all,nature included. There are plenty of derelict sites that can be built on.

I believe we need to take care of our natural environment and keeping are urban spacesfree for wildlife. We need to be using out brown field to support house building and not green.

This will be a loss of valuable open space to both local residents and also land that willdisturb the habitat of many animals and insects.

While I welcome the development of housing and affordable homes, I objectwholeheartedly to using green spaces that are essential to protecting what ecology remains in thiscity environment.

We need to preserve green spaces and biodiversity

Dear Council and Housing Developers

Please rethink your plan to build on the Novers Hill Southern slopes.

It is a species rich area and should be identified as an SSI.

Please do not proceed and allow homes to be built ..it is a place where other creatures havehomes.

Bristol council has made a number of excellent pledges to protect the environment, the localecology and to protect the few remaining green spaces in bristol. Please dont go back on thesepromises. There are plenty of brownland and empty warehouse spaces which can be redevlopedand built on.

Novers hill Southern Slopes should be a protected space like Troopers hill, and Im sure if theCouncil promote and protect it as such they will realise soon enough that this was a sesnsibleinvestment for future generations.

Please, please dont go ahead with this building scheme.

Thank you so much xx

I am objecting to the proposal to build 157 homes on the Western Slopes. I believethere has been a vast amount of development in South Bristol over the past number of years andthere are lots more currently being constructed locally. When is enough enough ! It's enough whenit means the destruction of a Nature Conservation site at Novers Hill which is one of the remaininggreen sites in this local area. It is a haven for wildlife including bats, badgers and birds of preywhich i have been lucky enough to see.There is already a recycling centre being constructed on Hartcliffe Way which will already vastlyincrease the pollution from traffic in this location. The road junction at Parson Street andBedminster Road is already very busy. This site will create even more pollution, surely this is notright for the children travelling to Parson Street school along these already busy roads. Addinganother 157 houses to the area will make it unbearable to live here for local residents. If thisapplication was made in a green area of a more affluent area of Bristol it would not be given achance but it seems developers can continue to build and build in South Bristol without giving anythought for the impact on the local residents living here.

Novers Hill is a landmark across the City and we cannot allow it to disappear. There is enoughhousing being constructed in South Bristol. We cannot afford to lose this green area which are thelungs of South Bristol.

I live in Headley Park, next to the Western Slopes and my family and I are opposed toany properties being built on that land. There are many reasons that the proposed development of157 houses should not go ahead. I have listed the main ones as far as I am concerned and wouldappreciate it if you could please carefully consider these:

These slopes are a key feature of our local area. DM17 identifies the Western Slopes as a'prominent green hillside' and states that development will not be permitted unless thedevelopment is ancillary to the open space use. Development will not enhance the existing openspace and goes against Core Strategy policy BCS9. This would also be contrary to the recentmotion passed on 7th Sept 2021 by the full council, to protect our green spaces and prioritisebrownfield sites. No building should take place on green space until the local plan is updated toreflect this democratic vote.

The impact on the bio diversity of the area would be catastrophic as it is a Site of NatureConservation Interest. The unspoiled nature of the slopes which are not treated with chemicals orfarmed, allow a huge variety of plants, insects and other animals to be supported. It also feeds intothe ecosystem of other local areas such as Pigeonhouse Stream, the Malago, Manor Woods andthe Northern Slopes. Destroying these habitats will cause ecological damage which is thecomplete opposite of BCC's Climate and Ecological Emergency Programme. It is NOT correct tosuggest the application for Novers Hill is one of "sustainable development". It will result in asignificant net loss of ecological diversity that cannot be mitigated on other green spaces.

Animals from rare and protected species will be threatened if this application is allowed. Rare

Horseshoe bats and a well established, large colony of badgers will lose their habitat along withmany birds of prey that hunt in this area. The badger sets are due to be destroyed by the work toremove the Japanese Knotweed but the plan to move them to a man-made set has no guaranteesof success, especially with all the noise and disruption caused by the building work and then theproximity to the new development. The same applies to the bats. A recent survey has found 11species of bats including 2 very rare species in this location, yet this development would removemost of their habitat. The bat corridor is NOT sufficient and the noise and light from the buildingwork/new houses will disturb and disrupt their natural behaviour.

The removal of trees would reduce the amount of air pollution removed from the local area. Mychildren attend Parson Street Primary School which has one of the highest levels(https://opendata.bristol.gov.uk/pages/schools-air-quality-monitoring/) of air pollution recorded at aBristol school. When you combine this with the increase in traffic from the proposed developmentit will have a dangerous and detrimental impact on the local area. There is already congestionalong the Hartcliffe Way and by Parson Street School from the existing population. I cannot seehow making Novers Hill one way will mitigate the additional use by all the extra cars using the areato access the proposed development. More cars equals increased air pollution and energyconsumption caused by car engines idling while stuck in traffic. When you also factor in the newrecycling centre I believe it will be too much for the area which already has cars sitting withengines idling in numerous locations on a daily basis and Novers Hill will become even more of arat run to avoid this. This situation is unacceptable and will put children's lives atrisk (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56801794).

The well being of the residents in this area will be impacted as a result of these developments. Myfamily and I walk around the Western Slopes and we enjoy access to them. We see the horsesevery day, and buzzards and other birds of prey come from there and fly over our garden, bringingjoy each time we see them, as do the foxes and badgers when they come close to the house. Iknow from the 'Friends of the Western Slopes' group how many other people feel the same, and inthe current climate, taking away a free area of green land to relax and use for exercise will impactpeople's mental and physical health. This will have a particular effect on the most vulnerable asnearby developments in Hengrove and around Imperial Park have already dramatically reducedaccess to green space, and this is not a wealthy area where people can always afford otheralternatives.

I also feel that the quality of the affordable housing and the complete lack of amenities on theproposed developments is not sufficient for a development of this size. Where will the newresidents work and attend school? Will there be new doctors' surgeries and shops to help boostthe local area? It currently looks like this will just add pressure to the existing infrastructure. Lovellhave stated in their research that "with regard to schools capacity, there is some evidence ofprimary schools in the area being at or above capacity". A lack of amenities will force the newresidents to use their cars and spend their money elsewhere each time they need something. I amalso concerned that the affordable housing section (if delivered) is effectively just a noise barrier

for the other houses. It is awful that they will have to choose between the noise and smells of arecycling centre or keeping the windows closed on a hot day. AC is not a cost effective orenvironmentally friendly solution in 'affordable' housing aimed at poorer families.

In light of all the objections above can you please reject the application and oblige the developer tofind a more appropriate brownfield site to build on.

I find this application abhorrent. These fields are full with wildlife, and plants and havebeen part of this area for longer than I remember. Nothing gives me more pleasure than walkingby and spotting the horses, rabbits and the buzzards. These slopes are a real tonic for mentalwellness, and probably the only chance for some of local residents (old & young) to see nature upclose. I totally object to these plans.

South Bristol cannot take any more housing, over run facilities, schools ,doctors , roads, removal of leisure facilities,destruction of green spaces it has to stop. The impact on naturecannot ever be reversed , the increased pollution from the build and then everyday uses of theproposed households . There is plenty of concrete wasted space already not be utilised properlyre use this areas rather than destroying beautiful green spaces . The new road was built to easetraffic on the Hartcliffe way , the new recycle centre and with all houses that have been builtalready and the agreed homes being built on whitchurch airfield will increase traffic on this stretchback to what it was and then the new proposa of more housing and suggestion of making iversone way will just make Hartcliffe way as congested aAnd polluting as it was was before. I strongly object to lovells proposal of building more houses

I object to the development of Brislington Meadows. We walk this almost daily and lovethat we have this space to enjoy. Taking this away will severely affect the local community. It is apeaceful walk with wildlife and it should be left as it is!

We are in a climate crisis. While I understand that new homes need to be built, this isnot an appropriate place for them. The Western Slopes is a precious green space in our city, muchenjoyed by many local people and is an important ecosystem for wildlife. The council itself hasdeclared an ecological emergency and has acknowledged that protecting green spaces, such asthe Western slopes, is key to reversing the damage that has been done. Allowing thisdevelopment to proceed would make a mockery of the council's own commitments on this issue.Bold, decisive leadership is what we need at this urgent point. Anything other than a clear rejectionof these plans will be a tragedy for local people, wildlife and the climate.

I have many concerns relating to Lovell's plans but will focus my comments in thisinstance on pollution and traffic congestion.

Surrounding areaLovell is seeking permission to build 157 properties at Novers Hill, each with one parking space;with the larger properties being allocated two. It appears that Lovell is looking to mitigate theimpact that its development will have on traffic-flow and pollution locally by designing the estate sothat it can be accessed from Novers Lane; which I understand is to become a one-way(southbound) traffic flow system in order to accommodate this requirement. *

If this is the plan then I can see that it would in all likelihood be welcomed by many residents inSomermead and also in Lynton Road, both situated at the bottom of Novers Hill, but I believe that,overall, the arrangement will be ineffectual in easing traffic congestion and pollution in otherdirectly surrounding areas since the additional road users - up to 200 from the planneddevelopment - as well as those drivers who have been forced to re-route because of the roadchange, would obviously spill-out into nearby roads in the vicinity in order to reach theirdestination.

Some of the alternative routes that might be impacted by such spill-out are likely to be: St John'sLane - via Glyn Vale or Wedmore Vale; Bedminster Road - via Hengrove Way and thenBishopsworth Road; and Hartcliffe Way via Leinster Avenue and the top end of Novers Lane.These are routes which already experience high levels of congestion and pollution and, moreimportantly, contribute to the tailbacks which, both directly and indirectly, massively impact the

flow of traffic and add to the exceedingly high levels of congestion and pollution experienced in thelocal Hartcliffe Way/Parson Street area.

Add to this the additional traffic that will enter the area, in the near future, to use the recyclingcentre which is presently being built in the Hartcliffe Way, and Lovell will find that its planned useof the road changes on Novers Hill will have very little impact as regards mitigating congestionlevels. I can see that Lovell is already aware of the potential levels of expected vehicles using therecycling centre, since Transport Assessment 1, undertaken on their behalf by Pegasus Group(September 2021), advised them of this.

'... the Transport Assessment states that the site could attract a weekend average of 3,624 two-way light vehicle trips, with the busiest hour between 1200-1300 (356 two-way) and a weekdayaverage of 2706 two-way light vehicle trips, busiest hour between 0900-1000 (354 two-way). ForHGV trips, it was assumed that there will be 14 two-way movements per day, with no greater detailgiven...'.

I know that the council was made aware, through a report issued by their own SustainabilityTeam** as well as by their consultants SLR (in a report to the Council's Growth and RegenerationDepartment dated 19th February 2020), of concerns about expected levels of pollution emanatingfrom traffic using the recycling centre in the Hartcliffe Way and the fact that mitigation procedureswould fall short of addressing these. The Sustainability Team's report considered the effect ofpollution levels at the Parson Street gyratory, a few hundred yards away, but the implications areclear for the vicinity as a whole'The development proposal is located close to one of the most polluted areas of the road networkin Bristol with measured pollution concentrations above legal annual nitrogen dioxide EU limitvalues and UK objectives. The proposal is predicted to result in, as a minimum, slight to moderateincreases in air pollution at locations of relevant exposure, including Parsons Street School. Dueto the nature of the proposed development it has not been possible to develop an effectivescheme of mitigation ofthese impacts on air pollution. It is considered that the proposals conflict with National and LocalPlanning Policy on air quality'.

The report containing this information was available for public perusal on the Council's planningapplication site for some time prior to the application being granted and so Lovell will have beenable to access the information prior to filing their own application for permission to build housingdirectly adjacent to the Recycling Centre. This being so, I can only assume that Lovell believesthat the environmental impact on the area from its own development will not make an already poorsituation worse. I disagree, but I guess we could all have an opinion about the potential impact ofthe additional motorists who would potentially use the area and whether their resulting '...residualcumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.' (Pegasus iv 2.27) thus causing thisapplication to be rejected by the powers that be. I personally consider that there will be substantialimpact on road congestion, in this case resulting from the two new developments, each aware of

the implications of increased vehicle usage in the area and each also aware of the intentions andimpact of the other party in this respect. Each will also have been aware that their own actions tomitigate the resulting emissions would be largely ineffectual. For the recycling centre's applicationto have been passed was, I believe, utterly unacceptable from a pollution perspective. To alsopass this application would unnecessarily exacerbate this already deplorable situation.

From an alternative mode of travel perspective, such increases in local traffic levels have thepotential to negatively affect the performance and therefore reliability of public transport whichservices the area, thus impacting the travel arrangements of those who already live locally andrely on this mode of transport. And, let's face it, such services will definitely be needed sincenobody is going to want to walk or cycle besides roads which are doomed to become increasinglyunhealthy. See above.

HousingI note that Lovell will be building properties where residents, whose homes are to be built closestto industrial units on adjoining land, will be able to allow fresh air in whilst keeping their windowsclosed during the daytime. In this way they will be able to minimise the excessive and intrusivenoise levels emanating from that area. Lovell's decision was based on the findings of theirconsultants SLR Consulting Limited (SLR) (June 2021) who, in the conclusion of their NoiseAssessment Report for Lovell Homes (section 9.0), stated

'For the residential properties which overlook the roads or commercial units, it is anticipated thatthey will require closed windows and alternative ventilation, for example with the use of trickleventilators, to achieve the required internal noise level'.

I understand that trickle ventilators are Lovell's preferred choice so have considered their potentialusefulness. Interestingly, from my computer-based trawl through a number of window-fitting sites, Iunderstand that trickle ventilators actually let in noise and that they are not appropriate forwindows where there is particularly intrusive noise in the direct vicinity. Additionally, I note thattrickle ventilators apparently also reduce energy efficiency (www.lifestylewindows.co.uk29.10.2021) - so not particularly 'green' if you're looking to impress with such credentials. And notparticularly good for those on low incomes who, I understand, this particular area of new housingis to be for. Additionally, given the anticipated increase in air pollution levels in the area (seeabove), I wonder how beneficial letting 'fresh air' trickle in from the outside might be to the long-term physical health of residents.

ConclusionWhilst I recognise that a good many efforts, other than those discussed above, have been madeby Lovell to try to lessen the impact of additional traffic in the area (car-share, cycle lanes, electriccharge points etc), I have not been persuaded that any of these or indeed those I have discussedabove will make any big difference. A major worry, for me, is the increase in congestion with itsassociated pollution and the effect that this will have on the health of people whose homes

educational establishments and places of work are both local and also slightly further afield fromthe planned development. The increase in traffic flowing/idling through the area will clearly besubstantial in the long-term and will affect a much wider area than that which is in the directproximity of the planned development. The development of local land for housing will both add tocar emission levels and at the same time take away the life-forms that help to reduce the impact ofthat pollution. Building homes here cannot be right, and to choose to do so in full knowledge thatthose homes will be on land directly adjacent to an establishment that has, arguably, also beenunable to show that it can successfully mitigate against the excessive pollution levels that areassociated with it, seems totally perverse.

Regarding the proposed housing development, the likely lack of any real improvement to the livingconditions of residents by the introduction of trickle ventilation in the new-builds has been clearlyset-out above. Plans relating to ways of addressing this matter might, of course, have changedsince I last had access to information relating to the issue, and I would hope that this is the case.However, an associated concern I have is that if residents experience problems with noise and airindoors then the situation will be similar out-of-doors and where someone is on a low-income thereare likely to be few options for them where-by they can distance themselves from such anenvironment, either permanently or temporarily, so I consider that the planning for thisdevelopment, in this particular instance, is also somewhat wanting.

For the reasons given above, and many more which I have not discussed here, I oppose Lovell'splanning application.

* Pegasus Group Transport Assessment 1 (September 2021) section 8.3 comments on the initialconsiderations of the plan to mitigate the impact of the development.

**The Sustainability Team's full text (of February 2020) can be found on the City Council'sPlanning Application website. The planning application reference is 19/05204/F.

A motion was passed in September 2021 protecting all green spaces in Bristol, in orderto uphold this motion Bristol City Council should refuse this application for development.

I strongly oppose this application, fundamentally as it only serves to take away from the localcommunity instead of enhance it in anyway.

It effects me on a very personal level as my garden backs directly onto the Western Slopes. Itwould effect mine and my families emotional and physical wellbeing, as the nature whichsurrounds us has literally been a life saver especially during the lockdowns of 2020.

Wildlife:There is an abundant presence of wildlife, with many rare species which fall under protection laws.Bats (greater and lesser horse shoe), owls, birds of prey, foxes, badgers, rabbits. The surveycarried out, although inadequate, did identify that there are badger setts. The solution proposed toretain the badgers was to introduce man made setts, which are proven to have very low successrates, this is especially due to the disruption caused during the construction process the wildlifeand in this instance the badgers will flee the area.

Another concerning proposal as part of the building works is to cut away the ancient hedgerow togain access to the site. It has been highlighted by experts that once this delicate network has beensevered nothing can be done to replace it. A point raised also in the application regarding thisportion of land was around the village green status being reversed, and that the action neededwould be to write to the Secretary of State requesting this, a very grey area to say the least, how

do you declare something no longer in need of preservation when its green status is arguably ofmore importance than ever, with the current climate emergency declared by Bristol City Council.

The removal of the grazing horses, who freely roam the land, would start a chain reaction to thedelicate and untouched ecosystem effecting the other species across the slopes. We have raredung beatles present which obviously require the presence of the horses and their manure tosurvive.

The land is a wildflower meadow with a vast variety of flowers and plants that have never beencultivated or disturbed. Something which once destroyed can not be recreated or restored. Thebiodiversity lost can not be reclaimed with the inclusion of a wildlife corridor.

Subsidence:Little to no information has been included covering the potential issues with subsidance. For thoseliving directly off of the Westerns slopes this is of major concern. Myself and neighbours are awareof issues with subsidence to the back of the properties with land levels dropping along the fenceline and the original concrete sheds attached to the rear side of the houses pulling away andbecoming unstable. Areas of the slopes were previously landfill so this also brings into questionthe integrity of the land and its stability especially once disturbed.

Changes to the road network:Novers Hill becoming one way will cause major issues, the industrial estate receives daily lorrydeliveries of heavy goods which enter and leave at the base of the hill this change will encouragethose lorries to go up and around the whole system creating more congestion along the Hartcliffeway and taking them directly past the local primary school on Novers Lane. The recycling centre along the Hartcliffe way is not yet open so we are yet to see to what level the impact on congestionand standing traffic this will have, but it is certainly going to increase.

Flood risk:The Hartcliffe way and the Malago at the base of the Western Slopes are areas which have ahistory of flooding, so the removal of trees, scrubs and green land will increase the chances of thisreoccuring and to a greater level.

Housing:There is a need for more housing across Bristol but all brown field sites should be used as amatter of priority to meet this need. The housing crisis is largely to do with people unable to affordto buy and become home owners due to astronomical rents. The affordability structure for thisdevelopment is not clear. To be truly affordable a cross section of the salaries within the Knowlewest area should be taken and average calculated. Then this average becomes the affordableprice tag. Based on past developments of a similar kind this has not been the approach, meaningit is simply unattainable for those most in need.

'Knowle has a lower rate of home ownership (via a mortgage or owned outright) than the nationalaverage, which suggests that Knowle is an economically deprived area.' (Ilivehere.co.uk)

BENEFIT BRISTOL, CITY OF ENGLANDJobseekers Allowance (only) 3.6% 3.3%Incapacity Benefits (IB or ESA) 2.9% 2.4%Any Benefit (includes in work benefits) 14.9% 13.5%

[Sources: Office for National Statistics & Department for Work & Pensions.]

Based on these statistics it is highly unlikely that the community that neighbours this proposeddevelopment will be in the position to benefit from it at all.

Recycling centre:The recycling centre has not yet opened so there is no measurable way of knowing the noiselevels, traffic congestion or pollution this will cause, not really an unknown that will appeal toprospective buyers. A solution that has been offered by Lovell is to have reinforced glazedwindows to reduce the noise levels, but that they should remain closed, again not really anappealing prospect to live in a house where you are unable to open a window. No one shouldhave to choose between a house to live in and clean air to breath. Another substandard and poorquality area of the design proposed is to use part of the housing to act as a noise barrier, I wonderif it is intended that the housing that is acting as a buffer will be the ones which have the affordableprice tag.

I believe it was in Bristol City Councils own 'Site Allocation and Development Management Policy'that the Western Slopes was named as a 'prominent green hillside'. I would agree, and it certainlyis a valued asset in our community and stands with prominence and beauty. All we wish for is for itto remain that way. It is time to give it the protection it needs and let the 'green lungs' continue torepay and serve the community in the fight against climate change and the climate emergency weare tackling.

I object to this because it is an important site for wildlife and I don't believe that thehouses can be built while sustaining the ecosystem. Houses should be built on brownfield sites,not greenfield. We need to be protecting the environment not destroying it.

I object to this planning application on the grounds that the fields/ slopes are a anenvironment within south bristol that is unique and should not be built on and such has been saidin past ecological reports.. The development also will cause further strain on local public services,I.e. doctors, schools, roads etc. And none of this has been planned in for the numerous otherdevelopments that are going on in the area, namely Hengrove park and the house building that willalso occupy the land that St Bernadette RC play on, and the land that IKEA are building 100s ofhomes on along the airport road. South bristol simply has no more room for massivedevelopments that are taking over with no infrastructure in place. And with what has been in thenews lately regarding the state of the countries sewer systems contaminating our rivers. Thesedevelopments simply should be halted until all relevant and required infrastructure is in place tosupport such plans. As not having the infrastructure only puts huge pressure on already pressuredservices, but also causes problems further down the line.

how we going to make ower own syrup if we lose too many tree`s.

This wildlife area is a thing of beauty in the centre of housing and industry. It mainlyconsists of trees too many to count where children in the area have played and horses graze.Please please do not any developer build on this site it's the only green area in that part of Bristol Iwalk or drive bu it every day

There are so many brown field sites across the south of Bristol that could be built oninstead. We should be protecting our local green spaces and wildlife instead. I live on HeadleyLane and I regularly see birds of prey flying between the western slopes and manor woods valley.My kids have learnt so much from watching the horses that graze this land .One of the things that drew us to this area was the amount of green space that is around us.Building on this space is going to have such an impact on the already poor air quality of Bristol,removing trees, adding roads and more congestion to the already hugely busy main roads in thearea.

Think about this, please do. How would you feel if this was where you lived? Our city needs topreserve the green spaces not build on them.I really hope this helps to sway your decision in the right direction, and reject this planningapplication.

This development will have a negative impact on the local community and the naturalhabitat. It's disappointing that Bristol city council are pushing ahead with this proposal andbrushing off the concerns of local people and trying to mislead the public that there will beaffordable housing on this site. This city needs this green space!

Building housing on the Western Slopes will take away yet another asset away from thealready deprived Knowle West community. There is already very little to do in the area and theseslopes provide an escape from a very crowded and already developed area.Increasing housing development in the area will also lead to an increase in traffic, an increase inair pollution and a decrease in available parking (ie. more cars will be forced to park on the roads,taking up the footpaths, making it more difficult for people to walk and run around the area. Thiswill make it particularly difficult for people with accessibility issues).The slopes also provide an important habitat for wildlife and links other wildlife sites in the area.This is important to ensure we protect what wildlife we have left and the biodiversity we have isn'tlost.

This will only increase traffic, air and light pollution and will destroy nature path.

I have a number of objections to this plan.

This area is a really important green space, with meadow grassland and woodland that is vital tothe diversity of the local flora and fauna. Allowing this to continue will destroy the homes andpopulation of badgers, bats and other protected species. As Bristol City has biodiversity as a keypart of it Energy and Environmental Policies, it is vital the city steps up and protects this importantpart of our city.

If not for biodiversity, this must be rejected for the health of our citizens. The pollution levels in thearea are already high- I refer to the awful levels of pollution around Parson Street School and thesurrounding area. If this is approved, the air quality will deteriorate further, causing long termdamage to the health of local residents, thanks to even more traffic routing through the area.

This area has been vital for people's wellbeing, including mine. Being out in green spaces hasproven benefits for mental health, and it would be awful to take this away from local residents, whomight not have easy access to places further afield.

We also have so much brownfield and unused space in Bristol already which should be prioritisedfor building on, as per the local council vote.

I am proud that Bristol became the UK's first ever European Green Capital in 2015 recognition ofwhat its citizens have already achieved in making our city a healthier, happier place to live in. We

need to keep this momentum going and protect our green spaces.

This land is valuable for wildlife and must remain free from development. I used to livevery close by in Gerrards Close and I object to this proposal in the strongest terms.

There are fewer and fewer green spaces in south Bristol. I understand more housing isneeded but the infrastructure for roads, schools, doctors surgeries etc are not in place. The area isbusy all the time and potentially with another 600 homes, could mean an increase of 1000 or soextra vehicles on the local roads. It will become more chaotic than it already is- especially now thatthere is going to be a 'TIP' and recycling Center in the same area - CHAOS !!

We need to keep a green belt in our city. This is an important piece of land that supportsall the elements that will help to sustain our future. With the demand for climate change, Bristolcan show the way in controlling the future use of our valuable inner city green spaces.

I thought bristol was meant to be protecting our green spaces?

This development is a terrible idea.

We desperately need green spaces and corridors in the city to allow nature to thrive andfor public health and well being. This site lies between two other major green spaces and plays avital part in the overall health of South Bristol. The reduction of green spaces and increase intraffic will substantially impact on the quality of life of residents.

Officers should be resisting development that would take away valued green space fromlocal people and which would further decrease and fragment habitat for wildlife. How will BristolCouncil ensure that at least 30 percent of land is managed for nature (according to their ecologicalemergency statement) if they keep giving greenfield land and known sites of nature interest overto development? The views of local people need to be taken into account and officers shouldconsider the pledges Bristol Council have made in respect of the climate and ecologicalemergencies. Once this land is gone its gone forever.

The site is too important to both wildlife and human well being. South Bristol is beingswamped with new housing but no significant employment opportunities and no investment ininfrastructure or schools, leisure etc. Also most of the new housing is way beyond the reach of thearea's population. Bristol's commitment to environmental issues are being severely compromisedby these plans. Hypocrisy comes to mind.

I live opposite Novers Hill and I am seriously concerned about having additionalhouses/flats and 100s of extra cars in my area.I wish to object to the loss of peaceful green space with horses. The properties proposed will bevisible from the road and will ruin the natural space.I have a son and we are concerned about the increased traffic and pollution in an already busyarea.

There are already pressures on local facilities such as doctors surgeries and primary schools andthis proposed application will make this worse.I object to losing more green space that is a natural habitat for badgers, birds of prey and bats. Iobject to the removal of trees and disturbing the ancient hedgerow.Please do not destroy this important hillside landscape.This application would result in an adverse impact on our health, well-being and environment andwe strongly object.

I feel this application should be objected, for 1 novers hill is a nature conservation hughamounts of wildlife will be lost, secondly, I live on bedminster road and I do believe this will causeHugh ingress of even more traffic, this road is extremely busy at the moment, making novers hillone way will create more traffic, and even more pollution

As a keen naturalist I am becoming increasing conscious of how inner South Bristol isbecoming denuded of green spaces.The Hartcliffe Way corridor is a vital site of suburban greenery, an area of contiguous land foranimal habitation and transit.I could list the species that would be under threat and driven away, rendering the area yet anothervictim to promiscuous, shortsighted development plans designed to appease targets rather thanthe physical welfare and mental health of human and animal inhabitants.Bristol has proudly lauded itself as a green city. I'm increasingly failing to see where these greencredentials are being actualized, especially in South Bristol where tens of thousands of dwellingshave deprived the area of its once popular parklands.

There is too little green space in this part of town.it wil impact on view ,the traffic willincrease on hartcliffe way and all the road s in the area .WE Don't need more houses in this area .

Why are you trying to destroy the little wildlife we have left in bristol??? I don'tunderstand you the council. Bristol is loosing so much and you don't even see! I have lived heremy whole life and one thing I could say was how green bristol was. I use was as its being takenaway by you or student housing. From my window I have one of the best views which will be takenaway. I hear you talk about saving wildlife but you don't put it to practice. Its shocking anddisgusting.

OBJECTIONt

OBJECTIONS

1 The loss of the wonderful view of greenery and natural beauty

2 The depletion of nature conservation area

3 The loss of wildlife badgers, foxes, birds, bats, horses

4 The increased traffic to the area which is already far too much

5 The additional safety hazards that increased traffic will present

6 Further pollution from increased road users. The levels are already in excess of comfortable.

7 The additional noise that will undoubtedly destroy what is a quiet and peaceful open space

This is an important nature reserve. Multiple species of birds of prey rely on it.

I object to this scheme. I care about the nature on Novers Hill and the wildlife corridorthat the developer is leaving is not big enough to sustain the wildlife that is there.I am really worried about pollution where I live too, and I think the extra cars will make it worse.

Too much valuable green space has already been built on in Knowle West and theproposal to put so many homes on this land is absolutely unacceptable. Green space is not onlyvital to the health and well-being of the local community it is also vital to the city. Bristol haspledged to being a green city and helping the environment and destroying all this green space isthe total opposite of this promise. Much valuable wildlife lives in this area and it is an importantwildlife corridor to areas such as Crox Bottom.As well as this Knowle West cannot support further housing without other developments for thecommunity. We don't have enough shops, doctors, schools or community spaces. There is nothingfor young people and the bus service is appalling. These new houses will see a huge number ofadditional cars on the roads and the area simply doesn't have the infrastructure. The councilshould be investing in this area for the community before it considers cramming in anymore newhouses.

I am writing to object to the proposed developments on novers hill, with particularconcern about the loss of wildlife in an area that is already rapidly losing green space. Theparticularly diverse wildlife network present on the slopes will be at risk and will largely not survivesuch extensive works.

My concerns also lies with the increased traffic in the area and having to look out over hundreds ofhouses and cars rather than a meadow full of wildflowers and horses that I currently have and wasa huge part of what attracted us to the property to begin with.

I also believe that the local amenities are insufficient to deal with such a development.

I object because there will be even more traffic, noise and pollution in my area.We will lose more natural habitats, the council should not be doing away with all the animals andbirds.

It would be awful to lose green areas and all the wildlife around Novers Hill.Furthermore the traffic and the pollution caused by more cars will not be a good point for ourneighbourhood.The appearance of the development will produce loss of light and the greenery (symbol of NoversHill) will be lost.

No absolutely not , no more new builds on Greenland, our natural world is beingdestroyed, there are loads of other opportunities to make use of , Bristol city council and allgovernment should stop this.

I object to this on the grounds of traffic pollution, noise and losing even more of ourgreen space..

This would spoil our lovely views of the fields of horses, increase traffic and pollution inour area

Spoiling our views, increasing traffic and pollution

I object on the grounds that this site is a site of nature conservation.

This proposed development is an absolute no from my household. For several reasons Iwholeheartedly object. The mental health of this community is hugely affected by green space andnature that lives on the slopes and to have them gone would be devastating. I love cycling upHartcliffe Way and enjoying this beautiful scene, the possibility that it may not be there isabsolutely heartbreaking. Especially with the pandemic we have all learned the importance ofmental health and green spaces, so for our own benefit we need to encourage more of them.

Secondly, the wildlife that calls this space home needs protecting! Novers Hill is a Site of NatureConservation Interest and that alone should be enough to stop any development or damage.Thousands of species are threatened and habitat loss needs to be stopped. In no way is thisdevelopment "sustainable". It is absolutely unacceptable that nature is being thrown away just forthe greed of developers. Bristol was several years ago named a 'green city', yet by removing ALLour green spaces it will not be for any longer.

Furthermore, the increased traffic and pollution from this development would have a greatlyadverse affect on our air, which is already severely polluted in this area. By encouraging morecars to the area, children are suffering from respiratory problems more and more. We need fewercars and more trees.

Finally, the argument that 'we need more affordable housing' that will inevitably come up is invalidhere. These homes will not be affordable to the average person here.The local community around The Western Slopes will not accept development here so I urge youto reconsider and find a brownfield site to repurpose for accommodation instead.

The Manor Woods Valley Group object to the principle of development of this site andhas reservations with regards to the veracity of the supporting ecological assessment. Twodocuments laying out the detailed grounds for these positions are appended to this response.

I make reference to the planning consultation - 21/05164/F. Land on the west side ofNovers Hill.As a local resident, I received no written notification from the Council, with regard to the planning.I would be horrified and ashamed of the irresponsible decision to grant planning permission for ahousing development on a green area when there are so many unused brown sites going towaste.This proposed development will be highly detrimental to the local infrastructure. The local roadsare already struggling to cope with the current volume of traffic and the junctions at Parson Street /Bedminster Road will be even busier, as if that were possible. Air pollution is already above illegallevels. Not to mention, in the immediate vicinity of a primary school, where the children are alreadycampaigning for purer air quality in the area.Novers Hill is a site of Nature Conservation. Can Bristol, Green City as it claims to be, afford tolose any more wildlife areas? The development will become a blot on the landscape whencurrently, it is an iconic landmark of outstanding natural beauty.As I mentioned before, it appals me that this development is being considered for such a specialpiece of land that is of benefit to many, when it is a well-known and acknowledged fact that thereare currently many abandoned brown -sites not being used.SincerelyH. Welton

The South Bristol slopes in my opinion are essential thing to preserve in thisurbanisation growth. Growing up in the area as a child many hours and days were spent playingoutside in all sorts of conditions on the slopes or any area of grass we could play on, unfortunatelyI don't see many kids playing on these areas anymore and I kind of ask myself why is there such adisconnect between kids and nature now. I am 23 so this really has changed in a short amount oftime, technology has moved on and kids rather play video games or go on their phones then playoutside which I find sad. And I'm not sure on statistics but to me anti social behaviour in the area ison the rise. Once this project is built children in the local area will never have the same opertunitysthat I did to play in a wide open space away from busy main roads. There has already been manyinstances of children being hit and even killed by cars in the surrounding area. I have lived in thearea my whole life and it will be sad to see the land I and many others before me enjoyed beturned into just more houses. I also don't beleive the surrounding roads and infrastructure canreally handle 157 more houses in the area, they are already way to busy for their own good. Sowhen you make the decision please take into the consideration this is permanent and will effecteveryone in the area in my opinion for the worse especially children. Thank you for reading

We need to redistribute existing accommodation, not build new on green open spacewithin active travel distance for a great many citizens. Neither the homeless nor the low-renthousing crisis will be solved by yet more new building. The climate emergency will not be solvedby new building.

I object to the proposed building of 157 dwellings on this area for the following reasonsI feel the road infrastructure in this area is struggling now and there is also proposed building ofmany homes on the old Whitchurch airfield site adding more traffic to the area so this proposedbuilding development and the increase in vehicles could cause even more traffic jams andpollution at a time when we are trying to reduce pollution.We will lose another valuable piece of green space which is rich in trees and habitat whichsupports a diverse variety of animals and insects vital to the areas ecosystem.

The Manor Woods Valley Group object to the principle of development of this site andhas reservations with regards to the veracity of the supporting ecological assessment. Twodocuments laying out the detailed grounds for these positions are appended to this response.

Manor Woods Valley Group

c/o 12 Queens Road

Bishopsworth

Bristol

BS13 8LB

30 October 2021

Dear Sir or Madam

Ref: Application 21/05164/F: Land On The West Side Of Novers Hill Bristol

We (Manor Woods Valley Group) note that the Ecological Report, that is referenced in several of the documents that support application 21/21/05164/F: Land On The West Side Of Novers Hill Bristol, was not been made available for public scrutiny on the planning portal until 27 October 2021. We therefore question the legal status of the planning consultation process as the public have only a limited time to examine a crucial document that supports the application.

Under separate cover we have raised our concerns with regards to development of the site in the light of the ecological emergency that has been declared in Bristol, and how the city intends to respond to this and the outcomes that are envisaged.

This letter sets out our main areas of concern with regards to the details of the ecological assessment relating to the application site and the impact of development on ecological receptors (organisms and ecosystems).

The report states that eleven(!) of the seventeen bat species known to breed in the UK were recorded over the site, including both Horseshoe species. To state that this is typical for the Bristol area is to miss the point. The West of England Joint Green Infrastructure Strategy 2020-2030 states that ‘The West of England is an internationally important region for a number of bat species, including the rare Greater Horseshoe and Bechstein’s bats.

Key to maintaining and expanding these populations is protecting, enhancing and expanding key habitats, foraging areas and flyways, including roost access points,

hedgerows, woodlands, grazed pastures, and river corridors. Increased levels of artificial light from development should also be avoided.’ Thus, the presence of so many bat species make this site all the more important for bats.

The potential impact on bats, especially on Horseshoe bats, have been largely ignored or down-played in the ecology report. It is noted that there were 28 detections of Lesser Horseshoe bats during the survey; this is not an insignificant number.

In the UK, all bat species have a very high level of national and international legal protection, with the two Horseshoe species having additional protection as Annex 2 species within the 1992 Habitats Directive.

The report notes that ‘The habitats on site were assessed to be highly suitable for bats; the woodland and hedgerows offered high quality commuting and foraging potential, whilst the grassland and scrub offered further foraging value’. The majority of the grassland and scrub habitats would be lost to development but there is no quantitative assessment of the loss of these foraging areas, or commuting routes, on the (location unidentified) colonies of, in particular, Horseshoe bats. The provision of dark corridor through the site is proposed and, presumably, the installation of lighting on the rear of private houses will be disallowed through enforceable planning conditions (this is not stated), but there is no detailed assessment of the bat flight-lines and how these would be impacted by development.

The ecological assessment is notably lacking in its consideration of breeding and overwinter birds. In the former case, despite an assurance that all survey work was carried out in accordance with recognised guidelines (CIEEM recommends at least three and up to five monthly surveys for breeding birds) only one survey visit to asses breeding birds on the site was made. This was made relatively late in the season - at the end of June. No indication of the time of day at which the survey was undertaken, or the amount of survey effort involved, is given in the report. There is a reference to species “including” (a list of species), but the actual data has not been included in the report so it is not known which other species were recorded. There is no assessment of use of the site by over-wintering birds, for which three or more monthly survey visits would be expected.

A reptile survey was carried out, but was interfered with by grazing horses. In such circumstances the horses should have been removed from the site whilst the survey was being conducted. The survey mat density was at the lower end of the recommended quantum. It is stated that the survey was carried out in accordance with recognised guidelines, but there is no indication that the recommended number of survey visits (seven) were carried out. As with the bird survey, the survey data is not included in the report; therefore, third parties, including the Manor Woods Valley Group and the planning authority, are not in a position to form an independent opinion as to if the survey effort i.e., the number of mats surviving post-interference, was adequate.

The report stated that the presence of horses ‘limited the ability to undertake invertebrate surveys’. Again, the horses should have been removed to allow an adequate invertebrate survey to take place.

As the sections relating to Badgers are redacted the veracity of these cannot be commented on by members of the public.

Section 6.8 of the report is entitled ‘Amphibians’; Water Voles and Otters are then exclusively discussed in this section – these are mammals not amphibians.

There are omissions in the desk study element of the report. The report states that nearby Manor Woods (sic) and Glynvale (sic) are SNCI’s. This is correct, but the report neglects to mention that these sites are also Local Nature Reserves. They are clearly

indicated as such on the publicly accessible MAGiC website. No mention is made of the impact on these sites of additional usage by resident in the proposed development.

The site falls within a SSSI Impact Assessment Zone, albeit for major developments, but this is not mentioned in the report.

Figure 5 in the report is entitled ‘UK Hab(sic) Classification Survey (see separate map for detail)’. Where is the ‘separate map’? We are surprised that it was not deemed necessary to include any target notes on the map at figure 5.

There is no mention in the report of the vitally important linkage function of the site which is situated between Manor Woods Valley Local Nature Reserve and Northern Slopes Local Nature Reserve. The application area is identified for its grassland linking function in the West of England Nature Partnership’s Nature Recovery Network.

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) is mentioned in the introduction stage of the report, but there is no subsequent mention of the UK BAP or Local BAP (LBAP) in relation to species or habitats on the site.

The assessment that ‘The current management regime of habitats on site was assessed to be sub optimal for invertebrate species’ is wrong. It might be sub optimal for some species, but will be optimal for others e.g., dung beetles (on which the larger bat species, including Greater Horseshoe bats, thrive) and those species requiring a short grass sward.

With regards to the recommendations made in section 8 of the report. Many of the habitat management recommendations are relatively complex. The aim of these is to be applauded, but the practicality of delivery is to be questioned.

The recommendation to install Hedgehog pop-holes in garden fences so as to create a ‘Hedgehog highway’ is laudable, but in practice this can only be used as a way to ensure connectivity if the retention of such holes is a requirement of occupiers, is monitored and is enforced. Are the latter two points feasible? The recommendation to cut vegetation in a phased manner during the development phase so that Hedgehogs can disperse from the area (to where?) will only work during the Hedgehog activity period (they hibernate in the winter).

In the case of bats, the retention of ‘sufficient’ foraging habitat is described. Sufficient for what? The current (grassland) habitats support a given population of bats. The extent of grassland habitat will be much reduced, indeed grazed grassland will be eliminated, therefore the carrying capacity of bats relying on this habitat will also be reduced.

There is no suggestion in the report that bats roost on the site; however, the recommendation to install 50 ‘integrated bat boxes’ is again laudable. ‘Integrated’ means built into house walls, not free-hanging. The boxes (in fact built-in bat bricks) must be placed in suitably dark elevations.

The recommendation that ‘Any areas of scrub or trees that require removal to enable the development will be undertaken outside of the bird besting(sic) season (i.e. avoiding the months March – August inclusive). If this cannot be avoided a breeding

bird check will be undertaken by an ecologist prior to vegetation removal’ is correct. But this section neglects to add that if an in-use nest is found, work in that area should cease until the nest is no longer in-use.

As with the section on nesting birds, the section on reptiles fails to add that if reptiles are found they will be moved to a place of safety.

The ecological assessment makes no mention of the One City Plan, Ecology Emergency Strategy or Plan, or West of England Nature Partnership. The Manor Woods Valley Group considers these in detail in our other response to this application. These documents set-out strategic goals for the city. The goals are not considered in the report in anyway, which means that the site has been considered as a stand-alone piece of land, not as a part of a wider ecological network or as a potential part of a solution to the ecological emergency.

Development of the site at the density envisaged in the application requires off-site biodiversity offsetting in order to gain the required biodiversity net gain. We are concerned that the precise location and nature of the off-site offsetting has not been determined. A nearby site, Crox Bottom, has been proposed. This site has no significant protection in planning from development in the future. It is felt that submission of this application without formal agreement on the location, nature, timing and protection for a ‘receptor’ site, will put undue pressure on Bristol City Council to provide such a site should planning be granted. There is a well established legal principle that the conditioning of further survey work for protected species should not happen, it is logical that the same principal should apply to off-site biodiversity off-setting i.e., the details should be agreed before an application is registered.

In conclusion, we maintain that there is a lack of survey, reporting and interpretation rigour within the ecological assessment report. This means that it cannot be relied on to give a true picture of the ecological status of the site or as a tool in judging the impact of development on the aforementioned ecology.

Development of this site will only serve to exasperate even further exacerbate the desperate status (as described in the Ecology Emergency documentation) of the natural environment in Bristol and in South Bristol in particular.

Yours faithfully

Peter Loy-Hancocks BSc(Hons) former MCIEEM

Manor Woods Valley Group ecologist

Manor Woods Valley Group

In Response to Planning Application – Ref 21/05164/F - Land on the West Side of Novers

Hill, Bristol

This response is framed in the context of four published Strategy Documents:

One City Plan – third iteration – 2021 (ref 1)

“It describes the product of our city’s commitment to come together to agree on and work towards the future we want for Bristol to 2050 and the steps we need to take to achieve it”

One City Ecological Emergency Strategy – September 2020 (ref 2)

“Bristol was the first UK city to declare an Ecological Emergency. This is our city’s opportunity to come together and take positive action for nature while tackling some of our biggest challenges.” West of England Nature Partnership (WENP) Nature Recovery Network – July 2021 (ref 3) “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.” Bristol City Council Ecological Emergency Action Plan 2021 -2025 – September 2021(ref 4) – includes much repetition of the One City Ecology Emergency Strategy (ref 2) “As an organisation, Bristol City Council is committed to addressing the ecological emergency, with a wide range of work going on within the council, with partners and with residents, to help meet the One City Ecological Emergency Strategy goals by 2030.”

Manor Woods Valley Group’s Position

The Manor Woods Valley Group (MWVG) responds to local, and potentially more distant, development proposals and planning applications that could have any appreciable impact (negative or positive) on local, and potentially wider, ecology and biodiversity. We test developments against the criteria and targets for the preservation and improvement of the natural environment contained in the three strategy documents.

This document lays out statements contained in the aforementioned strategy documents, especially those that we have highlighted, against which we test proposals and/or applications. As these statements are drawn from environment related strategy 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 principle, 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 four strategy documents in this document does not preclude MWVG referencing other BCC or third-party strategy documents or querying other aspects of the application, for example the scope and/or veracity of supporting survey data and/or interpretation of same. A second response describes our reservations with regards to the ecological assessment associated with this application.

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)

Key drivers - Legislation and strategies informing the Ecological Emergency Action Plan: West of England (WoE) Nature Recovery Network; WoE Green Infrastructure Strategy; WoE BNG Guidance and Implementation Plan; WoE Natural Capital Account Environment Agency (EA); WoE Tree and Woodland Strategy; West of England Spatial Development Strategy (ref 4)

“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) Bristol City Council has an important role to play in contributing to the goals of the One City Ecological Strategy and the One City Climate Strategy. This Ecological Emergency Action Plan seeks to put nature at the heart of decision-making in the council, to deliver a healthier city for people and wildlife that will be carbon neutral and climate resilient by 2030. This Action Plan is a council-wide programme of activities to deliver on the ambitions of the One City Ecological Emergency Strategy and relevant aspects of the One City Climate Strategy (ref. 4) 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)

Bristol City Council has a key role to play in the delivery of the One City Ecological Emergency Strategy, as it owns or manages over a third of land (including developed land) across the city, and has statutory environmental duties and obligations. These relate to the protection of habitat and wildlife that are set out in European conventions, national legislation and national, sub-regional and local policy. (ref 4)

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 on the West Side of Novers Hill will contribute to solving the issues identified, the solutions proposed and the outcomes desired, in the four 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 c/o 12 Queens Road Bishopsworth Bristol BS13 8LB

Please don't build on yet more wildlife areas in Bristol. Thank you

Building on this space will remove valuable green spaces for current South Bristolresidents to use and enjoy. Some of whom, have used this space on a regularly basis for decades.This will impact resident's mental health and wellbeing. Not to mention the devastating impact thelocal wildlife who currently reside in the copes, woods, and hedgerows.Concerns have been raised by the Environment Agency in 2013 regarding the development of thisspace. These specifically stated, "The Environment Agency (EA) considered the allocation wouldbe likely to create an unacceptable impact on riparian habitat." As well as the Avon Wildlife Trustwho "considered the allocation will result in a marked loss of the site of Nature ConservationInterest and ecological network that currently exists." As noted in the Bristol City Council SiteAllocations and Development Management Policies report 2013.Lovell's application states that it is seeking to build 157 new homes, including 47 affordablehomes. But these homes, even those marketed as 'affordable' will be too expensive for locals.This will impact the community as residents will be displaced, as they can no longer afford to staywithin the area. This is the very definition of gentrification! Which the Major himself recently statedhe opposed he "called on a city housing board to tackle gentrification in Bristol, calling it aferocious challenge which undermines stability and breeds resentment", Bristol Post, 1st June2021. Also, Lovell themselves are not interest in providing houses for locals. As proven with otherdevelopments (Foxglove Meadows) in which they targeted Londoners rather than residents, topurchase the properties.In the last few years there has been a staggering number of new build developments that havebeen built, or approved by the planning department, in a 2-mile radius of Novers Hill. Theseinclude:Urban Quarter, Off Hengrove Promenade, Bristol BS14 0DE - 1,400 homes

Jessop Park - 350 homesWhitchurch Airfield/Hengrove Park - 1,435 homesHartcliffe Campus - 350 homesParkview Campus (former Somerfield headquarters) - 600 homesBoKlok - 173 homesCuro, Imperial Park - 70 homesBased on just the above properties, South Bristol will therefore see an increase in residents of aminimum of 4378 people, but more realistically between 8,756-17,512 people (including children.)There is already a lack of services currently for residents residing in this area- doctors, dentists,schools. How can an additional 8-17,000 people be accommodated? Regarding Lovell'sapplication, are they planning on building these on the site, as part of these plans? If not, how dothe people buying the houses access these services?The location of the development has terrible public transport links. It is therefore unrealistic toexpect new residents to utilise public transport. People will simply use their cars. Traffic on theHartcliffe way is already dire, especially during peak times. How will adding 157 cars (minimum),from just this development, on to the local roads help? It is more realistic to say that there will be314 cars, as most residents will have 2 adults and therefore will have 2 cars.Most new build developments that have recently been built in South Bristol have only included 1parking space. This is marketed as a green initiative, developers state that this is to encouragepeople to use public transport. But this doesn't happen, as per the points above. You thereforeend up with cars parked in the road, at the end of their drives, which affects the flow of traffic.Adding to congestion. Or they park on the pavements, affecting disabled residents and thoseusing prams. How will this be addressed?Bristol City Council have recently announced that a new recycling centre will open in South Bristol,also on the Hartcliffe way. This, combined with the development will catastrophic consequenceson the air quality for residents. Residents need trees to help absorb the carbon dioxide from thisadditional traffic, not addition houses!As noted in the above report, the EA suggested that building upon this land would "contraveneCore Strategy policy BCS9. The EA also considered the removal of the allocation would beunlikely to significantly impact on Bristol City Councils core strategy's minimum housing target."Therefore, the loss of land to residents and wildlife, plus the impact of the additional properties,combined with the many other developments locally, mean that this development cannot bejustified by either Lovell or Bristol City Council.

Greed will will not help you sleep at night.

I completely object to any part of Novers Hill being built on.There is so much wildlife up here, birds of prey, herons, owls, badgers and bats. We see themevery day. Its not enough to leave just some of the trees, the whole thing needs to be left alone.The whole thing is a wildlife corridor.Who is going to want to live beside all these industrial units and the new recycling centre. I havelived here for over 30 years and it used to be so quiet. Now the traffic is increasing and it is onlygoing to be made worse. I know the pollution is very bad around Parson Street where thedeveloper is wanting the traffic re-routed to.I think it is madness that the Council is allowing this to happen on Novers Hill. What a ridiculouswaste of money the developer is spending by putting great big walls in - the land is not stableround here! So many houses have subsidence issues around the northern slopes and also theNovers Lane end of the Novers Hill site. The same will happen to these new homes I am sure.This is only about one thing - profits for the developer and the Council reaping more in taxation.I think it is a shameful idea.

The proposed development will blight the beautiful, bio-diverse site. It will destroy themature trees that are a visible part of the skyline. It will interrupt the natural wildlife corridor andbring both air and light pollution.

South Bristol's open and green spaces are severely threatened. If this was proposed on theDowns, or the surrounding wealthy Clifton neighbourhood there would be a highly funded "public"outcry. Because it's South Bristol the council are proposing to let developers tear up one of ourfew remaining community resources. With so many cuts in these hard economic times getting outand enjoying nature is one of the few affordable, local pass times left to us residents. We do notneed tarmac playgrounds & the odd miserable swing. We need trees, grass, nature. We need tohave it on our doorsteps. We need to keep all our mature trees. We do not have any spaces in ourschools and can't get doctor appointments as the current infrastructure can barely cope withcurrent population, there is nothing in the plans that would directly support the infrastructure.Building on part of the green space threatens the wildlife in the whole of the space, as it is forcedinto an ever decreasing size.

It is an utterly wicked, money making proposition; selling off a poorer neighbourhoods green spaceto benefit the shareholders of a private company.THE COMMUNITY OWNS THIS GREEN SPACE AND THIS COMMUNITY WILL NOT BENEFITIN ANY WAY FROM ITS DESTRUCTION.

Goes against the recent Golden Motion to protect green spaces in Bristol from furtherdevelopment.

We are losing to much green space

I work in Hartcliffe/Knowle in education and concerned about lack of access to naturefor young people. Given climate crisis and mass extinction event, we should not be building ongreenfield sites.

Protect green space - Bristol City council have declared an ecological emergency andpassed a Council motion not to build on our green spaces yet are considering this application forbuilding on our natural space in Bristol?

We need to protect nature and build on brownfield sites.

I therefore object to this development.

Where are the additional community facilities to support this development?The loss of such a substantial site for wildlife will also be detrimental to Bristols overall ecology.The focus should be on developing brownfield sites first.

The Western Slopes in Southern Bristol is a greenfield site.Why is it that this reality is now being ignored?Bristol City Council is putting itself up to be a green city yet this and other planned developments -the zoo carpark and Baltic Wharf being two examples - clearly indicate otherwise.The area in question is an essential wildlife corridor. It provides much needed green space to localinhabitants, supporting the community's health and well-being..There are so many actual brownfield sites in Bristol which could be utilised for housing. Why is thisnot being undertaken? When a green area is gone, it's gone forever. BCC must put it's actionswhere it's mouth resides and stop annihilating our precious green spaces.

South Bristol has very few amenities and has very little investment. It is a poor area andgreen spaces there are valued. More housing in this area would only create a packed and drabbuilding area of concrete, where green spaces would be sorely missed. Not only that, but thenature there would also be adversely affected, just like North Bristol where the metro busdevelopment chopped down mature tree down needlessly in Frenchay, which displaced all thedeer that ended up on the motorway. We need more green spaces in urban areas, not less!

My objection is based on the terrible loss of wildlife habitat that will be lost due to thisdevelopment when brownfield site alternatives could be used

I am very disappointed to see this raised again. It is a valuable habitat and the localnetwork cannot support so many more houses in this area with the traffic already at a standstill

I fully object to the development proposals for this area.

Our mayor cannot promote that Bristol was the first UK city to declare an Ecological Emergencywhilst also putting up no reasonable opposition to development on one of the few remaining greenand truly ecologically valuable areas in the city. The resulting loss of wildlife habitat from thisdevelopment is a direct contradiction of the Ecological Strategy laid out by BCC.

This area (Nover's Hill) is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). This development willharm the nature conservation value of one of Bristol's SCNIs and should therefore not bepermitted.

In addition to the impact on local wildlife and nature conservation, the plan offers no reasonablemitigation for the impact on the surrounding community. Building on a green space removes thatspace, both visually and in terms of access to green areas; the developer's claims of 'opening up'the area to locals is disingenuous. There is a new recycling centre nearby and this will increaselevels of noise and traffic in the proposed new housing area. Residents of the proposed housingwill have to choose between being able to open their windows, or suffer high levels of pollutionand noise.

The development would at present go against the full council vote on a motion passed inSeptember 2021. The local plan has not yet been updated to include the motion, which protectsgreen spaces in Bristol and prioritises development on brown field sites.

This area is a wildlife haven. We need to protect green spaces and wildlife.

Why can't they just leave special places like Novers Hill alone?The speed and density of house building in this part of south Bristol has become alarming and isnow a threat to the health and wellbeing of people living here.We are being targeted for thousands of new houses and yet are not getting any meaningfulinfrastructure to go with it. Doctors, dentists, school places, shops and so on are hard to come by.There seems to have been no thought gone into this, just a mad rush to build houses onunsuitable places like the Novers.I live near near two large developments that are soon to go up at Hengrove. Just outside of thosewe have the Boklok development stretching along Airport Road. Going the other direction theentire stretch of green space along Hengrove Way and Inns Court is also planned fordevelopment. They are also building houses now on the other side of the road next to ImperialPark. Now they are planning to destroy the vital Novers Hill wildlife corridor all the way from InnsCourt up towards Novers Common. There are too many other developements nearby to gothrough them all here. What is going on? Has any thought gone into the cumulative impact of allthese "separate" developments on the area as a whole, in terms of traffic, pollution, health,amenities, and wildlife. I don't think Lovells have taken any of this into account during theirapplication.It's also ridiculous that they are saying that they can mitigate for the nature will will lose on theNovers by making improvements at Crox Bottom. It's a completely different site with a differentecology. The Novers has important meadows, whereas Crox Bottom is a swamp! I mean that in agood way, in that swamps and rivers have their own value for nature, but they are obviouslydifferent from meadows. The Friends of Crox Bottom have not even been approached by Lovell,and neither have the Council's Parks department. Maybe if they had they would have been told

that it is not a suitable swop at all.

The building of any dwellings on this site is bound to have serious consequences on thealready-busy Hartcliffe Way which is like a car park at peak times. With the introduction of the newrecycling centre and the added congestion that will bring, it makes no sense at all to create furtherproblems. Additionally, the local wildlife (badgers, foxes, bats, owls and birds of prey) will beforced out of their natural habitats. We have little green space in this area of the city, please do nottake what is left. The rest of the world is trying to save the environment ...

Owing to the Shortage of Drivers /Labourers/in Bristol, I assume LESS people = theremust be spare Housing/Accomodation available. So where is the NEED for ALL these NEWhouses? Also LESS green land & More hard surfaces = FLOODS? (Hartcliffe Way/Parson StreetPreviously Flooding). POT holes (craters) in Novers Hill at present time, will worsen from theINCREASE in the EXTRA traffic generated by the increase in the population. This being theUSUAL NO EXTRA INFASTRUCTURE being installed ?

This will be bad for the area not enough schools to cope with such a large influx ofpeople. Not enough doctor's the one's that are here can't cope now the roads won't cope with ityou only have to see what has happened this week with roads being closed.The wildlife in this area will suffer badly.

We need to keep open areas for wildlife! Every one knows we should be saving theplanet! This would be terrible for our planet and wildlife

Object on the grounds of wildlife, air pollution and promises being broken

We cannot keep building on green spaces! When are we going to learn that humansand wildlife need these green spaces in towns and cities.

I've watched green spaces in Hengrove and Knowle West disappearing, replaced by more andmore housing and its heartbreaking. We're getting to the stage that we are going to be surroundedby concrete and mental health will suffer, as will wildlife which is barely hanging on in our townsand cities.

Please leave these valuable green spaces for us and our wildlife to enjoy. Once Green space isgone, it's gone forever, when are we going to wake up and realise that we are destroying whatnurtures us and our wellbeing?

There is an ecological emergency. This requires urgent action and not just protectingour current green spaces from development but actually enhancing them. Green spaces such asthis will never return once lost but housing development opportunities will always exist. Focus onbrown field sites, redundant office and change of use potential.

We need to maintain the landscapes and nature

The development is ill thought out. There aren't enough local services to keep up withthis development and the planned extra council owned section off Novers Hill.

The local road infrastructure doesn't have capacity to carry the extra traffic that this will bring. Thejunction at Parson Street already has dangerous levels of pollution, potentially affecting the kids atParson St Primary School.

There are also insufficient doctors surgeries and school placements to carry this extra influx ofresidents. Especially when all of the other developments in the area that are going ahead aretaken into consideration.

Additionally, in a self declared climate emergency, Bristol City Council keeps signing off thedevelopment of green field sites, covering up more green spaces and uprooting the carbonsequestered in the site already. Bristol City Council needs to ensure that all brown field sites aredeveloped before filling in the gaps and getting rid of all of the green spaces. Even if it is just forthe sake of the kerb appeal of the city - it's good for residents to have green sites to look at.

The protected hedgerow has "generously" been left there, but it is also the biodiversity that liveson the undeveloped site that feeds into those creatures that live in the hedgerow.

This is awful and totally goes against the climate emergency, the devastation of wildlifeglobally and the ethos and will of the people of the city. These wild green spaces are vital,especially in poorer areas. It is very noticeable that the areas losing their trees and green spacesare not the leafy suburbs of the wealthy. There are so many more brownfield sites yet to bedeveloped and hoses that are vacant that could be brought back into use. The loss of this area isunacceptable in light of the environmental crisis facing the planet.

Myself and family visit this area. We say - No to grey. No to bricks. No to pollution. No tonegative impacts to the animals.

I object on the following grounds:

The application does not comply with national and local planning policies - BCS9 and DM17.DM17 identifies the Western Slopes as a 'prominent green hillside' . Development should not bepermitted unless it is ancillary to the open space use.

The proposed development does not comply with Climate and Ecological Emergencies declaredby the Council or the undertaking to double Bristol's tree canopy by 2046 or the recently agreedCouncil motion to protect green spaces in Bristol from development.

The proposal to remove most of the existing trees does not comply with Local Planning policy.This states that existing green assets need to be retained on development sites.

The proposed development will result in the loss of over six hectares of habitat that will not bereplaced

The applicant has used a biodiversity net gain metric calculator which is out of date.

The biodiversity net gain calculation has not been provided.

This application uses incorrect data to calculate the biodiversity net gain

The ancient hedgerow on the eastern boundary of Novers Common is a Town and Village Green

(TVG) and is protected by the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Any proposal to undertake work onthe hedgerow requires separate approval under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997

The attempt to 'offset' the site's habitat loss at Crox Bottom is not credible.

It is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest.

Will ruin the area

Keep local Green space end of !!! Local & open area for mental health, walks, wildlife &touch of country feels within the city

Leave the green areas alone, we dont have many

I object to the destruction of wildlife

Too many green spaces being lost to housing developments with no infrastructure,traffic and pollution is a real problem and south Bristol is turning into a concrete jungle, not enoughdoctor surgeries and roads are clogged with traffic, the council say to make our air cleaner butthen dismiss what residents want and build anywhere and destroy the open spaces which are andwe're so important during lockdown and mental health.

This will take away a key part of Bristol south for residents that have felt left behind andan after thought to Bristol council

I strongly support our community and disagree with NH beeing build on the nature path!This will massively increase already bad traffic and will increase air and light pollution

There is already a serious lack of public amenities. Local doctors are already busy andits hard to get an appointment. There are almost no local pubs, resaturants, or cafes, and theshops are very limited. There are few schools too. Everyone already has to drive everywhere,which already increases traffic and pollution.

The local road network barely supports existing traffic and is already very busy, especially at peaktimes. Many roads are also in a poor state and have very worn road markings. Speeding is also aproblem in the area and Novers park road is already a rat run. Significantly more people living inthe area would only make it even worse, especially if Novers hill becomes one way. Recentclosure of Novers lane has caused a dramatic increase to traffic driving up and down Novers hill.

Where public safety is concerned, as well as the increased traffic, police would be stretched eventhinner. Crime is already a problem in this area, additional homes would stretch police evenfurther.

A climate emergency has been declared and Bristol is already failing to meet clean air targets.Replacing valuable meadows which are very good for the environment and the air we breathe,with houses, not only removes green space but also increases pollution in the area due to theincrease in traffic from new houses, but also everyone having to drive everywhere due to lack ofamenities.

Meadows are a valuable asset for plants and animals, particularly pollinators, and are much moreuseful than mowed grass in the fight against climate change. Bristol's access to green spaces is

part of its character and charm. Replacing yet more green space with buildings only further erodeswhat makes Bristol the great city it is. If housing really is so desperately needed in the city, thereare plenty of brown field sites and derelict buildings.

This development is nothing more than greedy developers trying to make an easy profit bybuilding on virgin land in a city that has seen a dramatic increase in popularity in recent years. Theoutside of the greenbelt surrounding bristol is only 12 miles away.

Another nature spot being lost in south bristolWe have lost hengrove Airport to developersEnough is enoughp

This ground is relatively untouched and for years it has homed wildlife. It is it's own eco-system. Whenever I walk down there, it always cheers me up, no matter the weather, no matterthe day I have had. These slopes are vital to the local people. It's a stress reliever, and essentialto smooth your worries out. Having houses on these slopes would be an eyesore, and make ourlocal area even more depressing. We have no supermarket, we have no comprehensive school.We don't need more houses. We need grass, we need trees, and we need wildlife.

The loss of this green space and the impact on the wildlife that live there isunacceptable. There are diminishing green spaces in inner city areas and the protection of theslopes should be prioritised.

I object to the proposal for many reasons.

We are seeing yet another greenspace developed despite brownfield sites being available.Brownfield sites should be prioritised. This was even reflected by a council motion voted in on 7thSeptember 2021.

It is an important wildlife corridor and habitat for South Bristol. This includes populations ofhorseshoe bats (protected species) and a bagder colony. Moving to an artificial badger sett asknown disadvantages.

Only a minority of the properties will be affordable/social housing so will have very little benefit forthe community.

Traffic already heavy the area should be left to absorb all current pollution area cannottake any more infrastructure schools doctors etc cannot cope now Leave it to nature notoverpriced housing

The land should be left as it is

I understand there is protected wildlife (e.g horseshoe bats) and feel strongly theyshould not be disturbed.Also, there isn't the infrastructure in the area to cope with more homes, GP surgeries and schoolsare already at full capacity

Outdoor spaces are vital for our communities mental health and well being. Duringlockdown many more people used this space to exercise and manage their wellbeing. I've notedwhilst walking the dog now (my timeout\wellbeing space) many people are still using the space forthis reason including many young men, is it not true that suicide rates in young men are going upin this area?

As a nhs worker on a fairly average wage there's still no way that I can afford these "affordable"homes so I plore you not to take away my/my communities green space that are being used notonly by people but by some very wonderful wildlife.

I object to the building of more homes on this site

I find it completely unbelievable that anyone could justify building on this land!!This is the only beauty spot left around this area, I've grown up here all my life, I've kept horses inand around this land and In doing so, it kept me off the streets as a youngster and out of trouble.There is already an existing massively built up area surrounding the Greenland! Air pollution ishuge, we certainly do not need more houses placed here! Nothing but a big money maker with noconsideration for the wildlife that exists here either....It's disgusting to even propose this, our nature reserves are slowly but surely being taken away,and seems as though it's always the poorer communities that get hit the hardest!

I realise we need more social houses. But we also need our green spaces. I live nearthe Malago Woods and recoginse being out in the woods is important for peoples mental health.Stop building on our beautiful green spaces until you have utilised all the brown sites in this city.Bulding houses here will be a drain on nearby schools and doctors surgeries,

There has to be some land left in south Bristol that is not being built on. To many homesand no inferstructure. Schools doctors etc

Please do not build on this green space. The wildlife around here need it. We need it forour mental health. This is quite a built up area already we do not need more houses. This will onlybring more traffic, congestion and air pollution. Please help us to save this space.

I object on the following grounds:

The application does not comply with national and local planning policies - BCS9 and DM17.DM17 identifies the Western