The park is very important for the Bridlington community, both for the naturalenvironment and the residents wellbeing. The area is not fit to accomodate more housing withlimited roads, public transport and services available.

These are historic meadows and a very important green space. And wildlife habitat.It is used by local people for vital access to nature.Any development would take this away.

The proposed residential development will wipe out a valuable oasis of grassland,hedgerows and other habitat that has a high value to wildlife and the local community. Butterfliesregularly seen during the summer months include Marbled White, Ringlet and also Skipperspecies. Nesting birds include Ravens, Whitethroats and a wide range of common species.Various mammal species are frequently seen. The area provides an outlet for the local communityin a built-up area that is short on green and open spaces. The neighbouring Victory Park does notprovide enough space or variety to satisfy community needs. The development will bringincreased volume of traffic to the local area, having an impact on infrastructure and services thathave questionable capacity.

I am very disturbed you are planning to build from bath road to Brislington in Bristol. Iunderstand that it includes brown and green status land. I have no objects to Brown and fullysupport it but find it extremely disturbing that you should be taking green land away from the city. Itis bad enough with a packed city as it is and not healthy, as a Bristolian I look for green areas notonly to exercise my dog but to find better air quality and relaxation which is so difficult in a city. IOBJECT STRONGLY TO TAKING ANY GREEN LAND IN THE CITY AND WISH TO STRONGLYAGAINST THIS PROPOSAL AND ANY FUTURE GREENLAND BEING TAKEN.

This objection is on behalf of CPRE - the countryside charity, Avon & Bristol branch.The author is the branch Director.

Mr Dougal Matthews of the Save Brislington Meadows group, showed me and a colleague roundthis historic, wildlife-rich site, used by so many people for recreation and wellbeing on 20 Sept.

CPRE Avon & Bristol objects to the planning application submitted by Homes England to developBrislington Meadows. Our reasons for objecting include, but are not limited to, the following:

Housing targets: councillor for Brislington East, Cllr. Tim Rippington, confirmed that at Bristol CityCouncil's Full Council on 8 November, all four major parties voted unanimously to push back ongovernment, to allow Bristol to set its own targets, based on land identified within the city assuitable for house building. This was also reported in the Bristol Cable . Needing to meet centrally-imposed housing targets could not, therefore, be an excuse for inappropriate development.

Local Plan: Following on from this, Brislington Meadows does not appear in the latest draft ofBristol's Local Plan (seen 9 November). We hope this means that city planners recognise theimportance of conserving the site as it is.

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 any

further 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 with planning permission . This availability of brownfield land in thevicinity of Brislington Meadows suggests strongly that building on this greenfield site isunnecessary.

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

Bristol's Conservation Areas: we have studied these and Brislington Meadows appears to be veryclose to Area 24 or Avon Valley . We shall try and ascertain whether there are any legal or policyimplications here, and suggest it worth exploring the possibility of getting the Conservation Areachanged to include the Meadows - we and other stakeholders will investigate this.

Finally, we agree with all the reasons for objection published on Save Brislington Meadows' FBpage, namely: Flood risk, ecology, traffic, heritage, bomb risk and need for housing. Indeed, wehave sought to evidence some of these objections in this statement.

Object!

Why do housing companies keep being allowed to build on green spaces?! There so so manydisused factories, brownfield sites etc that could be used instead. It won't be long before the UKhas no green spaces left - all because of the greed of house builders who want the cheapestoption of building on green land. Disgusting. I agree we need more homes, but maybe clamp downon holiday homes, homes for air BnB, etc and stop selling off council homes!

Think of the future when it's concreted and no green anywhere, disgusting

I strongly object to this development. Whilst I appreciate that new homes are needed,this is not the right location for such an extensive development.

We are in a climate and ecological emergency. Brislington Meadows provides an important 'greenlung' in an otherwise heavily built-up area. What example would the council/government be settingif they chose to develop on this site when there are more suitable locations to do so, includingmany brownfield sites.

In addition to the above, the existing road infrastructure cannot cope with such a significantincrease in housing and subsequent car use. The A4 in Brislington is already heavily congested.According to data provided by the City Council, the air quality (as measured by mean nitrogendioxide levels) is already non-compliant. Many school children walk along the A4 to get to localschools - the level of pollution they are potential exposed to is not acceptable, and thisdevelopment will make matters worse.

This development should not be approved.

Bristol as a city has declared an ecological and climate emergency, yet the councilplans to build on meadow grasslands which provide ecosystem services for humans and wildlife -this makes no sense. Natural Englands comments on saying the meadows are not "special"enough to warrant saving is totally against the biodiversity crisis we are currently facing as anygreen space is better than none. The council should be focussing on improving the site for wildlifeand redeveloping brownfield areas for housing rather than greenfield land.If the housing development is consented, it should have the following conditions: biodiversity netgain, habitats which are in a better condition for biodiversity than present, green roofs and solarpanels on all buildings, dedicated wildlife areas within the site, electric car charging for all plots.

Avon Wildlife Trust opposes the proposals to develop Brislington Meadows for housing.We are facing an ecological emergency at a local, national and global level and urgent action isneeded to protect and restore the habitats and natural systems on which wildlife and peopledepend. The first step in reversing wildlife declines is stopping destruction of remaining habitats.Avon Wildlife Trust recognises the balance that the Council is trying to strike in tackling theecological emergency, the climate emergency and local crises in housing, poverty, heating andhunger, all at the same time. We do not oppose all housing development in the city, but seek toensure that where development does happen, nature is fully taken into account, with habitatsintegrated into high quality design or created elsewhere to deliver an overall gain for nature.There are though sites in the city that are so important for nature that they should not bedeveloped. We believe that Brislington Meadows is one of these.Brislington Meadows is important for a number of reasons:- it is a valuable habitat for wildlife designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance for itsrich grassland habitats,- it gives local people access to nature,- it provides key "ecosystem services", reducing flooding and supporting water quality inBrislington Brook (which rises on the site) and downstream in the River Avon and Bristol CityCentre as recognised in the West of England Nature Partnership's State of Environment mappingWe do not believe that it will be possible to maintain the ecological value of Brislington Meadows,whilst developing the site for housing. Brislington Meadows should continue to be recognised as avaluable local wildlife site and protected from development.If development does go ahead despite our objections, measures must be put in place to reduce

impacts on habitats and ecosystems as far as possible, through site layout and design, andthrough the creation and enhancement of large areas of habitat onsite and in the local area whichmaintain the ecosystem services provided by the Meadows and provide significantly greater valuefor wildlife, in line with the Government's policies on biodiversity net gain.

This would be bad for the environment - and the plants and animals it supports - andlead to more pollution. Climate change leads to areas like this being even more prone to floodingthan at present, and the traffic in this area is already dreadful.

Objection to Brislington Meadows DevelopementJoanna Walter47 Upper Sandhurst Road, Brislington, Bristol, BS4 3RU10th November 2022Application no 22/01878/PSite address; Broom Hill/Brislington Meadows Broomhill Road Bristol BS4 4UD

I am writing to object to the proposal to build 260 new homes on the Brislington Meadows site. Asa local resident I frequently walk through this area. It is a valuable natural greenspace used forleisure purposes by the local community as well as being a site of nature conservation interest.Due to the age of the meadows the (the area was enclosed 1778) the richness and variety of thehabitats cannot be under estimated. The hedgerows are particularly valuable as so many of ourancient hedgerows have been grubbed out. The area is also fairly close to the Eastwood Farm siteand the river valley and is important in that it creates a green corridor.The value of these areas cannot be over-emphasised - daily we are reminded of biodiversity lossmainly bought about by modern farming practices and general loss of habitat. Bristol has declaredan ecological emergency and this recognises that green spaces are extremely important not justfor the mammals, birds and insects but also for us. We are part of nature. From the One CityEcological Emergency Strategy by the BCC;"How we can protect and support the natural spaces that support us""The benefit of protecting natural spaces outweigh the cost at least 5 to 1"Brislington Meadows is a prime example of an area that needs protection and support and it

should be cherished not destroyed.I appreciate that Bristol needs new housing but there is a strong argument for building onbrownfield sites that are already near the centre of the city and therefore within reach of betteramenities such as shops and schools. The proposed development does not take into account theneed for those facilities - and this will put further pressure on our transport systems in theBrislington area.Another concern is that the proposal implies that many paths will be built over the remaining areaand that it will be somehow tidied up for people to have easy access - removal of trees andhedges at access points. This means that more and more of the green space will be covered inhardstanding. At the moment it has natural paths that occasionally get muddy in the winter monthsbut this means that it is an excellent space for absorption of excess rain and water runoff.I strongly object to the proposal on environmental grounds. Biodiversity loss is not our gain. It issending our world to a dangerous tipping point and each action that contributes to that threatensour future.From the One City Ecological Emergency Strategy by the BCC;"If we able to halt the decline of wildlife and start to restore natures abundance we need to stopdestroying wildlife habitats""With over 97% of meadows destroyed since the 1930's all remaining green spaces are a vitalrefuge for pollinators and other wildlife"Does Bristol want to add to the 97% and destroy ancient meadowland?I also want to add my disappointment in the way this has been handled by the labour council. Theissue was used by the current mayor Marvin Rees as a tool to be re-elected - he declared thatBrislington Meadows were safe from developers when he knew that he had no power to say that.He lied and I voted for him on the strength of that. I feel he should be working very hard to back uphis promise.

Brislington Meadows is a beautiful and important habitat for many trees and animals, allvital for maintaining biodiversity and a healthy ecosystem, particularly as global temperatures rise -as such, this space must be protected from this building development, and allowed to remain as is,for the benefit of present and future Bristol residents.

Lack of natural space around Brisli gton. The impact on traffic on mains roads, lack ofschools, doctors surgerys around the proposed area. The loss of wildlife, noise pollution.

Negative effect on wildlife and nature conservation.Negative impact on local community - taking away green spaces

This space is significant as is, for the wildlife that lives there. There are so manyhabitats under threat by development - please don't push for yet another one.

2

No sites were referenced as part of this paragraph and this statement cannot have been meant to apply to Brislington Meadows as the site was designated as an SNCI.

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

“BSA1201: Land at Broom Hill, Brislington

121. The proposed allocation for housing purposes of land at Broom Hill, Brislington has attracted a significant number of representations. Concerns cover a wide range of matters. These include ecology and trees; historic environment and archaeology; flood risk; traffic, congestion and highways infrastructure; pollution and air quality; amenity and loss of open space; local facilities; and allotments.

122. In my judgement, this large site (9.1 ha) would make an important contribution to the housing needs of Bristol. It is a site of no overriding environmental quality. Matters of significance could be addressed through the normal processes of development management. There is no evidence before me to indicate that the allocation should not be confirmed.”

The words “it is a site of no overriding quality” are hard to reconcile with knowledge that the site had been designated as 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.

If the Inspector did not know that the site allocated for housing was designated as 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 allocation for Brislington Meadows knowing that the site had been designated as an SNCI. This was not clearly spelled out for this site in the submission documents.

Consequently, BSA1201 was, 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 the site has been dual allocated: designated both as an SNCI and allocated for housing. The Council’s view (as expressed in emails from the planning department and in response to a FOI application) is that policy DM19 does not apply to SNCI sites designated as SA1.

3

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).

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.

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 Brislington Meadows is 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 BSA1201 with site allocations layer switched on

Local plan map for BSA1201 with site allocations layer switched off – the site should be hatched to show that it is designated as an SNCI but it is blank.

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

Brislington Meadows was not de-designated as an SNCI site. In case this was ever in doubt, the Council have confirmed this in response to a FOI request: “Any status as an SNCI was not rescinded at the time of the development application or subsequently”. 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, for example 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 Brislington East indicates that a fifth 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 Brislington Meadows). We need accurate data to understand how people can access greenspace and nature, particularly

5

larger areas, 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.

The destruction of this area will severely effect the wildlife and the carbon capture of thespace. 11 species of bats have been identified on the meadows, which need the mature trees toroost and established hedgerows for commuting and feeding. The climate and ecologicalemergency should take priority over the need for more and more housing.There is no additional infrastructure proposed to support an increase in an extra 260 new homes.Doctor's surgeries, dentists, Schools, plus public transport will not cope with the increase inpopulation and of which are already unable to operate effectively.The construction of these houses and driveways will result in an increase in hard surface areasand cause flooding - the meadows currently provide natural drainage for rain.Local roads will become further congested and dangerous from additional housing, increasingtraffic thus heightening already unacceptable levels of air pollution. The loss of carbon capturingnatural environments, coupled with high scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions from this building projectmeans that this proposal is at odds with Bristol's environmental strategy.And finally, if the pandemic has taught us anything, it is how much we need and rely on outsidespaces. We need places where we can socialise, play, exercise and breathe.

I am disgusted at this dusgraceful dereliction of duty tobthis city its people and wildlife. Ihave justvheard you have inexcuseably withdrawn tge SNCI TO THE GLORIOUS BRISLINGTONMEADOWS &7 OTHER GREEN SITES IN OUR CITY. YOU ARE WELL AWARE OF THEBROWN FIELD SITES THAT HAVE LITTER THIS CITY FOR DECADES SO I QUEDTIONWHERE YOUR LOYALTY LIES TO THE GREEN SPACES THE WILDLIFE THE CITY'SHISTORICAL GREEN HISTORY OR THE MULTI MILLION POUND CONSORTIUMS WHOSWOLLOW UP GREEN SPACES LIKE SOME GREEDY OAGRE BECUSE ITS CHEAPER 4THEM TO DESTROY THEM THAN REGENERATE THE BROWN FIELD SITES AND CON&FLATTER COUNCILS MAKE FALSE PROMISES THEY TOO OFTEN DONT END UPHONOURING COS BY THEN TOO LATE THEYVE GOT WHAT THEY WANT AND CANAFFORD THE REPERCUSSIONS BUT THE FIELDS, MEADOWS AND DIMINISHINGHABITATES FOR DECREASING WILDLIFE HAVE BEEN THE VICTIMS. YOU ARE WELLAWARE OF THE STATE IF OUR PLANET@ 9 YEARS TO TURN IT AROUND ENOUGH TONOT REACH THE POINT OF NO RETURN. THE DIER PREDICTION FOR BEES &WITHOUTTHEM WE ALL DIE BUT YOU BETRAY YOUR DUTY TO THIS CITY ITS WILDLIFE THEPLANET TO KEEP THE CONSORTIUMS HAPPY AND PROTECT THEIR PROFITMARGINS.SHAME SHAME SHAME ON EACH & EVERY ONE OF YOU .WE SHOULD BEPROTECTING INDEED INCREASING GREEN SPACES NOT CRIMINALLY DESTROYINGTHEM 4 COMPANIES PROFIT. YES WE NEED HOMES BUT UNTILL EVERY BROWN FIELDSITE HAS BEEN REGENERATED YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ALLOW PLANNING ON OURGREEN SPACES NON AT ALL & WITHDRAWING THESE SNCI's is a disgraceful cynical nod tobuilding consortiums to make it easier for applications to go through.TRAITORS ALL OF YOU

(Ecological Desk Study file in Bristol Planning Portal on behalf of Homes England) Similar Allocated Sites Below shows an extract from a 2021 FOI request. It is part of an email from BCC to Homes England dated January 2019 in relation to possible development of a different SNCI site allocated in the adopted 2014 Local Plan (ref. BSA1108):

(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/homes-england-rfi-releases-for-september-2021) In February 2022 Bristol City Council shared their ecological survey for BSA1108 which included:

(www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/4725-novers-hill-ecological-report-2022/file)

Local Plan

The Site Allocations and Development Management Policies adopted July 2014, above a full list of allocated sites, reads:

Included in the Annex ‘Site allocations information’ under ‘development considerations’ for the Brislington Meadows site (BSA1201) is as follows:

Examples of wording under ‘development considerations’ for other sites in Bristol that are both SNCI (or City-wide Importance for Nature Conservation) and allocated in the Local Plan:

BSA0402, partly within Bonnington Walk SNCI:

Note: Bristol City Council has now developed this site. Throughout the planning documents at the time the SNCI designation remained. For example, in the Planning Statement it says ‘Whilst the application red line extends around the SNCI, only a very small portion of SNCI is intended for development, to enable the access from Bonnington Walk. No buildings are proposed within its designation.’

BSA1110, within Airport Road SNCI:

Note: Bristol City Council has now developed this site. Throughout the planning documents at the time the SNCI designation remained. For example, the planning statement says ‘Mitigation strategy has been prepared to accompany the application and addresses the loss of SNCI’.

BSA1205, within St. Anne’s Valley SNCI:

Note: Bristol City Council has now re-developed this site. Throughout the planning documents at the time the SNCI designation remained. For example, the Planning Statement says, ‘The area of grassland to the north-east of the youth centre and the woodland (areas 5 and 6 below) fall within the St Anne’s Valley Citywide Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI).’

BSA1205, partly within Novers Common SNCI:

Note: Bristol City Council has now re-developed this site. Throughout the planning documents at the time the SNCI designation remained. I.e. ‘ Part of the site is covered by the Novers Common Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) designation’

Approach taken in other regions

Various Local Environmental Record Centres and some Local Authorities in England were emailed to ascertain their approach to de-designating Local Wildlife Sites if allocated in the Local Plan. Below are extracts of the responses, each from a different region:

• Local authorities are required to protect habitats and species as per their responsibilities under the NERC Act 2006: “Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity". Therefore a LWS should not be identified for a possible housing development in a local plan.

• Local Wildlife Sites cannot simply be deregistered by a local authority. Also all sites which qualify under the LWS the criteria should be treated in planning terms as Local Wildlife Sites regardless.

• Housing development should not normally be permitted on a Local Wildlife Site.

• Deselection of a site would be something we would try to avoid and discourage as all sites are based on evidence and should have been adopted into each authorities local plan as a material consideration in planning and also a component of the local authorities Biodiversity Duty.

• The process of de-selection would be the same regardless of whether the site had been identified for a possible housing development in a Local Plan.

• The process of selection, modification, amendment or de-selection of a Site of Nature Conservation Importance is the responsibility of the Surrey Local Sites Partnership.

• deselecting a site should only happen because the site no longer meets the criteria for which it was selected and is unlikely to recover.

• the designation (and de-designation) of sites is the responsibility of local planning authorities, such as London Boroughs. These must follow a process including a site review, public consultation and a review by the London Wildlife Sites Board (LWSB), who provide guidance to ensure consistency and a process which is compliant with various policy frameworks.

While non-statutory, SINCs are still afforded a high level of protection within the planning system. Development that negatively impacts a SINC will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and where mitigation can be proven from the beginning.

• If a CWS is likely to be affected by development the views of some of the CWS partners is normally sought as part of the consultation process.

• In general deletion of SNCIs is based on survey data and the decision is made by the SNCI Panel at a formal panel meeting …. The process would remain the same if the site is allocated for development although of course we will object strongly to any such allocation and work with local authorities to ensure that this isn’t the case. If despite all our efforts an SNCI is developed, it will have been effectively destroyed and would be deleted subsequently. It is very unlikely that any site would be deleted based on the prospect of future destruction which hasn’t yet occurred.

• LWS site are considered by planners with applications and if sites contain priority habitat the LWs designation is trumped by that. Sites that are in a local plan are not removed from the list unless destroyed

• If a SINC was identified as a possible housing site in a Local Plan, the SINC would remain in situ until such time as the site is developed and the interest lost.

• The presence of a Local Wildlife Site would be a material consideration if a proposed development e.g. for housing, was submitted for planning permission. In this instance the site would not be de-designated and policies 30 and 31 of Doncaster’s Local Plan would be used to guide the decision making.

• A Site of Importance for Nature Conservation would only be removed if it had been destroyed with no hope of restoration. The Isle of Wight Council would then remove it from the maps and site register and inform me here at the IWLRC. To my knowledge, this has never happened. We have only ever had slight modifications to any of our designated SINCs.

• It is likely that Cornwall Wildlife Trust would object to a housing development within a CWS on the basis that these are core areas for wildlife in Cornwall and an important part of the Local Nature Recovery Network.

Bristol is (or at least was) part of a 'Local Sites System' used in the West of England (formerly the county of Avon) since the 1980s. Bath & North East Somerset also follow this system. One of their Cabinet Reports (13th June 2012) detailed the procedure for designating Local Sites explains: 'All proposed new Local Sites, or significant changes or extensions to a Local Site boundary are brought to the Partnership.... The Local Sites Partnership will meet at least once a year...

Membership of the Partnership includes:
Unitary Authority Ecologists,
Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre,
Natural England, Avon Wildlife Trust, The Environment

Agency
Forestry Commission,
RIGS Group representative (where appropriate),
Other interested groups, relevant to that site or particular ecological interest, where appropriate' https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/documents/s20850/Appx%201%20Local%20Sites%20Designation%20Procedure.pdf Has there been any communication with other Partnership members such as BRERC, Natural England, Avon Wildlife Trust and the Environment Agency or do BCC make decisions autonomously? Arguably BCC should be leading the way as the first council to declare an 'Ecological Emergency' to save Local Sites from development or at the very least follow proper processes. Crucially the report explains how 'All data users within the Authority should be in receipt of and using the correct and most recent up-to-date version of the SNCI data, as supplied by BRERC.'

Having recently been in contact with the Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre (BRERC) they have assured me that the SNCI boundaries on BCC's pinpoint map are the correct ones. As you can see from a screenshot taken on 11th October 2022, the Homes England site is completely within Brislington Meadows SNCI:

And Finally….. Judging by the frequency Homes England wrongly remind the reader in their planning documents that the site is no longer a designated SNCI suggests it would be to their disadvantage if it was. Despite having no statutory protection an SNCI does carrying weight in the NPPF, in fact as per information in gov.uk website ‘they are the principal wildlife resource but their designation is non-statutory and their only protection comes via the planning system.' It is therefore vital that both the applicants and BCC officers are clear - this site IS fully within Brislington Meadows SNCI.

It remains obvious that Homes England know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Perhaps now is a good time for them to read a publication found in the Gov.uk website titled 'The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review.' Brislington Meadows SNCI is rich in biodiversity and special to the local area. It will be impossible to compensate for its loss regardless of how many nature awards the Homes England agent gives itself, no matter how many living roofs are planned and no matter how many bat boxes are offered to house the future hungry bats. I sincerely hope common sense will prevail and the much-needed homes for wildlife are saved from demolition. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to comment. Note: Designated Local Sites are known by a variety of names, such as - Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI), Local Nature Conservation Site, Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), City-wide SINC, County Wildlife Site (CWS)

I would like to bring your attention to these key examples where Homes England'sproposals for Brislington Meadows would cause harm that is far greater than any benefit housingcould bring to this site.

l. 81% of Habitats will be lost and 74% of hedgerows will be removed. This is Unacceptable loss ofgreen space and ancient hedgerow.

This is the main map you need to look at.

https://twitter.com/danicapriest/status/1580846639170060288?s=21&t=rxtNRWEdFfm-j_t_J0reow

I can't post the photo here unfortunately but if you need a visual it's almost all red and red is losthabitat space.It's buried by TEP in all their hundreds of pages of reports but this is the only map that shows thereal loss of habitat that will occur. The other maps show a projected best case scenario versionbased on their BNG calculations which will only occur after many years of regrowth, careful, time-intensive management and a few sacrifices to the rewilding gods. In other words it's wishfulthinking and the reality is that there will be considerable irreplaceable damage to this species-richSite of Nature Conservation Interest.

Source: Outline Biodiversity Net Gain Assessmenthttps://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-

applications/files/5ACBC834EFC6F1B71B85540E0FA833B1/pdf/22_01878_P-OUTLINE_BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_ASSESSMENT-3200573.pdf

2. SNCISpeaking of Sites of Nature Conservation Interest after an internal review we now have solid legalproof that Brislington Meadows was never deregistered as an SNCI. Homes England have beeninformed of this but have yet to update their website where they claim the site is not an SNCI.Source: It's been posted on this portal but here's a link to the original:https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/deregistration_of_the_snci_at_br#incoming-2090304

3. Bluebells are Protected and this development would destroy them which is grounds for refusal4. Ancient hedgerows are protected5. Site of National significance for invertebrates6. Bat surveys are over 2 years old7. No agreed mitigation or offset plan yet with BCC8. No BNG onsite instead the loss is over 20%

The Sources for the above can be found in the documents on this portal submitted by theapplicant's ecology consultant. Information on protected species and ancient hedgerows whichcorroborates this can be found on the government's website.

As a TV naturalist I am heartbroken to hear that this site will be developed upon.

It is a haven for the declining Kestrel and home for many other species.

Development must not happen.

David LindoThe Urban Birder

2

Dear Bristol City Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

We are writing to request an internal review of Bristol City Council's handling of our FOIrequest 'Deregistration of the SNCI at Brislington Meadows'.

The one document you have disclosed (which appears to be dated (10/12/10 - we presume2010) is not related to our request which asked for "documentary evidence of thederegistration of the Brislington Meadows SNCI together with copies of allcommunications between Homes England and the Council’s officers, including Dr NickMichael and the Council’s agents or contractors, about the deregistration of theBrislington Meadows SNCI".

If anything the document appears to support the decision to continue with the site's SNCIstatus. It also predates the adoption of the Bristol Local Plan in 2014, which, we have beentold, removed the SNCI status of that part of the site which was identified for developmentas a Site Allocation and which is now subject to planning application - 22/01878/P.

We are advised that deregistration "was confirmed with BCC’s Nature ConservationOfficer (Dr. Nick Michael) in August 2020.” The document you have disclosed appears to bedated more than 10 years before this date.

In the circumstances, you have failed to comply with our request and so we request anInternal Review.

A full history of our FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at thisaddress: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Yours faithfully,

The Bristol Tree Forum

Following the Internal Review, it was concluded, inter alia, that (our underlining and see thefull text of the Internal Review at Appendix 1):

The area of land which is the subject of your request has been subject of a local plandevelopment allocation from the time the local plan was adopted in July 2014. Thestatement contained within the Homes England report you reference in your originalrequest states that the site was deregistered as an SNCI in order for the developmentallocation to be made, however following consultation with the planning department Ihave concluded that this is not correct. Any status as an SNCI was not rescinded at thetime of the development allocation or subsequently – the two statuses can co-exist. Assuch, Bristol City Council does not hold any information regarding the ‘deregistration ofBrislington Meadows’ as no such deregistration has taken place. Please note, details

3

about how these two statuses interact or which has primacy in making planning decisionsis outside of the scope of this review.

I note and accept that Bristol City Council’s original response provided you withinformation which was irrelevant to your request. This was misleading and Bristol CityCouncil was incorrect to do so.

A mirror FoI request to Homes England advised: ‘We can inform you that we do hold recordedinformation that falls within the scope of your request.’

This decision establishes that this site has never been deregistered so is still protected byDevelopment Management policy DM19 - Development and Nature Conservation, whether or notit has been allocated for development. Amongst other things, DM19 states that ‘Developmentwhich would have a harmful impact on the nature conservation value of a Site of NatureConservation Interest will not be permitted.’

11 August 2022The Bristol Tree Forum

4

Appendix 1

5

6

I object to this application for the following reasons:

Impact on existing ecology and wildlifeImpact of additional trafficSignificant visual impact of development on this open and prmoinent area of landLoss of protected trees and important hedgerows.

Whilst the site may be allocated for development, this should be given limited weigtht for thefollowing reasons. There are a number of available brownfield sites that should be developedbefore the Meadows are developed. Furthermore, since the allocation of the site in the Local Plan,a number of non-allocated, brownfield sites, have come forward or are being brought forward fordevelopment. As a result there is no need for this green space to be developed. The weight to beafforded to the allocation should therefore be limited, with more importance afforded to theecoloigcal importance of the site.

With the statistics that 97% of the UKs meadows and wildflowers have been destroyedand developed on, you'd think the protection laid down for this site would be treated with the greatimportance it needs.

I severely reject to the proposed development of the area based on the fact that this isonly area where residents can go and have some outside space to run, walk their dogs and enjoysome green space.

Adding a further 260 homes with cars would put a further strain on an already overpopulated areawith little facilities and amenities for the existing residents and this shows a complete disregard forthe residents who already live here purely for the profits of developers and the council.

There's nowhere near enough space for this number of new homes and the current GP practicesare overrun and cannot see people within a week and the schools are full and not enough facilitiesfor the proposed home.

Moreover, this space is used by a vast number of local residents and if this is developed on it'll begone forever and there will be no room for local residents to exercise and tis appears to have beenproposed without any thought of the local community and it would be nothing short of a disgrace.

If this does go ahead then we'd have no option but to move home as there wouldn't be anywherefor us to walk to dog, or have any outdoor space.

I object to the planning request due to the loss of green space for wildlife and for themental wellness of the local people. The meadows are a great place to get away from the stressesof life and to enjoy wild nature on our doorstep. Each time I visit I find friendly people enjoying thespace, light and fresh air. This would all be lost under the proposed plans. No matter what theplans include in the way of set aside for nature it won't be enough to replace what is thriving therealready. The green belt is vital to a healthy city and draws a line for humans to stop and for natureto begin. Please think carefully about this proposal and consider brown field sites for homesinstead.

Our environment is under threats from all sides and, although there isn't enoughhousing, these houses won't solve the housing crisis. What it will do, though, is kill off an importantoasis of nature - it's a precious habitat for wildlife.

We have to retain bio-diverse, ecologically-rich green areas such as Brislington Meadows, not justnow but for the future!

There are other places where housing can be built - and not just private homes but councilhousing. Leave the meadows alone - don't be responsible for destroying such an important areafor wildlife.

Hi,

Brislington meadows have been incredibly important for my mental health and wellbeingover the years, and it would be an incredible shame to lose this beautiful wild space.

I strongly object this application as the land where the development is supposed to takeplace has an huge ecological value that will be inevitably impacted by the development.Furthermore the area is not served by adequate services, such as GP doctors, dentists, buses,etc. and the pressures arising from this development will make the situation worse.

Objection!!!!! It's my local green space

I work right next to this space and it is a wildlife heaven. It's absolutely shocking that thisecological local green space would be developed when wildlife already has limited space to be.And now with mental health being such a huge thing post pandemic we need this space for mentalhealth to lift pressure on the NHS

While I understand people don't want change, the truth is we desperately need thesehomes and the plans look really good. We're on the Homechoice waiting list but with apparently17,000 others and our fear is we are going to have to move out of the area, our kids out of thereschool and away from friends and family.

I object to Homes England building houses on Brislington Meadows Broomhill RoadBristol BS4 4UD on the grounds of its negative impact on wildlife/nature conservation. It is adesignated Site of Conservation Interest, despite Homes England's falsely claiming in itsapplication that it had been 'deregistered.' The application goes against Bristol council's target 5 ofits Biodiversity Action Plan, which is to conserve the extent and quality of existing species richgrassland (Brislington Meadows is a species rich grassland). It is a rare green space for peoplewho live in this part of Bristol to enjoy. And in the face of the current climate and biodiversity crisisI believe it is imperative to preserve natural habitats. I also object on the grounds that it willincrease traffic, noise and fumes, exacerbate parking issues, and increase drainage and flood riskto the local area. There are plenty more suitable areas such as brownfield sites - anywhere thatisn't an important conservation site - to build on.

I, Mrs D Davey of 125 Birchwood Road BS4 4RB object to planning application22/01878/P building 200+ homes on Brislington Meadows. There is a great concern of the amountof disturbance to the wildlife, residents and businesses due to increased noise, traffic volume,closure of carriage ways and disturbance to wildlife homes. We have oversubscribed schools,GP'S, Dentists and pressures on other local services. The roads surrounding (Broomhill Rd,School Rd, Birchwood Rd, Allison Rd) are extremely congested and the addition of more vehicleswill add to pollution and put more strain on our already overwhelmed road network. The 36 bus isdue to cease and the 1 bus is very unreliable. The proposed properties will be overlooking localresidents and will spoil the views. The development will increase the risk of flooding and drainageis already an issue.

I am concerned with the possibility of planning being approved for the development ofBrislington meadows, which I feel will have a Impact on the community and servicesand therefore would strongly object to planning permission.

I was walking in South Glos. on the opposite side from this meadow, at the Panoramaviewpoint at Hanham , and was shocked to discover from talking to some locals, that there areplans to build on the Brislington Meadow. I understand that this is one of the few green spaces leftin that part of Bristol.Whilst I live in the other side of our city, I feel that it is unfair to constantly encroach on thedwindling green space on the eastern side of the city. Better use should be made of brownfieldsites for social housing. I.E. stop building up market flats for the private sector.I suspect that if you can build on a meadow that goes back to the eighteenth century then nowhere is safe; Unless protected by an act of Parliament, like the Downs. Or the National Trust.

Good afternoon,

I would like to make you aware of my objection to the planning application 22/01878/Pat Brislington Meadows Broomhill Road Bristol BS4 4UD.

The main reasons for my objection are:

o The proposed site for development is a wild site which is a precious habitat forinsects and interdependent species which are in decline. Such habitats are rarein Brislington.

o Biodiversity is not an adequate replacement for loss of biomass; both the quantityand diversity of our wild areas must be protected, and especially those whichform island refuges for wildlife in otherwise inhospitable urban areas, allowingmovement from one island to another and so benefiting the wildlife-permeabilityof Brislington.

o The targets for biodiversity lack a credible execution plan.o It is my recommendation that other sites can be found on which to develop

housing and which are significantly less impactful to key urban wilderness whichis an important feature of sustainable development.

In addition:

o Low-density housing is an inappropriate method of new development given the

population density of Bristol, the current loss of UK wilderness, global populationincrease, availability of improved building techniques for high-density housingand the improved energy efficiency of heating/cooling of high-density housing.

o Significant parking provision per household encourages individual vehicleownership which does not fit with the suggested philosophy of a '20-minute town'which should be based around sustainable transport over short distances bywalking, cycling or use of mobility scooters.

o Significant parking provision per household is not vertically integrated and willtherefore cause inefficient land use, far below what is necessary to deliver agiven parking provision and therefore unnecessary concreting of the wild land.

o The A4 is currently unsuitable for increased traffic flow during rush hour given itscurrent design and current travelling habits. Residents leaving/joining it duringrush hour will exacerbate traffic flow problems, which are particularly acute in thatarea.

On reviewing the planning portal, I also noted that Mr Calvin Marshall of 29 Wick RoadBristol BS4 4HA and many others share my concern about these points.

Hi,

I wish to object to the proposed development for planning permission on BroomHill/Brislington Meadows, Brislington, Bristol, BS4 4UD, on the following grounds;-

1. This will have a huge effect upon the local community, who will loose yet anothergreen space where people can get away from the hustle and bustle of an already overcrowded city.

2. There are plenty of brown field sites than can be developed without destroying greenfield sites than can never be re-created.

3. This will have a huge effect upon the nature of the area for the trees and wildlife thanwill never be seen again by current or future generations. They will be for ever lost.

4. The impact upon the local community, services and traffic issues would be verydamaging to the whole of Brislington and surrounding areas.

I strongly oppose the development and ask that it be withdrawn.

Kind regards,

Adverse effects on trees and wildlife

This would be a detrimental effect on trees and wildlife and impact on community andservices. There would be drainage and flood risk and it will cause major traffic and parking issuesand be a highway safety problem.

I object to this development due to the loss of green space, which is proven to havemental and physical health benefits. Destroying the green space will have a detrimental impact onthe mental and physical wellbeing of the community. The wellbeing value of the green space hasnot been sufficiently accounted for in the planning proposal.

The increase in housing will increase traffic and parking issues in the area. This will also increasethe pollution levels impacting on the health of the community, particularly children that are moresusceptible to air pollution causing illnesses and diseases such as asthma.

Brislington Meadows is designated as an SNCI for it's local wildlife importance - although thisdoesn't have statutory protection the site is important for wildlife locally, and even more so with thevast amount of development on green spaces within the area resulting in a loss of a number ofwildlife and nature areas and wildlife corridors. The planned development should take a holisticapproach and take into consideration the impact of the development on the city, by also taking intoaccount other developments planned in the area.

The loss of wildlife corridors and habitats haven't been sufficiently considered.

As an observation, specific myotis bat species were identified during transects - whiskered batsare very difficult to identify to species level via acoustic analysis alone. This does raise somedoubt about the accuracy of the survey. The north-eastern field doesn't appear to be included inthe bat survey - this isn't mentioned in the report and it wasn't clear why this field wasn't included

in the transect route - the field appears to have good potential for foraging and commuting bats.Lesser horseshoes were also recorded on the site - the calls of these bats don't always register onthe detectors, which means although there were 30 passes recorded, it's likely there are morepresent that haven't been registered. These bats are annex 2 protected species, which meanstheir foraging and commuting paths are protected. They also like dark corridors - the developmentis likely to impact on their commuting range. Impact of lighting on all bats also need to beconsidered in the planning application (this includes in any construction work). Hedgerows areimportant for commuting bats (along with other wildlife as they are important corridors) and shouldremain.

This land was promised to the people of the area as a conservation area where nohousing development would be allowed. Now that promise has been broken and yet the arearemains a Site of Nature Conservation Interest, it has meadows rich in biodiversity and will make amajor contribution to storing carbon in the soil. The fields are also used and enjoyed by localcommunities for recreation and as a way to connect with nature. Once it is built on it is lost foreverand future generations will find it hard to understand why the loss of these precious sites wasallowed. Please reconsider and stick to development on brownfield sites.

I just want to place an objection to the Brislington Meadows housing proposals. The plans retain hardly any of the current wildlife value of the area and would destroy the character and quality of this ancient meadow. It's a really important carbon sink and green space for wildlife, it has mature hedges and supports some of the rarest wildlife in Bristol aswell as many other species that are struggling. Once it's concreted over it will be gone forever.Please don't allow this to happen

I just want to place an objection to the Brislington Meadows housing proposals. Theplans retain hardly any of the current wildlife value of the area and would destroy thecharacter and quality of this ancient meadow. It's a really important carbon sink andgreen space for wildlife, it has mature hedges and supports some of the rarest wildlife inBristol aswell as many other species that are struggling. Once it's concreted over it willbe gone forever.Please don't allow this to happen

I object to the development of Brislington Meadows on the grounds that it will negativelyimpact a vital green space, resulting in the destruction of natural habitats, wildlife and trees. Thiswill in turn negatively impact the local community as well as the character of the locality.

I have recently just discovered this park and meadow and it is completely beautiful andit has made me want to purchase a property in this area because of these green spaces. It wouldtruly be a shame for all of this to go not only whether reduction in green spaces locally to the areabut also the impact and traffic implications when new developments are habited

Brislington meadows need to be protected from housing development. It is not ok to bebuilding on a green area like this, which is important for biodiversity. Climate change is scary, weneed to protect and care for areas like this, not build on them. Please act on this. I am so worriedhow this is going to impact on the community and importantly for our younger generations. Notonly it is important for climate change, but it is important for mental health and wellbeing in ourcommunities, in a city which is already overcrowded.

We should not be building on meadows in a nature and climate emergency. Grasslandhabitat has had a decline of 97% in the last few decades and plays an important role in ourecosystem. With recent UK heatwaves of 40 degrees and fires around the UK this proposal isinsanity. It will increase flood risk, poorly effect nature and have a poor impact on the localcommunity that need greenspace to destress and deal with mental wellbeing.

space used for dog walkingwildlifemental well-beingBroomhill has no infrastructure to cope with demand.increased traffic to the area polluting

Dear Planning Committee,I wish to object to the proposed development by Homes England at BrislingtonMeadows, Broomhill Road, Bristol BS4 4UD, on the following grounds.1) In Brislington the local infrastructure can barely cope with the existing population. Theschools are full, there is only one Post Office, which usually has a queue outside, thelocal Health Centre is so overused that it can take weeks to even talk to a doctor unlessyou are very seriously ill, and the bus services are increasingly unreliable. (To be sureof keeping a hospital or dental appointment, or catching a train, it is necessary to book ataxi.)2) The growth in population in this area has led to increasing traffic on the main roads.Speeding on Broomhill Road, School Road, Allison Road, Sandy Park Road, and WickRoad, is a constant problem. The 20 mph signs are ignored, and there is no attempt bythe Council or the police to enforce them. On the other hand, traffic on the Bath Road isso congested that traffic crawls along most of the time. Traffic problems are madeworse by the lack of off-street parking. Many roads have cars parked on both sides,obstructing large vehicles, including emergency vehicles. Even where newdevelopments provide some off-street parking, it may not be sufficient. Parking outsideshops still obstructs the roads. For instance, although there are parking spaces outsidethe Co-op at Broomhill, the increasing population has led to these being usually filledand other customers parking on the roads. Parents dropping off and collecting childrenfrom the local schools add to the problems at certain times of day. Asking them to parkelsewhere simply moves the congestion to the next street.3) Climate change has meant an increasing frequency of heavy rain, and the local

drains and sewers were not built to cope with this on top of increased domestic use.Flooding down School Road and in Brislington village will be more frequent.4) Although Victory Park, Nightingale Valley, and the areas along the River Avon, doprovide welcome green space, they are already heavily used and do not provide all thefacilities for outdoor leisure and exercise that the population needs. A further influx ofyoung families and young adults would put these places under extra strain, and reducethe habitat for our already endangered wildlife. How would you balance the competingdemands of football pitches and basketball courts against the needs of foxes, smallrodents, and the lovely variety of songbirds we enjoy?

I sincerely hope that the plans for Brislington Meadows as currently submitted will berefused.

I lived in Brislington for many years and still visit the area frequently. I am dismayed tohear of the proposed plan to build 260 houses on the beautiful meadows. Even thoughI no longer live in the area, I still care about the green spaces and the importance of itsavailability to local people.

This project will impact greatly on an area that is already built up with few green spaces.The roads are heavily congested and building further houses will only add to more trafficcongestion and pollution in the area. As far as I am aware, no in depth traffic report hasbeen carried out. The current traffic situation leading from Broomhill Road onto the BathRoad is always busy, even more so at peak times. Only one access road to thedwellings is ludicrous. Increased traffic in an already extremely busy area will do nothingbut cause chaos, increased pollution and noise. More traffic, more accidents.

The infrastructure in the area will also be impacted on such as community healthservices, schools, dentists, doctors surgeries. These services already have a greatdemand placed on them and further housing in the area will greatly impact on alreadyoverstretched services.

I am aware of the need to build more housing but replacing the meadows, an ancientmeadow, rich in wildlife cannot be replaced easily. It will be destroyed forever andbrownfield sites should be considered to protect important green spaces. There areother sites in the area that should be considered before butchering a natural, beautifularea.

People need green areas to walk, relax and play in. Indeed GP's are nowrecommending people get out and exercise more as an alternative to, or alongsideconventional medicines and it has been proven that having access to green spaces hasa significant impact on physical and mental health. Taking away green spaces willdeprive people of this.

Plants and fungi are vital to the future of food, clean air and medicine. We are fightingagainst biodiversity loss to save life on earth (taken from an excerpt by Royal BotanicalGardens Kew - Our Future is Botanic.) Biodiversity is one of our greatest assets to beprotected, it's not just rainforests, it's THE LOCAL PARK OR MEADOW. This area is fartoo important to be built on. Green spaces in our towns and cities mitigate the effects ofpollution and can reduce a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect. Bytaking away even more green areas like the meadows, this will do nothing for the healthof people living in the area and indeed can have a detrimental affect on physical andmental health.

The biodiversity net gain has not been proven and in my opinion I don't see how thecurrent environment, which is hundreds of years worth of meadowland, hedges andtrees would be left in a measurably better state than it is currently.

The Natural History Museum states "as our cities grow and more people move intoalready crowded spaces, an increased body of research tells us that we should beletting more nature back in". How on earth can building on the meadows support thisimportant research by removing an important habitat like the meadows.

We have a responsibility as human beings to take care of nature in our cities and towns.Please support this by denying the building of houses on this beautiful, tranquil area ofBrislington, which once gone can never be replaced.

Dr Laura Brennan,28 manworthy road, Bristol, bs44pr26/7/22

Application number 22/01878/P

site address: Broom Hill/Brislington Meadows Broomhill Road Bristol BS4 4UD

I object to the following proposal due to my concerns regarding the impact on trees and thesurrounding environment and wildlife. I am also concerned regarding the impact of noise andpollution to the surrounding area.

This build will affect wildlife and trees in the area, this will increase air pollution andincrease risk of flooding and drainage!

Apart from the destruction of wildlife, it will a negative impact on community andservices, (it is already virtually impossible to get an appointment with a GP) not to mention addingextra traffic to the area.I find these developments very frustrating. Bristol has many derelict buildings and wastelands thatare not considered, probably because they may not be as profitable to the Council.

These meadows are key to my mental health and it's where I go when I'm low. Arno'svale isn't wild enough and is too populated and close to the road to serve me. Also, it's full ofwildlife, dog walkers and families. I don't know what I would do without that space. There are awealth of other reasons to object this development but for me these reasons are the mostpersonal.

This is a beautiful haven for wildlife, an important place of conservation and a sanctuaryfor local walkers. Having green space is also important for natural rain drainage.It would be abhorrent to build on this area when there are so many ugly/empty/disused spacesthat could be reconstructed or repurposed (eg: the building on the bath road opposite Arno's parkwhich has been empty for years).We need to maintain our greenspaces and preserve the important species that live there ratherthan continue to pour concrete over nature for the sake of profit and greed.

This development will have a significant impact on the area, taking away green spaceswith an impact on the local wildlife. Replacing this area with built structures will not only reduce thewildlife and spaces that people enjoy, but it would negatively influence the local drainage with thepresence of impermeable materials.

Introduction of the development will also put a strain on the local amenities and contribute towardstraffic and parking issues. The road infrastructure isn't well designed to support traffic flow,particularly around the nearby schools presently, further residential development will add pressure,not to mention the damage that will be done to the roads by construction vehicles throughout theproject, as well as their presence affecting local traffic and quality of life for neighbours over anextended period of many years.

I strongly object to this development

1. Negative effect on trees, insects and other wildlife. 2. Loss of another natural outdoorspace for our children and family dog to play in. 3. Road safety; increased traffic and risk ofaccidents 4. Increased air pollution5. Impact of community and its services 6. Drainage and flood risk 7. Parking issues

2

The application: how it falls short

1. The historical environment

All the evidence shows that Brislington Meadows (the Meadows) are an important part of Bristol’s historical heritage. The area around Brislington is known to have been inhabited since long before the Romans invaded England, some two millennia ago. Archaeological evidence dating back to the Neolithic period is directly associated with the Meadows. Here are two examples:

• https://www.wavewrights.com/brisorg/view.php?exhibit=220212a1

• https://www.wavewrights.com/brisorg/view.php?exhibit=220207a1

The remains of a Roman villa from around AD 270-300 were also found in 1899 when Winchester Road was being built. This villa was probably the centre of a large estate that encompassed what is now known as the Meadows.1 A fuller history of the area is set out in the applicant’s own Historic Environment Assessment (HEA).2

Once part of Brislington Common, the Meadows were enclosed in 1778, which is probably when the

hedgerows, seen on the 1846 tithe map (Figure 1 below), were first created. The Site Report for October 2010 visit to fields around Victory Park Brislington Bristol written by Ken Taylor, Chair of

the Brislington Community Archaeology Project,3 provides more information about the history of the Meadows as well as listing the 1846 tithe apportionments and the uses of each field at the time. This is confirmed in a hedge survey undertaken by the late Richard Bland in 2014 (Appendix 2 and see Section 5 – The Hedgerows, below) and acknowledged by the applicant at paragraphs 4.55 to 4.57 of their HEA.

The HEA also recognises that the agricultural use of the site is far more ancient:

The proposed development site contains the possible remains of ridge and furrow which may date to the medieval period (NDHA9). Under open field systems each manor would

have two or three large fields arranged with narrow strips cultivated by tenants who could hold strips scattered across the fields. Common land was owned land over which there were traditional common rights of use such as grazing, wood collecting or turf cutting.4

LiDAR data shows evidence of these vestiges of ridge and furrow lines on many of the fields.5 Ken Taylor, Chair of the Brislington Community Museum, reviews this evidence in his A note on land use at Brislington Meadows (Appendix 10). In addition, his article Brislington Meadows - notes on some hedges (Appendix 3), also discusses the evidence of lynchet rises along many of the hedgerows – also formed as a result of many years of ploughing. The balance of this evidence suggests that these features probably predate the enclosure of the land.

As the planning arboriculturist officer has observed (Appendix 7), ‘the hedgerows on site are neglected ancient hedgerows that have been in existence since before 1840. The ancient/veteran

oaks, ash and holly within the hedgerows provide a significant historical and cultural heritage locally and must therefore be retained during any development process.’

The remains of a waggon pond at the entrance to the lane running to the south of the allotments to School Road also points to the sites’ long association with agriculture. The applicant recognises this: ‘The historic landscape character of the proposed development site is predominantly

1 https://brislingtonhistory.org.uk/history.php 2 22_01878_P-HISTORIC_ENVIRONMENT_ASSESSMENT-3200486 3 https://bristoltreeforum.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/2010-fields_around_victory_park.pdf 4 HEA at paragraph 4.29 5 HEA at paragraph 4.53 and https://kitwallace.co.uk/terrain/show-

terrain.xq?id=BRISMEADOWS_DTM_1m&url=https://bristoltrees.space/Tree/sitecode/BRISMEADOWS

3

agricultural, historically open fields which were enclosed in the late 18th century.’6

The Meadows clearly form an almost unique part of one of the key elements of Bristol’s historical environment and, as such, fall to be considered under paragraphs 189 – 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Bristol Core Strategy BCS22 and Development Manage Management Policy DM31 (see Appendix 1). If there is substantial harm (or total loss of significance of the heritage asset), then paragraph 201 of the NPPF requires that ‘local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.’ Alternatively, the application must demonstrate that all the criteria set out in paragraph 201 are satisfied. Even if it were shown that there would be less than substantial harm, that harm must still be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Figure 1 The 1846 tithe map superimposed (approximate) on the proposed red-line development area with hedgerows shown then and now outlined in blue.

The Bristol Core Strategy BCS22: Conservation and the Historic Environment aims to ensure that ‘all new development safeguards or enhances the historic environment’ and that ‘Development proposals will safeguard or enhance heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance, including gardens and Conservation areas.’

DM31 recognises that Heritage assets, which can range from whole landscapes to individual items of street furniture, are a finite non-renewable resource that can often be irreparably damaged by insensitive development. In particular, it requires that ‘proposals affecting locally important heritage assets should ensure they are conserved having regard to their significance and the degree

6 Paragraph 4.54 of the HEA

4

of any harm or loss of significance.’

The applicant’s proposals will destroy most if not all of this heritage – the ancient, species-rich hedgerows and the trees associated with them, the ridge and furrow and lynchet rises and the waggon pond – all evidence of ancient farming practices. What is proposed will not safeguard or enhance this important historic environment. It will instead cause ‘substantial harm’, which does not outweigh any public benefit proposed.

Unless it can be demonstrated that the loss of this historic landscape is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that loss, the local planning authority should refuse consent.

2. The SNCI status of the site

The applicant asserts that ‘Paragraph 1.6 of the Outline Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment states “Prior to allocation in 2014, the site was part of the SNCI known as Brislington Meadows. The allocation part was deregistered as an SNCI to enable allocation for residential development as part of the Local Plan housing review. This was apparently confirmed with BCC’s Nature Conservation Officer (Dr. Nick Michael) in August 2020.’7

We have challenged this assertion and issued Freedom of Information requests both to Natural England8 and to Bristol City Council9 requesting proof of this. Natural England holds no information, and the Council has yet to provide the information requested.

The development site was first allocated as a potential housing development site when the current iteration of the Local Plan was adopted in July 2014 (BSA1201 – Land at Broomhill, Brislington).10 Part of the development considerations recognised that any plans should, amongst other things:

• be informed by an ecological survey of the site and make provision for mitigation and compensation measures, including enhancement to the grazing land adjacent to Victory Park and compensation for the loss of semi-improved neutral grassland and damp grassland (the site currently has city-wide importance for nature conservation due to the presence and condition of particular species, habitats and/or features)

• retain or incorporate important trees and hedgerows within the development, to be identified

by a tree survey

• provide a green infrastructure link with Eastwood Farm Open Space to the north-east.

However, as far as we can ascertain, no formal steps were taken to remove the 9.1 hectares comprising the site from the Brislington Meadows SNCI (BC16) when the Local Plan was adopted. This is why the records BRERC11 held as of 11 January 2022 still confirm that the site remains part of the SNCI (Figure 2 below). As far as we are aware, this has not changed.

The SNCI is described as “Semi-improved neutral grasslands that may include areas of Priority Habitat Lowland Meadow (Criteria 3), stream, marshland and scrub woodland containing a wasteland area. Black Knapweed (Centaurea nigra), rushes, Brooklime (Veronica beccabunga).” The main Priority habitat noted by BRERC on the allocation site is Lowland Meadows. The onsite Phase 1 habitats there are listed as: Neutral grassland semi improved, Neutral grassland unimproved and Scrub dense/continuous. its south-western boundary comprises Broadleaved woodland. The

7 22_01878_P-OUTLINE_BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_ASSESSMENT-3200573. 8 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/please_provide_evidence_of_the_d 9 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/deregistration_of_the_snci_at_br 10 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/34540/Site%20Allocations%20Annex%20Adopted%20July%202014%20Indexed.pdf/d6dfdc7e-0f55-4a07-be74-9cd5fffaa64d 11 https://www.brerc.org.uk/index.htm

5

site is also immediately adjacent to or part of a number of Bristol Wildlife Network sites recorded by BRERC. In particular, the strip of land joining the site with Broomhill Road forms an important wildlife corridor to the Eastwood Farm SNCI on the banks of the Avon to the east, BC47.

The following documents also reinforce the special nature conservation interest of this site:

• The Brislington Meadows hedge survey by Richard Bland on 28 May 2014 (Appendix 2)

• Brislington Meadow SNCI review undertaken on 10 December 2010 (Appendix 5)

• The Field Survey of Brislington Meadows – 15 October 2010 (Appendix 6).

BRERC also records three veteran trees – 623, 643 and 1,046 - though there is no sign of tree 1,046 any more.

Figure 2 BRERC SNCI Record

DM19 (see Appendix 1) states that development which would have a harmful impact on the nature conservation value of an SNCI will not be permitted.

3. The site access proposal

One of the main parts of this application is for the construction of pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access. This overlaps the still pending application 21/00550/P |Outline application for preliminary works to deliver a 'Green Link' between Brislington Meadows and Broomhill Road, including the

6

laying of a pedestrian footpath, ecological enhancements and provision of a temporary construction access and compound within the site to facilitate the preliminary works.

The proposal is that the only viable vehicular access to the site is in the north-east corner (Figure 3 below). This will be developed to allow vehicular as well as pedestrian access and to build four houses along this route. All traffic to and from the site will use this one access point.

This proposed street, which will need street lighting, forms the only remaining wildlife corridor into the Eastwood Farm SNCI and the meadows and woodlands beyond, which lead down to the banks of the Avon River. This corridor was expanded following the demolition of Sinnott House, the building on Broomhill Road, by the applicant in 2020,12 no doubt in anticipation of this application. The removal of this building added to the potential of this wildlife corridor.

Figure 3 Detail taken from the illustrative master plan submitted with this application13

Whilst a narrow green verge is shown on the master plan, these proposals will result in the destruction of a significant area of habitat (406 sq m of tree group G37, 947 sq m of woodland W2 and 15 metres of hedgerow H6/H13 (see Appendix 8)). What could have been an excellent

opportunity to ‘connect any identified on-site habitats, species or features to nearby corridors in

12 https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QC0MNVDNLRC00 13 22_01878_P-ILLUSTRATIVE_MASTERPLAN-3200507

7

the Wildlife Network’14 will be lost.

Development Management policy DM19: Development and Nature Conservation (Appendix 1) notes that ‘together the SNCIs and connected sites in Wildlife Corridors form the Bristol Wildlife Network’ and adds:

Development which would have a harmful impact on the connectivity and function of sites in Wildlife Corridors will only be permitted where the loss in connectivity, or function, of an existing Wildlife Corridor is mitigated in line with the following hierarchy:

a. Creation of a new wildlife corridor within the development site b. Enhancement of an existing corridor or creation of a new corridor off-site to maintain the

connectivity of the Bristol Wildlife Network.

The applicant’s plans propose neither of these mitigations; no new wildlife corridor is proposed within the development site and no enhancement of an existing corridor or creation of a new corridor off-site has been suggested.

4. Tree surveys and BTRS analysis

The planning authority’s arboricultural officer’s response to the original pre-application, 19/05220/PREAPP (Appendix 7), confirmed that ‘a number of the ancient oak and holly trees plotted during the mapping of the area are still in existence today’. They noted that ‘the fields a [sic] divided by ancient hedgerows that contain ancient oak, holly and hawthorn trees.’

They also noted that ‘the most predominate [sic] species on site is Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) which forms the major species within the hedgerows. Mature oak (Quercus robur) and Holly (Ilex aquifolium) form the majority of the climax species with ash, field maple, elder, blackthorn and Hazel present to a lesser degree.

The applicant’s arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA)15 identifies just 36 trees as well as 19 tree groups and two woodlands. We estimate that these tree groups and woodlands contain around 2,800 to 3,000 trees comprising a wide range of native species ranging from outgrown shrubby Blackthorn to large, well-established, mature Ash and Oak, one of which (T6) is a veteran.

16 of the trees are protected with a TPO, as are three groups (G1, G2, G3) and one woodland (W1).

Three of the individual trees have been identified for removal (T9, T16 & T28). This is because they are “… in conflict with capacity plan”. If these tree trees are removed, then the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS) will require that they be replaced with 14 new trees.

However, a significant percentage of group and woodland trees have been identified for removal – some 0.8 hectares of the canopy on the most recent estimate - but no tree count has been undertaken so it is not possible to calculate the number of BTRS replacements that will be required.

We suspect that most of the group trees will have stem diameters (called DBH) which are below the 15cm lower BTRS limit. If this is the case, then their loss will have to be accounted for by using, we suggest, using the BNG methodology set out in Section 4 below. In the end, it will be for the planning authority to decide how best to treat these losses for the purposes of BTRS.

The trees lost in the W2 woodland will need a BTRS calculation. The AIA gives stem diameters between 12-60 cm - a median DBH of 36 cm, so three trees would be needed for each tree lost. We calculate that 47 of the woodland trees will be removed. Applying BTRS, the number of replacement trees required would be - 47 x 3 = 141. However, more information will be needed

14 DM 19 – Appendix 1. 15 22_01878_P-ARBORICULTURAL_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT-3200578

8

before the BTRS issue can be resolved.

5. The hedgerows

Paragraph 4.56 of the HEA recognises that “The hedgerows can be demonstrated from historic mapping to pre-date 1850, meeting criterias 5a and 5b, and are therefore considered in this report as 'important'. The historic evidence for the age of the hedgerows on the site is discussed in Section 1 above. Paragraph 6.15 goes on to state: ‘Development within the proposed development site has the potential to impact upon historic hedgerows assessed as important under the Hedgerow Regulations Act. Development within the site may result in partial or total removal of historic hedgerows.’

Despite this, the HEA then asserts that ‘the hedgerows are of low heritage significance’, even though it is accepted that ‘the magnitude of effect [of the proposal] would be moderate to high. It is then suggested that ‘the impact would be minor adverse.’

We do not accept that ‘the hedgerows are of low heritage significance’ or that ‘the impact would be minor adverse.’ Whilst it is clear that the hedgerows have become significantly outgrown and expanded by bramble and blackthorn growth, it is possible to see that their original cores still exist

when viewed from above (Figure 4 below).

When the late Richard Bland surveyed the site in 2014 (Appendix 2), he noted that ‘the 1880s map shows a large number of trees, many of which will have been elms and have gone. It is thus clear that, as was a very old tradition, the hedges combined the traditional hedge species, mainly hawthorn and hazel with large trees that would have been felled at need. The oldest trees in the hedges are at least 160 years old, and it is fair to assume that the shrubby species are the same age.’ He adds: ‘A very few of the species in the hedges show clear signs that they were formerly laid in the traditional manner, but many of them suggest that the hedges were simply maintained by clipping. If the fields were ever arable the hedges do not need to be stock proof.’

Figure 4 Part of the meadows viewed from above showing the original hedgerows still in place.

9

The applicant has identified six hedgerows totalling 0.712 km in length. We have identified 13 totalling 1.71 km in length. These 13 are closely aligned with the field boundaries shown in the 1840 tithe map (Figure 1). Appendix 8 is a table setting out our analysis of the site. This shows that each hedgerow is native species rich, averaging six different species each and comprises substantial original and outgrown trees. We have designated most of the hedges as Native Species Rich Hedgerow with trees habitats, though four of those with evident lynchet rises (see Appendix 3) we have designated Native Species Rich Hedgerow with trees - Associated with bank or ditch habitats. This has an important impact on the biodiversity net gain calculation (BNG) discussed in Section 5 below.

Of the 1.71 kilometres of hedgerow that we have identified on the site, the proposal will see the removal of some or all of five hedgerows amounting to about 0.54 km – some 31% of the hedgerow habitat. The loss increases to 76% If the applicant’s analysis is accepted.

6. Biodiversity net gain analysis

Save for the exceptions discussed below, we have adopted the applicant’s BNG calculations.

a. Strategic significance

We do not agree with the applicant’s designation of the habitats on the site as having a medium strategic significance of Location ecologically desirable but not in local strategy. The site is specifically identified for housing development in the 2014 Local Plan - BSA1201 – Land at Broomhill, Brislington. We have set the strategic significance of all the habitats there as High - Within area formally identified in local strategy.

b. The appropriate BNG metric

The applicant relies on BNG 3.0. However, the basis upon which the areas of Urban tree habitats are calculated in BNG 3.0 is flawed because the table produced at 7-2 of the BNG 3.0 User Guide is unusable. This is because it is impossible (save where a DBH exactly matches one of the three size categories given – 10cm, 30cm & 50cm) to allocate any given tree’s DBH to any of the three size categories – Small, Medium, Large – that are listed (see Figure 5 below).16

Figure 5 BNG 3.0 Table 7-2

16 The second column heading is also incorrect - the measurement refers to stem girth, not DBH diameter.

10

This has been rectified with the recent publication of BNG 3.1 which now gives this useable guidance for Urban tree habitat calculation (Figure 6 below):

Figure 6 The approach to use when calculating Urban tree habitat (see Figure 7 below for Table 7-2)

On this basis, we propose that Table 3 produced at Section 4 Tree Population of the amended AIA be corrected to reflect the latest canopy cover provided by the author of the AIA on 5 July 2022 for the group and woodland trees (see Appendix 9) thus:

Baseline Tree Habitats (ha)

Trees Baseline Remove Retain

Urban Trees (RPA) 0.8353 0.0349 0.8004

Group Trees (canopy area) 1.8200 0.7243 1.0957

Woodland Trees (canopy area) 0.7431 0.0947 0.6484

Total 3.3984 0.8539 2.5445

11

The Urban trees habitat values are the combined RPAs of the 36 trees surveyed calculated using paragraph 7.9 in Figure 3 above. The Group and Woodland tree values are based on their combined surveyed canopies and treated as Woodland and forest - Other woodland; broadleaved habitats.

We have adopted this approach and, using the applicant’s AIA, calculate that the baseline habitat area of the trees on site is 1.1142 hectares, of which 0.3702 hectares will be removed and 0.744 hectares retained.

c. Urban tree habitat creation

The methodology for new habitat creation used in BNG 3.1, as set out in Figure 7 below:

Figure 7 The methodology for creating new Urban tree habitat

We have adopted the approach set out in paragraph 7.11 and, using the new version of Table 7-2 (Figure 7 above), have calculated that a Standard stock tree17 planted today will have grown into a BNG 3.1 Small category (BNG 3.0 Medium category) tree at the end of 30 years.18

The BNG 3.1 Trading Rules also state (Figure 8 below):

Figure 8 BNG 3.1 Trading Rules

17 Stock tree sizes are set out in BS 3936-1. 18 See https://bristoltreeforum.org/2022/06/07/our-proposal-for-a-new-bristol-tree-replacement-standard%ef%bf%bc/

12

The new trading rules make it clear that lost Urban tree habitat must be replaced like-for-like and so cannot be replaced by the creation of other habitat types - any trees lost as a result of this proposal must be replaced with new trees.

Using this approach, we calculate that the 401 trees proposed to be planted on site will generate 1.64 hectares of new Urban tree habitat after 30 years. This is on the basis that a new Standard tree planted today will produce a Small BNG 3.1 category tree with an RPA of 0.0041 hectares after 30 years. We have ignored the high risk of failure that is often found when urban trees are planted19 and assumed that a suitably drafted and executed Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) will have been put in place.

However, if all the Urban tree habitat lost plus 10% net gain is going to be replaced, then 644 new trees will be needed to generate the 2.62 hectares of new tree habitat that will be needed after

30 years.

d. The hedgerow habitats

See the discussion at Section 4 above and the baseline linear values set out in Appendix 3, both of which explain the linear BNG habitats that we have used. This information has been used to populate the baseline hedgerow habitats.

e. Summary

The applicant’s own BNG calculation shows a net loss of 24.12% of habitat units but a 132.12% net gain of hedgerow units.

Our own BNG calculation, cast differently from the applicant’s, shows a very similar net loss of 24.97% of habitat units but with only a marginal 2.81% net gain of hedgerow units (Figure 9 below).

Figure 9 BNG 3.0 calculation Headline results.

19 https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2014/nrs_2014_roman_001.pdf

13

7. Bristol LPA guidance on BNG

The latest guidance we have seen from Bristol LPA on the requirements for biodiversity net gain is as follows:

“Ecological mitigation is required to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) states in paragraph 170(d) on page 49 that planning decisions should minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity. It is recommended that the proposal employs Defra / Natural England’s Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) biodiversity metric 2.0 (as updated) to develop ecological mitigation proposals. The BNG assessment should be undertaken prior to the validation of a future planning application and not conditioned. Planning applications submitted to Bristol City Council should demonstrate a positive biodiversity gain when using this metric. Please note that this may require off-site mitigation to achieve a Biodiversity Net Gain. Applicants should provide full details of their data, measurements and workings used to calculate the percentage BNG. Engagement with the Council’s pre-application process to inform BNG proposals and the design of ecological mitigation proposals at an early stage is encouraged. The Defra Biodiversity

Net Gain (BNG) Biodiversity Metric 2.0 includes an off-site module which is fully integrated within the methodology. If a positive on-site BNG score cannot be achieved, the off-site module should be used as the automatic next step to achieve a positive BNG score.

A financial contribution is not an acceptable way forward because it does not calculate biodiversity units and so will be an arbitrary figure that will be very difficult to calculate or justify.

All BNG submissions should be accompanied by a nature conservation and landscape management plan which addresses features of interest, objectives, management compartments and prescriptions, a work schedule including a thirty year annual work plan, resourcing including a financial budget and ecological monitoring. This should cover a 30 year period.

Please note that if the Environment Bill is passed, a future planning application will be required

to demonstrate a mandatory minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain as measured using the Defra Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (as amended).”20

Save that the relevant paragraph in the NPPF (2021) is now 174 d)21, that the current biodiversity net gain metric is BNG 3.1 and that the Environment Act 2021 is now law, and the mandatory minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain will take effect next year, this guidance still applies.

Both on the applicant’s and on our analysis, the applicant fails to ‘provide net gains for biodiversity’ or to ‘demonstrate a positive biodiversity gain when using this metric.’

The applicant also proposes that ‘management prescriptions to establish habitats at (or above) their required condition is detailed within a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP), secured by an appropriately worded planning condition.’ However, the guidance above states that ‘all BNG submissions should be accompanied by a nature conservation and landscape management plan which addresses features of interest, objectives, management compartments and prescriptions, a work schedule including a thirty year annual work plan, resourcing including a financial budget and ecological monitoring. This should cover a 30 year period.’ This cannot be ‘secured by an appropriately worded planning condition’ to be prepared at a later date nor be

20 Dr Nick Michael, BCC Nature Conservation Officer - planning application 22/01878/P - Ecological Technical Appendix A Desk Study - 7507.20.039 published as ECOLOGICAL_DESK_STUDY-3200493. Appendix A. (see also Appendix 4) 21 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005759/NPPF_July_2021.pdf

14

limited to just 27 years.

For all the reasons set out above, the applicant has failed to comply with the minimum requirements of the planning authority and its application must therefore be refused.

Bristol Tree Forum 13 July 2022

15

Appendices

Appendix 1 - The Planning Context

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the Mitigation Hierarchy and Bristol’s core planning policies, BCS9 – Green Infrastructure, DM15: Green Infrastructure Provision and DM17 Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure - the local policies upon which the goals of the Framework may be achieved – are set out below. This is the case whether or not the relevant sections of the Environment Act 2021 have been enabled by the time this application is decided.

1. The National Planning Policy Framework

This Framework seeks to ensure that new development is sustainable. It stresses the importance of green Infrastructure as one of three overarching, interdependent objectives – economic, social and environmental. This means that sustainable environmental development is no less important than the economic and social development objectives.

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

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

an environmental objective – to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment, including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

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

Trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined, that opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as parks and community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to secure the long-term maintenance of newly-planted trees, and that existing

trees are retained wherever possible. Applicants and local planning authorities should work with highways officers and tree officers to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right places, and solutions are found that are compatible with highways standards and the needs of different users.

Paragraph 174 states:

Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); …

d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing

coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable

16

risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans …

Paragraph 180 states:

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:

a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely

to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and

d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments should be integrated as part of their design, especially where this can secure measurable net gains

for biodiversity or enhance public access to nature where this is appropriate.

Paragraph 185 states:

Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should:

a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life;

b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and

are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; and c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark

landscapes and nature conservation.

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

The NPPF also sets out how development within a Conservation Area should be considered:

189. Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their

17

contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations…

… 199. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

200. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification…

201. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent,

unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and

b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and

c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and

d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

202. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

203. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

2. Biodiversity Net Gain

With the recent publication of Biodiversity Metric 3.1, (BM3.1), a new way of measuring and accounting for biodiversity losses and gains resulting from development or land management change has been adopted. Net Gain is defined as an:

… approach to development that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than beforehand. This means protecting existing habitats and ensuring that lost or degraded environmental features are compensated for by restoring or creating environmental features that are of greater value to wildlife and people. It does not change the fact that losses should be avoided where possible, a key part of adhering to a core environmental planning principle called the mitigation hierarchy.

3. The Mitigation Hierarchy

Ideally, development should always be planned around existing trees whatever their size or quality. This is because an established tree that is retained offers far more benefits and ecoservices than newly planted trees (no matter how many are planted), whose potential will take decades to be realised, if indeed it ever is.

18

The mitigation hierarchy provides a cascading decision process: only if the preceding choice is unavailable is the next one considered.

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

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

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

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

This is encapsulated in NPPF, paragraph 180 a) above

4. Local planning policies

Local planning authorities have a duty to consider both the protection and planting of trees (an important part of Green Infrastructure) when considering planning applications. The potential impact of development on all trees is therefore a material consideration. The following key planning policies relate to this application:22

a. BCS9: Green infrastructure

BCS9 states that ‘Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated into new development.’

Where habitat damage cannot be avoided (which we would dispute), BTRS and the Biodiversity Metric are two tools which the planning authority can use to ensure that:

• the integrity and connectivity of the strategic green infrastructure network will be maintained, protected and enhanced

• opportunities to extend the coverage and connectivity of the existing strategic green infrastructure network are taken

• individual green assets are retained wherever possible and integrated into new development

• appropriate mitigation of the lost green infrastructure assets is required

• development should incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure of an appropriate type, standard and size

• where on-site provision of green infrastructure is not possible, contributions will be sought to make appropriate provision for green infrastructure off site.

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

19

b. BCS22: Conservation and the Historic Environment

• The aim of this policy is to ensure that all new development safeguards or enhances the historic environment.

• Development proposals will safeguard or enhance heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance including: …Historic parks and gardens both nationally and locally listed; Conservation areas…

c. DM15: Green infrastructure provision

The provision of additional and/or improved management of existing trees will be expected as part of the landscape treatment of new development. The design, size, species and placement of trees provided as part of the landscape treatment will be expected to take practicable opportunities to:

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

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

• assist in providing shade and shelter to address urban cooling

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

d. DM17: Development involving existing green infrastructure

Trees DM17 also recognises the important status of trees.

All new development should integrate important existing trees. Development which would result in the loss of Ancient Woodland, Aged trees or Veteran trees will not be permitted.

Where tree loss or damage is essential to allow for appropriate development, replacement trees of an appropriate species should be provided…

Due to their characteristics and value, Aged and Veteran trees are considered to be of relatively greater importance than other trees and even trees of a similar species. Aged trees, by definition, have developed characteristics associated with great age and often have particular landscape and townscape value. Veteran trees are considered to have particularly important nature conservation value. Both will often have significant visual amenity, and potentially historic and cultural

importance. As such their loss or harm will not be permitted, and the design and layout of development will be expected to integrate them into development.

Trees are considered valuable multifunctional green infrastructure assets. The policy seeks to protect the most valuable trees and in line with the Core Strategy approach to green infrastructure assets, mitigate for the loss of other important trees by securing replacement trees on-site or in the public realm. The tree compensation standard set out in this policy provides a suitable mechanism to determine the appropriate level of mitigation where loss of trees is proposed as part of development.

The council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document sets out the circumstances when off-site tree provision will be necessary. Where trees are to be provided off-site, planning obligations will be sought to provide the appropriate number of replacement trees, utilising the

20

approach set out in the Supplementary Planning Document…

Where trees are present on a development site a British Standard 5837 Tree Survey ‘Trees in relation to Construction survey’ and related survey information should be submitted along with an application for planning permission.

Important open spaces

Development on part, or all, of an Important Open Space as designated on the Policies Map will not be permitted unless the development is ancillary to the open space use.

Important open spaces with a role and value for recreation, leisure, community use, townscape, landscape or visual amenity quality are designated and shown on the Policies Map and protected from development.

Under DM17, development of features such as these are not permitted:

• unless the development is ancillary to the open space use

• if it would result in the loss of open space which is locally important for recreation, leisure and community use, townscape and visual amenity.

e. Policy DM19: Development and Nature Conservation

Bristol contains a wide range of important nature conservation sites that contribute to a varied stock of natural habitats and species. The city has two sites of international importance. One of which is the Avon Gorge SAC.

DM19 makes it clear that Development which would be likely to have any impact upon habitat, species or features, which contribute to nature conservation in Bristol will be expected to:

i. Be informed by an appropriate survey and assessment of impacts; and

ii. Be designed and sited, in so far as practicably and viably possible, to avoid any harm to identified habitats, species and features of importance; and

iii. Take opportunities to connect any identified on-site habitats, species or features to nearby corridors in the Wildlife Network.

Where loss of nature conservation value would arise development will be expected to provide mitigation on-site and where this is not possible provide mitigation off-site. Development on or adjacent to sites of nature conservation value will be expected to enhance the site’s nature conservation value through the design and placement of any green infrastructure provided.

Local nature conservation sites help to ensure the habitats, species and features of value are adequately protected and allow for appropriate public access to nature. Local nature conservation sites in Bristol include Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCIs), Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS) and Wildlife Corridors. These sites provide a refuge for flora and fauna; contribute to national biodiversity and geodiversity targets; add to the local character and distinctiveness of an area; contribute to quality of life; enhance the natural processes that support

quality of life by maintaining air, soil and water quality; and can also reduce the effects of flooding and pollution.

21

Together the SNCIs and connected sites in Wildlife Corridors form the Bristol Wildlife Network. This network strengthens the resilience of species and habitats to changes in the built and natural environment, including rising temperatures and flood risk associated with climate change. It also encourages public interaction with wildlife and an appreciation and understanding of nature conservation which makes a positive contribution to the quality of life in Bristol.

Sites of Nature Conservation Interest

Development which would have a harmful impact on the nature conservation value of a Site of Nature Conservation Interest will not be permitted.

Wildlife Corridors

Development which would have a harmful impact on the connectivity and function of sites in Wildlife Corridors will only be permitted where the loss in connectivity, or function, of an existing

Wildlife Corridor is mitigated in line with the following hierarchy:

a. Creation of a new wildlife corridor within the development site; b. Enhancement of an existing corridor or creation of a new corridor off-site to maintain the

connectivity of the Bristol Wildlife Network.

f. Policy DM31: Heritage Assets

Heritage assets, which can range from whole landscapes to individual items of street furniture, are a finite non-renewable resource that can often be irreparably damaged by insensitive development. Great weight is given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. As set out in the Core Strategy, the historic environment is important not just for its own sake, but also as an asset that can add value to regeneration and help to draw businesses to the city, acting as a stimulus to local economic growth.

The key to the sympathetic management of heritage assets is through a clear understanding of the assets themselves and the context in which they exist. Early discussions on development proposals, before the submission of a planning or listed building application, may also assist in avoiding costly work at a later stage.

This policy implements policy BCS22 of the Core Strategy by setting out in detail how the council proposes to secure the conservation of heritage assets. When assessing development proposals that affect heritage assets, this policy will be applied in conjunction with the relevant parts of policies DM26 to DM30. Other relevant documents such as Conservation Area Character Appraisals and others listed under policy DM26 will form an important part of the assessment.

General Principles

Conservation Areas:

Development within or which would affect the setting of a conservation area will be expected to preserve or, where appropriate, enhance those elements which contribute to their special character or appearance.

Locally important heritage assets:

22

Proposals affecting locally important heritage assets should ensure they are conserved having regard to their significance and the degree of any harm or loss of significance.

Understanding the asset

Development proposals that would affect heritage assets will be expected to demonstrate, by a thorough understanding of the significance of the asset, how any change proposed would conserve and, where appropriate, enhance that significance.

Conserving heritage assets

Where a proposal would affect the significance of a heritage asset, including a locally listed heritage asset, or its wider historic setting, the applicant will be expected to:

i. Demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to sustain the existing use, find new uses, or mitigate the extent of the harm to the significance of the asset; and

ii. Demonstrate that the works proposed are the minimum required to secure the long term use of the asset; and

iii. Demonstrate how those features of a heritage asset that contribute to its historical, archaeological, social, artistic or architectural interest will be retained; and

iv. Demonstrate how the local character of the area will be respected.

We set out Bristol’s planning policies as they relate more particularly to trees in more detail here - Summary of Planning policies that relate to trees

23

Appendix 2 - Brislington Meadows hedge survey by Richard Bland on 28 May 2014

The Hedges

Age

The Know your place website clearly shows all the present hedges in the 1840 Tithe map, and the 1946 aerial shows all the big trees. The 1880s map shows a large number of trees many of which will have been elms and have gone. It is thus clear that, as was a very old tradition, the hedges combined the traditional hedge species, mainly hawthorn and hazel with large trees that would have been felled at need. The oldest trees in the hedges are at least 160 years old, and it is fair to

assume that the shrubby species are the same age. Exactly when the area was enclosed, and divided between the farms is not clear, but is most likely to have been in the mid 18th century, the point in recent history when the population reached five million, which is the maximum number of people that could be sustained with the levels of agricultural productivity at the time. The only way to increase output was to bring marginal land into active cultivation, and enclosure was the way this was done. The age of the farmsteads in the area would establish the date of the change. Once fields with boundary hedges were established their size and shape remained constant in most areas down to the mid 20th century. It is reasonable to assume that the hedges are around 250 years old, and may be a century older, though the fact that the species mix is the same limited range of species in all the hedges carries an implication that they were all created at the same time and are relatively recent.

A very few of the species in the hedges show clear signs that they were formerly laid in the traditional manner, but many of them suggest that the hedges were simply maintained by clipping. If the fields were ever arable the hedges do not need to be stock proof. However the species composition of the fields, especially the presence of so much Pignut, suggests that they have always been grazed, or possibly treated as hay meadows, in which case stock-proof boundaries would be needed for only part of the year.

The Hedge species:

Hawthorn. (12/13) Hawthorn was the normal standard hedging species planted in a new enclosure and it was recorded in 11 of the 12 hedges surveyed. Most of the individual plants were multi stemmed, implying that they had frequently been trimmed right back, but none showed signs of being laid. One multi stem was measured round at 300cm, which might imply an age of 200 years, as hawthorns grow much more slowly than trees. It provides both nectar and berries.

Blackthorn. (10/13) This is now very dominant and, as it suckers, it is expanding rapidly into the meadows. I measured an individual tree at 110cm, and like Hawthorn it grows very slowly and to find it as a tree is unusual. It provides both nectar and sloes.

Elder (10/13) This is an invasive species in hedges, as it tends to create gaps in a stock proof hedge. It is of course very valuable for nectar and berries.

Holly (8/13) The individual trees were not very old, and this looks like a recent invader of the original hedge. Nectar and berries Ash (9/13). Many young trees, invaders from the last 50 years. One or two multi stemmed from being cut down in the past and one was Y shaped indicating having been laid in the past. There were also two magnificent trees in ST625707 both with girths of 400 cm, implying a minimum age of 160 years and these are among the largest in Bristol.

Hazel. (6/13). A common hedge plant as it lays easily, and produces useful poles. The hedge I did not check was in ST625 710 where there are a large number that are multi stemmed, suggesting that perhaps they were used as coppice poles rather than as a hedge.

24

Common Elm (5/13). The presence in these hedges of young elms indicates the presence of large trees that died 40 years ago and in theory at least they can all be seen on the 1946 aerial photo. As the Dutch Elm disease is at a very low ebb there are now a large number of vigorous young elms which will soon dominate the hedge line as they did in the past, and should Ash die back happed they will be in a position to take over.

Common Oak (5/13) I measured eight trees in hedges, the oldest at 580 on the NE park boundary, implying a minimum age of 250 years. The majority were between 300 and 400 cm, implying an origin in the early to mid 19c. They are all maidens- they have not been pollarded, and were presumably planted as a potential timber source. There are at least the same number again of a similar age that I did not measure. The twin-trunk pair in the Park itself are stag-headed, but that is a normal part of the aging process. All should be preserved as valuable veterans, and are perhaps

the best bargaining counter to use with the developers.

Field maple. (3/13) This is a common small tree of hedges, but the trees here are strange as they are all multi trunked and very heavily burred. This implies that they have been cut back heavily in the past. I am uncertain of their normal growth rate, but they are certainly unusual in size

Other species:

A few small young cherries. One Crack Willow by the stream at ST626 708. One young Norway maple derived from the recently planted trees in the Park, one Holm oak, one Sycamore, (very surprising that more have not invaded), One young Wych Elm - I may easily have missed them. They grow from seed, not suckers, and when young are not always easy to distinguish from Common Elm. One Dog Rose - a common invader of hedges and may have been missed.

There are two whole fields I failed to access so there is more to be done, but it will not change the

basic pattern. One of them is almost completely scrubbed up, and has no obvious access- it might be interesting.

Victory Park itself.

An eclectic collection of planted trees, the oldest the Common Limes abutting the cemetery wall which I take it were planted in 1920, but seem to be older. A lot of recent planting has not taken well - but a combination of cold winters and wet summers has not been helpful.

NB the Squares on the map used by the BNHC are wrong. The park entrance square should be ST623 710 not ST623 711 i.e. they are all right in an east west dimension but are all 100 metres too far north in the north south dimension. My references are taken from the Ordnance survey, not from the BNHC map.

Note on the excel file. Three sheets - firstly the hedges, second the trees in the park and thirdly

an analysis of the hedges. I have given 6 figure refs for the hedges themselves- i.e. the hectare in which they are, and 8 figure for the measured trees.

Additional comments in email.

It is the great trees that really must be kept- they are magnificent specimens at their finest- they will move into middle age for the next century or so.

Oaks of their size are not uncommon in Bristol, but the Ash trees are the finest in the city, and the Multi trunk Field Maples are amazing.

Site BTF Hedge No.

Grid ref Co-ordinates Species Girth (cm)

Hedge A 06 ST625 712 51.4385457648262,- Ash

25

Site BTF Hedge No.

Grid ref Co-ordinates Species Girth (cm)

2.54089714133354 Blackthorn

Common Elm

Common oak 200

Elder

Hawthorn

Hazel

Hedge B 08 ST627 711 51.4376598943947,-2.53800933755901

Blackthorn

Cherry

hawthorn

Hedge C 08 ST628711 51.4376664905965,-2.53657074726511

Blackthorn

Elm

Hawthrorn

Holly

Hedge D 10 ST627 710 51.436760778041,-2.53799876975958

Blackthorn

Elder

Elm

Field Maple

Hawthorn

Holly

Hedge E 02 ST626 710 51.4367541643993,-2.53943733126621

Dog Rose

Elder

Hawthorn

Holly

Hedge F 02 ST626 710 51.4367541643993,-2.53943733126621

Ash

Blackthorn 110

Common oak 320

Elder

hawthorn 300

Hazel

Holly Table 1 - An extract of the Excel file referred to above - only hedges on the development site are shown.

26

Appendix 3 – Brislington Meadows - notes on some hedges The hedgerows that edge the fields of the hillside that Homes England has dubbed Brislington Meadows are fabulous habitats for wildlife because they've been left to sprawl, but that welcome

overgrowth conceals an important clue to their history. There's also a tell-tale indicator literally under our feet at the entrance to the fields where the public footpath from School Road emerges - the short steep climb that's so memorably tricky to negotiate when muddy.

The five fields that until recently were used as pasture for cattle, all share an unusual feature

hidden in their lower hedge - these are the hedges that run along the contours (as opposed to those that run straight up and down the hillside). The traditional footpaths established by local people over many decades cut through these hedges and reveal their unusual cross section - a change in ground level. On the uphill side of the hedge the ground is at least half a metre higher (sometimes twice that, or even more). It would take an enormous amount of time and effort to build that sort of field boundary, but that's not the way these structures came into being. This sort of linear feature is created by ploughing from side to side across the hillside. The plough lifts the soil and, as it drops back down to the ground, gravity makes the earth fall slightly downhill (erosion by rain also plays a part in this downward migration). Little by little, year after year, these inexorable processes take soil away from the top of the field, spread it across the slope, and

gradually allow it to accumulate at the bottom of the field. The 1840s tithe survey informs us the higher fields were indeed ploughed arable land, while the lower fields were pasture - this difference is still reflected in the different plant species that are found in them. The physical evidence of the field boundaries themselves though, tell us the lower fields were also ploughed for many years. The key question remains open about these unusual field terraces - known to archaeologists as lynchets - their age. They could be modern, but these features in the landscape have been created by ploughing since before this country was invaded by the Roman Empire.

27

So, next time you face the slippery slope at the entrance to the fields, at least you'll understand why it's there, and you'll also know why this steep part of the lynchet is called a riser - it's because on a really steep hillside the lynchets are narrow and look like a giant flight of stairs. Incidentally, the riser here doesn't coincide with the actual field boundary - the hedge of ancient hazels, hawthorns and oak trees is a short distance downhill - at the level of the public footpath, and the thin gap between appears to be the route of the original ancient footpath that ran along the full length of this old hedgerow. Ken Taylor Chair, Brislington Community Museum

brislington.org

28

Appendix 4 – Minute of a telephone meeting between Dr Nick Michael and Dr Rachel Roberts on 18 November 2020 Taken from Brislington Meadows - Ecological Technical Appendix A Desk Study - 7507.20.039 Published on 22/01878/P as ECOLOGICAL_DESK_STUDY-3200493. Appendix A reproduces a minute of a telephone conversation between Dr Nick Michael (NM), Nature Conservation Officer (Planning [Bristol LPA]) and Dr Rachel Roberts (RR) acting on behalf of Homes England which took place on 18 November 2020.

‘3.0 BNG ‘…NM explained the current position given BNG is currently in transition, providing the following test via email during the call:

“Ecological mitigation is required to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) states in paragraph 170(d) on page 49 that planning decisions should minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity. It is recommended that the proposal employs Defra / Natural England’s Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) biodiversity metric 2.0 (as updated) to develop ecological mitigation proposals. The BNG assessment should be undertaken prior to the validation of a future planning application and not conditioned. Planning applications submitted to Bristol City Council should demonstrate a positive biodiversity gain when using this metric. Please note that this may require off-site mitigation to achieve a Biodiversity Net Gain. Applicants should provide full details of their data, measurements and workings used to calculate the percentage BNG. Engagement with the Council’s pre-application process to inform BNG proposals and the design of ecological mitigation proposals at an early stage

is encouraged. The Defra Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Biodiversity Metric 2.0 includes an off-site module which is fully integrated within the methodology. If a positive on-site BNG score cannot be achieved, the off-site module should be used as the automatic next step to achieve a positive BNG score. A financial contribution is not an acceptable way forward because it does not calculate biodiversity units and so will be an arbitrary figure that will be very difficult to calculate or justify. All BNG submissions should be accompanied by a nature conservation and landscape management plan which addresses features of interest, objectives, management compartments and

prescriptions, a work schedule including a thirty year annual work plan, resourcing including a financial budget and ecological monitoring. This should cover a 30 year period. Please note that if the Environment Bill is passed, a future planning application will be required to demonstrate a mandatory minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain as measured using the Defra Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (as amended).”

29

’

30

Appendix 5 - Brislington Meadow SNCI review undertaken on 10

December 2010

Site Name and Number: Brislington Meadows - BC, HH, JS & JW - 10/12/10

To qualify as an SNCI/Wildlife Site, a site must demonstrate clearly that it is of substantive biodiversity interest, using the above criteria. Each site must be of significant importance for biodiversity in the context of the individual unitary area. Evaluation must be done in a standardised manner.

Whilst it is not appropriate to have absolute cut-off points for these criteria, as a guide, to qualify as an SNCI the site must score strongly on at least one of criteria 1 – 11 (scientific criteria); in addition to the site having either:

• 2 or more strong criteria; or

• 1 strong and 3 or more other criteria; or

• 5 or more moderate or strong criteria

Criteria Strong Moderate Weak Nil NOTES

1 Naturalness √

2 Size √

3a Diversity – species √

3b Diversity – habitats √

4a Rarity – species √

4b Rarity – habitats √

5 Fragility √

6 Irreplaceability √

7 Typicalness √

8 Geographical position

√

9 Important

populations √

10a BAP species √

10b BAP habitats √

11 Age / continuity √

31

Criteria Strong Moderate Weak Nil NOTES

12 Community/amenity value

√

13 Physical access √

14 Visual access √

15 Educational value √

16 Landscape or aesthetic value

√

17 Area lacking in natural habitats

√

18 Recorded history √

Supporting Notes

1. Naturalness Areas of semi-natural habitat, some of which have been effected by disturbance, mainly through inappropriate management/use, however there are also areas where there is an absence of human disturbance.

2. Size The site is 22ha.

3. 3a. Diversity – species A high number of species have been recorded, including at least 80 grassland species, 19 butterfly species, 26 bird species, slow worm, and several mammal species including moles, hedgehogs, and badgers.

4. 3b. Diversity – habitats The habitats present include both neutral and damp grassland, scrub, hedgerows, a stream, and a small area of open mosaic habitat on previously developed land. There are also a number of veteran trees.

5. 4a. Rarity – species There are records for the Nationally scarce Ivy broomrape, and also for locally scarce Slender rush.

6. 4b. Rarity – habitats Damp grassland and unimproved neutral grassland are both locally rare habitats.

7. Fragility Large parts of the site have been included in the Bristol City Council Site Allocations Options

Document, allocated for development. 8. Irreplaceability

Because of the veteran trees present, and the large area of habitat, it would not be possible to recreate such an area of these habitats elsewhere within Bristol.

9. Typicalness The site provides reasonable examples of degraded semi-natural habitats.

10. Geographical Position The site is weakly linked to Eastwood Farm SNCI.

11. Important Populations

32

There are no known important populations of notable of BAP species using the site. However this would be better informed if surveys of invertebrate and bat populations were carried out.

12. 10a. BAP species UK BAP species recorded on the site include: Bullfinch, House sparrow, Song thrush, Dunnock, and Slow worm, and Bristol BAP species include Hedgehog.

13. 10b. BAP habitats Parts of the site may meet the criteria for the UK BAP habitat Lowland Meadow (according to a survey carried out by BRERC in 2008).

14. Age/Continuity Much of the site is made up of remnant meadows with their original field boundaries (indicated by the veteran trees). It is believed that these fields have a history dating back over 400 years.

15. Community/Amenity Value The site is highly valued by local residents for the natural green space and contact with nature that it provides, and there is a local group called Friends of Victory Park that promote its use. It is used by local residents, dog walkers, runners, walking groups, local schools, and scout groups.

16. Physical Access There is good physical access to most of the site, either through public open space or public rights of way. However surfaced paths are restricted to Victory Park.

17. Visual Access Visual access is restricted to views from the adjacent industrial area and residential properties along the boundary.

18. Educational Value Broomhill Junior School is immediately adjacent to the Northern end of the site.

19. Landscape or aesthetic value The site is highly valued for the ‘semi-rural’ feel of the landscape, and the presence of veteran trees.

20. Area lacking natural habitats The site is one of only a few semi-natural areas within the wider Brislington area.

21. Recorded history Surveys have been carried out on the site in 1993, 2004 and 2008 (Copies of these surveys are held by BRERC). There are also individual species records (also held by BRERC) from 1995, and 2000.

33

Appendix 6 – Field Survey of Brislington Meadows – 15 October 2010

Brislington Meadows SNCI

Survey of four fields by Helena Crouch, Libby Houston and Margaret Webster (all members of Bristol Naturalists’ Society, the Botanical Society of the British Isles and Somerset Rare Plants Group) on 15 October 2010. This is late in the season for surveying grassland – it is likely that more species would be seen earlier in the season, especially grasses.

Table 2 - Map showing the location of the fields surveyed. Only fields 7a & 7b are on the development site.

Field 7 (ST626709 [7a], ST627709 [7b)

The lower, sloping southern part of this large field is undergrazed, yet still species-rich, and has areas of scrub. Like Fields 8 and 9, it slopes down to a small stream. The upper (northern) part of

the field is flatter, more open and clearly damp: there are patches of Jointed Rush (Juncus articulatus).

34

(ST627709) Field 7b

Achillea millefolium Yarrow

Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent

Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed

Juncus articulatus Jointed Rush

Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain

Taraxacum agg Dandelion

Trisetum flavescens Yellow Oat-grass

Vicia sativa Common Vetch

Vicia sepium Bush Vetch

Fallopia japonica Japanese Knotweed (At ST62777096, just invading inside the

fence on the SE side of this field – invasive weed)

35

Appendix 7 - 19/05220/PREAPP – Arboriculture Officer’s pre-application response – 21 January 2020

Appendix D: Arboricultural Officer

Site Description Brislington Meadows is an area of land located in Broomhill with pedestrian links from Broomhill Road, School Road and Bonville Road. The site topography consists of seven arable fields that slope from the north down to the southeast where it meets Victory Park and a number of tenanted grazing fields. The fields a divided by ancient hedgerows that contain ancient oak, holly and hawthorn trees. The field system and hedgerows have not changed significantly since before the 1844-1888 Ordinance Surveys 1st Edition. A number of the ancient oak and holly trees plotted during

the mapping of the area are still in existence today. The 1840 Tithe maps also clearly identifies the field system but does not contain any tree related data. The early layout of Broomhill Road and School Road are present. Species Distribution The most predominate species on site is Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) which forms the major species within the hedgerows. Mature oak (Quercus robur) and Holly (Ilex aquafolium) form the majority of the climax species with ash, field maple, elder, blackthorn and Hazel present to a lesser degree.

Age Classification During my site visit I have measured the girth of a number of trees of varying species to demonstrate their age. Broadleaf trees such as Oak, Ash, Beech and Sycamore add, on average, between 1.5 & 2.5cm of circumference/ girth per annum (Royal Forestry Society – Tree Age). This average was created into a methodology by Alan Mitchell to estimate the age of trees. The methodology states that one inch of girth measured equates to a year of life. This is an estimate of age with some variability dependent of the speed of growth within differing species and site conditions. Due to the significant amount of blackthorn sucker growth it has been impossible to measure the girth of the many of the largest Hawthorn and holly, many of which have a multi stem form with large root bases.

Figure 1: An estimate of age from a sample of trees at Brislington Meadows.

Species Stem Girth (M) Stem Diameter (cm)

Estimate of age

Oak 2.1-4.7m 67 – 150 82 – 185

Holly 1.7 54 66

Ash 2.8-3.6 89 – 115 110 – 141

Hawthorn 1.5-1.9 48 – 61 59 – 74

Hazel 2.3-2.6 73 - 83 90 - 102

36

Ancient and Veteran trees An ancient or veteran tree is a tree that is old for its species, or due to the conditions it has endured, presents a number of characteristics such as cavities, water pockets, hollows, fungal fruit bodies. These characteristics are often high quality niche habitats for bats, birds, mammals and invertebrates, some of which can only exist in these species specific niche habitats. Different species become ancient at different ages; a 100 year old oak can be

considered mature whilst a 100 year old hawthorn is very ancient due to the shorter life expectancy of the species.

Figure 3: Age classification of the largest

Species Stem Diameter Age classification

Oak 150 Veteran/ Ancient

Holly 54 No data available

Ash 115 Veteran/ Ancient

Hawthorn 61 Ancient

Hazel 83 No data available

Ancient Hedgerow Definitions (Defra: Habitat Action Plans – Ancient and Species Rich Hedgerows) Ancient hedgerows An Ancient hedgerow (which tend to be the most biologically diverse in terms of both plants and animals) are defined as those that were in existence before the Enclosures Acts (Mainly passed between 1720 and 1840)

Species-rich hedgerow Species-rich hedgerows are defined as those containing an average of 5 or more native woody species per 30m length (4 species in northern England, upland Wales and Scotland). Additionally, hedges containing fewer woody species, but with a rich basal flora of herbaceous plants are included, although there is no specific definition for identifying them.

37

Neglected Hedgerow Neglected hedgerows gradually turn into rows of trees and develop gaps, impacting on their ecological status. This has become more of a problem in recent years in response to increasing labour costs, and the loss of traditional skills. The hedgerows within Brislington meadows were in existence before the end of the Enclosures

Act period and are therefore defined as Ancient Hedgerows. The hedgerows have not been managed for a significant period and have therefore become neglected reducing the species diversity due to the encroachment of blackthorn sucker growth. The dominant species within a majority of the hedgerows is Hawthorn in the main with sideways colonisation of blackthorn. Gaps have begun to form and trees such as field maple, hazel, holly and elder become scares where they would have once grown well evident by the small numbers remaining within the hedgerows. There is still good evidence of age succession of hawthorn with the age diversity from very ancient too young.

Some sections of hedgerow also have more than 5 native species with a 30m length, however, the previously managed hedgerow species have become individual trees. During my site visit I have taken photographic evidence of a number of trees that have almost horizontal sections of stem close to ground level, this demonstrates the hedgerows were once managed by laying. This is a traditional form of hedgerow management that is seldom used since the mechanisation of farming practices. The hedgerows on site are neglected ancient hedgerows that have been in existence since before 1840. The ancient / veteran oaks, ash and Holly within the hedgerows provide a significant historical and cultural heritage locally and must therefore be retained during any development process.

National Planning policy Framework (NPPF) Glossary of terms Irreplaceable Habitats: Habitats which would be technically very difficult (or take a very

significant time) to restore, recreate or replace once destroyed, taking into account their age, uniqueness, species diversity or rarity. They include ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees, blanket bog, limestone pavement, sand dunes, salt marsh and lowland fen. 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. 175. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:

• Development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists

Development management policies DM15 & DM17 DM15: Green infrastructure provision

“Green infrastructure provision facilitates a positive effect on people’s health by providing………Improves the quality of visual and natural environments…” Trees The provision of additional and/ or improved management of existing trees will be expected as part of the landscape treatment of new development.

38

DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure Trees

• All new development should integrate important existing trees

• Development which would result in the loss of ancient woodland, aged trees or veteran trees will not be permitted.

• Where tree loss or damage is essential to allow for appropriate development, replacement trees of an appropriate species should be provided, in accordance with the tree compensation standard.

Pre-application proposal Considering the guidance set out in the National planning policy framework, BCS9, DM15 & DM17 the current site layout, if brought to full planning would have to be refused due to the removal/ deterioration of ancient trees. The site layout has not considered the site history, current green infrastructure, the ancient hedgerow network or the ancient and veteran trees on site. The scheme requires major re-design to incorporate the ancient trees and ancient hedgerow structure. This will require investment to improve the green infrastructure assets in accordance with DM15; improved management to ensure a sustainable hedgerow system into the future must include:

• Management if the invasive blackthorn that has swapped the ancient hawthorn.

• Remedial tree pruning where necessary.

• Re-stocking with traditional native hedgerow species to increase species diversity and

renovate the neglected structure. Full planning application. If a development is proposed for this site the following information will be required to support a re-design of the site layout to ensure the retention of the ancient trees and hedgerow network:

• A design that retains the important ancient trees and hedgerow structure

• An arboricultural report in accordance with BS5837: 2012 (This is a validation requirement)

• A scheme of improvements and enhancements to restore the neglected hedgerow system.

• Mitigation for tree loss in accordance with Bristol’s planning obligations SPD tree replacement standard.

• Landscape/ tree planting plan.

39

Appendix 8 – Table of current hedgerows on Development site

See Appendix 3 which explains why hedgerows H02, H04, H08 & H10 have been designated as

Native Species Rich Hedgerow with trees - Associated with bank or ditch habitats.

40

Appendix 9 – Group and Woodland tree areas, removed and retained as reported on 5 July 2022.

Group

ID

Area

(sq m)

Area Removed

(sqm)

Area Retained

(sq m)

Total (ha)

2.56 0.82 1.74

G1 42 0 42

G2 21 0 21

G3 27 0 27

G4 90 90 0

G5 87 0 87

G6 94 0 94

G7 2,903 61 2,842

G8 87 87 0

G9 1,068 69 999

G10 850 28 822

G11 156 0 156

G12 155 0 155

G13 310 0 310

G14 40 0 40

G15 116 0 116

G16 47 0 47

G17 756 0 756

G18 755 755 0

G19 43 0 43

G20 1,357 1,357 0

G21 780 780 0

G22 76 0 76

G23 68 0 68

G24 569 569 0

G25 274 0 274

G26 1,160 1,160 0

G27 302 21 281

G28 225 0 225

G29 80 0 80

G30 171 171 0

41

Group ID

Area (sq m)

Area Removed

(sqm)

Area Retained

(sq m)

G31 259 259 0

G32 244 244 0

G33 555 292 263

G34 184 184 0

G35 37 37 0

G36 339 0 339

G37 753 406 348

G38 274 0 274

G39 173 0 173

G40 251 0 251

G41 817 0 817

G42 674 674 0

G43 130 0 130

G44 150 0 150

G45 46 0 46

G46 498 0 498

G47 107 0 107

W1 3,390 0 3,390

W2 4,041 947 3,094

42

Appendix 10 – Discussion of the LiDAR evidence

I am in objection of the development.

I have big concerns over traffic, the use of Broomhill Road (speeding) and the pressure it will haveon local services (doctors)

I attended the viewing meeting that was held at St Peter's Church that was held by HomesEngland where they explained the proposed plans.

At this meeting I shared my concerns on the amount of speeding that already takes place onBroomhill Road and the routes that the development will present will just in case this. It wasexplained to me that Homes England did a speed check during Feb 2021. When we were still at apoint of being in a lock down!! Where the traffic was reduced, this was not a sensible time to test.Homes England should re do the test now. During most week day evenings the speedingmassively increases and is becoming more and more dangerous. Which the council are continuingto turn a blind eye too.

Broomhill Road is a busy road as is it, you are now wanting to increase the traffic flow. People willuse this as through road as they won't want to sit on Bath Road in traffic.

As an area we already struggle to to get a doctors appointment in person. If you proceed tocontinue to increase the amount of people who live in the area the more difficult this will come aswell as overloading our surgeries you will also increase the capacity of the schools we have in the

area.

It was also mentioned to me that IF the development was to go ahead the council would be offeredan amount to improve the local amenities, I have now been informed that this is not true. The areaof Broomhill requires a lot of attention. It took forever for our local park to be updated. I would liketo know what the plans would be to improve the area, this is not mentioned at all in the plans, as acommunity we should have a say to what we feel we need!!

And I finally end with the fact that our Mayor, Marvin was also in objection to theseredevelopments as it's a green space and he's all for being more green, this all come about whenhe/labour needed the local election votes, which was more than convenient. After a suddenLabour win he back tracks and says yes to the re-development going ahead. This is an absolutejoke, clearly our Mayor doesn't care that much for green spaces and support local communities.And that's just one of the many reasons why many people voted against him. He doesn't fight forlocal causes and this is one he should be fighting for.

1.The building of more than 200 homes will have a huge effect on environmental issues.The taking away of huge green space for wildlife,plants and trees.It takes away the last green space between Brislington/Broomhill and Industrial estate on the overloaded Bath Rd out of Bristol.This is an important green corridor.2.Broomhill Rd is already a rat run for traffic coming off Bath Rd at Sandy Park and out at St Brendan's College.There is a school on this route.Traffic from Industrial estate which causes hold ups.We do not want to add another 300 cars using this already over used road.3.Broomhill is already in need of services.They do have a very good primary and junior school which would become effected by becoming overcrowded .They do not have a pharmacy within walking distance for majority of people.The doctors surgery again has a large catchment area including Brislington,St Anne's,and Broomhill.4.The natural drainage will be taken away and will be replaced by man made drainage.5.The increase in traffic in an already very busy area off Broomhill Rd will cause more pollution.Parking on the pavements is normal on Broomhill Rd especially the on the trading estate.

Marilyn Hunt

Good morning, I'm writing to make my objection to the Brislington Meadows application.Having lived in the Brislington community for the past 5 years I have noticed how services havebecome affected more and more by funding cuts and the effect of the COVID pandemic.

Services such as doctor appointments, where to get an appointment to see a doctor have gottenlonger. Bus numbers have been reduced causing delays and significant unreliability. Nurserieshaving to restrict numbers and ask parents to keep children home if possible as insufficient staff.These are a few examples where adding an additional 260 homes will only exacerbate the currentsituation.

In the plans I can see no additional schools or nurseries being built, no new doctors surgeries orhealth centres. Where do all these new people go? We know where, into the current services sothey become much more busy for local residents.

Then there's the loss of the natural environment in Brislington Meadows. After last years rejectionby Marvin Rees, calling Bristol in state of 'Climate Emergency' we thought this area had beensaved. Green areas are so precious within Bristol why are you potentially going to allow one to beeradicated? I've seen all the plans where biodiversity & wildlife have been studied, but the simplefact is building across this area will have a huge detrimental effect on wildlife for the area I simplydon't believe that it will be able to recover & be anything like it currently is.

The road infrastructure is another huge concern, with one entry /exit for the whole site, will make

the roads around this area much busier and less safe for children. The roads in this area ofBrislington / Broom Hill are already busy at peak times, add in the amount of cars that will bebrought in by this potential new development and I can only see the situation becoming muchworse. Plus the environmental impact of more fumes emitted by more vehicles, and the pollutionthat will be caused by the actual building of the development, it's just more and moreenvironmental impact for the area.

We want the best for our children & elderly within the community, with excellent health care & localtransport, safer roads, cleaner air and wild environments for wildlife to flourish. Adding 260 homesto this area will have a huge negative impact and I sincerely hope that planning permission isrejected.

Best regardsNick Smith

Objection to the above application at broom hill/Brislington meadows

for the reasons of -

1. Effect on local nature and wildlife when there is little public nature space anyway

2. Impact on traffic and parking

3. Impact on community

4. Loss of property values

I object to Home's Englands' planning application for a housing estate on BrislingtonMeadows. These meadows have been there for generations and provide homes for a catalogue ofwildlife, both big and small, the surround the Victory Park area. It would also be necessary todestroy numerous tress and a woodland area impacting the clean air as well as the wildlife andgreen areas.In addition to this, the traffic that would be increased in this area would cause a significant risk topeople in the area. Not only would the pollution and air quality be negatively affected, but the riskto children and families who use this area for the park, the local woods and to travel to and fromschool would be significant.The drainage in the area would also be impacted. At present, water can run away form the landbut, with the building of housing, this would be affected as would Brislington Brook which couldcause a significant risk to local areas and housing already there.

Don't build houses on this cherished land

This has been a nature reserve and open space as was a common and closed off as areserve since the 1700,s and should remain so, for the forthcoming future of our grandchildren andtheir children, as a Nature Reserve for all species and open spaces for all community to enjoy!!!not being for houses which will subsequently impose on wildlife, plants, etc, pollution, parkingissues, your promise to not build has been denied therefore I strongly object .

Yet more loss of open green space within the city. Increased vehicle traffic andpollution. An unsustainable route to easing the affordable housing problems this city has. Thenumber of affordable homes is too small and in will lead to high priced rental properties. All thisonly adds to the problems that the council was elected to manage and has yet to deliver on.

An in-depth and sufficient traffic report has not been provided for this site. Currently, thetraffic leading from Broomhill road onto Bath road is exceptionally bad during peak times: 7:30am-9am and 1600-1730. The latter part of the day is considerably worse due to the traffic from StBrendon's. The current wait time to join Bath road ( which is the quickest access to Bath,Keynsham, longwell green, Whitchurch etc is around 24 minutes. Should this planning permissionbe granted it would make commuting to these areas untenable. With only one access road for somany houses there will be chaos at peak times, causing many to need to reconsider their place ofwork. Furthermore this would impact the environment considerably with noise, dust and fumesgenerated from hundreds of new cars in such a small and already densely populated area. Bristolcity council please support an object of this site and protect the welfare of the resident s alreadyliving and working here.

1. I am concerned at the loss of an environmental amenity : Brislington Meadows.Its apeaceful part of Brislington Village where I live.2. There will be a massive effect of local traffic if this development goes ahead. The Bath Road isalready seriously congested all day.Its often a bottleneck.The Sandy Park Road access to the Bath Road is getting worse all day from early morning .3. There is no nearby Health Centre and Brooklea Health Centre will have problems in coping withso many new patients

The presence of lush, wide natural spaces with minimised cityscape is something theUK should be proud of and preserve, not seek to destroy. It has a clearly beneficial effect onresidents' mental as well as physical wellbeing.

Moreover, the environmental concern this plan raises are significant. The claim is being putforward that this housing development will result in a 10% net biodiversity benefit, but after readingthrough the Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment I understand that this is far from guaranteed. Thedevelopment itself will have a notably negative result on the site's biodiversity, and the measuresproposed to offset this net loss - and they are alarmingly vague for something supposed toreassure the residents about the promised 10% net gain figure - all rely on improving thebiodiversity of some other sites throughout the city, whether directly or indirectly by paying a thirdparty.

It is blatantly obvious that the course of action which would be in the best interest of the existingresidents of Brislington is not building housing in a process whose negative impact will then beminimised and offset, but rather in enacting the proposed changes which would maximise thebiodiversity of the site - improving the 'poor and moderate' rating which is consistently mentionedin the assessment - and thus improve its biodiversity without then damaging it by the housingdevelopment.

I live nearby and there are so few areas where you can experience a bit of peace andclean air in this area. These fields are a haven for both human and wildlife in this area. This is oneof the few remaining areas that Brislington residents can go for a peaceful walk without having toget in their cars and cause further pollution to an already very polluted city.

I object to the proposed development at Brislington Meadows on the following grounds:

1. Environment, habitat and biodiversity loss - development of a greenfield site such as this iswholly contradictory to the Government's environmental policy as evidenced by the EnvironmentAct 2021, not to mention the need globally for people to be smarter about how we use ourresources and value existing habitats. Not only do the Meadows provide an incredibly importanthabitat for a wide variety of species, they are a nature corridor: development will have far widerconsequences on nature than just on this site. Mitigation measures cannot and will not recreatethe habitats which have developed since the meadows were created by way of enclosure in 1778.The entire site should still rightly have SNCI status. Protection of the environment is vital to thehealth of the planet and of people.

2. Congestion and road safety - Bath Road and surrounding roads are already heavily congested.The public transport is inadequate for the existing population, and will not sufficiently serve theproposed increase of approx.5% in local population. Cycling on the roads is already dangerousand there are not connected cycle paths.

3. Air pollution from increased traffic - despite being under-researched, air pollution has a knownimpact on health and wellbeing, with subsequent pressure being put on social services.

4. Impact on the community and local services (in particular, the existing issue with access toGPs.)

I am writing to comment in objection to the proposed development on BrislingtonMeadows, at Broomhill/Brislington Meadows, Broomhill Road, BS44UD.It is hard to overstate the impact to the community, neighbourhood and wildlife to the proposal tobuild homes on these meadows.

For the local community the loss of this space will have a devastating impact. We live in a wellbuilt up suburban area, bordered by the A4, an incredibly busy and congested road. The Meadowsand park adjacent are a valuable space for children, dogs, families and the community to getoutside and get access to green space on our doorstep.

The people of the local neighbourhood use this space every single day. I struggle to comprehendthe impact on those who don't have a garden, and rely on the proximity of this historic grasslandspace to help their mental health and well being.Locally there are many flats and properties all with little to no garden space for many of thoseproperties, who use the park and meadows to walk, exercise and benefit from the green space.In addition the impact of so many new residents will place further strain on our local services; it'salready a challenge to get a doctor or dentist appointment, a school space for example. Adding somany new homes and people to an already under serviced community will negatively affect thosejoining and those already here.

The proposals seem to indicate the development will enhance biodiversity and wildlife. This seemshighly unlikely. On one walk this morning, my children spotted 4 types of butterfly in just 20

minutes. You can't tell us that building works will not utterly destroy the wildlife here. The trees andhedgerows long established provide homes and shelter to a huge range of wildlife which would bepermanently disrupted or destroyed forever in the wake of concreting over the vast majority. Asour allotments border one edge of the park, I have been able to appreciate even more, the varietyof wildlife, with bats and owls in surrounding trees at dusk, huge variety of birds, insects and othersmall animals living in the hedgerows, trees and fields. Once lost, this will never be regained as itwill be replaced by small gardens, patios and pathways.

The impact on traffic in the area is of significant concern. Brislington is already congested andtraffic builds up on access points to the A4, and we have parking issues on many surroundingstreets.

The roads bordering the proposed development are already always busy- used as a rat run toavoid A4 traffic, or simply static trying to get access to the A4 depending on the time of day. Theaddition of hundreds of new homes (all of which will likely have cars, and need more than theallocated parking) will exacerbate this even further.

Particularly given the planners apparent reliance on the local bus services, and no provision tosupport other means of sustainable travel in reality- leaving a reliance on car travel. Which furtherimpacts wildlife, community and services in the area.

I would like to object to the above application.

This will create highway safety issues creating more traffic and parking issues

This will effect the environment greatly with removal of trees and natural habitat of the wildlife.

This will impact on community and services and also create drainage and flood risks

Regards

Pauline Gallagher

I strongly object to any and all house construction taking place on brislington meadows.The area is already heavily congested, poorly maintained and ignored by the council. Thecouncil's last action in this area was to ask for local assistance on improving traffic and congestionon the Bath Road. By building on the meadows, we will only see worse traffic, with hundreds morevehicles in the area.

Brislington as a residential area is in need of revitalisation, not more houses. The local GP ishorribly oversubscribed. The nearest pharmacy is Boots, which closes for lunch whilst the queuesreach down the road.

The meadows could instead be refreshed in to a enjoyable public space, for much less of the costof building houses.

I strongly object to the development of new housing on Brislington meadow.The area is already over populated and underserved, with 1 oversubscribed GP, 1 pharmacy, 1tiny play area for children and terribly unreliable public transport.There is also already horrible congestion on the roads, which will not be helped by the addition ofat least 300 more cars.Brislington is in need of investment and revitalisation for the people who already live here, nothundreds more families with no additional resources.There may well be a housing shortage, but these houses are not being built to help the people ofBristol. This is about money and greed, and it's insulting to insist anything else. Unless you plan toensure these houses aren't sold to landlords and are strictly all affordable houses, this will donothing but compound the real problem of the wealth divide in this city.Marvin Rees ran on a position of not allowing this building to go ahead and did a 180 as soon ashe was re-elected. Apart from demonstrating what a dishonest coward our Mayor is, that also tellsyou that those in charge know this plan is not the best choice for the people of Brislington. Theyjust don't care.

I strongly object to the development of new housing on Brislington meadow.The area is already over populated and underserved, with 1 oversubscribed GP, 1 pharmacy, 1tiny play area for children and terribly unreliable public transport.There is also already terrible congestion on the roads, which will not be helped by at least 300more cars.

Brislington is in need of investment and revitalisation for the people who already live here, nothundreds more families with no additional resources.There may well be a housing shortage, but these houses are not being built to help the people ofBristol. This is about money and greed, and it's insulting to insist anything else. Unless you plan toensure these houses aren't sold to landlords and are strictly all affordable houses, this will donothing but compound the real problem of the wealth divide in this city.Marvin Rees ran on a position of not allowing this building to go ahead and did a 180 as soon ashe was re-elected. Apart from demonstrating what a dishonest coward out Mayor is, that also tellsyou that those in charge know this plan is not the best choice for the people of Brislington. Theyjust don't care.

I am truly disappointed and exasperated by the plans to build on Brislington Meadows. Igenuinely believe that the proposed plan to build additional housing in this area is the biggestindication that the developers/council/mayor(!) have absolutely no idea what the area really needs.This puts any evidence of research carried out by developers regarding traffic, environment,wildlife etc into serious doubt. Having attended the consultation at St Peters Church I wasoffended by the lack of local knowledge, understanding and content displayed on the glossyboards. Clearly a 'tick box' event.Ask the residents of the area, the people who ACTUALLY LIVE HERE and they will tell you whatis actually needed, and it is not extra housing. We severely lack any kind of facilities, our childrenwaited too long for any kind of useable park and even now it's simply not good enough. And that'sit, a second rate play park, there is nothing else here! Our streets are unkept and our (street)grassed areas are left to resemble jungles.Traffic on Broomhill Road is absolutely dire, with major parking problems at the main crossinglocated near our Infant and Junior schools. THIS is a matter of urgency and this is where energyand money needs to be focused, we need it sorted as a matter if priority. Adding housing andtraffic to an already overly busing road with excessive traffic and speeding issues has been lookedinto and considered by developers resulting in them concluding very flippantly that it 'wouldn't be aproblem'. Increased traffic on our roads will surely also impact on our air quality, why do we needto be living in the centre of Bristol to be considered important enough to have clean air? Extratraffic and extra pollution so close to our schools will be harmful and dangerous for our children.Our schools are wonderful and our children love them however they don't see below the cracks,the school buildings need major investment not extra children squeezed in to make shift

classrooms. It won't come as a surprise getting a doctors appointment is nigh on impossible, thisis only ever going to get worse, it's a problem that is already out of hand.Surely the community that live here deserve to be prioritised and the area given improvement andinvestment, don't take away the green space that we enjoy and value, we have very little else.Listen to the people who live here!

I object to the proposed development on Brislington meadows

My reasons for objecting include, but are not limited to:

Loss of natural habitat:The site has previously been designated a Site of Natural Scientific Interest (SNCI)

Is a natural wildlife corridor with hedgerows and trees that cannot be replaced or replicated in adeveloped site

The government and council have declared a climate emergency. Building on greenfield sites fliesin the face of this and creates irreparable damage and will exacerbate climate change

Traffic and environmental impact:Broomhill Rd is already used as a rat run for commuters avoiding the congested A4 Bath Road. atpeak times there are bottlenecks in both directions between the A4/Sandy Park Road junction andthe A4/Emery Road junction. With another junction almost directly next to Belroyal Avenue and noother exit from the proposed development this will only increase the congestion.

Increased congestion and slow-moving vehicles will increase the air pollution within Broomhill,Brislington and the surrounding areas

Despite the proposed efforts to make the development cycle friendly it is still likely that the numberof houses present will bring in the region of 500 to 600 extra vehicles to the area also increasingthe amount of pollution

Infrastructure and services:According to a study by the Office for National Statistics Broomhill is the most isolated communityin Bristol. When it comes to transport links accessing schools GP surgeries hospitals and shopsBroomhill residents have further to go than people anywhere else in the city. Whilst the developersquoted the "20-minute neighborhood", Secondary schools, GPS Add all other services ah notrealistically accessible on foot within this time

Services within Broomhill are already overstretched including the two GP practices which areunderstaffed and have long waits for appointments

The number one bus service which serves Broomhill is unreliable and does not run after 11:30 PMor before 4:40 AM, therefore no use to shift workers. Also, whilst those catching the number one atits departure stop are currently guaranteed a seat, busses at peak times are full by the time theyreach Sandy Park Road (where commuters there only have the option of the number one). Withthe proposed development it is likely that the bus service will be overwhelmed and fewer peoplealong the route will be able catch their planned bus, and even if they do, they will be held up in thecongestion...

The water pressure in Belroyal Avenue is frequently very low and we have been advised that thisis because we are "at the end of the line" for the water from the water tower in Knowle. Thedevelopment will make this worse.

Brislington Meadows is a beautiful wild spot in the heart of Brislington. The neadows arehome to a diverse array of wildlife and plant species as well as being a valuble recreation spacefor many local residents.It doesn't seem prudent to destroy areas of wildlife and green space given the ecological crisis weare facing, especially as there are brownfield sites that could be used for housebuilding.In addition to the loss of green space and wildlife habitat, this area of Bristol doesn't have theinfrastucture and amenities to support hundreds of new homes.

Brislington Meadows is a designated Site of Natural Scientific Interest. The plan to build100s of houses in the light of a Climate and Ecological Emergency declared by the city councilshould be enough to stop this development going ahead. The cost of the effect on wildlife andservices to the area can not be justified. We need to keep these green spaces in our city forreasons such as - health and wellbeing, ecological, and reversing climate change.Building houses here will increase car traffic, over stretch our health services who are alwaysstruggling to cope. This includes our fire and police, and council support. I oppose thisdevelopment.

I am objecting to the development of 260 homes on Brislington Meadows because thereis a desperate need to retain green spaces in light of the current environmental situation.

Royal Botantic Gardens Kew say "Wild flower meadows are on e of the rarest habitats in the UKand we have lost 97% of our wild flower meadows since the 1930's. Losing our wildflowers has areal impact on the food we eat".

I am fully aware of the need for housing but this wildlife rich habitat is an ancient meadow whichwill not be replaced by just a few trees & hedges being planted around. Brownfield sites should beprioritised over our green spaces.

The Biodiversity Net Gain has not been proven and is "greenwashing", hundreds of years' worth ofmeadowland, hedges and trees once lost will be irreplaceable.

The health benefits to the Broomhill, Brislington & Bristol Community have advantages in manyrespects, providing a green tranquil space where people can walk, run and enjoy beingsurrounded by nature, which is proven to have a positive effect on health.

Not only will this development have a devastating effect on wildlife it will significantly contribute totraffic congestion and pollution on surrounding roads. The current community infrastructure andhealth services would also suffer i.e Doctors Surgeries, Community Health Services and Schools.

I ask you please to reject this proposal on these grounds; the meadows are an SNCI (site ofnature conservation interest) and should be kept for the benefit of the community as a local naturereserve.

I work on Bonville Road, facing the Meadows. The proposal for demolition of an SNCI inthe middle of a climate emergency is terrifying. I enjoy the space during my breaks. The peacefulsound of diverse grass species in the breeze, hedgerow birds singing, flowers, bees. It is amazinghere! Whatever a developer promises, they cannot replace a 200-year-old habitat. This is suicidalfor our community.

Human progression should not be allowed to happen at the expense of our naturalsites. Yes, I am for the building of affordable, sustainable houses, however there should be morethought going into the when's and where of these developments.

The current site proposed is an absolute halo for nature within the Bridlington area, it not onlysupports the life that lives there but acts as a resting spot for migratory birds, and is one of manywildlife corridors/fragments which are reducing within the urban environment. Please, please donot go ahead with this development within the current selected site, choose a site which 1. Hasminimal affect of local urban wildlife spaces and 2. If the development goes ahead else where,there should be carbon offsetting and new/improved conservation efforts funded else where toequalise the damage done by the construction of this new development.

There is not only natural benefits of this site but also anthropogenic benefits to mental health andphysical health.

Thank you for taking the time to read,

Kind regards,

Alex Rowe

I object to this proposal as I feel that it will destroy the floral/fauna habitat for the varietyof wildlife in the meadows and be detrimental to the quality of life to residents in decreasing thegreen lung in the areaThis will be a worrying loss of open green space for many of us locals who enjoy using this area.The current infactructure cannot support such an increase in housing so will need to be vastlyimproved to cope as the proposed development will be between two main roads.Broomhill Road will become much busier and will have increased air pollution. Bath Road A4,cannot take any extra traffic so will also add to pollution in the area. Local public transport isunreliable with the only major bus route into Bristol having regular cancellations of servicemeaning residents rely on their own transport.The local health centre will be further stretched to provide care.Local schools will also be affected with the increase in pupils.This proposal needs to be seriously reviewed as once the meadow is built on it cannot bereplaced.

I would like to strongly object to the new proposals for development at BrislingtonMeadows. The impact on the area will be devastating not only for the natural environment andwildlife but also for transportation, traffic issues and noise pollution. It is a beautiful wild area whichis frequented daily by all sorts of people and families. It is also very quiet and peaceful which willbe shattered if the new development is approved. The traffic situation in Brislington and inparticular along the extremely busy A4 is already at breaking point most days and the introductionof not only plant vehicles but the inevitable increased household cars will make it intolerable notonly to the existing residents but also the new ones! Increasingly areas like Brislington Meadowsare being left as conservation areas which encourage wild flora and fauna and developing this sitewoukd be a step in the wrong direction. The appearance and the character of the area will also beseverely affected. The surrounding area is already densely populated with issues already withtraffic, parking and unsafe driving due to the busy A4 which will be exacerbated. It already doesnot feel safe walking along the pavement along school road! Many more houses and people willalso have a negative effect on the local community and services. Please reject these plans.

OBJECTIONI am a local resident and live a short walk from the proposed development. I strongly object to the development for the following reasons:The potential loss of Brislington Meadows which was once a SNCI area (Site of Nature and Conservation Interest) is devastating for Brislington and the wildlife. I am not aware of any consultation or decision being made public that the SNCI was removed,Many species have been seen in Brislington Meadows or hunting nearby, species such as Barn Owl, Kestrel, Sparrow hawk, House Sparrow, Song Thrush, Foxes, hedgehogs, Badger, slow worms and bats just to name a few. It is worrying that their habitats and hunting grounds will become a building site/housing and they will be displaced.The ancient hedgerows, support these habitats along with the many trees on the site. I am opposed to any of the hedgerows and trees being removed from the site, these are vital to any wildlife and some are believed to be possibly medieval, the hedgerow itself should be protected under the Environmental Act. The fields are rich with species rich grasslands that you will find hard to find / replace elsewhere, along with the trees around the site makes this a natural haven which cannot be offset elsewhere (BNG). There are natural water runways where the water naturally runs into the stream which sometimes unable to cope. Once the natural soakaway of the meadows are gone the water run off will increase and will run down the hill. Following wet weather there is often a stream of water running down the hill and Victory Park onto School Road. I am concerned that the water run off will flood the road and local houses, despite the assurances of Homes England this is something I believe can happen should the natural soak away be dug up and concreted over. I also noted that they are considering put in a large tanks to deal with the water run off, this will then provide a wetland area however in order to put this in they will have to dig

several metres, not only will this displace any wildlife already in this area but it may affect the trees/soil/wildlife in the adjoining fields that are not part of the development. There is no such proposals for the field adjacent to School road which means the water will run off into the allotments. If tanks or similar are put in place will this be a health and safety issue or will railings some sort of barrier put up which then defeats the object of having this feel of an open green space on a public right of way.Victory Park gets very boggy now and the football field at the top floods making it unusable at times, the development has said about how the new homes will not get flooded but I think more thought needs to go into protecting any green space surrounding the site as well as the homes already in place.Any development this vast is going to have an impact on traffic regardless of any cycleways/footpaths they propose, the current transport options for Brislington East is not great. The Bath Road is known for poor traffic flow and has high pollution levels. Any surveys carried out over the past 2 years will not be a true reflection of the true traffic/pollution levels due to the increase of people working from home because of Covid.The local secondary school Oasis Academy Brislington was over subscribed this year and the Doctors do not appear to have capacity to take on any new patients as I had to wait 6 weeks for a telephone appointment. There are very little improvements proposed to the infrastructure and if the flats are located to the East of the site next to the trading estate I guess they will act as a noise buffer for the rest of the site from the trading estate. With regards to opening up the footpaths to make it more accessible I fear this will cause anti-social behaviour, by removing the kissing gates on the current path off School Road this will leave the park open to those that use off road bikes, we have an issue in the area already and I do not feel the proposals have thought about the people already living in the area and how the changes will affect us. Not only will they get access to the meadows they will also access the park and the neighbouring fields. Homes England has included the path between the two allotments but do not own the land, I believe this is still owned by BCC, I worry about the location of the proposed zebra crossing, there is a lovely tree next to the proposed crossing the lane access may affect allotment users (access/parking) I feel this should be a separate issue that needs to be looked at along with traffic calming measures on School Road.In my opinion the houses and flats are crammed in to make the site financially viable, they have left green space to the south of the site but this is due to placing water tanks and the pylons, I do not believe residents (my) opinions were taken on board and mostly felt like a tick box exercise. The site is difficult to develop due to the constraints such as topography and pylons, I fear that any developer that takes this site on will not be able to provide the 30% affordable housing proposed and will want to build more than stated in this application.The Noise and Dust caused by the development will have a big impact on residents as well as contractor traffic /parking.I feel we have been misled by Bristol City Council from the start over 11 years ago when this was first considered under the site allocations plan, we campaigned back then due to the ecology and importance to the site. We also voted to save 2 green spaces (field at the south of the proposed site and green behind the old police station), the cabinet decided to sell these spaces despite previously saying it was a community decision.

The grazing field Northwest of the development was also sold by BCC, and if all is to be believed BCC then persuaded the owner of the meadows that was almost landlocked to sell to Homes England so housing could be built. Then just before the Mayor elections The Mayor announced the meadows would not be built on despite not having the powers to stop it. Brislington Meadows is a unique site in that it is natural grassland and ancient hedgerows. It has small woodland areas where bats have been seen. We will never be able to reverse the damage if a development on this land goes ahead. Thank you

1: I have concerns on the impact on clinical services in the area as it is already extremely difficult to get a doctors appointment. 2: The increase in traffic joining the already busy Bath road. 3: The impact the loss of the meadows will have on the wildlife.

The Meadows are a site of nature conservation interest, a place of importantbiodiversity, in animals and plants, and a green space that is used by and benefits the wholecommunity in Brislington. For this reason, it would be a travesty to build on this land.

There isn't sufficient public transport provided to accommodate this many new residentsthat would live in these homes being build in the area. Also traffic is terrible as it is this will make itworse, we need to keep out green space.

I object to the proposed development at Brislington Meadows on the grounds of loss ofan area of significant conservation, wildlife and recreational value and significant impact on thelocal community.

Loss of conservation and ecological value:

Any development on Brislington Meadows would be a significant loss both to the people of thelocal area, and to the flora and fauna found on the site. The site is of significant ecologicalimportance with an incredibly rich biodiversity of species. Despite being a limited survey, theinvertebrates survey recorded 365 species, and goes on to state that significantly more specieswould have been recorded had the survey been carried out at different times of year. Included inthe species are some which are nationally scarce or endangered, and the site is assessed asholding vice county value for invertebrates. It would be impossible to simply create a new site toreplace this. The rare grasslands and historic hedgerows have developed over hundreds of yearssince 1778. The majority of this land will be completely destroyed if the development goes ahead.The planners aim to mitigate this:

"grassland and scrub habitats would be enhanced to increase botanical diversity forinvertebrates... new planting would select species of value for invertebrates..."

while this sounds plausible on paper, the reality is that the majority of the established flora will be

replaced with brick and concrete and the loss cannot be mitigated by a few new plants and somebrand new hedges. There are a number of flaws with the government's biodiversity net gain toolincluding that it is habitat-based rather than species based. It therefore does not account for thespecific rare and endangered species which have been found on the site - these will be lost. It alsodoes not value the type of scrubby landscape typically seen at Brislington Meadows, despite thefact that these environments are incredibly valuable for many species. It takes decades for wildlifeto establish and it is not feasible to think that a few very small areas on the new site, with newplants established can simply replace that loss. I believe this is an inappropriate use of theBiodiversity Metric tool.

In addition, the BNG report makes significance reference to a small portion of the site designatedas an SNCI, with an emphasis on ensuring maximum protection for this area. However, the entiresite was previously designated an SNCI. In deregistering the majority of the site (with no evidencefor doing so, or reasons given), the authority has failed to provide adequate protection to ensurethe planned development takes full and appropriate account of the nature contained within thesite, except on the very limited part that remains an SNCI. There is significant evidence withinrecent ecological surveys that the entire site should still have SNCI status.

Loss of health, well-being and recreational value:

My family visits the Meadows most days for walking, running, relaxation and appreciation ofnature. The site is home to a family of foxes as well as visiting deer. We also regularly seewoodpeckers, jays, thrush, kestrels and many other birds. There are no other similar natural siteswithin a reasonably short walking distance from my house. I cannot emphasise enough how muchmy family and I value this piece of the land and the sense of well-being and relaxation this brings,as well as the chance to exercise in natural surroundings away from traffic fumes. It provides afantastic green corridor to access Eastwood Farm Nature Reserve when we want to do a longerextended walk. I cannot imagine living somewhere where we don't have access to this type ofnatural environment without having to get in the car. It is also a place of community: I often speakwith others out walking their dogs and enjoying the space. The Meadows are simply stunningparticularly at the peak of Spring-Summer growth, and I would strongly urge anyone involved indeciding on its future to come and take a walk around the site on a sunny afternoon so you cansee for yourself what would be lost.

The importance of nature and green places to both mental and physical health and well-being isnow being increasingly recognised to the extent that GP's now prescribe activities in nature as analternative to medication in some cases. The proximity of The Meadows to many residentialdwellings makes it a very accessible site and its value in this respect cannot be overstated.

Impact on local population:

The route from Brislington into the town centre and other roads around Brislington are often verycongested with heavy traffic. 260 new homes will increase the population of East Brislington byaround 5% and will inevitably lead to increased unacceptable levels of traffic noise, fumes,queues, and air pollution, which will negatively impact the health of the local population.In addition, it is very difficult to get an appointment at the local GP surgery. They are alreadyunder-resourced for the number of patients and an additional 260 new houses will make this muchworse.

While I appreciate the need for affordable housing, I believe it would be a huge mistake to allowthis development to go ahead, and will be contrary to the direction of government policy (I refer tothe PM's comments at the conference speech in Oct 2021 relating to there being no need to buildon greenfield sites, but taking a " brownfield first" approach). It will result in a significant andirreversible loss and will have a considerable negative impact on the local population. There aremany brown field sites which should be used first, and other policy changes which could relievesome of the need for new houses to be built.

As a long standing resident living close to the site, member of Save BrislingtonMeadows and March on the meadows organiser, I object fully to any proposal of building onBrislington meadows.

Building on Brislington meadows would be absolutely travesty. A short sighted answer to long termproblem.Housing for our ever growing population will always be needed but shouldn't be at the expense ofthe environment and the growing climate crisis. There are many other brownfield sites in Bristol.

It quite simply is not the right place for houses for several reasons -

The site is an area of conservation interest, a diverse and rich ecosystem of grassland containingancient hedgerows and veteran trees that many species of plants and animals call home. It links agreen corridor in the area to Nightingale Valley and Eastwood farm.

The site is a natural sponge in an area of historical flooding, draining into Brislington brook. Anybuilding would cause significant increases in rainwater runoff. The corner of Jean Road hasflooded in my living memory and prior to that, the great floods of the 60s make memorable storiesin my family. We must not forget our history.

Traffic is already a large part of every Bristolians life, Broomhill road is extremely busy and wouldstruggle with the extra usage, whoever imagined that one road in to the development would work

has not tried to commute in rush hour.

We already have an A road passing through our area producing high levels of pollution chokingthe area with fumes. Trees do a great job in mitigating the C02 so increased traffic and less treeswill amplify this to the detriment of health and global warming.

Public transport is poor with only one bus route serving Broomhill, this is already woefullyinadequate.

Our Drs and dentists, schools and other services are already oversubscribed without another 260households requiring them. The area is not well blessed with food options and only has a small co-op meaning people will need to get in the car to do their weekly shop, thus further increasingcongestion.

Quite simply this development is highly flawed and positively not welcome. The people ofBrislington don't want it, the Bristol City councillors don't support it and Marvin Rees pledged toprotect it.

To quote Lady Macbeth, "what is done, cannot be undone"

Please listen to the people and do the right thing.

I object to the planning application for Brislington Meadows on the following grounds:Climate emergency - to build on this Greenfield site at a time when we are in a climate emergencyis senseless. The meadows provide habitats for many species which will result in a net loss of saidhabitats as well as displacement of species to more urban areas, creating issues with "pests". Thecouncil are currently offering grants for people to improve green spaces which is at odds with theproposal to build on the meadows.Lack of meaningful consultation - the consultation offered by HE was insufficient and gave littleroom for movement on the plans. The consultation was more of a Q&A for residents to understandwhat was being proposed rather than to impact that proposal. During the consultation meeting thepresenters googled local school numbers to see if there was sufficient school places showing thisresearch had not been done in advance.Lack of local services - the doctor's surgeries are already overrun, it is basically impossible to getan NHS dentist in the area and these plans will exacerbate this situation.15 minute neighbourhood - this does not apply to the Meadows site as the grocery options areinsufficient, meaning people will turn to their cars to go shopping increasing traffic on already busyroads. This will have a negative impact on air pollution/quality

I object in full to the development of Brislington Meadows.The impact on the area will be devastating not only for the natural environment and wildlife butalso for transportation, traffic issues and noise pollution. The ancient Meadows are an extremelyimportant area full of wildlife and flora/fauna and biodiversity. The local community need and usethis area for exercise, dog walking and the benefit of their mental health.We are in a climate crisis and Bristol City Council need to take the objections of this developmentvery seriously.The traffic situation in Brislington and particularly along the extremely busy A4 is already atbreaking point most days.There are plenty of Brown field sites in Bristol that can be developed and should most definitelyconsidered before Green field sites.

I own the bungalow on left of the planned development. I have enough disruption withthe traffic on the main road. The new houses will make things worse and cause traffic problemsand no doubt more accidents. It's a fast main road. The open space we have is limited nowbecause of this development taking place. We don't have much green space left do we really needto build on it? I walk my dogs over there and it's a nice walk to vicarage park. No doubt this will beblocked off. I'm against the planning and for good reason. Homes England have let the site getvery overgrown and all the weeds are very tall and heavy. They are now growing into my garageand causing damage. The side of my garage has too much weight from the weeds and water isnow getting in causing damp and damage to the garage itself. I've already had to replace the door.

I'm against this application as it will effect the community with more cons than pros. Myconcerns are

- traffic- parking- road safety- pollution - noise, dust, fumes- effect on trees and nature conservation- effect on wildlife- Impact on the community - doctors, schools, public transport- impact on local jobs

Brislington meadows is enjoyed regularly by myself and my 5 children not to mention the rest ofbrislington/Broomhill who regularly and some daily uses the space. It also a place that is great forwalks for people with mental health like myself when we need a minute to regain ourself. Manytimes I have wandered through here gathering my thoughts while surrounded by nature andwildlife and have found peace in these fields.

Objection to building on Brislington meadows.

Homes England have talked a lot about a biodiversity net gain. My understanding of this is that itwill be mainly done with mitigation measures, therefore any net gain would be off site, if at all,short to medium term. This effectively creates a biodiversity net loss for the area. Whenquestioned on this on the first zoom call, Homes England biologist admitted this to be the case.The biodiversity study seems only to focus on key species; birds, mammals and largeinvertebrates, the site has many more species that weren't even mentioned i.e. amphibians, suchas toads which have been photographed along the middle hedgerows.

The site has never had any kind of development therefore supports a vast array of microorganisms and mycorrhizal network. The study carried out by Homes England was merely asnapshot and doesn't represent the entire picture. There has been little mention of flora and faunaagain only focus on key notable species. Any building would wreck the symbiotic relationshipbetween these ecosystems. Overall, to sell the positives of net gains is a lie.

The removal of large sections of hedgerow does not constitute wildlife corridors overall, as thevast majority of wildlife on the site are prey animals. These animals tend to use hedges forprotection when moving from area to area. Possibly a point of reference for Homes England couldbe https://ptes.org/hedgerow/hedgerow-wildlife/

A further point of reference that proves wildlife corridor are of little or no benefit when used as

proposed in this development is https://www.southtyneside.gov.uk/media/46075/Wildlife-Corridors-Review-2020/pdf/Wildlife_Corridors_Review_Final_Report_A.pdfm=637599559834700000 In this report a wildlife corridor needs to be a min of 100m with a further 50-100m buffer. Leavingminimal boundary hedges does not constitute a wildlife corridor.

In terms of increased access to green space as per the proposal, surely by building houses andpaving over of the meadows this will be greatly reduced? Simply adding a boardwalk over areasunder the electricity pylons and adding some water collection ponds doesn't constitute as a greatasset for people to use. This land, or accessible green space as it's called, is no more thanunusable building land. The runoff ponds are required by building regulations to collect water as itcan no longer be absorbed by the soil under the proposal.

After detailed discussions with the team from Homes England there appears to be lack of interestin protecting the areas that have been allocated as green space. The "dipping ponds" as soeloquently described by Homes England won't be accessible dipping ponds due to the dangers ofthe banks as the water level will increase and decrease. So, to sell them to the local residents as agreat asset is lie. The next problem with the ponds is that although the water runoff from the drainsaround the roads will go into oil and sand traps there needs to be clear plan laid out formaintenance over the long term and clear path of responsible for the future. Maintaining thesesystems is currently expensive and will become more expensive over time due to environmentalpressure to recycle rather than dispose of the pollutants.

The mix of non-permeable and permeable surfaces to slow the runoff from the hard surfaces doesnot mitigate against pollutants getting into the runoff ponds and although pollution checks on thiswater I'm sure will be carried out in the short term, again who will be responsible in the long termas they will end up becoming a polluted soup of no use to wildlife? There is evidence in Europewhere water run off systems have been in use for many years where these ponds have become acocktail of various toxic chemicals and have now been fenced off to stop access by humans andlarger wildlife.

Consideration has been given to open up a single footpath towards Alison Rd to the rear of theschool. The balance footpaths already exist or are paths that have been realigned to suit thedevelopment. The development does not add to the existing network of the cycle tracks in Bristolor even connect them. These are all named as footpaths and are not cycle ways. The cycle waythat does appear on the plan is actually a roadway or as creatively called in the presentation "astreet that connects open spaces"!

Although considered somewhat irrelevant in a development of this size, under planning rules, thecurrent traffic situation around Broomhill Road is busy and becomes horrendous during peakcommuting and school run hours as it is used as a rat run to avoid the bottle neck aroundBrislington square and the junction of West Town Lane, which currently has been flagged as

having some of the slowest speeds of traffic movement in Bristol. The increase of pollution due toidling and slow-moving vehicles in an area with schools and a large number of houses must begiven greater consideration.

The development will also add additional pressures from vehicle movement onto one single road(Broomhill Road) from public transport and single car use, which goes against government travelplans, assessments and statements, having a negative impact on surrounding streetshttps://www.gov.uk/guidance/travel-plans-transport-assessments-and-statements

Building on Brislington Meadows will be a loss of a massive asset to Brislington and Bristol aswhole. The local area has a plethora of non green space areas and buildings that are available tobe redeveloped but seem to be ignored or stuck in some black hole between greedy developersand blocking by BCC due to planning issues. The former Office furniture factory on Bath Roadacquired by Sovereign housing association has sat undeveloped for years which would offer allaffordable homes and the new site off Flowers Hill surely must be a better option as alreadydeveloped.

As the area is a virgin site that has never been built on, the desecration of this natural environmentis irreplaceable and completely disregards the ecological emergency declared by Bristol citycouncil in 2020. To build on this site, regardless of what has been previously designated for theland surely contravenes this?

Your sincerely Ian Purvis

As a former resident of Brislington, the loss of natural, untouched habit can not beoverlooked by BCC for the following reasons.

Net Biodiversity loss. Homes England's biologist admitted this on the first consultation call whenJonny Palmer pushed them to give an honest answer. Mitigation of losses would be off site andthere were no clear plans on if any benefit coming back to the residents of Brislington.

Lack of consideration to all wildlife that inhabit or use the area either to live or transition through toother green sites via the hedgerows. A handful of species seem to have been mentioned, but notfull consideration, in particular, native animals which are currently under threat. Wildlife corridorssuggested simply aren't viable due to size and loss of connectivity between hedgerows. Anybuilding would wreck the symbiotic relationship between these ecosystems. Overall, to sell thepositives of net gains is untrue.

The area of land deemed as green space as per the proposal is simply land that Homes Englandwould be unable to build on due to the existing pylons. The ponds proposed are simply to catchrunoff from the development so as to mitigate flooding on School Road and the paving over of thesoil. No consideration has been given to the long term pollutants which would get into the watersystem. This area is hardly a selling point to the local residents!

The current traffic situation around Broomhill Road is busy enough, especially around peak traveltimes when people use it to bypass the hold ups on Bath Road at the junction of West Town Lane.

Adding more homes, would inevitably increase traffic congestion further, create more idling trafficand increase pollution levels impacting existing residents and nearby schools.

Consideration must be given to other sites with planning already agreed and brownfield sites overthe desecration of green, virgin land which totally disregards the ecological emergency declaredby Bristol city council in 2020.

I look forward to Bristol City Council's full consideration to mine and others objections to theplanning proposal and to fully reject Homes Englands application to build on Bristol's beautiful anddwindling green spaces.

Kind regards, Claire.

It is important to protect our greenspaces for future generations as we have all becomeaware of in recent years. The meadows should be kept for the local people of Brislington andbiodiversity. Nature is impotant for mental health and alsp physical health benefits are proven tobe outdoors, especially post pandemic. If these houses are built there is already a lack of healthservices in the area,it will require a new Gp surgery, more school places will be required as manyprimary schools in the area already oversubscribed. The roads and traffic already are congested inthe local area and on Bath Rd, from other flat developments. This would add to the problemsignificantly. Please reconsider building 260 homes here and save the meadows please.

Please leave the meadows as they bring nature to our back door in Brislington. Theyare well used by walkers and dog owners alike and bring the community of Brislington together.

We have so few places of wild nature in and around Bristol, given the crisis inbiodiversity we should be protecting those we do have and not allowing them to be built on. Pleasedon't build on this land, but seek instead refurbishment and retrofitting of the many unusedbuildings in Bristol city centre: better for connectivity on foot and active transport, better for theenvironment and the climate emergency.

I would like to object on the grounds of protecting the ecology and environment of thissite. It would be better to site housing developments on land which doesn't have such rich floraand fauna.

Fully object to this area being developed on.

This area should actually be protected from this happening ever again.

Start building on areas which have already been built on but no longer used instead ofdestroying wildlife areas.

I object to the development on the meadows for a number of reasons. I walk in themeadows regularly with my family and dog and it is a haven for wildlife and biodiversity. I've beenable to show my children the diverse flowers and plants that grow there as the changing seasons.There are no other large meadows like this in Bristol a d they should be protected.I also object as a local resident. My children both attended Broomhill School and the roads throughthe area are notorious for traffic and there have been several accidents already. Adding the extrahousing to this area will make this worse. The area has one of the highest levels of deprivation inthe city and does not have adequate shops, services or healthcare for the extra houses.Broomhill's best feature is the green spaces both in the school and the meadows, linking toEastwood Farm. Without these the area will have little goi g for it and will decline. Children at theschool often live in flats and social housing with little space, the meadows give them a naturalplace to learn and play and escape the pollution from the A4 and busy local roads.I also object in the context of planning-the area is surrounded by derelict or semi used warehousesand industrial buildings on brownfield sites. Redeveloping these would mean that the housingcould still be created; reviving the industrial area without destroying the natural assets of thecommunity.

Dear Bristol City Council

I am writing to object to the Brislington Meadow development. I am a resident of Brislington, living at 16 Bellevue Terrace, BS44JP.

I am extremely concerned about the above proposals, and the negative impact it will have on the area, with there being no consideration of the impact on local amenities.

I believe it will create unmanageable additional traffic in an area that is already severely impacted by significant congestion, the highways will not cope with the additional and significant increases in vehicles will be very detrimental.

I am also very saddened by the loss of this very important environment and habitat for local wildlife and the loss of trees, in a space that is highly valued by the local community.

The residents will suffer from all of the above and the fact that there is no additional investment in services for local people is also very worrying.

I am strongly against losing this very precious community space.

I do hope you will take the views of the local people into consideration.

Many thanks

Vicky Lee

Dear Planning Officer/ or Planning committee,

I am writing to register my objection to the above application.

I am objecting on the grounds that this is a lovely greenfield meadow area and a site of nature conservation interest with great value to wildlife. I feel that it is very important to protect nature sites and not build on them. It is also of benefit for people around to have green spaces to walk in. I don't live right next to it, but in nearby Totterdown and I have enjoyed walking there and would much prefer to be able to continue to do so in the future.

In general, I don't believe polluted Bristol needs more housing more that it needs precious green space. Please use a brownfield site if you must. We certainly don't need more housing when we don't have the necessary facilities for the people that live here already. The difficulty in getting a GP appointment is really bad currently, and surely this will only get worse if more housing is built and the population increases. I'm not sure if this is a factor you can consider in your deliberations, but if not, please register my opposition on the grounds of loss of nature habitat.

Thank you for reading,

Kind regards,Fiona Cresswell

As a child lived in Belroyal Avenue and played in the meadows which is the site of this proposed development. I still live locally and regularly walk in the meadows with my grandchildren who now also by happy coincidence live in Belroyal Avenue.

Here are my objections to this proposed development

1. I believe this development will have an effect on trees, hedges and wildlife and therefore should be denied.The National Trust have started a scheme to open up green corridors in urban areas and I cannot believe that at this time when urban green space has at last been recognised for peoples' health and well being, also as a valuable tool against Global Warming, that this development is being considered.

2. I believe this proposed development will have an impact upon highway safety. Broomhill Road is already used as a rat run for traffic from the A4 Bath Road.

3.There will be an impact on the local community and services. Broomhill Children's Centre, Infants & Junior School are oversubscribed.

4.There will inevitably be a drainage and flood risk as more houses and driveways replace fields and meadows.

I consider these objections are relevant and therefore this application should be denied.

Kathryn Hale

I object to the planning proposals. This site is of key ecological importance for Bristol,and allows carbon to be absorbed, which is vital here in the city. It also allows children theopportunity to see lots of wildlife they wouldn't otherwise get to see.

I strongly object to this proposed development. The meadows and hedgerows are wellestablished natural features that are host to a rich bio-diversity including protected slow worms.The importance of this area for wildlife and humans alike cannot be overstated given the climatecrisis that Bristol CC proclaimed to declare. The evidence of of Bristol CC taking this crisisseriously is yet to be seen. This loss of habitat and community green space is whollyunacceptable.

It is widely accepted that local infrastructure and civic amenities will be put under intolerablepressure by this development and the local community and the environment will be poorer for it.

Bristol Council should be protecting our green spaces not building on them.We are in a Climate Crisis and need all our green spaces for the sake of our mental health and forthe ecosystem.I object to building on all green sites in Bristol, the amenity of this area will be totally destroyed bybuilding on it. Wildlife will be harmed.The mayor promised that no building would take place on this site, you have to keep this promiseas to go back on your word builds distrust.If you care about the people of Bristol you will not build on green sites. There are enough brownsites to go around. Thank you.

This is a green space that the labour mayor promised would not be built on. What asurprise that once re-elected the planning application goes in. Once lost we will never get thisgreen space back.

Brislington meadows are incredibly important not just from a Green Belt perspective, butalso for local diversity of nature and to have beneficial green space for local residents. Brislingtonis already caught on one of the main commuter routes between Bristol and bath and the residentsalready have to deal with the associated noise and pollution. Now the these plans want to takeaway one of the last remaining green lungs of the area.

Green areas should be protected.

I take my child here daily. It would be a shame for it to be replaced with houses whichare not only unaffordable, but to be taking away yet another green space.

I wish to object to this proposal in the strongest terms. Brislington Meadows are a site ofsocial, cultural and environmental importance. They are a place for exercise, and thus contributeto the mental health of the many who enjoy walking there; they are a site representing ecologicalhistory, and play a huge role in understanding the development of the area; and - most importantly- are the home to countless insects, birds, animals and flora. Losing the Meadows would break thechain connecting life here with other green spaces, which would bring about the demise of theflora and fauna and hence the demise of air quality etc. in the city.

It would be a real shame to lose this wonderful green space which is cherished by manyof the locals as well as individuals from other parts of Bristol. Green spaces like this need to bekept and have great benefits on the environment and local ecosystem as well as the physical andmental health of residents.

I am objecting to this development for the reasons stated below:The Mayor made a bid to ensure that this development would not go ahead some time ago.The land is of great importance to the local community due to its green space. There are manycommunity events across the year in the park next door which often spill out into the meadows.Many dog walkers of all ages meet in the fields to enjoy the peace. Bath Road already has a hugebuild up of traffic leading people to divert through Brislington, causing an impact to highway safetyand traffic on quieter streets, this would be made greater if the development went ahead.The effect on the conservation area as a whole would be devastating, the hedgerows are ancient.

I objections to the housing proposal for the meadows because

Turning the meadows into houses would evict the local wildlife from their homes along withdestroying trees many years old.

Go against the government and councils plans to save and protect green space.

Create more traffic and congestion on a road which already struggles to manage the amount ofcars.

Many accidents have happened on Broomhill road and this could make things worse.

Water pressure is dyer at times and this will only make things worse leaving many without water.

Sacrificing school fields for developments should never be an option, the children need this space,furthermore, could make the children more vulnerable whilst there.

During the construction of the buildings there will be added fumes and dust in the air effecting thehealth of the locals.

The loss of the meadows would have a great impact of the health and well being of all those whouse it. Green spaces promote healthier life styles.

Excess cars will clog up already congested nearby streets.

Local services will not manage the increase in demand.

I object to any building on this site as this is a haven for flora and fauna which I feelshould be preserved. Care for the natural environment should be put first as once it's gone itcannot be replaced. This site is next to a number of empty derelict buildings which have stoodunused for a significant period of time. If there is a need for new housing surely brown field sitessuch as this should be used so as not to degrade the natural environment further. Whilst Iappreciate it is not that simple, we are in a time of unprecedented loss of wildlife which should notbe ignored. Secondly, this is also an important area of open space which local residents such asmyself use regularly. The mental health of individuals is dramatically improved when there isaccess to nature and the pandemic has clearly evidenced this. The number of open spaces in thelocal area is reducing all the time and we cannot loose further green spaces without negativeimpacts on the health of local people. There also seems to be a disregard of long standing issuesin the local area which would be detrimentally affected by further housing i.e. minimal publictransport, high levels of congestion (and therefore likely to be air pollution), and a lack of amenitiessuch as doctors and dentists. All of this is good reason why this is not an appropriate site to build.

I object to any building on this site as this is a haven for flora and fauna which I feelshould be preserved. Care for the natural environment should be put first as once it's gone itcannot be replaced. This site is next to a number of empty derelict buildings which have stoodunused for a significant period of time. If there is a need for new housing surely brown field sitessuch as this should be used so as not to degrade the natural environment further. Whilst Iappreciate it is not that simple, we are in a time of unprecedented loss of wildlife which should notbe ignored. Secondly, this is also an important area of open space which local residents such asmyself use regularly. The mental health of individuals is dramatically improved when there isaccess to nature and the pandemic has clearly evidenced this. The number of open spaces in thelocal area is reducing all the time and we cannot loose further green spaces without negativeimpacts on the health of local people. There also seems to be a disregard of long standing issuesin the local area which would be detrimentally affected by further housing i.e. minimal publictransport, high levels of congestion (and therefore likely to be air pollution), and a lack of amenitiessuch as doctors and dentists. All of this is good reason why this is not an appropriate site to build.

We as Friends of Victory Park wish to object to the proposed planning permission forthe building of 260 houses. To quote the supermarkets "when it's gone it's gone" except there isno "buy one get one free" there is only one Meadows in Brislington. A true once in a lifetimespecial offer. A gem of the community, Brislington is proud to have. We are tired of being assetstripped.

Brislington meadows is a hugely important green space, highly valued and irreplaceable. Thesaviour of our sanity, the green lung of our community and the living history of an area. It can betraced back to the 1700's and beyond and it is as well trod now as it was in yesteryear. Thepandemic has done much to amplify the importance of living near nature for mental health and itbecame a coping mechanism for many. It's trees and hedgerows bear fruit and flowers not only forthe birds and the bees but for many a human forager as well.

It's rich and diverse habitat is deemed a site of nature conservation interest complete with nativegrasslands, ancient hedgerows and veteran trees. The very things we are being told are crucial toour existence if we are to avert a climate crisis. It links a green corridor to Nightingale Valley andEastwood farm allowing many species to roam and reproduce to future proof their existence.

The site is one that acts as sponge for rainfall, slowly releasing it into Brislington brook and theriver beyond. Flooding is historically a problem in Brislington and it is only logical that by removingthe natural environment and replacing it with manmade surfaces such as roads and driveways therunoff of rainwater will be drastically more and the flood risk increased for the houses at the

bottom of the valley.

The infrastructure surrounding the site is simply inadequate to cope with the increase in traffic thisdevelopment will bring. Broomhill road is already extremely busy and is poorly serviced by publictransport, the limited food options in the area will require people to get in the car to shop as well asget to work. Spilling out onto an already choked A4 lessening the air quality further.

Services are not able to cope with the increase in families coming into the area, we alreadystruggle to get an appointment with Drs or Dentist and the schools in the area are oftenoversubscribed. Nothing is added to improve the quality of life for people already living here,mostly in an area of low socioeconomic status.

There is no appetite for this development, the Friends of Victory Park don't want it,the local peopledon't want it and staged a protest march and our own councillors including the mayor don't want it!Bristol City Council has announced its own climate emergency, how can it possibly be deemedsuitable? Just because it was included in an out of date plan before the true importance ofgreenspace was known.

So many other brownfield sites are available around Bristol for housing that this has to bescrapped for all our sakes. We are only the custodians of this world and we must make everyeffort to preserve and protect it for future generations.

My objections are,The loss of wildlife, birds, foxes, deer etc. along with all the other wildlife that is not seen such asbees, butterflies that the meadows provide for these insects. There could be a good naturereserve sited within the meadows.The surrounding road system is very busy now without adding to it. Not enough parking will beincluded with the housing. Most local residents have 2/3 or more vehicles per household leading toon street parking making the local roads even more dangerous. A higher volume of people willneed schools, doctors, dentist even a chemist. Payment by the developers, if any, will not buildnew surgeries or schools but only go into their bank accounts.Build on brown fields not meadows which the eco system needs.Regards,CS.

I wholeheartedly object to this short-sighted and destructive planning application.Brislington Meadows are an historic open space in the heart one of the least well served parts ofBristol. The loss of natural habitats for numerous wild flowers, insects and animal speciesincluding 10 or our 12 national bat species would be catastrophic to the local environment. We areat the centre of a climate crisis and destroying further open spaces is counter to GovernmentPolicy and the steps that are needed to help curtail our current situation.The planning application, if accepted will bring further traffic congestion, lowering further thequality of air in our neighbourhoods, along with additional noise pollution and road safety issues.Schools in the local area are already full, leading to further car journeys at peak time. I urge you toplease reject the application for this site. This land can never be reclaimed once lost and, for thebenefit of all who use this space for their mental health and wellbeing, this amazing open spaceand habitat has to be preserved for the community and future generations.

To whom it may concern, As a local resident, I wholeheartedly object to the proposeddevelopment of land at Brislington Meadows. I am sure you are already inundated with manyobjections such as this and as such I'll keep it brief. I have two main areas of objection. Living atclose quarters means concerns about strain on resources and infrastructure: commuters, gppractice,energy supplies, water and sewage services, waste,police , schools and other serviceswill all be under additional pressure, not to mention additional traffic congestion and air qualityissues.Alongside this are all the issues regarding the meadow itself. At present it's a beautifulunspoiled place as it has been for hundreds of years yielding countless examples of wildlife,plants,grasses and trees. The residents of the local community do not want this sanctuary to bedestroyed. Please do not destroy it.

Yours sincerely,Ian Gover.

I object to this proposed development on several counts. I am in my 50s, grew up inBrislington, moved away and then moved back about 20 years ago. The meadows are a wonderfulnature-filled resource on our doorstep. If you walk around and listen there are so many differentbirds that have made the meadows their home. Over the past few years we have seen foxes,badgers, raptors - particularly buzzards, sparrowhawks, kestrels - woodcock and barn owls. Acouple of months ago, the cuckoo flowers and cotton grass were out. A month ago the pignut wasin full bloom along with the hawthorn, this week the bird's foot trefoil is out, soon to be followed bythe knapweed. It is a cornucopia of amazing flowers and plants and wildlife and would be such atravesty to lose this rare and valuable resource. To walk around the meadows during lockdownreally hit home how precious a resource they are for mental wellbeing. The meadows also act as asponge which reduces the risk of flooding at the bottom of School Road. There are also naturalsprings in the meadows which I suspect will cause problems for the homeowners if built on. Wesee various springs around Brislington streets which add to the volume of water running downroads. Given that we have lost over 90% of our meadows in the past 100 years surely we shouldbe doing more to preserve this precious habitat? There is a manufacturing building on the BathRoad opposite Arnos Park which has been empty for years and is an absolute eye-sore. Candevelopers not knock it down and build on this plot of land? There are so many other areas thatcould be developed into housing with miminum impact to wildlife and people's wellbeing. Themeadows have been around for hundreds of years, it is one of the last parts of "old Brislington", anarea of great historical value and would be an absolute travesty if it were developed. We do needmore housing but please not on a beautiful, wildlife-abundant area that is our amazing meadows.In today's society it really is about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. I

strongly object to this planning application.

I object to allowing planning permission to build on Brislington Meadows on the groundsof loss of amenities. They are beautiful and ancient meadows where Bristol residents can walkand relax, so important for health when we live in such a polluted city. Please build on brownfieldsites and not on such important reserves for wildlife where we can find peace and fresh air.

I moved to Brislington 20 years ago and for all of that time Brislington Meadows hasbeen a wonderful place to go to be with nature. I have seen how the Meadows have changed frombeing grazed by cows - not too may - to how they are now after grazing ceased. The meadows area delightful place to take the dogs for a walk, listening to all the different birds and occasionallyseeing a fox, or even a deer. Sometimes, we have seen horses grazing in there who have"escaped" from adjacent fields and it was uplifting to see their enjoyment of the lush grass andmany foodplants such as all sorts of clover, birds foot trefoil, knapweed, bluebells, celandine.There are so many types of grasses there as well as wild carrot and many other umbellifers.

There is one slightly boggy area obvious by the cuckoo flowers and cotton grass but there are alsosprings that although not flowing all the time, can be tracked by the green growth of the grasswhere they are. These have been there for as long as I have visited so are not transient. It worriesme that with climate change and the increasing frequency of heavy downpours this is not a goodtime to build on a large area of land that is probably very important in stopping flooding throughVictory Park down onto School Road. I have seen Brislington Brook very high on occasion as itflows through the channels through the area and can see how Nightingale valley could flood underadditional run-off from a development on the Meadows.

This is a worry.

In the plans, half the Meadows seem to be used as a sink for this runoff with access only on raisedwalkways. I may be misinterpreting this but I could see this area of Meadow changing totally in

character and becoming abandoned and a dumping ground. An eyesore instead of a lovelyresource and haven from the traffic that pervades Brislington.

Without the grazing, there are signs that woodland is starting to return to the meadows and thiscould be no bad thing for the environment and increase the biodiversity in the area. This is one ofthe oldest and most untouched parts of Brislington after all and should be the last placedeveloped. There are other areas such as the partly abandoned industrial estate as well as thehuge abandoned eyesore of a building opposite Arnos Park. This has been derelict for as long as Ihave been in Brislington and could surely be redeveloped?

I love watching the succession of flowers and how the grass changes as the seasons change. Andsome of the trees in there are old friends. To see them go would break my heart.

I strongly object to the plans to develop the Brislington Meadows and implore BristolCity Council Planners to reject the plans, for the sake of the local community of Broomhill andBrislington, the wider community of Bristol, the ecology present on the site and for the reputationand credibility of Bristol City Council's Planning Department. The asset that the Meadows offers tothe people of Bristol is highly valuable, in so many non-monetary terms.

The health and wellbeing benefits to the local residents as a wild, green space are priceless. Justas park spaces are protected from development to provide health and wellbeing opportunities tothe city's residents, wild and natural spaces like the Meadows must be conserved. These placesinspire people, offer escape from the troubles of urban life and provide insight into the history ofthe countryside. The proposals will destroy this unique place forever.

The meadows have been an invaluable refuge for numerous species of wildlife for decades; theecological surveys prove the site's significance and the presence of European Protected Speciesmust influence the decisions of Planners to protect their habitats. The Council needs to act toprotect the site rather than allowing it to be destroyed - merely demanding flimsy mitigation againsthabitat loss is not sustainable. These habitats will be lost forever if the development is permitted,and every professional involved in the plans knows this.

The Council needs to acknowledge the Climate Emergency that it declared by being bold andprotecting green spaces, instead of allowing them to be built on and increasing pollution levels.New homes are needed, but they should be built in places which are less valuable; the true value

of this site cannot be quantified as it is so much more than just a parcel of land with a £15 millionprice tag.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I am objecting to this development for the reasons stated below:

The Mayor made a bid to ensure that this development would not go ahead some time ago.

The land is of great importance to the local community due to its green space. There are many

community events across the year in the park next door which often spill out into the meadows.

Many dog walkers of all ages meet in the fields to enjoy the peace. Bath Road already has a huge

build up of traffic leading people to divert through Brislington, causing an impact to highway safety

and traffic on quieter streets, this would be made greater if the development went ahead.

The effect on the conservation area as a whole would be devastating, the hedgerows are ancient.

I strongly object to this proposal. The area is a community facility and communal greenspace. It is a rich biodiverse site with trees that have been established for hundreds of years withmeadow grass and wild flowers. Once lost it will never be able to be replicated. Planting half adozen trees along a pavement is not going to come anywhere near what we currently have.Brislington residents were promised that this site wouldn't be built on. There are numerousbrownfield sites that could be transformed, developers only want to destroy this land because itgenerates more profit for them.The Broomhill estate is already deprived, there's no doctor surgery and an hour's wait for a bus.There's only a very narrow access point onto the site so pushing more traffic onto the Bath Road.This site has been used as a political pawn and only an enquiry will uncover how Marvin Rees hashoodwinked us all.

This land is so precious to birds, bees and nature and also to the land. The city needsthese green and wild spaces and so do the residents and children for wellbeing, walks and wildlife.

The meadows are an important piece of green space in the area and it is vital that theyremain.

I strongly object to this development due to the environmental damage it will cause to the wholeBrislington area. This will affect the wildlife, bird life and biodiversity of the area. The localcommunity depend on this area for recreation, dog walking, watching and learning about theenvironment.It was invaluable during the pandemic for the mental health of the local people using the area.This amount of houses will put pressure on the local schools and doctors that are already oversubscribedand the extra traffic will only add to the already over crowded roads. Any areas that may be left forwildlife will not be enough to feed and keep existing wildlife including larger birds of prey on thissite. We will lose them. Bs4 is losing its wildlife, green spaces that make Bristol, and Brislington inparticular a great place to live. Developers are shaping our city, not people or planners. Don't letthis happen.

My Points are:1 There is currently no infrastructure for such a large number of new dwellingsa) The community Doctors' appointments are taking over 4-5 weeks NOW! No matter how serious the complaint. This is all because of the new dwellings at Birchwood Road and Wick Road estates, this added to demand with no increase was provided for. This will have a massive impact upon the community and it's meager services (there are hardly any now). The schools cannot cope now, so how will the new 260 dwellings help? Shops, basically this is limited to the Coop on Broomhill Road

b) HighwaysThe parking in the area is dreadful now, cars & vans based along Broomhill road are parked in all neighboring streets even now. (Especially vans), and parking is even right up to the industrial estate

c) Public transport, The First Bus number one bus service is a joke, never runs anywhere near the scheduled times and very often is cancelled all together. This will be the nearest Bus route for the new development. Why would the new dwellers use such an awful service, hence more cars on the road in this area.

d) TrafficThe traffic along Broomhill Road is VERY heavy now, it is a dangerous place to cross

for pedestrians, of any age. The traffic does not stop and is usually travelling over the speed limit. Highway safety will be impacted, by the extra demand during the build and afterwards with the average house having two-three cars now a days, a single entrance & exit is crazy

e) EnvironmentThe impact environmentally will have a massive effect, the meadows is a saving grace of greenery and helps with mental health issues.

We are aware that new housing stock is needed, but 260 and one entrance into & out of the estate is surely a mistake. Cannot a compromise be made by the developers maybe 50 - 75 houses as this will lessen the impact (only a little), but help keep the genuine people of Brislington/Broomhill safer & nicer place to live.

Yours Sincerely

Tony King

I strongly object to the planning application to develop Brislington meadows.The effects on the environment will be devastating.Our green spaces need to be protected not destroyed

I object to the planned development because of the environmental impact on the area.Brislington Meadows is an important wildlife corridor for South East Bristol and should bepreserved.

Traffic congestion on the Bath Road will also increase. The volume of traffic is particularly bad atthe weekend and 260 new properties in the area will add to this problem.

We need to conserve green spaces and the fauna and flora contained there in,especially given that people were told that this space would no be built upon.For people mental health it is important that they have access to green spaces on their doorsteps.

I can't belive that this is even up for discussion. I'm not daft, I know there's too manypeople and not enough housing but haven't we learned anything? Green space is so important forso many things. Physical health, emotional wellbeing, flood prevention, the flora and fauna that areliterally the building blocks of our food chain. And taking other plans into consideration, ourinfrastructure just can't cope. Traffic is already too heavy, gp surgeries already can't cope; buildingthese homes will only add to the issues we're already facing. This application simply must not beapproved and there is an army of people willing to fight it for as long as necessary.

I object to the housing development on Brislington Meadows, this green space is a vitalpart of the community and is home to lots of wildlife and plants and this would have a massiveimpact on them. I have seen Kestrels hunting in the fields, adders have been spotted in the upperfields. The meadows provide a lovely nature walk for all ages and building on the land wouldinhabit this. Congestion with excess traffic/parking would be brought into the area and also withlocal schools being so close there is an issue with traffic safety. The density of 260 houses on thisland would definitely have an impact on the appearance of the area and reduce the wholecharacter of the space. The scale and dominance of the houses being planned bring issues withprivacy on surrounding houses with loss of natural daylight and excess noise in a quiet andpeaceful conservation area. I hope my views will be read and objection logged

1. The Brislington Meadows site was designated a Site of Natural Scientific Interest(SNCI) untilthe Local Plan of 2014 was approved. Since then, its status as a SNCI has been the subject ofmuch debate, as it does not seem to have ever been formally rescinded. Nothing has changed onthe site since it was designated an SNCI which means that it should not be considered one now.2. In May 2021, the Mayor of Bristol announced that, in light of the Climate and EcologicalEmergencies declared by the city, it was no longer appropriate to develop Brislington Meadows forhousing. In 2022 Bristol City Council debated and passed a motion calling on a stop to thedevelopment of green spaces within the city, including Brislington Meadows.3. Bristol has in 2022 approved a comprehensive house building programme for the next 30 yearsand did not feel the need to include Brislington Meadows in these plans.4. In the Queen's Speech in May 2022 the government has promised new legislation to grant localresidents more say in the development of land in their local area - if this becomes law, residents inBrislington have already demonstrated that they would object fully to any development on theMeadows. The Council, the Mayor, and the local community have all firmly voiced strongobjections to developing this site.5. The site will not be included in the new Local Plan, and the Government's upcoming planninglaws would prevent this site being developed. All these factors make it abundantly clear that thisdevelopment is not wanted nor in the interests of Brislington or the wider city.6. This development will affect Brislington and the city for years to come; it should not be rushedthrough before Government policy or the Local Plan prevents it.7. Threat to Biodiversity - Loss of Habitat Wildlife habitat is being lost on a daily basis. The World

Wildlife Federation describes habitat loss as "the greatest threat to the variety of life on this planettoday". The UK has lost almost half of its wildlife and plant species as a result of human and landdevelopment since the Industrial Revolution, according to a new assessment by scientists atLondon's Natural History Museum. The country is ranked in the bottom 10% in the world and theworst among G7 nations. Homes England has recognised that this development will result insignificant loss of habitat; "This represents a net loss of - 24.12% in habitat unit value (a net loss of-14.23 habitat units), meaning a deficit of 20.14 habitat units compared to a 10% net gainposition." Indeed, in some circumstances this rises to -27.44%.8. Invertebrates are central to the functioning of ecosystems. Recent work has shown that they aresuffering from rapid decline. Homes England's own ecological survey states that "The .. ecologysurveys completed at the site revealed that the greatest value of the site is its invertebrateassemblage... included nine species of conservation significance and two further species of localinterest. The assemblage is dependent upon the mix of grassland, hedgerow and scrub habitatspresent in the site. Some species recorded are more dependent upon single habitat types or evensingle plant species (specific trees, grasses or wildflowers)." The loss of invertebrates on this sitemust be taken very seriously.9. Brislington Meadows is a very significant community amenity, allowing the local residents andvisitors to enjoy green space near the heart of the city. Dog walkers will be particularly affected bythe loss of such an open yet secure space for exercise and socialising. Not only will they be forcedto walk the local roads but, no doubt, should the development be allowed to proceed, there will bean increase of dog walkers via a portion of the new residents. There will also be increased use ofEastwood Farm Nature Reserve already suffering from abuse and misuse by "Wild Campers".

The meadows have been here longer than every single person in Bristol and should remain thisway long after we are gone. it is a bio-diverse environment that provides an area of natural beautyto local residents, something that is rapidly diminishing due to building contracts being awarded tobuild non-affordable housing on every blade of grass. This area cannot be allowed to be takenaway from us, especially as it will just serve to increase the traffic issues and therefore the airpollution that comes with it.

As the owner of my property for 11 years, I have great concerns in regards to theapplication as it will create a much greater amount of traffic and parking issues, it already is a bigproblem currently as it is, and it's a great concern such a large scale of project the residents will beusing the road causing more congestion. A lot of the times there are queues pass my house goingall the way to the A4.

Another concern is highway safety, cars on school rd drive so fast it's a great concern as it is, a lotof people use as a shortcut to the A4, and increasing the amount of residents in the area to suchan extent will just make matters worse.

A great concern also is noise,dust during build and pollution during the build and also after withincrease in vehicles. I have a three year old who currently goes to Nursery and hopefully schoolnext year in Broomhill junior which would border the development, it's such a concern to me aspollution will increase so much and could dramatically affect her health.

As a resident who lives backing the brook, this is a great concern in regards to Drainage and floodrisk to the area, especially the development being in a higher position than my property, how muchof the drainage water is going to end up going downhill towards our properties, how is this going tobe managed to a satisfactory level, so that it doesn't put our properties at risk of flooding with thebrook overflowing.

Not to mention the effect on trees and wildlife as part of nature conservation, the area is so

quiet/peaceful and full of wildlife, is very good for residents to exercise in an environment which ismuch healthier than surrounding areas and very good for mental health. Which would be a terribleshame to loose.

Also I'm highly concerned in regards to further Plans for local development, doctors, schools,dentists. How would all those cope with the addition of such a high number of new properties aswell as all those new residents which could potentially amount to 600+ new residents. Serviceswould not be able to cope with such a demand.

I have been a Brislington resident for over 15 years it would be a terrible loss if the developmentwas allowed to go ahead for the community and us as a family too. Please do not allow for this goahead.

I object to the proposed building on Brislington meadows. I find it hard to believe that,with the buzzwords of the time being "Conservation" and "Climate Change", any consideration canbe given to a development that will be detrimental to both.The Meadows is a haven for wildlife and plant species, some of which have been there forhundreds of years. They are so important to local people as a place of natural beauty, providing asafe place for walking, and so beneficial for the mental health of lots of us.The increased traffic that will be generated into Broomhill and surrounding areas will add greatly topollution. Some possible 300 plus vehicles joining an already congested commuting route willcause a lot of problems for residents, old and new.How will the schools manage with an influx of pupils? The doctors' surgery lists are already full tobursting, with great difficulty in getting appointments and it will only make it worse.How can we be promised one minute that there would be no building for these very reasons, andthen told there will be after all?Please be considerate of people and their future, rather than money. There are plenty ofbrownfield sites that could be developed.

I object to the planned development on Brislington Meadows.1. The area is an important habitat for wild animals and birds, and the beautiful hedgerows andtrees, some that have been there for over 100 years2. The pressure on the already stretched facilities in the area would be horrific ... doctors, schools,etc.3. Increased traffic in what is already a choked commuter route would have a catastrophic effecton pollution, as well as being a danger to local residents.4. The green space is such an important thing to be available to locals in terms of excercise,relaxation and mental health.

I am writing to you in your capacity as development manager in the hopes that you will not permit development on Brislington Meadows (on Broomhill Rd, BS4 4UD). As a local resident, I walk my dog in this area daily and as one of the very few green spaces, and for many people this is the only green space within walking distance, there would be a very real impact on myself and other local residents in terms of where to exercise their animals, children, and to have access to outdoor space. There is a high rise practically next to these meadows, and is a much needed spot of fresh air in an otherwise densely populated city. Without access to these meadows for walks, reducing the green space to the small playing field, would result in that becoming a potential trouble spot for an exponentially growing population of dogs (many of whom are not well enough socialised due to the unavoidable impact of 2 years of lockdown culture) and people without a reasonable amount of space.

In addition to this very real impact on the community, and the public necessity of this greenspace for that community, I also want to add a further reason I object to the development. These meadows are one of the few places allowing natural growth of wildflowers and allowing somewhere for the population of wildlife to remain more diverse. Without these meadows, the indigenous wildlife would have no retreat, harming the population of native creatures who are already struggling, and crucially, removing this source of pollen for the dwindling bee population. I hope I don't need to make you aware of the potential impact if the bee population continues to reduce, but I do very much hope that you agree that some temporary profit for a property developer is nowhere near as much of a priority as the long term sustainability of our natural

habitats, as well as the long term health and well-being of the community that rely on these meadows.

I hope that you will give this due consideration, and preserve this important space in its current form.

Dr Joanne M. Lovesey

I would like to add comments to the planning department re application 22/0178/P brislington meadows broomhill road BS4 4UD.

I would like to oppose planning permission for the below reasons -a disastrous effect on the trees and wildlife -traffic and parking issues on an already extremely busy road, never enough parking in streets as it is -and finally the unpack on community and services which are already stretched in our area!!!

I write to object to the proposed development of Brislington Meadows.This is a vitally important green space for Brislington residents, who are facing increasingdevelopment in an already crowded area. Loss of any natural habitat is currently heralded by ourlocal politicians as something something to be avoided, indeed there have previously beenassurances that this area would never be built on.Alongside the prospective plans to build on green belt land along the A4 corridor, the garage siteson the A4, plus the recent new builds at Paintworks and Totterdown Bridge the psychological andhealth impact on this area will be significant. There are no plans for expansion of GP, school orcommunity facilities for the area.

Brislington Meadows is an important, much loved and well used open space where people go toimprove their physical and mental well being. The hedgerows and green space offers local wildlifea refuge, which all can currently enjoy without detrimental impact.The ecological report suggests the space can be carved up and built on without significant impactto any residents, people or wildlife, which seems heavily weighted on the side of furtherdevelopment in this already crowded postcode.

There are significant brownfield sites already earmarked in this area and I implore the PlanningCommittee to spare and preserve the whole of Brislington Meadows, neighbouring fields andallotments. This area is as important to the people of BS4 as the Downs are to to NW Bristol, andrepresent a significant loss of open space to us.

I am a resident living near the meadows where the proposed housing site is due to be built.This proposed development brings to light various concerns for its impact on the surrounding community:

1) There are no plans mentioned to include a new surgery or primary school to support the existing local services. Our current services are already absolutely bursting at the seems. Broomhill school has two classes per year with at least 32 children per class. These large numbers greatly impact the learning of the pupils.

2) Traffic and parking. Broomhill road is "already" an extremely busy through road connecting traffic from Arnos manor and up to Bath Road near McDonalds. Said road has been subjected to backed up traffic and queues for ages , increased traffic and cars from this new area will cause this to worsen and traffic all down bath road into Bris village will be seriously backed up and become grid locked - leading to more frustrated angry drivers and potentially more accidents. This is particularly concerning around the cross section near McDonald's where secondary pupils already dodge the busy lanes. We won't be so lucky soon and god forbid there are no fatalities! Broomhill already suffers from a serious lack of parking (particularly around broomhill) and most days are fraught with parents battling to drop off and collect their young children safely through the congestion - yet you intend to allow more families with sometimes two cars per household. Again, potential for more accidents.

3) Wildlife. The meadows are frequented by schools to teach young children about flora and fauna. It is used by so many families and dog owners as a safe green space to walk their pets and come together as a community. Building here will ensure the loss of wild life which we ought to be protecting rather than destroying.

We are already congested - we cannot take anymore homes even if you created a new school / surgery like was done at the Fry's chocolate factory in Keynsham we will not cope with this extra overload!!!

Mrs Brown

I feel as if you shouldn't build on the meadows because our mayor had promised itwould be safe from the building

By building on the meadows you would be destroying a vital habitat for so manycreatures that have already been pushed into increasingly smaller areas due to homes being builton their habitats.The wildlife in this country are increasingly threatened. Wild bird numbers have dropped adramatic percentage within the last 50 years and by building on the meadows you will only beadding to that decline.So many animals depend on the diverse number of trees and plant species within the meadowsand as a society we should be focusing on how to conserve this, not destroy it. We should befocusing on protecting what little areas of conservation we have, not building on them. Meadowsare so vital for our planet: they offer a rich biodiversity of animal, plant and tree species and assuch they provide rich food sources for pollinators, who in turn pollinate crops. Living in thegeneration that is the last one to help protect against climate change, this feels like there is nothought at all to our planet and the hideous effect we are having on it. Homes england arecompletely disregarding all thought and respect of conservation sites and all the vulnerablecreatures that live there, the creatures who have no voice and cannot speak out against theirhome being destroyed.This decision must not go ahead.

I object to the building on the meadows

I am familiar with this space as I have enjoyed it for walks in recent years. It is a specialplace l that is rich in wildlife, supporting habitat for insects and wild birds. It should be protected forfuture generations to enjoy. As a "green city" such as Bristol spaces like this need to be protectedas once they're gone they're gone.Furthermore if these houses go ahead there will be increased traffic congestion in the area. Whichwill impact on residents.

I wholeheartedly object to the planning application on the Brislington Meadows site

At a time where our wildlife and trees are being threatened globally, I can't believe a council that was once campaigning to be a Green Capital, would want to destroy fields of wildlife to build homes which would further add to our ongoing traffic and parking problems.

The local area and community pride themselves on the fact they have hidden gems such as Eastwood farm and Brislington Meadows, to such an extent that Broomhill infants have the motto "Nature, Nurture, Knowledge".

I fail to understand the logic, one minute, the council is implementing a clean air zone and the next, local wildlife meadows are being destroyed for housing and more cars.

In the enclosed link, it concludes that improving poor air quality has a positive impact on mental health and therefore reducing the strain on a service which is already underfunded and under resourced

https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2021/august/air-pollution.html

I hope you consider my objection

I strongly object the traffic in and around broomhill will be manic ,the loss of wildlife ,notenough doctors also the schools will be over full

We object to the plans as we are concerned by the fact that there will be only oneentrance/exit right by us causing more pollution, and traffic as Broomhill Rd is already extremelybusy at times and tail backs onto Bath Rd are a huge issue.

The loss of green space and natural habititat for wildlife will be a great loss to the area, it is alovely peaceful place with great views and sunsets and we have been using it for dog walks forover 15 years.

The area can get very wet and boggy in parts so I would also be concerned about flooding

There is also worry about the impact on local services as we already lack amenities in the area.

The area has insufficient bus services for this proposal . The road network is also notset up to handle as many cars as this development brings , especially with one road in and outthey will be backed up into the development trying to get out onto a very busy broomhill road . Nosufficient entrance or exit planned for works traffic while this development takes place (infact Iwould imagine the traffic management plan for this proposed development doesn't meetregulations) the local doctors surgery is already two weeks wait for a telephone call appointmentthis would clearly worsen ! The local area does not benefit from this development it suffers

This is an area of natural common land for the community with public rights of way andpublic footpaths. Brislington Meadows is much loved and used everyday by the local community. Itis an area of scientific interest for its animal and plant diversity. Environmentally important. Theeffects this application will have on the environment, trees, wildlife and nature conservation wouldbe a catastrophe and totally scandalous.There is a clear mandate to reduce the impact of global warming and therefore reduce thedestruction of our precious and much loved green open spaces.Building of houses on this land would significantly have an impact on the local area andpermanently change the character and appearance of this area.I plead that this application is therefore not approved and is protected and left for the localcommunity to continue to enjoy and benefit from.

There is already insufficient infrastructure in the area, local doctors surgery is oversubscribed.

You would be taking away green space and we just don't have enough accessible green spacearound here, why don't you build on old factory space there's plenty of that around

To much traffic as it is,only make Bath road worse!

There are plenty of brownfield sites to build on that should be considered instead of thismeadowland which is so important for biodiversity and community use. This has been recogniedby the previous promises not to build n the land but now it seems these prmises are to be broken -why, when other options are available?This part of Bristol/Brislington need to be made greener for those that live here, or at leastpreserved and not subjected to more houses ( and roads) . Take the opportunity of the BrislingtonGreenway decioson against an additional road to preserve green spaces and build on improvingour local enviroment, not adding more concrete, houses and cars without the infrastructure andlocal resources to support them.

It's an area of outstanding natural beautyWildlife & nature need the areaWhy say affordable homes will be included when in reality they aren't affordable unless you have ahighly paid job? "Normal working Bristolians can't afford to buy them - nurses etc .Help to buy isn't in reality a help either.Local youngsters can't live in Bristol any more because of high rental payments or can't get amortgage!We need areas like this for our mental well-being, I go there each month to get back in touch withnature .

How can you built with no extra amenities being provided and traffic will behorrendously busy we don't object to new housing just we're it's being put there is so much wildlifeat the meadows for us a to enjoy and we do use the area alot ,

These meadows are full of wildlife and plant life, my house also backs onto thesemeadows, I don't want the previous meadows destroyed by new houses

The road structure will simply not cope. There will be so much pollution that will bedetrimental to health. As well as this we cannot get a doctors appointment now so with all thoseextra people we won't cope. We also have lots of animals and wildlife who's habitats will bedestroyed.

We can't allow these beautiful fields to be destroyed and built on. They not only providea much needed area of outdoor space, but most importantly home hundreds and thousands ofinsects bugs birds mice hedgehogs snakes and many more!!!! It'll be so sad to see so manyanimals loose their homes!! This can't happen!!!!!!!!!!

There is a real need to protect the wildlife especially the Slow worms and owls, dogwalking as house backs onto the meadows

A lovely piece of green land in an area choked by traffic. Myself and family often walkthere from Eastwood farm. An oasis for wildlife including deer and numerous birdlife. How canBristol class itself as a green city when they continue to build on greenfield sites, whilst leavingnumerous brownfield sites to fester.

Our house backs onto part of the development plans so this is a very personalobjection. For all the obvious reasons, our kids are being brought up with this wonderful greenspace with magnificent amount of different aspects of nature from plants and trees to the beautifulanimals.With that being said there is also a huge concern for the amount of traffic derived from such planswhich will affect us by where our house is situated.Broomhill road is already so dangerous with the amount of through traffic and speeders.As well as all the obvious amenities being negatively affected, such as buses, shops, schools anddrs.My mind is blown that such a development can with such an impact on current and surroundingresidents as well as the said nature be approved.It is with much sadness to even those that don't speak up that this was even considered in the firstplace.

I fully object to the Planning Application to develop Brislington Meadows.

The effect on the environment will be devastating, destroying biodiversity, wildlife and trees. BCCdeclared an ecological emergency and promised this land would be protected. This space shouldbe maintained and treasured as we cannot afford to destroy it for our city and the planet. There isplenty if brownfield sites that should be considered before any green space.

This would also badly impact local services and the community, there is already a need for moredoctors, schools etc without this development adding to it.

Highway safety is a massive concern, the plan to have one entrance into this development with nothought to how Broomhill Road will be effected. Broomhill Road has already become a rat run toavoid congestion on the Bath Road and congestion builds either end of this road. Realisticallyeach property will have at least 1 car which will add to this congestion causing another problemjunction. If a traffic study has been completed (which I cannot see in the documents) I would askwhen and if during quieter covid times this will give very different results. Will BCC improveBroomhill Road and its pathways if this is built? No I expect not, the road will be left to strugglewith the amount of traffic that it was not built for and become even more dangerous.

Please don't destroy Brislington Meadows by building on it and instead consider how the greenspace can be improved for the climate and community.

Should be left alone not built on

Brislington Meadow Objection Cllr K HornchenI am writing to you to object the development on Brislington Meadows or Land At Broom HillBroomhill Road Bristol BS4 4UDThis development has objections from the local councillors, the local Member of Parliament, theMayor, Bristol City Council as a whole, and over 500 residents. This goes to show the strength offeeling that the downsides of this development significantly outweigh the upsides, so it should notgo ahead.Biodiversity and environmental destruction.Brislington meadows is an ancient meadow with significant amount of 250 year old hedgerows.Hedgerows play an important if understated role in promoting the bio-diversity in an environment.These old hedgerows are well established and play an important part in conserving woodlandbirds and small mammals. Indeed, many of the priority species on the governments own Bio-diversity Action Plan use hedgerows as a safe breeding space, as well as a place to collect foodand as a corridor to move from one forested area to another.In urban areas hedgerows contribute to the services of climate regulation and sustainable urbandrainage. This is particularly important on this site as run off water is known to flood the housingbelow the fields.Hedgerows are important part of the homes for various wildlife, the plans put forward by homesEngland keep some of the ancient hedgerows, it plans to replace other hedgerows. It is wellknown that one cannot destroy ancient hedge row by simply planting new; it will take a generationto even begin to re-establish, which is not compatible with the city's climate goals. We also do notknow what damage the construction process will do to the remaining hedgerows, I am not

convinced that heavy machinery, noise, and large parts of earth moving will not disturb the Faunaand Flora of the remaining hedges.Political and SocialThere is overwhelming support for keeping the meadows as a green space from the localcommunity. Indeed, when the change of designation was first proposed in 2011 from a Site ofNature Conservation interest to a site for possible housing, there was an overwhelming resistanceto the building on the meadows. The council, however at the time, deemed the downsides ofbuilding homes on an ecological site were outweighed by the upsides. The consensus on this hownow firmly changed.In the meantime, our understanding of the huge threats to our climate and the destruction of ourfellow creatures in the catastrophic collapse of the biodiversity of the planet. (in which the UK is inthe bottom 10%.) As a city we, in November 2018 we declared a climate emergency, followed inFebruary 2020 by declaring an ecological emergency. In September 2021 the full council passed amotion not to build on green spaces, Brislington meadows was mentioned in this motion.As a city, have a right to change our mind on where houses are built. This process is underway -it's likely that Brislington Meadows will not be included in the next Local Plan. Bristol City Councilhas been developing the new Local Plan for a number of years and it is set to be implemented in2024. Councillors should note that an emerging local plan can have an effect on whether decisionsare overturned or not; it carries more weight the further it's developed.In the current campaign to save the meadows the planning process has already managed tocollect over 500 objections to only 3 for the homes.

Further reasons to object to the development.The meadows create a good green buffer zone and corridor between the industrial estate and thehomes on the other side. It is important to keep light industrial estates as places of employmentnear living places. However not keeping them too close, to avoid matters such as noisecomplaints. We have already had complaints about noise pollution from activities on BonningtonRoad - these problems would be much worse for housing on Brislington Meadows.The housing development of 260 houses will increase Brislington population by 600 + people.That alone is 5% of the total population in Brislington. There are many other developments in thearea already underway. There is already a severe lack of local community facilities in the localarea, particularly in area around Broomhill and Brislington Hill. Just recently a community space(the old Methodist Hall Church Hill Road) is to be converted to an HMO. As Brislington has adearth of community facilities, Brislington Meadows, as a community space, should remain for thecommunity.TransportThe plans for the site, propose to be green however they completely fall short in regards totransport, which is one of the main contributors to Co2 output in cities.The average parking space proposed in this development is 1.5 per household. That would add360 cars to the already congested local streets, especially Broomhill Road, which already hastraffic Queues on peak times.However, I believe this to be an underestimation of the number of cars, due to the site being quite

far away from the centre and other amenities. Broomhill road is narrow and over parked, as arethe surrounding streets - a problem that will be compounded by increased development. Theplanners alluded to the existing 1 bus close by, which at the best of times is not reliable. The lackof reliability will further increase dependency on cars.The proposed outline of the design of the housing uses only one access road on a very old-fashioned design of a central two-lane road with each house having a parking space outside. Sonot only is it a place with poor access to Poor public transport, it also by design is car-centricdesign, which will have negative consequences for Bristol's decarbonisation efforts.Simply saying that the Commercial bus company would increase services because of morepassenger is disingenuous. Planning guidelines state that we shouldn't rely on the future actionsof third parties to solve a problem that will arise because of development, which is the case in thisapplication.Homes England proposes an active travel through the meadows which is a welcome.Unfortunately, this active travel corridor does not connect to anything, so has a very limitedpurpose.Given the very real threat to our planets Bio-diversity, and the practical considerations of trafficand flooding, I strongly believe this site should not be built on, and should be looked after as agreen space for our wildlife as well as amenity for future generations to enjoy.

The schools and gp's will not be able to handle the extra capacity that will come fromthe build. Also broomhill road will become unbearable to for traffic and the water pressure which isalready bad will become worse. Finally we will lose our green space which we are proud to have.

I object against the construction of 260 residential dwellings, I believe this will causemore problems than it will solve not to mention the wildlife that will be affected by this!!!

This is a well used green space in the centre of the communities of broomhill, brislingtonvillage and nearby bonniville industrial estate. I find the plans presented disappointing, and assuch not appropriate to loose green meadow land to. The area by the old police station is suitiblefor development and potentially a smaller area between the broomhill school and the currentbelroyal houses. But I find the current plans wasteful of opportunities for improved urban living,and look like designs from the 80s with car dependent cul- de- sacs. Although some new housingwill need to be in the area, while there is so much unused brown field sites next door and designsthat in no way address the need for sustainable multi generational urban living.

Do it better or do it somewhere else.

I object to the plans as I worry about the noise and traffic problems this will bring to thearea. Our cul-de-sac is already quite congested with residents cars and I have young children wholike to play outside with their friends. I don't want them to lose their independence from being ableto play safely on their own without fear of being knocked down. I also care about wildlife andconservation that will be affected if the work was to happen. We have a dog who loves to run inthe green space that they are trying to develop on and she is a bit nervous so I worry where else Icould walk her if we lose this space.

The buildings planned to be put up will have a definite inpact on wildlife which has beenphotographed in the area the pollution and noise levels will rise our water pressure is non-existentat the moment so this will make it worse the traffic come straight from the bath road through ourstreets as it is and this will add to that. Parking in and around the area will be horrendous

It would be a travesty to lose this haven .the traffic in our area is horrendous from 5.00am the hum of traffic starts on broomhill Road. Our area cant cope with 260 homes. The bottomfield is so boggy very unsuitable. There are homes being built on the trading across the bath rdwith those and these we will be traffic bound . Limited amenities . No thanks.the input of thesehomes are a mistake .1 entrance only is asking for trouble .

I object to the construction, destroying the meadows and the wildlife upon the trees andbushes. Not only the noise and pollution it will cause for the local residents in belroyal but will alsolimit their privacy with people being able to overlook their gardens. I object we all object.

Brislington Meadows Objection- site ref:- 22/01878/P

I strongly object to the proposed development of 260 homes on this site for the following reasons:-

LOSS OF WILDLIFE HABITAT & BIODIVERSITY

It would result in a permanent and significant loss of SNCI (Site of nature conservation interest) forthis area and the whole city, at a time when Bristol's Ecological Emergency was developed in Feb2020 in response to the decline in wildlife. The site should be preserved as a nature reserveturning it into a community asset and helping to support the council's climate and nature goals,which in turn will boost biodiversity and preserve local wildlife. This would be a huge ecologicaland environmental benefit to the local area.The Mayor said "Our city's wildlife ecosystems and habitat are vitally important to us, as the loss ofbiodiversity will affect our lives in many ways from the insects that pollinate our food to the greenspaces that enhance our residents' health and wellbeing".What is the point of SNCI's and the city declaring an Ecological Emergency if a site like themeadows is considered for development?Homes England claim there will be 10% BNG (Biodiversity Net Gain) but not necessarily on thissite, it's a complete gimmick, how can you measure BNG when nobody looks at soil organismswhen surveys are done. A development like this will destroy hundreds of years of soil structureand soil communities but they are never taken into account.

HEALTH & WELLBEING

Nicola Beech cabinet member has said "In Bristol we are fortunate to have many green spacesand wildlife areas that we enjoy and make us healthier and happier. Globally, nationally and locallynature is collapsing at an alarming rate and an unprecedented rate - there has been a decline of96% in the swift and starling populations".Avon Wildlife Trust promote the benefits of nature as evidence shows it improves our health,makes us happier, more productive and more active. Green exercise can save the NHS moneyand green neighbourhoods cut depression. Eco therapy could reduce antidepressant prescriptioncosts and MIND has shown that green exercise benefits health and wellbeing. We know dailycontact with nature is linked to reduced levels of chronic stress, reduction in obesity and improvedconcentration. Ian Barrett CEO of AWT said the meadows were "too ecologically important to bedestroyed" when The Mayor made his declaration in April 2021 to save them from development.

TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAY SAFETY

There would be a substantial increase in traffic in the area which would have an impact onhighway safety especially on Broomhill Rd which is the sole access/exit point for the 260 homes.This would mean in excess of 400 vehicles using this road and causing further congestionthroughout all of Brislington and junctions with the very busy A4 Bath Road. Broomhill Road isused by families and school children and students making their way to the local nurseries, primaryschools, secondary school and college, the pavements are not very wide in places and as it ismainly a straight road cars frequently speed along it. Air pollution, fumes and increased trafficwould make more people use their cars at a time when more people especially schoolchildren/students are being encouraged to walk.Bonville Road is the planned access route for construction traffic for UP TO 5 YEARS, this road isnarrow and completely unsuitable and will bring the whole Trading Estate to a standstill, it can onlyjust about accommodate one HGV at a time in one direction. Frequently lorries have to makeawkward manoeuvres and have to wait in the area to make timed deliveries, any businesses youspeak to now say it is already a nightmare. It is also used by many workers to park their cars, (20along the stretch adjacent to the meadows) and also a busy walking route through to the A4 BathRoad which will become very hazardous for pedestrians.Due to restricted access and parking spaces on the site it is likely parking will overspill toneighbouring roads in the area, eg School Rd, Belroyal Ave, Bonville & Broomhill Rd due to abottle neck being created to exit, some homes would be nearer these roads and find it easier topark there and use the footpaths to reach their homes, causing more congestion and parkingissues in the locality.

FLOOD RISK

The area around the bottom of School Road is already prone to flooding, the Brislington Brook

flows nearby and a stream through the meadows runs off through a storm drain near the entranceof the park. The four homes that were recently built on the site of the former Buglers Coach Depothad their ground footings submerged in water for a long time until a suitable solution was found.The loss of green space available to absorb rain water along with the increase in paving & tarmacwould significantly contribute to the risk of flooding. We know that many urban areas are now athigher risk of flooding due to front gardens being paved for parking. Brislington Village andsurrounding areas suffered severe flooding back in 1968 which is well documented in localrecords.

LOCAL FACILITIES & TRANSPORT

Our local GP Practices and Community Health Services & NHS Dentists are currently undersevere pressure and struggling to cope with the current demands on their services. Adding adevelopment of this size to the area will mean they will have no capacity to cope. Schools willstruggle to find places, even if they have places now we know the population fluctuates andchanges, secondary schools in Bristol are currently struggling to accommodate the demand.Public transport is very limited in the area with only one regular service, the No. 1 bus which iscurrently struggling to provide its timetabled service. Therefore no matter if "green" routes likecycling, walking and using a bus are encouraged, busy working families will still depend on theircars especially if they have time constraints to dropping off and collecting children, shopping etc.It's complete "pie in the sky" to think this development will see minimal increase in traffic andcongestion and people will be encouraged to commute by green methods.Broomhill has very little to offer in the way of amenities and is not "The Broomhill Centre" asHomes England describe it. Essential shops and services such as Post Office have gone, there isno pharmacy or bank , many of the independent shops have closed over the years and the two"proposed" shops at the site of the old Post Office have now been converted to flats, indicatingthat there is no real demand for any new businesses to come here.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

The CPRE (Campaign for the Protection of Rural England) states that there is currently space for1.3 million homes on brownfield land that is being ignored. This should be prioritised fordevelopment and our countryside and green spaces should be protected from further destruction.More emphasis and planning should be concentrated on our ageing population, which has hardlybeen a surprise, as we all know people are living longer but the provision of suitable housing hasnot followed that demand. Many people want to stay in their own homes as they grow older andcouncil EPH's were closed in response to that trend. Currently many family homes are underoccupied due to the lack of suitable retirement/warden controlled type accommodation. Broomhillhas proportionately a higher population of older people than other areas of the city. If there wasmore provision in this local area this would free up many family homes and give older people thechance to stay in their community in the most suitable housing. The council's site of St Anne'sHouse would make an ideal location, level access, close to bus stop, local shops, pharmacy, GP

practice and pleasant riverside and woodland walks nearby.The entrance from Broomhill Road where the former Police Station once stood is suitable fordevelopment as this is a brown field site and could accommodate a number of affordable homes.

Please do not allow The Meadows to be destroyed in light of everything we know and theevidence we have been given. Retain our green spaces to provide a home for wildlife and forfuture generations to enjoy.

Concerns over the proposed road into the development causing more problems onBroomhill Road with extra traffic, noise and pollution.

Overshadowing of our property being that the houses will be right on the bondry line and we live ina bungalow and the land inclines behind us.

Also loss of green space which I often use to get away from the hustle and walk the dog whilstenjoying the view.

My sons school will also be affected with the building work right behind the playground causing thechildren to have to endure months of dust and pollution and the disruption to the land making thewalkway.

This green space is vital for local residents. We use the meadows for walking, relaxingand playing football. It's also vital for conservation and wildlife.

I fully object to the Planning Application to develop Brislington Meadows.1.The Brislington Meadows site was designated a Site of Natural Scientific Interest (SNCI) until theLocal Plan of 2014 was approved. Since then, its status as a SNCI has been the subject of muchdebate, as it does not seem to have ever been formally rescinded. Nothing has changed on thesite since it was designated an SNCI, so it should not be considered for development.2.The Chief Executive of Avon Wildlife Trust has stated that Brislington Meadows is an importanthabitat for wildlife which also provides vital access to nature for local people.3.Developing this land goes against Bristol's commitment to tackle the ecological emergency andensure that at least 30% of the land in Bristol is to be managed for the benefit of wildlife by 2030.No mitigation or claim of biodiversity net gain off site can compensate for the sheer loss of wildlife,and biodiversity of this site.4.The Meadows are extremely important to the community, as it is the only ancient natural greenopen space, full of ancient hedgerows, veteran trees and a huge variety of wildlife, all essentialand important to the wellbeing of everyone's health and mental health, particularly as the NHS arenow advocating #GreenSocialPrescribing #HealthierWithNature.5. Traffic and Parking issues. Broomhill Road and Bath Road/A4 are congested at peak times,with the Bath Road normally being at a standstill. The surrounding area does not have thecapacity to support 200+ additional cars.6.The area is already heavily polluted, and more vehicles will only add to this, which will bedetrimental to our health.7.The local schools and Health facilities are already over stretched. It takes approx. 3 weeks tosee a GP as it is. NHS dentists are non-existent in the area. How can they support patients from

these new homes?8.Drainage and Flood Risk. School Road suffers with surface water when there is heavy rain.9. Marvin Rees, the Mayor of Bristol, has announced his administration's opposition to building onthis site and he was photographed in the Meadows stating that Brislington Meadows would not bebuilt on. Development on this site is not supported by Bristol City Council.

I fully object to the Planning Application to develop Brislington Meadows.1.The Brislington Meadows site was designated a Site of Natural Scientific Interest (SNCI) until theLocal Plan of 2014 was approved. Since then, its status as a SNCI has been the subject of muchdebate, as it does not seem to have ever been formally rescinded. Nothing has changed on thesite since it was designated an SNCI, so it should not be considered for development.2.The Chief Executive of Avon Wildlife Trust has stated that Brislington Meadows is an importanthabitat for wildlife which also provides vital access to nature for local people.3.Developing this land goes against Bristol's commitment to tackle the ecological emergency andensure that at least 30% of the land in Bristol is to be managed for the benefit of wildlife by 2030.No mitigation or claim of biodiversity net gain off site can compensate for the sheer loss of wildlife,and biodiversity of this site.4.The Meadows are extremely important to the community, as it is the only natural green openspace, full of ancient hedgerows, veteran trees and a huge variety of wildlife, all essential andimportant to the wellbeing of everyone's health and mental health, particularly as the NHS are nowadvocating #GreenSocialPrescribing #HealthierWithNature.5. Traffic and Parking issues. Broomhill Road and Bath Road/A4 are congested at peak times,with the Bath Road normally being at a standstill. The surrounding area does not have thecapacity to support 200+ additional cars.6.The area is already heavily polluted, and more vehicles will only add to this, which will bedetrimental to our health.7.The local schools and Health facilities are already over stretched. It takes approx. 3 weeks tosee a GP as it is. NHS dentists are non-existent in the area. How can they support patients from

these new homes?8.Drainage and Flood Risk. School Road suffers with surface water when there is heavy rain.9. Marvin Rees, the Mayor of Bristol, has announced his administration's opposition to building onthis site and he was photographed in the Meadows stating that Brislington Meadows would not bebuilt on. Development on this site is not supported by Bristol City Council.

Hi have been walking these fields for 22 years. There is insufficient local amenities eg.Doctors, schools etc. it currently takes 2 weeks to get a telephone consultation with a nursepractitioner!

What about the impact on wildlife? Why not demolish empty buildings and build there. There is asite opposite Arnos Park that has been derelict for years. How can we teach our children aboutrecycling and repurposing when people are tearing up beautiful green space which is loved andappreciated.

Leave it alone so my grandchildren can one day pick blackberries and flowers as I did with mychildren.

Kate Volk

I grown up in that area and it needs to be protected and so does the wildlife, there arelocal foxes and wood Pigeons In this area that needs to be Preserved

I grew up with this as my playground and space to have fun, walk the dogs, go onadventures, feed the horses, see the cows, go to the park, play hide and seek make newfriendships with the other local kids and it's time for the next generation to have that opportunitytoo!! Keep the kids of this generation off the streets and allow them this space to have fun and befree and make memories with their families.

I am writing to object to the current proposals for 260 units with access only at Land AtBroom Hill/Brislington Meadows. The application is outline only but an indicative master plan hasbeen provided which shows the poor quality of design proposed, through the over development ofthe site and the irreversible loss of this important green open space as well as ecology. We wouldstrongly urge the council to refuse the application.

Traffic

The scheme would introduce a significant increase in traffic into the area. Brislington alreadysuffers from poor air quality, poor public transport as well as heavy traffic. The sheer number ofnew units proposed and the associated cars will have a harmful impact on the surroundingenvironment.

Green Open Spaces

Not only will the development result in the irreversible loss of an important green open space forthe community, so important to the quality of life. It will also place undue pressure on the few andfar between green open spaces that survive, like Victory Park and Eastwood Farm. These arealready heavily over-used and the increase of people into the area - many without meaningfuloutside space themselves

Ecology

The loss of this important green open space will also erode a valuable habitat, which could havean irreversible impacts on the local ecology. This area is full of flora and a fauna and its habitat isbecoming more and more squeezed.

Quality of Design

The density of the proposed development will result in a monolithic and unremitting addition to theskyline. The scale and mass is out of character with surrounding area and overall, appears to beof poor quality through its excessive and incongruous appearance. This is not inline with the NPPFwhich stresses the need for good design. We note that this is an outline application only, but byestablishing the proposed quantum of development would limit any opportunities to introduce adevelopment that would be sympathetic to the location. This is not withstanding the irreversibleloss of this important green open space and the associated benefits.

Impact on schools and health provision

The increased in inhabitants will have a fundamental impact on the existing facilities which arealready struggling with the currently communities they serve. The reality of off-site provisions isquestionable without new infrastructure being constructed and built which I would stronglyquestion would actually benefit the local community.

The scheme is excessive over development resulting in a significant loss to the local communityand the wildlife through the irreversible loss of an important green open space. This seems to beanother poor quality solution and one that cannot be shown to be sustainable in NPPF, neither interms of social or environmental objectives. I would question if a similar lack lustre solutionresulting in the loss of such important open spaces would be approved in Clifton. The councilshould refuse this application.

This should be taken as a very strong objection to the proposal.

I wish to register my objection to the application for outline consent for 260 units withaccess only at Land At Broom Hill/Brislington Meadows. The application represents an excessiveover development of a valuable open green space for the local community and should be refused.

Reason for my objection include- Significant increase in traffic into an area with already poor air quality and lacking in adequatepublic transport. The answer is not to build more roads or more houses but to create a moresustainable system and to not over stretch the fragile facilities that already exist.- Places unsustainable pressure on already overly stretched and over used green open spaceswithin the locality, namely the site itself, Victory Park and Eastwood Farm. All year round, thesearea are heavily used by local people. The development of Brislington Meadows would result inthe irreversible loss of one of these important spaces, while undermining the quality of the othersespecially in respect of their contribution as important green open spaces and as a nature reserve.The resulting increase in the number of people from the development wanting to use these spaceswill have a detrimental impact on the quality of these spaces and their ecology.- In order to achieve the high density sought, the indicative proposals and master plandemonstrate poor quality of design in terms of its scale and mass. This is excessive and out ofcharacter with the local built environment introducing an unremitting silhouette that will dominatethe skyline from the park, eroding the open charater of the site. This effect could not be avoidedwith the quantum and density of development set so high. As a result it will produce anunsustainable and unsympathetic scheme and is not inline with the aims of the NPPF.- A very specific range of poor quality modern developments have been sought to justify the

proposed approach within the D&AS. This shows little recognition to the actual local character andappearance of the area which is lower density, lower massing residential housing. It looks as away to justify a means rather than a robust assessment process.- The split of housing does not favour families or the people who need accommodation. It isheavily weighted to 2 bedrooms for young professional, with commercial return rather than qualityhousing for those struggling the most.- The scheme will result on the loss of valuable habitat and with irreversible impacts on the localecology in an already intensive urban environment. The area is recognised for its abundance offlora and fauna. It provides a useful link to Eastwood Farm and the loss would result in theirreversible erosion of the quality of the natural environment in this part of Bristol.- The retention of green open space within the proposals is tokenistic at best and is a poorsubstitution for the rural quality the site currently provides within the urban milieu. It is not clearhow it proposes to address the climate change emergency so previlent within Bristol.- With the sheer number of people the proposals would introduce, the current provision for schoolsand health facilities are already at breaking point and this would place considerable pressure onexisting infrastructure disadvantaging those who already struggle to get access to those evenbasic facilities.- We note that no facilities are proposed as part of the new development. The reality of offsiteprovisions is questionable without new infrastructure being constructed and built. The reality ofthose benefiting the people who will be most disadvantaged by these proposals are highly unlikely.

It is extremely disappointing to see such a poor and inadequate proposal, that fails to take intoconsideration the significance and importance of this green open space to the local community.Furthermore to be brought forward by a government agency, shows the lack of care orconsideration given to people and environment. This organisation should be presenting theexemplar of how development can be achieved. In our view, this is not a site that presents apositive opportunity for sensitive and sympathetic development, its greatest value being to thelocal community, flora and fauna as an open space.

If approved, this is another example of the lack of regard given to the people of Brislington andtheir needs and requirements. The disparity between the treatment of the north and south sides ofBristol is palpable. It seems to suggest that the people of Brislington don't deserve open greenspaces and a higher quality of life. In line with the governments levelling up agenda, surely thisareas should be being given greater attention and support to enhance and improve the quality oflife given to its residents through their surrounding environment.

This scheme fails to consider the environmental or social objectives of the NPPF and therefore, itcannot be considered as sustainable development. The council should refuse the application. Iobject in the strongest possible terms.

We don't need houses in that space

Water is rubbish as it is more houses. Plus parking, no privacy

I wish to object to the planning application for the following reasons.The area is and has been for years an area of natural beauty with an abundance of wildlife that isstill allowed to flourish in it's natural habitat which is rare for the area.Adding an abundance of housing will only add additional stress to local amenities which arealready under strain, such as local doctors, healthcare and schools.It is a place of natural beauty and to bulldoze through Such valuable green space would be acrime.

Brislington is becoming overdeveloped. Traffic and pollution in the area is alreadyextremely bad. Infrastructure is not in place to continue overdeveloping. The meadows is an areaof natural beauty and has an abundance of wildlife. Please leave it alone.

Insufficient Road and public transport network to support 260 properties that have thepotential for over 500 adult residents there will not be adequate parking so will overflow on toalready busy neighbouring roads and there will be no provisions for increased numbers at schoolsdentists and doctors. Higher risk of flash flooding for the areas below causing an increased impactto urban wildlife that will have already lost area's to the development

I object to the development of residential planning on Brislington Meadows.

There are less that 4% of natural space that is access's me to the public - in the currentclimate where mental health is at an all time low and a climate emergency is acknowledgednationally, it is of great importance that this meadow remained untouched, for the good of thepublic and wildlife.

I am a resident of Brislington who has found valuable solace in this valuableconservation area, both in terms of spotting wildlife but also as somewhere to escape the busyBath Road and to walk my rescue dog who can't be walked in parks because of an injury.I am aware of the housing shortage and in favour of development in appropriate areas, in fact Ihave lived next door to two major developments with another to follow.

This is a SNCI site since 1778 with historic value and purpose, serving wild life, including foxes,birds of prey, badgers and deer and once this is lost we will lose this wildlife for good. It's also inthe middle of one of the largest areas in Bristol and was a haven for many during lockdown. Itseems a travesty to build on here for the sake of several hundred houses which with some goodwill could be built elsewhere. The last two years has seen a surge of people wanting to embracethe outdoors for many reasons, primarily for wellbeing and mental health. In the current climate totake away a peaceful, historical conservation seems at odds with the aim to achieve a greener andmore sustainable Bristol. I was prominent in securing funding for a group called 'Wellbeing Walks'- established initially to support women who were struggling with lack of social contact andisolation during the pandemic and this area is used frequently by that group. I would like tostrongly object to this development and urge that the council turn this proposal down. thank you.

I fully object to the Planning Application to develop Brislington Meadows.

There is much to support the rejection for any planning application and it would be a travesty ofjustice, democracy and plain common sense if development of the Meadows was allowed.

1. The Brislington Meadows site was designated a Site of Natural Scientific Interest (SNCI) untilthe Local Plan of 2014 was approved. Since then, its status as a SNCI has been the subject ofmuch debate, as it does not seem to have ever been formally rescinded. Nothing has changed onthe site since it was designated an SNCI which means that it should not be considered one now.2. In May 2021, the Mayor of Bristol announced that, in light of the Climate and EcologicalEmergencies declared by the city, it was no longer appropriate to develop Brislington Meadows forhousing. In 2022 Bristol City Council debated and passed a motion calling on a stop to thedevelopment of green spaces within the city, including Brislington Meadows.3. Bristol has in 2022 approved a comprehensive house building programme for the next 30 yearsand did not feel the need to include Brislington Meadows in these plans.4. In the Queen's Speech in May 2022 the government has promised new legislation to grant localresidents more say in the development of land in their local area - if this becomes law, residents inBrislington have already demonstrated that they would object fully to any development on theMeadows. The Council, the Mayor, and the local community have all firmly voiced strongobjections to developing this site.5. The site will not be included in the new Local Plan, and the Government's upcoming planninglaws would prevent this site being developed. All these factors make it abundantly clear that this

development is not wanted nor in the interests of Brislington or the wider city.6. This development will affect Brislington and the city for years to come; it should not be rushedthrough before Government policy or the Local Plan prevents it.7. Threat to Biodiversity - Loss of Habitat Wildlife habitat is being lost on a daily basis. The WorldWildlife Federation describes habitat loss as "the greatest threat to the variety of life on this planettoday". The UK has lost almost half of its wildlife and plant species as a result of human and landdevelopment since the Industrial Revolution, according to a new assessment by scientists atLondon's Natural History Museum. The country is ranked in the bottom 10% in the world and theworst among G7 nations. Homes England has recognised that this development will result insignificant loss of habitat; "This represents a net loss of - 24.12% in habitat unit value (a net loss of-14.23 habitat units), meaning a deficit of 20.14 habitat units compared to a 10% net gainposition." Indeed, in some circumstances this rises to -27.44%.8. Invertebrates are central to the functioning of ecosystems. Recent work has shown that they aresuffering from rapid decline. Homes England's own ecological survey states that "The .. ecologysurveys completed at the site revealed that the greatest value of the site is its invertebrateassemblage... included nine species of conservation significance and two further species of localinterest. The assemblage is dependent upon the mix of grassland, hedgerow and scrub habitatspresent in the site. Some species recorded are more dependent upon single habitat types or evensingle plant species (specific trees, grasses or wildflowers)." The loss of invertebrates on this sitemust be taken very seriously.9. Brislington Meadows is a very significant community amenity, allowing the local residents andvisitors to enjoy green space near the heart of the city. Dog walkers will be particularly affected bythe loss of such an open yet secure space for exercise and socialising. Not only will they be forcedto walk the local roads but, no doubt, should the development be allowed to proceed, there will bean increase of dog walkers via a portion of the new residents. There will also be increased use ofEastwood Farm Nature Reserve already suffering from abuse and misuse by "Wild Campers".

In summary, Brislington meadows is a fantastic area of wildlife habitat which benefits the entirecity and indeed the planet, and we simply cannot afford to destroy it now.

After careful consideration of the plans for Brislington Meadows, I fully object to the developmentof the site. Although Bristol is in need of more housing, South Bristol is taking the brunt of thesedevelopments in an area already densely packed with homes. In a climate and biodiversity crisisthe loss of greenspace is not only unnecessary, but would be catastrophic.

The site comprises several small field parcels divided by hedgerows, although somewhatovergrown, the loss of such hedgerows which have become a rarity in our landscape, they shouldbe enhanced and conserved, not removed.

Development in line with the masterplan would result in loss of trees, including good exampleswhich are protected by a TPO. Habitats of principle importance will be lost including a section ofwoodland. The green corridor that is formed between the meadows and Eastwood Farmgreenspace will be lost. Ecologically disastrous fragmentation of habitat which research hasshown is vitally important to avoid.

Bristol has committed to tackle the ecological emergency and ensure that at least 30% of the landin Bristol is to managed for the benefit of wildlife by 2030. In order to do the latter, habitats andgreen spaces must be expanded, not lost.

The meadows currently act as a sink for rainwater. Historically Brisling has suffered from flooding,

and without the meadows slowing infiltration rates, there is potential for an increased flood riskdown hill of the site.

There will be huge impact on the community and services in the area if this development were toproceed. Numerous other developments are earmarked already for the area including especiallyalong the A4 corridor such as Flowers Hill. The increased traffic will feed out to the A4 which isalready overloaded with vehicles - the car surveys carried out were over covid when many werefurloughed so are not real world levels. Air quality is poor and dropping. There is no alternativethan to drive with poor bus service in the area and cycling a dangerous option with the A4 being sochoked with traffic, the majority of inhabitants work elsewhere in the city in jobs that do not allowthe recent trend of working from home.

There is currently only one doctor's surgery serving the whole of Brislington, including Broomhilland St Anne's with more developments already on the way, there is no plan to increase theavailability of services which will inventively lead to a fall in quality and increased mental healthissues. Ironically one way to counteract the mental health decline is access to green space.

Many residents do not have access to real outdoor space, other than Victory Park and theMeadows. Both areas were noticeably more busy during lockdown as people found being out innature helped with the enforced isolation. That discovery of nature has continued, removing alarge proportion of the greenspace and increasing an already large populous will force everyone touse the same space which will result in it becoming damaged, degraded and of less value.

I object to the proposed planning application.We are the ones responsible for the next generation. It is not only about us, we have a duty ofcare to look after the greenspace for future generations especially in cities. New builds bring manyproblems with them, cars and lorries bringing pollution to an already choked area. Medical needs -Drs and dentists already under pressure with people struggling to get appointments. We have aduty to our environment,to care for it and leave spaces in our cities for mental health. Enough isenough, it's up to us to make a stand!

The Brislington area is attracting a new wider array of people from all across Bristol andbeyond. Taking away green space is the opposite of what this area needs.

I fully object to the development of this incredibly precious, species-rich meadowland.As everyone (including BCC apparently) knows, we face an ecological crisis and the destruction ofgreen spaces should be avoided wherever possible. Brislington Meadows is a particularly precioussite as it forms part of an increasingly rare and endangered habitat, with the ancient meadowstrees and hedgerows home to a hugely diverse range of insects, animals and flowers. Indeed, thesite was designated a Site of Natural Scientific Interest (SNSI) until the Local Plan of 2014 wasapproved. Nothing has changed on the site since then so the site should still be seen as this now.I've personally seen countless species there, including deer, insects, slowworms, foxes etc. Thebuilding of 250 houses on a large part of the meadows will wipe out this wildlife and biodiversity.The hedgerows, meadows and trees will never be able to be replicated and this precious habitatwill be lost forever.Not only is this a precious area for wildlife but it's also enjoyed, valued and extensively used by thecommunity as a much-needed green space in a built-up area. We need to be protecting suchareas for the health and wellbeing of the community.As well as these immediate issues for wildlife and the community, the increase in populationcreated by 240 homes will put a huge strain on local schools and GP surgeries which are alreadyunder pressure. The lack of decent public transport infrastructure will inevitably lead to more carjourneys, thereby increasing air pollution in an area that already suffers from extremely poor airquality.I understand that there's a housing crisis in Bristol but the proposed development includes little orno social housing, and the need for more private housing should not be at the expense of theenvironment and essential green spaces needed for the wellbeing of current and future residents

of the city.I urge the powers that be to think very seriously about the enormous and irreversible negativeimpact that this development would have. Current and future generations will thank you forrefusing to allow the destruction of this unique and precious space.

I'm objecting to this proposal as I'm concerned about the impact this new developmentwould have on nature and wildlife. The area is important for conservation, and whilst I appreciatewe need more housing, I believe another location should be found. In light of the ecologicalemergency declared by Bristol City Council, I believe Marvin Rees stated before the last electionthat this site would not be built on in view of its significance for species habitat.

I object to the proposed development as I believe it will lead to the loss of a uniquenatural resource from the area. The meadows are unlike any other grounds in the Brislingtonlocation, they are a home to not only a wide variety of fauna and flora they provide a valuableplace for human well-being. Losing this is likely to increase traffic into other areas as people tryfind somewhere else for a peaceful retreat. This would potentially have a knock on affect onmental health services and physical health with fewer places to exercise and get away from thebustle of city life. I feel animal life would also struggle with the loss of their habitat.

This Site of Nature Conservation Interest is not suitable for housing development formultiple reasons. The decision to mark it as such in the Local Plan needs to be overturned nowBristol has declared an ecological and climate emergency. The meadows are a key green corridorfor local wildlife and the local community has made it very clear - via active protest - that they wishto retain this space as it is. This will help meet Bristol's target of 30% of land being managed forwildlife.

The meadows are also important in terms of people's own use. Bristol City Council has anothertarget that says everyone should have access to green space, and this is especially important forthose in deprived areas. Brislington East is one of the poorer wards in the city. Filling the localarea with high density housing, reducing the green space available and putting pressure on theremaining spaces such as Nightingale Valley and Victory Park, will only reduce quality of lifefurther.

The meadows have been used as a walking route for many years, and as such it should beassumed that there is a 'presumed dedication' for its use. (This refers to a long-establishedprinciple that long use by the public without challenge can constitute evidence that the landownerintended to dedicate the used route as a public right of way. This can take place under eithercommon law or statute law).

In addition, this space needs to be retained as a sink for rain and flood water - Brislington hassuffered bad floods in the past - and the trees and hedgerows for carbon capture to mitigate the

high pollution levels caused by traffic congestion in the area and city. 600 more people living in thearea will make a bad pollution and infrastructure problem worse.

Brislington is seeing high levels of new housing being built, and as such is doing its bit to meetdemand. Destroying this ecologically precious site will be of huge detriment to existing residentsand is completely against other council targets and principles. It is simply the wrong thing to doand the council needs to step in and stop this before it is too late.

The beautiful meadows that has been part of my life growing up for over 40years..whether that's been as a resident as now, or visiting grandparent in Belroyal avenue, theadjoining the fields, as we know as 'Brislington Meadows*The build that could take place I believe is a death sentence to such beautiful Greenland that isalready homing so many wild of animals, trees, flowers, a meadow.....*The impact has already caused such distress to the habitat of the area that already live in themeadows but for residence of the surrounding area too!My concern with objection are as follows;*There just isn't enough room for a new residential build to take place in Brislington full stop.The scale of the build and the amount of families it will home, will just add to an alreadyoverwhelmed community.*Doctors surgery's, can't cope with its existing local community myself, having to wait 5 weeks forjust a call back from a doctor,*Schooling, very over subscribed.*Water pressure, drainage and flood risk are also key factors if this build was to take place...Water pressure within broomhill is incredibly low at the best of times, 300 new homes would onlycause greater concern for local residence.*Highway safety, Broomhill traffic control has heightened over the many years, people alreadyusing Broomhill Rd as a shortcut from the Bath Road.. the increase in volume added by a newcommunity will only cause more pollution, traffic control and parking issues.*As a resident of Belroyal Ave for over 26 years and have had such tranquility at the back of mygarden it concerns me that I will loose my privacy and be overlooked with a good chance of

loosing daylight, sunlight, and in general just be overshadowed!

loss of habitat,likely to flood, roads not in place,over crowding,to many houses,, saveour green spaces,at present its a place to enjoy a walk all that will be lost if building takes placewe dont require any more houses to much building taking place in north Bristol and SouthGlostershire

We are having to protest again about proposals to ruin another much needed green area, Brislington Meadows.A decision which had already been dropped but it seems reinstated soon after certain elections.It would mean decimation of wildlife ,a natural stream and perhaps flooding to contend with(which could be a major problem after development) and more trees lost ,surely the opposite of what should be happening.I saw the original plans and proposals when on show at St Peters Church and will ask again.Do you have any idea the effects on the local roads especially Broomhill Rd and the Bath Rd which have large volumes of traffic and also have to deal with a large trading estate?If any members of the council or Homes England live in the area(which I doubt)and travel on these roads then they know the answer.Where is the councils clean air policy?Or does it not register as we Do not live in the centre of Bristol?I was informed at that meeting that traffic had been studied (I wonder when?) and was thought it was not a problem. This proposal is another kick in the teeth to an area which many residents think is a forgotten suburb,until there is benefit for others.House values could fall which is important to many. Lovely views from the local school in Broomhill will be lost to firstly a major building site and then more houses and polluting traffic.Will we have a better bus service,road speed controls, road sweepers more acsses to a clinic,any facilities in general?All things the developers and council should be responsible for and if the proposals go ahead they should consider if they will be proud of their work.Look at the disaster of a once beautiful Brislington village.

Peter Davies

I would be very sad to see the Meadows changed beyond all recognition. This space is needed for biodiversity. The effects on the loss of yet another green space would be massive. The loss of trees, hedgerows, grassland, animals, birds and insects eventually leads to global concern. I worry about the impact of the construction of the proposed 260 dwellings, the construction lorries causing havoc on the already busy access roads, the noise affecting the learning environment of Broomhill Schools as well as local residents mental wellbeing. I'd worry too about mud movement and flooding before completion to the area below which is still public. Once build, the affect on local services would be massive. There is already a shortage of doctors/dentists in the area. The local schools couldn't cope. It's unlikely residents would walk to the local co-op, therefore potentially at least another 260 cars on the already congested road for work and shopping. There is only one bus service within reasonable walking distance which currently is a very unreliable service. As it is the Meadows are used daily for people to use for exercise, meditation, dog walking, meeting friends, picnicking and encouraging the next generation to learn about biodiversity. Please consider my objection, thankyou Sue Repper

We need as much green space as possible. These houses will cause more damage tothe environment of the area not just by covering much needed surfaces with concrete but by allthe extra traffic created by the cars of the new residents of the houses. Tearing up countrysidedoes not help local wildlife, the environment or the community. There are sites nearby wherefactories have been demolished that could be used for housing as these sites are already amonghouses quite apart from the demolished police station site already mentioned.

The protection of areas like the meadows is paramount if we are to make any progressin halting the demise of local plants & animals, i.e biodiversity.

I am objecting as I am very concerned about the effect on trees and wildlife.

I object in full to the development of Brislington Meadows.The Meadows are of great importance to the area. As we all know , we need to protect our greenspaces, not just for our enjoyment but for the health of our eco system.Also the impact on the trees and nature.

Please do not build on this site.

I would like to object to building on Brislington Meadows. This area provides muchneeded green space for local people and across Bristol. It's a wildlife habitat that is important interms of providing a habitat for insects whose numbers are decreasing and are vital for pollinatingplants and trees.

It states 260 new residences. Where are the amenities to support these new families? Icannot see any mention of nurseries, primary or secondary schools. Doctors or dentists, police,ambulance or fire services. Nor any Council eg recycling, street cleaning services etc. Where isthe community infrastructure to support these new residences? Also the impact on theenvironment of losing a green space in an already over populated area would be detrimental towildlife and people's health and well-being. There are already new residential developments onAirport road with no extra community infrastructure, and more planned for the Park & Ride. Icannot see that this small but significant housing estate is necessary or required.

I am opposed to the development on the grounds that;there will be an adverse impact on wildlife, trees and biodiversity which is at odds with the Green EmergencyThere will be an adverse impact on traffic congestion and pollution and local services. Broomhill is an isolated community and this wil increase traffic flowsHousing needs to be affordable and there are plenty of local sites where development can take place producing lower cost housing - for example the ex care showroom site opposite B&M bargains on the Bath rd. these brownfield sites should be considered first before green site development.an adverse impact on drainage.

thanks

Simon

This is a beautiful green space within walking distance from my house. My children andI often visit the meadows (as well as nightingale valley) because we like looking out for birds andanimals as well as admiring the lovely plants and flowers. Being here makes you feel like you'renot in the city and without this space we would need to drive to other green spaces.

Local roads cannot cope with the current amount of traffic! Adding hundreds of new homes here isonly going to make this worse. Bath Road is already a nightmare, so much so that my parentsavoid coming to visit my family because it takes to long to drive through Brislington!! There is verylimited access to the meadows area... either via Emery Road or Broomhill Road. Both of theseroads are already jammed especially around rush hour. With the new clean air zone coming insoon, Brislington is already going to get busier as people try to avoid going near town. Pleasedon't make our air quality even worse than it already is.

Another concern of mine is access to local services. The schools are full and the doctors isbeyond a joke already. Having to wait over a month for a simple appointment is just the beginningif we're adding hundreds (if not more!) people into the mix.

I'm sure there are plenty of existing empty buildings that could be converted into flats. Or maybean area of brown belt land where houses could be built?

I'm not sure what else to say other than please REJECT this plan. Green spaces should beprotected before we have none left!!

The building of so many houses on this land would be problematic for several reasons.(1) It would cause traffic and parking issues, more so than usual. This would also cause more airpollution in the area, particularly given that a huge area of natural land and trees would bedestroyed in order to make way for it. (2) There aren't enough local schools, GP surgeries, anddental practices to cope with such an increase in the population of this area of Brislington. It is wellknown that waiting times for a GP appointment are typically 2-3 weeks, which is already highlyunacceptable. We should be aiming to improve this, not make it worse. (3) Brislington is a populararea, in large part due to its lovely green spaces. It is the main reason why I chose to live in thisarea. Building loads of houses on this site would ruin this positive aspect of Brislington, and wouldhave a negative impact upon wildlife in this area. If this application is accepted, it will be at oddswith Bristol supposedly priding itself for being an environmentally conscious and green city. Thereis a wealth of scientific research evidence highlighting the link between green spaces andimproved mental and physical well-being. We should be protecting these green spaces, ratherthan destroying them in order to attempt to meet an arbitrary housing target. There are manybrownfield sites that could be used instead.

The Friends of Eastwood Farm would like to oppose the planning application to build260 houses on Brislington Meadows by Homes England. At a time when we all now understandthe importance of our green environment and its importance to the survival of Our World, we feel itis absolutely inappropriate to build on an area of ancient meadow and hedgerows.Eastwood Farm Local Nature Reserve is just across Broomhill Road from The Meadows. Its closeproximity makes it a green corridor not only for the frequent visitors and inhabitants of wildlifespecies but also people who enjoy the circular walk immersed in urban nature around Brislingtonon the 'Brislington Green Trail'. This will be destroyed if 260 houses are built.Brislington Meadows has been designated a Site of Natural Scientific Interest (SNSI) until the localplan of 2014 was approved. However, nothing has changed on the site and there seems to be norecord of this SNSI rescinded. Therefore we feel it still is a SNSI and therefore is absolutely notsuitable for building.Bristol City Council Planning Committee please support us by not allowing the site to be built on. Iam sure there are many brown field sites including the site of the old police station on BroomhillRoad that are more suitable and will not have such a detrimental effect on our community and ourmuch needed green spaces.

The Friends of Eastwood Farm would like to oppose the planning application to build260 houses on Brislington Meadows by Homes England. At a time when we all now understandthe importance of our green environment and its importance to the survival of Our World, we feel itis absolutely inappropriate to build on an area of ancient meadow and hedgerows.Eastwood Farm Local Nature Reserve is just across Broomhill Road from The Meadows. Its closeproximity makes it a green corridor not only for the frequent visitors and inhabitants of wildlifespecies but also people who enjoy the circular walk immersed in urban nature around Brislingtonon the 'Brislington Green Trail'. This will be destroyed if 260 houses are built.Brislington Meadows has been designated a Site of Natural Scientific Interest (SNSI) until the localplan of 2014 was approved. However, nothing has changed on the site and there seems to be norecord of this SNSI rescinded. Therefore we feel it still is a SNSI and therefore is absolutely notsuitable for building.Bristol City Council Planning Committee please support us by not allowing the site to be built on. Iam sure there are many brown field sites including the site of the old police station on BroomhillRoad that are more suitable and will not have such a detrimental effect on our community and ourmuch needed green spaces.

This is already an area that lacks green space and basic facilities. It is not designed formore cheap housing to built upon. I object to this development.

This is already an area that lacks green space and basic facilities. It is not designed formore cheap housing to built upon. I object to this development.

I totally 100% object to any buildings at all. DO NOT BUILD ON THE MEADOEWSplease.

1) It is a place of natural beauty which I have known all my life and have mentally helped methrough a lot of problems in my life to walk and be at peace with nature. I'm there most days whichmy rescues. Green spaces are getting fewer and fewer killing all of nature, what are you doing tothe planet.

2). Where are all the wildlife going to go, they will be KILLED on roads etc trying to find a new'house' to life as theirs been taken for humans yet again. I saw a beautiful fox up there the otherweekend. We always say about looking after our wildlife, however, you're letting they DIE forbuilding houses.

3). I've just had major spinal surgery and had to phone the doctors, I asked for a callback that dayand told a callback will be in 3 weeks time, I burst into tears, I had a major operation and was inagony and quite honestly had enough. A callback 3 weeks, how long would an actual appointmentbe, I could have been suicidal that would've been too late. If 260 house being build which anaverage of 4 people living in each, where are 1040 more people going to go for a doctor who won'tsee you anyway!!

4). Where are all the kids going to go to school as they are full anyway , like the doctors.

5). Emergency services, we called an ambulance as a neighbour a couple of doors down withdementia got out, tripped and banged her head. They said as it wasn't urgent it would take 8 hrs,we moved her which we shouldn't have done as couldn't leave her on the floor this long, it was ahead injury for gods sake, arent old people important anymore?

7). There are enough old run down industrial places to build on, use these and not green spacewhere wildlife and bees are! There is a run down place opposite Convent park (Arnos vale Park,Bath Road). It has been empty for about 30plus years, I'm sure 260 houses would fit on that spotor apartments, build there and not on our green lands.

8). The entrance would be coming out on Broomhill Road, how are people going to get out of theirroads as it's hard enough now?

All the birds we have a couple of days to count and see what type we see, what is the point whenhumans are destroying them and taking away their habitat. If you Google how do we protectwildlife, then building 260 house on their natural home/space doesn't protect them it KILLS them!

I could really go on and on, however it is a waste of my time as I expect it has sadly been agreedalready. It would literally break my heart to see the meadows built on, it's got me through a lot.

Please reject any building, it has to stay how it is, beautiful

I totally 100% object to any buildings at all. DO NOT BUILD ON THE MEADOEWSplease.

1) It is a place of natural beauty which I have known all my life and have mentally helped methrough a lot of problems in my life to walk and be at peace with nature. I'm there most days whichmy rescues. Green spaces are getting fewer and fewer killing all of nature, what are you doing tothe planet.

2). Where are all the wildlife going to go, they will be KILLED on roads etc trying to find a new'house' to life as theirs been taken for humans yet again. I saw a beautiful fox up there the otherweekend. We always say about looking after our wildlife, however, you're letting they DIE forbuilding houses.

3). I've just had major spinal surgery and had to phone the doctors, I asked for a callback that dayand told a callback will be in 3 weeks time, I burst into tears, I had a major operation and was inagony and quite honestly had enough. A callback 3 weeks, how long would an actual appointmentbe, I could have been suicidal that would've been too late. If 260 house being build which anaverage of 4 people living in each, where are 1040 more people going to go for a doctor who won'tsee you anyway!!

4). Where are all the kids going to go to school as they are full anyway , like the doctors.

5). Emergency services, we called an ambulance as a neighbour a couple of doors down withdementia got out, tripped and banged her head. They said as it wasn't urgent it would take 8 hrs,we moved her which we shouldn't have done as couldn't leave her on the floor this long, it was ahead injury for gods sake, arent old people important anymore?

7). There are enough old run down industrial places to build on, use these and not green spacewhere wildlife and bees are! There is a run down place opposite Convent park (Arnos vale Park,Bath Road). It has been empty for about 30plus years, I'm sure 260 houses would fit on that spotor apartments, build there and not on our green lands.

8). The entrance would be coming out on Broomhill Road, how are people going to get out of theirroads as it's hard enough now?

All the birds we have a couple of days to count and see what type we see, what is the point whenhumans are destroying them and taking away their habitat. If you Google how do we protectwildlife, then building 260 house on their natural home/space doesn't protect them it KILLS them!

I could really go on and on, however it is a waste of my time as I expect it has sadly been agreedalready. It would literally break my heart to see the meadows built on, it's got me through a lot.

Please reject any building, it has to stay how it is, beautiful

I have used Brislington meadows as a recreational space for many years .my childrenand my grandchildren have enjoyed the trees and flowers like being in the country . I worry therewill be no green spaces left in brislington . I am also concerned about the impact on local services.Traffic which is bad at the moment will become unbearable.It is very difficult to obtain doctorsappointments at the moment and local schools are struggling . The amount of applications forbuilding homes in the area is enormous .You must be aware of other applications in the areaadding to the squeeze on utilities . If all these planning applications were on one site the builderswould be obliged to provide a school and doctors surgeries.

I have used Brislington meadows as a recreational space for many years .my childrenand my grandchildren have enjoyed the trees and flowers like being in the country . I worry therewill be no green spaces left in brislington . I am also concerned about the impact on local services.Traffic which is bad at the moment will become unbearable.It is very difficult to obtain doctorsappointments at the moment and local schools are struggling . The amount of applications forbuilding homes in the area is enormous .You must be aware of other applications in the areaadding to the squeeze on utilities . If all these planning applications were on one site the builderswould be obliged to provide a school and doctors surgeries.

The meadows are a haven for wildlife.Any new development should be done on brown field sites and not green land which is well lovedby the local community and also a well needed green space for local residents, children andwiidlife.The space is well used and loved by Brislington residents and people from other parts of the city.We should be treasuring and conserving our green spaces.

The meadows are a haven for wildlife.Any new development should be done on brown field sites and not green land which is well lovedby the local community and also a well needed green space for local residents, children andwiidlife.The space is well used and loved by Brislington residents and people from other parts of the city.We should be treasuring and conserving our green spaces.

Brislington Meadows, as an incredibly valuable green space, is a lifeline for so manypeople living in the BS4 area. Wildlife thrives there. Beautiful flowering meadow areas.Somewhere to sit and recharge. There are plenty of disused factory spaces on the industrialestate. Once it's gone its gone. Once the wildlife is gone its gone. We need to learn to share ourworld not take everything from them and drive them away. Traffic pollution and volume of trafficjams in rush hour will only increase with more houses. Bristol needs to break the mould and dothings differently. Think again and build the houses in a more appropriate space. It's not too late tochange the plan and do the right thing by our wildlife neighbours that can't speak for themselves.

Brislington Meadows, as an incredibly valuable green space, is a lifeline for so manypeople living in the BS4 area. Wildlife thrives there. Beautiful flowering meadow areas.Somewhere to sit and recharge. There are plenty of disused factory spaces on the industrialestate. Once it's gone its gone. Once the wildlife is gone its gone. We need to learn to share ourworld not take everything from them and drive them away. Traffic pollution and volume of trafficjams in rush hour will only increase with more houses. Bristol needs to break the mould and dothings differently. Think again and build the houses in a more appropriate space. It's not too late tochange the plan and do the right thing by our wildlife neighbours that can't speak for themselves.

I object to this

I object to this

This development will cause environmental chaos with the running of power linesewage pipes and the roads around the area will be gridlock they are already gridlocked daily.This is a main commute route area for school children and the local college,This area need socialhousing not affordable housing.But not at this chosen location.The area is full of wild life and endangered insects and is this lungs of are local area we arealready choking as this is a main bus route,Adding to this would lead to poor health of local residents.The mayor of Bristol said himself this should never be built on.this is the same as what happened at royate hill fishponds which is now a nature reserve. theMeadows should be given this status.have we not listen to the scientist.the carbon footprint of building a new house is nearly 56 tonnes which is equivalent to fiveestablished homes.

This development will cause environmental chaos with the running of power linesewage pipes and the roads around the area will be gridlock they are already gridlocked daily.This is a main commute route area for school children and the local college,This area need socialhousing not affordable housing.But not at this chosen location.The area is full of wild life and endangered insects and is this lungs of are local area we arealready choking as this is a main bus route,Adding to this would lead to poor health of local residents.The mayor of Bristol said himself this should never be built on.this is the same as what happened at royate hill fishponds which is now a nature reserve. theMeadows should be given this status.have we not listen to the scientist.the carbon footprint of building a new house is nearly 56 tonnes which is equivalent to fiveestablished homes.

The natural world is in decline, insect and bird species are in decline and the meadows,especially in the summer is a very important local habitat for such things. Bristol has a reputationfor bei g a green city but its quickly becoming a concrete jungle.Green spaces are also very important for people well being and me tsl health and with mentalhealth issues on the rise getting rid of our precious green spaces can only be a bad thing

The natural world is in decline, insect and bird species are in decline and the meadows,especially in the summer is a very important local habitat for such things. Bristol has a reputationfor bei g a green city but its quickly becoming a concrete jungle.Green spaces are also very important for people well being and me tsl health and with mentalhealth issues on the rise getting rid of our precious green spaces can only be a bad thing

I am deeply concerned about the destruction of this rare green space. Air pollution inBristol is already at dangerous levels and this space creates a vital green lung. The road accessaround the site is already hugely congested and it's extremely difficult to access basic services likethe GP. Public transport is barely usable with huge waits for busses at peak commuter times andbusses arriving on Sandy Park already full. I appreciate the dire need for housing in the area but Ido not understand why such a rare and rich habitat needs to be sacrificed rather than brownfieldsites?I have young children and this site is one of the few accessible green spaces for me to to walk withthem and reap the known benefits of connecting children with nature. This is another reason I'mworried about the pollution from the site and additional traffic as my children attend nursery nearbyand will attend school nearby in the future.

I am deeply concerned about the destruction of this rare green space. Air pollution inBristol is already at dangerous levels and this space creates a vital green lung. The road accessaround the site is already hugely congested and it's extremely difficult to access basic services likethe GP. Public transport is barely usable with huge waits for busses at peak commuter times andbusses arriving on Sandy Park already full. I appreciate the dire need for housing in the area but Ido not understand why such a rare and rich habitat needs to be sacrificed rather than brownfieldsites?I have young children and this site is one of the few accessible green spaces for me to to walk withthem and reap the known benefits of connecting children with nature. This is another reason I'mworried about the pollution from the site and additional traffic as my children attend nursery nearbyand will attend school nearby in the future.

The meadows are a lovely and historic green space, which provide importantenvironmental and ecological benefits to the area. I would be very concerned about the loss ofgreen space, especially as Brislington is very polluted with the busy A4 running through it. I wouldalso be worried about the impact on traffic in the area with so many new homes, and whether ourlocal infrastructure, particularly GP surgeries and schools, could cope with so many new residents.

I would prefer to see homes built on existing brown field sites rather than irreparably destroyingprecious natural habitats.

As a resident of Brislington I feel that the historic character of the area is really integral to it'scharm, and that includes the ancient green spaces. Building over the meadows would be a hugeloss to the area and create further strain on our already overstretched local amenities.

The meadows are a lovely and historic green space, which provide importantenvironmental and ecological benefits to the area. I would be very concerned about the loss ofgreen space, especially as Brislington is very polluted with the busy A4 running through it. I wouldalso be worried about the impact on traffic in the area with so many new homes, and whether ourlocal infrastructure, particularly GP surgeries and schools, could cope with so many new residents.

I would prefer to see homes built on existing brown field sites rather than irreparably destroyingprecious natural habitats.

As a resident of Brislington I feel that the historic character of the area is really integral to it'scharm, and that includes the ancient green spaces. Building over the meadows would be a hugeloss to the area and create further strain on our already overstretched local amenities.

The meadows are used by myself and many other members of the public. It's abeautiful space and will have a huge impact on the character and appearance of the area. Not tomention the huge impact it will have on the local wildlife and nature. It will kill it. The s Scale anddominance of the proposed build , there is not enough surrounding infrastructure to support thebuild.

The meadows are used by myself and many other members of the public. It's abeautiful space and will have a huge impact on the character and appearance of the area. Not tomention the huge impact it will have on the local wildlife and nature. It will kill it. The s Scale anddominance of the proposed build , there is not enough surrounding infrastructure to support thebuild.

Unfortunately, I feel we do not need this development. it will lead to loss of privacy, lossof daylight/sunlight, traffic and parking issues - all for nearby residents and also increaseddrainage and flood risk.Plus the main impact points of appearance of the area and the effect on trees and wildlife/natureconservation. This is a lovely green area which once its gone can never be replaced.

Unfortunately, I feel we do not need this development. it will lead to loss of privacy, lossof daylight/sunlight, traffic and parking issues - all for nearby residents and also increaseddrainage and flood risk.Plus the main impact points of appearance of the area and the effect on trees and wildlife/natureconservation. This is a lovely green area which once its gone can never be replaced.

Marsha Whitmore96 Hayward Road, BS5 9QA21/06/22

the application number 22/01878/P

site address Broom Hill/Brislington Meadows Broomhill Road Bristol BS4 4UD

Marsha Whitmore96 Hayward Road, BS5 9QA21/06/22

the application number 22/01878/P

site address Broom Hill/Brislington Meadows Broomhill Road Bristol BS4 4UD

A4 traffic is bad enough as it is without these extra homes. I believe there is also anapplication to build many homes on the land next to the allotments on A4, near to Hicks Gate. Fartoo many with no infrastructure.Where will the extra doctor / dentist / school places be situated?Do not use green spaces to build tiny boxes with minimal parking and small gardens. Greenspaces should be protected - build on brownfield sites.Build more schools / doctor / dentist / shopping / social places before considering more houses

A4 traffic is bad enough as it is without these extra homes. I believe there is also anapplication to build many homes on the land next to the allotments on A4, near to Hicks Gate. Fartoo many with no infrastructure.Where will the extra doctor / dentist / school places be situated?Do not use green spaces to build tiny boxes with minimal parking and small gardens. Greenspaces should be protected - build on brownfield sites.Build more schools / doctor / dentist / shopping / social places before considering more houses

Its been beautiful meadows all my lifeWildlife is lovely there it's been a right of way to the trading estateThe noise would be terrible and loss of green spaceDown valueing my propertyMore pollution and strain on drs and schoolsIt would be devastating for all the locals who enjoy walking the meadowsYoung children seeing the wildlife dears foxes badgers and night time bats

Its been beautiful meadows all my lifeWildlife is lovely there it's been a right of way to the trading estateThe noise would be terrible and loss of green spaceDown valueing my propertyMore pollution and strain on drs and schoolsIt would be devastating for all the locals who enjoy walking the meadowsYoung children seeing the wildlife dears foxes badgers and night time bats

I object to this development - it would be a shame to lose this green space

I object to this development - it would be a shame to lose this green space

I would like to object to the proposal to build new housing on the Brislington Meadows.

This is an important ecological treasure that we should be looking after, the proposed wildlifecorridors could never be sufficient to replace the loss of biodiversity that would surely occur whenthe meadows are removed. In a time when we are placing so many species under pressure weshould be trying to maintain these rare environments.

This is an important area for people that allows them to escape from the city area and enablesthem to enjoy the natural world. This is so important for people to help with both physical andmental fitness.

Additional housing will also put a lot of strain on the local community services, along with the otherdevelopments that are also occurring in the local area. The increase in population will put morestrain on the local doctors, schools and shops. The increase in traffic will also decrease the airquality and put more strain on the local transport links.

I would like to object to the proposal to build new housing on the Brislington Meadows.

This is an important ecological treasure that we should be looking after, the proposed wildlifecorridors could never be sufficient to replace the loss of biodiversity that would surely occur whenthe meadows are removed. In a time when we are placing so many species under pressure weshould be trying to maintain these rare environments.

This is an important area for people that allows them to escape from the city area and enablesthem to enjoy the natural world. This is so important for people to help with both physical andmental fitness.

Additional housing will also put a lot of strain on the local community services, along with the otherdevelopments that are also occurring in the local area. The increase in population will put morestrain on the local doctors, schools and shops. The increase in traffic will also decrease the airquality and put more strain on the local transport links.

I fully object to the proposal for building the houses on two main principles:Environmental and also due to increased traffic if the houses are built.Environmental- there are fewer and fewer green spaces in Brislington and this meadow was agreat discovery for me, on walks made during lockdown and needs to be retained. It provides anenvironmental habitat that could easily be linked and supported by the Eastwood farm naturereserve. There are other sites nearby that could be used for houses for example the Simon stonecar site which has remained vacant for 2 and a half years ( although that would add to the alreadycongested bath road (a4) which leads me to my second point. In the 20 years I have lived in thisarea I have seen more and more houses built in any available space . Infills, vacant land (for egone house on jersey avenue is now three separate properties and the same is going to happen tothe house across the road so six houses where there were just two). There are numerousexamples of this in and around the area of Broomhill. It is filled to the brim. This has led to anincrease in traffic as Broomhill road is a bypass to the bath road. Now imagine 260 homes whichundoubtedly without transport infrastructure will mean another 500 cars on Broomhill road. Thereport on car speeds indicates how busy it is at times as you can't speed during day light hours asit is end to end traffic. The over congested junction by St Brendan's and McDonald's is alreadyproblematic all day not just rush hour. If you take a holistic view of Broomhill /st Anne's it isessentially an island with limited ways to leave- the Netham lock/ Whitby road junction (already anightmare) then the aforementioned st Brendan's jn, school road, wick road have to empty ontothe bath road and only can turn left ie one direction and then Sandy park which again has to spillonto the bath road. Now imagine 600 other residents in that island.Re transport The number 1 and 96 are unreliable. The 96 only goes one way in a loop.

This is a plea to any common sense in the planning department. Don't allow this to happen. It's sowrong. We need our green spaces as do the creatures living there.

I fully object to the proposal for building the houses on two main principles:Environmental and also due to increased traffic if the houses are built.Environmental- there are fewer and fewer green spaces in Brislington and this meadow was agreat discovery for me, on walks made during lockdown and needs to be retained. It provides anenvironmental habitat that could easily be linked and supported by the Eastwood farm naturereserve. There are other sites nearby that could be used for houses for example the Simon stonecar site which has remained vacant for 2 and a half years ( although that would add to the alreadycongested bath road (a4) which leads me to my second point. In the 20 years I have lived in thisarea I have seen more and more houses built in any available space . Infills, vacant land (for egone house on jersey avenue is now three separate properties and the same is going to happen tothe house across the road so six houses where there were just two). There are numerousexamples of this in and around the area of Broomhill. It is filled to the brim. This has led to anincrease in traffic as Broomhill road is a bypass to the bath road. Now imagine 260 homes whichundoubtedly without transport infrastructure will mean another 500 cars on Broomhill road. Thereport on car speeds indicates how busy it is at times as you can't speed during day light hours asit is end to end traffic. The over congested junction by St Brendan's and McDonald's is alreadyproblematic all day not just rush hour. If you take a holistic view of Broomhill /st Anne's it isessentially an island with limited ways to leave- the Netham lock/ Whitby road junction (already anightmare) then the aforementioned st Brendan's jn, school road, wick road have to empty ontothe bath road and only can turn left ie one direction and then Sandy park which again has to spillonto the bath road. Now imagine 600 other residents in that island.Re transport The number 1 and 96 are unreliable. The 96 only goes one way in a loop.

This is a plea to any common sense in the planning department. Don't allow this to happen. It's sowrong. We need our green spaces as do the creatures living there.

I fully object the planning application

The impact on local doctors - currently takes around 2 - 3 weeks for an appointment, how will thisever improve with hundreds more people in the area. There are currently plans for over 1000 newhomes within a mile radius of this site but no plans for local amenities.

The development will put pressure on the few remaining other green spaces in the area mainlyNightingale Valley, Eastwood Nature Reserve, Victory Park and the effect on wildlife in theseplaces.

The meadows provide important environmental and ecological benefits to the area and many localresidents use the space for dog walking and exercise and have done for many many years.

The development will have a negative effect on property value within the area.

The development will not be good for the environment and will add to the traffic congestion alreadyin this area.

Why can't we make use of brownfield sites?

I fully object the planning application

The impact on local doctors - currently takes around 2 - 3 weeks for an appointment, how will thisever improve with hundreds more people in the area. There are currently plans for over 1000 newhomes within a mile radius of this site but no plans for local amenities.

The development will put pressure on the few remaining other green spaces in the area mainlyNightingale Valley, Eastwood Nature Reserve, Victory Park and the effect on wildlife in theseplaces.

The meadows provide important environmental and ecological benefits to the area and many localresidents use the space for dog walking and exercise and have done for many many years.

The development will have a negative effect on property value within the area.

The development will not be good for the environment and will add to the traffic congestion alreadyin this area.

Why can't we make use of brownfield sites?

We need the green space in Bristol. Also without more doctors surgeries, schools,shops and dentists etc this is unsustainable for current residents. The traffic in the area is alreadybad and wait times to see doctors or dentists is atrocious. Adding more poorly thought out housingwill not help.

We need the green space in Bristol. Also without more doctors surgeries, schools,shops and dentists etc this is unsustainable for current residents. The traffic in the area is alreadybad and wait times to see doctors or dentists is atrocious. Adding more poorly thought out housingwill not help.

I strongly object to this application on the basis of environmental grounds .

This application seeks to destroy more meadows which even the applicants ecologists initiallyrecord as being moderately species rich and yet attempts to down grade them , we only have 3 %of meadows remaining and yet , contrary to all of the efforts to regenerate them this applicationseeks to destroy them .

This application does not satisfy either planning policy nor the 2021 Environmental Act and shouldbe rejected outright .

I strongly object to this application on the basis of environmental grounds .

This application seeks to destroy more meadows which even the applicants ecologists initiallyrecord as being moderately species rich and yet attempts to down grade them , we only have 3 %of meadows remaining and yet , contrary to all of the efforts to regenerate them this applicationseeks to destroy them .

This application does not satisfy either planning policy nor the 2021 Environmental Act and shouldbe rejected outright .

This is green space in the local community that is used for outdoor activities and topromote wildlife. Building the houses will have a direct impact on children attending the localnursery and school in terms of noise and dust pollution.

This is green space in the local community that is used for outdoor activities and topromote wildlife. Building the houses will have a direct impact on children attending the localnursery and school in terms of noise and dust pollution.

This is a wildlife haven and wild flowers and no room for this development and road thatis proposed wich would go through are Alotment which we have crested newts on and would beproblem for traffic in an already congested area

This is a wildlife haven and wild flowers and no room for this development and road thatis proposed wich would go through are Alotment which we have crested newts on and would beproblem for traffic in an already congested area

The fields that are used by most people in the brislington area should not be destroyedby these building plans. Its a place of solitude for some and a place for most to walk with theirfriends, families and dogs. It would be devastating to see the place where I grew up and played in,be destroyed.

The fields that are used by most people in the brislington area should not be destroyedby these building plans. Its a place of solitude for some and a place for most to walk with theirfriends, families and dogs. It would be devastating to see the place where I grew up and played in,be destroyed.

I strongly disagree with this whole proposal on the basis it's going to destroy manytres/shrubs/ wildlife including bee's, hedgehogs, badgers etc. when such things are in greatdecline already and global warming is at a critical level. We should be encouraging suchlandscapes not destroying them. Such projects say they will replace/replant but not to the extent ofits original state and can never replace the original, established eco system

I strongly disagree with this whole proposal on the basis it's going to destroy manytres/shrubs/ wildlife including bee's, hedgehogs, badgers etc. when such things are in greatdecline already and global warming is at a critical level. We should be encouraging suchlandscapes not destroying them. Such projects say they will replace/replant but not to the extent ofits original state and can never replace the original, established eco system

Building new houses on our meadows will create extra traffic along Broomhill Roadwhich is already an extremely busy and fast road. Our local children walking to school are indanger every day with the speed of traffic. Adding more to this route will also increase the risk toour children. The A4 Bath Road corridor is also and extremely busy road with traffic congestionand adding hundreds of new cars from these houses will increase this significantly. The traffictrying to get out of Broomhill Road towards McDonald's is also queued at peak times so this willalso get worse. The wait times to see the GP in Brislington is nearly one month, adding hundredsof new patients to the only doctors surgery in the area will be deathly. This will increase the A&Edepartments at the hospitals as patients can't and won't wait that long to see a GP. The meadowsis a beautiful spot full of nature, wildlife and should be left alone for the community to enjoy. Takingaway the green space for locals to enjoy is not fair, where can our children run free, we will beliving in a concrete jungle where children are kept at home not being able to enjoy the outdoors.Please leave the meadows alone.

Building new houses on our meadows will create extra traffic along Broomhill Roadwhich is already an extremely busy and fast road. Our local children walking to school are indanger every day with the speed of traffic. Adding more to this route will also increase the risk toour children. The A4 Bath Road corridor is also and extremely busy road with traffic congestionand adding hundreds of new cars from these houses will increase this significantly. The traffictrying to get out of Broomhill Road towards McDonald's is also queued at peak times so this willalso get worse. The wait times to see the GP in Brislington is nearly one month, adding hundredsof new patients to the only doctors surgery in the area will be deathly. This will increase the A&Edepartments at the hospitals as patients can't and won't wait that long to see a GP. The meadowsis a beautiful spot full of nature, wildlife and should be left alone for the community to enjoy. Takingaway the green space for locals to enjoy is not fair, where can our children run free, we will beliving in a concrete jungle where children are kept at home not being able to enjoy the outdoors.Please leave the meadows alone.

We need as much green space as possible to support local wildlife and to promote bio-diversity. Despite how the city apparently views itself, actions such as removing the meadow aren'tvery in keeping with our city's ethos of being a green.

Also, considering Mr Rees completely spineless back and fourth on the matter, I can't help but seethis decision as a self serving interest that won't actually help the local residents of this area, oreven any other of the citizens of our city.

We need as much green space as possible to support local wildlife and to promote bio-diversity. Despite how the city apparently views itself, actions such as removing the meadow aren'tvery in keeping with our city's ethos of being a green.

Also, considering Mr Rees completely spineless back and fourth on the matter, I can't help but seethis decision as a self serving interest that won't actually help the local residents of this area, oreven any other of the citizens of our city.

I oppose to building a concrete jungle on our magnificent stunning Meadows, with all its beauty of wildlife and their habitats which has been established for many many years. Trees that have been there for hundreds of years (Oak) (Ash) and many more. Building this huge estate will be devastating to our community, lack of schools, dentists, doctor's, children will suffer with their education, as schools will be overloaded. The roads will be totally gridlocked, with Pollution at its Highest. Plus nooo water pressure. There are sooo many reasons why this meadows should NOT be distroyed.

Regards Alison

I object strongly to this planning application on the basis of environmental concerns, andimpact on traffic for existing residents.

The loss of green spaces, felt even more keenly after the pandemic, has a serious detrimentaleffect on local wildlife. Loss of this space will further impact pollinating insects and will harmvulnerable species such as hedgehogs. On a human level also, existence of and access to greenspaces is imperative for mental and physical health.

Beyond this, air quality in the are will suffer further with the addition of new homes and theiraccompanying vehicles. This is particularly problematic for asthma sufferers who have alreadysuffered disproportionately during the recent pandemic.

Traffic in the area is already difficult to navigate, with roads on all sides of Brislington Meadowsexperiencing delays and jams on a daily basis. The artery of the bath road will become even moreunusable with the addition of the proposed extra households. With unrestricted parking in thesurrounding areas there will be further competition for spaces, I have on a number of occasionsbeen blocked into my driveway, the likelihood of this will only increase with excess vehicles andthe woefully inadequate parking provision required of these plans.

Living so close to the proposed site, I am concerned about increase in traffic, noise and aworsening of air quality, I work from home permanently as a result of a pandemic and as such myhome, access to and from, and the ability to open my windows is important to me on a daily basis.

I object strongly to this planning application on the basis of environmental concerns, andimpact on traffic for existing residents.

The loss of green spaces, felt even more keenly after the pandemic, has a serious detrimentaleffect on local wildlife. Loss of this space will further impact pollinating insects and will harmvulnerable species such as hedgehogs. On a human level also, existence of and access to greenspaces is imperative for mental and physical health.

Beyond this, air quality in the are will suffer further with the addition of new homes and theiraccompanying vehicles. This is particularly problematic for asthma sufferers who have alreadysuffered disproportionately during the recent pandemic.

Traffic in the area is already difficult to navigate, with roads on all sides of Brislington Meadowsexperiencing delays and jams on a daily basis. The artery of the bath road will become even moreunusable with the addition of the proposed extra households. With unrestricted parking in thesurrounding areas there will be further competition for spaces, I have on a number of occasionsbeen blocked into my driveway, the likelihood of this will only increase with excess vehicles andthe woefully inadequate parking provision required of these plans.

Living so close to the proposed site, I am concerned about increase in traffic, noise and aworsening of air quality, I work from home permanently as a result of a pandemic and as such myhome, access to and from, and the ability to open my windows is important to me on a daily basis.

We should be protecting our green spaces.

We should be protecting our green spaces.

I fully object to the Planning Application to develop Brislington Meadows.1.The Brislington Meadows site was designated a Site of Natural Scientific Interest (SNCI) until theLocal Plan of 2014 was approved. Since then, its status as a SNCI has been the subject of muchdebate, as it does not seem to have ever been formally rescinded. Nothing has changed on thesite since it was designated an SNCI, so it should not be considered for development.2.The Chief Executive of Avon Wildlife Trust has stated that Brislington Meadows is an importanthabitat for wildlife which also provides vital access to nature for local people.3.Developing this land goes against Bristol's commitment to tackle the ecological emergency andensure that at least 30% of the land in Bristol is to be managed for the benefit of wildlife by 2030.No mitigation or claim of biodiversity net gain off site can compensate for the sheer loss of wild life,and biodiversity of this site.4.The Meadows are extremely important to the community, as it is the only natural green openspace, full of ancient hedgerows, veteran trees and a huge variety of wildlife, all essential andimportant to the wellbeing of everyone's health and mental health, particularly as the NHS are nowadvocating #GreenSocialPrescribing #HealthierWithNature.5. Traffic and Parking issues. Broomhill Road and Bath Road/A4 are congested at peak times,with the Bath Road normally being at a standstill. The surrounding area does not have thecapacity to support 200+ additional cars.6.The area is already heavily polluted, and more vehicles will only add to this, which will bedetrimental to our health.7.The local schools and Health facilities are already over stretched. It takes approx. 3 weeks tosee a GP as it is. NHS dentists are non-existent in the area. How can they support patients from

these new homes.8.Drainage and Flood Risk. School Road suffers with surface water when there is heavy rain.9. The Mayor of Bristol was photographed in the Meadows and stated that Brislington Meadowswould not be built on. Bristol City Council voted against building on Greenfield sites

I fully object to the Planning Application to develop Brislington Meadows.1.The Brislington Meadows site was designated a Site of Natural Scientific Interest (SNCI) until theLocal Plan of 2014 was approved. Since then, its status as a SNCI has been the subject of muchdebate, as it does not seem to have ever been formally rescinded. Nothing has changed on thesite since it was designated an SNCI, so it should not be considered for development.2.The Chief Executive of Avon Wildlife Trust has stated that Brislington Meadows is an importanthabitat for wildlife which also provides vital access to nature for local people.3.Developing this land goes against Bristol's commitment to tackle the ecological emergency andensure that at least 30% of the land in Bristol is to be managed for the benefit of wildlife by 2030.No mitigation or claim of biodiversity net gain off site can compensate for the sheer loss of wild life,and biodiversity of this site.4.The Meadows are extremely important to the community, as it is the only natural green openspace, full of ancient hedgerows, veteran trees and a huge variety of wildlife, all essential andimportant to the wellbeing of everyone's health and mental health, particularly as the NHS are nowadvocating #GreenSocialPrescribing #HealthierWithNature.5. Traffic and Parking issues. Broomhill Road and Bath Road/A4 are congested at peak times,with the Bath Road normally being at a standstill. The surrounding area does not have thecapacity to support 200+ additional cars.6.The area is already heavily polluted, and more vehicles will only add to this, which will bedetrimental to our health.7.The local schools and Health facilities are already over stretched. It takes approx. 3 weeks tosee a GP as it is. NHS dentists are non-existent in the area. How can they support patients from

these new homes.8.Drainage and Flood Risk. School Road suffers with surface water when there is heavy rain.9. The Mayor of Bristol was photographed in the Meadows and stated that Brislington Meadowswould not be built on. Bristol City Council voted against building on Greenfield sites

20/06/2020Christopher Barnes159 Allison RoadBrislingtonBristol BS4 4PG

Application number:22/01878/PSite address: Broomhill/Brislington Meadows, Broomhill Road, Bristol BS4 4UD

I object to the proposed building of houses on these ancient meadows separated by ancienthedgerows for the following reasons:1. Nature and biodiversityIt would be a total travesty and hypocrisy to destroy the very habitat councils and governmenthave pledged to protect. These meadows are a small fraction of meadowland we once had, 3% ofwhat we had in the 1930s.Brislington Meadows with their ancient hedgerows and a small spring fed stream that runs throughare at the forefront of our most important ecosystems. These meadows support a vast array ofwildlife. Birds, mammals, insects, a lot of which are pollinators, and many are on a worryingly fastdecline.There are a number of different variety of bats which use the hedgerows as their flight corridors.These meadows must be protected not only for nature but for us, and most importantly futuregenerations. And to claim that you can offset or make a net gain of biodiversity with clever

planning is an absolute nonsense and any wildlife expert would dispel such a ludicrous claim.

2. Traffic congestionBrislington has the unenviable title of one of the worst congestion areas in Bristol. And BroomhillRoad is a terrible bottleneck at peak times. The traffic backs back from McDonalds on the BathRoad right back down to Ironmould Lane. Along with that you get bad air quality which willincrease quite significantly with all the extra traffic exiting on to Broomhill Road, you would make abad situation terrible. To plan the site to encourage residence to cycle to work is being optimistic inthe extreme, plus the number 1 bus service has got to be one of the most unreliable in Bristol.

3. Road SafetyBroomhill Road is used by children making their way to at least 3 local schools and a college. Thissite with site vehicles entering and exiting the site on to Broomhill Road and then residentsentering and exiting would add a greater element of danger to children.

4. Health and wellbeingThe proposed site sits right on the edge of two schools, Broomhill Juniors and Broomhill Infants.Imagine your children being educated with the noise, dust and vision of a building site for anumber of years, when the meadows could be used in a very positive way for children to be madeaware of conservation and recreation.With smaller houses, with smaller gardens (if any) all our green spaces will be needed for ourhealth and wellbeing now and even more so in the future.

5. InfrastructureWith schools stretched and class sizes bigger, I don't think our two schools in Broomhill will copewith the added number of children. Our overstretched clinic which serves Brislington has aridiculous waiting time to see a doctor. My wife was told the current waiting time was a month tosee the doctor which is totally unacceptable. This can only get worse. There are very poor facilitiesin the area, never been a chemist, no post office, no youth club and not much variety of shops.

6. Added risk of future floodingThe meadows act as a natural sponge in times of heavy rain, the likes of which we will be gettingmore. I believe with a steeply sloping site which the meadows are, this will create a greater risk inthe future. There will be a smaller area to drain off and in times of heavy rain, water already runsout the land onto School Road.

20/06/2020Christopher Barnes159 Allison RoadBrislingtonBristol BS4 4PG

Application number:22/01878/PSite address: Broomhill/Brislington Meadows, Broomhill Road, Bristol BS4 4UD

I object to the proposed building of houses on these ancient meadows separated by ancienthedgerows for the following reasons:1. Nature and biodiversityIt would be a total travesty and hypocrisy to destroy the very habitat councils and governmenthave pledged to protect. These meadows are a small fraction of meadowland we once had, 3% ofwhat we had in the 1930s.Brislington Meadows with their ancient hedgerows and a small spring fed stream that runs throughare at the forefront of our most important ecosystems. These meadows support a vast array ofwildlife. Birds, mammals, insects, a lot of which are pollinators, and many are on a worryingly fastdecline.There are a number of different variety of bats which use the hedgerows as their flight corridors.These meadows must be protected not only for nature but for us, and most importantly futuregenerations. And to claim that you can offset or make a net gain of biodiversity with clever

planning is an absolute nonsense and any wildlife expert would dispel such a ludicrous claim.

2. Traffic congestionBrislington has the unenviable title of one of the worst congestion areas in Bristol. And BroomhillRoad is a terrible bottleneck at peak times. The traffic backs back from McDonalds on the BathRoad right back down to Ironmould Lane. Along with that you get bad air quality which willincrease quite significantly with all the extra traffic exiting on to Broomhill Road, you would make abad situation terrible. To plan the site to encourage residence to cycle to work is being optimistic inthe extreme, plus the number 1 bus service has got to be one of the most unreliable in Bristol.

3. Road SafetyBroomhill Road is used by children making their way to at least 3 local schools and a college. Thissite with site vehicles entering and exiting the site on to Broomhill Road and then residentsentering and exiting would add a greater element of danger to children.

4. Health and wellbeingThe proposed site sits right on the edge of two schools, Broomhill Juniors and Broomhill Infants.Imagine your children being educated with the noise, dust and vision of a building site for anumber of years, when the meadows could be used in a very positive way for children to be madeaware of conservation and recreation.With smaller houses, with smaller gardens (if any) all our green spaces will be needed for ourhealth and wellbeing now and even more so in the future.

5. InfrastructureWith schools stretched and class sizes bigger, I don't think our two schools in Broomhill will copewith the added number of children. Our overstretched clinic which serves Brislington has aridiculous waiting time to see a doctor. My wife was told the current waiting time was a month tosee the doctor which is totally unacceptable. This can only get worse. There are very poor facilitiesin the area, never been a chemist, no post office, no youth club and not much variety of shops.

6. Added risk of future floodingThe meadows act as a natural sponge in times of heavy rain, the likes of which we will be gettingmore. I believe with a steeply sloping site which the meadows are, this will create a greater risk inthe future. There will be a smaller area to drain off and in times of heavy rain, water already runsout the land onto School Road.

The last meadows in the city of Bristol. Once they are gone they're gone.

These fields contain rare meadow plants (such as pignut), ancient trees and hedgerows, birds,insects and bats, and is crossed by public rights of way.

These fields should not be built on: they should be protected; they should be valued; they shouldbe treasured - they should be used for education for our inner city schools. Local children can betaught about the wildlife, about the fauna and flora, and carry out a bio-blitz.

There is a wider impact, a knock on effect for other wildlife - for example, how will the Brislingtonswifts survive without local insect life to feed on?

This meadowland is part of a circle of linked wildlife spaces: St. Anne's Wood --> NightingaleValley --> Victory Park --> Brislington Meadows --> Eastwood Farm, and then onward linked to theAvon Valley, Conham River Park and Troopers Hill.

Wildlife needs these wildlife corridors to exist, and Brislington Meadows must be allowed tosurvive.

The last meadows in the city of Bristol. Once they are gone they're gone.

These fields contain rare meadow plants (such as pignut), ancient trees and hedgerows, birds,insects and bats, and is crossed by public rights of way.

These fields should not be built on: they should be protected; they should be valued; they shouldbe treasured - they should be used for education for our inner city schools. Local children can betaught about the wildlife, about the fauna and flora, and carry out a bio-blitz.

There is a wider impact, a knock on effect for other wildlife - for example, how will the Brislingtonswifts survive without local insect life to feed on?

This meadowland is part of a circle of linked wildlife spaces: St. Anne's Wood --> NightingaleValley --> Victory Park --> Brislington Meadows --> Eastwood Farm, and then onward linked to theAvon Valley, Conham River Park and Troopers Hill.

Wildlife needs these wildlife corridors to exist, and Brislington Meadows must be allowed tosurvive.

App No 22/01878/PWildlife & history will be destroyed. Keep the meadows

App No 22/01878/PWildlife & history will be destroyed. Keep the meadows

I object to the planning application for housing development on Brislington Meadows.We are facing an ecological emergency and I am disgusted that that Mayor said the same andthen went back on his word when re-elected. Brislington meadows is a diverse, abundant, wildlifesanctuary and has the potential to be an even more beautiful nature spot and an asset to thecommunity.

Air pollution and traffic congestion is already a problem in Brislington and we need more greenspaces to act as a green corridor.

There is an abundance of wildlife benefiting from the meadows and we need to pull together as acommunity and protect and enhance our last remaining green spaces.

Thank you,

Natalie Turner

I object to the planning application for housing development on Brislington Meadows.We are facing an ecological emergency and I am disgusted that that Mayor said the same andthen went back on his word when re-elected. Brislington meadows is a diverse, abundant, wildlifesanctuary and has the potential to be an even more beautiful nature spot and an asset to thecommunity.

Air pollution and traffic congestion is already a problem in Brislington and we need more greenspaces to act as a green corridor.

There is an abundance of wildlife benefiting from the meadows and we need to pull together as acommunity and protect and enhance our last remaining green spaces.

Thank you,

Natalie Turner

I use these fields daily as I walk my dog and love the open space. Some of my familylive in Broomhill & I walk this way to visit (rather than using my car!). I think it will be a great loss tothe area, I've walked in these fields since I was a kid & have used them with my children, learningabout the wildlife and wild flowers. Brislington is built up and the green space we have left isimportant to the area. When it rains the water comes down through the fields and is obviouslynaturally absorbed, as the area is hilly, where will this water go? The traffic increase will impact usgreatly also - I don't see any positives to the build to the people that live here.

I use these fields daily as I walk my dog and love the open space. Some of my familylive in Broomhill & I walk this way to visit (rather than using my car!). I think it will be a great loss tothe area, I've walked in these fields since I was a kid & have used them with my children, learningabout the wildlife and wild flowers. Brislington is built up and the green space we have left isimportant to the area. When it rains the water comes down through the fields and is obviouslynaturally absorbed, as the area is hilly, where will this water go? The traffic increase will impact usgreatly also - I don't see any positives to the build to the people that live here.

I object on the grounds of it becoming an over populated area & also the loss of lovelygreen fields with lots of wild animals living there . More traffic around the area which is alreadycongested at peak times. Would be harder to get school places & would over stretch the doctorssurgery's where already it's hard enough to get appointments!

I object on the grounds of it becoming an over populated area & also the loss of lovelygreen fields with lots of wild animals living there . More traffic around the area which is alreadycongested at peak times. Would be harder to get school places & would over stretch the doctorssurgery's where already it's hard enough to get appointments!

I'm writing to object to the development and urbanisation of the Brislington Medows(22/01878/P) on the following grounds:1) Sustainability: the planned building and habitation project will permanently and irreversiblydamage the environmental profile of the area - the document "22_01878_P-SUSTAINABILITY___ENERGY_STATEMENT-3200618" which outlines the strategy for impactmitigation fails to name material actions related to the minimisation and active management ofscope 1, 2 & 3 emissions; there are no binding commitments even in direct fuel usage to electrifyor make use of biofuels in plant equipment. The claim in the document that a hard surfacedhousing project would increase biodiversity by 10% is unfounded - considering the well understoodimportance in animal and insect species that inhabit natural meadow environments. In addition,there is widely available evidence into management of natural environments that depends onareas of sufficient size providing a critical habitat mass for wildlife; this planned development is atodds with Environmental Agency best practice.The strategy for renewable energy types named in pages 23 & 24 are weak and non binding - theonly suitable technologies stated as "highly recommended" are biomass boilers and Solar PVarrays - with the high unit costs and supply constraints around solar PV, the risk of developersthrottling back scale is high and biomass boiler have been shown to accelerate deforestation inhigher carbon density forests and are at best, still marginally carbon positive after transport andprocessing. This report is unspecific, remains outside embodiment of the plans and reads as a tickbox report.The loss of carbon capturing natural environments, coupled with high scope 1, 2 and 3 emissionsmeans that this proposal is at odds with Bristol's environmental strategy

Increase in darker, asphalt surfaces will also increase heat retention of the area, driving stress intothe remaining foliage.2) Drainage and flood risk: due to the limited space available and the saturation of hard surfaced,high runoff materials used the impact on surrounding surfaces in Victory park and connectingwaterways will be high.3) Traffic, noise & pollution; due to the already constricted and bottlenecked networks, any exitSouth West onto School Road to the base of Bristol Hill (Bath Road), or South via Emery road willmeet already heavily congested car routes with no room for expansion. Exiting North ontoBirchwood will drive substantial volumes of traffic into other residential areas. There areinsufficient public transport links (including bus lanes) to mitigate this practical constraint. This willsubstantially add to already poor levels of air quality that form the basis of Bristol's climateemergency.

I'm writing to object to the development and urbanisation of the Brislington Medows(22/01878/P) on the following grounds:1) Sustainability: the planned building and habitation project will permanently and irreversiblydamage the environmental profile of the area - the document "22_01878_P-SUSTAINABILITY___ENERGY_STATEMENT-3200618" which outlines the strategy for impactmitigation fails to name material actions related to the minimisation and active management ofscope 1, 2 & 3 emissions; there are no binding commitments even in direct fuel usage to electrifyor make use of biofuels in plant equipment. The claim in the document that a hard surfacedhousing project would increase biodiversity by 10% is unfounded - considering the well understoodimportance in animal and insect species that inhabit natural meadow environments. In addition,there is widely available evidence into management of natural environments that depends onareas of sufficient size providing a critical habitat mass for wildlife; this planned development is atodds with Environmental Agency best practice.The strategy for renewable energy types named in pages 23 & 24 are weak and non binding - theonly suitable technologies stated as "highly recommended" are biomass boilers and Solar PVarrays - with the high unit costs and supply constraints around solar PV, the risk of developersthrottling back scale is high and biomass boiler have been shown to accelerate deforestation inhigher carbon density forests and are at best, still marginally carbon positive after transport andprocessing. This report is unspecific, remains outside embodiment of the plans and reads as a tickbox report.The loss of carbon capturing natural environments, coupled with high scope 1, 2 and 3 emissionsmeans that this proposal is at odds with Bristol's environmental strategy

Increase in darker, asphalt surfaces will also increase heat retention of the area, driving stress intothe remaining foliage.2) Drainage and flood risk: due to the limited space available and the saturation of hard surfaced,high runoff materials used the impact on surrounding surfaces in Victory park and connectingwaterways will be high.3) Traffic, noise & pollution; due to the already constricted and bottlenecked networks, any exitSouth West onto School Road to the base of Bristol Hill (Bath Road), or South via Emery road willmeet already heavily congested car routes with no room for expansion. Exiting North ontoBirchwood will drive substantial volumes of traffic into other residential areas. There areinsufficient public transport links (including bus lanes) to mitigate this practical constraint. This willsubstantially add to already poor levels of air quality that form the basis of Bristol's climateemergency.

I strongly object to building on Brislington Meadows. It's a much needed green spaceand a home for nature, which are rapidly disappearing in Bristol. I walk and run in the meadows,as do many others, and it's so important for mental health and the people of Brislington's wellbeingto be able to exercise out in nature. I agree that more housing is much needed in the city butsurely there are opportunities to build in the many empty and derelict industrial sites in the area.Brislington Meadows is a key green space in our community and it will be a huge loss for people,wildlife and plants if it's built on.

I strongly object to building on Brislington Meadows. It's a much needed green spaceand a home for nature, which are rapidly disappearing in Bristol. I walk and run in the meadows,as do many others, and it's so important for mental health and the people of Brislington's wellbeingto be able to exercise out in nature. I agree that more housing is much needed in the city butsurely there are opportunities to build in the many empty and derelict industrial sites in the area.Brislington Meadows is a key green space in our community and it will be a huge loss for people,wildlife and plants if it's built on.

Please leave this beautiful space to the children and families of Bristol. I have beenbringing children here for 38 years. The meadows are a safe haven ror children to explore andgrow, adults to seek peace and families to play. The meadows are a SNCI site which would neverbe replaced if lost. The amount of extra traffic produced from such a proposed development willimpact on school Rd and Broomhill Rd traffic and would therefore be detrimental to the health ofthe present local community and nearby children in schools.There is not the infrastructure being provided to support this development ie Schools Drs so thiswill also impact the health and well being of the present Brislington inhabitants.

Please leave this beautiful space to the children and families of Bristol. I have beenbringing children here for 38 years. The meadows are a safe haven ror children to explore andgrow, adults to seek peace and families to play. The meadows are a SNCI site which would neverbe replaced if lost. The amount of extra traffic produced from such a proposed development willimpact on school Rd and Broomhill Rd traffic and would therefore be detrimental to the health ofthe present local community and nearby children in schools.There is not the infrastructure being provided to support this development ie Schools Drs so thiswill also impact the health and well being of the present Brislington inhabitants.

Protected meadow, already poor infrastructure, plenty of building that could beconverted/updated.

Protected meadow, already poor infrastructure, plenty of building that could beconverted/updated.

I fully object the plans to build on the meadows. The traffic in brislington is terrible notjust at rush hour times pretty much during the whole day. It worries me with such a largedevelopment being built how many more cars we will now have in our local area.

I live close to meadows and this is a regular walk for myself and 2 young daughters. We don'thave lots of Open green space so feel it is very vitial to keep this and protect the wildlife on themeadows.

Having 2 young daughters 3 and 4 I know first hand the strain local services such as doctors,schools and nurseries already face. Having such a large development will put even more pressureon our local services.

I understand houses need to be built. I feel there are plenty of brownfield sites in the area thatcould be used for development instead. Thank you

I fully object the plans to build on the meadows. The traffic in brislington is terrible notjust at rush hour times pretty much during the whole day. It worries me with such a largedevelopment being built how many more cars we will now have in our local area.

I live close to meadows and this is a regular walk for myself and 2 young daughters. We don'thave lots of Open green space so feel it is very vitial to keep this and protect the wildlife on themeadows.

Having 2 young daughters 3 and 4 I know first hand the strain local services such as doctors,schools and nurseries already face. Having such a large development will put even more pressureon our local services.

I understand houses need to be built. I feel there are plenty of brownfield sites in the area thatcould be used for development instead. Thank you

This would be a great shame to lose the meadows and green space, space for childrenand families, dog walkers and wildlife would lose the benefit of this beneficial area.Would bring a higher volume of traffic to the area causing danger to children, and all around.

This would be a great shame to lose the meadows and green space, space for childrenand families, dog walkers and wildlife would lose the benefit of this beneficial area.Would bring a higher volume of traffic to the area causing danger to children, and all around.

The development of such a large number of new homes will bring with it a plethora ofissues for the local- and wider areas, namelyReduced green space for the local area, which in itself will have a deleterious effect on theenvironment.Increased traffic in the area, leading to more congestion on our already very busy roads.Increased pollution from more traffic, particularly if congestion on the roads increases.Increased carbon footprint for Brislington/ Bristol from 260 new homes that will all require heatingand power.Increased pressure on local education and already stretched healthcare providers to meet theneeds of a significantly increased local population.

The development of such a large number of new homes will bring with it a plethora ofissues for the local- and wider areas, namelyReduced green space for the local area, which in itself will have a deleterious effect on theenvironment.Increased traffic in the area, leading to more congestion on our already very busy roads.Increased pollution from more traffic, particularly if congestion on the roads increases.Increased carbon footprint for Brislington/ Bristol from 260 new homes that will all require heatingand power.Increased pressure on local education and already stretched healthcare providers to meet theneeds of a significantly increased local population.

Leave our the nature and the greenery alone.

Leave our the nature and the greenery alone.

I am objecting to this proposal for a few reasons. My main concern is the impact on thecommunity and other services. The local doctors is already under great strain and you currentlyhave to wait 3 weeks for an appointment. To add another 250 homes x how many people livethere will only impact this service further creating greater risk to health to those unable to gethealth care when needed. It will also mean people will be put off from calling the doctors for thingsand could lead to more serious illness as a result. Schools are also a concern as they are alreadypretty much full with headcount all around the area. This will then impact the children's learningexperience but also prevent the teachers from being able to focus on their students due to size ofclasses.

I'm also concerned about the environment and trees impact. That area provides shelter andhomes to many animals, birds and insects that would not have any where else to go. The treesthat provide cleaner air will be gone, which means the air quality around the area would naturallydecrease in quality.

Brislington is already a very busy neighbourhood in terms of traffic. Adding 250 more homes willonly add to this and create more air pollution, along with the added risk to life for children on theroads. The traffic situation is already unsustainable within Brislington and these homes will onlymake this worse.

I am objecting to this proposal for a few reasons. My main concern is the impact on thecommunity and other services. The local doctors is already under great strain and you currentlyhave to wait 3 weeks for an appointment. To add another 250 homes x how many people livethere will only impact this service further creating greater risk to health to those unable to gethealth care when needed. It will also mean people will be put off from calling the doctors for thingsand could lead to more serious illness as a result. Schools are also a concern as they are alreadypretty much full with headcount all around the area. This will then impact the children's learningexperience but also prevent the teachers from being able to focus on their students due to size ofclasses.

I'm also concerned about the environment and trees impact. That area provides shelter andhomes to many animals, birds and insects that would not have any where else to go. The treesthat provide cleaner air will be gone, which means the air quality around the area would naturallydecrease in quality.

Brislington is already a very busy neighbourhood in terms of traffic. Adding 250 more homes willonly add to this and create more air pollution, along with the added risk to life for children on theroads. The traffic situation is already unsustainable within Brislington and these homes will onlymake this worse.

I object to these plans.

I object to these plans.

This is an area of land that has been there for many years and has been a place thatpreserves nature in a busy city. With the concerns about global warming and preservation ofnatural and beautiful sites it is not appropriate that it should be built on. Bristol is a place with largeareas of potential building plots .... Areas where there are abandoned buildings so these should beprioritised as building sites above green areas that are contributing to helping preserve our naturalenvironment !!!

This is an area of land that has been there for many years and has been a place thatpreserves nature in a busy city. With the concerns about global warming and preservation ofnatural and beautiful sites it is not appropriate that it should be built on. Bristol is a place with largeareas of potential building plots .... Areas where there are abandoned buildings so these should beprioritised as building sites above green areas that are contributing to helping preserve our naturalenvironment !!!

260 houses! It has so much WILDLIFE there people walk their dogs, childrengrandchildren and they can see and learn about the wildlife and the fauna and flora there for thebees and butterflies and enjoy the area.Where will the Doctors, Dentists, Nurseries , Primary Schools,Secondary School, College, anotherHengrove Hospital will all be needed.Bus routes are virtually non existent in South Bristol. If commuters have to get to the Park n Ridein its new location at Hicks Gate. How do they get there?More houses are planned for the present Park n Ride site plus the bungalow next to it and FlowersHill.Bath Road is congested beyond capacity and residential roads can not become highways for allresidents health and well being.The Mayor stated and photographed in the Meadows...building will.not take place.....!!!!How many houses will be.built in Brislington ?

260 houses! It has so much WILDLIFE there people walk their dogs, childrengrandchildren and they can see and learn about the wildlife and the fauna and flora there for thebees and butterflies and enjoy the area.Where will the Doctors, Dentists, Nurseries , Primary Schools,Secondary School, College, anotherHengrove Hospital will all be needed.Bus routes are virtually non existent in South Bristol. If commuters have to get to the Park n Ridein its new location at Hicks Gate. How do they get there?More houses are planned for the present Park n Ride site plus the bungalow next to it and FlowersHill.Bath Road is congested beyond capacity and residential roads can not become highways for allresidents health and well being.The Mayor stated and photographed in the Meadows...building will.not take place.....!!!!How many houses will be.built in Brislington ?

260 houses! It has so much WILDLIFE there people walk their dogs, childrengrandchildren and they can see and learn about the wildlife and the fauna and flora there for thebees, butterflies, birds even kestrels and bats enjoy the area appreciate it.Where will the Doctors, Dentists, Nurseries , Primary Schools,Secondary School, College, anotherHengrove Hospital will all be needed.Bus routes are virtually non existent in South Bristol. If commuters have to get to the Park n Ridein its new location at Hicks Gate. How do they get there?More houses are planned for the present Park n Ride site plus the bungalow next to it and FlowersHill. How many will be available for affordable rent?Bath Road is congested beyond capacity and residential roads can not become highways for allresidents health and well being.The Mayor stated and photographed in the Meadows...building will.not take place.....!!!!How many houses will be.built in Brislington ?

260 houses! It has so much WILDLIFE there people walk their dogs, childrengrandchildren and they can see and learn about the wildlife and the fauna and flora there for thebees, butterflies, birds even kestrels and bats enjoy the area appreciate it.Where will the Doctors, Dentists, Nurseries , Primary Schools,Secondary School, College, anotherHengrove Hospital will all be needed.Bus routes are virtually non existent in South Bristol. If commuters have to get to the Park n Ridein its new location at Hicks Gate. How do they get there?More houses are planned for the present Park n Ride site plus the bungalow next to it and FlowersHill. How many will be available for affordable rent?Bath Road is congested beyond capacity and residential roads can not become highways for allresidents health and well being.The Mayor stated and photographed in the Meadows...building will.not take place.....!!!!How many houses will be.built in Brislington ?

This is a valuable space for the community in an already polluted and congested area.In Broomhill and Brislington we do not have gardens big enough for children to play and we mustprioritise the health and well-being of our children. We must protect our green spaces at all costs.There are plenty of brown spaces that could be used for building homes. Roads in Brislington arenot able to handle the congestion and pollution of additional houses in this area.

This is a valuable space for the community in an already polluted and congested area.In Broomhill and Brislington we do not have gardens big enough for children to play and we mustprioritise the health and well-being of our children. We must protect our green spaces at all costs.There are plenty of brown spaces that could be used for building homes. Roads in Brislington arenot able to handle the congestion and pollution of additional houses in this area.

Stop building on our green space. Too much pollution and congestion in this area. Notenough resources such as school spaces and doctors surgeries for this many new homes.

Stop building on our green space. Too much pollution and congestion in this area. Notenough resources such as school spaces and doctors surgeries for this many new homes.

This will cause huge traffic problems, not good enough infrastructure. Killing of wildlife.

This will cause huge traffic problems, not good enough infrastructure. Killing of wildlife.

Huge detrimental Impact on nature/wildlife

Huge detrimental Impact on nature/wildlife

Were are running out of natural green areas in Brislington there is plenty of sites onBroomhill rd old commercial buildings to build on

Were are running out of natural green areas in Brislington there is plenty of sites onBroomhill rd old commercial buildings to build on

I believe this development will harm the neighbourhood, from an environmentalperspective and the added strain it will put on local services.

Traffic is an increasing issue along Bath Road and Broomhill Road. There are often queues andstop start traffic, which results in high air pollution. Broomhill has not been included in Bristol'sclean air zones, yet we are facing even higher amounts of dangerous particulate matter if thisdevelopment goes ahead and brings more cars to the area.

Local services are already pushed to their limits. It can often take weeks to get a GP appointment,there is no local NHS dentist taking on new patients, and Broomhill is often excluded from plans orservices despite being a 15 minute drive from the city centre - for example, the new e-bike schemedoes not allow e-bikes to be ridden into Broomhill. The only bus service available is the number 1route, which has consistently been poor over many years, and is often the first to get cancelled sothat drivers can be rerouted onto other services in the city. Increasing the number of residents inthe area will add increased pressure to these services, which we have seen no extra funding orplans for.

The meadows are an important ecological site, with birds of prey, deer and other wildlife oftenspotted. There are no viable plans to save the wildlife in these plans. During the covid-19lockdowns, local nature reserve Eastwood Farm became a popular sunbathing spot and is nowoften overrun with anti-social behaviour, harming and deterring wildlife. If we damage themeadows too, we risk wiping out species in Broomhill that currently survive in these green areas.

Meadows not only provide important untouched spaces for rare plants, insect pollination andwildlife corridors, but they trap carbon through unturned soil and trees which grow there.

I believe this development will harm the neighbourhood, from an environmentalperspective and the added strain it will put on local services.

Traffic is an increasing issue along Bath Road and Broomhill Road. There are often queues andstop start traffic, which results in high air pollution. Broomhill has not been included in Bristol'sclean air zones, yet we are facing even higher amounts of dangerous particulate matter if thisdevelopment goes ahead and brings more cars to the area.

Local services are already pushed to their limits. It can often take weeks to get a GP appointment,there is no local NHS dentist taking on new patients, and Broomhill is often excluded from plans orservices despite being a 15 minute drive from the city centre - for example, the new e-bike schemedoes not allow e-bikes to be ridden into Broomhill. The only bus service available is the number 1route, which has consistently been poor over many years, and is often the first to get cancelled sothat drivers can be rerouted onto other services in the city. Increasing the number of residents inthe area will add increased pressure to these services, which we have seen no extra funding orplans for.

The meadows are an important ecological site, with birds of prey, deer and other wildlife oftenspotted. There are no viable plans to save the wildlife in these plans. During the covid-19lockdowns, local nature reserve Eastwood Farm became a popular sunbathing spot and is nowoften overrun with anti-social behaviour, harming and deterring wildlife. If we damage themeadows too, we risk wiping out species in Broomhill that currently survive in these green areas.

Meadows not only provide important untouched spaces for rare plants, insect pollination andwildlife corridors, but they trap carbon through unturned soil and trees which grow there.

I livein the local area and belive that for profit housing should not be the priority for thelocal community. The meadows currently home a range of wildlife and positively affect thecommunity as a great place to go for a walk, picnic, or otherwise spend time. If anything, weshould be trying to get funding to protect this land and keep it habitable for the local fauna andflora.

Bristol has enough of an inaccessible housing problem - so many people are being priced out -adding more people, more cars, and more waste is not necessary. There are already manydevelopments in the area; the giant blocks of flats on Bath Road near Paintworks have negativelyimpacted traffic and accessibility and that location didn't have the wildlife to consider. Surely thatalready accounts for a significantly high volume of new housing.

This development has too high a cost for the wildlife and community and planning permissionshould not be granted in my opinion.

I livein the local area and belive that for profit housing should not be the priority for thelocal community. The meadows currently home a range of wildlife and positively affect thecommunity as a great place to go for a walk, picnic, or otherwise spend time. If anything, weshould be trying to get funding to protect this land and keep it habitable for the local fauna andflora.

Bristol has enough of an inaccessible housing problem - so many people are being priced out -adding more people, more cars, and more waste is not necessary. There are already manydevelopments in the area; the giant blocks of flats on Bath Road near Paintworks have negativelyimpacted traffic and accessibility and that location didn't have the wildlife to consider. Surely thatalready accounts for a significantly high volume of new housing.

This development has too high a cost for the wildlife and community and planning permissionshould not be granted in my opinion.

I object to the development of Brislington meadows on the grounds of the damage tothe environment. I am in environmental scientist and we need to avoid building on green belts asmuch as possible to stop the huge ecological impacts. There will be significant air, noise andground pollution during the building process. Absolutely do not do this! I know you feel you needmoney but it is not worth the rest of the costs!

I object to the development of Brislington meadows on the grounds of the damage tothe environment. I am in environmental scientist and we need to avoid building on green belts asmuch as possible to stop the huge ecological impacts. There will be significant air, noise andground pollution during the building process. Absolutely do not do this! I know you feel you needmoney but it is not worth the rest of the costs!

no

no

This development will have a hugely negative impact on nature and the conservation ofplants and animals in the vicinity.

This development will have a hugely negative impact on nature and the conservation ofplants and animals in the vicinity.

Just NO you money grabbing criminals ..leave our green areas alone!

Just NO you money grabbing criminals ..leave our green areas alone!

Brislington meadows is one of the few expanses of green space within walking distancefor residents of Brislington. I walk in the meadows daily with the dog, the children or sometimesjust on my own to support my mental well-being. Removing these places of beauty creates aconcrete jungle with no-where to escape to without getting in the car and once they are gone thereis no way to get them back.

Brislington meadows is one of the few expanses of green space within walking distancefor residents of Brislington. I walk in the meadows daily with the dog, the children or sometimesjust on my own to support my mental well-being. Removing these places of beauty creates aconcrete jungle with no-where to escape to without getting in the car and once they are gone thereis no way to get them back.

We need to keep our precious green spaces. This is a well loved and used meadow, forthe community and wildlife. The damage to the environment would be substantial. We need tostart making the right choices, yes homes are needed, but there are plenty of brownfield sites thatcan accommodate. Let us save the green spaces we have and protect our environment all livingthings.

We need to keep our precious green spaces. This is a well loved and used meadow, forthe community and wildlife. The damage to the environment would be substantial. We need tostart making the right choices, yes homes are needed, but there are plenty of brownfield sites thatcan accommodate. Let us save the green spaces we have and protect our environment all livingthings.

I think it's disgusting that there may be houses built on green belt land especially whenour mayor said it would not be built on,all the wildlife & lovely flowers would be destroyed

I think it's disgusting that there may be houses built on green belt land especially whenour mayor said it would not be built on,all the wildlife & lovely flowers would be destroyed

It's important to protect our green spaces

It's important to protect our green spaces

These meadows have outstanding beauty due to the significant and diverse flora, faunaand funga. The loss of this precious space will have a huge impact on the environment and thelocal community. The meadows provide a haven for local residents, it can be reached withoutgetting into a car, there are tremendous views, and the peace and tranquillity that I experiencewhen I walk around the meadows is priceless, I relax, destress and breathe.The pandemic taught us that having access to open outdoor spaces and being surrounded bynature was vital to a healthy and happy existence, it is so important to everyone. Clearly localgovernment have short memories and care not about this beautiful oasis that so many localpeople love and enjoy.Our planet is struggling with the impacts of human behaviour and greed and destroying themeadows will be contributing to the planets further decline.There are numerous plots of land in the Brislington area that are derelict and are eyesores thatwould be much more appropriate for new housing, eg. The old factory on the Bath road oppositeArnos Park, the old Simonstone car dealership site, the old Keynsham Garden Centre site why arethese not being developed?Please leave our meadows alone!

These meadows have outstanding beauty due to the significant and diverse flora, faunaand funga. The loss of this precious space will have a huge impact on the environment and thelocal community. The meadows provide a haven for local residents, it can be reached withoutgetting into a car, there are tremendous views, and the peace and tranquillity that I experiencewhen I walk around the meadows is priceless, I relax, destress and breathe.The pandemic taught us that having access to open outdoor spaces and being surrounded bynature was vital to a healthy and happy existence, it is so important to everyone. Clearly localgovernment have short memories and care not about this beautiful oasis that so many localpeople love and enjoy.Our planet is struggling with the impacts of human behaviour and greed and destroying themeadows will be contributing to the planets further decline.There are numerous plots of land in the Brislington area that are derelict and are eyesores thatwould be much more appropriate for new housing, eg. The old factory on the Bath road oppositeArnos Park, the old Simonstone car dealership site, the old Keynsham Garden Centre site why arethese not being developed?Please leave our meadows alone!

These meadows have outstanding beauty due to the significant and diverse flora, faunaand funga. The loss of this precious space will have a huge impact on the environment and thelocal community. The meadows provide a haven for local residents, it can be reached withoutgetting into a car, there are tremendous views, and the peace and tranquility that I experiencewhen I walk around the meadows is priceless, I relax, destress and breathe.The pandemic taught us that having access to open outdoor spaces and being surrounded bynature was vital to a healthy and happy existence, it is so important to everyone. Clearly localgovernment have short memories and care not about this beautiful oasis that so many localpeople love and enjoy.Our planet is struggling with the impacts of human behaviour and greed and destroying themeadows will be contributing to the planets further decline.There are numerous plots of land in the Brislington area that are derelict and are eyesores thatwould be much more appropriate for new housing, eg. The old factory on the Bath road oppositeArnos Park, the old Simonstone car dealership site, the old Keynsham Garden Centre site why arethese not being developed?Please leave our meadows alone!

These meadows have outstanding beauty due to the significant and diverse flora, faunaand funga. The loss of this precious space will have a huge impact on the environment and thelocal community. The meadows provide a haven for local residents, it can be reached withoutgetting into a car, there are tremendous views, and the peace and tranquility that I experiencewhen I walk around the meadows is priceless, I relax, destress and breathe.The pandemic taught us that having access to open outdoor spaces and being surrounded bynature was vital to a healthy and happy existence, it is so important to everyone. Clearly localgovernment have short memories and care not about this beautiful oasis that so many localpeople love and enjoy.Our planet is struggling with the impacts of human behaviour and greed and destroying themeadows will be contributing to the planets further decline.There are numerous plots of land in the Brislington area that are derelict and are eyesores thatwould be much more appropriate for new housing, eg. The old factory on the Bath road oppositeArnos Park, the old Simonstone car dealership site, the old Keynsham Garden Centre site why arethese not being developed?Please leave our meadows alone!

One of Bristols best features is how accessible it is to wildlife. And it's dwindling. Pleasedon't do this.

One of Bristols best features is how accessible it is to wildlife. And it's dwindling. Pleasedon't do this.

I have lived in Brislington all of my life and have always enjoyed exploring the meadows and the park. I have a keen interest in wildlife and on an summers evening will go to the meadows to watch the different species of bats, I have seed five different ones to date. I have also observed lots of different birds especially birds of prey during my regular walks through the meadows. I have seen foxes and their cubs playing together, squirrels and petted the horses when I take my grandchildren to the meadows. These animals need the freedom of the meadow in order to survive and the shelter of the hedges and trees. Some of the trees are 100 years old as are the hedgerows. What will happen to this wonderful abundance of wildlife is houses are built in the meadows? I live in School Road and when there is only a small amount of rain I watch the water drain from the meadows down school road and watch the drains struggle to cope with the extra water. When there is heavy rain, the water that comes off of the meadow, through the layby is almost like a river and had completely covered the drains in the road as they are unable to cope with the deluge of water. The stream at the bottom of School Road struggles now not to burst its bank let alone with more houses in the very

local vicinity. This is when there are fields with natural drainage…….what would the effect be if there were houses? Brislington is renown as a gridlock area and Brislington village is a "no go zone" if you need to get anywhere on time. I work in Hartcliffe, I leave my house at 7.40 and I am usually stuck getting out of School Road, going up the village to get onto Callington Road for approximately 30/35minutes every day. What will happen if houses are built on the meadow? The road structure does not work now let alone if this build goes ahead. I totally understand the need for housing in Bristol and especially the ned for affordable housing but there is los of waste land across Bristol where this housing could take place and not impact the natural wildlife in an area where they had been a meadow for 100's of years. Please please please do not build on his land, animals need homes too and we so need to conserve nature for not this generation but for the generations to come. Kind regards Sue Fox

We need all the wild and green spaces in our city, both for the wildlife that inhabits themand for the wellbeing and mental health of the people. Please reject this application.

We need all the wild and green spaces in our city, both for the wildlife that inhabits themand for the wellbeing and mental health of the people. Please reject this application.

I am writing to object to the planned development of 260 homes on this meadow. It is asite of immense importance for nature conservation in an ever dwindling (nationwide) category ofuntouched species-rich meadow land. The site provides air quality improvement in a city withawful air-pollution, and amazing natural drainage in an era of ever-increasing flood risk. Greenspaces are cherished in an increasingly concrete/tarmac heavy city. Considering we wereawarded 'green capital of Europe' in 2015, it is a total joke how readily our precious green space issold off to uncaring developers. Especially when there are very many empty buildings around thecity, much more suited for redevelopment.

Thanks.

Rosalind Bell

I am writing to object to the planned development of 260 homes on this meadow. It is asite of immense importance for nature conservation in an ever dwindling (nationwide) category ofuntouched species-rich meadow land. The site provides air quality improvement in a city withawful air-pollution, and amazing natural drainage in an era of ever-increasing flood risk. Greenspaces are cherished in an increasingly concrete/tarmac heavy city. Considering we wereawarded 'green capital of Europe' in 2015, it is a total joke how readily our precious green space issold off to uncaring developers. Especially when there are very many empty buildings around thecity, much more suited for redevelopment.

Thanks.

Rosalind Bell

I strongly object to housing being built on Bristol meadows.

I strongly object to housing being built on Bristol meadows.

I strongly object to the planning application. Housing is needed in Bristol yes, but it canbe built elsewhere and not on a site so valuable to the local people and to nature which could beset aside as a nature reserve for future generations.It goes against local government/ council commitment to tackle the ecological crisis to turn thisland which has remained in a semi-natural state for hundreds of years into housing when this isavoidable. The inner suburbs of cities like Bristol are getting more densely populated & the needfor green spaces is becoming more important over time. Access to nature for people in citiesmakes people more likely to be more healthy physically and mentally. Brislington was quite rural incharacter 100-150 years ago but now much of that has been lost to houses, roads and humandevelopment. I understand Bristol has committed to ensuring at least 30% of the land in Bristol ismanaged for wildlife. here is an opportunity to contribute towards that target in a meaningful way -by making Brislington Meadows a nature reserve that will improve in its importance over time.

I'm 50 (& have lived at my address 22 years) & I've for regular walks up at Victory Park &Brislington Meadows for much of that time. I suffer from anxiety & depression & was signed offwork for 3 months in 2020 due to anxiety attacks. GP told to walk or cycle in nature every day tohelp me better deal with my mental health issues. So I'd walk up at Brislington Meadows everyday to connect with nature, listen to birdsong /enjoy the open space, which is rare this close to thecentre of Bristol. Victory Park is important - but when you get away from the trees around it'sperimeter, much of it is football pitches & these are not designed to be places for nature. I sawKestrels regularly up at Brislington Meadows during the winter months and have done so foryears, & numerous other bird species like buzzards, & woodpeckers, which are not so common 2

miles from the centre of a major British city. I believe building houses here is as much of a loss tonature & people as it would be to build them on Clifton Downs. But the big difference is that theneighbours to the downs are more affluent and perhaps would object more strongly to a housingdevelopment destroying local green space. In some ways it makes Brislington Meadows an easytarget that people have been discouraged to think of this as a natural space as its neverfunctioned as a park or nature reserve with signs saying private land keep off etc. Many people inBristol won't have even heard of Brislington Meadows let along know how special it is as a site fornature. I think its a lost opportunity by the local council / government not to acquire this as a naturereserve given the benefits this'd have. This would create more benefit that simply as housing,which can be built elsewhere on sites with less ecological potential.

Any development of the land risks destroying the vital role this site plays for nature. It's potential isvast as a nature reserve if It was allocated as one. To say a gain of 10% on and off site forbiodiversity will be provided is flawed for me, because we should be considering the loss of thepotential this land has if it was assigned as a nature reserve, with wildflower meadows and otherhabits. See how Avon Wildlife Trust has Managed the bottom part of Brandon Hill with wildlifepond, meadows with cranesbill & other meadow species and hedgerows. If this land was managedwell in a similar way with appropriate tree planting in the hedgerows, seeding the meadows withwildflower species and cutting the meadow at the appropriate time(s) of year you would have anatural wonder where the biodiversity would go up massively. Who's to say it wouldn't become asite of national importance?

Saying a benefit of the housing being built will be that trees will be planted trees on site &elsewhere off site is a red herring for me. If there are sites locally that would benefit from treesbeing planted there then why is that not happening bearing in mind we are in an ecological crisis?Suitable funding should be allocated to tree planting in city areas and this should be much greaterthan it might have been in the past given bigger populations and the recognised ecological/species loss / climate change impact.If the plan is to plant trees at Nightingale Valley, Arnos Park etc, then that should be done as well,as keeping Brislington Meadows and making it a nature reserve. The fact that tree planting hasntbeen done where it could be seems to be a question of cash and local government not havingpriorities nature and tree planting sufficiently. The idea that additional cash wouldnt exist but willcome as a result of 260 houses being built on the Meadows is a let down for me. Planting trees incity areas should have been a priority for local council. If it is overdue for trees to be plantedelsewhere locally then it should happen but not at the cost of losing Brislington Meadows - if therehasn't been money locally to plant trees where they could be planted then local people have beenlet down already by that & to take away this green space only adds to that.

Local brownfield sites not the meadows should be developed. If any of this land needs to bedeveloped I suggest it could be a small strip off Broomhill Road or next to the Trading estate. If alot of houses are needed then build 1 or 2 buildings 10 storeys high like the building developmentpresently going up on Bath Road next to Paintworks & leave the meadows almost entirely intact

for future generations. Better still make the whole site a nature reserve and allow local people touse this area for that reason and safeguard it for future generations of people and birds,invertebrates and other animals.

If Brislington has 20K people then those people need green spaces that can absorb and cater tothat population. It is a double whammy to lose Brislington Meadows as a green space to soak uppollution/ carbon and to then have a bigger human population to use the remaining green spaces.The homes will be advertised as being places that have Victory Park and Eastwood Farm Naturereserve right next door. Those places already have to function as green spaces for the thousandsof people locally & as places to walk for anyone locally who decide not to get in their car to go toget exercise in nature. If the planned housing proceeds, an extra c600 people will in future liveright next door to the remaining green spaces and will rightly enough consider them their spacesto use freely. These spaces will be very crowded and no longer serve as viable places to get somepeace and quiet when getting fresh air and exercise. It may inevitably mean local people will bemore likely to get in their car to go to a green space that is less full of people. Now the main placesI go for a walk (bearing in mind I haven't had a car for 15 years) are Victory Park/ BrislingtonMeadows, Eastwood Farm, Arnos Vale, Nightingale Valley. Those places will inevitably see alarge increase of people with an extra 600 people living locally and at some point they may nolonger be pleasant places to get away from other people and into nature. These places may lookrelatively big on a map, but if you go to Nightingale Valley or Eastwood farm, on a nice day thesometimes very muddy paths that are there can quickly become very busy with dog walkers,families etc. By their very nature these green spaces sometimes involve a small path next to ariver and then trees which don't have paths amongst them. These places often aren't suited tohaving hundreds of people in them at the same time, and if they do their character and function asnatural places can change drastically.

Local people haven't been encouraged to view Brislington Meadows as a place they can go andagain if its left intact and managed as a nature reserve the benefit to local people would bemassive. Its under the radar somewhat at present and a lot of people may not even know whatthey're losing as its not been on maps as a green space for public use, which it could be if thelocal Council/ government prioritised green spaces, improving biodiversity, reducing pollution &loss of habitat / species, tackling climate change, mental health and the need for green spacesand fresh air & contact with nature.260 Houses leads to perhaps 260 cars, as well as dogs and cats. Cats will impact the local birdpopulation and population of small mammals drastically. I wouldn't be surprised to see the localbird population drop drastically if close to a quarter of the houses have a cat - lets say even 50cats appear on the site they will decimate the local wildlife that existed there.Its a balancing act between the need for houses and the detriment of building houses on such anecologically sensitive site and if it was given to say Avon Wildlife Trust the land would benefit thelocal ecosystem, people and future generations, ticking boxes for biodiversity (managing the areaas wildflower meadows, hedgerows, veteran trees, it could include nature pond(s) etc, for batsbirds, mammals, pollinators. It might become a locally important wildlife spot for spotting birds,

including kestrels, buzzards etc.), to battle species loss, climate change, pollution, air quality,absorbing carbon, helping local people get exercise in nature, boosting wellbeing, physical andmental health. This benefit would still be there in 100 or 200 years time which is good value for£15 million purchase price.If the meadows are converted from unimproved meadows, something which is very rare in thisclose proximity to a major UK city into 260 housing then the loss to nature is irreversible. Talkabout improving biodiversity might appease some local people but it's not really addressing theissues that what you lose here is the enormous potential you lose which this land could representas properly managed wildlife meadows, hedgerows and trees which might have been largelyunchanged for hundreds of years. if properly managed for wildlife the meadows could representsomething really special and to lose this is a travesty which a lot of people may not evenappreciate - given that people have long been encouraged to consider this as a private land andnot somewhere to come and enjoy nature.

I strongly object to the planning application. Housing is needed in Bristol yes, but it canbe built elsewhere and not on a site so valuable to the local people and to nature which could beset aside as a nature reserve for future generations.It goes against local government/ council commitment to tackle the ecological crisis to turn thisland which has remained in a semi-natural state for hundreds of years into housing when this isavoidable. The inner suburbs of cities like Bristol are getting more densely populated & the needfor green spaces is becoming more important over time. Access to nature for people in citiesmakes people more likely to be more healthy physically and mentally. Brislington was quite rural incharacter 100-150 years ago but now much of that has been lost to houses, roads and humandevelopment. I understand Bristol has committed to ensuring at least 30% of the land in Bristol ismanaged for wildlife. here is an opportunity to contribute towards that target in a meaningful way -by making Brislington Meadows a nature reserve that will improve in its importance over time.

I'm 50 (& have lived at my address 22 years) & I've for regular walks up at Victory Park &Brislington Meadows for much of that time. I suffer from anxiety & depression & was signed offwork for 3 months in 2020 due to anxiety attacks. GP told to walk or cycle in nature every day tohelp me better deal with my mental health issues. So I'd walk up at Brislington Meadows everyday to connect with nature, listen to birdsong /enjoy the open space, which is rare this close to thecentre of Bristol. Victory Park is important - but when you get away from the trees around it'sperimeter, much of it is football pitches & these are not designed to be places for nature. I sawKestrels regularly up at Brislington Meadows during the winter months and have done so foryears, & numerous other bird species like buzzards, & woodpeckers, which are not so common 2

miles from the centre of a major British city. I believe building houses here is as much of a loss tonature & people as it would be to build them on Clifton Downs. But the big difference is that theneighbours to the downs are more affluent and perhaps would object more strongly to a housingdevelopment destroying local green space. In some ways it makes Brislington Meadows an easytarget that people have been discouraged to think of this as a natural space as its neverfunctioned as a park or nature reserve with signs saying private land keep off etc. Many people inBristol won't have even heard of Brislington Meadows let along know how special it is as a site fornature. I think its a lost opportunity by the local council / government not to acquire this as a naturereserve given the benefits this'd have. This would create more benefit that simply as housing,which can be built elsewhere on sites with less ecological potential.

Any development of the land risks destroying the vital role this site plays for nature. It's potential isvast as a nature reserve if It was allocated as one. To say a gain of 10% on and off site forbiodiversity will be provided is flawed for me, because we should be considering the loss of thepotential this land has if it was assigned as a nature reserve, with wildflower meadows and otherhabits. See how Avon Wildlife Trust has Managed the bottom part of Brandon Hill with wildlifepond, meadows with cranesbill & other meadow species and hedgerows. If this land was managedwell in a similar way with appropriate tree planting in the hedgerows, seeding the meadows withwildflower species and cutting the meadow at the appropriate time(s) of year you would have anatural wonder where the biodiversity would go up massively. Who's to say it wouldn't become asite of national importance?

Saying a benefit of the housing being built will be that trees will be planted trees on site &elsewhere off site is a red herring for me. If there are sites locally that would benefit from treesbeing planted there then why is that not happening bearing in mind we are in an ecological crisis?Suitable funding should be allocated to tree planting in city areas and this should be much greaterthan it might have been in the past given bigger populations and the recognised ecological/species loss / climate change impact.If the plan is to plant trees at Nightingale Valley, Arnos Park etc, then that should be done as well,as keeping Brislington Meadows and making it a nature reserve. The fact that tree planting hasntbeen done where it could be seems to be a question of cash and local government not havingpriorities nature and tree planting sufficiently. The idea that additional cash wouldnt exist but willcome as a result of 260 houses being built on the Meadows is a let down for me. Planting trees incity areas should have been a priority for local council. If it is overdue for trees to be plantedelsewhere locally then it should happen but not at the cost of losing Brislington Meadows - if therehasn't been money locally to plant trees where they could be planted then local people have beenlet down already by that & to take away this green space only adds to that.

Local brownfield sites not the meadows should be developed. If any of this land needs to bedeveloped I suggest it could be a small strip off Broomhill Road or next to the Trading estate. If alot of houses are needed then build 1 or 2 buildings 10 storeys high like the building developmentpresently going up on Bath Road next to Paintworks & leave the meadows almost entirely intact

for future generations. Better still make the whole site a nature reserve and allow local people touse this area for that reason and safeguard it for future generations of people and birds,invertebrates and other animals.

If Brislington has 20K people then those people need green spaces that can absorb and cater tothat population. It is a double whammy to lose Brislington Meadows as a green space to soak uppollution/ carbon and to then have a bigger human population to use the remaining green spaces.The homes will be advertised as being places that have Victory Park and Eastwood Farm Naturereserve right next door. Those places already have to function as green spaces for the thousandsof people locally & as places to walk for anyone locally who decide not to get in their car to go toget exercise in nature. If the planned housing proceeds, an extra c600 people will in future liveright next door to the remaining green spaces and will rightly enough consider them their spacesto use freely. These spaces will be very crowded and no longer serve as viable places to get somepeace and quiet when getting fresh air and exercise. It may inevitably mean local people will bemore likely to get in their car to go to a green space that is less full of people. Now the main placesI go for a walk (bearing in mind I haven't had a car for 15 years) are Victory Park/ BrislingtonMeadows, Eastwood Farm, Arnos Vale, Nightingale Valley. Those places will inevitably see alarge increase of people with an extra 600 people living locally and at some point they may nolonger be pleasant places to get away from other people and into nature. These places may lookrelatively big on a map, but if you go to Nightingale Valley or Eastwood farm, on a nice day thesometimes very muddy paths that are there can quickly become very busy with dog walkers,families etc. By their very nature these green spaces sometimes involve a small path next to ariver and then trees which don't have paths amongst them. These places often aren't suited tohaving hundreds of people in them at the same time, and if they do their character and function asnatural places can change drastically.

Local people haven't been encouraged to view Brislington Meadows as a place they can go andagain if its left intact and managed as a nature reserve the benefit to local people would bemassive. Its under the radar somewhat at present and a lot of people may not even know whatthey're losing as its not been on maps as a green space for public use, which it could be if thelocal Council/ government prioritised green spaces, improving biodiversity, reducing pollution &loss of habitat / species, tackling climate change, mental health and the need for green spacesand fresh air & contact with nature.260 Houses leads to perhaps 260 cars, as well as dogs and cats. Cats will impact the local birdpopulation and population of small mammals drastically. I wouldn't be surprised to see the localbird population drop drastically if close to a quarter of the houses have a cat - lets say even 50cats appear on the site they will decimate the local wildlife that existed there.Its a balancing act between the need for houses and the detriment of building houses on such anecologically sensitive site and if it was given to say Avon Wildlife Trust the land would benefit thelocal ecosystem, people and future generations, ticking boxes for biodiversity (managing the areaas wildflower meadows, hedgerows, veteran trees, it could include nature pond(s) etc, for batsbirds, mammals, pollinators. It might become a locally important wildlife spot for spotting birds,

including kestrels, buzzards etc.), to battle species loss, climate change, pollution, air quality,absorbing carbon, helping local people get exercise in nature, boosting wellbeing, physical andmental health. This benefit would still be there in 100 or 200 years time which is good value for£15 million purchase price.If the meadows are converted from unimproved meadows, something which is very rare in thisclose proximity to a major UK city into 260 housing then the loss to nature is irreversible. Talkabout improving biodiversity might appease some local people but it's not really addressing theissues that what you lose here is the enormous potential you lose which this land could representas properly managed wildlife meadows, hedgerows and trees which might have been largelyunchanged for hundreds of years. if properly managed for wildlife the meadows could representsomething really special and to lose this is a travesty which a lot of people may not evenappreciate - given that people have long been encouraged to consider this as a private land andnot somewhere to come and enjoy nature.

I have lived in Brislington all my life and it has changed so much over the last 60 years. Iknow we cannot go back to seeing it as a village but we can stop more irreparable damage of itsremaining green spaces. Brislington meadows is a haven of green in an urban environment. It hashad SNCI status which does not seem to have been formally rescinded. As nothing has changed Ifeel there was no reason for its change of status.Having never been previously built on, it is virgin meadow land that has ancient hedgerows thatsupport an abundant variety of wildlife, trees and fauna in an urban environment. How can wepossibly build on this in a climate emergency?The Bath Road and Broomhill Road are extremely busy presently and will only get busier with thedevelopment. There will also be the problem of more vehicles accessing Bonville Road which getsregularly blocked by large lorries getting stuck on bends due to its narrow and winding path.The meadows are special and should be retained. As someone who regularly walks through thefields I would hate to have to walk through an alleyway surrounded by houses to gain access toVictory Park.I am not against house building and agree that houses need to be built, however, to use anancient meadow at a time, when our whole World is thinking about protecting our environment isjust totally wrong.

I have lived in Brislington all my life and it has changed so much over the last 60 years. Iknow we cannot go back to seeing it as a village but we can stop more irreparable damage of itsremaining green spaces. Brislington meadows is a haven of green in an urban environment. It hashad SNCI status which does not seem to have been formally rescinded. As nothing has changed Ifeel there was no reason for its change of status.Having never been previously built on, it is virgin meadow land that has ancient hedgerows thatsupport an abundant variety of wildlife, trees and fauna in an urban environment. How can wepossibly build on this in a climate emergency?The Bath Road and Broomhill Road are extremely busy presently and will only get busier with thedevelopment. There will also be the problem of more vehicles accessing Bonville Road which getsregularly blocked by large lorries getting stuck on bends due to its narrow and winding path.The meadows are special and should be retained. As someone who regularly walks through thefields I would hate to have to walk through an alleyway surrounded by houses to gain access toVictory Park.I am not against house building and agree that houses need to be built, however, to use anancient meadow at a time, when our whole World is thinking about protecting our environment isjust totally wrong.

I object to the proposed development primarily on ecological grounds. The site supportsa high degree of biodiversity (especially when you consider its location), much under recorded inthe surveys undertaken in support of this application. In addition to this is the fact the site could bemuch enhanced with minimal effort/expense to make it better still and with the removal of theformer police station will have direct connectivity to Eastwood Farm LNR and from there a directsemi natural corridor along the river Avon. The links to the East of the City are of particularimportance.

The river, the railway and the narrow flood plains almost guarantee the protection of this corridorinto the far distant future, and as such any semi natural connections to it will retain a permanentlink to the wider countryside. I wonder how many such long-term opportunities exist for Bristol orany city of comparable size?

Such opportunities to address the Lawton principle of 'bigger, better, more joined up', which surelyshould be applied wherever possible and not just within rural areas, are very rare. To pass up onthe chance to protect a direct link into the heart of Bristol would be a massive opportunity missed.

I fail to see how anyone calling themselves an Ecologist could support this proposal. On this pointI would also question the idea of 'Net Gain' within the site. The proposal admits to needing to find'gain' elsewhere to fulfil this requirement, however I feel those favouring this proposal completelyover sale the potential gain on site as currently designed. The wetland area, which will either beexpensive/difficult to maintain or if neglected of decreasing value, is in any case of much lower

value as it has been designed to receive a high degree of human disturbance and is extremelynarrow for such a habitat.

I would also question some of the assumptions made with regards to the hedgerows onsite. TheEIA seems to suggest that the hedgerows are only important on account of the presence ofbluebells, this being the conclusion reached following how they were surveyed (split up byconnective nodes) and assessed only as the central line of trees/shrubs, ignoring totally orassessing the suckering/self-seeded shrub growth separately. Defining what is and isn't ahedgerow has always been tricky. In this assessment the importance / quality of a hedgerowseems to have been assigned by a different set of criteria than say the ones used bylandowners/farmers applying for hedgerow management funding in the wider countryside.However the quality and importance of a hedgerow should only ever be assessed by taking awholistic view (a basic principle of ecology). The central line of trees/shrubs, the suckering/seededgrowth (uncut most years so flowering for inverts and then fruiting for birds) and the base groundflora, should be viewed in the whole and it is hard to see how any of the hedgerows currentlyonsite, managed infrequently as they are (a good thing by the way) can be considered onlyimportant due to bluebells! To suggest this is ridiculous and misleading.

These hedgerows are vastly superior in environmental quality to most you encounter in thecountryside due to their infrequent management, varied structure, their connection to grasslandsmanaged with few if any inputs (chemical or nutrient) and at present their general lack ofdisturbance. Whether they meet a predetermined definition of a hedgerow/or quality of hedgerowis surely not the point.

Part of their value will be their connectivity to the large open grasslands they currently border(again the two habitats should be assessed together). Their value will only decrease and decreasesignificantly if you remove this. Retaining these hedgerows within a housing estate will see themoffer fewer and fewer opportunities for wildlife as they begin what will surely be a slow decline.

In short, the impacts on the environment of this proposal are extremely high at this location. If thisdevelopment is allowed to proceed then I fail to see how we can ever take our obligations onreversing the decline in biodiversity seriously.

I object to the proposed development primarily on ecological grounds. The site supportsa high degree of biodiversity (especially when you consider its location), much under recorded inthe surveys undertaken in support of this application. In addition to this is the fact the site could bemuch enhanced with minimal effort/expense to make it better still and with the removal of theformer police station will have direct connectivity to Eastwood Farm LNR and from there a directsemi natural corridor along the river Avon. The links to the East of the City are of particularimportance.

The river, the railway and the narrow flood plains almost guarantee the protection of this corridorinto the far distant future, and as such any semi natural connections to it will retain a permanentlink to the wider countryside. I wonder how many such long-term opportunities exist for Bristol orany city of comparable size?

Such opportunities to address the Lawton principle of 'bigger, better, more joined up', which surelyshould be applied wherever possible and not just within rural areas, are very rare. To pass up onthe chance to protect a direct link into the heart of Bristol would be a massive opportunity missed.

I fail to see how anyone calling themselves an Ecologist could support this proposal. On this pointI would also question the idea of 'Net Gain' within the site. The proposal admits to needing to find'gain' elsewhere to fulfil this requirement, however I feel those favouring this proposal completelyover sale the potential gain on site as currently designed. The wetland area, which will either beexpensive/difficult to maintain or if neglected of decreasing value, is in any case of much lower

value as it has been designed to receive a high degree of human disturbance and is extremelynarrow for such a habitat.

I would also question some of the assumptions made with regards to the hedgerows onsite. TheEIA seems to suggest that the hedgerows are only important on account of the presence ofbluebells, this being the conclusion reached following how they were surveyed (split up byconnective nodes) and assessed only as the central line of trees/shrubs, ignoring totally orassessing the suckering/self-seeded shrub growth separately. Defining what is and isn't ahedgerow has always been tricky. In this assessment the importance / quality of a hedgerowseems to have been assigned by a different set of criteria than say the ones used bylandowners/farmers applying for hedgerow management funding in the wider countryside.However the quality and importance of a hedgerow should only ever be assessed by taking awholistic view (a basic principle of ecology). The central line of trees/shrubs, the suckering/seededgrowth (uncut most years so flowering for inverts and then fruiting for birds) and the base groundflora, should be viewed in the whole and it is hard to see how any of the hedgerows currentlyonsite, managed infrequently as they are (a good thing by the way) can be considered onlyimportant due to bluebells! To suggest this is ridiculous and misleading.

These hedgerows are vastly superior in environmental quality to most you encounter in thecountryside due to their infrequent management, varied structure, their connection to grasslandsmanaged with few if any inputs (chemical or nutrient) and at present their general lack ofdisturbance. Whether they meet a predetermined definition of a hedgerow/or quality of hedgerowis surely not the point.

Part of their value will be their connectivity to the large open grasslands they currently border(again the two habitats should be assessed together). Their value will only decrease and decreasesignificantly if you remove this. Retaining these hedgerows within a housing estate will see themoffer fewer and fewer opportunities for wildlife as they begin what will surely be a slow decline.

In short, the impacts on the environment of this proposal are extremely high at this location. If thisdevelopment is allowed to proceed then I fail to see how we can ever take our obligations onreversing the decline in biodiversity seriously.

I object to Brislington Meadows being built upon. It is a rare city nature spot which hostsa diverse amount of wildlife. Where will these animals live if you build these homes? We needmore nature spots in the cities to take a walk, enjoy nature and escape as a part of leisureactivities. There is a dearth of free and nature based leisure activities in cities. A new hosuingestate will not improve the well being of Brislington residents. In fact, it will put more pressure onschools for enrollment places, put pressure on street parking and traffic in the area. The traffic inBrislington is already pretty horrendous, especially on Bath Rd. More housing in the few naturespots on a city makes city living quite depressing to be honest. No one wants to live in Bristol uponLondon. We have a beautiful vibrant city. Building on nature spots changes what people loveabout this great city.

I object to Brislington Meadows being built upon. It is a rare city nature spot which hostsa diverse amount of wildlife. Where will these animals live if you build these homes? We needmore nature spots in the cities to take a walk, enjoy nature and escape as a part of leisureactivities. There is a dearth of free and nature based leisure activities in cities. A new hosuingestate will not improve the well being of Brislington residents. In fact, it will put more pressure onschools for enrollment places, put pressure on street parking and traffic in the area. The traffic inBrislington is already pretty horrendous, especially on Bath Rd. More housing in the few naturespots on a city makes city living quite depressing to be honest. No one wants to live in Bristol uponLondon. We have a beautiful vibrant city. Building on nature spots changes what people loveabout this great city.

I would object on the grounds of it being an over populated , the loss of lovely greenfield with lots of wild animals living there . More traffic around the area . It's hard to get doctorsappointments at the local doctors without there being hundreds of new home being built

I would object on the grounds of it being an over populated , the loss of lovely greenfield with lots of wild animals living there . More traffic around the area . It's hard to get doctorsappointments at the local doctors without there being hundreds of new home being built

I don't no think this is a good idea due to traffic causing more air pollution perhaps thisgreen lane should be turned into a natural forest to help the emissions of bristol

I don't no think this is a good idea due to traffic causing more air pollution perhaps thisgreen lane should be turned into a natural forest to help the emissions of bristol

Leave our green spaces alone. Start converting unused buildings and office blocks

Leave our green spaces alone. Start converting unused buildings and office blocks

As a resident of Brislington I wish to object to this development on three main grounds.1. Brislington meadows are one of the few remaining meadow lands in Bristol. They very much alocal amenity providing a valued green space for local residents in an area with high levels oftraffic pollution and are a haven for wild life. Bristol is supposedly supporting a green agenda butthis application flies in the face of any such claim.Green sites should not be sacrificed while thereare alternative brown field sites available. A pledge that they would be preserved should not bereneged on.2. Any new housing would put additional strain on already overstretched local services.Our localDrs are stretched to breaking point while schools are coming under increasing pressure.3. Traffic around Brislington has already been identified as a major issue. Given the fact thatBrislington lacks any form of reliable and coherent bus service 250 houses will add further to theoften gridlocked system.

As a resident of Brislington I wish to object to this development on three main grounds.1. Brislington meadows are one of the few remaining meadow lands in Bristol. They very much alocal amenity providing a valued green space for local residents in an area with high levels oftraffic pollution and are a haven for wild life. Bristol is supposedly supporting a green agenda butthis application flies in the face of any such claim.Green sites should not be sacrificed while thereare alternative brown field sites available. A pledge that they would be preserved should not bereneged on.2. Any new housing would put additional strain on already overstretched local services.Our localDrs are stretched to breaking point while schools are coming under increasing pressure.3. Traffic around Brislington has already been identified as a major issue. Given the fact thatBrislington lacks any form of reliable and coherent bus service 250 houses will add further to theoften gridlocked system.

There are several reasons I object to this planning application:

1) The A4 and surrounding roads are already overwhelmed with traffic. This development will onlyincrease pollution, traffic jams and noise due the the increase in private vehicles.

2) local community services, such as schools, GP/ medical, dentists, etc are alreadyoverburdened. The amount of new houses planned will make these services even worse.

3) We are in a climate emergency. We are losing green space and natural habitat at an alarmingrate. This area has remained undeveloped for many, many years and to build on this preciousgreen space would be an act of environmental vandalism, especially considering it is a site ofnatural conservation interest.

There are several reasons I object to this planning application:

1) The A4 and surrounding roads are already overwhelmed with traffic. This development will onlyincrease pollution, traffic jams and noise due the the increase in private vehicles.

2) local community services, such as schools, GP/ medical, dentists, etc are alreadyoverburdened. The amount of new houses planned will make these services even worse.

3) We are in a climate emergency. We are losing green space and natural habitat at an alarmingrate. This area has remained undeveloped for many, many years and to build on this preciousgreen space would be an act of environmental vandalism, especially considering it is a site ofnatural conservation interest.

Brislington Meadows is a beautiful green space in the heart of Brislington. Buildinghouses here is going to have a detrimental effect on trees and wildlife. It is a travesty to even bethinking of cutting down our precious trees and building on green land. The amount of traffic whichwill be added to an already congested area cannot be over emphasised. I consider where I live islike living on an island. Every direction you go to get out of the area you have to queue in trafficjust to get onto Bath Road. This surely cannot be good for the environment and just adds to thetraffic congestion in this area. I know infrastructure is not in your remit but surely someone has tothink of the impact on doctors' surgery, where it takes three weeks to get an appointment, and tothe local schools.

Brislington Meadows is a beautiful green space in the heart of Brislington. Buildinghouses here is going to have a detrimental effect on trees and wildlife. It is a travesty to even bethinking of cutting down our precious trees and building on green land. The amount of traffic whichwill be added to an already congested area cannot be over emphasised. I consider where I live islike living on an island. Every direction you go to get out of the area you have to queue in trafficjust to get onto Bath Road. This surely cannot be good for the environment and just adds to thetraffic congestion in this area. I know infrastructure is not in your remit but surely someone has tothink of the impact on doctors' surgery, where it takes three weeks to get an appointment, and tothe local schools.

ARE YOU MAD? What on Earth are you doing? Stop this utter nonsense right now. Gobuild elsewhere on brown field and not on a green area full of wildlife and loved by locals who useit to breathe! Think about the residents already here and I don't just mean the humans. For Godsake wise up and protect this precious fragment of our planet.

ARE YOU MAD? What on Earth are you doing? Stop this utter nonsense right now. Gobuild elsewhere on brown field and not on a green area full of wildlife and loved by locals who useit to breathe! Think about the residents already here and I don't just mean the humans. For Godsake wise up and protect this precious fragment of our planet.

Objecting due to the extent of development planned and the impact on local wildlife andecology. The proposed development is for a large number of houses in an area where amenities(drs surgeries etc) are already stretched and roads (bath rd) extremely busy. The land to bedeveloped is also a vital space for conservation of local wildlife and sustaining Bristol's greencredentials.

Objecting due to the extent of development planned and the impact on local wildlife andecology. The proposed development is for a large number of houses in an area where amenities(drs surgeries etc) are already stretched and roads (bath rd) extremely busy. The land to bedeveloped is also a vital space for conservation of local wildlife and sustaining Bristol's greencredentials.

I object

I object

Traffic and parking would be a major issue and there would be a rise in accidents onschool rd/ broom hill rd.Also schools and doctors surgery's are overwhelmed with pupils and patients and can't take anymore.

Traffic and parking would be a major issue and there would be a rise in accidents onschool rd/ broom hill rd.Also schools and doctors surgery's are overwhelmed with pupils and patients and can't take anymore.

Building on this land is for none other than pure greed.... If greedy cooperations keeptaking away local green ares for wildlife, where are the local kids going to see local wildlife.

Building on this land is for none other than pure greed.... If greedy cooperations keeptaking away local green ares for wildlife, where are the local kids going to see local wildlife.

Site has a high biodiversity value. There is plenty of brown field sites around the areawhich should be built upon first

Site has a high biodiversity value. There is plenty of brown field sites around the areawhich should be built upon first

As we face a future of climate and ecological crisis, we must ask ourselves as a societywhich side of history we want to be on. As a mum of a 15 month old, I want to be able to standwith him on these meadows, talking to him about the wildlife, watching birds, insects, and bees,and telling him that we saved this site from being destroyed because nature and the preservationof rare habitats like these was too important to lose. In an area with so much pollution, so muchtraffic, and so few facilities for our children and young people, preserving this incredible greenspace is so important. Time spent in nature is critical for human wellbeing and hundreds of localresidents use this space every single day for exercise and to connect with nature. To pave thisurban oasis, teeming with hundreds of different species and bring hundreds of houses and carsinto its place is truly shameful.

There are currently plans for over 1000 new homes within a 1 mile radius of this site. There are nonew plans for doctors surgeries, community hubs, youth facilities, improvements to our existingchildren's play areas or additional schools to absorb this influx of new residents.

Access to the site is also deeply problematic. Broomhill Road is exceptionally busy day-to-day withtraffic regularly backing up along much of the road and up to the industrial estate. The A4 is alsoexceptionally congested all day every day. Adding up 600 new car users to the area will only serveto worsen the already poor air quality for local residents close to our local primary school and twonurseries, cause horrendous traffic and make the small, local roads even more dangerous.

The other proposed local developments are primarily making use of brownfield sites. This should

always be the first port of call. A site like Brislington Meadows should never have been consideredin the first place and the fact that it is shows just how little political interest there is from our councilin the residents and community of Brislington.

I hope you will do the right thing for our community, this incredible space and for our children'sfutures.

As we face a future of climate and ecological crisis, we must ask ourselves as a societywhich side of history we want to be on. As a mum of a 15 month old, I want to be able to standwith him on these meadows, talking to him about the wildlife, watching birds, insects, and bees,and telling him that we saved this site from being destroyed because nature and the preservationof rare habitats like these was too important to lose. In an area with so much pollution, so muchtraffic, and so few facilities for our children and young people, preserving this incredible greenspace is so important. Time spent in nature is critical for human wellbeing and hundreds of localresidents use this space every single day for exercise and to connect with nature. To pave thisurban oasis, teeming with hundreds of different species and bring hundreds of houses and carsinto its place is truly shameful.

There are currently plans for over 1000 new homes within a 1 mile radius of this site. There are nonew plans for doctors surgeries, community hubs, youth facilities, improvements to our existingchildren's play areas or additional schools to absorb this influx of new residents.

Access to the site is also deeply problematic. Broomhill Road is exceptionally busy day-to-day withtraffic regularly backing up along much of the road and up to the industrial estate. The A4 is alsoexceptionally congested all day every day. Adding up 600 new car users to the area will only serveto worsen the already poor air quality for local residents close to our local primary school and twonurseries, cause horrendous traffic and make the small, local roads even more dangerous.

The other proposed local developments are primarily making use of brownfield sites. This should

always be the first port of call. A site like Brislington Meadows should never have been consideredin the first place and the fact that it is shows just how little political interest there is from our councilin the residents and community of Brislington.

I hope you will do the right thing for our community, this incredible space and for our children'sfutures.

I fully object to building houses on Brislington Meadows - a greenfield site with SNCIstatus because:1. It goes against local resident's wishes and Bristol's commitment to tackle the ecologicalemergency and ensure 30% of the land in Bristol is kept for the benefit of wildlife by 2030.2. The design documents for the development do not meet the requirements of a futuresustainable community that are nature-led.3. Brislington Meadows are essential for all ages of the local and wider community's well-beingand physical and mental health. The pristine meadows nourish all the senses with their seasonalcolour, rich bird & insect song, scent, fruits, flowers and texture.4. The local infrastructure cannot cope with today's traffic and demands. Amenities and facilitiessuch as schools, doctors and community centres are already overloaded or non existent. Publictransport is extremely poor. This development would increase car dependency further.5. This development cannot mitigate nor compensate for the loss of wildlife habitat, for examplethe invertebrate assemblages noted by Homes England.Please do not allow these beautiful, irreplaceable meadows be built on. The soil structure hasbeen developed over millions of years and cannot be allowed to suffer for developer's profit.

I fully object to building houses on Brislington Meadows - a greenfield site with SNCIstatus because:1. It goes against local resident's wishes and Bristol's commitment to tackle the ecologicalemergency and ensure 30% of the land in Bristol is kept for the benefit of wildlife by 2030.2. The design documents for the development do not meet the requirements of a futuresustainable community that are nature-led.3. Brislington Meadows are essential for all ages of the local and wider community's well-beingand physical and mental health. The pristine meadows nourish all the senses with their seasonalcolour, rich bird & insect song, scent, fruits, flowers and texture.4. The local infrastructure cannot cope with today's traffic and demands. Amenities and facilitiessuch as schools, doctors and community centres are already overloaded or non existent. Publictransport is extremely poor. This development would increase car dependency further.5. This development cannot mitigate nor compensate for the loss of wildlife habitat, for examplethe invertebrate assemblages noted by Homes England.Please do not allow these beautiful, irreplaceable meadows be built on. The soil structure hasbeen developed over millions of years and cannot be allowed to suffer for developer's profit.

This is absolutely disgusting that we are losing what little green area we have left.I completely reject this awful decision

This is absolutely disgusting that we are losing what little green area we have left.I completely reject this awful decision

I would like to make my objections to the development on Brislington Meadows.As a resident who backs directly onto the land which is being considered for new homes, I am veryaware of what a haven this space is for wildlife. Having spoken to some of the people involved inthe planning stages, I have heard the suggestions that space for wildlife will be protected in a verysmall area of the land, and somehow all the wildlife will make its way there, but I have to disagreewith this. You cannot expect all the wildlife from a large space to be able to exist in a boggy patcha fraction of the size. And animals don't know where they're supposed to move to. It willcompletely disrupt a beautiful habitat that has been free to develop naturally for generations.In addition to the devastating affect on wildlife, the local community will also suffer with theintroduction of hundreds of homes and no new amenities. I already have to spend half an hour onthe phone to the doctors just to speak to a receptionist and then wait weeks for an appointment. Ifa few more hundred people are also trying to use the same services it will be pushed to breakingpoint.Congestion is a major issue in the area. Already the roads are gridlocked during busy times in theday causing massive amounts of pollution next to two schools and the pre school my childrenattend. More homes will mean more cars and the health of my family and other local families willsuffer.On a personal note, this development will directly and negatively affect me and family. Myhusband and I both work from home and are able to do this because this is a quiet area. This is allset to change if the development next to our property goes ahead. Multiple homes build in a lovelyquiet retreat will not only upset all the birds that currently enjoy the quiet, but will make it reallydifficult for my husband and me to work from home and without this option I would not have the

freedom to be a working parent as we would not be able to manage childcare.In addition to this, we currently enjoy a home that is private. If a property is built on the land weoverlook, we will find ourselves staring into their home and them into ours. Our privacy will begone. Our enjoyment of our home and freedom to relax in private in our garden will be gone.

I would like to make my objections to the development on Brislington Meadows.As a resident who backs directly onto the land which is being considered for new homes, I am veryaware of what a haven this space is for wildlife. Having spoken to some of the people involved inthe planning stages, I have heard the suggestions that space for wildlife will be protected in a verysmall area of the land, and somehow all the wildlife will make its way there, but I have to disagreewith this. You cannot expect all the wildlife from a large space to be able to exist in a boggy patcha fraction of the size. And animals don't know where they're supposed to move to. It willcompletely disrupt a beautiful habitat that has been free to develop naturally for generations.In addition to the devastating affect on wildlife, the local community will also suffer with theintroduction of hundreds of homes and no new amenities. I already have to spend half an hour onthe phone to the doctors just to speak to a receptionist and then wait weeks for an appointment. Ifa few more hundred people are also trying to use the same services it will be pushed to breakingpoint.Congestion is a major issue in the area. Already the roads are gridlocked during busy times in theday causing massive amounts of pollution next to two schools and the pre school my childrenattend. More homes will mean more cars and the health of my family and other local families willsuffer.On a personal note, this development will directly and negatively affect me and family. Myhusband and I both work from home and are able to do this because this is a quiet area. This is allset to change if the development next to our property goes ahead. Multiple homes build in a lovelyquiet retreat will not only upset all the birds that currently enjoy the quiet, but will make it reallydifficult for my husband and me to work from home and without this option I would not have the

freedom to be a working parent as we would not be able to manage childcare.In addition to this, we currently enjoy a home that is private. If a property is built on the land weoverlook, we will find ourselves staring into their home and them into ours. Our privacy will begone. Our enjoyment of our home and freedom to relax in private in our garden will be gone.

Bristol City Council need to seriously question where their so called " Green City"credentials lie. Once ancient hedgerows and wild flower meadows are ripped out,they will be goneforever. Future generations will no longer be able to enjoy these essential habitats that are thelungs of the city.Why have a CAZ if you allow developers to tarmac over any green space Bristol has left ??.

Bristol City Council need to seriously question where their so called " Green City"credentials lie. Once ancient hedgerows and wild flower meadows are ripped out,they will be goneforever. Future generations will no longer be able to enjoy these essential habitats that are thelungs of the city.Why have a CAZ if you allow developers to tarmac over any green space Bristol has left ??.

It makes no sense to be building low density housing on one of the few parcels ofmeadow land left in South Bristol when climate change is such a pressing topic. The loss of use ofgreen space to the residents of Brislington and Broomhill cannot be replaced which will deterioratequality of life in one of the poorer wards of the city and the environmental impact will be significant.There will be a significant increase in traffic generated as a result as all of the properties haveparking included.

There are far more suitable places in the city to build these homes, such as the underutilizedcommercial land surrounding the meadows and many other brownfield sites across the city wherea higher density of housing could be provided.

This land should be protected for ecological, climate and quality of life reasons.

It makes no sense to be building low density housing on one of the few parcels ofmeadow land left in South Bristol when climate change is such a pressing topic. The loss of use ofgreen space to the residents of Brislington and Broomhill cannot be replaced which will deterioratequality of life in one of the poorer wards of the city and the environmental impact will be significant.There will be a significant increase in traffic generated as a result as all of the properties haveparking included.

There are far more suitable places in the city to build these homes, such as the underutilizedcommercial land surrounding the meadows and many other brownfield sites across the city wherea higher density of housing could be provided.

This land should be protected for ecological, climate and quality of life reasons.

Object

Object

fully object to the proposed plan. My house is maybe the closest to the new proposeddevelopment. I object to the proposed plan on the following grounds

overlooking /loss of privacy - any house built in the paddock will over look our house due to theslope

overshadowing - height of building is an issue

traffic/parking issues - this will increase the traffic and parking in the area broomhill road. alreadygridlock in rush hour.

impact on community - services - already a shortage of doctors/shops/amenities/schools and noprovision made to improve this in the plans. extra srain on the limited resources

noise dust fumes - construction of roads will will increase all of these

effects on trees / wildlife / conservation - loss of habitat for bats, foxes, newts, all wildlife in thepaddock area

based on local dev plan which is so out of date and constructed ages ago and does not reflect thecurrent situation

nothing in the plans at the top of the hill in regards to amenities, doesn't take into account the hilland adds nothing of value to the existing community

too dense construction in the paddock areas based on the plans

all in all completely ar at odds with the local community

fully object to the proposed plan. My house is maybe the closest to the new proposeddevelopment. I object to the proposed plan on the following grounds

overlooking /loss of privacy - any house built in the paddock will over look our house due to theslope

overshadowing - height of building is an issue

traffic/parking issues - this will increase the traffic and parking in the area broomhill road. alreadygridlock in rush hour.

impact on community - services - already a shortage of doctors/shops/amenities/schools and noprovision made to improve this in the plans. extra srain on the limited resources

noise dust fumes - construction of roads will will increase all of these

effects on trees / wildlife / conservation - loss of habitat for bats, foxes, newts, all wildlife in thepaddock area

based on local dev plan which is so out of date and constructed ages ago and does not reflect thecurrent situation

nothing in the plans at the top of the hill in regards to amenities, doesn't take into account the hilland adds nothing of value to the existing community

too dense construction in the paddock areas based on the plans

all in all completely ar at odds with the local community

I forgot to add to my earlier comment, that another very important issue is thedevastating impact this development will have to the number of trees in the local area. Looking outof my window a see a sea of green. There are trees everywhere, and this makes this a beautifuland healthy place to raise my children. Every tree that is taken away to make space for houses willdirectly and negatively affect the health of my family and every other local family. The air will beless clean in an area right on top of schools and nurseries.

I forgot to add to my earlier comment, that another very important issue is thedevastating impact this development will have to the number of trees in the local area. Looking outof my window a see a sea of green. There are trees everywhere, and this makes this a beautifuland healthy place to raise my children. Every tree that is taken away to make space for houses willdirectly and negatively affect the health of my family and every other local family. The air will beless clean in an area right on top of schools and nurseries.

I would like to object to this proposal.

Wildlife As well as Slow-worms, bats and lots of other animals and birds, this development with displace or kill about 92,000,000 insects. This is based on the figure of 4m per acre from the Encyclopaedia Brittania.

Traffic The A4 Bath Road according to some calculations in the most congested road in Britain. This development will only add to this problem. The levels of air pollution in this area are already far too high.

Brownfield Sites There are hundreds of Brownfield sites on the Bristol register. This proposal should not be considered while the level of brownfield sites is so high.

Democracy The Council has voted unanimously not to build on greenfield sites. The Mayor and the local MP are against it. This should not even be considered.

Homes England and the Planning Inspectorate a both report to Communities and levelling up department. They are bound to have spoken with one another. Even if Bristol planning reject this, I believe there will be a political stitch-up and the ruling would be overturned. Its hardly worth going through this process, knowing that's going to happen.

I object to the proposed development. Brislington contains a large number ofderelict/abandoned/unused dwellings and sites that would be a far more suitable option forbuilding on than greenfield land. For example the old jaguar garage on Bath road/Brislington Hillarea.

There is a limited amount of green space in and around Bristol city and Brislington, and it wouldhave a devastating impact on local wildlife and communities to take this away from them. Recenthabitat surveys have shown a huge variety of wildlife including bats and key pollinator species,which are crucial to local ecosystems and the Brislington meadows are a primary habitat for theseanimals, reptiles and insects. From a community aspect these meadows are used for dog walkingand recreation, which for many is already a limited option, particularly those without vehicularaccess. This also detracts from peoples mental well-being by removing open green spaces, andlimits choice which is a form of inequality. The increase in population size of this area will increasetraffic, which is already a huge problem along the Bath road, and will also create problems from aschooling and childcare perspective. The area only has 2 nurseries nearby after a third recentlyshut down very suddenly, and there is a large waiting list for both. Similarly for schools, spaces willdiminish and children may need to travel further to access this, which is entirely unacceptable.Furthermore, access to healthcare will be further limited with the increased population, burdeningan already busy area. Access to social groups including scouts/brownies/baby groups/sportsgroups etc will also become harder for existing and future residents and supply is unable to keepup with demand, again diminishing peoples wellbeing and quality of life and enjoying of the area.I also have concerns from a flood risk and drainage perspective. If land is built on and covered intarmac then ultimately surface water will not be able to drain into the ground and will inevitably

move downstream into the lower areas of Victory Park, School Road, Allison Road and otherareas, potentially resulting in increased floor risk for those residents, particularly those dwellingnear to the Brislington Brook. Not only is this a problem for residents (and insurance issues), but ifthe existing park is flooded or boggy then it will be unsuitable as a park, dog walking andrecreation area, muting the developer's argument that this will be left to enjoy - boggy land is notenjoyable, and in addition will alter the habitat over a period of time and thus the flora and fauna,potentially to the detriment of many existing species if they've been able to relocate there.Furthermore, the noise and light pollution from new builds will also be detrimental to any wildlifethat is in Victory Park and will also affect nearby residents, including myself on Bellevue Park. Wealready have noise from Bath Road to contend with and the addition of another 260 homes willincrease noise and pollution. Leave greenfield sites alone and make use of unused sites that arealready built on please. Soon Bristol will have nowhere green left to walk, play in and enjoy.

I object to the proposed development. Brislington contains a large number ofderelict/abandoned/unused dwellings and sites that would be a far more suitable option forbuilding on than greenfield land. For example the old jaguar garage on Bath road/Brislington Hillarea.

There is a limited amount of green space in and around Bristol city and Brislington, and it wouldhave a devastating impact on local wildlife and communities to take this away from them. Recenthabitat surveys have shown a huge variety of wildlife including bats and key pollinator species,which are crucial to local ecosystems and the Brislington meadows are a primary habitat for theseanimals, reptiles and insects. From a community aspect these meadows are used for dog walkingand recreation, which for many is already a limited option, particularly those without vehicularaccess. This also detracts from peoples mental well-being by removing open green spaces, andlimits choice which is a form of inequality. The increase in population size of this area will increasetraffic, which is already a huge problem along the Bath road, and will also create problems from aschooling and childcare perspective. The area only has 2 nurseries nearby after a third recentlyshut down very suddenly, and there is a large waiting list for both. Similarly for schools, spaces willdiminish and children may need to travel further to access this, which is entirely unacceptable.Furthermore, access to healthcare will be further limited with the increased population, burdeningan already busy area. Access to social groups including scouts/brownies/baby groups/sportsgroups etc will also become harder for existing and future residents and supply is unable to keepup with demand, again diminishing peoples wellbeing and quality of life and enjoying of the area.I also have concerns from a flood risk and drainage perspective. If land is built on and covered intarmac then ultimately surface water will not be able to drain into the ground and will inevitably

move downstream into the lower areas of Victory Park, School Road, Allison Road and otherareas, potentially resulting in increased floor risk for those residents, particularly those dwellingnear to the Brislington Brook. Not only is this a problem for residents (and insurance issues), but ifthe existing park is flooded or boggy then it will be unsuitable as a park, dog walking andrecreation area, muting the developer's argument that this will be left to enjoy - boggy land is notenjoyable, and in addition will alter the habitat over a period of time and thus the flora and fauna,potentially to the detriment of many existing species if they've been able to relocate there.Furthermore, the noise and light pollution from new builds will also be detrimental to any wildlifethat is in Victory Park and will also affect nearby residents, including myself on Bellevue Park. Wealready have noise from Bath Road to contend with and the addition of another 260 homes willincrease noise and pollution. Leave greenfield sites alone and make use of unused sites that arealready built on please. Soon Bristol will have nowhere green left to walk, play in and enjoy.

This land is the community's only natural green space where real nature exists to beseen and enjoyed by adults and children within walking distance of home.Its a vital area forwildflowers,bees,birds.They need a decent size area to survive and flouriish,not a corner of ahousing estate surrounded by paths and people.Already I have to wait a month just to speak to a doctor yet alone see one.The impact of a suddeninflux of people would be disastrous. Our streets are full of traffic and parked cars as it is and theproposed parking for the development would be totally inadequate to cope with influx of cars thatwould arrive.Cycle paths are always welcome but don't take away green areas to create them and certainlydon't allow one through our peaceful park.Mental and physical health is so important for people in these stressful times.People need to beable to enjoy a walk from home.This area would be lost forever and our grandchildrens children would never experience the joy ofwalking in a peaceful natural field.

This land is the community's only natural green space where real nature exists to beseen and enjoyed by adults and children within walking distance of home.Its a vital area forwildflowers,bees,birds.They need a decent size area to survive and flouriish,not a corner of ahousing estate surrounded by paths and people.Already I have to wait a month just to speak to a doctor yet alone see one.The impact of a suddeninflux of people would be disastrous. Our streets are full of traffic and parked cars as it is and theproposed parking for the development would be totally inadequate to cope with influx of cars thatwould arrive.Cycle paths are always welcome but don't take away green areas to create them and certainlydon't allow one through our peaceful park.Mental and physical health is so important for people in these stressful times.People need to beable to enjoy a walk from home.This area would be lost forever and our grandchildrens children would never experience the joy ofwalking in a peaceful natural field.

BRISLINGTON MEADOWS OBJECTION

I fully object to the Planning Application to develop Brislington Meadows. I have reached thisconclusion after hearing all the arguments on both sides, and having fully engaged with thedevelopers Homes England to hear about their plans for the area.

The Brislington Meadows site was designated a Site of Natural Scientific Interest (SNCI) until theLocal Plan of 2014 was approved. Since then, its status as a SNCI has been the subject of muchdebate, as it does not seem to have ever been formally rescinded. Nothing has changed on thesite since it was designated an SNCI which means that it should not be considered one now.

During the consultation on the 2014 Local Plan, which took place in 2012, 324 people commented,of whom 310 did not agree with the principle of developing the site, and only 1 person was infavour. Despite this overwhelming objection, the site was approved for development in the LocalPlan at that time.

Much has changed in the world since that local plan was adopted. In May 2021, the Mayor ofBristol announced that, in light of the Climate and Ecological Emergencies declared by the city, itwas no longer appropriate to develop Brislington Meadows for housing. In 2022 Bristol CityCouncil debated and passed a motion calling on a stop to the development of green spaces withinthe city, including Brislington Meadows.

It is now very clear that, whilst there is still a housing crisis in the city, this cannot be addressed tothe detriment of the climate and ecological disaster that the world is now facing. Furthermore,Bristol has in 2022 approved a comprehensive house building programme for the next 30 yearsand did not feel the need to include Brislington Meadows in these plans.

The current Local Plan is now 8 years old and would have been replaced by now with a new onehad the government not rejected the WECA Joint Spatial Plan in 2019. This has prevented Bristolfrom updating its own local plan, but work continues in this area and Brislington Meadows isalmost certain to be removed from housing development in the next plan, whenever it is published.

In the Queen's Speech in May 2022 the government has promised new legislation to grant localresidents more say in the development of land in their local area - if this becomes law, residents inBrislington have already demonstrated that they would object fully to any development on theMeadows.

The Council, the Mayor, and the local community have all firmly voiced strong objections todeveloping this site. The site will not be included in the new Local Plan, and the Government'supcoming planning laws would prevent this site being developed. All these factors make itabundantly clear that this development is not wanted nor in the interests of Brislington or the widercity. This development will affect Brislington and the city for years to come; it should not be rushedthrough before Government policy or the Local Plan prevents it.

Threat to Biodiversity - Loss of Habitat

Wildlife habitat is being lost on a daily basis. The World Wildlife Federation describes habitat lossas "the greatest threat to the variety of life on this planet today". The UK has lost almost half of itswildlife and plant species as a result of human and land development since the IndustrialRevolution, according to a new assessment by scientists at London's Natural History Museum.The country is ranked in the bottom 10% in the world and the worst among G7 nations.

Homes England has recognised that this development will result in significant loss of habitat; "Thisrepresents a net loss of - 24.12% in habitat unit value (a net loss of -14.23 habitat units), meaninga deficit of 20.14 habitat units compared to a 10% net gain position."

Indeed, in some circumstances this rises to -27.44%. It is proposed that this loss of habitat is"Offset" either on other properties or by means of financial payment. The concept of 'biodiversitynet gain' is still unproven and in the current ecological emergency we simply cannot gamble on theidea that at some point in the future, the biodiversity lost by developing the meadows will becompletely restored.

Invertebrates are central to the functioning of ecosystems. Recent work has shown that they aresuffering from rapid decline. Homes England's own ecological survey states that "The .. ecology

surveys completed at the site revealed that the greatest value of the site is its invertebrateassemblage... included nine species of conservation significance and two further species of localinterest. The assemblage is dependent upon the mix of grassland, hedgerow and scrub habitatspresent in the site. Some species recorded are more dependent upon single habitat types or evensingle plant species (specific trees, grasses or wildflowers)." The loss of invertebrates on this sitemust be taken very seriously.

Homes England state that "Within the site, an estimated 46% of the land will be delivered asgreenspace which will be designed, managed and monitored with biodiversity benefit at the fore,and especially benefit for pollinators. This exceeds the current objective in the Bristol EcologyEmergency Strategy for 30% of land in Bristol to be managed for wildlife." This statement isgrossly misleading, as most of Bristol is already heavily developed - in order to achieve 30% ofland being managed for wildlife, we need to retain biodiverse, ecologically-rich green spaces likeBrislington Meadows.

In summary, Brislington meadows is a fantastic area of wildlife habitat which benefits the entirecity and indeed the planet, and we simply cannot afford to destroy it now.

More pollution, no doctors appointments as is! More congestion, limited spaces inschools, over all BAD IDEA

More pollution, no doctors appointments as is! More congestion, limited spaces inschools, over all BAD IDEA

Due to the influx of more traffic on the Bath Rd A4 which is already completely overreached. Loss of open green spaces.

Due to the influx of more traffic on the Bath Rd A4 which is already completely overreached. Loss of open green spaces.

Like most people I accept that the number of people on social housing waiting listsshows that we need to be providing more social housing to tackle the current crisis. However thisis not the only crisis we face - we must also stand against the destruction of our environment andprecious green spaces of which Brislington Meadows is a possibly unique example - a piece ofcountryside, with ancient hedgerows and diverse insect, animal and flower habitats, nestledbetween a large residential area and an industrial estate.

The proposed development includes little or no social housing, and the need for more privatehousing should not be at the expense of the environment and essential green spaces needed forthe wellbeing of current and future residents of our city.

Bristol City Council has I understand committed to address the ecological emergency and toensure that 30% of the land in Bristol is kept for benefit of wildlife by 2030. The building of 250houses on a large part of the meadows will wipe out wildlife and biodiversity at a stroke, and thecenturies-old hedgerows, meadows and ancient trees will never be able to be replicated - they areliterally irreplaceable.

Why would the Council contemplate approving the destruction of such an authentic, existing greenspace then have to create some artificial area for recreation and well-being elsewhere, atexpense? This is the sort of natural asset that provides for residents and visitors mental andphysical well-being, at no cost!

The effect of so many additional cars on the traffic congestion and pollution levels in the area is aserious concern. The infrastructure is already failing and cannot handle the existing high volume oftraffic - Bath Road is now regularly gridlocked, as a main route into the centre, and public transportis caught up on the same route.

Conservation and preservation of sites like Brislington meadows should be a priority for everybodydue to the climate crisis, pollination crisis, harm to local ecology, and negative impact on thewellbeing of the local community. I urge the Council not to allow the destruction of this beautiful,unique and irreplaceable asset, accessible on foot for the majority of residents in the surroundingarea, providing invaluable health and well-being benefits and involving no driving, no pollution andno cost.

Like most people I accept that the number of people on social housing waiting listsshows that we need to be providing more social housing to tackle the current crisis. However thisis not the only crisis we face - we must also stand against the destruction of our environment andprecious green spaces of which Brislington Meadows is a possibly unique example - a piece ofcountryside, with ancient hedgerows and diverse insect, animal and flower habitats, nestledbetween a large residential area and an industrial estate.

The proposed development includes little or no social housing, and the need for more privatehousing should not be at the expense of the environment and essential green spaces needed forthe wellbeing of current and future residents of our city.

Bristol City Council has I understand committed to address the ecological emergency and toensure that 30% of the land in Bristol is kept for benefit of wildlife by 2030. The building of 250houses on a large part of the meadows will wipe out wildlife and biodiversity at a stroke, and thecenturies-old hedgerows, meadows and ancient trees will never be able to be replicated - they areliterally irreplaceable.

Why would the Council contemplate approving the destruction of such an authentic, existing greenspace then have to create some artificial area for recreation and well-being elsewhere, atexpense? This is the sort of natural asset that provides for residents and visitors mental andphysical well-being, at no cost!

The effect of so many additional cars on the traffic congestion and pollution levels in the area is aserious concern. The infrastructure is already failing and cannot handle the existing high volume oftraffic - Bath Road is now regularly gridlocked, as a main route into the centre, and public transportis caught up on the same route.

Conservation and preservation of sites like Brislington meadows should be a priority for everybodydue to the climate crisis, pollination crisis, harm to local ecology, and negative impact on thewellbeing of the local community. I urge the Council not to allow the destruction of this beautiful,unique and irreplaceable asset, accessible on foot for the majority of residents in the surroundingarea, providing invaluable health and well-being benefits and involving no driving, no pollution andno cost.

I would like to object to the building on Brislington Meadows.

My main concerns with the development of the meadows is the effect on the meadows as aconservation area, as a recreational area, and as a vital green space in the city of Bristol.The meadows are a unique area, providing a space for wildlife to flourish, a safe haven for plant,bird and animal species, as well as providing an important green space for the people of Bristol touse.

I would like to object to the building on Brislington Meadows.

My main concerns with the development of the meadows is the effect on the meadows as aconservation area, as a recreational area, and as a vital green space in the city of Bristol.The meadows are a unique area, providing a space for wildlife to flourish, a safe haven for plant,bird and animal species, as well as providing an important green space for the people of Bristol touse.

I object to the proposed plans.Wildlife and greenery will reduce as a result of the development plus increased air and noisepollution.The proposed one entry point into the development is ridiculous, resulting in large volumes oftraffic directly outside my rear garden. It will be a hot spot for accidents with traffic joiningBroomhill Road.Water pressure is poor and will only get worse.Parking will spill out from the development into neighbouring side roads causing further potentialfor issues.Pressure will be put on existing services such as schools and Doctors.Disruption caused to many working from home if the proposal goes ahead.I appreciate many cannot afford housing and there is supposed to be a percentage of affordablehousing made available (question is, is it really affordable in todays climate?) but why can't theybe built on land that is not being used and doesn't have the ecological profile of this site?It will be a disaster if this goes ahead. Days enjoying peace and nature on our doorstep will begone forever.

I object to the proposed plans.Wildlife and greenery will reduce as a result of the development plus increased air and noisepollution.The proposed one entry point into the development is ridiculous, resulting in large volumes oftraffic directly outside my rear garden. It will be a hot spot for accidents with traffic joiningBroomhill Road.Water pressure is poor and will only get worse.Parking will spill out from the development into neighbouring side roads causing further potentialfor issues.Pressure will be put on existing services such as schools and Doctors.Disruption caused to many working from home if the proposal goes ahead.I appreciate many cannot afford housing and there is supposed to be a percentage of affordablehousing made available (question is, is it really affordable in todays climate?) but why can't theybe built on land that is not being used and doesn't have the ecological profile of this site?It will be a disaster if this goes ahead. Days enjoying peace and nature on our doorstep will begone forever.

We would like to object to the above planning Application for the following reasons:

It is a natural beauty area and too many of these are being lost to redevelopment. The Habitat for wildlife and nature will be destroyed.

Victory Park below the meadows is prone to flooding and this development will make this worse.

Our doctors and other services are already at breaking point. Normal waiting time for appointment is 3 weeks. Increase in population will escalate this. Schools are over subscribed to.

The amount of traffic on and around the Bath A4 in Brislington is horrendous and locals already do not venture out at peak times.

P and B Knight

As a fairly new resident in the area, there are quite a few reasons why I strongly objectto this new development of houses.We would be directly affected by the new build and the main issue would be the loss of privacy.Where we now have a fully safe space, this will no longer be the case going forward. There will bemultiple access ways towards our back garden.I notice that several big trees will be removed to make way for parking spaces. This will inevitablyincrease the amount of fumes and dust in the air, as well as increase the risk for landslides, floodrisk and drainage issues.Considering there will be an average of 600 people living in the new developments, the noiselevels will greatly increase and what was a quiet, calm place will become another busy, crowdedone. Traffic will become a nightmare.We are all well aware of the wildlife in the area and we as residents, respect it and value it.Greater minds have concluded that the planet is not going in the right direction, all this is doing isproving that point. Sir David Attenborough would be very disappointed.We were happy to hear that the previous planning request had been denied, and surprised that itis now being considered once more.

"As a local authority we have a statutory duty to enhance biodiversity and promote the resilienceof our ecosystem."

As a fairly new resident in the area, there are quite a few reasons why I strongly objectto this new development of houses.We would be directly affected by the new build and the main issue would be the loss of privacy.Where we now have a fully safe space, this will no longer be the case going forward. There will bemultiple access ways towards our back garden.I notice that several big trees will be removed to make way for parking spaces. This will inevitablyincrease the amount of fumes and dust in the air, as well as increase the risk for landslides, floodrisk and drainage issues.Considering there will be an average of 600 people living in the new developments, the noiselevels will greatly increase and what was a quiet, calm place will become another busy, crowdedone. Traffic will become a nightmare.We are all well aware of the wildlife in the area and we as residents, respect it and value it.Greater minds have concluded that the planet is not going in the right direction, all this is doing isproving that point. Sir David Attenborough would be very disappointed.We were happy to hear that the previous planning request had been denied, and surprised that itis now being considered once more.

"As a local authority we have a statutory duty to enhance biodiversity and promote the resilienceof our ecosystem."

I. Strongly. Object.

Firstly, as a resident, I am worried about losing my privacy and that there will be loss of daylightand shadowing in my garden due to several established trees being cut down to make room forparking spaces. Cutting these trees will also lead to an incresed risk in flooding,

During the building process there will be large ammounts of dust and fumes. Besides these beingdetrimental to mine and other resident's health, it will also create high levels of noise pollution. Isuffer from a condition that requires I have access to clean and this was the reason why I movedright next to an unpolluted green space.

It is imperative that we keep the meadows in innercity Bristol as a staggering 97% of Meadowshave been lost since the 1930's in the UK. Nearly 1400 species of polinators and insects rely onthe Meadows for survival. It is crucial we keep them alive.

We also need to consider that the local GP surgery is already stretched and this will be a massivestrain on our NHS.

I am very dissappointed in the Mayor for going back on his word. Not cool Sir!

I. Strongly. Object.

Firstly, as a resident, I am worried about losing my privacy and that there will be loss of daylightand shadowing in my garden due to several established trees being cut down to make room forparking spaces. Cutting these trees will also lead to an incresed risk in flooding,

During the building process there will be large ammounts of dust and fumes. Besides these beingdetrimental to mine and other resident's health, it will also create high levels of noise pollution. Isuffer from a condition that requires I have access to clean and this was the reason why I movedright next to an unpolluted green space.

It is imperative that we keep the meadows in innercity Bristol as a staggering 97% of Meadowshave been lost since the 1930's in the UK. Nearly 1400 species of polinators and insects rely onthe Meadows for survival. It is crucial we keep them alive.

We also need to consider that the local GP surgery is already stretched and this will be a massivestrain on our NHS.

I am very dissappointed in the Mayor for going back on his word. Not cool Sir!

As a resident of Belroyal Avenue, our garden backs on to a public access lane, whichwould see in an increase in foot traffic if the meadows were to be developed. This would result inloss of privacy at the rear of the house, and potential security risk if more opportunists becomefamiliar with the lane.

As an undergrad student studying conservation, most of my lectures the last two years have beenon the causes of biodiversity loss. The leading cause, especially in the UK, is habitat loss andfragmentation. The mature meadows wildlife represents not only a unique habitat to the region, butconnectivity for wildlife between areas and gardens. Development on this land would see the lossof species on a local scale, especially those that are vulnerable to an increase in the road system.

Mitigation in terms of biodiversity net gain is unrealistic and immeasurable, and merelygreenwashes development. There are few supporting arguments for this type of mitigation. I haveworked on several building sites and am therefore sceptical about construction engineers ability ordesire to keep safe particular trees or the slow worm colony present.

Overall, the development of the meadows would be catastrophic to local wildlife and providesecurity concerns and a loss of privacy to the rear of our homes.

As a resident of Belroyal Avenue, our garden backs on to a public access lane, whichwould see in an increase in foot traffic if the meadows were to be developed. This would result inloss of privacy at the rear of the house, and potential security risk if more opportunists becomefamiliar with the lane.

As an undergrad student studying conservation, most of my lectures the last two years have beenon the causes of biodiversity loss. The leading cause, especially in the UK, is habitat loss andfragmentation. The mature meadows wildlife represents not only a unique habitat to the region, butconnectivity for wildlife between areas and gardens. Development on this land would see the lossof species on a local scale, especially those that are vulnerable to an increase in the road system.

Mitigation in terms of biodiversity net gain is unrealistic and immeasurable, and merelygreenwashes development. There are few supporting arguments for this type of mitigation. I haveworked on several building sites and am therefore sceptical about construction engineers ability ordesire to keep safe particular trees or the slow worm colony present.

Overall, the development of the meadows would be catastrophic to local wildlife and providesecurity concerns and a loss of privacy to the rear of our homes.

I am the Managing Director of a local business in Bonville Road / Junction of DixonRoad. We employ 27 people on this estate.

Business Name & AddressCar Paint Warehouse LtdUnits 17 & 18 Bonville Business CentreBonville RoadBristol BS4 5QRTel 01173 009058

We also have warehousing at Unit 5 and Unit 22 Bonville Business Centre so 3 units on the sameestate.22/01878/P

I believe the impact within the area we and surrounding businesses trade from in the area veryclose to the proposed planning and beyond would be devastating for local businesses, residentsand job security for employees. It would also have a massive impact on local residential dwellingstoo and access to our business.

Reasons for this decision.We already face major traffic problems in the area and the access to the area is only via BonvilleRoad and Emery Road unless you are travelling from the other side of Broomhill Road. There is

not the infrastructure of roads to cope with this huge property planning of 260 new residentialdwellings.

Getting in and out of the area via our vans and company cars is already extremely frustrating &challenging already without adding to the time sat in traffic for our staff, visitors & suppliers as wellas trade and public customers to our trade counters without making it even worse.

Jeffrey Morgan

I am the Managing Director of a local business in Bonville Road / Junction of DixonRoad. We employ 27 people on this estate.

Business Name & AddressCar Paint Warehouse LtdUnits 17 & 18 Bonville Business CentreBonville RoadBristol BS4 5QRTel 01173 009058

We also have warehousing at Unit 5 and Unit 22 Bonville Business Centre so 3 units on the sameestate.22/01878/P

I believe the impact within the area we and surrounding businesses trade from in the area veryclose to the proposed planning and beyond would be devastating for local businesses, residentsand job security for employees. It would also have a massive impact on local residential dwellingstoo and access to our business.

Reasons for this decision.We already face major traffic problems in the area and the access to the area is only via BonvilleRoad and Emery Road unless you are travelling from the other side of Broomhill Road. There is

not the infrastructure of roads to cope with this huge property planning of 260 new residentialdwellings.

Getting in and out of the area via our vans and company cars is already extremely frustrating &challenging already without adding to the time sat in traffic for our staff, visitors & suppliers as wellas trade and public customers to our trade counters without making it even worse.

Jeffrey Morgan

1. Counter to Local Government and Central Government PolicyDeveloping greenspace for housing is at odds with the current local council and centralgovernment response to the Climate Crisis. Whilst the site was included in the 2014 Local Plan,this was before Bristol City declared an ecological emergency in February 2020, in response toimpacts of climate change and the decline in wildlife in Bristol. The Ecological Emergency Strategyfor the city was developed in September 2020 and sets out four goals, one of these being for 30%of land in Bristol to be managed for the benefit of wildlife.

2. Unacceptable loss of habitats and risk to wildlife and faunaAs highlighted by the Ecology Impact report, the habitats, vegetation and wildlife supported by theMeadows will be severely at risk through the construction and into the life of this proposed project.Including but not restricted to:- The majority of the grassland habitat within the site will be lost and what remains will, incomparison to the extents currently present, become fragmented by vehicle, pedestrian and cycleroutes.- The most significant impact of the proposed development is likely to be a reduction in diversityand abundance of invertebrates as a result of habitat loss and, potentially, light pollution.- Construction activities will impact retained habitats such as root damage, soil compaction,damage to stems or branches of trees, pollution etc. This would result in potential adverse impactsupon retained habitat.- Construction activities would put slowworms, hedgehogs and other small mammals at risk ofkilling, injury or entrapment.

- Dust generated during construction has the potential to adversely impact upon retained andplanted habitats and flora within the site as a consequence of smothering the foliage.- Native bluebell to be lost.- The only way to provide vehicle access to the scheme is via Broomhill Road but it would seem torequire the use of a designated SNC1 area of land. This has been separated into a separateapplication but is material to the suitability of this application- Loss of trees to provide Broomhill Road access- The proposed development and the proposed access off Broomhill Road will impact andfragment the connectivity between Brislington Meadows SNCI and surrounding greenspacesincluding Eastwood Farm LNR/SNCI.- The proposed 'Cycle Link' is within the Brislington Meadows SNCI. The proposed new hardlandscaping therefore has the potential to impact upon the integrity of the Brislington MeadowsSNCI and local wildlife site network. Therefore, any hard landscaping to achieve the welcomedpedestrian and cycle route should be located within the de-designated, former SNCI area.- It is understood external spaces will need to be lit to meet local policy standards and police"design out crime" advise; however, the Ecology Impact Assessment outlines how detrimental thiswill be to existing and potential wildlife on-site - including bats: "New artificial lighting introducedfrom streetlights has the potential to significantly disturb foraging and commuting bats and disruptor further fragment commuting routes." Also, light pollution within the development has thepotential to have a significant impact on the insect population. Especially relevant as the site wasassessed to be of vice-county importance for invertebrates. Also, Bristol's Ecological Emergencyalso includes objectives for pollinators, including by 2030 to have at least 30% of land in Bristolunder management for the benefit wildlife.- 525m of hedgerow will be removed, including hedgerows qualifying as HPI and important underthe wildlife and landscape criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997- Habitat loss is assumed to occur not just completely across the proposal residential area(majority of the site) but also in additional areas along the indicative route of the Primary Street,regraded areas, and sustainable drainage basins.

The massive amount of mitigation measures required by the Ecology Assessment Report are notcommitted to and seem economically unrealistic with a high likelihood of the future developerarguing it will not be financially possible. With a proposal that losses 81% of the existing habitat, isespecially worrying. The retaining, enhancing and off-setting of habitats is so fundament to theapplicant's ecology argument - but there is a lack of detail and commitment with too manyfundamental issues left for reserved materials and securing by conditions.

Even if, in the unlikely case all the mitigation measures highlighted are delivered, this would onlyreduce the harm caused by this development, not eliminate it.

Having hundreds of people living and driving on the site will severely impact the potential to retain,provide and enhance the existing, important habitats and wildlife. The proposal is unpinned by theconcept that a specific area of habitat is retained or provided (on or offsite) as being equal in

quality and potential for vegetation and wildlife to the existing condition. However, unmanageableconsequences of the massive development are not factored into this argument and theassessment includes increased air pollution levels on-site and in the local area, unmanagingmovement of hundreds of residents across the site, extensive new lighting, and increased noise,vehicles etc. These will also have a detrimental impact on Victory Park and grazing land whichtogether comprise part of the wider protected open space and the Brislington Meadows Site ofNature Conservation Interest (SNCI)

Example of mitigation measured highlighted as required not being realistic:As stated by in Bristol's Ecological Emergency Strategy, in the UK there are 30 million fewerhedgehogs than in 1950. And the applicant's Ecology Assessment Report highlights the manyrisks to hedgehogs the proposed development brings - from loss of movement across the site,green corridors, lighting on-site and the high risks during construction. Whilst the report offersmitigation potential, these are both flawed and cannot be locked in for perpetuity. For example, thereports say that garden fences should have 13cm access holes for hedgehogs. There will be noway of managing this, as residents can their gardens as they see fit.

3. Biodiversity net gainWhilst principles such as BNG can be seen as a positive move, there is a massive differencebetween what this means on a greenspace site like the Meadows, compared to a brown-field site.It will not be a net gain to the local residents and wildlife that are adversely affected duringconstruction and loss of habitat. The change in habitat will have a large impact - wet meadows willbe very different from the grassland, and dry meadows there now. Both in terms of the ecologyand ways people will be able to enjoy the space (access via walkways as opposed to opengrasslands etc). The fact the scheme needs to use off-site habitat to offset is ridiculous when thisis one of the local green spaces that should be enhanced when looking at the city's greeninfrastructure at a holistic level. If planning is granted, presume conditions will require the need tomeet a FULL "Building with Nature" accreditation and the obligation will be required to be fulfilledby the future developer into construction and beyond. And the habitat will be secured for at least30 years viaobligations/ conservation covenant.

4. Increase traffic, air pollution and safety issuesThe massive increase in traffic this number of homes will bring does not sure the site location andaccess. Broomhill Road is a narrow road and has massive issues of congestion, air pollution andsafety due to the current volume of traffic and the road being used as a rat-run. The developmentwill compound these issues. There is no way to mitigate this impact unless zero car access isallowed to the site and the surrounding area is parking permit with residents to the newdevelopment not eligible - as seen elsewhere.Whilst the proposal purports active travel and the benefits of the 20-minute neighbourhood, whenit comes to transport links, accessing schools, GP surgeries, hospitals and shops, Broomhillresidents have further to go than people anywhere else in the city - resulting in-car use.

Whilst cycling and walking routes through the site are positive, they are little help if the wideractive travel infrastructure is not improved.

The proposals refer to a 20 min neighbourhood - this should be calculated as a 20-min returnwalking trip. Meaning the majority of the listed amenities on page 26 of the D+A Statement aremore than this. Further analysis of how this is a 20 min neighbourhood site needs to be provided.The diagram on page 25 does not provide enough information or analysis, eg it does not take intoaccount the dramatic topography eg of Alison Road. The diagram also shows the local high street(Sandy Park) being on the 10min walking distance circle - this is incorrect. This icon is shownincorrectly on Alison Road - whilst Sandy Park shops etc are actually another 5min+ away.Inaccuracies in this mapping etc suggest the claims of a truly 20-minute neighbourhood areunrealistic.

5. Impact on community and other servicesBrislington Wards (East and West) already have some of the lowest numbers, availability andaccess to community services within the city. The current lack of community infrastructure makesit a poor location to build 260 additional dwellings. The local doctors and schools are alreadyunder pressure, and there is no youth provision.

6. Layout and Density of BuildingsThe site was formerly designated as part of Brislington Meadows SNCI due to its ecological valueand function within the context of the wider SNCI network. This value still stands and themaximum should be preserved. Therefore, it is inappropriate that the proposals do not propose ahigher density to retain more of the existing habitats and green infrastructure links.

7. Scale and DominanceThe scale of development on this greenfield site is disproportionate, with a loss of 81% of theexisting habitats, loss of 5.75ha of grasslands on a 9.6ha site. Loss of hedgerow, scrub, tree,woodland and grassland habitats.

8. Affordable Housing and Accessible HousingAs set out in the Affordable Housing Statement and D+A Statement, most smaller flat units aregrouped together on the East side of the site, contrary to advice.

Lack of wheelchair-accessible homes. Would expect a so-called "exemplar" proposal to meet theUrban Living SPD of 90%.In the community consultation the scheme was presented to residents that it was going "aboveand beyond" to propose an aspirational scheme. However, 30% affordable housing is only theminimum required by the Council. Why does the scheme not strive to go beyond the minimum? IfHomes England is truly "addressing the housing crisis, helping create homes, in particularly

affordable homes, and investing in local communities" why is this figure not higher? Broomhill isan area of significant deprivation, and so the percentage of affordable homes should reflect this.Why not in line with the London Plan 2021 50% affordable homes?

1. Counter to Local Government and Central Government PolicyDeveloping greenspace for housing is at odds with the current local council and centralgovernment response to the Climate Crisis. Whilst the site was included in the 2014 Local Plan,this was before Bristol City declared an ecological emergency in February 2020, in response toimpacts of climate change and the decline in wildlife in Bristol. The Ecological Emergency Strategyfor the city was developed in September 2020 and sets out four goals, one of these being for 30%of land in Bristol to be managed for the benefit of wildlife.

2. Unacceptable loss of habitats and risk to wildlife and faunaAs highlighted by the Ecology Impact report, the habitats, vegetation and wildlife supported by theMeadows will be severely at risk through the construction and into the life of this proposed project.Including but not restricted to:- The majority of the grassland habitat within the site will be lost and what remains will, incomparison to the extents currently present, become fragmented by vehicle, pedestrian and cycleroutes.- The most significant impact of the proposed development is likely to be a reduction in diversityand abundance of invertebrates as a result of habitat loss and, potentially, light pollution.- Construction activities will impact retained habitats such as root damage, soil compaction,damage to stems or branches of trees, pollution etc. This would result in potential adverse impactsupon retained habitat.- Construction activities would put slowworms, hedgehogs and other small mammals at risk ofkilling, injury or entrapment.

- Dust generated during construction has the potential to adversely impact upon retained andplanted habitats and flora within the site as a consequence of smothering the foliage.- Native bluebell to be lost.- The only way to provide vehicle access to the scheme is via Broomhill Road but it would seem torequire the use of a designated SNC1 area of land. This has been separated into a separateapplication but is material to the suitability of this application- Loss of trees to provide Broomhill Road access- The proposed development and the proposed access off Broomhill Road will impact andfragment the connectivity between Brislington Meadows SNCI and surrounding greenspacesincluding Eastwood Farm LNR/SNCI.- The proposed 'Cycle Link' is within the Brislington Meadows SNCI. The proposed new hardlandscaping therefore has the potential to impact upon the integrity of the Brislington MeadowsSNCI and local wildlife site network. Therefore, any hard landscaping to achieve the welcomedpedestrian and cycle route should be located within the de-designated, former SNCI area.- It is understood external spaces will need to be lit to meet local policy standards and police"design out crime" advise; however, the Ecology Impact Assessment outlines how detrimental thiswill be to existing and potential wildlife on-site - including bats: "New artificial lighting introducedfrom streetlights has the potential to significantly disturb foraging and commuting bats and disruptor further fragment commuting routes." Also, light pollution within the development has thepotential to have a significant impact on the insect population. Especially relevant as the site wasassessed to be of vice-county importance for invertebrates. Also, Bristol's Ecological Emergencyalso includes objectives for pollinators, including by 2030 to have at least 30% of land in Bristolunder management for the benefit wildlife.- 525m of hedgerow will be removed, including hedgerows qualifying as HPI and important underthe wildlife and landscape criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997- Habitat loss is assumed to occur not just completely across the proposal residential area(majority of the site) but also in additional areas along the indicative route of the Primary Street,regraded areas, and sustainable drainage basins.

The massive amount of mitigation measures required by the Ecology Assessment Report are notcommitted to and seem economically unrealistic with a high likelihood of the future developerarguing it will not be financially possible. With a proposal that losses 81% of the existing habitat, isespecially worrying. The retaining, enhancing and off-setting of habitats is so fundament to theapplicant's ecology argument - but there is a lack of detail and commitment with too manyfundamental issues left for reserved materials and securing by conditions.

Even if, in the unlikely case all the mitigation measures highlighted are delivered, this would onlyreduce the harm caused by this development, not eliminate it.

Having hundreds of people living and driving on the site will severely impact the potential to retain,provide and enhance the existing, important habitats and wildlife. The proposal is unpinned by theconcept that a specific area of habitat is retained or provided (on or offsite) as being equal in

quality and potential for vegetation and wildlife to the existing condition. However, unmanageableconsequences of the massive development are not factored into this argument and theassessment includes increased air pollution levels on-site and in the local area, unmanagingmovement of hundreds of residents across the site, extensive new lighting, and increased noise,vehicles etc. These will also have a detrimental impact on Victory Park and grazing land whichtogether comprise part of the wider protected open space and the Brislington Meadows Site ofNature Conservation Interest (SNCI)

Example of mitigation measured highlighted as required not being realistic:As stated by in Bristol's Ecological Emergency Strategy, in the UK there are 30 million fewerhedgehogs than in 1950. And the applicant's Ecology Assessment Report highlights the manyrisks to hedgehogs the proposed development brings - from loss of movement across the site,green corridors, lighting on-site and the high risks during construction. Whilst the report offersmitigation potential, these are both flawed and cannot be locked in for perpetuity. For example, thereports say that garden fences should have 13cm access holes for hedgehogs. There will be noway of managing this, as residents can their gardens as they see fit.

3. Biodiversity net gainWhilst principles such as BNG can be seen as a positive move, there is a massive differencebetween what this means on a greenspace site like the Meadows, compared to a brown-field site.It will not be a net gain to the local residents and wildlife that are adversely affected duringconstruction and loss of habitat. The change in habitat will have a large impact - wet meadows willbe very different from the grassland, and dry meadows there now. Both in terms of the ecologyand ways people will be able to enjoy the space (access via walkways as opposed to opengrasslands etc). The fact the scheme needs to use off-site habitat to offset is ridiculous when thisis one of the local green spaces that should be enhanced when looking at the city's greeninfrastructure at a holistic level. If planning is granted, presume conditions will require the need tomeet a FULL "Building with Nature" accreditation and the obligation will be required to be fulfilledby the future developer into construction and beyond. And the habitat will be secured for at least30 years viaobligations/ conservation covenant.

4. Increase traffic, air pollution and safety issuesThe massive increase in traffic this number of homes will bring does not sure the site location andaccess. Broomhill Road is a narrow road and has massive issues of congestion, air pollution andsafety due to the current volume of traffic and the road being used as a rat-run. The developmentwill compound these issues. There is no way to mitigate this impact unless zero car access isallowed to the site and the surrounding area is parking permit with residents to the newdevelopment not eligible - as seen elsewhere.Whilst the proposal purports active travel and the benefits of the 20-minute neighbourhood, whenit comes to transport links, accessing schools, GP surgeries, hospitals and shops, Broomhillresidents have further to go than people anywhere else in the city - resulting in-car use.

Whilst cycling and walking routes through the site are positive, they are little help if the wideractive travel infrastructure is not improved.

The proposals refer to a 20 min neighbourhood - this should be calculated as a 20-min returnwalking trip. Meaning the majority of the listed amenities on page 26 of the D+A Statement aremore than this. Further analysis of how this is a 20 min neighbourhood site needs to be provided.The diagram on page 25 does not provide enough information or analysis, eg it does not take intoaccount the dramatic topography eg of Alison Road. The diagram also shows the local high street(Sandy Park) being on the 10min walking distance circle - this is incorrect. This icon is shownincorrectly on Alison Road - whilst Sandy Park shops etc are actually another 5min+ away.Inaccuracies in this mapping etc suggest the claims of a truly 20-minute neighbourhood areunrealistic.

5. Impact on community and other servicesBrislington Wards (East and West) already have some of the lowest numbers, availability andaccess to community services within the city. The current lack of community infrastructure makesit a poor location to build 260 additional dwellings. The local doctors and schools are alreadyunder pressure, and there is no youth provision.

6. Layout and Density of BuildingsThe site was formerly designated as part of Brislington Meadows SNCI due to its ecological valueand function within the context of the wider SNCI network. This value still stands and themaximum should be preserved. Therefore, it is inappropriate that the proposals do not propose ahigher density to retain more of the existing habitats and green infrastructure links.

7. Scale and DominanceThe scale of development on this greenfield site is disproportionate, with a loss of 81% of theexisting habitats, loss of 5.75ha of grasslands on a 9.6ha site. Loss of hedgerow, scrub, tree,woodland and grassland habitats.

8. Affordable Housing and Accessible HousingAs set out in the Affordable Housing Statement and D+A Statement, most smaller flat units aregrouped together on the East side of the site, contrary to advice.

Lack of wheelchair-accessible homes. Would expect a so-called "exemplar" proposal to meet theUrban Living SPD of 90%.In the community consultation the scheme was presented to residents that it was going "aboveand beyond" to propose an aspirational scheme. However, 30% affordable housing is only theminimum required by the Council. Why does the scheme not strive to go beyond the minimum? IfHomes England is truly "addressing the housing crisis, helping create homes, in particularly

affordable homes, and investing in local communities" why is this figure not higher? Broomhill isan area of significant deprivation, and so the percentage of affordable homes should reflect this.Why not in line with the London Plan 2021 50% affordable homes?

This is a natural habitat for many animals, insects and trees and should be left asexactly that.

This is a natural habitat for many animals, insects and trees and should be left asexactly that.

The plans completely ignore the needs of the local area and will destroy much neededgreen space.

The surrounding roads are already in a state of disrepair and traffic is a significant issue alreadyon School Rd, Broomhill Rd, Allison Rd & Sandy Park/Wick RD. Adding the houses as proposedwill only add to this and intensify an already unmanageable situation. The infrastructure is simplynot there to support the development.The safety of road users and pedestrians will be at risk due to the increased volume of cars usingpoorly maintained roads as well as the impact on schools in the area. Traffic management is nonexistent and means illegal parking, blocked drives, people driving the wrong way up 1 waysystems, further adding to congestion.

The additional traffic will reduce the air quality in an already congested city impacting on the healthof the residents, as will additional noise and debris caused.

The loss of green space damages to community immeasurably, reducing the well-being & mentalhealth of residents and will leave a great number without access to such space.

The impact on the wildlife in the area will be catastrophic, the destruction of habitat will mean theloss of foxes, bats, numerous birds, door mice, field mice, owls, bees, amphibians and countlessother insects to name but a few.

At a time when the environment is alleged to be at the heart of the council and governments plans,it is clearly demonstrated here that it has little to no bearing on the blatant profiteering displayed inapproving these plans. It goes against local policies specifically put in place to protect such spacesand the council has done little to protect its people from this unnecessary development.Theappearance of the development will permanently change the landscape and does not fit in at allwith the existing area.

The local services - GP's, Dentists, Schools, shops, buses etc are all struggling to cope withcapacity already so an additional 260 houses will only compound this issue.The empty assurances of the applicant do nothing to alleviate the concerns, largely as they have atrack record of not delivering on them. The entire process has only ever been about financial gainand is completely apparent in the council's approval of the plans. Yet again profit over people...

The plans completely ignore the needs of the local area and will destroy much neededgreen space.

The surrounding roads are already in a state of disrepair and traffic is a significant issue alreadyon School Rd, Broomhill Rd, Allison Rd & Sandy Park/Wick RD. Adding the houses as proposedwill only add to this and intensify an already unmanageable situation. The infrastructure is simplynot there to support the development.The safety of road users and pedestrians will be at risk due to the increased volume of cars usingpoorly maintained roads as well as the impact on schools in the area. Traffic management is nonexistent and means illegal parking, blocked drives, people driving the wrong way up 1 waysystems, further adding to congestion.

The additional traffic will reduce the air quality in an already congested city impacting on the healthof the residents, as will additional noise and debris caused.

The loss of green space damages to community immeasurably, reducing the well-being & mentalhealth of residents and will leave a great number without access to such space.

The impact on the wildlife in the area will be catastrophic, the destruction of habitat will mean theloss of foxes, bats, numerous birds, door mice, field mice, owls, bees, amphibians and countlessother insects to name but a few.

At a time when the environment is alleged to be at the heart of the council and governments plans,it is clearly demonstrated here that it has little to no bearing on the blatant profiteering displayed inapproving these plans. It goes against local policies specifically put in place to protect such spacesand the council has done little to protect its people from this unnecessary development.Theappearance of the development will permanently change the landscape and does not fit in at allwith the existing area.

The local services - GP's, Dentists, Schools, shops, buses etc are all struggling to cope withcapacity already so an additional 260 houses will only compound this issue.The empty assurances of the applicant do nothing to alleviate the concerns, largely as they have atrack record of not delivering on them. The entire process has only ever been about financial gainand is completely apparent in the council's approval of the plans. Yet again profit over people...

We should be protecting places of natural beauty

We should be protecting places of natural beauty

Leave the meadows - revise the run down areas first

Leave the meadows - revise the run down areas first

I strongly object to this application.the meadow is commonly used by local people for dog walking and as a recreational area. we're inan environment crisis and should protect places of natural beauty.the biggest threat is the increase in traffic, which will have adverse impact on School road, AllisonRoad and broomhill road-which are likely to be used as rat runs. Bath Road is already badlycongested at rush hours and this is likely to get worse. the air pollution is likely to increase, whichwill lead to children suffering with Asthma- making a bigger strain on the local services (surgeries).

The services- schools and surgeries are already stretched, and there are no plans to build more.

I strongly object to this application.the meadow is commonly used by local people for dog walking and as a recreational area. we're inan environment crisis and should protect places of natural beauty.the biggest threat is the increase in traffic, which will have adverse impact on School road, AllisonRoad and broomhill road-which are likely to be used as rat runs. Bath Road is already badlycongested at rush hours and this is likely to get worse. the air pollution is likely to increase, whichwill lead to children suffering with Asthma- making a bigger strain on the local services (surgeries).

The services- schools and surgeries are already stretched, and there are no plans to build more.

I live by the park on school rd the amount of wildlife is wonderful we even have deersyes deers these animals are roaming free not stuck behind some fencing at a attraction and withso many verities of birds it is truly breathtaking, another concern is where are these people goingto park and don't say parking will be provided as we all know most house holds have 2 or morecars these days , what about schools, doctors, I could go on and on we need and deserve thisgreen space I live in a multi story block and trust me it has helped my mental health massively byjust looking out the window to see all of the wildlife in the area

I live by the park on school rd the amount of wildlife is wonderful we even have deersyes deers these animals are roaming free not stuck behind some fencing at a attraction and withso many verities of birds it is truly breathtaking, another concern is where are these people goingto park and don't say parking will be provided as we all know most house holds have 2 or morecars these days , what about schools, doctors, I could go on and on we need and deserve thisgreen space I live in a multi story block and trust me it has helped my mental health massively byjust looking out the window to see all of the wildlife in the area

I object to this development on the grounds that it will destroy a key are of wildlife that isheavily used by the community. It will also put a huge increased strain on an already overloadedlocal transport network.

I object to this development on the grounds that it will destroy a key are of wildlife that isheavily used by the community. It will also put a huge increased strain on an already overloadedlocal transport network.

This application would have a hugely detrimental impact on a beautiful and importantarea of wildlife and wildflowers. It is a very well used green space by the local community includingdog walkers and families. The local road system particularly Bath Road cannot cope any morepressure.

This application would have a hugely detrimental impact on a beautiful and importantarea of wildlife and wildflowers. It is a very well used green space by the local community includingdog walkers and families. The local road system particularly Bath Road cannot cope any morepressure.

I disagree with the proposed plans for many reasons.The increase in cars would make broomhill rd much busier than it is already . There is already aproblem with the amount of cars using broomhill rd as a short cut to avoid the bath rd, as a resultthere is a problem with speeding and accidents.An increase in the number of people living in the area would have a massive impact on theschools medical facilities in the are, they do not have capacity to take on any more, also thefacilities in the area like shops and leisure facilities are very poor. Belroyal Avenue already haveproblems with water pressure, which has not been addressed due to many complaints.Besides all this , when I walk around the meadows with my dogs I enjoy the lovely views andhearing the birds sing, watching trees and bushes change with the seasons and seeing all the wildflowers, and it has recently been a life line to me to walk around theses meadows as I have had arecent bereavement, it was my saviour, please don't take this area do green space away from us.

I disagree with the proposed plans for many reasons.The increase in cars would make broomhill rd much busier than it is already . There is already aproblem with the amount of cars using broomhill rd as a short cut to avoid the bath rd, as a resultthere is a problem with speeding and accidents.An increase in the number of people living in the area would have a massive impact on theschools medical facilities in the are, they do not have capacity to take on any more, also thefacilities in the area like shops and leisure facilities are very poor. Belroyal Avenue already haveproblems with water pressure, which has not been addressed due to many complaints.Besides all this , when I walk around the meadows with my dogs I enjoy the lovely views andhearing the birds sing, watching trees and bushes change with the seasons and seeing all the wildflowers, and it has recently been a life line to me to walk around theses meadows as I have had arecent bereavement, it was my saviour, please don't take this area do green space away from us.

I am objecting about taking away this lovely open space, where children and adults canplay and get exercise. This is a very old meadow and has been here a very long time, as have thehedgerows, it should be protected as our heritage, not taken away from public use and 260houses built on it.Myra DerrickApp no. 22/01878/P

I am objecting about taking away this lovely open space, where children and adults canplay and get exercise. This is a very old meadow and has been here a very long time, as have thehedgerows, it should be protected as our heritage, not taken away from public use and 260houses built on it.Myra DerrickApp no. 22/01878/P

Whilst I am in favour of building more houses to tackle the current housing crisis itcannot be at the expense of the environment and essential green spaces needed for the wellbeingof current and future residents of our city. I object to this planning application on the followinggrounds:

1. This site might have been earmarked for development in past local plans, this was 2014. Wenow face straight down the barrel of an ecological and climate crisis, and I cannot imagine a sitewith the amount of biodiversity that the Brislington Meadows has would be retained in a new localplan. This proposal also goes against Bristol's commitment to tackle the ecological emergency andto ensure that 30% of the land in Bristol is kept for benefit of wildlife by 2030.

2. No mitigation or claim of biodiversity net gain off site can compensate for the sheer loss of wildlife, and biodiversity of this site. Being nature led is more than just marketing buzzwords.

3. The design code document offers an incredibly bleak outlook to what the development mightlook like, and what it will offer to its future residents. Car parking in the sight-lines of houses orimmediately in front of houses. Houses that face onto roads rather than pedestrianised spacesthat encourage social interactions to build a sense of community. Bare minimum planting just totick the boxes. Soft verges to accommodate for informal additional parking, a sight seen manytimes before on other developments. Sadly this masterplan and design will be outdated before thefirst brick is laid.

4. Following from the above point the whole masterplan and design code feel like they aredesigned to appeal more to the developers who will be appointed to build it rather than considerthe needs of the future residents and the requirements of a future sustainable community.

5. The scale, density, and master plan is completely wrong. The masterplan sprawls far and wideall over what is a green field site, and the allocation and size of dwellings contrast the needs of thearea, where the majority of the housing stock is already 2 or 3 bedroom houses. It is inexplicableto me how the designers of this proposed development can claim to be nature led when they havemade minimal effort to retain as much of the meadows as possible and concentrate the housinginto a smaller but higher density footprint. There are many exemplary developments that respectthe site, get the density right, and importantly do not give in to developer demand for houses of acertain size, look and car parking facilities. This is not the future.

6. Brislington Meadows is an essential green space for the wider community in Brislington and itsloss would have a catastrophic impact on the health, physical and mental of local residents, oldand new.

7. The local infrastructure is already playing catch up with increasing local population, and thisdevelopment will only increase the demand on an outdated transport system. There are notenough amenities within short distance to back up the claim that this will be a development thatconforms with the idea of a 15 minute neighbourhood. Retail units are limited in quantity - onecould argue the development could encourage more businesses to move into the area, but if theretail units are not physically available in the first place then this is not going to happen. On thecontrary I believe this development, and increased traffic and impact on air quality within theimmediate area will have a detrimental economic impact on the local businesses. The size of thesupermarket is too small to be considered realistically as a main port of call for a family's foodshop, which will only mean entrenching car dependancy even further, since the public transport tothe local high streets and supermarkets further afield is virtually inexistent.

8. Sadly, I would like to note that virtually nothing has changed from the masterplan shown atconsultation to the one shown in this application, devaluing any claims that the community hasbeen consulted and listened to in the process.

9. A similar masterplan for 350 houses in Edinburgh has recently been rejected on grounds that itsresidents will be too car depended as no amount of well intentioned walkways and shared pathsfor cyclists within the development itself are enough for modal shift if the location of the site and itsimmediate infrastructure can't allow the residents to make sustainable and active transport optionstheir primary mode of travel. I really hope that officers in Bristol can be as bold and brave inmaking the right call. This is neither the right place, nor the right masterplan.

Whilst I am in favour of building more houses to tackle the current housing crisis itcannot be at the expense of the environment and essential green spaces needed for the wellbeingof current and future residents of our city. I object to this planning application on the followinggrounds:

1. This site might have been earmarked for development in past local plans, this was 2014. Wenow face straight down the barrel of an ecological and climate crisis, and I cannot imagine a sitewith the amount of biodiversity that the Brislington Meadows has would be retained in a new localplan. This proposal also goes against Bristol's commitment to tackle the ecological emergency andto ensure that 30% of the land in Bristol is kept for benefit of wildlife by 2030.

2. No mitigation or claim of biodiversity net gain off site can compensate for the sheer loss of wildlife, and biodiversity of this site. Being nature led is more than just marketing buzzwords.

3. The design code document offers an incredibly bleak outlook to what the development mightlook like, and what it will offer to its future residents. Car parking in the sight-lines of houses orimmediately in front of houses. Houses that face onto roads rather than pedestrianised spacesthat encourage social interactions to build a sense of community. Bare minimum planting just totick the boxes. Soft verges to accommodate for informal additional parking, a sight seen manytimes before on other developments. Sadly this masterplan and design will be outdated before thefirst brick is laid.

4. Following from the above point the whole masterplan and design code feel like they aredesigned to appeal more to the developers who will be appointed to build it rather than considerthe needs of the future residents and the requirements of a future sustainable community.

5. The scale, density, and master plan is completely wrong. The masterplan sprawls far and wideall over what is a green field site, and the allocation and size of dwellings contrast the needs of thearea, where the majority of the housing stock is already 2 or 3 bedroom houses. It is inexplicableto me how the designers of this proposed development can claim to be nature led when they havemade minimal effort to retain as much of the meadows as possible and concentrate the housinginto a smaller but higher density footprint. There are many exemplary developments that respectthe site, get the density right, and importantly do not give in to developer demand for houses of acertain size, look and car parking facilities. This is not the future.

6. Brislington Meadows is an essential green space for the wider community in Brislington and itsloss would have a catastrophic impact on the health, physical and mental of local residents, oldand new.

7. The local infrastructure is already playing catch up with increasing local population, and thisdevelopment will only increase the demand on an outdated transport system. There are notenough amenities within short distance to back up the claim that this will be a development thatconforms with the idea of a 15 minute neighbourhood. Retail units are limited in quantity - onecould argue the development could encourage more businesses to move into the area, but if theretail units are not physically available in the first place then this is not going to happen. On thecontrary I believe this development, and increased traffic and impact on air quality within theimmediate area will have a detrimental economic impact on the local businesses. The size of thesupermarket is too small to be considered realistically as a main port of call for a family's foodshop, which will only mean entrenching car dependancy even further, since the public transport tothe local high streets and supermarkets further afield is virtually inexistent.

8. Sadly, I would like to note that virtually nothing has changed from the masterplan shown atconsultation to the one shown in this application, devaluing any claims that the community hasbeen consulted and listened to in the process.

9. A similar masterplan for 350 houses in Edinburgh has recently been rejected on grounds that itsresidents will be too car depended as no amount of well intentioned walkways and shared pathsfor cyclists within the development itself are enough for modal shift if the location of the site and itsimmediate infrastructure can't allow the residents to make sustainable and active transport optionstheir primary mode of travel. I really hope that officers in Bristol can be as bold and brave inmaking the right call. This is neither the right place, nor the right masterplan.

Objection on the grounds of the effect on wildlife, nature conservation and theenvironment (including climate change). Conservation of grasslands contributes to climateresilience. About 90% of the UK's natural grasslands have been degraded or converted (WWF).Grasslands harbour insects that are invaluable for pollination. Additionally, they are a naturalcarbon sink that help to maintain a stable global temperature. The meadows, which consist ofgrasses, meadow flowers, fruiting bushes, trees and hedgerows, are also home to protectedspecies of wildlife.

Objection on the grounds of the impact on the local community. The meadows offer a natural,green, open space for the local community to reconnect with nature. Green spaces play a pivotalrole in population-level mental health. Mental health conditions are one of the main burdens onhealth care systems worldwide. Victory park does not offer the same 'natural connection' as themeadows due to the meadows' unique historic hedgerows (on site since the 18th century),grasses and meadow flowers. These create a feeling of being immersed in nature; the countrysideon your front door step. This feeling is not evoked from inner city parks. Therefore, the loss of themeadows to a housing development would have a deep and lasting impact on the wellbeing of thelocal community.

Objection on the grounds of traffic and parking issues. Broomhill road (from St Brendan's Sixthform college to The Bath road) is completely congested at peak times. The Bath road (from thepark and ride to Lidls) is also standstill traffic during peak times. The local roads do not have thecapacity to support an additional 200 or so new cars. Neither do the schools or other local

infrastructure have the capacity to support the increase in population.

Conservation and preservation of sites like Brislington meadows should be a priority for everybodydue to the climate crisis, pollination crisis, harm to local ecology, and negative impact on thewellbeing of the local community.

Objection on the grounds of the effect on wildlife, nature conservation and theenvironment (including climate change). Conservation of grasslands contributes to climateresilience. About 90% of the UK's natural grasslands have been degraded or converted (WWF).Grasslands harbour insects that are invaluable for pollination. Additionally, they are a naturalcarbon sink that help to maintain a stable global temperature. The meadows, which consist ofgrasses, meadow flowers, fruiting bushes, trees and hedgerows, are also home to protectedspecies of wildlife.

Objection on the grounds of the impact on the local community. The meadows offer a natural,green, open space for the local community to reconnect with nature. Green spaces play a pivotalrole in population-level mental health. Mental health conditions are one of the main burdens onhealth care systems worldwide. Victory park does not offer the same 'natural connection' as themeadows due to the meadows' unique historic hedgerows (on site since the 18th century),grasses and meadow flowers. These create a feeling of being immersed in nature; the countrysideon your front door step. This feeling is not evoked from inner city parks. Therefore, the loss of themeadows to a housing development would have a deep and lasting impact on the wellbeing of thelocal community.

Objection on the grounds of traffic and parking issues. Broomhill road (from St Brendan's Sixthform college to The Bath road) is completely congested at peak times. The Bath road (from thepark and ride to Lidls) is also standstill traffic during peak times. The local roads do not have thecapacity to support an additional 200 or so new cars. Neither do the schools or other local

infrastructure have the capacity to support the increase in population.

Conservation and preservation of sites like Brislington meadows should be a priority for everybodydue to the climate crisis, pollination crisis, harm to local ecology, and negative impact on thewellbeing of the local community.

Objection on the grounds of the effect on wildlife, nature conservation and theenvironment (including climate change). Conservation of grasslands contributes to climateresilience. About 90% of the UK's natural grasslands have been degraded or converted (WWF).Grasslands harbour insects that are invaluable for pollination. Additionally, they are a naturalcarbon sink that help to maintain a stable global temperature. The meadows, which consist ofgrasses, meadow flowers, fruiting bushes, trees and hedgerows, are also home to protectedspecies of wildlife.

Objection on the grounds of the impact on the local community. The meadows offer a natural,green, open space for the local community to reconnect with nature. Green spaces play a pivotalrole in population-level mental health. Mental health conditions are one of the main burdens onhealth care systems worldwide. Victory park does not offer the same 'natural connection' as themeadows due to the meadows' unique historic hedgerows (on site since the 18th century),grasses and meadow flowers. These create a feeling of being immersed in nature; the countrysideon your front door step. This feeling is not evoked from inner city parks. Therefore, the loss of themeadows to a housing development would have a deep and lasting impact on the wellbeing of thelocal community.

Objection on the grounds of traffic and parking issues. Broomhill road (from St Brendan's Sixthform college to The Bath road) is completely congested at peak times. The Bath road (from thepark and ride to Lidls) is also standstill traffic during peak times. The local roads do not have thecapacity to support an additional 200 or so new cars. Neither do the schools or other local

infrastructure have the capacity to support the increase in population.

Conservation and preservation of sites like Brislington meadows should be a priority for everybodydue to the climate crisis, pollination crisis, harm to local ecology, and negative impact on thewellbeing of the local community.

Objection on the grounds of the effect on wildlife, nature conservation and theenvironment (including climate change). Conservation of grasslands contributes to climateresilience. About 90% of the UK's natural grasslands have been degraded or converted (WWF).Grasslands harbour insects that are invaluable for pollination. Additionally, they are a naturalcarbon sink that help to maintain a stable global temperature. The meadows, which consist ofgrasses, meadow flowers, fruiting bushes, trees and hedgerows, are also home to protectedspecies of wildlife.

Objection on the grounds of the impact on the local community. The meadows offer a natural,green, open space for the local community to reconnect with nature. Green spaces play a pivotalrole in population-level mental health. Mental health conditions are one of the main burdens onhealth care systems worldwide. Victory park does not offer the same 'natural connection' as themeadows due to the meadows' unique historic hedgerows (on site since the 18th century),grasses and meadow flowers. These create a feeling of being immersed in nature; the countrysideon your front door step. This feeling is not evoked from inner city parks. Therefore, the loss of themeadows to a housing development would have a deep and lasting impact on the wellbeing of thelocal community.

Objection on the grounds of traffic and parking issues. Broomhill road (from St Brendan's Sixthform college to The Bath road) is completely congested at peak times. The Bath road (from thepark and ride to Lidls) is also standstill traffic during peak times. The local roads do not have thecapacity to support an additional 200 or so new cars. Neither do the schools or other local

infrastructure have the capacity to support the increase in population.

Conservation and preservation of sites like Brislington meadows should be a priority for everybodydue to the climate crisis, pollination crisis, harm to local ecology, and negative impact on thewellbeing of the local community.

We have a beautiful space on the edge of the city. It's used by thousands of residentsas an amenity. It would be a great act of vandalism to destroy this and cover it with concrete andtarmac.There are areas of the city which could and should be built on first. How long did it take to dosomething with the Post Office building by Temple Meads?There are many other sites like that around the city.The infrastructure we have struggles to cope with the number of people here now. You can't get adoctor's appointment. You can't get a reliable bus. You can't drive anywhere without gettingcaught in traffic.And you want to build more houses.PLEASE DON'T DO IT!

We have a beautiful space on the edge of the city. It's used by thousands of residentsas an amenity. It would be a great act of vandalism to destroy this and cover it with concrete andtarmac.There are areas of the city which could and should be built on first. How long did it take to dosomething with the Post Office building by Temple Meads?There are many other sites like that around the city.The infrastructure we have struggles to cope with the number of people here now. You can't get adoctor's appointment. You can't get a reliable bus. You can't drive anywhere without gettingcaught in traffic.And you want to build more houses.PLEASE DON'T DO IT!

I object to ruining our beloved meadows. They have a right to stay how they are as theyprovide homes for our beautiful and also rare wildlife such at slow worms and bats that I haveseen which can not and should not be destroyed. I am against creating any more fumes to ourlovely area and neighbourhood. We need these plants and trees to provide oxygen to the peopleand animals who live there. These plans would have a massive impact on character andappearance of area and demolish the homes our nature needs. This would have a massive effecton the existing trees and wildlife, nature conservation and massive impact on the community. Wedo not have enough doctors and dentists in the area to help our existing population of brislington,so how can they possibly cater for more? This would put far too many lives at risk. In this day andage we are trying to create a better and greener world, to save our planet and wildlife and notdestroy it so these plans should not even be considered.

I object to ruining our beloved meadows. They have a right to stay how they are as theyprovide homes for our beautiful and also rare wildlife such at slow worms and bats that I haveseen which can not and should not be destroyed. I am against creating any more fumes to ourlovely area and neighbourhood. We need these plants and trees to provide oxygen to the peopleand animals who live there. These plans would have a massive impact on character andappearance of area and demolish the homes our nature needs. This would have a massive effecton the existing trees and wildlife, nature conservation and massive impact on the community. Wedo not have enough doctors and dentists in the area to help our existing population of brislington,so how can they possibly cater for more? This would put far too many lives at risk. In this day andage we are trying to create a better and greener world, to save our planet and wildlife and notdestroy it so these plans should not even be considered.

I strongly object to this development. If Bristol City Council is to be believed we are inthe middle of a "climate emergency". Building 260 new homes on an area of meadow that is ahaven for birds and wildlife is completely the wrong decision. We should be keeping green fieldsgreen to improve air quality and encouraging outside physical activities.This development will bring an additional 1000 new residents to the area with no consideration forthe local amenities and services. Brislington can not cope with this additional demand. Thedoctors, dentists and schools are already stretched to full capacity.There will possibly be an additional 200+ cars entering the area which will cause absolute havoc.Not only to Bath road (which is already the worse congested road in Bristol) but to Allison Roadand Broomhill road which will no doubt be used as a rat run.There is a successful industrial area in Emery, Dixon and Clothier road. This industrial area shouldbe protected from the threat a possible new housing estate could bring in the form of newresidents complaints, construction traffic, noise and dust.Marvin Rees also stated if he won the last mayoral election he would ensure the meadow isprotected from development. People trusted him to deliver his promise and he has lied. We haveall be cheated.If this development goes ahead it will set a precedent for other green spaces in Bristol. The onlygroup benefitting from this development are the developers who will get incredibly rich from theconstruction of 260 houses.This development needs to be terminated and the meadows left for future generations. Once theyare gone they are gone forever.

I strongly object to this development. If Bristol City Council is to be believed we are inthe middle of a "climate emergency". Building 260 new homes on an area of meadow that is ahaven for birds and wildlife is completely the wrong decision. We should be keeping green fieldsgreen to improve air quality and encouraging outside physical activities.This development will bring an additional 1000 new residents to the area with no consideration forthe local amenities and services. Brislington can not cope with this additional demand. Thedoctors, dentists and schools are already stretched to full capacity.There will possibly be an additional 200+ cars entering the area which will cause absolute havoc.Not only to Bath road (which is already the worse congested road in Bristol) but to Allison Roadand Broomhill road which will no doubt be used as a rat run.There is a successful industrial area in Emery, Dixon and Clothier road. This industrial area shouldbe protected from the threat a possible new housing estate could bring in the form of newresidents complaints, construction traffic, noise and dust.Marvin Rees also stated if he won the last mayoral election he would ensure the meadow isprotected from development. People trusted him to deliver his promise and he has lied. We haveall be cheated.If this development goes ahead it will set a precedent for other green spaces in Bristol. The onlygroup benefitting from this development are the developers who will get incredibly rich from theconstruction of 260 houses.This development needs to be terminated and the meadows left for future generations. Once theyare gone they are gone forever.

I object

I object

This is an important 'green lung' in the area which is already over developed. The trafficin Brislington is awful already and would only get worse if this area is developed. I do not believethe infrastructure of the area can cope with many more homes, but if they are essential then weshould be using brown field sites not beautiful and ancient meadows full of wildlife and trees whichcannot be replaced once destroyed. Please do not build on these lovely fields but leave them forus and future generations to enjoy.

This is an important 'green lung' in the area which is already over developed. The trafficin Brislington is awful already and would only get worse if this area is developed. I do not believethe infrastructure of the area can cope with many more homes, but if they are essential then weshould be using brown field sites not beautiful and ancient meadows full of wildlife and trees whichcannot be replaced once destroyed. Please do not build on these lovely fields but leave them forus and future generations to enjoy.

I strongly object to this planning application. It is a vital local green space full of wildlifeand a place for Brislington residents to enjoy; it is surrounded by housing, commercial sites andbusy roads. It is essential for areas like BS4 to have green spaces such as the meadows for manyreasons - mental and physical wellbeing of the population, preservation of wildlife and respite fromthe pollution caused by too much traffic - to name a few. This planning application is to build yetmore homes which will increase the traffic problems and put further pressure on local amenitiesand services which are already straining to function effectively.

I strongly object to this planning application. It is a vital local green space full of wildlifeand a place for Brislington residents to enjoy; it is surrounded by housing, commercial sites andbusy roads. It is essential for areas like BS4 to have green spaces such as the meadows for manyreasons - mental and physical wellbeing of the population, preservation of wildlife and respite fromthe pollution caused by too much traffic - to name a few. This planning application is to build yetmore homes which will increase the traffic problems and put further pressure on local amenitiesand services which are already straining to function effectively.

The planned building of houses is not acceptable.1) It will have a negative impact on the people in the area:a) it is a little haven of countryside within a city and has helped the mental health of the citizens ofBrislington for years, not least throughout the lockdown. Where else can you climb so high, besurrounded by greenery and nature and yet be able to see the sites of Bristol. It is a place whereyou can really breathe fresh air. Where will people go to breathe?b) We do not have the infrastructures, eg. doctors and schools. These are already stretched.2) It will be disastrous for wildlife. Much has been said about this, but it will have an extremelynegative effect on the biodiversity of both Brislington and Bristol and impact on the quality of theair in both these, environmental qualities that Mayor Marvin Rees had promised to protect.3) There are other sites that are not in green areas where houses could be built instead, e.g. onFlowers Hill.4) Having promised to protect Brislington Meadows as part of his re-election campaign, he had aduty and responsiblity not to renege as soon as he was elected. If he knew he could not honourthis pledge, he should never have made it.Brislington and Bristol need this beautiful, uplifting and special space.

The planned building of houses is not acceptable.1) It will have a negative impact on the people in the area:a) it is a little haven of countryside within a city and has helped the mental health of the citizens ofBrislington for years, not least throughout the lockdown. Where else can you climb so high, besurrounded by greenery and nature and yet be able to see the sites of Bristol. It is a place whereyou can really breathe fresh air. Where will people go to breathe?b) We do not have the infrastructures, eg. doctors and schools. These are already stretched.2) It will be disastrous for wildlife. Much has been said about this, but it will have an extremelynegative effect on the biodiversity of both Brislington and Bristol and impact on the quality of theair in both these, environmental qualities that Mayor Marvin Rees had promised to protect.3) There are other sites that are not in green areas where houses could be built instead, e.g. onFlowers Hill.4) Having promised to protect Brislington Meadows as part of his re-election campaign, he had aduty and responsiblity not to renege as soon as he was elected. If he knew he could not honourthis pledge, he should never have made it.Brislington and Bristol need this beautiful, uplifting and special space.

This is an important site for wildlife and biodiversity. The meadows have a number ofveteran oaks, which support more life forms than any other native forest. They are host tohundreds of insect species, supplying many birds with an important food source. In autumn,mammals such as squirrels, badgers and deer feed on acorns. This should be a protected habitatfor these species.

This is an important site for wildlife and biodiversity. The meadows have a number ofveteran oaks, which support more life forms than any other native forest. They are host tohundreds of insect species, supplying many birds with an important food source. In autumn,mammals such as squirrels, badgers and deer feed on acorns. This should be a protected habitatfor these species.

Loss of primary and being overlooked. Extra traffic and parking issues on all local roads.

Drainage and flood risk. Affect on trees, wildlife and nature considerations. Impact on thecommunity including doctors and schools..

Loss of primary and being overlooked. Extra traffic and parking issues on all local roads.

Drainage and flood risk. Affect on trees, wildlife and nature considerations. Impact on thecommunity including doctors and schools..

I am objecting the plan of building the 260 on the meadow, this is due to the fact oflikelihood of increased traffic pollution which will have a negative impact on the quality of air, andthe traffic is already really bad in the local area. This will adversely affect Allison Road andbroomhill Road which are likely to be used as rat runs.Nowadays with the environmental crisis it should be pivotal to protect areas of natural beauty andgreen spaces- to enable us to enjoy it for years to come.My further concern is the lack of facilities, there are no plans to build schools, surgeries, and theones in the are are already stretched.I relay on green fields to maintain a healthy lifestyle, I tend to walk along the meadows daily.

I am objecting the plan of building the 260 on the meadow, this is due to the fact oflikelihood of increased traffic pollution which will have a negative impact on the quality of air, andthe traffic is already really bad in the local area. This will adversely affect Allison Road andbroomhill Road which are likely to be used as rat runs.Nowadays with the environmental crisis it should be pivotal to protect areas of natural beauty andgreen spaces- to enable us to enjoy it for years to come.My further concern is the lack of facilities, there are no plans to build schools, surgeries, and theones in the are are already stretched.I relay on green fields to maintain a healthy lifestyle, I tend to walk along the meadows daily.

This development will have a disasterous effect on wildlife and nature conservation raregrasses and hedgerows.this is valuable open space green area for Brislington it will also destroythe character of the area.These meadows have existed since Brislington was ring fenced1778.This open space is to valuable to lose to development of any kind.

Hi,I would like to object to this application for a variety of reasons,as followsThe wildlife in this area covers everything from slow worms to a huge variety of birds including birds of prey, to destroy this habitat would be criminal.The Bristol City Council and government policy over green and wildlife spaces would look typically hypocritical considering so many people are concerned about he decimation of this area when other areas have been standing vacant for years.( the old John Perr building).The increase pollution and traffic to an already congested area would make mockery of the Council plans to introduce the ban on certain vehicles in Central Bristol. Tha A4 is notably one of the worst roads in the country so increased congestion would be inevitable .The increase pressure on schools and GP surgeries in the area would increase when a patient has already to wait 3 weeks for an appointment. The lack of post office and chemist will need to be addressed. Tha increased traffic for the whole of the area would be detrimental as public transport is horrendous.I could go on and on why this area should not be built on even the Mayor has changed his mind with the backing of the Labour Council and MP.

The proposed development fills me with horror. Here we have at present a wonderfulopen space user by many for outdoor enjoyment and recreation. COVID made many of us moreaware of the attractions of the area particularly the diversity of flora and fauna. The additionaltraffic that would be created would massively increase the jams already occuring close by, plus theadditional pollution. Definitely a no from me to this crazy application

The proposed development fills me with horror. Here we have at present a wonderfulopen space user by many for outdoor enjoyment and recreation. COVID made many of us moreaware of the attractions of the area particularly the diversity of flora and fauna. The additionaltraffic that would be created would massively increase the jams already occuring close by, plus theadditional pollution. Definitely a no from me to this crazy application

Another 260 home will greatly impact our local area in a negative way.We don't have enough facilities, doctors, schools, clubs & parking for more housing.The local area is already stretched (more than!) with gaining access to preferred schools, doctorsappointments etc.Our residential roads are already chocka with cars especially when people visit Eastwoodfarm/nature reserve.We simply don't have the capacity for more population!The wildlife will also be negatively impacted as well as roads coming in & out of Broomhill &Brislington!

Another 260 home will greatly impact our local area in a negative way.We don't have enough facilities, doctors, schools, clubs & parking for more housing.The local area is already stretched (more than!) with gaining access to preferred schools, doctorsappointments etc.Our residential roads are already chocka with cars especially when people visit Eastwoodfarm/nature reserve.We simply don't have the capacity for more population!The wildlife will also be negatively impacted as well as roads coming in & out of Broomhill &Brislington!

Beautiful regular thoroughfare to access green areas in Bristol and for dog walkingAlso a natural area for other at risk species such as bees.

Planning Application 22/01878/P

We are objecting to this application on the grounds for the following reasons:-Mental HealthThe pandemic has hi-lighted the need for more green spaces, not less. Being in urban greenspaces promote both mental and physical health by providing psychological relaxation and stressalleviations within your local residency.

Environmental IssuesThe loss of flora and fauna, noise and air pollution to the surrounding roads and neighbourhoodsadds to the increase of climate change. The Government Green Recovery Challenge states that97% of Wild Flower Meadows have been lost since 1950