- 2 -

following a period of usage and subsequent feedback).

BTF’s request of at least adopting V4.0 for individual trees goes against Defra guidance to interchange various aspects of the Metric.

As discussed in Paragraph 3.14 of the submitted BNG Report, Natural England guidance states that “Users of the previous Biodiversity Metric 3.0 should continue to use that metric (unless requested to do otherwise by their client or consenting body) for the duration of the project it is being used for as they may find that certain biodiversity unit values metric 3.1 generates will differ from those generated by Biodiversity Metric 3.0.”

This is echoed by Rule 4, page 18, of the Metric 3.1 User Guide states that: “Biodiversity units generated by biodiversity metric 3.1 are unique to this metric and cannot be compared to unit outputs from versions 3.0, 2.0, the original Defra metric, or any other biodiversity metric.”

The 4.0 guidance, Rule 2 states “Biodiversity unit outputs are unique to this metric. The results of other metrics, including previous versions of this metric, are not comparable to those of this metric.”

We consider it unreasonable and disproportionate to undertake the requested numerous updates on each release of subsequent versions, considering current legislative requirements and direct guidance from Defra themselves, who considered the 3.0 Metric robust enough to release, and be used, to inform development across the country at that time.

This matter was discussed with the LPA pre-submission and it was agreed to continue with BNG 3.0.

2. Biodiversity Net Gain Analysis:

In our original comments, we argued that the Urban tree habitat area calculation methodology used by the applicant in its BNG 3.0 calculation (now updated3) is flawed and unworkable.

As previously discussed, we interpreted the tree size table to be providing thresholds between categories. This was confirmed as a correct interpretation on release of Metric 3.1. We acknowledge that Defra have subsequently amended their tree calculations during 3.1, then reverted to the 3.0 methodology in 4.0, and that they have changed the weighting. However for the reasons listed above in Point 1, we do not believe this warrants a re-assessment given the validity of V3.0 and associated guidance.

- 3 -

3. Strategic Significance:

We disagree with the applicant’s use of Low strategic significance for all the habitat types. We have adopted a strategic significance of Medium for all the habitat types. Whilst the site is not formally identified in the Local Plan, it is nonetheless of significant ecological importance, both of itself and because is in a conservation area, is adjacent to the Clifton and Durdham Downs SNCI, is part of the wildlife corridor that connects the Downs with Avon Gorge; and it is within the IRZs of an SSSI and an SAC and within some 400 metres of Clifton Down Wood, an ancient woodland.

As previously discussed, the guidance on application of strategic significance has remained relatively constant through each release from 3.0 to 4.0. In all instances, strategic significance relates to the local significance of the habitat based upon its location, and habitat type. It should be assessed on each individual habitat parcel both at baseline and post-intervention level. It is therefore not appropriate to assign all habitats to medium significance.

As previously noted, the site is not covered by any relevant strategy/policy. Furthermore, whilst the site does lie adjacent to an SNCI, it is surrounded on three sides by built development and is separated from the SNCI by both the large external wall of the Zoo Gardens and a busy urban road, and therefore its individual habitats do not lie in a strategic location (i.e., one that could improve connectivity between SNCI habitats and other strategic locations nearby). A potentially ecologically sensitive location should not be confused with a strategically significant location.

It should also be noted that while conservation area may contain ecological features, it is a heritage designation focused on character and appearance and has no relevance to the value of an ecological feature in biodiversity terms.

4. The Urban Tree Habitat Calculation:

Having set the RPA radius (r) multiplier to DBH x 15 for the veteran tree7 T083, we have adopted the new BNG 4.0 methodology and, using the applicant’s AIA tree survey data, we calculate that the baseline habitat area of the Individual trees – Urban tree on site is 6.0086 hectares, of which 2.0901 hectares will be removed and 3.9185 hectares retained. We have assumed that the DBH of each of the trees in a group is as reported for that group in the AIA. This represents a loss of 42.5% of the trees and 34.8% of their habitat from the site.

We have adopted (though we do not agree) the applicant’s Moderate/Poor - 87.7% / 12.3% -

We caution against any calculations based solely on data provided within the AIA, made without a site visit undertaken by a trained professional.

Furthermore, without knowing the condition of each tree retained/lost, the calculations offered by BTF will be incorrect, as the 87.7%/12.3% ratio will change based on the different resulting biomass area weightings for each tree provided in 4.0 compared to 3.0.

- 4 -

condition proportions and calculate that these Individual trees – Urban tree habitats combined generate 49.62 baseline Habitat units (HUs), which is nearly 88.5% of the 56.09 on-site baseline biodiversity HUs..

5. Post-Development Individual Tree Habitat Area Forecasting:

The BNG 4.0 User Guide advises that any new tree planted will grow into a Small category tree at the end of the 'project timeframe'. This is likely to be 30 years by default, as per Part 1 s.9 of Schedule 14 of the 2021 Environment Act.8 This is the approach advised in the Guide:

8.3.13. Size classes for newly planted trees should be classified by a projected size relevant to the project timeframe. • most newly planted street trees should be categorised as ‘small’. • evidence is required to justify the input of larger size classes. 8.3.14. When estimating the size of planted trees, consideration should be given to growth rate, which is determined by a wide range of factors, including tree vigour, geography, soil conditions, sunlight, precipitation levels and temperature. 8.3.15. Do not record natural size increases of pre-existing baseline trees within post-development calculations.

If a larger Individual trees habitat area projection is proposed, this will need to be justified.

As previously discussed, at the time of the assessment, there was no guidance from Defra on which tree species can be assumed, in the right conditions, to exceed the small category at 30 years.

Available resources at the time, along with professional judgement was applied. The proposed species include Carpinus betulus Sorbus spp. , Abies nobilis, Cedrus deodara, Chamaecyparis obtuse, Cupressus cashmeriana, Pinus cembra, Pinus wallichiana, Acer campestre, Alder glutinosa, Betula pubescens, Carpinus betulus ‘Fastigiata’, Fagus sylvatica ‘Asplenifolia’, Taxodium distichum, Larix decidua, Liquidambar styraciflua , Liriodendron tulipifera , Cupressus sempervirens , Fagus sylvatica ‘Dawyck Purple’, Betula utilis ‘Jacquemontii’, Prunus avium 'Plena', Betula alb. ‘Septentrionalis’ Paulownia tomentosa, Salix alba, Betula pendula, Crataegus orientalis, Pinus nigra, Robinia pseudoacacia, Castanea sativa, Cercidiphyllum japonicum and Parrotia persica among others. In our professional opinion, these are capable of reaching Medium category size (as described by BNG Metric 3.0 Guidance).

While these trees may indeed be input as small if using the 4.0 metric, the corresponding predicted size for the 3.0 metric was of medium, and indeed BTF themselves agreed and categorised them as medium for a 3.0 assessment in their previous comments. As discussed above, it is inappropriate to pick and choose different elements from different Metrics.

Conclusion

TLP stands by the validity of the original BNG assessment, which was undertaken in line with existing BNG Guidance as per version 3.0 of the Metric and based upon the latest information available at the time of assessment, and the most up to date version of the scheme at that stage.

It is unreasonable, contrary to Defra guidance, and not legislatively required to revise calculations with each amendment to the Metric, as BTF have requested.

I am strongly objecting for these reasons:Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has been there solong being of heritage value in itself.

Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that have visited,weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.

Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.

Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.

Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a publicsite, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.

Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings and donot complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuous blockalong the road.

Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has beenthere so long being of heritage value in itself.

Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that have visited,weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.

Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.

Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.

Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a publicsite, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.

Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings and donot complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuous blockalong the road.

Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

I am writing to object to the proposed alterations to the Bristol Zoo site. As someonedeeply invested in global environmental concerns, it is imperative that we consider the broaderimplications of such plans.

Primarily, the prospect of modifying the Bristol Zoo site, an institution of considerable historicalsignificance, is deeply concerning. The enduring presence of the zoo contributed substantially tothe region's heritage, and any deviation from its historical character poses a risk to Bristol'scultural identity.

Furthermore, the communal aspect must not be understated. The Bristol Zoo holds sentimentalvalue for the local people with numerous generations having forged memories within its premises(including my family) -be it through weddings or the solemn scattering of ashes. Converting such aspace into apartments not only compromises the communal essence but also diminishes accessto culturally significant areas for the public.

The proposed transformation of listed buildings into private residences raises concerns about theaccessibility of historically and architecturally significant spaces. The potential exclusion of thepublic from these culturally rich structures would be regrettable.

Equally disconcerting is the apparent lack of justification for the proposed alterations. It remainsunclear why the Bristol Zoo site, a longstanding public institution, necessitates such atransformation. Moreover, alternative solutions that preserve its historical and communal value

merit thorough exploration.

The planned green space, while commendable, prompts concerns about its future accessibility.Instances of similar spaces transitioning to private domains are common place - how can we besure it stays accessible?

Architecturally, the proposed design seems incongruent with the surrounding structures. Theproposed developments are very much at odds with Bristol's distinctive architectural style,particularly at that location.

Lastly, the removal of a substantial number of trees and potential environmental ramificationsdemand careful consideration. The Bristol Zoo site is classified as a local Historic Park & Gardenand an Important Open Space, rendering any interference with its ecosystem a matter ofenvironmental significance.

In conclusion, I urge a re-evaluation of the proposed planning permission for the Bristol Zoo site,emphasising the preservation of its historical, communal, and environmental value. Suchconsiderations are key for the well-being of the community and the city as a whole.

I can't believe that this historic and iconic site is even being considered for housing.Privileged housing, at that - to benefit a few - versus the huge communal loss to Bristol.

My family have visited the Zoo for three generations, and it's almost unthinkable to imagine Bristolwithout it. I also trained there, as a gardener, many years ago - the flora was second-to-none thenand any reimagining could be hugely beneficial to raising awareness of the natural world.

I see no reason why, in today's world, we can't keep the Zoo - complete with animals, gardens,history and events - for the people of, and visitors to, Bristol. It is an oasis in the melee of the cityand a very necessary balm to the stresses and strains of everyday life. Without it, part of the heartand soul of the city will disappear.

The development is totally inappropriate in terms of its scale and character and isentirely lacking sympathy with the existing architecture of the surrounding area. The proposedbuildings are far too high in comparison with the surrounding buildings and will surely createissues of overlooking and sunlight deprivation.

The site is a highly valued public amenity and should not be sold off to the highest bidder withpurely profit-making motives. The proposed "public park" would in fact feel like a private one, dueto the surrounding, overlooking buildings and the introduction of cars to the site would furtherreduce the impression of its being a park. Furthermore, if the residents are required to pay for theupkeep of the park, it seems likely that at some stage they will act to restrict access to non-residents.

This is an opportunity to do something good for the people of Bristol and not just for developers tomake more profits.

The zoo is an important community space, which has been a key part of life and identityfor Bristolians for generations. For it to be 'sold off' do housing developers, makes the city evermore privatised and inaccessible.

We live nearby and loved spending time with our children in the zoo, its such a shame we can nolonger do this.

Bristol should not loose this garden space which should be developed only as a publicgarden. There are sufficient other sites that are more suitable for development of this size.

Shame and on the planners making this decision, really think why you are involved inBristol. It is a simple yes no answer. A very well visited wildlife attraction, being sold to developersto exploit this beautiful site for their profits. Think, please, and be seen in historical planningaccounts of our City to have made the right decision. The shame to everyone if our docks were amotorway. Love Bristol. X

22/02737/F & 2. 22/02889/LA

In the next 10 years there are going to global initiatives on both atomospheric and speciessustainability. Bristol as Europe's Green Capital of Europe in 2015 will be expected to be aflagship in inovation and action. The 12 acres of the New Bristol Zoo Gardens could be a dynamiccommunication bridge to inform actual and virtual visitors, both local and global, of the latesttechnologies and also accessible new ways of living..... the incentives can comes through local,corporate, government and international sources.

For example, word is being spread about "No Mow May" where local residents are letting go of theoutdated "clean cropped and striped lawns" and discovering the wonder of the invertebrates andincreased bird life. Visitors will comes with questions such as:"What can I do to my house to use less energy?""We want to buy a dog/cat but have heard that dogs wake up hibernating hedgehogs which thencan't find food and die.....what should we do?""We hear so much fake facts about climate change - where can be find the facts?""Why do we really need lots of bugs - what does it have to do with us?""I'm looking to do a degree in some sort of sustainability - where do I get advice?""What plans in Bristol for making it greener?""We'd like to plant a tree in memory to granny but we live in a high rise flat...where can we go todo this?""What organisations locally can I join / support which help sustainbility"

"What can my kids enjoy and learn by coming to the New Bristol Zoo? Do you have VR and such?- It would be great for them to glimpse how amazing the world could be if we act now!""We like to take our kids to ethically sourced and cooked cafés - will we see these at the NewBristol Zoo?""I'm a science teacher at a local school - will there be projects and programmes associated withschools and uni curricula?""Can we get to see how Bristol Zoo is helping endangered species around the world incollaboration with local organisations.""I read that the world's soil only has about 50 years before it's too thin to grow - will there be somemodels which inform us about what we need to do to save our soil?""I'm very confused about whether or not sea pollution is an issue....what's happening withagreements between nations to care for the oceans?""I've been told that we couldn't possibly provide enough power for everyone to use electric cars -how do we find out about this?"

These are just a start.....WE NEED A NEW BRISTOL ZOO

Bristol Zoo and Gardens has been on its current site for over a century and is one of theiconic places within our city that is known and loved both locally and nationally. To allow housingon the site would destroy a key part of the city's heritage and identity.

It has provided an invaluable, publicly accessible space for people in the city for decades and inparticular for families, providing a safe play space for young children and a learning environmentfor older children and adults regarding flora and fauna and so raising the consciousness of theenvironments needed to allow these - and humans - to thrive.

At a time when the city should be doing all it can to nurture city-based spaces to encourageenvironmentally related learning and activities, closing this vital part of the city's identity for aproject that will do almost nothing to support the city's housing needs.

In this regard, it is worth bearing in mind that only a few wealthy individuals will be able to affordthe housing being provided in the area - and the idea that anything on the site will be trulyaffordable is incredible.

The Bristol Zoological Society has failed to show that the current site cannot continue to operateas a viable part of the charity. The proposal is merely to capitalise on the high property prices inthe Clifton area rather than explore options that would allow the retention of the site for the benefitof the public and the city of Bristol.

For all of these reasons, the proposed change of use cannot be justified; the Society is not forcedto sell the site and the approval of the plans would be an enormous loss to our city. At a time whenwe should be focussing on building the city's 'green' legacy for future generations, ripping out akey part of its identity and a part of its 'lungs' is a big retrograde step.

I have lived in Bristol for 38 years and Bristol Zoo and Gardens has been a major touristattraction during that time.When my children were young we had limited outdoor space so we bought a membership to thezoo and they were educated about animals, plants , trees and conservation in a fun, outdoorenvironment. The value of the zoo was appreciated by many schoolchildren in Bristol who wereable to access the zoo by foot or by public transport . I have looked at all the information availableand I feel saddened that Bristol zoological society did not fully explore the options that would haveallowed the zoo and gardens to remain at this site for the continued education and enjoyment ofpeople in Bristol and visitors. The zoo has already changed and adapted in the last 27 years and itwould have needed to adapt as our climate and opinions change, but Bristol zoo and gardens ismore than a lot of animals in cages. The site has historic importance, it has ancient tree and plants- it is rare to have this site in the middle of a city and I object to the site being turned from aneducational establishment, open to anyone into a private housing estate that is oversized andinappropriate for this site with the destruction of many ancient trees.The zoo is not just a zoo it has been a place for communitygatherings,theatre,music,courses,weddings and this should be valued.

Zoo 25/04/23

I object to planning application number 22/02737/F, because it is over-intensive development of asensitive site in a Conservation Area. These are cramped residential flats that have no windowsfor sufficient natural air circulation nor rights of light, the result is inhumane and ecologicallyunfriendly because it uses more energy to work electric extractor fans and lights in concealedinterior spaces. The development is too close to the road, and car parking facilities areinadequate, which will, at the best, will result in over-crowded parking that will block publicentrances to the estate.

The more recent, shocking, announcement that further development is proposed for what were thezoo gardens is dubious, especially with the already lack of provision to replace felled trees. Theonly benefactors will be zoo shareholder, who might gain short-term benefits, at the expense ofthe long-term benefits that will be lost forever to the area and the greater community, only becauseof few short-sighted, shareholders who ought to know better.

Living Easton Heritage and Environmental Group are a community based environmentaland heritage organisation of around 20 individuals and affiliated societies based predominantlyaround the suburbs of Easton, Whitehall, Barton Hill and Lawrence Hill in Bristol who take aparticular interest in heritage, planning and sustainability issues in East Bristol.

Whist we understand that there might be some valid reasons for the closure of the Bristol Zoo,Guthrie Road, Clifton Downs site and the movement of some animals to the Wild Place Bristol Zoovision project to allow for better animal care and welfare. We still wish to object to the loss of theClifton site as a zoo itself and firmly believe that it should remain as a zoological facility in someform or other due to its immense value as a community learning resource both for the people ofBristol as well as tourists visiting the city. We should not underestimate the value of having a localzoo on the doorstep for providing the inspiration for young people to become future wildlife expertsas was the case with Johnny Morris's TV programmes filmed at Bristol Zoo in the 1960's.

We welcome the retention of the gardens as a public open space for residents and tourists alikeand the listed buildings but do not support the proposed level of housing provision, the height ofthe proposed blocks and reduction in the net tree coverage and bio diversity across the site. Thefelling of some existing trees which has already happened is totally unjustified in the context of thisscheme.

We are concerned about the lack of certain facilities within the zoo gardens which are likely toattract visitors being close to the Downs due to a lack of public toilets or cafe on the site. As

people will be visiting the gardens the paths must be fully accessible for wheelchair users, peoplewith reduced mobility and families with buggies.

Although there is a major need for more housing within the Bristol city region (especially affordablehomes) with 196 new units proposed in this scheme 20% of which are homes to rent of m43 andm42 standards which are to be welcomed, it appears that fully accessible disabled housing issmall in numbers. Whilst we appreciate that Clifton and Bristol West needs affordable socialhousing so people can remain in the Clifton area and the provision of 50 homes being built aswheelchair accessible, we would prefer it to be built elsewhere in Clifton as we don't want to seethe loss of the zoo which is an important community facility.

We do feel the housing and flat is of a poor design considering that the site is within the Cliftonconservation area. It would have been better see buildings and architecture in keeping with theGeorgian and Victorian architecture around Clifton.

On transport we welcome the green travel plan but there appears to be a view that bus servicesare all commercially viable including service 8 Bristol Temple Meads station, Broadmead shoppingcentre, City centre, Park Street and Clifton village. However, we note that there is no bus servicefrom Long Ashton Park and Ride to Clifton village, Clifton Downs and Southmead hospital busstation. There is a need for a West of England Mayoral Combined Transport Authority bus servicesupported by Mayor Dan Norris funded by the Bristol City Council but it appears that no Section106 funding contribution from the developer has been asked for towards supporting potential busservices at a time when the City Region bus network is being cut by 33 bus services.

A green travel plan needs to be negotiated with the Zoological society as a matter of urgency. Itappears that there is no funding for a bus link from Bristol City centre, Clifton Down station, theDowns, Bristol Zoo site, Westbury-on-Trym, Henbury, Blaise Castle estate, Henbury station MetroWest, Cribbs Causeway bus station and the Wild Place Bristol Zoo project .

Cycling and walking provision is to be welcomed but we share the concerns of Clifton Collegeabout the movement of vehicles in college Road, Guthrie Road and the coach and bus access forthe college students. There is also a need for safe crossing points.

We support the Asset of Community Value application for the retention of Bristol Zoo which wewould like to see reopened in some form but we also welcome the new Wild Place zoo project inNorth Bristol because of the facilities it will provide for larger animals. Both of these zoos couldfurther contribute towards world wildlife conservation efforts in the future.

We welcome the zoo garden public access for local residents and tourists to the Downs and theretention of listed buildings as part of the housing development. However, there are still potentialopportunities for a reopened Bristol Zoo on the Clifton site which should be taken intoconsideration especially when an active ACV application to retain the facility has been submitted

by the community.

We therefore urge the Planning Committee to refuse this planning application on the grounds ofheritage conservation, loss of community amenity, poor access and the lack of a long-termsustainable green travel plan.

I have resided in the same conservation area as the proposed development for morethan 30 of the years since 1973.

Conservation areas (CAs) are areas designated by the local planning authority (LPA) as being ofspecial architectural or historical interest with a definable character or appearance.

From the relevant Act of Parliament:

There is a statutory duty on those making decisions affecting CAs to pay "special attention" topreserving or enhancing their character or appearance.

General duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions.

(1)In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any[F1functions under or by virtue of] any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), specialattention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance ofthat area.

The submissions under consideration make no claim to preserve or enhance the character orappearance of the area. on the contrary they talk about "less than substantial "harm - which theyare still under statutory duty to justify in this case.

The scale and type of the proposals for 196 unsympathetic buildings in an araea of historicgeorgian and victorian character will substantially change the nature of the area to the extent thatthere is no point having a conservation area at all.

THE PROPOSED CLIFTON CARBUNCLE

Latest Objection:A 'revised plan' but no material change once more. Each time the developers submit a marginallyaltered plan, I marvel at the lunacy of this grinding iterative process. In reality, only minorconcessions have been made by the developers to date who are, like many in their position,determined to see this through come what may.

If you were gifted free rein to place a development of 196 dwellings anywhere within theboundaries of Bristol, without objection or monetary reward, to create additional and affordablehousing, you can be darn sure no sane individual would suggest slapping it on top of Bristol ZooGardens. The only reason this is being 'progressed' is because of the money men, enabled by theabsence of a proper development vision for the City at large, and poor leadership at 'the top'. It isnot difficult to understand the motivations of local 'politicians', who with no prospect of a furtherterm of office and aspirations to set foot on the national stage, endorse this kind of derangedproposal.

It beggars belief.

Second Objection (submitted in November 2022)My original objection is pasted below and I see little in the revised planning proposals thatcounters any of the points previously made by me or other objectors. Savills have proferred a

reduction in the number of residential units from 201 to 196 and a tacit acknowledgement that thespace within its footprint would soon become ghettoised, necessitating the imposition of openinghours for the gardens. That does not translate into the returning of this part of our city's landscapeto the people of Bristol. In short, the revisions comprise slightly fewer ugly boxes crowbarred into awholly flawed concept.

Original Objection (submitted in June 2022)The developer's ability to put housing on this site obviously provides its motivation for pressingforward with this development and the funding to relocate the zoo. But the plans are whollyinadequate for several reasons:1) Unhampered public access to this space which surrounded by high walls and the proposedhousing will create an unsafe ghettoised space, especially after dark2) The proposed new buildings are utilitarian, almost comedically Stalinesque, over-storeyed, andwill self-evidently prove, if they are built, to be an utter eyesore talked about for years afterwardsas the Clifton Carbuncle. What ever possessed the architects, planners or others to proffer such abuild?3) There is inadequate provision of social housing and first homes4) The plan encourages car usage contrary to the sustainability policies put in place by Bristol CityCouncil.5) More imaginative schemes, even ones focused on creating a social/community space, and onethat has a wider geographical, i.e., regional, draw would be infinitely preferable to this proposedplan. There is other less expensive derelict and unused land in the City that would be far moreadequate and provide better affordable housing.The leaflet pushed through Clifton letterboxes recently is insulting. The implied choice to be madeis a false one. One can support both good development and conservation action; one need notcome at the expense of the other.

The initial amazement I felt on learning that Bristol Zoo would close its historic site - andsell off the vital part of itself to property developers - has not abated one bit. In fact it has grown.That an almost 200-year-old insitution, popular till the end, could close without masses of publicand vocal dissent would be a mystery if there were not the simple explanation that theannouncement occurred at the height of the Covid pandemic. This was a time when people werehardly allowed out of their houses, and we all understood that the world had changed. Under suchcircumstances, it was relatively easy to persaude shareholders and the public that the Zoo's futurewas in jeopardy without drastic action.

But closer inspection of the Zoo's own finances, and dark mutterings from shareholders,employees and trustees, revealed that the Zoo's finances were in good shape and this was a planconcocted by a tiny group. After life returned pretty much to normal post-pandemic, many peoplehave reflected on their acceptance of the closure. Many are convinced that the site was, and couldbe again, a viable concern as a beautiful natural space, with or without animals - and if withhousing, then with very much less than what is proposed.

A privately operated charity is of course free to reorganize its operations within the law. Yet even ifone accepts that the Zoo has every right to sell off its historic site, and one assumes that processwas handled entirely properly within the organization, then the Zoo has no right whatsoever toexpect the city of Bristol to grant any particular planning permission. The viability of the Zoo'sbusiness plan is of absolutely no relevance to the citizens of Bristol.

Our elected Councillors are charged with protecting the city's heritage and its open spaces. Theyhave considerable power to delay allowing any development that has a high risk of turning outinappropriately, a power that I very much hope they exercise on April 26th, opting instead to rejectat this time.

Delay means alternative plans will have time to mature.

Delay gives backers of these plans time to secure funds.

Delay means the Zoo itself can moderate its plans in the light of public opinion.

All these possibilities can only be to the benefit of Bristol.

I therefore urge the Councillors to act as responsible city custodians and reject the planningapplication.

Hi,

I would like to submit a comment on the proposed development of the Bristol ZooGardens site above.

As you will almost certainly be aware, Bristol has a serious shortage of affordablehousing. Most young people in the city will not be able to afford their own properties.I would like to object to this development as it will use an historic site with a rich historyand turn it into what will become a series of luxury, unaffordable residential units, withabsolutely no benefit to the residents of Bristol as a whole.It will not address the constant housing crises and will only provide a rich profit to asmall number of wealthy individuals at the expense of Bristol Zoo's legacy and to thedetriment of the city. It is deeply saddening that some individuals are evencontemplating desecrating this historical site in this way.

The individuals planning this development will inevitably claim that it will provideaffordable housing and community sites that all can enjoy. However, as history hasshown us, this will never be the case in the end. The properties will be owned by privatelandlords or as "investments", depriving the very people that could possibly benefit fromthis project. As such, this must not be allowed to happen.

There is one single reason why I could fathom this to be in any way a positive situationfor Bristol. That would be that the properties are social housing that are prohibited frombeing sold to private individuals.Because this application does not fulfil this criterion, it must be permanently blocked.

I'm aggrieved and appalled by the plans to replace Bristol Zoo with ugly housing which will ruin theHeritage site it is. The whole manner of the closing of the zoo was far from above board and theloud call by Bristol residents to potentially rescue the zoo should be heard. The board who broughtthings to this point, destroying one of the world's oldest zoos although it was running at a profit,need to be immediately curtailed in their actions.

I spent my formative years in Clifton, and now live in BS2. Parlty due to easy access to a zoothroughout my formative years, I am now very interested both in animals, and in zoos and theirpreservation network.

The zoo has progressed over the decades. It has created more space for each animal, with thelarger animals moved out. It still retained large queues on Summer and what I am not surprised tolearn from people who have had access to the zoo's accounts, a profit outwith lockdowns.

It's an integral part of a world network of conservation zoos. It seems surprising that someone hasbeen allowed, in such a short period of time, to ship out all the animals to other zoos aroundBritain and come up with plans to sell the land for private housing.

I've been in property all my adult life and I would confidently predict the development would be forunits sold at a high end budget. Furthermore, most will be used or rented out on short term lets.

And the letting will be on the basis of views which its existence has helped ruin for everyone elseand for being in an area now degraded by the needless loss it represents.

The harm done to Bristol by such a change is hard to understate. It has removed the sort ofcultural asset which helps to keep cities on the map. It has also removed a key tourist attraction. Ithas downgraded the character of Bristol for people potentially coming here with families. And ithas taken a key learning asset away from children growing up here.

And what such a replacement would do for the environment is outrageous. There is a growingawareness in Bristol that biodiversity is preseved by a network diverse green spaces lying acrossthe city. Insects in the countryside are increasingly killed off by pesticides, leaving green corridorsacross the city performing a large function for the country's biodiversity. Bristol zoo was a greatgreen space, replete with diverse trees and wildlife crossing bristol. I have often visited it in recentyears just to experience this space, alongside many other species. Plans to concrete this over forcars, and pollard away obstructive trees are ruinous.

And what its loss is simply doing to individuals is also unjustifiable. The present team selling offthe zoo haven't known it half as long as the zoo's wider range of stakeholders. These have beenpart of supporting, sharing and advertising the zoo over its past decades. My parents who havelived in Clifton for a long time are devastated by the loss. In general, the loss of green spacesforever, with their diversity and meaning, to housing developers is simply sad. Likewise, theinabilty to hand it on the future generations is grievous.

When I was younger, there was wide publicity that London Zoo was at the brink of financial failure.A period of time was put aside for publicity, fund-raising and reconfiguring some of its setup. Itkept going, as the public outcry and attention it received enabled it to do so.

By contrast Bristol zoo was put out of action as quickly as possibly by someone with a clearobjective to do so. Inaccurate information was put about so that people wouldn't know what to sayor do to keep it going. And investigation has shown that the site has been profitable outside oflockdown. It has only been recently that people have got together to share information, offer tofund a renewal and try to save what is there. The zoo almost circumvented this by the abruptnature of its closure.

The heritage of the two zoos also bears comparison. London Zoo in 1825. Bristol Zoo 10 yearslater, and said to be the 5th oldest in the world. If Bristol Council are going to allow the zoo to bewritten off, present and future generations will be asking difficult questions about the voicesguiding Bristol.

I would call for an immediate stoppage to any plans to grant any planning permission for change ofuse of the zoo site. This should be followed by acknowledgment that Bristol zoo grounds are animportant official Heritage site of Bristol. Then for Bristol Council to take special measures to

protect them.

Then for an investigation into what happened, and into the misinformation and incorrect practicesused which brought it to the point of it being emptied of animals. And following this should bepotential prosecutions with the objectives both of jail time to deter such criminals passing outmisinformation and lies to sell off Bristol's heritage in the future, and of recovering some of theirrecoverable financial loss of the sabotage so far.

Then comes the hard work of rebuilding the zoo network of Bristol back up. But the sooner theneeded measures start, the quicker and less painful the work will be.

Bristol Zoological Gardens are an important part of Bristol's now disappearing heritage.Their loss, even if used as a botanical garden rather than a zoological garden, are a theft fromBristol residents and future generations. Apart from this most important consideration, the plansenvisage over-dense housing, with too great a loss of mature planting and associated parkingproblems. How much space would be left 'for the public to enjoy?

I have known the Bristol Zoo and Gardens since I first went there to visit as a child in1958.Local school children grew up with it as a safe place to be taken to, and look at the variousanimals and enjoy the tranquillity of the magnificent gardens.

I know in my heart that once the developers have the opportunity to build the wholly inappropriatestructures upon this historic site, Bristol and the rest of the country will have lost a truly magicalplace.

I hope our Councillors and BCC Planning Department realise that this change of use from aZoological Gardens with animals and other rare species of plants will be a once in a lifetimechange.There will be no turning back of the clock to re-instate the great Bristol Zoo and Gardens for futuregenerations of visitors to encounter all that was great about it, when it was first opened 186 yearsago.

I would like all the Councillors and BCC Planners to delay their approval of this Bristol Zoo site sothat more thought can be made into why there was a need for the Zoo to sell off the site totheoretically fund the Wild Place.

Once gone, always gone and there have been many poorly designed architectural projectsallowed since the end of World War two and it would seem this is yet another one of these totally

unnecessary structures which is out of keeping with the rest of the Victorian buildings in theimmediate vicinity.

There have been a number of alternative ideas put forward for the Zoo site which would still allowits use for visitors and educationalists rather than just being another housing estate.

I do hope some extra time is given to these ideas, by the whole project being questioned andultimately rejected in its present form.

I have been using and enjoying these gardens for 75 years .Once this wonderful assetis taken away it can never be restored . be very careful what you decide ..you will be ansewerab;leto future generations

I object to this planning because I believe this is only for profit and not for theenvironment and it's carbon footprint would be catastrophic.

I have been coming to Bristol Zoo for 65 years. I was born within hearing distance oflions roaring and it has been a magical place of trees and beautiful gardens since then. It is atravesty that it is to be taken from the community and I hereby object most strongly to its closure

I really miss seeing the animals and the zoo gardens and I would dearly like theCouncillors to reconsider the rash planning application made by the Zoo to totally change thiswonderful local and national amenity.

Well the application should not be approved because there have been too many falserepresentations and therefore any promises of saving trees, keeping the site open for the public orincluding social housing in the scheme will probably not be honoured. Prices will inevitably rise sodevelopers will be able to 'regrettably' no longer be able to create housing for people struggling toafford a roof over their heads. It's pitiful! Seems like yet another example of greed and shadydealings.

The removal of most botanical items are counter to Bristol's aspiration as a green UKcapital.The zoological and botanical gardens were Bristol's chief attraction to local people and visitorsalike. Their demise is destructive/ counter productive and marks the decline of Bristol as a greencity.The destruction of historic buildings and gates is out of step with Bristol City planning aspirationsto preserve the architectural heritage.There are diverse options to preserve and enhance the site in its current use; these options havenot been explored.The beautiful site has been accessible to a wide demographical range of people; the proposedplans will close what's left of it to a tiny, select minority.In sum, those responsible for reneging on the original plan to run both the Clifton site and Wildplace in complementary tandem have committed a serious mistake which will resonate forgenerations - socially and environmentally, and will cost the Bristol community dearly in terms ofrevenue/commonwealth in there long term.

This site is a wonderful opportunity for residents and families all over to enjoy the greenspace of the Zoo gardens to continue the zoo's least harm best legacy as a place to honour,safeguard and respect the animals and staff who worked tirelessly there for so many years. it is sounacceptable to build homes there when it was a home for so many beautiful species for so longwho gave everyone so much pleasure. To keep it would be honouring the communities dedicationto keep the site as a place to build, and nurture community, and friendships and a place to reflect,conserve and enjoy, what was once a very special home for so many, and bringing in visitors farand wide.

Looking at the other comments before I send mine I am delighted to see how many areobjecting the proposal. The majority of the few supporting statements were made before all therevised ideas since then it is breathtaking (and encouraging from my point of view) to see just howmany people are speaking out in opposition to this development. The strength of feeling is notbased on any form of Nimbyism - it comes from a sense of the history of Bristol Zoo which grewand developed and responded to the changing times. It's connections to Brunel and then to thechildhoods of so many of us cannot be just passed over.

We all know that the argument that Bristol needs more housing is merely a smoke-screen in adevelopment of this type. The vast majority of dwellings in a location such as this will be way out ofthe price range of those in real need of a home. This is a moneymaking scheme for the developerand for those who can afford to buy an expensive and beautifully located house or flat in a whatwill become a gated community as soon as it can be organised. The public access will be erodedand the connections to the Zoo will be a distant and largely ignored memory.

Please do not see this decision as a run of the mill planning application and recognise how deepthe feelings of Bristolians run in relation to this site. The movement to save the Zoo was a little latein gathering momentum as I don't think people could believe what was happening. Now, however,people are making their feelings felt in no uncertain terms.

We need to look again at the whole situation and this starts with turning down the currentapplication.

It is unforgivable that such a huge chunk of the wonderful trees and plants will be lost and for themany people without cars who love walking to the various wonderful things that Bristol has to offer,their access to the Zoo experience will be gone forever.

I wish to add my voice and I represent a whole family who are in agreement with the mass ofobjectors. We all hope we will be listened to.

Kim HicksKim Hicks

I object to the planning for Bristol zoo gardens to be turned into housing. I appreciatethere is a need for housing in Bristol however to do so in this space is wrong. There are manymore suitable sites around the city that could be used for new housing. My reasons are outlined asfollows. The zoo has been part of Bristol's history for many many years, history is important andshould be preserved. It means so much to many Bristolians, those that have supported it overmany years and generations and the valuable outdoor space that so many are lacking. There arelisted buildings across the site and other listed objects/artefacts that would be affected by a buildproject. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site also that tell a story and showthe importance of the sites history. As well as the fact that this site would be lost to the public, thischange of use and the social and material harm that results is completely unjustified. The zoo maynot want the site but other more environmental and moral alternatives have not been explored.The site could be used in a number of ways that could still mean it is enjoyed by the public andprotects its heritage. There will also be a Loss of public access. Although a green space isplanned for the site, I am in no doubt that as has happened with similar cases over time thesehave become privatised and gated off. Therefore it cannot be guaranteed that it would remainaccessible and open to the public. It would also not feel like a free public green space as it iswhere people are living. There would also be an impact on the neighbours of the site. Thebuildings proposed are out of suit and large and do not complement the houses or collegebuildings nearby. The zoo gardens, wildlife and natural areas are old and special and should beprotected. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. This is whollyunacceptable and impacts on the environment and people's health and well-being.Please consider these comments.

Regards

Bristol was made the 'European Green Capital' in 2015 - which was an honour and alsoa responsibility, inviting us to continue to lead the way as an environmentally conscious city.

Sadly, the proposal to develop the Bristol Zoological Gardens into luxury housing, represents anembarrassing failure - showing an abject inability for ideals to be put into action when it mattersmost.

And for this reason I'm making an OBJECTION to the current plan, as follows:

1.The plans are ill-thought out - luxury housing with a scant nod to providing social housing. Thebuildings are far too large - and are completely out of character with the area, specifically thehistoric buildings of Clifton College.

2.The Zoo has been part of Bristol cultural life since the 19th century - and while animal husbandrymethods have of course changed with the times - it has provided education about animals of theworld - and in more recent years - about conservation initiatives.

While the Wild Place project has admirable goals - it is in Gloucestershire - and will realistically notbe a 'go to' attraction for the people of Bristol and surrounding area.

3.A number of alternative projects have been proposed to keep the site as gardens and aneducational resource for conservation awareness. These need to be given more time - to develop

an exciting new attraction for Bristol - in keeping with its green reputation.

Therefore I urge you to turn down the current application - and give this valuable and historic sitethe time deserved - for it to become a cutting edge tourist attraction in Bristol - specialising inconservation and sustainability education.

Please save the zoo from development- it should be preserved as a resource for thewhole of bristol to enjoy.

I object strongly to the plans submitted.

The proposal to build 196 homes on the site - while maintaining the gardens - ensures that tallapartment blocks will be needed, which would be very tall and overbearing, reducing light in thesurrounding streets. Additionally, that alone would make them out of keeping with the localarchitecture, not to mention the fact that the modern buildings would be very different to thesurrounding Victorian and pre-Victorian buildings. My issue with this would be negated if theowners of the site were to propose limiting the hight to three stories and maintaining the open brickarchitecture of the existing buildings.

The proposals would also involve felling a great number of trees, in addition to the removal of a lotof other plants in the garden. This is of significant environmental concern due to the ongoingclimate crisis, in which green spaces are desparately needed. The site is largely a greenfield site,so to negate this concern, the owners should limit development to not remove any existinggardens whatsoever.

The site is currently a publicly accesible amenity and attraction in a largely residential area. Assomeone who lives and works locally, I object to this amenity which I often use being taken away,removing one of the few community assets. If the site were not sold for redevelopment intoresidential land, but the land were kept in its current use, then we residents would have a muchbetter area in which to live, which we currently enjoy.

The owners of the site have proposed to maintain the gardens for public use, however they havenot provided any legal guarantees to this effect. Under the proposed plans, the residents would beable to fence off and revoke access to the public. Since the site is of such immense historical andcommunity significance (and the proposals hang on the fact that it is therefore still accessible) thenit should be guaranteed that the gardens remain eternally accessible. Perhaps through splitting thesite into two lots, or other means. Planning should not be granted if this cannot be absolutely,categorically guaranteed in perpetuity.

While housing is needed, and an important issue of the day, planning laws exist to prevent thewealthy of stripping others of community, historical and evironmental assets. Even if you own land,you do not have a right to do whatever you want with it, else these planning applications would notexist. This site is one of the city's primary assets in all the aforementioned categories. Thisapplication - in its current form - does indeed strip all residents and visitors of their currentopportunity to enjoy the site, which is a very important part of the city's history. Despite theimportance of housing, this application must be considered as one unique case, separate from thehousing crisis as a whole. It should be rejected in its current form, until it is amended to preservethe integrity, heritage, accesability and nature of the site.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Looking at the other comments before I send mine I am delighted to see how many are

objecting the proposal. The majority of the few supporting statements were made before all the

revised ideas since then it is breathtaking (and encouraging from my point of view) to see just how

many people are speaking out in opposition to this development. The strength of feeling is not

based on any form of Nimbyism - it comes from a sense of the history of Bristol Zoo which grew

and developed and responded to the changing times. It's connections to Brunel and then to the

childhoods of so many of us cannot be just passed over.

We all know that the argument that Bristol needs more housing is merely a smoke-screen in a

development of this type. The vast majority of dwellings in a location such as this will be way out of

the price range of those in real need of a home. This is a moneymaking scheme for the developer

and for those who can afford to buy an expensive and beautifully located house or flat in a what

will become a gated community as soon as it can be organised. The public access will be eroded

and the connections to the Zoo will be a distant and largely ignored memory.

Please do not see this decision as a run of the mill planning application and recognise how deep

the feelings of Bristolians run in relation to this site. The movement to save the Zoo was a little late

in gathering momentum as I don't think people could believe what was happening. Now, however,

people are making their feelings felt in no uncertain terms.

We need to look again at the whole situation and this starts with turning down the current

application.

It is unforgivable that such a huge chunk of the wonderful trees and plants will be lost and for the

many people without cars who love walking to the various wonderful things that Bristol has to offer,

their access to the Zoo experience will be gone forever.

I wish to add my voice and I represent a whole family who are in agreement with the mass of

objectors. We all hope we will be listened to.

Objection in the strongest terms to an unsympathetic scheme to turn a wonderful Bristolheritage into a shockingly inappropriate housing estate. Consider the alternatives to restore thezoo to a zoo or botanical garden for future Bristolians to enjoy. Look again at the mismanagementof the zoo over recent years. Do not be responsible for allowing this happen.

I support Bristol Zoo Gardens's application for housing on the former zoo site in Clifton.

My reasons are;1. Bristol Zoo is an important international conservation body whose efforts we need to support.The best way to further those aims is to permit the housing at Clifton so that the Zoo gets goodvalue for the site. It is vital that the zoo has the funds to develop its newer site at Hollywood bothto make a visitor attraction that Bristol would otherwise lack and to develop its income stream forfurther conservation work.2. A new botanical garden at Clifton would be a distraction from the present successful andpopular University Botanic Garden in Stoke Bishop. I cannot believe there is justification in havingtwo botanical gardens barely a mile apart. Botanical research and education are desirable but bothare already competently undertaken at Stoke Bishop. The wider animal and insect conservationand education that the Zoo can supply offer a greater variety in both educational opportunity anddiversity in the all-important conservation efforts that our world needs.3. The proposed plan for the zoo site is open, allows plenty of garden and park-like spaces. It willbe important to work out who after completion will be responsible for garden and pondmaintenance.4. I see no point in criticising the designs of the individual buildings as whichever developereventually gets the contract will offer something different.

I object to the change of historic site and buildings which are part of Bristols heritageand landscape along with the damage and or destruction of many of the established trees. As alisted park and green space in the city.It's ironic that a whole are like this can be decimated for profit yet a one tree under a preservationorder can't even be trimmed more than 25%.We don't need hundreds of new flats in the area.

I object in full to the above planning application which will have an overall negativeeffect on Bristol on the following grounds:1. It contravenes both policy in the Bristol Local Plan and in Bristol City Council's Local PlanReview of November 2022, particularly parts of chapters 5 (Affordable Housing), 6 (Net Zero &Climate), 7 (Biodiversity & nature Recovery) and 10 (Design).2. It contravenes the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on biodiversity (naturalenvironment guidance on brownfield land of environmental value [Paragraph: 003 Reference ID:8-003-20190721] and Green Infrastructure [Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 8-004-20190721 &Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 8-005-20190721, revised July 2019]) climate change and CO2reduction.3. Serious loss and harm to Bristol's Economy - the Wild Place Project proposed as an alternativeto Bristol Zoo Gardens is in South Gloucestershire and not within the Bristol City Council area. Theconsequences for the city by closing such an iconic major attraction means a serious loss ofincome to Bristol's economy which the Bristol Zoo and Zoo Gardens has provided for generationsover almost two centuries at the Clifton site. As an added attraction also it is close to Brunel'siconic suspension bridge which has become the symbol of Bristol.4. Spurious and disingenuous accounting figures have been used as a justification for closing thezoo. The Zoo has maintained that it was losing money, as a justification for selling the site, givingas an example 2021 when it says it lost over £1m. That year it did, but it was the year when theZoo had to close by law due to the covid pandemic, so that year it was inevitable that it lostmoney. The Charity Commission's figures on its website clearly show that Bristol Zoo was not inannual financial deficit and had not lost money in any of the recent years except 2021, yet this

pandemic year is the precise year's figures the zoo is trying to use to justify selling the site.5. Since the Zoo Trustees consider that finance is a major problem, serious questions must beasked about the financial management of Bristol Zoo Gardens. If alleged financial deficit was theirconcern, why on earth did the Zoo trustees close the Zoo at the beginning of September 2022?Nothing has happened on the Clifton site since then, yet some animals and the staff to care forthem continue to remain on the site 8 months later at a huge negative cost and financial loss to theZoo, when the Zoo could easily have remained open to the public and making money for it. Itmakes no financial sense at all. Also, the new café & restaurant called The Hide was built brand-new only just a few years ago, yet under the Zoo's proposals it is now to be demolished, meaningthat a huge amount of money in building it was wasted, thus showing the Zoo's financial judgmentto have been woefully lacking. Similar comments could be made about other recent improvementson the site.6. Loss of Amenity to Bristol City. Bristol Zoo and its gardens have been a major attraction andwelfare benefit for generations of Bristolians. It has provided a calm, recreational and educationalspace for Bristol's citizens and its children. Schools too have used the Zoo as such for generationsas part of learning and teaching children about animals and the wider world. The Clifton Zoo iseasily accessible from the city centre by bus which stops right outside the main gates, reducingthe need for car use and so reducing the impact on CO2 emissions and climate change. Let us notforget that Bristol was the first place in the country to declare a climate emergency...7. Loss of Heritage. The applicant's own heritage report states: 4.4.2 Highest significance"The zoological gardens site is unusual in that the element of highest heritage significance isarguably its communal value, rather than its architectural, archaeological or historic interest. Thesite's near-two hundred year association with family days out, childhood adventure, and specialactivities and events is of huge significance both to the people of the City of Bristol and the nearbyarea, but also to visitors from far further afield".8. Proposed demolition of parts of listed buildings, including the aquarium buildings and the totaldemolition of the gorilla in enclosures incorporated the iconic Giraffe House are unacceptable andundermine their listed building designation.9. The Victorian Society's report concludes that: The NPPF is clear that it is desirable to 'sustainand enhance' the significance of heritage assets (para 190a), and that 'great weight should begiven to the asset's conservation' (para 199). Furthermore, that 'Local planning authorities shouldlook for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites,and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance.' (para 206).The amended proposals do not ensure this, and the Victorian Society maintains its objection to theproposals.10. Damage to an area of conservation. The Clifton site is in an area of considerable architecturalimportance and the area is a conservation area. Creating new buildings such as proposed willhave an overall negative effect on the architectural ambience and amenity of the area. Inparticular, the creation of high rise blocks of flats goes against the general low level of olderbuildings in the immediate vicinity. Neighbouring properties in particular will suffer from a negativeaspect to their immediate surroundings if this proposal is allowed to proceed.11. Environmental Damage. There are negative effects with this application's proposals: Bristol

Zoo Gardens has been nurtured for almost two hundred years, and has become a haven forvarious rare and unusual trees and plants. Some of these will be lost altogether, and those whichwill be moved may not survive transplantation. The Gardens themselves have won awards andtheir layout will be lost forever.12. Considerable space in the proposed development will be allocated to car parking and to caruse, directly contravening national and local policy on reducing CO2 emissions and reducingimpacts on climate change. The site and surrounding area will suffer increasing car congestionand atmospheric pollution due to the number of residences which will be built, and have a negativeeffect on air quality. Bristol has recently introduced a clean air zone. Increased car provision anduse within the city is directly contradictory to the clean air policy of the city council. The idea thatsome of what are now footpaths within the Zoo Gardens site should become shared with carssends the wrong message on climate change as well as posing risks to pedestrians' personalsafety. The area of green recreational space available to the public will be considerably reduced,to public detriment. There is also no guarantee that the reduced green space which does remainopen to the public in this development will remain open in the future. Experience shows that oncea public site is sold off and becomes private land, sooner or later the public will be stopped frombeing able to use it as a public space. Many people who formerly would have travelled to theClifton site by bus will not come to the site in future. If they wish to see animals, they will have totravel a considerable distance to elsewhere and will have to travel by car to the detriment of theenvironment.13. Bristol Citizens' Health and Welfare. We have long known that open green space,unencumbered by vehicles is beneficial to people's health and well being, particularly their mentalhealth. This is true even more so when people are also able to be in contact with animals. Loss ofthe Zoo and gardens will therefore negatively impact on Bristol citizens' health and welfare.In its conclusion, the council officers' report to this committee states: "Taking the policies of thedevelopment plan as a whole, overall, it is concluded that the proposal is not in accordance withthe Development plan".NOTES1: The proposed development does not in reality provide the opportunity for Affordable Housing.The council's own Housing Delivery Team states that its normal proposal in the rich area of Cliftonward where Bristol Zoo Gardens is sited, "The site falls within Clifton ward, which is in Inner WestBristol. In accordance with policy BCS17 the site is required to deliver 40% affordable housing" - inother words 40% of any development in Clifton ward should be affordable housing; but the councilhas inexplicably halved that to only 20% on the basis that "the site is eligible to make use of the'Threshold' approach to BCS17 added by the AHPN that applies to the Inner East and Westareas". This exemption is clearly intended to apply to the poorer areas of the East of Bristol's innercity and the poorer part of the West of Bristol's inner city - it is quite clearly not meant to includethe richer part of West Bristol's inner city (i.e. Clifton ward) which is where accommodation to bothrent and buy is the most expensive in the whole city, and indeed in the whole South West urbanregion. Therefore the council is in effect breaching its own rules in requiring only 20% affordablehousing on this site..2: National planning policy guidance on the Natural Environment states that: "Some previously

developed or 'brownfield' land is of high environmental value, providing habitats for protected orpriority species and other environmental and amenity benefits. When allocating land fordevelopment or determining a planning application, the biodiversity or geodiversity value of theland and its environmental sensitivity will need to be taken into account so that any harm can beavoided, mitigated or compensated for in a way which is appropriate given the site's identifiedvalue". (Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 8-003-20190721). It also states: "Green infrastructure is anatural capital asset that provides multiple benefits, at a range of scales. For communities, thesebenefits can include enhanced wellbeing, outdoor recreation and access, enhanced biodiversityand landscapes, food and energy production, urban cooling, and the management of flood risk.These benefits are also known as ecosystem services" (Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 8-005-20190721)Clearly the Bristol Zoo Gardens site falls within these descriptions, and the proposed developmentwill severely reduce the existing area of the site for public access and restrict its public use. Overtime, experience shows also that such access as remained if the development were completedwould further be eroded. Given that the Zoo Gardens has been a public access site for almost 200years, this is no small consideration. Mitigation elsewhere cannot compensate for such a preciousand historic public resource.

This is a beautiful site that contributes to the environment by providing clean air andopen space. Building a large number of buildings on the site will destroy this health benefit. Weare supposed to be protecting the environment, not destroying it. Turn it into a botanic garden forthe benefit of all.

This is simply not a good idea. The zoo should remain an amenity for all of Bristol. If it isturned into 196 mostly very expensive homes it will not be good for outsiders or those who livethere.

How could you even think of allowing nearly half the trees on the site to be removed??

I strongly object to this plan.

Although I live Clifton, I am one of those very much in favour of the redevelopment ofthe zoological grounds and car park.

Bristol is in desperate need of more homes. This is unarguable.

And it is surely grossly unfair that people living in other areas of Bristol should continually havetheir all too few remaining open spaces bult upon for housing, when Clifton, which has a muchlower density of houses/residents, seems to again manage to avoid 'doing its bit'.

House prices in Bristol are said to be some of the highest in Britain, and indeed according to arecent article in a national newspaper have shown among the highest increase over the past fewyears. We need more houses and flats. It's as simple as that.

So, I was delighted to read that the Bristol planners have recommended that the scheme shouldgo ahead. I just hope that the councillors who will shortly be voting on this will think of thosedesperately needing places to live and vote accordingly.

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has beenthere so long being of heritage value in itself.

Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that have visited,weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.

Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.

Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.

Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a publicsite, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.

Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings and donot complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuous blockalong the road.

Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

The gardens should be kept as open space with open access. If this development isallowed sooner or later the public will be excluded. The grounds and some of the buildings are ofhistoric interest and a variety of possible uses have been suggested. Development of multi-storeydwellings should be refused.

I strongly object the the planning of 196 houses going up on the Bristol Zoo Gardenssite on the following grounds:

(1) This would wipe out an historical green space landmark site which something that Bristol CityCouncil should not take lightly: Bristol Zoo Gardens is listed as a local Historic Park & Garden andan Important Open Space. All 12 Acres of space should be kept as a walled garden green spacefor nature. Squandering this historical site which has served millions of visitors during the 180+year history into a site that only serves several hundred people is short sited and deplorable.

(2) The damage or extermination of many established trees for the building of hard standing forcars and houses would leave even less space for nature: None of the trees should be felled. Everytree counts - our planet needs each every established tree to live not be destroyed. Not only willthese trees no longer be there to give homes to nature and absorb co2 but co2 will be releasedwhen they are felled thus harming the planet which each tree that is cut down.

(3) Clifton is an historic area of conservation and the proposed houses will not fit with the historicarea. The new building designs are a poor effort to fit in with the graceful existing historicarchitecture. The existing Bristol Zoo Gardens historical building should not be destroyed.

(4) It will put more pressure on parking for amenities such as doctors surgeries on PembrokeRoad, Residential parking and the use of the gym and other activities at Clifton College and

businesses in that area. 196 homes means at least 196 extra cars using the locality on a dailybasis. Though the homes will likely provide parking there are usually to few parking spaces fornew homes and then visitors will mean that the surrounding on street parking spaces will be ineven greater demand.

- - - - - - - -

If the site must be built on and something so special should be lost then it must only be to replaceit with something of eviromental importance. It should be at least 50% rather than 20% affordablehomes and the homes should be passive houses which are truly energy efficient, comfortable,affordable and ecological. There should be less dwellings and hard standing and more joined upspace in one place that is green, with trees and ponds for nature.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:This proposal stinks like a month old fish. Having failed to make a success of the zoo

after 200 years the custodians have sold out to developers instead of trying to continue the fine

history of the zoo. Shame on you!! You have gone for the cash and perhaps will be satiated in

your comfy beds that you did your best.

You sure didn't. I am totally disgusted.

. SHAME ON YOU.

Sleep well if you can

I am writing to support the efforts of the Save Bristol Zoo Gardens Campaign to avoid anew housing estate of 196 residential units with all the associated hard paving for driveways andcar parking.

I feel the site should be kept open as a botanical garden. These gardens are an important siteboth historically and botanically. I worked as a gardener at the Zoo in the 1970s and was involvedwith naming and labelling the trees and shrubs. Many of which are a great botanical interest.These should be kept for future generations to learn from and enjoy.

I strongly object to the proposal to build residential units on this historic site therebydenying all the citizens of Bristol and beyond the opportunity to enjoy and benefit from thesebeautiful gardens as they have been able to do for the past 186 years.It has been one of Bristol's very important assets and visitor attractions and has one of the UK'smost important collections of plants. I think it should remain as a botanic garden at the very leastand additional uses which would supplement the enjoyment of the gardens by all citizens shouldbe explored.Planning permission for housing should be refused while alternative, imaginative options areconsidered.We are all aware of climate change, the importance of biodiversity and green spaces etc.etc.Bristol as the only Green Capital city in the UK surely cannot allow this important green site to beconcreted over and ruined forever.

I object to the proposed development. The development is out of proportion with thesurroundings and is not in keeping with nearby houses or college buildings. There will be anenormous loss of landscape. The listed Historic Park and Garden will be much reduced in size.This is unjustified harm. It has not been proven that the zoo cannot continue as a public site. Thebusiness case is far from clear. Alternatives have not been given proper consideration. Listedbuildings will be damaged. There is a huge loss of heritage and communal value, as well as theunnecessary loss of a tremendous public amenity.

The Zoo has moved but the gardens should remain as a public amenity in much theirpresent form with long term guarantees of status. The Zoo's current proposals involve significantloss of trees and garden space while the building proposals are not in relation to the existingbuildings and the location of the site.

This application should be refused at this stage in order that alternative uses for the site can befully explored before any decision is taken. It is an important part of Bristol's history and heritageand everyone wants a suitable use of the site to become a tribute to what was achieved while theZoo was there [gardens and trees] as well as after the Zoo moved out.

I think more time needs to be taken to discuss and explore this issue. At a time whengreen spaces and plants are in short supply, it seems to me as much time as possible needs to begiven to this. The Zoo Gardens are a possible location for plant research.Also, this is a historic site that deserves to be protected and preserved. It is also a recognisedlandmark and attraction in Bristol. Just because the animals have thankfully been moved does nothave to mean the site should be basically destroyed--as the present plan would.

I object to the proposed development. The application for the main site plan iscompletely unsuitable and will be a long-term disastrous degradation of this conservation area forshort-term financial gain The plans contravene Bristol City Council's own Conservation and theHistoric Environment Policy, the buildings are overpowering, much too tall, unimaginative to saythe least and completely out of keeping with the charm of the surroundings. This conservationarea is particularly historic, important and irreplaceable. The gardens are unique and long-established containing many valuable trees and plants, and under these plans have no properlong-term protection.The zoo was always extremely popular with its residents and the many, many visitors and touristswho arrived there daily (the number of people now using the number 8 bus has fallendramatically). The reasons presented for the necessity of selling the zoo were dubious in the firstplace and the proposed development entirely unsuitable. There has been no convincing evidencethat this drastic change of use is necessary - visitor numbers were rising again post-pandemic.Bristol Council should consider whether it wants to be party to such destruction.

There are too many houses and this will cause issues for local schools and doctors.This amount of house and parking in an already very busy local Area will be worsen.

There should be a right of way through the gardens established and protected and not doing so isso wrong. Otherwise access in a few years will only be for those who live there not the widercommunity as the plans claim.

There are far to many tree being removed and the green spaces not protected witch is detrimentalto wildlife and to the green city bristol wants to be.

This is a very large development in a conservation area and many local have had much smallerdevelopment with a lot less historical impact turned down I feel strongly that all developmentshould be held to the same standards in the conservation area do that it protected for the futuregenerations.

The house numbers need to be reduced to not cause strain on local facilities parking/ traffic/schools/doctors

In the planning document and contract There need to be more put on to protect and gift the greenspaces to the community locally.

I would also argue that the not enough though about sustainable transport and this cuch as cargo

bike storage space or even link to safe bike lanes.

I too am sad that the zoo has closed. I also agree with Katy Grant and Paula O'Rourkethat the number of houses should be limited and genuinely affordable and that the green spacesshould be in community hands.

The site has been a wonderful zoo and valuable green space for the use of thecommunity and visitors. It was still economically viable and very educational. It is a scandal that ithas been closed and only a few animals moved to the The Wild Place. Most animals have had tobe found a new home away from the Bristol area.The proposed change to residential use with high rise buildings nearly all round the perimeter andwithout long term community control of the green space and trees is not acceptable and not inkeeping with this conservation area.

The loss of this great Bristolian institution could be lessened by using the space toenhance the lives of the people living in the city and visiting.

Turning it into unaffordable homes would only serve a few, and it seems that the people whobenefit the most would be the ones profiting from this plan.

The Council should prioritize the desires and will of the people of the city and not the wealthy few.

Maintaining the gardens ought to be the absolute priority of the council. The obligationof the council is to provide the best services and environment for the residents of the city,indiscriminately. A community gardens is the most accurate fulfilment of the agreement betweenthe public and the bodies which it elects as its representation.The proposed housing and parking will in reality, let's face it, serve a very privileged minority ofbristolians. Creating profit for private business should not be the council's responsibility. A publicgreen space which honours the legacy of Bristol Zoo is fitting in that it celebrates the great historyof the city, whilst growing it's community values. Please reconsider, for the sake of all bristolians.

The uploading to the planning portal of BCC's Urban Design Group comments dated02/03/2023 presents significant new information material to the determination of the planningapplication. The Urban Design Group advises that the impact on the Clifton College listedbuildings (designated as a Landmark of City-wide importance in the Clifton and Hotwells CAAppraisal) from The Close (View 4) will be slight. However, no-one has evaluated proposedhousing development from the very public viewpoints of,- the visual gap on Worcester Road (immediately west of 6 Worcester Road) where Voi scootersare parked (opposite Clifton Cathedral) which is perhaps 5-7m higher than the centre of the Closewhere View 4 is modelled from; and- the public plaza to Clifton Cathedral - elevated at least 5m above Worcester Road street level (iecirca 10m to 12m above The Close).Both viewpoints provide a prominent and well used view across the Close to the College buildings.If the impact is 'slight' from down at the level of the Close, then the impact from Worcester Roadand Clifton Cathedral public space is likely to be severe. Clifton College listed buildings will bediminished and shrouded by overbearing development when read from these popular viewpoints.The planned housing at the Zoo is likely to have a substantial / severe visual and heritage impactupon the setting of the listed buildings and the Conservation Area.Determination of the planning application should be put on hold pending a detailed assessmentwith photomontages to properly assess the impact on the townscape and heritage from theseprominent public viewpoints and all other long and medium range viewpoints. Failing to do sorenders the planning determination unsafe and fails to address the Council's legal duties under theListed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act.

I strongly object for the following reasons:Bristol Zoo Gardens is of extreme importance to Bristol. The historical interest, the generations offamilies which have visited, historical moments and its fame for being there for so many years as along running Zoo. It means so much to the people of Bristol and this has been severelyunderestimated and undervalued. This is demonstrated by the large amounts of visitors to the Zooin the final months.

The site is home to many listed buildings and trees.

The Bristol public deserve to not lose access to this important environmental site.

There is no certainty or guarantee that the whole site will not be privatised. Plus loss of habitat towildlife which use the trees and loss of treasured, unique, including listed trees in a green space inthe city.

The actual design of the proposed buildings are totally out of sync with the surrounding area, theexisting gardens site and the neighbouring properties. The buildings will completely overshadowthe surrounding roads and the site itself. The current site and buildings contain so much historiccharm. The surrounding buildings are characterful, beautiful, the period architecture is wonderful inthe area and the Zoo has charming unique buildings. The proposed buildings are completelyopposite and will ruin the charm of that area. They are huge and will completely dominate the localroads.

Plus the need for change of use has not been proven. Alternatives have not been explored.The closure of the Zoo and the proposal means harm to historical interest, loss of communalvalue, harm to listed buildings and trees, loss of green space, loss of public amenity andunjustified harm as the change of use and change to site is completely unjustified, finally harm tothe surrounding area and the neighbouring properties.

I am saddened to see this historic site being turned into unaffordable housing. Thecurrent site is an open space for all residents of Bristol and beyond. Handing it over to propertydevelopers to turn it into high-end residential flats makes no sense. PLEASE reconsider.

There was talk from the current owners of this site becoming a conservation hub forBristol, which would be more in keeping with the founders wishes and serve the people of Bristolmore fully. I see no mention of development in that direction.

Bristol Zoo Gardens has been an asset to the Bristol community for nearly 200 years.The gardens are irreplacable in terms of what grows there and the green space is vital for healthand happiness - where this is in increasingly short supply in urban areas. The gardens should bepreserved for benefit of the community and could be made to work as a recreational space, and/orfor events, concerts, and sporting activities. If permission is granted for this ugly and overbearingdevelopment - this will all be lost (along with many mature trees). The promise to preserve accessto some of the old gardens is an empty one and would be almost impossible to preserve andprotect. The idea of cars being parked on this space terrible. Please reject the application andsave this amenity for us all.

The historic environment is a precious and irreplaceable resource from which a largesection of the population derives enjoyment, instruction and inspiration.

Set within the Clifton and Hotwells Conservation Area, the zoo is a rich multi-layered heritage sitewith its exclusive urban presence, its curated and managed exotic character and its distinctivelisted buildings. Unless it is fully understood, and appropriately protected its collective significanceand intrinsic character will be lost forever.

The zoo enclosure is a conspicuous component of a diverse urban scene known locally, regionallyand globally. Within an extraordinary surrounding landscape, it expresses contemporary and pastinformation. Understanding this heritage underpins the stewardship of the place as a whole andpresents opportunities which are yet to be purposefully explored. The intrinsic value of this uniqueasset set within the rich and diverse Conservation Area must not be underestimated.

To a large extent its value is derived from its isolation behind tall stone walls which enclose anexotic wonderland of nature, novelty and human ingenuity. It bringstogether aspects of the natural world, of plants, trees, animals, birds, ecology, science, art andarchitecture.

As a destination the zoo contains an ambience of beauty, distinctiveness, and infrastructure whichentertains and delights, and offers an environment for research, and is part of life's rich pattern.

To impose housing and vehicular access undermines its significance and the very nature of thehistoric heritage amenity. Any interventions must be minimal and subservient and "preserve orenhance" the intrinsic character and unique identity of the site.

As a Clifton resident I write to object not to the principle of housing development but tothe design and massing. The decision to build only on the sites of existing structures has had theunfortunate effect of forcing unacceptably massive structures onto the boundaries which are thosemost visible to the public on a daily basis, towering over Northcote and Guthrie roads andpresenting to walkers on the Downs with an uninterrupted block of pale render, quite inappropriateto this historic area of our city. The scale and lack of quality of finish have clearly been designed toachieve the maximum financial gain. The application should be rejected and applicants be advisedto look at alternative ways to reduce the scale on the boundaries, replace render with thevernacular stone of the neighbourhood and create visual gaps in the boundary structures. Theresult of the decision made by the committee will last well into the 22nd Century.

Further comments – 31 March 2023

2

1. The pending application

Natural England advises that:

'Users of previous versions of the Biodiversity Metric should continue to use that metric (unless requested to do otherwise by their client or consenting body) for the duration of the project it is being used for. This is because users may find that certain biodiversity unit values generated in biodiversity metric 4.0 will differ from those generated by earlier versions.'

Given that the approach to valuing urban trees has fundamentally changed, we ask Bristol City Council, as the ‘consenting body’, to require the applicant to adopt this new methodology, if only for Individual Urban trees habitats. Our reasons are set out below.

2. Biodiversity net gain analysis

In our original comments, we argued that the Urban tree habitat area calculation methodology used by the applicant in its BNG 3.0 calculation (now updated3) is

flawed and unworkable. We advocated for the use of the calculation method given in BNG 3.1, if only for its Urban tree habitat area calculations. However, we now contend that BNG 4.0 – and the Individual trees habitat methodology it advises – should be used, because it has reverted back to the methodology in BNG 3.0, except that the table it uses (see Table 8-1 below) has resolved these earlier issues.

Here is the new Individual trees habitat area measurement methodology used in BNG 4.0.4

8.3.8. Once the size, number and condition of trees is known, assessors should generate an area equivalent value using the ‘Tree helper’ within the metric tool ‘Main menu’ (Figure 8-2). The ‘area equivalent’ is used to represent the area of Individual trees. This value is a representation of canopy biomass, and is based on the root protection area formula, derived from BS 5837:2012.

8.3.9. Table 8-1 sets out class sizes of trees and their area equivalent. For multi-stemmed trees the DBH of the largest stem in the cluster should be used to determine size class.

3 Now 22_02737_F-BIODIVERSITY_METRIC_V6-3408927. 4 The Biodiversity Metric 4.0 – User Guide.

Further comments – 31 March 2023

3

Note: The correct metric equivalent area of Large category trees is 0.0765, not 0.0764.

This same approach applies to Individual trees habitats in groups or blocks:

8.3.12. Assessors should account for the size class (Table 8-1) of each Individual trees within a group or block. The number of Individual trees present within a group or block should be entered into the tree helper to calculate area equivalent. Do not reduce any area generated by the tree helper even if tree canopies overlap.

Adopting this methodology, we have amended our biodiversity net gain calculation as follows.

The applicant’s biodiversity net gain report dated May 20225 is based on an assessment commenced in July 2021 and uses Biodiversity Metric 3.0 (BNG 3.0), the latest iteration of which (version 6) was published on 28 February 2023. Save for the comments made below, we have adopted the applicant’s baseline and created habitat data, although we have recast it using BNG 4.0 Metric, because of its new rules for dealing with the irreplaceable veteran

tree habitat.6

3. Strategic significance

We disagree with the applicant’s use of Low strategic significance for all the habitat types. We have adopted a strategic significance of Medium for all the habitat types. Whilst the site is not formally identified in the Local Plan, it is nonetheless of significant ecological importance, both of itself and because is in a conservation area, is adjacent to the Clifton and Durdham Downs SNCI, is part of the wildlife corridor that connects the Downs with Avon Gorge; and it is within the IRZs of an SSSI and an SAC and within some 400 metres of Clifton Down Wood, an ancient woodland.

4. The urban tree habitat calculation

The applicant relies on BNG 3.0. Our earlier comments set out why we say that, so far as

Urban tree Habitat (now called Individual trees – Urban tree habitat) is concerned, the

5 22_02737_F-BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_REPORT-3233729 6 Tree T083 is a veteran tree – see BNG 4.0 User Guide at 8.3.3. Ancient and veteran trees are irreplaceable habitats and the broad habitat ‘Individual trees’ must not be used to record these. See also section 3.5.

Further comments – 31 March 2023

4

use of the BNG 3.0 methodology is infeasible because it is both error strewn and flawed.

Having set the RPA radius (r) multiplier to DBH x 15 for the veteran tree7 T083, we have

adopted the new BNG 4.0 methodology and, using the applicant’s AIA tree survey data, we calculate that the baseline habitat area of the Individual trees – Urban tree on site is 6.0086 hectares, of which 2.0901 hectares will be removed and 3.9185 hectares retained. We have assumed that the DBH of each of the trees in a group is as reported for that group in the AIA. This represents a loss of 42.5% of the trees and 34.8% of their habitat from the site.

We have adopted (though we do not agree) the applicant’s Moderate/Poor - 87.7% / 12.3% - condition proportions and calculate that these Individual trees – Urban tree habitats combined generate 49.62 baseline Habitat units (HUs), which is nearly 88.5% of the 56.09 on-site baseline biodiversity HUs.

5. Post-development Individual trees habitat area forecasting

The BNG 4.0 User Guide advises that any new tree planted will grow into a Small category

tree at the end of the 'project timeframe'. This is likely to be 30 years by default, as per Part 1 s.9 of Schedule 14 of the 2021 Environment Act.8 This is the approach advised in the Guide:

8.3.13. Size classes for newly planted trees should be classified by a projected size relevant to the project timeframe.

• most newly planted street trees should be categorised as ‘small’.

• evidence is required to justify the input of larger size classes.

8.3.14. When estimating the size of planted trees, consideration should be given to growth rate, which is determined by a wide range of factors, including tree vigour, geography, soil conditions, sunlight, precipitation levels and temperature.

8.3.15. Do not record natural size increases of pre-existing baseline trees within post-development calculations.

If a larger Individual trees habitat area projection is proposed, this will need to be justified.

The evidence of tree growth rates is patchy at best - see the About section in our Tree Canopy Prediction tool. To overcome this, we have adopted the simple rule-of-thumb approach commonly used by arboriculturists and assume that a tree’s girth grows by one inch (2.54 cm) a year. We then apply this to the standard tree sizes adopted in BS 3961-1 - Nursery Stock Specification to Trees and Shrubs9 to calculate the eventual size of a tree 30 years after it has been planted. In all cases, save for semi-mature trees, the tree will be a BNG 4.0 Small category tree.

Here is the model we use:

7 GOV.UK advice is that r should be at the buffer zone should be at least 15 times larger than the diameter of the tree. The buffer zone should be 5 metres from the edge of the tree’s canopy if that area is larger than 15 times the tree’s diameter. This will create a minimum root protection area - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-ancient-trees-and-

veteran-trees-advice-for-making-planning-decisions. The Woodland Trust also recommends this - https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2021/04/root-protection-areas as does the Ancient Tree Forum - https://ancienttreeforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ATF_book.pdf. 8 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/30/schedule/14/enacted 9 https://www.thenbs.com/PublicationIndex/documents/details?Pub=BSI&DocID=16650

Further comments – 31 March 2023

5

The age of the tree being planted should not be ‘credited’ when calculating the time-to-target period. BNG 4.0 does not take account of annual mortality rates, which are high for urban trees.

The applicant proposes planting 451 trees10 (though their BNG 3.0 calculation reports 314

and their AIA reports 461) on site. We have assumed that these trees will be new Standard as per the tables above and that these will achieve a moderate condition after 30 years. We

10 22_02737_F-SOFT_LANDSCAPE_KEY_PLAN-3236144

Further comments – 31 March 2023

6

have allocated 0.0041 hectares per tree to be created, as required by BNG 4.0 (see para. 8.3.13 of the BNG 4.0 User Guide). 451 such trees will generate some 1.84 hectares of new

Individual trees – Urban tree habitat and 6.18 HUs after 30 years.

Individual trees – Urban tree habitat created in private gardens must not be credited as part of the post-development BNG calculation:

8.3.7. Where private gardens are created, any tree planting within the created garden should not be included within post-development sheets of the metric. The habitat type ‘Urban – Vegetated garden’ should be used.

However, even planting all the 451 trees proposed in publicly accessible locations will not replace the urban tree habitat lost and achieve the 10% net gain which we understand the applicant aspires to. We calculate that a further 923 BNG 3.0 trees (classified as Small category trees in BNG 3.1 & 4.0) would have to be planted to achieve a Moderate condition and provide the 3.76 hectares of new Individual trees – Urban tree habitat needed to generate the minimum 10% biodiversity net gain that will also be required when the Environment Act 2021 takes effect in late 2023.

Without these extra trees, the applicant’s proposals will result in a net loss of biodiversity of 12.52%, not the net gain of 36.00% that they have calculated. We accept that a 376.35% net gain of Hedgerow units will be achieved by this proposal.

Here are the headline results for our calculation (a copy of our BNG 4.0 calculation, together the underlying baseline Individual trees – Urban tree habitat area calculation, has been provided):

My objections are to the buildings along perimeter of the development. While Iappreciate that some effort has been made to reference the character of neighbouring buildings,the proposed buildings are far too tall and jarringly homogeneous. This looks out of place andcontrasts (unpleasantly) with the mixture of buildings, light, and trees in the surrounding streets.

I would like to object to the granting of planning permission on the following grounds:

One. This is an historic heritage site, which needs to be preserved in itself, but is also potentially ofmuch wider commercial interest to the city, if alternative public uses are allowed to proceed

Two. The planning application refers to major demolition of buildings. The demolition of historicbuildings should require a public enquiry.

Three. The proposed cutting down of half of the trees on the site is completely out of step with theneed to preserve natural habitats.

Four. Housing development should take place on brownfield sites wherever possible.

Upon finding out more about the circumstances surrounding Bristol Zoo's closure, Ihave become very concerned that the city is about to lose an important and unique piece of itshistory and a resource that will otherwise be incredibly valuable for future generations.

Development of luxuary housing in its place will provide a lucrative opportunity for the Zoo ownersand the developers but will likely leave Bristol city much worse off. There does not seem to havebeen enough work done to prove the change in use of the site is justified.

To be specific on other impacts:

- There will be significant, if not total, harm to the historic significance of the site.- There will also be significant impact to the established landscape of the site, particularly trees.- The public will lose an important educational and entertainement attraction.- Bristol will lose an important part of its identity.

Given the above concerns, I strongly object to this applicaiton for planning.

Upon finding out more about the circumstances surrounding Bristol Zoo's closure, Ihave become very concerned that the city is about to lose an important and unique piece of itshistory and a resource that will otherwise be incredibly valuable for future generations.

Development of luxuary housing in its place will provide a lucrative opportunity for the Zoo ownersand the developers but will likely leave Bristol city much worse off. There does not seem to havebeen enough work done to prove the change in use of the site is justified.

To be specific on other impacts:

- There will be significant, if not total, harm to the historic significance of the site.- There will also be significant impact to the established landscape of the site, particularly trees.- The public will lose an important educational and entertainement attraction.- Bristol will lose an important part of its identity.

Given the above concerns, I strongly object to this applicaiton for planning.

Much as I treasurer the heritage of this city that our evolving Zoological Gardens hasrepresented to it over these past 70 years since my childhood,I am looking forward to the flagship it can be for us all and future generations to equip and inspirein the challenges which lie ahead.

I am utterly convinced that if the Trustees of the BZGs had considered picking up the baton onBristol Green City of Europe 2015 and running with a fresh and dynamic plan for BZG 2025, as acentre of learning Green Literacy through sponsored installations, innovations and experiences ofsustainability, visitors would come from near and far.

Such a vision would preserve its historic trees and beautiful gardens while the heritage buildingscan be imaginatively re-purposed.

Hospitality, products and services can all demonstrate ethical sustainabilityGreen business, trades and remarkable technologies can demonstrate a future proof planet. Aprime goto resource for cutting edge sustainable development with programmes around the world.As a centre of learning: whether the focus is on protecting our precious soil as well as speciesdiversity, add low carbon and low polluting ways of working, travelling, dwelling, eating, buying;even learning how to care for domestic pets before buying!It would be a centre for learning to think globally and acting locally on all the above.

The Planning Committee have a huge responsibility in considering this application which if

approved, would be irreversible and tragic.

If you are in any doubt at all - please postpone the decision until other possibilities can beproposed.

Much as I treasurer the heritage of this city that our evolving Zoological Gardens hasrepresented to it over these past 70 years since my childhood,I am looking forward to the flagship it can be for us all and future generations to equip and inspirein the challenges which lie ahead.

I am utterly convinced that if the Trustees of the BZGs had considered picking up the baton onBristol Green City of Europe 2015 and running with a fresh and dynamic plan for BZG 2025, as acentre of learning Green Literacy through sponsored installations, innovations and experiences ofsustainability, visitors would come from near and far.

Such a vision would preserve its historic trees and beautiful gardens while the heritage buildingscan be imaginatively re-purposed.

Hospitality, products and services can all demonstrate ethical sustainabilityGreen business, trades and remarkable technologies can demonstrate a future proof planet. Aprime goto resource for cutting edge sustainable development with programmes around the world.As a centre of learning: whether the focus is on protecting our precious soil as well as speciesdiversity, add low carbon and low polluting ways of working, travelling, dwelling, eating, buying;even learning how to care for domestic pets before buying!It would be a centre for learning to think globally and acting locally on all the above.

The Planning Committee have a huge responsibility in considering this application which if

approved, would be irreversible and tragic.

If you are in any doubt at all - please postpone the decision until other possibilities can beproposed.

As someone born and bred in Bristol nearly 80 years ago the Zoo & its gardens were ajoy and delight and an education as I grew up. Now more recently I have had the pleasure ofsharing my love of the Zoo with my grandchildren. It's development into scientific research hasdelighted me and with our dwindling wildlife globally, it is critical that such research continues andeducates people as to the parlous state of our planet. The site of the Zoo most definitely fits the billfor this, so it is essential that it remains in public use - for the enjoyment of the glorious gardens aswell as well as the science. It would therefore be the jewel in the crown for Bristol's 'green'credentials and a historic haven of peace and beauty for the city's citizens.

As someone born and bred in Bristol nearly 80 years ago the Zoo & its gardens were ajoy and delight and an education as I grew up. Now more recently I have had the pleasure ofsharing my love of the Zoo with my grandchildren. It's development into scientific research hasdelighted me and with our dwindling wildlife globally, it is critical that such research continues andeducates people as to the parlous state of our planet. The site of the Zoo most definitely fits the billfor this, so it is essential that it remains in public use - for the enjoyment of the glorious gardens aswell as well as the science. It would therefore be the jewel in the crown for Bristol's 'green'credentials and a historic haven of peace and beauty for the city's citizens.

I object to this beautiful zoo that has existed in Bristol for many many years bringingchildren and families such joy and interest.The zoo also brings profit with visitors all around the world learning about all the animal specieshere.We do not need any more property built here as thus means more people, more traffic, congestionand added pollution that already exists in this city.Protect this so it brings history, learning, profit and interest

Having examined the plans and elevations of the proposed buildings on the zoo site, Iwish to object strongly to the proposals. Short of a skyscraper or a warehouse, it is hard toimagine anything more incongruous with the surrounding buildings and landscapes in this lovelypart of our city.

I object to this beautiful zoo that has existed in Bristol for many many years bringingchildren and families such joy and interest.The zoo also brings profit with visitors all around the world learning about all the animal specieshere.We do not need any more property built here as thus means more people, more traffic, congestionand added pollution that already exists in this city.Protect this so it brings history, learning, profit and interest

Having examined the plans and elevations of the proposed buildings on the zoo site, Iwish to object strongly to the proposals. Short of a skyscraper or a warehouse, it is hard toimagine anything more incongruous with the surrounding buildings and landscapes in this lovelypart of our city.

The proposed development of the zoo site is a massive disproportionate intrusion into aconservation area. The people of Bristol who have built up this valuable heritage for futuregenerations did not do so in order for it to be turned into private profit. The zoo has been a culturaland educational feature of the the city. It may have to adapt to present conditions but not this waywhich would cause detriment to the character of the locality and disadvantage to the community.

My name is Arne Ringner and in 2004 I purchased The Clifton Swimming Baths that atthe time were written off as a public asset and was lined up for housing.Today the Baths are known as Clifton Lido and is a formidable community space. From all overBristol people gather here to swim, eat and socialise. The place is class less and loved by themany. It's a public, civil and self supporting arena where anyone can hang around. These publicplaces are rare and should be 'sacrosanctly' preserved. Many people have approached me sayingthank you for giving them a place to just be , or sadly having a place to spend their last few mothsalive. The Zoo falls into exactly this territory. It's a public space and we absolutely cannot riskloosing any more. To replace a revered public space with private 'luxury' housing is infantile.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment: The Clifton Swimming Baths that at

the time were written off as a public asset and was lined up for housing.

Today the Baths are known as Clifton Lido and is a formidable community space. From all over

Bristol people gather here to swim, eat and socialise. The place is class less and loved by the

many. It's a public, civil and self supporting arena where anyone can hang around. These public

places are rare and should be 'sacrosanctly' preserved. Many people have approached me saying

thank you for giving them a place to just be , or sadly having a place to spend their last few moths

alive. The Zoo falls into exactly this territory. It's a public space and we absolutely cannot risk

loosing any more. To replace a revered public space with private 'luxury' housing is infantile.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment: The Clifton Swimming Baths that at

the time were written off as a public asset and was lined up for housing.

Today the Baths are known as Clifton Lido and is a formidable community space. From all over

Bristol people gather here to swim, eat and socialise. The place is class less and loved by the

many. It's a public, civil and self supporting arena where anyone can hang around. These public

places are rare and should be 'sacrosanctly' preserved. Many people have approached me saying

thank you for giving them a place to just be , or sadly having a place to spend their last few moths

alive. The Zoo falls into exactly this territory. It's a public space and we absolutely cannot risk

loosing any more. To replace a revered public space with private 'luxury' housing is infantile.

I object to the planning application for the following reasons:

It is clear that the groundswell of public opinion in the area around the zoo is predominatelyagainst the planning application as it stands at the moment.

The Zoo is a historic landmark site and tourist attraction in Bristol and should be kept as a Zoo orsomething quite similar that can be visited and enjoyed by the people of Bristol and around.

At a time when we want people to use their cars less, why move the Zoo to a place out of townthat is difficult for people with children to access, when the existing site is in Bristol and has goodpublic transport links by train from nearby Clifton Down Station and 2 bus routes.

It seems pretty clear that management at Bristol Zoo made little effort to develop their businessplan and evolve and revise that plan to make Bristol Zoo a thriving entity. Instead of respecting the160 year history of the zoo, they have sold out and taken the easy option to make money, sell thesite for housing. By giving them planning permission to change the use we are rewarding them fortheir negligence and lack of vision.

As a local resident who grew up near the Zoo it is clear that the plans as they stand will makeBristol worse!

If I was in the planning committe I would refuse the application for housing, which would reduce

the value of the site which could then be bought by a charity to be run as a public amenity for thepeople of Bristol.

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has beenthere so long being of heritage value in itself.

Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that have visited,weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.

Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.

Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.

Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a publicsite, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.

Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings and donot complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuous blockalong the road.

Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

This site is listed for a reason. If we ignore listed buildings then what is the point inhaving them? We need to preserve our heritage and stop ignoring it to make money. The site hasbeen a beautiful setting for many years, used by so many families. A rarely seen asset in a busycity. Remember it was known as Zoological Gardens! It wasn't always just about the animals. Itwas a beautiful place to visit. The thought of killing established trees that have been alive longerthan any of us is heartbreaking and just by replacing with small ones will not compensate for thegreen you are losing. Think of the environment. Think of the air. Think of the people of Bristol whorely on the space for tranquility and wellbeing.

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has beenthere so long being of heritage value in itself.

Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that have visited,weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.

Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.

Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.

Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a publicsite, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.

Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings and donot complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuous blockalong the road.

Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

I first visited Bristol Zoological Gardens in the early 1960's. This historic, heritage andcultural facility would be lost to the people of Bristol, both locally and entire city. Similarly to thewider local community who love Bristol Zoological Gardens and its location and history.Also the families of generations where ashes of deceased relatives are scattered at the site. Thesite is a valuable green space of peace and tranquility for thousands of people who benefit whenmental health issues and other health and emotional issues are affecting their well-being.The damage that the proposals would cause to listed buildings and gates is unjustified and nolonger accessible to the people of Bristol.There is no evidence to support or suggest that the zoo cannot continue as a viable Bristol publicsite.The proposal, with its planned buildings being "out of scale" to the site and for the benefit of thevast majority of Bristolians, does not complement the nearby houses and college.The loss of landscape, mature and important trees, and obvious environmental damage, the termvandalism comes to mind, would be unforgiveable, both to present population and generations tocome.

Clifton is a historic district and conservation area that must protect its special status inBristol. Allowing this monolithic, high-rise development, would be totally out of keeping with thelocal area and truly detrimental to hits historic status. Clifton is a tourist destination that brings animportant economy to the city through its visitors. Allowing building such as this to be built willundermine the area.

For decades Bristol Zoo has been one of Bristol's most iconic landmarks and all alternatives onhow we can retain this historic attraction - a pride of Bristol - must be given time to be furtherexplored. At present, it is not been proven that the zoo cannot profitably continue as a public site.Time must be given to look at viable alternative options for the development of the site, which willbenefit the whole city.

On these grounds I strongly object to any planning being granted to this proposal.

I have several objections to this application.

1) The loss of communal value and green urban space.

2) Harm to the several listed buildings on the site which will not be accesible to the public if theapplication is approved.

3) The need for a change has not been proven. The business case is not clear and alternativeshave not been considered.

4) The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings.

I object to the proposed redevelopment of Bristol Zoo Gardens, which is an`irreplaceable resource that should be conserved in a manner appropriate to its significance sothat it can be enjoyed for its contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations'

as current national primary planning guidance in paragraph 189 states.

and should not be turned into exclusive luxury gated housing.

For 186 years it has been an immensely valuable cultural, educational, social and economic assetto the City of Bristol and is, being the fifth oldest zoo in the world, of historic importance,

with a proven track record of conservation success having helped save over 175 species fromextinction.

The loss of communal value as a venue for weddings and the scattering of ashes in the nowthreatened herbaceous border, and of course the successive generations of visitors.

The proposed change of use and loss of character of the Listed buildings and the reduction ofPublic access to the gardens is not fitting with the Zoo's listing as a `Local Historic Park andGarden and important Open Space'

The limited public access to a relatively small space compared with recently, together with the cost

of maintenance will be funded by residents with predictable objections potentially leading to theexisting permissive right being modified or withdrawn completely.

162 mature trees (42.5%) of them will be removed with others threatened by future building works.

The need for change is unproven, although visitor numbers were down (500,000 pre Covid) theycompare favourably with other zoos (eg Dublin) and are higher than any other Bristol attractions(eg We the Curious 250,000). Only together with the Wild Place does the Zoo reach it's target

number of 800,000, the Wild Place attracting fewer numbers, and incidentally being far lessaccessible by public transport leading to increased traffic and surprisingly, because ofdevelopment limitations, being little larger than the city site.

The overall design as the proposed buildings are very out of scale and character with thesurrounding buildings in what is after all a conservation area.

This is not a contribution to the demand for affordable homes that Bristol needs, but will be nothingmore than luxury apartments with any affordable housing percentage argued down to nothing bythe developers.

The Zoo has had an income of over £10m with a peak of £13.6m as recently 2018, as well asfinancial reserves and substantial capital assets, there is no financial ruin.

The strategic Plan to 2025, which can be found online, was always to keep operating twosuccessful and complimentary sites.

Whilst the charity has a duty to operate viably and realise maximum value for any assets, valuedoes not have to mean only financial but also ethical and social.

There are alternative uses of the site that would benefit not just the proposed residents but thewider community, as suggested by Save Bristol Zoo Gardens,https://savebristolzoogardens.org/vision and they should be explored in a public consultation.

In the name of the immortal Johnny Morris and Animal Magic please reject this plan.

I would like to object to the proposed development of the Bristol Zoo site for thefollowing reasons:

As well as providing a zoo for some species that have not been catered for by the Wild PlaceProject, the site provides a significant amenity for local people and draws in significant crowds. It isa long standing zoo and the proposal represents a loss of communal value and a heritage site.

The case for a need to change has yet to be proven - and there are a number of attractivepossibilities for the site, including keeping a zoological facility. This is an important green site thatshould remain accessible to the wider public and local residents.The proposal will involve a significant loss of landscape.

The design of the proposed buildings are not in keeping with the area and will degrade theaesthetic building composition that prevails in this historic and important area.

I object to this application and I am very upset that the proposal has been put forward

The Zoo gardens have been in operation for 186 years and survived countless challenges andchanges. They are a fundamental part of Bristol, a hugely loved public amenity and site ofhistorical value. The proposal will result in the loss of this.

The business case for the move is not justified. I cannot see that alternatives have been properlyexplored and the case has not bee made that the zoo cannot remain at the current site, evolving tomeet the new challenges.

I am also very concerned about the loss of green space and well established trees. The loss of somany trees, many decades old, and their replanting with small trees which will take many years togrow to the same age, is not sufficient given the climate and biodiversity challenges Bristol faces.

For generations of Bristolians, and visitors to the city, Bristol Zoo Gardens has been amuch loved and hugely valuable recreational and educational resource, and has become a placeof incalculable historic importance. Turning this unique heritage site into a luxury housingdevelopment will destroy its cultural value to the local community, and to the city at large. I urgeyou to reject the current planning application, and to ensure that any future development of the siterespects and preserves its history and heritage.

Bristol Zoo has been open to the public for recreation for 186 years. It an act ofvandalism to close it. The proposed buildings are far too big and will detrimentally affect thehistoric walled estate. The zoo could continue in some form. The housing is for the wealthy , weneed access for all. The trees and gardens will be damaged . We need more access to openspaces and nature not less. Generations have met at the zoo , benefitting from the uplifting historicbuildings , gardens , lakes and animals. The premises should be safeguarded for the residents ofBristol . The zoo should think again as should the planners . Our children and grandchildren needsafe outdoor spaces , please do not allow this tragic mistake.

The zoo gardens are an important and valuable asset to Bristol and should be retainedfor the public to enjoy.

The zoo has been such a key part of Bristol for so long, it's such a travesty to potentiallysee it go. The zoo holds such high community value to the people of Bristol - we have friends whowere married there, I know of people's family who have their ashes scattered there.

Have a city centre asset that people can walk or get the bus / public transport to is a massiveboon. We do not need another expanded site off a motorway junction that necessitates getting inyour car to get to it.

It is such a haven away from bustling city life - the gardens are simply a joy to walk around. Thisloss of landscape, wildlife and trees is heart-breaking, particularly in the world we currently live in.Surely if ever there a time to prioritise green credentials and making the best use out of an existingasset, it is now? The Zoo is listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an Important Open Space- let's keep it this way.

I understand there are a number of listed buildings on site, I imagine most of which will becomeinaccessible to the public.

It is not clear to me why the zoo needs to change its use or purpose - surely there are better,greener and more community-minded ways of making changes? I think the zoo should keepanimals there but focus on the smaller ones such as reptiles, butterflies, meerkats, etc.

From what I have seen of the plans, the buildings look too big and do not complement the

amazing buildings near the zoo site.

The site has significant historical value and it's future as a viable Zoo has not beenexplored or even proved to be insufficient.London, or any other city with such a valuable asset, would never allow such a fate to befall theirbeloved zoo. This is not what the public want, this is not in the best interests of Clifton or the widercommunity and represents a huge loss to Bristolians and everyone that has ever enjoyed timehere. Children learn so much from Zoos and given the state of our planet and the need to teachchildren about the wider effects humans are having on animals and their habitats this will be ahuge loss to future generations and the planet long term. Zoo's are hugely important assets andBristol is missing a real opportunity to maintain and create a zoo that can do so much good to ourunderstanding and appreciation of the natural world. 186 years should not be disregarded anddestroyed in favour of fancy housing. Fancy housing can be built anywhere in the city, there arederelict sites available elsewhere. Please Save Bristol Zoo!!!

I object to the Zoo's planning application on the following grounds:1. The Zoo is a significant part of Bristol's history and is therefore of heritage value.2. Long established trees and plants will be lost from an area that is listed as a local Historic Park& Garden.3. The garden is a valuable green urban space that gives pleasure to hundreds of thousands ofvisitors every year.4. The site is within easy reach for Bristolians, unlike the Wild Place site, and is a popular place forfamily events both large and small.5. Listed buildings on the site will be lost or become inaccessible.6. The proposed apartment buildings are ugly and out of keeping with the surrounding area.

The surrounding buildings are in Pentland red stone or Bath stone so white concrete tallstructures are totally out of sympathy with those existing Victorian structures. The proposedstructures are also too tall. They should not exceed the height of the surrounding wall of theperimeter so that they blend in with the neighbouring properties. Further information on thelandscaping of the gardens and ponds should be given and details of the proportion of socialhousing identified,This is a very sensitive site which does not lend itself to white tower blocks of no character whichdwarf the surrounding buildings, roads and pavements. I strongly object to the submitted plans.

I object on the grounds: 1) lost communal value, 2) lost historic interest, 3) opposite ofwhat the climate emergency demands, massive increase in embodied and ongoing emissions, andreduce educational engagement opportunities.

We are all so lucky to have this historic civic institution, founded and guarded by some of theBristol great and good. I strongly believe they would be horrified, like the vast majority ofBristolians today to see a tiny group of developers try to destroy this.

Civic society, through planning decisions, must remove such temptations, by making clear thespace must remain fully for public benefit.

There is no proven need for change of use. The previous was profitable. It was modernisingeducation and animal welfare. Bristol's BBC and ecological heritage could lead the world indeveloping virtual and educational city zoos.

As a Bristol resident I am appalled that a city which has been awarded Green Capital status canthink of allowing a heritage site, such as Bristol Zoo, which has important scientific value as wellas communal value, to be turned over for the building of luxury homes.The botanical significance of the plants and trees in the Zoo Gardens is widely recognised andappreciated not only by Bristolians, but also by visitors from South Wales and the South-West.Many mature trees will be felled as well as long-established herbaceous borders to make spacefor car-parking and expensive houses.The Zoo gardens have been a much-loved and much-used green public space for almost 200years, a place also for celebration, weddings and the scattering of ashes, part of the emotionalfabric of the city.Change of use is neither called for nor proven, and whereas it might make sense to transfer theanimals to a better-equipped site, the proposed financial exploitation of this invaluable inner-citygreen area for the benefit of a few rich people flies in the face of all our hopes and aims for abetter green future for everyone.How can Bristol pride itself on being a sustainable city, the UK's first Cycling City and a formerEuropean Green Capital, if it allows its current and future citizens to be deprived of a treasuredpublic amenity with historical significance?

I'm objecting to this planning application on a number of grounds.

1.. Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The zoo has been part of Bristol forsuch a long time, changing it into residential property as this planning application requests woulddamage the significance of the site.

2. Loss of Communal Value. This is a valuable urban green space that has been enjoyed bypeople across Bristol for many years. Turning it into residential property will inevitably lose someof this communal value.

3. Loss of public amenity. An ancient green space would be changed, and some of it lost forevery.At a time when focus is on the environment this seems unjustified.

1. This site is of historic value to the city of Bristol and as such any new developementshould continue to be enjoyed by future generations.

2. It is a large part of the environmental landscape in this part of the city and should be protected.

3. It is a site that has been enjoyed by significant numbers of people over the years and not just bya small number of individuals within an exclusive housing scheme. This is unjustified harm to thewider community.

4.The need for more exclusive housing in this part of the city is not proven and as such the changeof use is also unproven

The proposed development constitutes a loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will goand many more may be damaged. The public green space will be much smaller, and may notremain public. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an Important Open Space.

One of the reasons that we bought the house that we live in was for the wonderful greenspaces of the Downs and the Zoo.

My children spent many happy hours in the beautiful gardens there and enjoyed the park as in factit was the nearest playground to our house. Bristol is woefully endowed with play spaces forchildren.

The proposed building are totally out of proportion with the existing buildings and present a "wall"of flats more in keeping with the centre of the city. The proposed buildings do not offer anyarchitectural merit and do not offer innovative eco credentials that are surely what would be inkeeping with such a site.

The Zoo gardens contain many listed and historic buildings which must be retained and madeavailable for the community.

I do not object to building on the site per se, more the extreme building that is proposed.

I feel it is essential to maintain the gardens as a public amenity for the community.

I am against the proposed redevelopment of the site.The blocks of flats proposed are tall, require removal of many established trees, will increasetraffic (not just residents' cars but also deliveries), impact negatively on the safety of schoolchildren around the site as well as runners and cyclists and leave the surviving garden part as anenclosed yard and not a genuinely open space.Even with a proportion of affordable housing, market forces mean this is not going to meet theneeds of low income families that cannot access decent housing and is, to my mind, asmokescreen to mask a commercial development that is out of character with the nature of theDowns.It's not green and not in the spirit of the site or the conservation area as a whole. Neither does itaddress genuine housing needs for the city.

I am appalled by this proposed housing development at Bristol Zoo Gardens. It is simplyhorrendous. I cannot believe that anyone thinks it is suitable in any shape or form for this beautifulconservation area that is so special to Bristol. The buildings appear like huge blocks of whiteconcrete which will dominate and totally overwhelm their surroundings. They will be seen for milesaround as a blot on the landscape. They have nothing in keeping with the historical Victorianbuildings that are the character of Clifton. Added to this is the question of the sustainability of 196dwellings in a small conservation area which will be mostly unaffordable for the people who reallyneed housing. So developers are out to make money and squeeze in as many houses as possiblewithout any regard for the people who will live or who already live there and the inevitableirreversible damage to the environment that such an unsympathetic development will cause. Todestroy the legacy of the world famous Bristol Zoo in this way is a tragedy. If this development ispermitted to go ahead then it will be seen as something akin to the concrete blocks built in the1960s. People in years to come will look at it with horror and bewilderment and say "how couldthis monstrosity ever have been allowed?"

Don't lose the heritage site. Save the site as gardens

I am against the proposed redevelopment of the site.The blocks of flats proposed are tall, require removal of many established trees, will increasetraffic (not just residents' cars but also deliveries), impact negatively on the safety of schoolchildren around the site as well as runners and cyclists and leave the surviving garden part as anenclosed yard and not a genuinely open space.Even with a proportion of affordable housing, market forces mean this is not going to meet theneeds of low income families that cannot access decent housing and is, to my mind, asmokescreen to mask a commercial development that is out of character with the nature of theDowns.It's not green and not in the spirit of the site or the conservation area as a whole. Neither does itaddress genuine housing needs for the city.

I am appalled by this proposed housing development at Bristol Zoo Gardens. It is simplyhorrendous. I cannot believe that anyone thinks it is suitable in any shape or form for this beautifulconservation area that is so special to Bristol. The buildings appear like huge blocks of whiteconcrete which will dominate and totally overwhelm their surroundings. They will be seen for milesaround as a blot on the landscape. They have nothing in keeping with the historical Victorianbuildings that are the character of Clifton. Added to this is the question of the sustainability of 196dwellings in a small conservation area which will be mostly unaffordable for the people who reallyneed housing. So developers are out to make money and squeeze in as many houses as possiblewithout any regard for the people who will live or who already live there and the inevitableirreversible damage to the environment that such an unsympathetic development will cause. Todestroy the legacy of the world famous Bristol Zoo in this way is a tragedy. If this development ispermitted to go ahead then it will be seen as something akin to the concrete blocks built in the1960s. People in years to come will look at it with horror and bewilderment and say "how couldthis monstrosity ever have been allowed?"

Don't lose the heritage site. Save the site as gardens

The proposed development of the site of Bristol Zoo fails to give sufficient weight to thehistoric and cultural significance of the site and its buildings. These are part of Bristol's heritageand could be redeveloped in a way that would respect the history of site, preserve its function as atourist attraction and therefore boost tourism which would benefit all Bristol citizens. I feel stronglythat alternative proposed developments that would preserve the zoo's heritage for the benefit andprofit of the people of Bristol have not been sufficiently explored. The planning committee shouldreject the current proposal on the grounds that it does not protect Bristol's cultural heritage and thehistorical and architectural importance of the site. The proposed development is whollyinappropriate and would have a detrimental economic impact on the city as a whole as well asdestroying an important part of the city's cultural and social history.

The Clifton zoo site is a unique heritage of trees and flowers managed and developedover 186 years to delight the residents of Bristol, and welcome visitors from all over the world andby so doing support the economy of Bristol. It has been a centre of education for enabling childrenand adults to learn about animals and ways to conserve and support them over the world. It is verymuch loved by all who have experienced it in so many different ways and it will be a tragedy forBristol if it were to lose it for a rather mediocre housing development. The decision that the BristolZoological Society has made to close the Clifton Zoo and move all operations to the CribbsCauseway Wild place site without proper consultation with the users of the zoo and with zoo andbusiness people who have appropriate knowledge is an issue to be undertaken as soon aspossible. The Bristol Zoological Society shareholders and trustees structure and mode ofoperation needs to be updated. It is not too late. In my opinion the sale of the Clifton site will notraise enough money to make Wild Place a successful single zoo for Bristol, whereas having bothsites will be very attractive and will bring people to Bristol. The Clifton site is financially viable as azoo albeit needing new strategic plan organized for animals who will enjoy being there. Thisproposed development of the Clifton zoo site being considered here will involve the destruction ofa large part of the garden and the around 40% of the trees. How can this be defended when weneed established trees and plants to help us reduce our carbon footplate, and gardens give muchwellbeing and enjoyment to both adults and children. The listed buildings will no longer beavailable but converted into flats and any part of the garden site not built on by the developmentwill have no security to remain well tended with public access and will have cars and it will not givethe same sense of wellbeing that the beautiful Clifton Zoo garden does.To summarize The Clifton Zoo Site is a beautiful mature and unique place which has been

enjoyed by millions of people for at least 186 years. All the evidence shows that it would be viableif it was developed appropriately into a better zoo. It would be a tragedy to lose it for thedevelopment of housing which would not be affordable for those who most need housing in Bristol.

A Green Argument for Retaining Bristol Zoo in Bristol

Loss of Communal Value:For many years Bristol Zoo has provided entertainment and education to families in Bristol. Theycan get there by bus with a bus to the Zoo from the Temple Meads via the centre. To combatGlobal Warming we need to travel less and use Public Transport when we do. People say that wecan solve the transport problem by going electric; but there is not enough copper in the world to dothis.Bristol Zoo provides 12 acres of a green oasis. The proposed development is for expensivehousing and lots of cars. The proposal is to cut down almost half the trees on the site. They havealready cut down most of a 100 year old tree.Although the proposal suggest that part of the site will be open to the public, that would requirepublic money if there is no zoo garden to attract paying contributors. Is the Council going to pay?

Need to Change not Proven:Evidence from looking at the zoo accounts over the last decade; does not suggest that the Zoogardens could not be self sustaining. They will need to change and clearly the currentmanagement do not wish to do so; however there is a significant group of influential people whowould like the opportunity to develop and maintain this historic and valuable resource for thepeople of Bristol.

Please do not approve the change of use for the Zoo Gardens and allow time for a plan for

keeping the Zoo Gardens to be created.

This planning is alarming!!!!! to Demolish this wonderful Zoo after 185yrs with all itsHeritageYou must Reconsider your plans once this site is lost you can never replace it no matter what youdo So much of our country's fantastic architecture is being bulldozed away

As a Bristol resident I am horrified that the Bristol Zoo Gardens could become a housingdevelopment. Ok so perhaps it is a brown site - ripe for redevelopment. It is also a hugely historicasset to the City of Bristol attracting thousands of visitors every year, providing education, leisure,beauty, interest and so much more to many. The gardens alone warrant botanical special interest.It has been providing this for years and the proposed development could see this jewel lostforever.

I urge BCC not to allow planning permission for the construction of luxury housing in analready wealthy area of Bristol. The Site could no longer be considered an amenity for the peopleof Bristol and the proposed development would enhance no-one except for the developers.The Bristol Zoological society should be asked to invite creative and sustainable ideas for usage ofthe site internationally.

The context of this planning proposal arises with the charity's decision-making and thepush to abandon the zoo's main site in favour of a plan for building expensive homes for humanswith a view to using the capital resulting from this to build animal homes elsewhere. The homes inthe Wildplace outpost are likely to cost a great deal more than the funds that may be available intheory, take a great deal longer to build and may never actually be built.

No full options appraisal of other possibilities than closure appear to have taken place, nor hasthere been adequate public consultation and engagement on that or on the building plans for theClifton site. At the limited meetings that I have attended following the 'fait accompli' there wasminimal opportunity to really discuss the key environmental and conservation issues, the loss ofamenities, appropriateness of the development, and who or what profits from this. The animals arelast in line, followed by the public and visitors for whom this was a valuable public benefit asrequired by charitable status.

The loss of such a valued amenity and asset within the city of Bristol for families, schools and thewider population is implied by the possible acceptance of this proposed 'planned' developmentcurrently under discussion. The evidence available does not support the argument thatconservation and high quality environmental management at a local and national level will beenhanced, and there is little guarantee that there will be wildlife benefits.

An independent assessment and review is clearly needed with consultation on a broad front and adelay in giving planning permission would facilitate this critical step.

I am a Clifton resident and have been for 15 years. The loss of Bristol Zoo as a publicamenity and outdoor community space is huge. We need more of these spaces, not less! Loss ofgardens, trees, play spaces - where children can play safely and educationally - the benefit of thisspace for children's development is immeasurable.

The loss of this public space is going to have a huge knock on effect for people of allages. The gardens are accessible (both within the space and by public transport) We have anopportunity to reach a number of the targets in the one city plan such as high quality green spacesfor all and most importantly move us towards reaching our own promise of managing 30% of purland for nature.There are so many new developments in Bristol... alongside the loss of facilities and decline in thequality of our green spaces.We are a green capital...let's be brave and preserve this space for people and nature rather thanbuild YET ANOTHER exclusive housing development.

I am appalled at the proposed plans for overbearing and totally unsympathetic flatsbordering the Bristol Zoo site. This is a Conservation Area, on a main route into Bristol so highlyvisible to many people. The proposed overbearing flats will have a highly deleterious affect onneighbouring properties including listed buildings, (such as the chapel) belonging to CliftonCollege.. Neighbouring Victorian properties such as Northcote Road, also in the conservation areawill have their views blighted by such appallingly ill-conceived properties. As someone who lives 5minutes from the Zoo site I very strongly object to these planning proposals for a gated communitylargely consisting of very expensive flats and the blighting of a much loved and very important andunique area of the city..

Whatever your opinion is about zoos, this application is about the land and its future. Ifthis application is successful it will never be possible to protect what is wonderful about this smallcorner of the city. The plans submitted are highly unlikely to represent in any way what is finallypermitted. That Group's proposals and their reiterative amendments for the old W.H.Smiths site onClifton Down Road should be a warning, bearing little resemblance to the original permissiongiven.

As proposed, the haven of these historic gardens are effectively destroyed. Consider the probableon-site vehicles - residents' cars, taxis, delivery trucks, trades vans - as you see in any street inthe city. The denser the housing the greater the number of vehicles sharing space withpedestrians. And there is no guarantee that a future developer or the residents wouldn't just turn itinto a private gated community. It would be a lost public amenity.

I am very concerned about the loss of trees likely to follow any development of this site. It seemsto be very easy to find reasons to remove trees that are supposedly protected, however preciousthe species or their amenity value.

How many of these new dwellings will contribute to resolving the city's housing crisis? And howmany are likely to be second homes or worse still bought for Airbnb or similar? Clifton is full of thisand getting worse. It's a lucrative business and ludicrous to think this would not be a prime targetfor such ventures. If the council were to put its own social housing on the site, not densely packedand at affordable rents for homeless families it might be a supportable proposition. As it is this

smacks of poor management leading to an unimaginative money grubbing scheme. Where is theevidence that such a drastic change of use is necessary? Is this a proper use of the assets of ahistoric charity based on conservation?

There is no excuse for the bland and ugly proposed flats. Where is the reference to localarchitecture? And why are they so high as to distort the scale of nearby buildings? They areclearly designed to cram in as many "units" as possible for the greatest monetary return. This is aConservation Area with a large proportion of listed buildings some of which are on this site.

Does Bristol City Council really want to share the opprobrium that will follow from its complicity inthe destruction of these beautiful gardens for such a crass development?

The gardens are an important asset to Bristol's reputation as a green city and shouldnot be used for private benefit. They should be kept as a communal area for the residents ofBristol and an attraction for visitors from elsewhere. It is important to maintain every green spacewe have both for our own mental and physical health and the wider world.

I am dismayed at the lack of protection for Bristol Zoo Gardens. It is a special place forBristol citizens - and for tourists. It is unique in being close to the city. It is accessible to thedisabled, has listed buildings, trees, gardens and has an important research and educational role.The case for replacing this historical landmark with housing suggests that those promoting such ascheme have been economical with the truth. The Council has a duty of care to preserve and savethe zoo from irreplaceable loss.

I strongly object to the plans for the closure and redevelopment of Bristol Zoo Gardens.As a close neighbour, I am deeply concerned at the loss of a valuable heritage, cultural,environmental and social asset, without what appears to be due consideration on the part of thezoo for the ecological and social damage that the closure and redevelopment of the site will haveor any attempts to save the zoo or consider alternatives to redevelopment.

The zoo is an intangible cultural asset - as the 5th oldest zoo in the world it has a unique place inthe social history of the world and the development of zoos as a place of education, conservationand entertainment. As the home for many years of Alfred the Gorilla, not to mention the varioussignificant figures who helped found and support the zoo, it has a unique place in Bristol's historyand as a place of enjoyment, rest, education and repose it has an important part in manyresident's personal histories.

The pandemic showed us the vital importance to social and mental health of having green spacesto visit and enjoy - the zoo gardens has provided a welcome green space for me, and many otherBristol residents and families to visit and relax in, secure in the knowledge that the space was carfree, enclosed and safe from dog walkers, scooters, bikes and the numerous other dangers topedestrians and those trying to enjoy the outdoors.

At the same time, the ecological and climate crisis (which Bristol council itself has acknowledged)has emphasised the importance of parks, gardens and green spaces as lungs for our cities andways of mitigating urban flooding - partially caused by uncontrolled development and the

replacement of permeable soil and trees with impermeable tarmac. The plans for redevelopmenthave the potential to cause immense social, environmental and even physical harm. Theredevelopment will remove a green space for citizens to enjoy (because the plans will not onlydecimate the available green space but also have no mechanism for ensuring the continued publicaccess to what little open space remains). The redevelopment intends to remove vast quantities ofthe existing green space and almost half of the trees in the zoo site - many of which may beunique or of particular age and heritage deserving of protection - causing immense damage to theecosystems that exist and flourish in the gardens. Not only will the environment of the zoo gardensbe damaged by the redevelopment (at a time when the zoo itself is exhorting its supporters to joinits campaign to protect and support local ecosystems and the environment) but the localenvironment will be harmed - both by the environmental damage of redevelopment of what isessentially a green site of lawns, gardens, trees and ecosystems; by the environmental damageassociated with building and by the environmental damage of creating a housing development andassociated residential traffic in an already high traffic residential area. For the entire length of itsnearly two century history, the zoo site has been closed to cars, safe for pedestrians and notcontributing to an atmospheric crisis. Under the plans for redevelopment this will change. Carparking is incorporated into the zoo's plans so for the fist time in its history, cars will allowed on thezoo site, adding to the traffic congestion in the local area, and causing potential traffic danger toexisting residents, the school children who attend Clifton College (which borders the zoo on threesides of the site and whose ages range from kindergarten to secondary school age) and the publicaccessing the redeveloped site - particularly when there are minimal efforts at ensuring the safetyof the different users -especially pedestrians, those with impaired vision or mobility or those withchildren - whose access to the site will be hampered by no attempts to control the use of cars,bikes or scooters through the site.

The plans as they are developed show no regard to the specific historical or cultural importance ofthe site nor to the very distinct character of the local area. There are no assurances that the listedheritage assets within the zoo site will be kept, maintained or even incorporated into the areas tobe accessible by the public (even though continued public access to the site after redevelopmentis by no means guaranteed or guaranteeable) and the plans for the housing areas are too massiveand completely out of scale and character with the surrounding buildings and housings, all ofwhich is sufficiently disctinctive to have created a local conservation area.

In summary, I feel that the zoo has failed to explore alternatives for closure and that the plans forthe redevelopment of the site pose significant environmental, social, cultural, historic andcompletely unjustified harm and represent the great and grave loss of a site of significantcommunal value.

What a shame the proposed buildings are so huge - totally out of proportion and willchange the area, not for the better. The plans I have seen look more in line with ubiquitous officeblocks/student accommodation rather than fitting in/blending in with the area.

I object to the current application because :-

1. A large housing development on this site will destroy the special historic nature of the zoogardens which are a heritage resource and also constitutes a loss of public amenity.

2. This scheme is too dense with overbearing buildings on the perimeter in terms of massing andheight and particularly the semicircle of new houses built within the gardens constitutes grossoverdevelopment.

3. I welcome free public access to the garden space but this needs to be secured by a legaltransfer of ownership of the garden space rather than simply conditioned to ensure it continues inperpetuity.

I object to the current application because :-

1. A large housing development on this site will destroy the special historic nature of the zoogardens which are a heritage resource and also constitutes a loss of public amenity.

2. This scheme is too dense with overbearing buildings on the perimeter in terms of massing andheight and particularly the semicircle of new houses built within the gardens constitutes grossoverdevelopment.

3. I welcome free public access to the garden space but this needs to be secured by a legaltransfer of ownership of the garden space rather than simply conditioned to ensure it continues inperpetuity.

The Bristol Zoo Gardens have taken many years to mature. There are interesting andbeautiful trees which would be lost if this development were to go ahead. The botanical variety ofthis space would be gone forever.The green space proposed would be smaller and there is alikelihood that over time public access may be lost.The proposed buildings are out of keeping with the area .

As a resident of Clifton I object to this proposal which involves the destruction of manymagnificent trees and plants in this historic botanical garden. Some of the trees have beennurtured for over 250 years and are irreplaceable. As a whole the gardens are of great scientificand historic interest and part of Bristol's cultural history which should be preserved for theenjoyment of the public and not cynically destroyed in a scramble for profit.

I feel that the design and scale is totally inappropriate for our conservation area.

The Business case for this application to sell the zoo has not convincingly been made.Despite spending excessively on consultants the Zoo management explored none of theirsuggestions apart from sale.Even if the zoo cannot remain in its present form the gardens do need to remain as a publicamenity in much their present form with long term guarantees of status. The Zoo's currentproposals involve significant loss of trees and garden space while the building proposals areaesthetically jarring in relation to the existing buildings and the location of the site.

The Zoo and Gardens have been a valuable and popular resource for locals and tourists forgenerations, especially for children, and would represent a great loss were they both to go in theirpresent form.

As the Zoo planning team have not allowed access to their own models, we are havingto rely on the images that could best be derived from the Zoo plans. Of course it would be muchbetter if the Zoo planning team did allow access as we all could see what their intentions reallyare.

However, from the best images that can be derived, I am astonished to see how the flatsconstruction are not in keeping at all with the fabulous buildings that are currently in Guthrie Roadand on the perimeter of the whole Zoo. They are entirely incongruent with the area in design,scale, mass and form. With the flats being such large blocks these buildings will completelyovershadow existing buildings. So we would expect the buildings to be more proportionate andsympathetic to the Clifton area.I dont live in Clifton but it is an area that is frequently visited quite often using the Guthrie Roadroute. It is currently a very beautiful part of our city and should continue to be but the currentdesign of these buildings will degrade the area so much.

I object to the design of the development and the change in use of the area.

This has been an area that the general public have been able to enjoy for years. It is a beautifulspace for Bristolians to be able to visit with mature trees and gardens.

The downs are close by but this is a totally different type of space and not the same.

Mental health is something being held with more regard and importance.

Green Social Prescribing is a success in the Bristol are and this is just the type of place that itperfect for helping people suffering with depression etc... For many people living in urban Bristolaccess such a space by publis transport is of vital importance.

The mature trees and gardens should not be ripped up for property development and this shouldnot be a gate community for just the wealthy to visit.

This is an local Historic Park & Garden and an Important Open Space

Do not let commercial greed destroy and take away this setting for so many people to enjoy. I

It is well known, but little regarded, that there are many disadvantages in preparingdesign proposals from the metropolis for the genius loci of an historic city in the provinces and thisscheme illustrates it very well..

But there is one potential advantage for a metropolitan elite, concernng the provision of privateoutdoor space, and an exploration of that feature alone will serve to demonstrate how ill-fitting arethe proposals for the Bristol Zoo site. London has demonstrated time and again the inability oftheir architects to design effective, private outdoor spaces for flats, since the first C20 mansionblocks grew balconies. Reduced of late to becoming transparent, wind and rain stricken andoffensive of townscape with residents' clutter, such balconies are mostly entirely unsuited to theBritish climate. Flat-owners have been progressively failed by architects, in even medium-riseblocks. Unfortunately the London architects for the zoo site still fail to grasp these issues. Whenthe designs are coupled with flat roofs and hideously level parapets, one has to start askingquestions such as why are the ground- and first-floor flats not given open space on ground levelwith private stair access, and roof pavilions as climate havens on flat roofs given to second- andthird-floor flats, served by private stairs and dumb-waiters?.

Such solutions provide ready opportunities to create modelled roof scapes that would respond tolisted buildings and the historic streets of Clifton, and the need for a green architecture. Wherewere such assessments by the client body at concept and by the planners at pre-applicationstages?.

This retired conservation architect accordingly supports the analysis of the project by Downs forPeople, the objections of the Victorian Society, Bristol CAP, and Avon Gardens Trust. Equally theidea of a virtual zoo is unhelpful.

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. Loss of Communal Value. Harmto listed buildings. Social & material harm unjustified. Need for change of use not proven. Loss ofpublic amenity. Loss of landscape.

Under National Planning Policy Framework 2021, the site falls under the category ofHeritage asset (NPPF, 16 [Conserving and enhancing the historic environment] para 189) since itis of significant "local historic value", the gardens having been continuously curated since 1836. AsNPPR states, such an asset is "an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a mannerappropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality oflife of existing and future generations." Construction of a multistorey estate on this special sitewould contravene this area of national policy.Also protected under Bristol City Council's own Conservation and the Historic Environment PolicyBCS22 .

I am quite frankly totally gobsmacked that the Bristol Zoo trustees are seeking to sell theClifton site of Bristol Zoological Gardens. The clue is in the whole name - it is Bristol Zoo Gardens.To sell what has for almost 200 years been a basic part of the fabric and heritage of the City ofBristol is nothing less than cultural vandalism. Countless generations of Bristolians and theirfamilies have spent thousands of hours of enjoyment and fun at the zoo and its gardens. BristolZoo Gardens has provided relief and environmental escape for Bristolians wishing to enjoy aunique park on the edge of the beautiful Avon Gorge, especially for those without the means totravel out of the city to other places of leisure.The trustees make the specious argument that it is necessary to sell the Clifton site in order for thezoo to survive economically. They highlight the unusual loss which the zoo made in 2021 inparticular as justification for the need to sell Bristol Zoo Gardens, but this is completelydisingenuous because that was during the height of the coronavirus pandemic when the zoo waslegally forced to be closed, and people had to stay at home. It beggars belief that the trustees usethe loss made during that year as a primary reason for selling the site. I'm afraid to say that thissmacks of economic opportunism on the part of the trustees as a way to make a lot of money,regardless of the consequences for the wellbeing, history and culture of Bristol.Bristol Zoo is the 5th oldest zoo in the world, and is internationally renowned. It is also much lovedby Bristolians. The gardens themselves have won many awards and have matured over thecourse of 186 years and there are many plants which are unusual and unique and should behighly protected.I have been a member of Bristol zoo for over 40 years. My children are all now in their thirties, butI had been taking them to the zoo since they were babies. They had many happy times there as

child members, including things like birthday parties and picnics on the lawn in the summer.I am afraid I have no respect for people who seek to destroy so much of Bristol's history. What isthe urgency? Thousands of people (except during the pandemic) would come every year to enjoyBristol zoo and its gardens. The Clifton zoo has been very popular not only with Bristolians, butpeople from around the region, including South Wales, and from further afield. Such an attractionhas poured millions of pounds into the economy of Bristol for decades. Selling Bristol zoo gardenswill lose the City of Bristol all that economic benefit. All for the sake of short term gain. It is yetanother example of selling off the family silver. And the actual reality is that Bristol zoo has alwaysbeen a major economic driver for the city, whilst business interests have contemptuously seizedthe opportunity of the forced coronavirus pandemic closure during one year to justify selling such aunique and integral part of Bristol's attraction and culture over 186 years.The Wildplace Project will never come close to providing the same benefits to the city as BristolZoo Gardens, and being sited out of the city means that to travel there will mean more car use; butmostly it will mean a serious loss of income for the Zoo and Bristol because the number of visitorswill decline dramatically from the numbers who visited the Clifton site. I used to go almost weeklyto the zoo gardens. I went recently to the Wildplace Project and it was a sad experience - hardlyanything of interest, no gardens, and almost nobody there. As someone without a car, it holds noattraction for me to make a special journey, whereas I could walk to the Clifton site in about 30minutes - a good walk for me, and good for my health. And as for a so-called improvement for theanimals: I was shocked that the giraffe house for example was tiny - no bigger than the old iconicgiraffe house at the Clifton site. After over 40 years I shall be cancelling my membership and I amsure that I will not be alone in doing so. The permanent loss of both culture and income will behuge.

2

the BRE guidelines. Where DPR point to some improvements in performance, this is down to discounting anumber of windows in non-habitable rooms and not to a lesser impact of the proposals on the properties.Moreover, once the layout was updated, the results showed more material impact in daylight distributionterms.

Furthermore, the DPR emphasise the benefit from the gap between the proposed blocks as below:

"…5 Northcote Road is located opposite the gap between the blocks meaning that light will continue topenetrate deep into the room. "

and

"Furthermore, the scheme has been designed to incorporate a gap directly opposite these buildings ensuringthat these properties generally remain with good levels of daylight. "

Again, DPR seem to disregard the fact that the gap is currently occupied by 14m high mature tree of a spreadbetween 6 to 8m. Based on the Arboricultural Report (prepared by WTC and dated 24 May 2022) and theproposed landscape plan, it is clear that the tree (T119 Lawson Cypres) is evergreen and will be retained.

Therefore, it is misleading to state that the gap was incorporated in the design to allow for access of light toNorthcote Road properties, given the tree is intended to stay and will limit the access of light through the gapbetween the proposed blocks.

The size and scale of the subject tree are illustrated in the street image below taken from Google.

3

Below is the extract from the DPR report on which we marked in red the position of tree T119 and based onthe survey data, T119 reaches a level similar to the average level of the proposed blocks (around 82m AOD).

We note that Bristol City Council have previously raised some concerns in relation to the impact of tress onthe development site itself and requested an additional assessment. Therefore, it is clear that the possibleimpact of trees is recognised by the local authority.

The DPR study does not take into consideration any effect of trees on the development site, which intend toremain and are part of the design for the site. We see this approach common as an initial assessment.

We appreciate that the effect of trees can be difficult to assess in some cases and the BRE guide states:

"It is generally more difficult to calculate the effects of trees on daylight because of their irregular shapes andbecause some light will generally penetrate through the tree crown. Where the effect of a new building onexisting buildings nearby is being analysed, it is usual to ignore the effect of existing trees. This is becausedaylight is at its scarcest and most valuable in winter when most trees will not be in leaf."

The BRE guidelines is more specific when it comes to the impact of the existing trees on the new proposedunits and outlines ways of calculating the impact of trees.

"Sometimes, however, trees should be taken into account, for example where a new dwelling is proposed nearto large existing trees. There may be concern that future occupants of the dwelling may want the trees to becut down if they block too much skylight or sunlight."

There is no doubt that the closure of Bristol Zoo Gardens would be absolutely wrong. Itis a national treasure and a safe, green space for the people of Bristol and beyond to learn aboutwildlife and enjoy the outdoors.As a GP in Bristol and mother of three Bristol Zoo lovers, I have multiple concerns regarding thisproposal, which I will summarise:

1. It is an environmental disaster. The proposals to remove 42.5% of the trees, as well as othermature gardens tended to for over 180 years, to be replaced by apartment blocks of up to sixstoreys is disgraceful. If we all behaved in a similar way to this so-called 'education andconservation charity', global temperatures would soar and air quality would be dire. There arealready 28,000-36,000 deaths in the UK every year due to human made air pollution (www.gov.uk)and this development would only worsen this tragic problem. Is this the precedent that we want toset to our children and future generations of Bristolians? Which green space will be next to go?

2. This is an incredibly important and irreplaceable public asset. Bristol Zoo is the 5th oldest zoo inthe WORLD and a truly loved public asset. The proposal that the remaining gardens would beopen to the public is completely unrealistic. Who will be paying for the upkeep of these gardens?The residents of the new apartments I should think, who will have absolutely no obligation to keepthese gardens open to the public. This is an unsustainable idea.

3. This is NOT a solution to Bristol's housing problem. Surely what we need is housing that isaffordable to the majority, not the minority?In addition, the number of vacant homes in Bristol is

rising (reported as 3765 by the Bristol Post in August 2022 using data from a freedom ofinformation request to Bristol City Council and Action on Empty Homes). If we are to build morehomes despite the thousands of homes vacant in the city, wouldn't even the Wild Place site bemore appropriate to build on, avoiding the need to destroy one of Bristol's biggest visitorattractions, with a much higher number of visitors annually than the Wild Place?Surely other options should be considered.

4. This is NOT in the best interests of the animals. I was initially led to believe that this may bebest for animal welfare, however have since been made aware that only two mammals are beingmoved to the Wild Place. The others will undergo/ have undergone traumatic journeys to unknownnew homes. I'm sure the transportation of these animals, loved and admired by so many at BristolZoo, is not a straightforward or painless procedure.

In summary, the closure of Bristol Zoo Gardens is bad for the animals, bad for the people (presentand future), bad for Bristol, and sets a terrible precedent for protecting the future of our planet andreducing morbidity and mortality due to air pollution. Please make the right decision.

As a Bristol resident I am concerned about the potential loss if public amenity and whilea green space is planned, similar projects have resulted in the space being privatised and fencedoff.This is a valuable green space and almost half the trees will go resulting in loss of landscape. Wewill lose a historic garden and a valuable green urban space that supports communities.

The zoo and gardens have been a resource for Bristol residents for generations. Have all optionsreally been explored?

I am strongly objecting on the grounds of the loss of a very long standing and cherishedPublic amenity . Bristol will be a lesser place to live if this development goes ahead.

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. Loss of Communal Value. Harmto listed buildings. Social & material harm unjustified. Need for change of use not proven. Loss ofpublic amenity. Loss of landscape.

At a time of difficulty for so many people and when so many public services are being eroded theloss of this public amenity and community centre is an unjustified loss for the people of Bristol.

I wish to object to this planning proposal for the following reasons:

1. Under National Planning Policy Framework 2021, the site falls under the category of Heritageasset (NPPF, 16 [Conserving and enhancing the historic environment] para 189) since it is ofsignificant "local historic value", the gardens having been continuously curated since 1836. AsNPPR states, such an asset is "an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a mannerappropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality oflife of existing and future generations." Construction of a multistorey estate on this special sitewould contravene this area of national policy.

2. Under Bristol City Council's own Conservation and the Historic Environment Policy BCS22 fromBristol Development Framework Core Strategy, "Development proposals will safeguard orenhance heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importanceincluding:- ...

- Historic buildings both nationally and locally listed;- Historic parks and gardens both nationally and locally listed;- Conservation areas;- ..."

The site of the proposed development contains multiple protected heritage assets (The Zoo'sMonkey Temple, and Eagle Aviary, Bear Pit (now Aquarium); the main entrance building, theGiraffe (now Gorilla) House building and south entrance gates, all Grade II listed). In accordance

with Policy BCS22, any development proposals on the zoo's site should "safeguard or enhancethe heritage assets and the character and setting of these nationally recognised assets". It ishighly questionable whether a high-density multistorey estate constructed in the close vicinity tothese assets would align with this Policy.

The zoo gardens are an irreplaceable long-cultivated part of Bristol's identity. Under the BristolLocal Plan document Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Policy DM31(Heritage Assets) any heritage asset is defined as "a finite non-renewable resource that can oftenbe irreparably damaged by insensitive development"; Moreover the Policy states that:- "Great weight is given to the conservation of designated heritage assets.", and that- "development in their vicinity, will be expected to have no adverse impact on those elementswhich contribute to their special architectural or historic interest, including their settings".The nature and massing of a multistorey estate development on this site will be overbearing, withhigh-level adverse impact on the gardens' setting and amenity value. Moreover, the closeproximity of the proposed development will not conserve the character of the listed assets in anyway. The proposal is therefore at clear odds with Policy DM31.

Additionally, the proposed architecture would have significant impact on the conservation areawhere the site is located. Per Policy DM31 "Development within or which would affect the settingof a conservation area will be expected to preserve or, where appropriate, enhance thoseelements which contribute to their special character or appearance." The proposed slab-typearchitecture, massing and height would in no way align with Policy DM31.

Aside from compliance with local and national policy, the scale of the proposed developmentwould have significant adverse impact on the local urban infrastructure, which has not evolved toaccommodate such housing density or mass. Development of this scale would necessitateconsiderable additional expenditure on local infrastructure (traffic controls, road strengthening /widening etc) to ensure that all residents and visitors to the gardens under the proposeddevelopment's housing and leasure intentions could safely enter and exit the site.

For the above reasons I strongly object to this development proposal and request that thisplanning application be refused.

Too many mature trees will be removed to allow for extensive building, according to theplans submitted. A third of the trees in the site will be removed if the current plans are approved,destroying what is at present an oasis of greenery and tranquility within a busy city.We need more trees to contribute to the clean air zones of our city, not less. Removing so manytrees goes against all the plans to improve air quality locally and fighting climate change.Building in the way it has been proposed would be a great loss of a public amenity at a time whenthere is a strong movement worldwide to improve access to green spaces to encourage people tobe more active outdoors.The development plans shows that the blocks of apartments are too large and blank inarchitectural value, completely out of character with the surrounding buildings.The planned high density building is not appropriate for a conservation area with too manyapartments being squeezed in inappropriately to this historic site.I object in the strongest terms to this application and ask for this application to be rejected.Thank you.

The plans show that too many mature trees will be removed to allow for extensiveresidential building of 196 units, according to the current submittion. A third of the trees in the sitewill be removed if the current plans are approved, destroying what is at present an oasis ofgreenery and tranquility within a busy city.We need more trees to contribute to the clean air zones of our city, not less. Removing so manytrees goes against all the plans to improve air quality locally and fighting climate change, as wellas destroying a renowned garden.Building in the way it has been proposed would be a great loss of a public amenity at a time whenthere is a strong movement worldwide to improve access to green spaces to encourage people tobe more active outdoors.The development plans shows that the blocks of apartments are far too large and lacking inarchitectural value, completely out of character with the surrounding buildings.The planned high density building is not appropriate for a conservation area with too manyresidences being squeezed in to this historic site. It is inappropriate.I object in the strongest terms to this application and ask for this application to be rejected.Thank you.

Bristol Zoo has not made a case for relocation. The proposed development iscompletely inappropriate to Clifton Conservation Area. The proposed buildings are overbearing,too dense and would completely change the nature of the area. As in other, similar developments,the stated inclusion of accessibility to the public after development, is likely to disappear, and thecommunity created would be likely to be gated.

There are a multitude of reasons why I object to the proposed development. IT ISBRISTOL ZOO. It has been enjoyed by the people of this city for hundreds of years. When it sellsthe site, the zoo cannot guarantee the public access to the gardens it talks of. This is greenwash.We will lose a public amenity that has huge communal value.

The proposed redevelopment is ugly in the extreme and is completely driven by the desire tomaximise profit. It is beyond Ironic that Bristol Zoo, a conservation charity is putting forward aproposal that will hugely damage these unique 12-acre gardens.

I urge the council to reject this plan and give the time needed to seek a more sympathetic andappropriate future for this site.

I now spend half my time in .Bristol where my partner lives and have loved the city eversince being a student at the university.The proposed development will have a detrimental effect onthis historical and famous area. It certainly will not "improve and enhance." The visual impact beout of keeping with the surrounding buildings. The increase in traffic, without the existing zoocarpark, will be detrimental. The zoo site is nationally famous and the reputation of the city isbound in with historical things like this. It is as iconic in its way as the suspension bridge. I acceptthat the zoo has/will move away, but just to remove any evidence by sticking up high-rise flats isphilistine. Why ruin such a reputation for the benefit of the developer alone? Young people want tocome and live and work in Bristol because of its reputation, don't destroy that. The developmentitself will not alleviate the housing shortage, these dwellings will be for the rich. What about thenot-so- rich who will lose a child friendly area which is within walking district of Clifton? This is acrass, insesitive proposal when so many more appropriate solutions have been made.

Before moving to Bristol 39 years ago, a yearly visit o Bristol and friends alwaysincluded a visit to Bristol Zoo, and we have continued that practice of taking visitors. It has beensuch an important part of our life here, and for those of countless others. The queues of familieswaiting for entry in the summer are testament to this.It would seem a cynical financial land grab to send the animals to other zoos, and to replace withlarge gated-entry housing and parking for 120 cars; to trash those beautiful gardens, an obscenity.

This land is a Bristol gem and should remain intact and returned to what so many of us know as afinancially successful centre of animal conservation, enabling future generations to enjoy andperhaps unknowingly to be educated, or preserved and developed as a Botanical Garden to beenjoyed by all. The zoo gardens and several defined buildings are categorised as Heritage Assets.I draw attention to Policy BCS22 from Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy and urgeyou to put Bristol in charge, as the Trustees have clearly abdicated responsibility, and state aposition regarding this, or any further private housing proposals on the land.

"Development proposals will safeguard or enhance heritage assets and the character and settingof areas of acknowledged importance including:- Scheduled ancient monuments;- Historic buildings both nationally and locally listed;- Historic parks and gardens both nationally and locally listed;- Conservation areas;- Archaeological remains"

Policy BCS22, any development proposals on the zoo's site should safeguard or enhance theheritage assets and the character and setting of that area of acknowledged importance.

Plan Policy DM31 "development in their vicinity, will be expected to have no adverse impact onthose elements which contribute to their special architectural or historic interest, including theirsettings

I have lived in Bristol for 60 years and was a frequent visitor to the zoo with my children.They now bring their children to the zoo so the site is important to us all. I accept that the zoowants to remove the animals, but surely this space could be kept as a public amenity somehow. Iam very sad to see the proposal is to simply build over the area. Surely Bristol could do somethingmore imaginative than this.

The visual impact of the proposed buildings will very much detract from the surrounding area inthis historic part of the city. All those visitors, many from overseas, who come to visit thesuspension bridge near by will see just a few dominating and out of keeping buildings. Somethingwhich adds to the area, which benefits many more people than could live in the proposedbuildings, would surely encourage our international visitors to keep visiting and help keep Bristolas a key city, not 'just another city'. I strongly object to the proposal. It is out of keeping, out ofscale and is inappropriate exploitation of a unique asset.

I have lived in Bristol for 60 years and was a frequent visitor to the zoo with my children.They now bring their children to the zoo so the site is important to us all. I accept that the zoowants to remove the animals, but surely this space could be kept as a public amenity somehow. Iam very sad to see the proposal is to simply build over the area. Surely Bristol could do somethingmore imaginative than this.

The visual impact of the proposed buildings will very much detract from the surrounding area inthis historic part of the city. All those visitors, many from overseas, who come to visit thesuspension bridge near by will see just a few dominating and out of keeping buildings. Somethingwhich adds to the area, which benefits many more people than could live in the proposedbuildings, would surely encourage our international visitors to keep visiting and help keep Bristolas a key city, not 'just another city'. I strongly object to the proposal. It is out of keeping, out ofscale and is inappropriate exploitation of a unique asset.

I now spend half my time in .Bristol where my partner lives and have loved the city eversince being a student at the university.The proposed development will have a detrimental effect onthis historical and famous area. It certainly will not "improve and enhance." The visual impact beout of keeping with the surrounding buildings. The increase in traffic, without the existing zoocarpark, will be detrimental. The zoo site is nationally famous and the reputation of the city isbound in with historical things like this. It is as iconic in its way as the suspension bridge. I acceptthat the zoo has/will move away, but just to remove any evidence by sticking up high-rise flats isphilistine. Why ruin such a reputation for the benefit of the developer alone? Young people want tocome and live and work in Bristol because of its reputation, don't destroy that. The developmentitself will not alleviate the housing shortage, these dwellings will be for the rich. What about thenot-so- rich who will lose a child friendly area which is within walking district of Clifton? This is acrass, insesitive proposal when so many more appropriate solutions have been made.

The loss of Bristol Zoo and the green spaces it offers would be hugely detrimental to thecity of Bristol. It has huge historic significance and contains many listed buildings and beautifulspaces and the loss of trees and other plants would be awful. The buildings proposed are not inkeeping with the local area and the change of purpose for the site has not been justified. Therehave many times since the zoo has closed that myself and my children have thought we wouldhave gone to the zoo today had it been open and it is a huge loss to an area which doesn't offer alot for children in particular.

This space, without animals, should be for all the people of Bristol to enjoy. Theproposed plans do not reflect this ethos.

Luxury housing is not an appropriate plan for this space. Moreover, the cutting down of so somany trees would be so damaging.

Support heritage and history for all of Bristol to enjoy. Rather than financial wealth for a few. Thereare so few chances to save local hertigate sites, save this space for the future generations.

I object to the overall design of these buildings and the loss of landscape. When I readthe arbiculturalists report on the trees showing the shading pattern of the buildings, how michdisruption the buried utilities causes to roots, it seemed clear that the proposed structures werenot compatible with the existing plants survival and an unacceptable number of mature treeswould be moved or sacrificed. How can this be acceptable in a city ambitious to address climatechange? I am sympathetic to the housing needs of Bristol residents but these are not the housesneeded surely? Please hold back and reconsider what is being proposed here, who is benefitingand whether the grant of planning permission is in the interest of the constituents who deserveCouncil support or those who already have priveledge and support, and finally if this developmentis in any way aligned with this charities mission. Thank you

I am heartbroken that the zoo has closed and the idea that this hallowed land is markedfor residential development is truly salt in the wound. I believe it represents an enormous harm tothe cultural, ecological and social value of Bristol and, on a personal level for me and my family,has diminished the local area to such an extent that we are planning to move away. It makes mesad beyond words that the place my small children loved most in the world was taken away fromthem. We visited at least twice a week. My two year old will likely not even remember this placewhich means such a huge amount to me.

The site of the zoo should be listed, protected and preserved as a public space, ideally with afocus on wildlife and conservation. It is CRUCIAL that there is an accessible and central outdoorspace that celebrates the natural world for future generations of Bristolians. It is unacceptable anduntrue to state that something of this nature is not economically viable. This has not been proven.The Wild Place, not even in Bristol, is not an acceptable replacement. It is not accessible forfamilies without a car, for one thing - and how is encouraging car use in line with green principles?

The strength of feeling people hold for the zoo and the memories it holds for generations shouldnot be taken lightly - this could be capitalised on and protected rather than desecrated andundermined. Despite the current proposal, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the gardens willremain open to the public in the future. And how likely is this really once it's a private residentialcommunity?

I urge and beg you to reject this application.

An irreplaceable part of Bristol's heritage and identity is threatened.

Bristol Zoo, as was frequently mentioned, is nearly 200 years old and is the 5th oldest in the world.It is city zoo, a rare thing in the UK and that helps make it part of Bristol's identity, as much as theSuspension Bridge, the docks, Bristol Museum or the SS Great Britain (the youngest addition). Noone would sanction the Suspension Bridge if it got into economic difficulties, so why Bristol Zoo?The Zoo is an asset, part of what makes Bristol unique and gives our great city an identity; thatidentity is part of what makes Bristol attractive to visit, to live in and to bring business to. Heritageis proven to be vital to both social, spiritual and economic life. The Zoo is part of Bristol's heritage.Losing it will damage Bristol.

The Local Economy has suffered from the current closure of the Zoo.

Beyond so called 'soft value', the Zoo brings hundreds of thousands of pounds into the city everyyear. A trip to the zoo for a non-Bristolian brings money to cafes, restaurants, shops and otherheritage sites in the city. The loss to local businesses is already being keenly felt.

The Wild Place is not a substitute or replacement for the Zoo - if the Zoo goes, it dies; it will not bereincarnated elsewhere.

It was claimed in its own publicity that the Zoo was moving to the Wild Place. This was such a spinon the truth as to easily be called a lie (and I'll get to some more of those in moment). The WildPlace is a very different set up to the Zoo and very few animals are moving there. It is its ownentity and will continue to be so. Beyond the lack of and variety of animals at the Wild Place thereis also a lack of beauty there. That may sound a bit esoteric but the Zoo isn't just the animals, it isalso the exceptional Gardens. Many of the hundreds of thousands visitors might never have beensomewhere with such visually stunning borders, trees and horticultural beauty. Long establishedgardens can bring you peace, wonder, and a reassuring sense of continuity, without you evenrealising. The Zoo Gardens provided calming food for the soul to go with the thrilling food for themind provided by the wildlife there. And there was always ice cream for just actual food. The WildPlace will have some animals but not as many nor as varied as the Zoo has and it will have nogardens, no beauty. The sense of wonder on offer is halved.

Shenanigans at the top - spin, concealing/massaging the figures, dictatorial decisions.

Closing the zoo and selling the land for development as housing was presented by the execs tothe shareholders as the only option. That meeting was by all accounts an ambush and thedecision was presented as fait accompli. This seemed rum at the time, but since then furtherinformation has been trickling out that casts doubt on both the process and the decision.The KPMG report had other options none of which were revealed to or discussed by theshareholders. When shareholders asked to see these other options, they were denied. If closingthe Zoo was the only option, why not share the report? What is being hidden?The attendance numbers for the Zoo have been falsely spun too. 500,000 visitors a year, and agradual increase in the last few years leading up to Covid. The zoo was profitable too, alsoshowing an increase in the years leading up to Covid. So why close a business that, but for aCovid blip, was on the up?Finally, Bristol Council's complicity in the decision to close is either only just excusable if the woolwas pulled over their eyes too, but it's inexcusable and immorally complicit if they knew that otheroptions were available but ignored them. Refusing planning is the first step on showing that thecouncil are going to reexamine this decision themselves with impartiality and integrity.

Whether it is ineptitude or malice, there is huge doubt about the decision to close which means theright thing to do is refuse all permission to develop pending a review or a reversal.

Dear Planning Team,

We are very concerned about the size of the planned developments. The buildings plannedappear unsympathetic, overbearing and totally incongruous with this conservation area. The highstorey domestic accommodation also worryingly gives residents direct line of sight into theneighbouring school, exposing the children.

We object wholeheartedly to the current plans.

I object on the following grounds:

Loss of a considerable public and educational amenity for the whole of Bristol and beyond when ithas not been demonstrated that there are no other viable uses for the site including as areimagined zoo

Loss of historic gardens, buildings and heritage assets contrary to the NPPF: there is no evidenceof any public benefit which could be derived were this application to be accepted

The proposed public access to the remaining gardens is permissive and not granted in perpetuity,meaning that as it would be funded by a levy on the residents, it is vulnerable to being withdrawn.Once developed, cars and service vehicles are to be allowed onsite undermining the characterand tranquillity of the Zoo Gardens and its safe environment for families with children

Poor scheme, design and scale of multi-storey buildings around the perimeter of the site are out ofkeeping with and would dominate the important surrounding listed buildings within theConservation Area

Loss of over 80 established and beautiful trees and their haven for wildlife

Still considering myself to be a true Bristolian, I was saddened at the decision to closethe site.I regularly visit my home town and have fond memories of visiting the zoo with family and friendsboth as a child and as an adult. I regularly visited by myself up to it's closure.

The location provided many hours of school educational, learning experiences and provided greatopertunity for people from all backgrounds to experience so of the rarest animals in captivityraising awareness of wider global impacts on wildlife and conservation.

The site has significant amenity, cultural and historical value to the people of Bristol and to thewider country.

The suggestion to convert the site to a housing development again looks to be a money makingstep with little regard for the people of Bristol and the reflection for the cultural heritage.

Bristol has lost a valuable visitor attraction within the city and whilst the new site will be larger it willnot be as nearly accessible to all members of society It won't be a site that is in walking distanceof other visitor attraction to encourage access during visits to the centre and other iconiclandmarks and more over will not be within Bristol.

The redevelopment will no doubt lead to loss of green space and impacts on eco system servicesand biodiversity as a result but as with all development will be a process of getting as many

pounds out of the ground as possible.The proposed development will no doubt have more of an impact than suggested as is often thecase.

The development will not be of benefit to the people of Bristol and will only cater for the benefit ofthose who can afford to live there.

Whilst I can not envisage the site being reopened as a zoological site,(more is the putty) I can'thelp but think that the site would be better as a greenspace, botanical garden to be used for publicevents, festivals, and recreational use, whilst helping improve the carbon impacts of the city ratherthan as another multiple million pound housing estate.

For the reasons of impact to amenity, loss of ecosystem and green space, loss of cultural andheritage I can do nothing but object.

This is a tragic loss of an iconic site and the council needs to take serious steps to preventhousing development and preserve / enhance and protect the site for future generations of Bristolfolk and the wider country.

I am writing to object to the proposed development of accommodation and associatedparking on the site of a local community facility - the historic Bristol Zoo Gardens. My objection isbased on the material loss of amenity proposed by the development, which appears to have beenhastily proposed on the back of COVID financial after effects, (which have since been proved to beunnecessarily pessimistic), as have been detailed by the Downs for People comments and notreiterated here. At the very least the negative financial implications of maintaining twocomplementary zoo sites, if both provide different animal environments, needs to be revisited. Theimplications of moving an economic resource from a Bristol visitor attraction to a South Gloucestervisitor attraction does not appear to have been considered.

The amendment and destruction of historic buildings and amenity do not seem to me to bejustified without a much wider consultation of how such amenities can be preserved anddeveloped, (whilst preserving the zoo in a form acceptable to modern ideas of small animalwelfare) for further generations of Bristol residents and visitors.

It is not idle sentimentality to seek to preserve the oasis of the Zoo Gardens. The loss of nearlyhalf of the mature trees and a car free environment is surely out of sync with these times ofincreased consciousness of climate change and a lauded 'green' city, despite the adjustmentsproposed to the development. There is no guarantee that public access will be maintained todiminished gardens, especially if residents are expected to cover the cost through their servicecharges.

At the very least the planning department should delay a decision permitting the development togo ahead whilst other means of maintaining the existing amenity are explored more fully. Assomeone who used the zoo for many years and am still an occasional visitor, I had been under theimpression the zoo had already been sold, and that there was therefore no chance of working tosecure its future for others to enjoy. After all, although the KPMG consultant's report on potentialways of developing the zoo as a site gave a number of options, the only option put forward to theshareholders or shared more widely was the option of selling the site. Please do not take a hastydecision, the detrimental effects of which can never be undone.

I am writing as a concerned citizen of Bristol in response to the very deep concernabout the development of the Bristol zoo site. I am of the very strong belief that the site must beretained as a community asset rather than sold to private concerns that will result in the site beingdeveloped and its heritage status lost to the community.

Since starting a family in Bristol we regularly used to visit the zoo as a wonderful and beautifulopen space and gardens much to the tremendous delight of our children. This has been the casefor hundreds of thousands, if not millions of children and families throughout its long history. It hasnot only served the local Bristol community for well over a hundred years, but also the rest of thecountry where it has held iconic status. I remember watching Animal Magic with Johny Morris frommy childhood home in Manchester and being enthralled, entertained and educated about themany different animals that came to my attention and how it promoted a lifelong interest withwildlife. Though I am happy for the main aspect of the zoo to move out to its new site whereanimal welfare will be better I am still of the opinion that the present grounds represent a heritagethat should not be taken from the people of Bristol the principle to repurpose for the wider Bristolcommunity is very strong.

The site is a green space with beautiful gardens that have been appreciated by many generationsof visitors. I hope that this green area is maintained, especially in this day of concern about theloss of the green environment and the general effects of urbanisation. I am aware that the greenexpanse of the Clifton Downs is on its doorstep but this should not be mistaken for more of thesame with its nurtured gardens and heritage nature. I also have a concern that the height of any

building work will seriously be a blot on the landscape within this low rise area. Indeed the lovelyarchitectural heritage of this area must be maintained.

On a political front if the residents of Bristol see what they deem as their heritage and belonging tothem, again taken away by people and organisations of wealth then this will be seen as anotherinsult to people of less means and an insult to a just society. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Please refrain from developing the Bristol zoo site to the detriment to the local people, the widerBristol community as well as the environment and wildlife.

I object to the planning application for Bristol Zoo Gardens on the basis that theapplication is wholly inappropriate.There will be a loss of a communal space, the gardens are listed as a local historic local park,there is a planned loss of trees and a public green space. There will be limited public access.The overall design of the buildings is out of character and not to scale with surrounding buildings.A gross overdevelopment of the site.There will be harm to listed buildings on the site.

I believe there will be a colossal loss of Communal Value. This is part of what makesBristol, Bristol. We have to stop these important historical sites, loved by generations disappearingfrom us, without a public fight. We saved Whiteladies Cinema, Bristol Old Vic and there has beenno real or public attempt to save Bristol Zoo. The site means so much to people of Bristol, thegenerations that have visited, weddings held, ashes scattered.

I understand the need for selling this site has not been proven. It has been made by a few peopleand not with the option to keep it open. The need for an open and safe space for my small childrento be able to enjoy the outdoors will be taken away. The public green space proposed is muchsmaller, will have roads with many cars, bikes and delivery drives going though on a daily basiswill mean it will not be a safe open space and that sense of freedom children can get from beingable to safely explore will be gone.

None of the other options have been explored, when the site was decided to close and I believewe should have new options explored publicly.

I lived near the zoo for many years and object to it being developed for housing.My first objection is to the loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may bedamaged. The public green space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park &Garden and an Important Open Space and an important asset to the people of Bristol.I also object to the harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoohas been there so long being of heritage value in itself. Surely this is important and something forthe people could be done with the site to make it a going concern.

AMENITY

Summary of objection:

The proposed plans do not retain sufficient amenity space. The ratio of development to retainedspace is inappropriate and unacceptable. The development as a whole is overly-dense andinappropriate both for the Zoo Gardens site and in the context of the surrounding area.

Detail:The proposals do not adequately address how public amenity space will be supported andprotected into the future.

Views are expressed that objections to the proposed development are based in NIMBYism - thataffluent middle class locals in Clifton are up in arms because of the impact of the development ontheir neighbourhood and house values. This is a profoundly unhelpful and divisive argument. Theconcerns about loss of amenity under these proposals would apply wherever the Zoo happened tobe located. This should concern all stakeholders.

The amenity of the Zoo is measured in its unique value to the City as a whole - to all of itsresidents and communities, to visitors to the City, to its contribution to income from tourism and tothe City's profile and reputation. Historically the Zoo has worked to extend its reach to everyone. Itcould undoubtedly do much more, but it remains the case that it is an accessible attraction and the

community space and gardens should be preserved - as are for example the Clifton Downs - forthe benefit of all.

The quantum of housing and developed proposed in the Application is inappropriate for the siteand the surrounding area. The housing is too extensive and the elevations are too high.Insufficient acreage is retained for public amenity.

At the heart of the proposal for development is a fundamental conflict between providing highvalue housing on the site and maintaining public access - who will control access? When will it beallowed? Will it be free? Who will monitor use of the gardens? Who will attend to (and pay for)security? Potential purchasers of expensive housing on site are extremely unlikely to wantunlimited visitor access around their properties. This factor is not adequately addressed in theProposals.

CONSERVATION AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS

Summary of objection:

The Proposal fails to protect significant historic buildings on the site. It is at odds with the Council'sown policies for the surrounding Conservation area. The plans do not merit exceptional treatment.

Detail:The Zoo Gardens site if of historic importance, and structures within it have protected status.Planning restrictions apply without exception to all other buildings in the surrounding area,restricting development. These restrictions exist for a reason - to ensure that the historical fabric ofthe area is maintained and that any proposed development is sensitive and controlled.

The Proposals for a dense, modern housing scheme with unrelieved elevations are not sensitiveto the site nor to the surrounding area.

In the plans, much of the existing historic gardens appear to be removed to gain developmentdensity. The Tree Removals Plan (LUC-11585-LD-PLN-011) is one example, which appears tosuggest that approaching 40% of mature trees stock will be cut down. Several large tracts ofestablished areas of garden will be removed. This irreversibly damages the public amenity offeredby the site. It runs a coach and horses through statements made by the Applicant thatconservation and preservation of the natural environment is centrally important.

DESIGN AND APPEARANCE

Summary of objection:

The proposed development as a whole is astonishingly ugly.

The proposed building elevations are far too high and out of all symmetry and proportion with thesite itself and the surrounding buildings.

The architects could not have done a better job of designing a series of truly horrible 1970s styleunits.

Bristol deserves better, rather than showing the world exactly how not to make best use of abeautiful and unique historic site.

DUE PROCESS AND PLANNING PROCESS

Summary of objection:

The case for development of the Zoo Gardens site has not been the subject of proper publicconsultation. Valid concerns exist about the basis of Bristol Zoo's decision to sell, and the conductof the Board of Trustees. Approval of this scheme would be a deeply reckless step on the part ofthe Planning Committee and extinguish any opportunity for wider (public) consideration of optionsfor the Zoo Gardens. Any such decision may also in time prove to be one which would underminethe reputation of the Council and City of Bristol.

Detail:I am concerned that the decision to sell the site for development has been ill thought out, hasignored alternative proposals to secure the future of the site, and has been founded on publicstatements about future economic and financial viability which are unproven. There have beensuggestions in public that the Zoo Board's conduct in securing shareholder approval was at besthigh handed and at worst manipulative. There has been an absence of public consultation which -given the history and prominence of the site - is both shocking and unjustifiable. Imagine thisprocess happening for London Zoo? (No I can't, either.)

The Board's responsibility to consult extends not just with those who have funded or donated, orleft legacies to support the operations of the Zoo and its upkeep as a public space, but to allstakeholders. Decisions made in private session are wholly in conflict with the legal responsibilitiesof Trustees. The decision to sell is also at odds with the stated charitable objects of the Zoo and itsoverarching responsibility to act in the public interest.

If any of these concerns over due process are shown to have foundation, the Board of Trusteesmay - may - have been found in time to have acted improperly.

The relevance of this in planning terms is that if Planning approves this scheme, any opportunity

for proper public consultation or the development of alternative proposals will be permanently lost.It will effectively cement 'sale with planning for development' as the only option for the future of theZoo Gardens.

This leaves the way open for any future owner of the site to bring forward alternative, potentiallymore densely designed schemes - or to leave the site to deteriorate in the hope of a morefavourable future planning environment borne of desperation just to see something happen with it.Plenty of examples of such sites exist.

The loss of this historic and integral part of the City of Bristol would be devastating. Istrongly object to the idea to the planning proposed for this site as I believe the entire site shouldbe for the people of Bristol and remain as both a zoological and botanic garden. The longestablished gardens, the historic space, the children's activity areas and the vast learningopportunities currently on this area are unequalled in central Bristol. The message of conservationand green space, clean air, climate change and our wider world which is intrinsic to the zoo and allit stands for; to build housing here would wipe out this message. It is paramount that futuregenerations continue to have access to this site for both for educational, health and socialreasons.

A housing estate no matter how luxury will not offer any of these things, I do not believe continued'children's play space or gardens' will last long. It will be a permanent black mark against the cityof Bristol if this historic, beautiful and vitally important space does not remain for the people of thecity.

I object to the change of the natural ecosystem of the area.

The gardens should be designed for everyone to be able to use them and not for privatebenefit. This is an important green space for the people of Bristol and has many historic buildingswhich the people of Bristol have enjoyed for years. Please do not act purely for profit but considerother community beneficiaries.

Please keep Bristol Zoo as a garden.

I strongly object to the Bristol Zoological Society's proposals to redevelop Bristol Zoo forhousing. I accept that there is a national housing crisis but I do not accept that it is appropriate toremove and redevelop important cultural assets of significant benefit to the regional and citycommunity. It is irresponsible to contemplate such loss for housing. I object on three grounds.

(a) The planning application is unlawful in failing to be subject to Environmental ImpactAssessment.(b) It is necessary by law for Bristol City Council and the applicant to pay special attention topreserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. The planningapplication is unlawful in failing this test and in paying minimal regard the character andappearance.(c) The proposals, if approved and implemented would remove an internationally recognisedCultural Institution and a Community Asset, in conflict with policy.

1) The planning application breaches EIA Regulations and Case Law in salami slicing the propertyin order to avoid EIA being undertaken. The West Car Park and the Zoo Gardens should besubject to EIA to assess the significant environmental impacts of each proposal and thecumulative environmental effects. The two sites are linked by virtue of ownership and by virtue thatone is operationally linked to the other. The Townscape and Visual Impacts are severe.

2) The application proposals breach the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act1990 (the "LB & CA Act") in failing to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area

(Article 72(1)). Clifton Conservation Area was designated in 1970 and the Conservation AreaAppraisal was updated in 2010.

The Clifton Conservation Area Appraisal lists Bristol Zoo among six "crucial landmarks nationallyand on Bristol's landscape" (para 6.3.2); and states, "The variety and quality of views in Clifton area critical component of the area's special interest," (para 6.2.3). The proposals conflict with LongView L25, Local View LC21 and a Landmark of City Wide Importance (see Map 4).

The cumulative effect of high density housing development on West Car Park and Bristol Zoo willresult in a canyon effect. This will result in substantial harm Long View L25. High densityinsensitively design development on Guthrie Road will cause substantial harm to listed assets atClifton College on Guthrie Road. The proposals substantially conflict with listed buildings, heritageand the Clifton Conservation Area, in conflict with the Appraisal and the LB & CA Act.

Core Strategy Policy BCS22 requires that "Development proposals will safeguard or enhanceheritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance including ...Conservation Area." The proposals conflict with Policy BCS22 with regard to scale, design andmassing.

I do not accept the position of Historic England. These proposals will result in substantial harm tothe Conservation Area and the important listed buildings on Guthrie Road at Clifton College.

(3) Bristol Zoo is a quasi community use. It is no different in community significance to St George'sBristol (a privately owned institution for public use through paid access) or Bristol Beacon (publiclyowned for public use through paid access). Bristol Zoo is similarly privately owned for public usethrough paid access. The point being that these are national important public assets, each ofwhich provide Community Facilities recognised under Core Strategy Policy BCS12 and each is"easily accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, and re open to all members of thecommunity." It is not acceptable to simply accept the Zoo's case that the use in Clifton is no longerviable and therefore allow the Zoo to be redeveloped for housing. The Zoo Gardens are incommunity use and should be retained for community use, and every effort should be made toseek alternative community uses - a test set by most other Local Planning Authorities.

It is reputationally reprehensible to contemplate it being acceptable to remove and replace aNationally Significant Cultural and Community Institution with housing. We need to protect ourheritage and cultural spaces for future generations, which is part of what Sustainability is about:protecting spaces for future generations.

Careful consideration should be taken over the most appropriate locations for new housing, whichis much needed, but not at the expense of national significant places rich in culture, nature andbiodiversity. Planning Committee should think long and hard. We need more housing but at whatprice to nature, culture, amenity, community? If the Bristol Zoological Society no longer wishes to

operate a zoo, then other community uses must first be explored.

This planning application should be refused and or deferred for further consideration.

I would like to see this space continue to be used for conservation, education,biodiversity, and overall a beautiful public space to enjoy. I don't think residential units wouldprovide any of these things

I object to the plans on the following grounds:

1. Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off.

2. Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings anddo not complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuousblock along the road.

3. Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

I object to any housing development on this site on the following grounds:1. It is probably one of the most loved, visited, nurtured, maintainedBristol heritage sites. My grandmother, born circs 1880, had family membership there and hergreat great grandchildren similarly visited the. zoo and gardens up to its closure. Countless Bristolfamilies share similar associations. It should remain 100% open to the general public to use andenjoy as a unique outdoor space. It should not become a housing estate.2. The sustainability/green/ reducing carbon footprint argument for moving the zoo to Wild Place isvacuous. Most Bristol visitors will have to use motorised transport to reach Wild Place making alonger journey. Meanwhile the proposed housing estate residents will be adding to the alreadybusy roads crossing the Downs/ or the city centre in order to approach the zoo site. Increasedcarbon footprint in both cases.3. Bristol local government/leaders have sanctioned too many housing developments which havenot lived up to expectations e.g. the long awaited housing developments round the harbour. Wecannot afford yet another mistake in which a place of natural beauty is ruined. Once the iconic zoobuildings, flower beds, lake and trees are destroyed we can never recover those historic features.Please think again.

I would like to register my strong opposition to this planning application. Whateverhappens to the zoo, the gardens should be retained, with the historic animal enclosures, for theenjoyment of all the residents of Bristol, as it was set up in the first place. I have personallyenjoyed many days at the zoo with my children and grandchildren. It has always been a safe placeto go to play and learn about animals and I hope both of these aspirations will continue.

We are incredibly disappointed at the closure of the zoo. It was one of the main reasonsfor choosing to live and invest in Clifton.

We chose Clifton as a place to live and raise our children because of its local amenities, goodschools and level of safety.

We feel that the closure of the zoo was unjust and if so many other businesses could bounce backafter the pandemic so could the zoo which was one of our safe havens during covid when it wasopen.

We also feel that removing a green site and 46% of its trees is not right.

It is a beautiful and historic site and is one of Bristols landmarks.

Our friends and family who travel to visit us from the UK and abroad have always looked forwardto visiting the zoo with us a family.

We don't believe that the alternate site is as promising as the Zoo CEO says it is and certainly isnot an attraction that we as a family would travel to see.

SAVE OUR ZOO AND COMMUNITY!!!

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has beenthere so long being of heritage value in itself. And should of being listed in totality.

Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that have visited,weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.

Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.

Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.

Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a publicsite, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.

Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings and donot complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuous blockalong the road.

Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

I object on the grounds of harm to overall historic interest. As well as the public loss, thischange of use and the social and material harm that results is completely unjustified. I object tothese planning plans and to the entire concept of turning the zoo into a property developmentscheme. Sure change the zoo but don't destroy it! The need of change of use is not proven.

I strongly object to the sale of the zoo. Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, thischange of use and the social and material harm that results is completely unjustified. Need forchange of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a public site, thebusiness case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

I object to the sale of the Bristol zoo - Loss of Communal Value. What it means to thepeople of Bristol, the generations that have visited, weddings held, ashes scattered, loss ofvaluable green urban space. In addition, the need for change of use is not proven. It hasn't beenproven that the Zoo cannot continue as a public site, the business case isn't clear and alternativeshave not been explored.

I object to this property development project as it causes unjustified harm. As well asthe public loss, this change of use and the social and material harm that results is completelyunjustified. In addition, the need for change of use is not proven. It hasn't been proven that theZoo cannot continue as a public site, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not beenexplored.

I strongly object that the only solution for this site is housing.I feel that the Bristol Zoological Society have not given any consideration to alternative use of thespace.If given away to housing, Bristol & its visitors will have lost a unique piece of cultural space for allto use and benefit by.I hope that there will be enough public support to at least delay a decision on its future.We owe it to the founders and sponsors of the Zoo to at least be open and debate this issue andnot to steamroll into permanent redevelopment of a beautiful landmark.I and others will be pressing our City councillors and trustees of the Charity to think and searchtheir consciences to make a reasoned decision to benefit all and not the few.

I object to the application in the strongest possible terms.The application is in itself an act of cultural vandalism.The proposed development, by reason of its siting, scale an overall design an appearance, wouldharm the character and appearance of the Clifton Conservation Area. It would have a devastatingimpact on Clifton and Bristol.My understanding is that, if the application is approved, there is no right of appeal against thatdecision. However, there s an avenue of legal redress by way of an application for judicial review,which has succeeded in many similar cases.

I strongly object to the sale of Bristol Zoological Gardens to a property developer. For187 years it has been an integral part of the life of those of us who live in Clifton and in the widerBristol area. Like many who live in Clifton I do not have a large garden and the zoological gardenshave always been a green and safe place for my children and grandchildren to play without fear ofcars or dogs and also a place for them to learn to appreciate the trees plants birds insects andanimals that live in this beautiful space - not only those in captivity but those who choose to livethere of their own accord. Once all this is destroyed it will be impossible to replace and Bristol willbe a poorer place to live.

Don't do it.

I strongly object to the plans to build a luxury housing estate on the site of the BristolZoo Gardens. The gardens have been open to the public for 186 years. The queues of peoplevisiting the Zoo before it closed demonstrates its significance to generations of people of Bristol.The historical and environmental damage this development will cause are not justified. The wholeof the beautiful gardens and planting on this site should be preserved with its mature trees,historical herbaceous border, various ecosystems and the amazing biodiversity it offers (per theBZS website) for future generations to enjoy.Examination of the financial reports for the Zoo show that the Clifton site is financially viable.Losses have been generated by millions of pounds being spent on consultancy fees to facilitatethe sale of the site. Although there were no visitors during lockdown, the Zoo received £2.5millionin business continuation insurance. Indeed the Zoo generates far more money and visitors thanthe Wild Place. The Zoo has misled the public into believing that the sale of the Clifton site isnecessary as the only option. This is not the case as the KPMG report they commissionedincludes other possible courses of action - none of which were presented to their shareholders.The Clifton site is listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an Important Open Space. It shouldstay this way. There is much public goodwill and support to explore options that will keep this siteas a public green space rather than a luxury gated housing estate"Saving Wildlife Together"is the motto of the Zoo. The Council should start by saving the wildlifeand biodiversity of the Clifton site by saying No to the Planning Application.

The level of debate with local residents was poor at the outset.The suggested buildings are not sympathetic to the area. A communal green space could be analternative which could be used by everyone in Bristol, a Bristol gardens.Many trees will be removed which is at odds with the governments green policies

I object to this development on the basis that it will result in a loss of Communal Value. Ihave a young family and we have visited the Bristol Zoo many times with family and friends. Mychildren love this space and it will be a real shame to lose such an historical site.

Granting permission to build apartment blocks by turning this open space into aconcrete jungle, with buildings standing at 6 stories high, will never be sensitive or in keeping withthe surrounding architecture and current beautiful gardens.

We all know that this is a listed historic park and treasured open space. What are you ascouncillors doing to uphold and protect this, because as we all know, once a green, open andpublic site gets obliterated, it can never be transformed back to what it was again. History will belost.

Proposals of the gardens being "open to the public" is a farce, it's impossible to guarantee howlong the gardens (if at all) will be open to the public. It's obvious that the residents will want thegardens to be private and will have no obligation to open it to the public - why would they?!

As far as objecting this, it's nothing about being entitled neighbours, it is about being a normallocal person of Bristol who have the knowledge of the full extent of manipulation behind the Zoo'sPR. We, as Bristol people, know that we have been duped into lies and false claims of what ishappening to the few green spaces left in the city.

A promised conservation area (apparently run by a 'conservation and education charity') could beentirely obliterated and tarmacked over. How can you justify any development from a charity, this'charity' is a con, there is nothing charitable about any of their plans and if granted this site willalways be known as a fat cat financial gain for a few. You have the power to not let this happen.

This is an educational space, an environmental haven that is currently not being respected. It mustbe opened up to the general public, the Bristol tax payers, the people of Bristol. Closing the zooand developing the site in the KPMG report was one of seven other options - please do not robthis from the thousands of people who enjoy, love and cherish this National Treasure of a site.

If approved, the increased amount of traffic and parked cars commuting too has been proved thatit will be a major pollution concern. There are other knock on effects of just covering up a greenspace, their are air quality concerns, road safety for multiple local school children and serioushealth implications of pollution being brought into the area with more people and cars.

Thank you for taking the time to read and digest my serious concerns for any concretedevelopment at this site.

I strongly object to this application for the following reasons:

1. The building proposed are too high and overpassed2. The design is out of keeping the surrounding buildings which include many listed buildings andhouses of historical interest3. No credible justification has been given for the Zoo closure4. Research appears to have revealed that the Zoo was profitable and that income has beensquandered on consultancy fees5. It seems that the Zoo's accountants offered 7 future options to improve profitability - only one ofwhich was closure. The other options have not been disclosed and possibly not explored.6. The decision has been taken by a very small number of people and without proper consultationwith the people of Bristol7. The infrastructure needed for this development would irreparably damage the roots of importanttrees and it is estimated by the planners that a large number (up to 42% would disappear)8. A large part of the gardens will be built on and such as remain will be subdivided andsurrounded by road and parked vehicles. It seems unlikely that the residents will be prepared topay for their upkeep9. I feel strongly that the whole garden should be saved as a park for the use of the Bristol public

Professor Ian Sutherland8 Canynge SquareBristol BS8 3LA

I object to the loss of mature landscape being cleared for building. What is the point ofplanting trees in an effort to aid the environment only to then bulldoze long established trees.

I would like to register my strong objection to the proposed plans for Bristol Zoo.

I grew up in Bristol and spent many days at the Zoo learning and enjoying the open green spaces.The current plans will destroy this for future generations, decreasing Bristols value as a place tolive. Bristol Zoo is a historical site and an important landmark which the public value highly andshould not loose full access to.

I also feel it is wrong and unnecessary to lose so many of the mature trees at the site which wouldbe a loss for the local biodiversity.

The need for change of use is not proven and the only solution should not be housing. Alternativesfor a public site should be considered.

It is a corrupt and outrageous thing that brings ignominy on our council and businesspeople to allow the closure of our zoo and to them take away the land from Bristolians.This is an exclusive decision that the majority of the city oppose.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I strongly object to this application for the following reasons:

1. The building proposed are too high and overpassed

2. The design is out of keeping the surrounding buildings which include many listed buildings and

houses of historical interest

3. No credible justification has been given for the Zoo closure

4. Research appears to have revealed that the Zoo was profitable and that income has been

squandered on consultancy fees

5. It seems that the Zoo's accountants offered 7 future options to improve profitability - only one of

which was closure. The other options have not been disclosed and possibly not explored.

6. The decision has been taken by a very small number of people and without proper consultation

with the people of Bristol

7. The infrastructure needed for this development would irreparably damage the roots of important

trees and it is estimated by the planners that a large number (up to 42% would disappear)

8. A large part of the gardens will be built on and such as remain will be subdivided and

surrounded by road and parked vehicles. It seems unlikely that the residents will be prepared to

pay for their upkeep

9. I feel strongly that the whole garden should be saved as a park for the use of the Bristol public

This is a disgusting waste of an important site which is important to the heritage ofBristol and the memories of its residents, it should not become another site for apartments forwealthy people. It's a disgrace and the money spinning of Bristol Zoo is an insult to the importantheritage they have inherited and should be safeguarding. Their plans for a new 'zoo' seem to lackboth animals and attraction. This site is a site filled with important memories and aspects ofBristol's history. If it is not going to continue as a zoo (meaning thanks to Bristol Zoo's rubbishomens there will no longer be a zoo in Bristol) then it should become either a public space peoplecan use or a museum.

Although the Zoo and architectural team have visited us and are aware of this, we are deeply distressed that nosignificant, subsequent effort to address this blatantly and hugely adverse outcome for all the residents of 6Northcote Rd has been attempted. Indeed, to add huge insult and considerable hurt to injury, the individualarchitect responsible for the design of the scheme actually stated publicly “you’ll just have to close your curtains”.

We know we have no right of view. However, our panoramic outlook of trees sky and historic buildings stretchingover 1000 metres would be reduced to barely over 20 metres ie. by 98%. Mostly, we would be left looking directlyat a brick wall plus a few windows with no sky visible from within the spaces within our rooms. The images shownhere also suggest there might well be some issues of overlooking from windows opposite that are higher than ourliving spaces that have not been fully understood or adequately addressed. It has also been been suggested that wewon’t be affected by overlooking from the top floor terrace as it is to be a maintenance access only balcony.However, even if this were so, there is also a private terrace just over 23metres away (top right picture – top leftcorner) which given its proximity and greater elevation clearly looks down into our key living spaces. This proximityand minimal level of separation at such elevations is completely out of character with the area in which we live.

Unsurprisingly, the net impact of this proposed development is to make us feel trapped and imprisoned in a brickwalled cell and yet, simultaneously, we also feel vulnerable in our key spaces to breaches of privacy and overlooking.Unfortunately, the height and extent of our windows and the low sills (see photos) also massively amplify the visualimpacts of this development on all our key living spaces. There is nowhere in our key living spaces to escape itsoverwhelming, intrusive and dominant presence. While we are fortunate that at our elevation our very largewindows will help maintain higher levels of daylight than lower floor residences, the significant losses of sunlight onsunny days (estimated almost 50% reduction on March 21st) will be very noticeable and also greatly diminish ourwellbeing, especially in retirement. Mostly, we will not see the sky anymore from within our living space, let aloneenjoy the spectacular sunsets. This is absence of visible sky is a huge and devastating loss.

Surely this is a major, easily preventable and self-evident loss of residential amenity: as it is so clearly intrusive,completely overbearing and dominant and very damaging to our wellbeing. How can this be justifiable when it isclear to us that the reduction of this development by either just two units or two storeys directly opposite wouldhelp to significantly minimise this damage without intrinsically damaging the capability or principle of residentialdevelopment - if that is what is to be decided? These adjustments would also benefit other residents and help beginto address other grave concerns and objections about the scheme.

Other Key Objections

We do not wish to simply restate all the arguments elsewhere previously expressed in detail by the letter byHumphrey’s & Co on behalf of the Northcote Rd Residents’ Association but would briefly make the following pointswhich we believe should be read in conjunction:

Unsympathetic and Inappropriate Design plus Insufficient Public benefit

It has been clear from the very beginning that this scheme was never designed with any serious consideration of theneighbourhood and conservation area in which it fits. The oft publicly stated aim by the Zoo team was to maximisethe value of the site for the charity within whatever was allowable under planning law. Understandable though thisapproach may be, the result is a proposed residential development that is simply unsuited for such a sensitivelocation and the conservation area in which it is located. As has been made clear elsewhere in our previouslysubmitted legal letter, the development fails to deliver significant public benefit, it doesn’t fit within the adoptedLocal Plan and it is not required to deliver the Core Strategy. By virtue of its scale and inappropriate design andheight it does more damage to the proposed public amenity of the gardens and harm to the neighbouringconservation area than looks to be justifiable by overstated public benefits. This can be seen by the level, natureand sources of the hundreds of objections, including from the Council’s own Conservation Advisory Panel. EvenHistoric England’s support is highly qualified about the principle of residential development and the quantum. Onthe limited evidence they were provided with, it appears to have focused its attention more on the design of a fewparts of the scheme in relation to specified historic assets than assessing its holistic impact on the surroundingconservation area. We have not found anyone who actually lives in the neighbourhood or Bristol who finds thedesign “sympathetic” as is required under the NPPF.

Proposed Quantum

In terms of quantum the Zoo argues that the built development and hardstanding footprint has been reduced from22% of the site to 21% of the site from 23,200sq metres to 21,900 sq metres. This is only a simple two dimensionalrepresentation of the impact. At an average of 4 storeys there will be closer to 100,000 sq metres of hardstandingdeveloped space. As most of the existing structures are only one or two storeys (and often only netting) thequantum mass increase is probably closer to 400% with the average heights now moving up to 4 storeys. It is thisconsiderable increase in average height, mass and quantum that would have a very damaging and overbearingimpact within the gardens and beyond. This could easily be reduced by some more selective reductions in height andarticulation. The fact that the Zoo says it must have 156 units development to the gardens (despite the resultantdamage to the site and the conservation area) to fund the preservation of other assets suggests a flawed fundingmodel and circular argument. This needs challenging or re-assessing and alternatives considered before beingaccepted at face value.

Core Strategy Policy BCS9: Loss of Green Infrastructure

We struggle to see how the self evident damage to a very mature ecosystem for a protected Open Space andHistoric Gardens sits comfortably with Core Strategy Policy BCS9 which states “Loss of green infrastructure will onlybe acceptable where it is allowed for as part of of an adopted Development Plan Document or is necessary, onbalance, to achieve the policy aims of the Core Strategy.” Despite various and contested mitigations proposed toeventually remedy the damage, it is inevitable there will be significant loss and damage that will be done to thegreen infrastructure for many years to come. Especially in light of the previous arguments above, how can it bereasonably argued that the development of this site would not constitute a loss to green infrastructure that isavoidable?

Conclusions

It has been obvious that the very nature of the site and its setting has created significant and unforeseen challengesfor high levels of residential development. Obviously, permission for exclusive residential housing set amongstmature trees with a lake was always going to make the most money if it were allowed. Against this, other offerscouldn’t compete finacially while the zoo took its “must maximise value” approach. However, if this application wererejected then it would surely be possible that less valuable and more sympathetic developments and alternativearrangements could be explored which the Zoo has not previously felt relevant and has not previously shown anyinterest in exploring. This is such a sensitive site with so much history and meaning to so many people as has beenevidenced by the scale and nature of the objections. In this light this application should be rejected for thisproposed residential development and proper time and consideration should be given for a rethink. The high levelsof objections and their nature suggests the previous consultative process employed has not proven to be sufficiently“proactive and effective with the community” (NPPF). However, with the right attitude and a more open-minded andgenuinely consultative approach it seems inconceivable that this site cannot raise a significant amount of money(tens of millions of pounds) for the Zoo and leave an asset and legacy that the Zoo, the Council and Bristol can beproud of.

As a near neighbour of Bristol Zoo Gardens, I have been affected negatively andrelentlessly by every stage of the development proposals. Our contact with the "zoo committee",both through Zoom and at gatherings, has been politely restrained, always cordial, but frustratinglyfruitless. The suggestions that my neighbours and I have raised with "the committee" have onlybeen addressed marginally with the most minor tweaks here and there, the overall modifications toour requests being superficial and barely perceptible. The big picture remains much the same as italways has, with structures of 4, 5, and 6 storeys looming high and at close range.1. The key complaint is the excessive size, scale, bulk and massing of the proposed developmentin close proximity to our homes as well as dominating this Conservation Area. Besides dwarfingour residences, the immediate area will suffer as the surrounding suburban roads are reduced toshadowy canyons - and the shadows will be undeniable. The considerable pedestrian 'traffic' onthe pavements, especially for younger pupils, will no longer enjoy full daylight in the shroudedroute - nor will visitors to the proposed park within. 'High Rises' will smother this neighbourhoodbeyond recognition.

2. Computer generated images produced by the zoo are comical in content, verging as an insult toour intelligence and our familiarity with these perimeter roads. Mature trees appearing immediatelyinside the zoo wall do not presently exist, nor would they reach such a stage for another 50 years.Furthermore, given their proximity to the projected buildings, there is no way in which they couldsurvive and provide a shield to buffer the current residences.

3. The modernist monolithic architecture would be more appropriate in an entirely different settingor cityscape, not in a residential Conservation Area consisting of listed buildings and handsomeVictorian homes whilst also abutting the classic setting of a prominent school and its impressivecampus. Sight lines will have clearly been violated in multiple locations. From street level, goneare the glimpses of trees and the abundant daylight. Equally so, gone are a large proportion ofmature trees within the 12 acres, all of which enrich the healthy well-being of this area. The artists'impressions take great liberties in distorting reality of the scene.

4. The towering height of these overbearing Blocks of Flats would adversely affect and diminishthe daylight, directly and indirectly, onto properties, pavements and roads, as has been confirmedby the professional light studies which were commissioned by my neighbours. Apart from reduceddaylight, the present outlook from these properties will be obliterated by apartment blocks directlyopposite and at close range to our homes. Nowhere else in Clifton can be said to afford such anopportunity for prying eyes across narrow roads on such a grand scale.

5. Public 'benefit of access' to the proposed site is insignificant compared with the free publicaccess provided by the nearby spacious Clifton Downs which have no overlooking monotonoushouses, but feature trees, space and open skies. Who would choose to visit an artificially createdenclave, surrounded by blocks of flat and in the proximity of other visitors, yet with The Downs sonearby?

Bristol Zoological Gardens would leave a lasting legacy to this community if the emphasisremained on its splendid gardens. The proposals include the decimation of a majority of its maturetrees. This development is alien to the character of this site as part of a Conservation Area as wellas being a Historic and Community Asset. If all of these are violated by a brutalist style housingdevelopment on such a grand scale, little praise can be offered for the zoo's proclaimed intent forconservation. Detailed and persuasive arguments were submitted by Humphrey's & Co onFebruary 6th, which I recommend and to which I defer.

To conclude, the major fear of these proposals is the ghastly height, size, scale, scope andproximity of buildings which, in no way, blend with the local community. If approval is given, theywill prove to be an appalling intrusion to the immediate neighbourhood and to the character ofClifton as a Conservation Area.

i object to the housing development at bristol Zoo. i have been there for college and askid. it would be a shame to see bristol zoo become something that means it can no longer be azoo. it should stay as a zoo and remain as a zoo

A dreadful loss of a public amenity and historic site. The zoo is part of the fabric ofBristol and no evidence it needs to be closed with no other possible outcomes

The decision to close down the site should be reconsidered as it seems not to havefollowed good governance processes. The Zoo is a heritage asset that should be preserved. It hasthe same significance to Bristolians as the Suspension Bridge, the Museum, the SS Great Britainand the Picture House on Whiteladies Road. If the Council refuse these redevelopment plans thenthe Zoo would be forced to reconsider the closure. Time is needed to see if a public space can becreated. I do not believe that builders will honour public access. The new buildings are large andout of keeping. It is not a brownfield site, it is a mature Victorian garden.

The size of the proposed development is totally out of keeping with the local area andimpacts negatively on the Clifton conservation area. The proposed felling of over 40% of trees onsite does not conform to conservation guidelines. The site will unsafely mix a huge increase intraffic on the site with pedestrians and there is no guarantee that the site will remain open to publicpedestrian access in the long term. This reduces an open space amenity and increases pollutionand built up areas. Whilst the site proposes to have affordable housing, it is unlikely to be in highenough numbers to meet housing needs, instead providing high net worth individuals with luxurypremises at the expenses of demolishing or converting historic buildings of community and culturalvalue. Change the use of the site by all means but do not grant permission to developersmotivated by profit with no thought to a valuable community resource and open space.

1ConservationLoss of trees and plants2A "green city"replacing a green space and public amenity with a housing estate and car park3Proposed buildings completely out of scale with the surrounding buildings4Damage to Bristol heritage a city proud of its history , 5 th oldest zoo, internationally acclaimed

Dear Sir,

We wish to register our strongest opposition to the proposed application for development of theZoological gardens in Clifton. I was born in Clifton and have been involved with Clifton propertiesall my life. First as a tenant and then when I married an owner. Like many others my wife and Ihave put our hearts and souls into maintaining and improving the properties that we own. Never inour wildest dreams could we conceive such an appalling scheme for these wonderful gardens. Inall honesty it is totally beyond our comprehension that something so crass as this has beenproposed for one of the jewels in Bristol's crown.The buildings are more like prison blocks than apartments and in no way can they possiblyenhance and improve the area for future generations. It will be a disaster should greed andavarice be allowed to win the day!Just the loss of so many trees should be sufficient enough to oppose the scheme.

I would like to register briefly my objection to this development project.It seems amazing that a project of this kind is seriously being considered. It is quite obvious thatthe appearance of the buildings that would be erected are not appropriate for this conservationarea and will cause irreparable damage to the natural and cultural character of thisneighbourhood. The loss of so many mature trees is also unacceptable.I live in a flat in Clifton and every time I asked Bristol City Council whether I could improve theenergy efficiency of this flat by installing double glazed windows or new, more efficient sashwindows with wooden frames, I was told that this is not acceptable. The same applies for minorchanges proposed to a totally hidden roof area. Having now realised the sort of changes thatwould take place in Clifton with this new development, I must admit I am shocked by the doublestandards.

The housing is too dense and not in keeping with houses in the area. They are too closeto the adjacent roads and too high. The development is not suitable for the general public to beable to use the facilities.

The housing is too dense and not in keeping with houses in the area. They are too closeto the adjacent roads and too high. The development is not suitable for the general public to beable to use the facilities.

Morning Matthew,

I hope you are well.

We understand from Sinead McKendry of Savills that they have issued a clarificationadditional to our Objection dated January 2023, grateful if you could note our clientsposition in this light:

1) In our objection dated January 2023, we note that

“A Visually Verified Montage (VVM) view has been provided from across theCollege playing fields (The Close), from the base of the Cricket Pavilion.However, this only demonstrates the outline of the proposed South Buildingsalong Guthrie Road with a height of 3 to 4 storeys and not the larger scaledevelopment that sits at a higher level, namely the proposed perimeterapartments that make up the North Buildings with a maximum height of 6 storeysor the East Buildings which range in height from 3 to 5 storeys.”

Our concern with the VVM is not simply the location it is taken from but ratherwhat it does/does not show in terms of detail, notably we do not think it showsthe full impact of the taller buildings on the BZG site on the College’s MainCampus. As such our objection still stands.

2) In regard to Location we state the following in our objection dated January 2023,

“Additionally, the proposed view included within the VVM is neither taken fromthe protected Local View (LC24) which runs from the south-west corner of theCollege’s Grounds or the identified Long View (L25) as identified in the Cliftonand Hotwells Conservation Area Character Appraisal (CACA) Important viewsand Landmark Buildings Map. Long views are long distance views across theCity to key features or landmark buildings. In this instance Long View L25stretches from the grounds of Clifton College northwards across the College andBZG site, both of which are identified within the CACA as Landmarks of City-wideimportance. As a consequence of this the College consider the VVM does notaccurately reflect those protected views, as identified in the CACA, and requestan updated VVM which accurately reflects the impact of the proposals at theBZG site on Local View LC24 and Long View L25.”

The College did last year request that a VVM be taken from the School Grounds,however, this should not have discounted VVM’s from the two identified CACAprotected views, but rather added to these to ensure that a robust approach istaken to all views across the Conservation Area. Whilst the College’s priority is toensure that the College itself is duly considered in the Planning Process, asreflected in the attached email correspondence, this does not change the Policyposition on protected views which are clear on where these are located and it isfelt should have also been drawn from to provide comprehensive coverageacross the entirety of Colleges main campus (in line with the CACA identifiedviews). As such we consider our concerns to still be relevant and recommendthat Historic England are asked to confirm that they are content with no VVMs ofthese protected views, in their assessment of the overall proposals.

Additional to the above I would appreciate if you could confirm that the planningapplication is still on track for a decision on 15th March 2023 at Planning Committee orif the date has been pushed back in light of the additional commentary received.

Kind regards,

I wish to reiterate my objections to the proposed development.

I am extremely disappointed that, despite our having raised objections on numerous occasionsthroughout the consultation process, the applicants have made no changes of any significance tothe proposed Building E3. This building is, quite simply, far too tall relative to existing neighbouringproperties in Northcote Road. This is in a Conservation Area whose character should bepreserved if the term is to mean anything at all.

As it stands, building E3 would tower over neighbouring properties, dominating the outlook evenfrom upper floors, and casting lower floors and front gardens (which currently enjoy a sunnyoutlook) into shadow for much of the day. The effect on those of us living in the area in terms ofmental health and wellbeing would be devastating.

Quite apart from the issue of height, the proposed buildings are not at all sympathetic to theirsurroundings: the overall design of the site, comprising high blocks placed around the perimeter,has the appearance of the worst sort of gated community, designed to keep people out rather thanto contribute to the wider community.

If the site is to be developed for housing, then please make it more sympathetic to its surroundingsto avoid doing irreparable harm to buildings that have stood there since the Victorian era, as wellas their residents. This could be done by reducing the height and massing of buildings and settingthem further back from the perimeter.

Please think about the potential for harm that development of this site will cause- the major objection I would raise relates to the buildings proposed - the sense of scale isoverbearing. The monolithic appearance is completely detrimental to an area of such stunninghistoric architecture, and whilst I am a fan of combining old with new architecture, this is notsympathetic or appropriate- the Zoo site holds significant heritage value for Bristol- the huge loss of Communal Value to the people of this city and further loss of valuable, preciousgreen urban space and public amenity is permanently diminished- the harm to listed buildings, that however sympathetically they are converted, they will no longerbe accessed by the public and will have their community purpose lost and their use permanentlyaltered.- has the Zoo's justification for abandoning the site been proven? or are they using the pandemiclull as a for a revamped plan to one single site (that was gifted to them) and opportunisticallycashing in?- please don't overlook the fact that it is listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space - with grave concern that half the trees will go and many more may be damaged.

This site is so special, make a decision that enables it to stay that way. Change is inevitable, but itshould be better change, for the good of the wider Bristol and regional society it serves - spaceslike this are too precious.

I object on a number of grounds, most significantly:

- Loss of a historic and significant site which provides community value and encourages significantbeneficial tourism to the area.

- The need for change of use has not been proven - the zoo's financial performance was fine andthe long term strategy was to continue to maintain it until there seems to have been a financiallymotivated change of heart to generate £ to invest in the new WildSpace site rather than commit tothe historic Bristol Zoo site.

- The proposed housing is far too large and overbearning and not in keeping with the area. IMHOit is totally inappropriate in design, scale and intent

I wish the planning permission to be refused on a number of grounds:

- the site is a tremendous green space that has been accessible to generations of the people ofBristol to enjoy but also a pull for visitors to our city from far and wide. We would, therefore, beshooting ourselves in the foot to squander this valuable communal resource on several levels.

- whatever is said now there is a high degree of certainty that significant numbers of the maturetrees and parts of the gardens will be ruined and access to whatever is left of what remains will belimited.

- the number of listed buildings and gates on site will undoubtedly be harmed also -what right havewe to watch & accept the destruction of our heritage.

- the proposed design does not offer complimentary buildings to those already standing in thenearby area.

- purely from the business case perspective, the need for change of use has not been proven andthere are numerous alternatives being put forward that should be explored before the proposedsabotage of this asset is sanctioned.

Please let's stop and think before such a destructive plan of action is given the go ahead for thebenefit of a few rather than the many.

I am writing once again to respond to the latest reply from the Zoo to the NorthcoteRoad Residents Association's submission on light impacts to our properties. This time, the zoohas produced a set of visual images that completely disguise the impact on the streetscape of thisover-bearing and disproportionate development. The inclusion of mature trees disguising the over-looking balconies, height and proximity is disingenuous, to say the least.

There is nothing in the report that reassures us that our neighbourhood and quality of life will notbe materially affected by this enormously out-of-keeping development, which seriously detractsfrom the character and heritage of the area.

The scaling back of the development by a storey or increasing the set back from the edge of thealready narrow and congested road would restore some space and light in a real way - and wouldbe more helpful and honest than a pasted tree on an architect's picture.

We would also like to endorse, again, the significant objections that the College has made withrespect to failure to consider traffic impact on the surrounding roads, having conducted analysiswhen the school was not in operation. I trust the analysis will be done when the full congestion andpupil movements can be seen in full, because the danger and safeguarding impacts ofconstruction and ongoing residential traffic on top of the current levels will be unsustainable in theproximate roads.

Once the character of Clifton is lost, it can never be restored and this development, if allowed to

proceed in its current form will be a shameful legacy for the zoo and the Council that approves it.

Our fundamental opposition to this scheme remains and we ask that you reject it without seriousmodifications to its scale and sensitivity.

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has beenthere so long being of heritage value in itself.

Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that have visited,weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.

Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.

Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.

Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a publicsite, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.

Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings and donot complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuous blockalong the road.

Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

Submitting your commentsI wish the planning permission to be refused on a number of grounds:

- the site is a tremendous green space that has been accessible to generations of the people ofBristol to enjoy but also a pull for visitors to our city from far and wide. We would, therefore, besquandering this valuable communal resource on several levels.- whatever is said now there is a high degree of certainty that significant numbers of the maturetrees and parts of the gardens will be ruined and access to whatever is left of what remains will belimited.

- the number of listed buildings and gates on site will undoubtedly be harmed also -what right havewe to watch & accept the destruction of our heritage.

- the proposed design does not offer buildings complementary to those already standing in thenearby area.- purely from the business case perspective, the need for change of use has not been proven andthere are numerous alternatives being put forward that should be explored before the proposedsabotage of this asset is sanctioned.

The development does not either preserve or enhance the character of our area. Thedevelopment is unsightly and resembles a barrier, and is not at all in keeping with other propertiesin the vicinity.

I object to this application 22/02889/LA and the associated application 22/02737/F.These two applications are a scheme for redevelopment of Bristol Zoo Gardens from a site ofpublic, natural and cultural heritage to private, residential housing and they should be consideredtogether.

I have read the report provided by Save Bristol Zoo Gardens (Report) as well as applicant's mainplanning documents. This is not a comprehensive list of reasons but several which are importantto me.

1. The Zoo provided misleading reasons for its closure.

According to the planning statement, the Zoo suffered a decline in visitor numbers from 1m toabout 500,000 a year which caused the Zoo to make a loss. The reason for this loos is blamed onthe small site, inability to meet the animals' needs, and inadequate parking.

The Report shows that the Zoo's attendance numbers are better than comparable zoos, not thatfar off London Zoo, and that the Zoo has made profits in recent years including with Governmentsupport during Covid.

The Report states that the majority of the Zoo's animals will be sold or given away. The public isbeing led to think that the majority of the animals will be kept and given larger enclosures at thenew site, when this is not the case. It may be a better match for the Zoo's conservation aims but

ultimately feels like they are deliberately fudging things.

Like many friends and family, who have grown up with the Zoo, we were initially behind the Zoo'sclosure as we believed the reasons given. But it looks like we were not properly informed.

2. The Zoo is a very special site for Bristol. Housebuilding should not be something to be pursuedat the expense of destroying the special character of our City.

Decent housing should be a right for all. Many Bristolians are unhoused, or live in housing whichmakes them cold and sick. Yet Bristol Post reported in 2021 that there are over 1,000 emptyhomes in the city.

Why should the Zoo be developed into houses? The site has been a well-loved public place for180 years. The fact that it charges an entry fee is not relevant. Anyone who has ever been therewill remember visitors of all description: class, race, gender, age, locals using the playground,tourists gawping, a couple on a date, a family's special day out, schoolchildren, even visitingscientists.

If housing trumps everything (which is what the current Mayor has said), then we should bebuilding on the Downs, or tearing down the Suspension Bridge in favour of a newer, wider bridge.We don't do that because these places are special and part of the character of our City. The Zoois part of Bristol's cultural heritage.

Developing the Zoo into into housing is no way "respecting the character and heritage of the site".It will mean Bristol and its citizens lose one of the defining features of our City. The Zoo and 196households will be richer, but the rest of us will be poorer for it.

3. The Zoo shouldn't be allowed to act like a private developer in relation to what has become over186 years, a public asset. Query whether the Zoo, as a charity, has powers to make thisapplication if it is against the broader public interest.

Bristol Zoological Society is a charity dedicated to conservation and education. It runs Bristol Zooas well as the Wild Place Zoo in South Gloucestershire. As a charity it has tax exemptionsbecause of the public benefits of its objectives. But what if this application can be seen as aconflict between the objectives of conservation and public benefit?

This means while it may be lawful under its constitution to take the best action for conservationand education, this comes at the expense of the value and importance of the Zoo site to the Cityand its people. Does the Zoo not have a duty of care to the public?

In "A Pattern Language" (1977) by Christopher Alexander and others, it states "When you build athing you cannot merely build that thing in isolation, but must repair the world around it, and within

it, so that the larger world at that one place becomes more coherent, and more whole."

In 2023, more and more people accept that keeping wild animals captive makes them suffer. Whatif a zoo for the future doesn't do that anymore, while maintaining the public interest for some kindof zoo at this site.

Could development at this site be used to repair the damage caused by zoos of the past andcreate a positive way forward, encouraging greater empathy with animals and natural habitatsboth familiar and alien to us, to benefit the Zoo's animals and the wider public of Bristol? If the Zoodoesn't want to pursue this, could they be encouraged to sell to a publicly minded entity that will?

In summary, this site has special significance to Bristol and its people and it should not be turnedinto housing of any kind.

As described in many other objections the scale and nature of the proposed buildingsare totally contrary to the conservation objectives of both the immediate and surrounding areas.The proposed tall buildings are not compatible to the open nature of the existing site or adjacentClifton downs.

The profile is more akin to a concrete Eastern European development and certainly contrary to thenatural and open space which to date has governed the planning constraint on all changes,including private dwellings, in the area

Bristol Zoo is a historic park of cultural significance and is not just a brownfield site ripefor redevelopment. It is a major tourist attraction and could continue to be so even without all theanimals because it is so beautiful and fondly thought of by millions of people. The proposed loss ofa large number of mature trees which are of botanical and ecological significance is particularlysad especially at a time of climate emergency. There is also a loss of listed buildings and an over-large development in a conservation area.

As a resident of Northcote Road, I wrote in July 2022 and then again in November 2022 to outlinesome of my objections to Bristol Zoo's proposals for building large residential buildings on themain Zoo site. Since then our Northcote Road Residents' Association has received the final reportfrom the professional organisation which we commissioned to carry out a light survey - outliningthe light issues which would affect all eight of the houses in our road - caused by the plannedbuilding of the blocks of flats in such a very close proximity to our houses. You are most likelyaware that the Zoo planners do accept that the houses in Northcote Road would be the mostseriously affected by the new buildings so I hope that you will be making special note of theobjections brought forward by Northcote Road residents.It is clear that the enormous height and form of the proposed buildings will have a moreoverbearing impact than I had anticipated. Despite some assurances given to us during severalZoom meetings with the planners, no significant adjustments have been made from the originalplans - our suggestions have been disregarded. It is now clear that the proposed buildings willtotally change the environment of all the dwellings here. Top floors will lose their views completely.The main living room in my flat, which I have long claimed to have one of the best views in Bristol,will lose this view completely as well as a significant amount of sunlight during the day. Flats andfloors lower down within all six houses in Northcote Road will lose much more daylight of course.All of us living in this road are likely to experience a feeling of being enclosed by these buildings.I am not objecting to the principle of new housing being built on the main Zoo site (though I amvery much more in sympathy with the "Save Bristol Zoo Gardens" campaign) - it is principally theheight of the buildings proposed all round the perimeter which I object to. I should add that the

actual loss of light and views to our homes has only become clear when I looked at the newvisualisations that the Northcote Road Residents Association have commissioned. The Zoo'spublished images for what Northcote Road would look like are seriously misleading.In general, it is clear that more and more people living in Clifton, as they find out about the Zoo'splans, are realising that that the proposed flats would be totally unsympathetic and out of characterwith being placed in a Conservation Area.I urge you to reject these plans.

I want to lodge a strong objection to this prpposed development on the grounds that, aspictured, the design is completely out of character with the neighbouring buildings and significantlyimpairs the aesthetic of this beautiful part of Clifton. Why have the planners produced a designthat is nothing like the neighbouring area? Whenever any of the residents want to do any kind ofalteration to their Clifton property - even felling a tree or putting in a driveway, we are subject tostringent planning regulations. It seems that different rules are being applied to this enormoushousing development and that one set of planning standards apply to them, another to the localresidents. This is unacceptable.I am not objecting to the building of new homes. I recognise that this is necessary and beneficial.But these should be radically redesigned to be in materials, and in a design, that is compatiblewith the historical architecture in the surrounding conservation area.

I am deeply concerned at the scale and style of the building proposals in relation to thelocal environment and the conservation area.

i saw that the Zoo was originally paid for by subscription by the citizens of Bristol .. It isan amenity for the people of Bristol and should not be sold off and moved outside the city, It iseasily accessible by bus. It's the fifth oldest zoo in the world. Foreign investors and developersoften hiding behind British Companies are NOT interested in our historical buildings,, the cost ofthe proposed housing to be built is over sized and very expensive and will not be built for Bristolpeople. The reasons for closing the Zoo are not valid and there has been no real clear evidencethat the zoo closure was necessary. The council should NOT allow this development to takeplace.It will ruin that area of Clifton. Yje people of Bristol love the zoo as it is..

This type of construction is a monstrosity. It is not in line with a historical site or inlinewith the local area. I strongly object to this Mediterranean style housing and the concrete junglewith as many people as possible. It is way too high and the whole plan needs to be re-looked at.

I am objecting to the subject planning application which lies in a conservation area andincludes listed buildings. The overall design is out of scale with the adjacent buildings and isoverbearing in nature. There will be a loss of public amenity space and many significant trees willbe lost (and others potentially damaged). The business case demonstrating the existing use is notviable is unconvincing and so the need for change of use is not made. Overall, neither theprinciple of change nor design details are acceptable and should be refused.

Not in keeping with the areaLooks like a prison blockSix stories too high196 homes is far too manyIt's likely a high number of car ownership thus creating problems with parking, causing trafficdelays at peak timesInvasion of privacy for surrounding properties and gardens, including Clifton College School sites

I strongly support this proposal which provides much needed housing. The design iswell thought out by a top class architect. It is sensitively designed and fits in well. The currentowner is leaving the main features of the Gardens for more public to view. Previously you neededto pay to enter the Zoo to see them.Bristol Zoo gardens have closed. The move to the Wild Place will benefit more people and providea more natural environment for the animals. The disposal of this site will benefit world wide animalconservation.

Way too many flats!

I would like to strongly object to the application concerning Bristol Zoo Gardens and theerection of 196 residential units. Whilst it is essential to build new homes, consideration must begiven to the existing character of the area. There is the opportunity here to open out the formerzoological gardens in a way that would both enhance the area and give benefit to Bristolians. Theproposed scheme closes off the area with quite forbidding block of housing, shutting out somelight and completely changing the nature of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the existing trees,many planned to be felled, are an essential part of the character of the area. Furthermore, theproposed housing makes no acknowledgement of the existing Victorian and Edwardian buildingsand would make a huge impact on the architectural character of the area and far from preservingit, would unalterably change it. It would appear that 'special attention' by the current architects hasnot properly been directed at 'preserving or enhancing' the area.

Whilst I am not generally against the redevelopment of the Zoo Gardens the proposedbuildings will be a Blot on the local area. It looks more like a prison block than a prime residentialdevelopment.

There nowhere near enough parking for the number of properties proposed and the local streetsare already clogged up with cars, some so much so that Emergency Services struggle to getthrough!

The whole scheme needs to be scrapped and returned to the drawing board.

The site of the old Zoo Gardens is historic and a legacy should, in my opinion, be left sothe whole of the Bristol community can continue to enjoy the plant collection and gardens in theirentirety,as well as reminding us of its past. There are too many housing units for this size plot andthe building plans do not appear aesthetically pleasing or in keeping to the legacy we were led tobelieve would be incorporated, they look like concrete blocks with little consideration for thesurrounding environment. What happened to the idea of conservation, I feel we have been led tothink this was going to be with the legacy in mind not some developer making money.

I object strongly to this application. Surely we can do better than this dreadful proposal.Let's have a rethink about it and try to show a little bit more imagination. Thank you.

The beauty and character of Clifton and The Downs is a treasured part of Bristol'sheritage. Clifton is rightly a conservation area which has largely and wisely been protected frominsensitive development.This application would be comical if its aim was to show how ignorance of scale and insensitivity tosurroundings could create a "monstrous carbuncle" in the heart of Clifton. That is is a seriousproposal is alarming!It is worthy of a post war Moscow suburb at its worst. It adds nothing to the character of the areabut potentially blights it.I object in the strongest terms possible.

I strongly object to this application and think that the whole zoo and the total spaceshould be saved for future generations. I think this site would be such a sad loss to the people ofBristol and a huge loss to tourism for Bristol. It would be a loss of communal value and space. It isa green and educational space and should not be developed for numerous flats and exclude themajority.

I also understand that the business reasons provided by the zoo as to why the zoo was no longerviable on the Clifton site were unfounded and the application is in breach of planning law andpolicy. Bristol Zoo Gardens is the oldest one in the UK and the fifth oldest in the world. It has beenopen for 186 years. NPPF 189 states: 'These assets are an irreplaceable resource and should beconserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for theircontribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations'. The need for change of use notproven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a public site, the business case isn'tclear, and alternatives have not been explored.

This planning application does not explain what exactly will happen to the mature garden andtrees that are in the grounds, however, I understand that the loss of trees will be excessive, andexperts fear for the remainder when surrounded by building works and then by tall buildings. Theproposal to plant '2 for 1' is less than the Council's Tree Replacement Standard.

The plans says demolition of selective buildings - this is not clear enough. Do we have to wait untilthe developers accidently destroy things before they become accountable?

The new building(s) will be out of proportion and not in-keeping to the surroundings and willdominate the area in a detrimental way. The buildings have no regard to local conservation ordesigns, they're monolithic and add nothing to what is a distinctive local character and period. Theboxlike appearance of the development is thoughtless and ill-fitting

There will be loss of light or privacy for surrounding buildings, and especially of light on the roadsand pavements. The number of residences will be detrimental to local highway safety, andincrease every local traffic and parking issue. The increase in noise will adversely affect localresidents, people using the Downs for recreation, and local wildlife.

The claim that locals can use the gardens is questionable (how long for? Who maintains or policesthe area?). I understand that the scheme provides no long-term protection of public access. Theproposed public access and maintenance of the gardens is to be funded by a levy on theresidents. But there is insufficient evidence that this right will be granted in perpetuity as thisaccess is permissive and could be modified or withdrawn. What if the residents will object tofunding a public amenity and in time it will become a private space?

This is a nationally important site and time could usefully be taken to allow further time for ideas orto run a competition to determine its future. Bristol Zoo Gardens are a locally listed heritage assetdesignated as a Local Historic Park/Garden and an Important Open Space. Bristol Zoo should besaved.

I am shocked to see the nature of the proposed development at the zoo site. The designis unsympathetic and overbearing and totally unsuitable for a conservation area. A conservationarea is designed to preserve or enhance the area's character this large scale development will dothe opposite. The only aim here is to maximise the monetary value upon the site. The design willoverwhelm the gardens, obliterate street views and dominate the surrounding area.It appears the zoo's plans are very different to what was promised.

Shame to lose such a great space to yet more housing

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear madam, dear sir, suggested design will sadly be in extreme negative contrast to

the beautiful, much appreciated trademark architecture of Clifton. While new developments are

welcome no or very little consideration seems to have been taken to blend a new functional

residential building into the unique architectural signature of Clifton/ Guthrie road. Modern at hire

tire has so much more to offer than what is envisaged here. I and my family strongly object to the

design as shown in information sent to us, and we object wholeheartedly

Not only does this planning not explain what exactly will happen to the mature gardenand trees that are in the grounds , it is not what was suggested in the original planning of courseno affordable housing is planned within this . The plans say demolition of selective buildings this isnot clear enough do we have to wait until the developers accidently destroy things before theybecome accountable.

Having looked at the proposed redevelopment plans for Bristol Zoological Gardens, Istrongly object to the height of the block of flats alongside the main entrance.The new building(s) will be out of proportion to the surroundings and will dominate the area in adetrimental way.

I object to these plans on the grounds of loss of light or privacy for surroundingbuildings, and especially of light on the roads and pavements. The number of residences will bedetrimental to local highway safety, and increase every local traffic and parking issue. Theincrease in noise will adversely affect local residents, people using the Downs for recreation, andlocal wildlife. The claim that locals can use the gardens is questionable (how long for? Whomaintains or polices the area?). The building have no regard to local conservation or designs,they're monolithic and add nothing to what is a distinctive local character and period. The boxlikeappearance of the development is thoughtless and illfitting.

I object to proposed buildings in the planning application that are of a greater heightthan those on the site when it was Bristol Zoo.

I do not think the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the area. Ithink the the scale is out of proportion with surrounding buildings and the style of building is notappropriate.

I support this application. I was saddened by the news that the gardens were to closehaving been a visitor there for over 65 years. However, times have moved on and the mostimportant work that the zoo carries out in wild life conservation must be supported.There is an opportunity here to build some very exciting modern and sustainable housing thatBristol can be proud of. It is also an opportunity to create a place were anyone can come to enjoy,unlike a pay to use facility.Over the years the zoo has become much more of a garden and recreational place thansomewhere to come to learn about animals -the emphasis has shifted now we live in an age ofbeautifully researched and filmed television.I hope there will be a way to create some kind of covenant to prevent the gardens from becominga gated community and also that the Zoo will always maintain an interest in the development as aplace of education.I am very enthusiastic as long as it can be maintained as promised.

I live about 10 minutes walk from the zoo.

and for whom flats on the zoo site would be most suitable (I'm not interested in'retirement' flats such as the Vincent development).

I know that developers 'try it on', but the artist's impressions that I have seen are a bittall - lop off one or two floors and all would be well.

I suppose I'm an IMBY (in my backyard, please!).

Bristol Zoo Gardens is a green and educational space and should not be developed fornumerous flats and exclude the majority. There are numerous reasons for ensuring it is notdeveloped, including the tourism value set out by BCC itself before the pandemic. The demandhas not diminished but increased. Here are just a few reasons for objecting:

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has been there solong being of heritage value in itself.

Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that have visited,weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.

Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.

Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.

Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a publicsite, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.

Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings and donot complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuous blockalong the road.

Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

Exclusive or restricted access to the site and buildings that are higher and more densely packedthan those surrounding just don't work for residents and visitors. BZG brings visitors to the areaand that brings vale to the local economy. This is not the time for taking away - we need to buildon such great amenities for the long term future

In their 2020-2025 Strategy the Bristol, Clifton and West of England Zoological Societymade it clear they intended to develop both the Bristol Zoo and Wild Place. That was the rightapproach.

Sadly the Society have reneged on that strategy and for reasons that have been shown to bearguable, have decided to sell the site. Furthermore the Society has not established the case for achange of use. The proposed redevelopment is fundamentally to raise as much money as possiblemoney to spend at Wild Place.

BZG is a unique asset to Bristol with its glorious mature gardens, a selection of animals birds andinsects suitable for being kept in the enclosures they are housed in, a strong focus on educationand in a location easily accessible for the population of our city. It is harmonious with thesurrounding buildings of Clifton. It has been highly successful in drawing large numbers, and withfew exceptions has been profitable year on year.

The visitors come to enjoy both the zoo and the gardens. The proposed new gardens will not be ofthe same interest to the public.

The case for maintaining a city zoo alongside Wild Place should have been more fully explored.London Zoo with out-of-town Whipsnade should be the model for Bristol.

It should be in the interest of Bristol City Council to do everything it can to enable the Society to

keep to their own 2020-2025 strategy.

Bristol City planning department should throw out the plans for the Bristol Zoo site to become ahousing development with 196 housing units, many of which will be out of character withsurrounding Victorian Clifton - a Conservation Area and a heritage site. It will result in fewermature trees and adversely affect local wild life. Wild Place, although good in its own way, is notre-providing much of what the Bristol Zoo does so well.

I am a local resident. and my family - wife, children and grandchildren - have all greatly enjoyedthe Bristol Zoo and learnt much from our many visits.

I therefore strongly object to the plans - both in principle and much of the detail.

After a lifetime's association with the Zoo gardens it is extremely sad to see its closurealthough I completely understand reasons for it. It is no place for large animals but I would havethought great consideration would be brought to this historic and rare site. I understand thebeautiful facade will remain but images of proposed huge new buildings are actually verydisconcerting. Surely any new build should be strictly in keeping with the surroundings in this veryspecial and rare conservation area. With Bristol so up and coming and very much in the world'seye nowadays surely it is essential to maintain responsibly this exceptionally beautiful and mostloved area. The approach to Clifton Village, the Downs and Suspension Bridge should enhancemany visitors experience of our beloved City. I am sure someone can produce beautiful plans fornew buildings/homes which will be in keeping in size and structure with the area. Tall 'soviet bloc'structures will have the most negative effect. We surely have many imaginative, talenteddevelopers and architects who could make this an impressive project and not just about crammingin as many dwellings as possible in the space. I am pleased to know that there will be somerecreational public space, but for how long? I am not against progress which is essential but somesensitivity must surely be shown here.

The closure of Bristol Zoo was a sad event in itself, but along with many others I'm nowconcerned about the plans for redeveloping the site.The proposed development of nearly 200 residencies in the space the zoo once occupied wouldbe concern enough, but it now appears that the proposed buildings are in no way sympathetic tothe area they will occupy.How do blocks of no doubt exclusive flats fit with the character of the surrounding buildings andthe area in general?Whilst there may have been sound economic reasons for moving the zoo, surely this site deservesa more fitting and more inspirational development?

This proposal is not for the good of the community at all. Furthermore, the disruption tothe surrounding areas, not least of all the school will be extremely detrimental, for what is, inessence, a high rise development.

This entire project is flawed and should not be allowed as will be blight on the neighbourhood.

I write on behalf of myself and my wife as local residents of many years standing. Theproposed development is awful. It is out of scale to its surroundings, overbearing, of noarchitectural merit, destructive of an historic space and its gardens, and utterly inconsistent withthe commitment to high amenity standards in Bristol's Core Strategy and the standards required ofdevelopment in a conservation area.

The development is totally out of character in a conservation area.The tall block of flats on Guthrie Road will overlook a school and will lead to inappropriatebehaviour with regards the children. The blocks should be much lower and set behind a wall sonot visible from the school buildings.

It seems, from local campaign literature, that the designs for housing are not in keepingwith the character of Clifton, and do not preserve or enhance the character of the area. Indeed,they appear detrimental.

I would request that the design is significantly modified so that it remains in keeping with Clifton,and its Georgian and Victorian architecture.

I would also request that the character of the grounds of the Zoo are retained. I did understandfrom literature produced by the Zoo before its closure, that this was the intention. This, however,no longer appears to be the case.

I have no objection to the building of new homes but firmly believe that there should be limitedimpact on the character of Clifton.

Thee BZG planning committee proposals are detailed and allowfor continued access to the area for the community in Bristol.

This will provide new, good quality housing in central Bristol which is desperately need.

I'm sorry to see the Zoo go but it would be foolish to turn this area into residential space.Particularly because there's no shortage of green space just across the road, i.e. the CliftonDowns!

Bristol Zoo with its historic gates, gardens and buildings have played a huge part ingenerations of the local community, whilst bringing visitors from further across the UK and abroad.With them bringing financial benefits to the zoo and surrounding area. This historic venue shouldremain accessible for future generations. The importance of this space, is not just emotional butthe plant life is vital to the local ecology. There is much focus on the local area introducing cleanair zones and pedestrian only spaces and introducing additional housing will only be detrimental tothe local infrastructure. Bristol Zoo and it's gardens has seen generations volunteering to tend thegarden space and provide a welcome clean space for children to play and learn. There are manyother spaces in the surrounding area that would welcome affordable housing but introducingadditional multi-million pound housing will not benefit younger generations battling to enter theproperty ladder.

I object to this planning application on the following grounds:1. Loss of trees in a conservation area, many of which will be mature specimens and tree cover isneeded amongst all the proposed flats, not only for greenery but also to keep the area cooler inour increasingly hot summers.2. Design of proposed properties is out of character with buildings in the area. It is reminiscent ofthe height and scale of the Prora Buildings on Rugen, Germany, supervised by Albrecht Speer,the great Nazi Architect. It will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding Victorian buildings asit imposes a solid wall of buildings, rather than the roof line of a Victorian Terrace. The proposedbuildings, especially those in Guthrie Road, will not reflect the wonderful stonework of the CollegeBuildings nor the Music departement buildings.A good example of best practice is the new build done by Clifton College at the bottom of theAvenue, where the casual observer would not know this was a complete new build as it matchesthe surrounding buildings. This was an award winning development.3. This is overdevelopment in a conservation area and with the proposed number of flats (196),where would all the owners park, which is important as we now all live within a parking schemethat could not absorb that number of cars.4. This development would overwhelm the streetscape and ruin a once peaceful location in Clifton.It will not enhance the area nor will it reflect the green space it borders (the Downs).

The proposals are extremely ordinary and boring, more like a 1960s design for a city centre than aconservation area in Clifton. This proposal is poor and badly thought out.

I object totally to this.

I object to the loss of a communal space with established transport and bus links. Thisspace should be preserved for the good of the community as a safe, easy accessible space forfamilies and members of the community to come together. The historic nature of the site is sovaluable to bristol and I feel further consideration should be given to options to replace the zoowhich also provide the same opportunity for the communities, not only in the local area, but as acentral meeting place for families across the city.

This development will mean a loss of communal and green space for the community.It should be conserved as a green recreation space for the community to enjoy.

I object to the plans for the Bristol Zoo Gardens site for a number of reasons:- increased traffic and noise due to increased housing in a conservation area- insensitive/overbearing/gigantic design on edge of a green space and within a conservation area- removal of many mature trees to make way for housing developmentPlease re-consider the change of use to this site and find a more sensitive solution? It's not allabout the financial yield from selling large numbers of dwellings - its about developing it sensitivelyfor future generations to admire rather than the incongruous monstrosity currently suggested.

The design proposed is completely inappropriate in terms of scale and style with thesurrounding area. Stylistically the buildings proposed are too massive and unbroken, forming acontinuous block out of keeping with the area.It is also detrimental to the landscape and green space and important trees in a significant gardenof historic importance and immense value.

The proposed development of the old Bristol Zoo site is entirely out of keeping with theconservation area that it sits within. It is far too big - the scale of the buildings overwhelms thosearound it and it is the wrong style entirely and out of keeping with its surroundings. Added to this,the loss of green space and mature trees are very sad. The space could be a real value add to thelocal area, with the right kind of development but this one is not it.

The scale and appearance of the proposed scheme is inappropriate for the location. Itdoes not enhance the conservation area in any way.

The overbearing appearance of multi-storey flat blocks is not in keeping with the localarchitecture, especially in a conservation zone. It's such a shame that an iconic piece of Bristol isabout to be destroyed.

Three grounds:Aesthetic. The images suggest that it will be large and overwhelming in this predominantlyresidential area. The style is incompatible with surrounding buildings (and only consistent with theunattractive blocks of flats areound the waterside area.Amenity. This will lead to the destruction of a major local amenity, a much loved and well-tendedgreen space with the loss of a number of mature trees. The idea that residents will continue to payto support access for outsiders is risible. It is increasingly clear how much green space contributesto the wellbeing of inhabitantsMoral. This space exists because it has been supported and loved by Bristol's population for manyyears. It does not feel correct that this should now be given over to the ownership of a smallnumber of rich people who will be able to buy the flats.

I wish to object strongly to the proposed Plan to change the Zoo Gardens into a housingdevelopment.This area comprises many special trees and is a wonderful green area for everyone to enjoy in thefuture.The area is a national treasure and should be secured for the future.Yours faithfullySonya Clifton

I object to the plans for development of Bristol Zoo Gardens as currently proposedbecause:1. I believe the Trustees of the Zoo have not properly fulfilled their obligations as Trustees topursue the purpose of the Zoo, but are driven by a profit motive and interest in development of thesite instead of being informed by conservation or environmental education.2. It has not been established that there is a need for change of use or that the Zoo cannotcontinue as a public site, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.3. The loss of this site as a communal asset is huge and the plans proposed are unlikely to protectpublic access in the long term.4. The design proposed is completely inappropriate in terms of scale and style with thesurrounding area. Stylistically the buildings proposed are too massive and unbroken, forming acontinuous block out of keeping with the environment of the area.5. Detriment to and loss of landscape and green space and important trees. This is a significantgarden of historic importance and immense value to the urban environment and is listed and animportant open space and a Historic park and garden.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I wish to object strongly to the proposed Plan to change the Zoo Gardens into a housing

development.

This area comprises many special trees and is a wonderful green area for everyone to enjoy in the

future.

The area is a national treasure and should be secured for the future.

Yours faithfully

As a long-term resident of Clifton I wish to strongly object to the BZG plans for the zoo'sredevelopment. I regard the zoo as one of the most special places for the public to visit in Bristol,with its long history of education and conservation regarding the animal kingdom and its historicgardens.Because it's in Clifton, it is easy to visit by public transport and has always been a much loved andwell used place for families. Wild Place is only really accessible easily by car which makes it amuch less attractive option for Bristol families. I am also sceptical of the potential range of animalswhich will be housed there. I would be surprised if there have penguins or seals, for example, oran aquarium, all of which educated visiting children over the years.Having read the BZG's reports, I do not believe there was ever a financial case for the zoo toclose, and I think this should be revisited. If it can't remain as a zoo, then the site should remain apublic amenity in perpetuity. I am not convinced that it will remain as this if the development isallowed. The houses/flats will be expensive and I think with the passage of time, the wealthyowners will object to the public having continued access.The planned density and height of the proposed housing is totally unsuitable to this site. Bristoldoes have a significant housing shortage but there will be only 20% affordable housing. Thisdevelopment will not make much difference to the shortage, providing instead more housing forwealthy Cliftonians.There will be a loss of at least 80 trees and 31 groups or part groups of trees which contravenes ofthe Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy Policy BCS22. If Bristol is trying to become aGreener place, with cleaner air and more tree covers, then this is totally wrong.

I am disappointed to note that the latest proposal are very little changed from theirpredecessors meaning that the chance to create a feature which enhances the locale isbeing lost. It is difficult to see why the promotors are continuing to believe that grey is asensible colour for such a prominent development as it more suited to bunkers,machine-gun nests, multi-storey car parks, gasworks and other such utilitarianstructures. Indeed, its hard to believe that anyone who has spent any time at all inBristol has noticed that it rains a fair bit and so the use of warmer colours is highlydesirable. In short the local residents are the people who will have to live with thisdevelopment and their opinion on its appearance deserves to take precedence overimported architects.Regards

As a lifelong Bristol resident and parent I very strongly object to this proposal and to theprinciple of privately developing this historic and important public amenity.

Aside from its historic and environmental importance, there are few spaces in the city wherechildren have a space safe from traffic to play and run around, and to have contact with nature.Bristol Zoo Gardens is one of those sites. It has been so for generations of Bristol families andshould remain so for generations ahead.

Regardless of what happens to the animals, this site is a historic and important space for allBristolians and should remain as a public amenity in perpetuity. Turning this site over to housing,destroying both architectural heritage and natural space and removing it as an educational, openspace for all to access, would be a crime in my opinion.

I have read the evidence regarding BZGs accounts and other reasons for wanting to close the siteand do not believe a strong case has been made. In fact, there seem to be many unansweredquestions and inconsistencies.

There would need to be a far more robust case made for any change of use before an irreversibledecision was made that would take away a unique, precious and much-loved place from futuregenerations of Bristolians.

Do we not have enough overpriced houses, or flats in this area. Part of the reason wemoved here is because of these beautiful historic places.

Keep area clean air, housing means cars and pollution, historic building and gardensneed to be kept for city heritage and future generations pleasure. Little available centrally apartfrom this and museums for out children, developers should make houses in outer Bristol area andinvest in public transportation.

Application no, 22/02737/F

I am writing to object to the proposed development of the Bristol zoo site on the grounds that thearea isn't suitable for housing. The buildings proposed are not in keeping with the area.

Mr Alexander BruceResident of College Rd

This is such a great opportunity wasted - we don't need more housing as much as weneed stimulating activities for us all. The other non-housing related proposals offer so much morein terms of tourism, genuine sustainability during a climate emergency, and amenity to the wholeof the Bristol population and beyond. We owe it to the legacy of Bristol Zoo to replace it withsomething innovative, fun, and engaging, supporting people's mental and physical health. Thereare plenty of other sites for housing that are better suited to such purposes. PLEASE save thisprecious and historic space and amenity for generations to come - something Bristol can be proudof. Thank you.

i think that the develoment is to big not in keeping with the area .Also there not enough social housing being made available .

I cannot see a significant difference between the revised and original plans, which Ihave already objected to. These plans are for an up market housing estate with few units largeenough to accommodate families. There are already plenty of similar sized apartments in Cliftonavailable to buy or rent. The design of the blocks is totally out of character with the surroundingconservation area. It is unlikely that the gardens, which will initially be available for public use, willremain so in the future. Many trees will be cut down. The herbaceous border within the zoogardens, will be bulldozed, in spite of it being award winning and also, over the years, has had theashes of loved ones scattered on its soil, with the zoo's permission. The twenty per cent ofaffordable units will still be too expensive for key workers, at eighty percent of their market price.Some wealthy developer will gain from these plans, not the people of Bristol.

The issues caused by traffic from the 196 proposed units will severely impact the areaaround the site. It is naïve to expect that residents will not have cars and those numbers are likelyto be higher than the numbers suggested by Bristol City Council's calculations. The area alreadyhas traffic issues at school drop off and pick up times. It is also an area that is frequented byschool children throughout the day. The amount of traffic that this development will produce willlead to it being unsafe for school children (4-18 yrs olds) to circulate during the day.

The views of Northcote Road as submitted on 13 January are very deceptive. They presentNorthcote Road, with the proposed development, as light and airy. The road is not like that noweven on a bright, sunny day. The views also omit to show the southern end of Northcote Road withthe extreme height and massing of building E3.

The views presented by the developer are misleading and misrepresentative and do not clearlyshow the effects of the height and scale of the proposed development.

Building E3's height and location has not changed. It remains domineering and overbearing. Itsscale and height dwarfs the other buildings in Northcote Road (see doc. BZG-PPA-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-2602-PL1) including no 1 and no 2 Northcote road, both tall, substantial Victorian houses. BuildingE3 is significantly taller (8m measured to the eaves) than these and will block more light fromNorthcote Road due to E3's extreme height. The overall massing and scale of the proposedbuildings on Northcote Road need to be reduced to ensure more light reaches Northcote Roadand for reasons of safeguarding as they look directly onto the school and a number of its boarding

houses.

I strongly object to the proposed development it is all too high and out of keeping for theconservation area and historical buildings are lost.

Dear Bristol City Council,

Bristol Zoo's well-loved, animal park and historical gardens will be forever lost to the people ofBristol if this application is approved.

A city is not just a place to work so that you can pay a mortgage on some over-priced housing - itis a place to live and live well. Bristol needs attractions and spaces for all members of societyincluding the youngest and the oldest to enjoy. The Zoo has served this purpose since 1836 andthere seems to be no good reason for stopping now.

Bristol Zoo is so much more than gauping at some caged animals. It's a place where smallchildren can run around safely, where picnics can be had on the lawns while learning aboutparrots, splash about in the water features on hot summer days, walk through a jungle and feedthe parakeets from your hand or stroll through the butterfly enclosure.

Sure, times change and the concept and the role of zoos naturally have to change as well. But justclosing down is not in the public interest. ( But very much in the interest of property developersthat have smelled a nice and profitable opportunity ).

The Wild Place has never been remotely close to a replacement for many reasons, but above allhow inaccessible it is. Firstly, it is not in Bristol, but by a major motorway junction in South

Gloucestershire. Try to get there if you don't want to or can not drive. It involves an hour's busjourney from central Bristol and a miserable walk from an out-of-town shopping centre andcrossing the M5. The Wild Place claim that it is "an easy 15 walk" but I challenge you to attemptthat with a tired toddler and granny with walking aids.

If Bristol is so keen to hit net zero and wants to encourage active or public travel, why close downone of the few attractions that can be enjoyed by all, at any time of the year, that is within easyreach?

The planned housing will not make a dent in the housing crisis but will create some extra luxuryappartments in an already exclusive address.

The trustees of the Zoo have failed in their duty to safeguard and run this wonderful little oasis. Iwant this planning application to be rejected and the site to be returned to public use.

Yours sincerely,

Liv Franzén

I object to the redevelopment proposal

Some will be familiar with Peter Self's article on planning for the new London airport inthe 1960's "Nonsense on Stilts", in which he argued that the criteria for the location would favourHyde Park. But there is, as yet, no London Airport in Hyde Park. Here, we would have a similarinstance of an agglomeration of buildings to be dropped in the wrong place - wrong on aestheticand heritage grounds, but that also fail to meet criteria for a holistic assessment of the total carbonbudget: embodied carbon, but also in terms of motorised transport and congestion. The decisionto build on this land presents an irreversibility and a 1960s-style proposal.

It does not appear that the option of running Bristol Zoo on two sites has been given adequateconsideration. The benefits for children of pedestrian, bicycle or bus access would keep a safelyaccessible zoo in Clifton. Children often prefer to study small mammals, fish and insects, howevermuch they love the megafauna. The Clifton Zoo should remain open.

Bristolians will have their right to participate in a proposed removal of a historic public good - if youwill, its enclosure, the term not accidentally the same as that of the Scottish experience. In the '20Ideas for Bristol' exhibition in the late 1970s, in cooperation with Bristol Zoo, the Bristol publicshowed their flair for new ideas, the legacy of which is visible today in Sustrans' cycle paths, theretention of the cranes on the docks, the ferry services, yet in the proposed enclosure and sale - towhom we know not - of our heritage, we have no say in alternatives, in spite of the variousconstructive alternative proposals already made.

There is, to my knowledge, no comparable example worldwide of selling off a public good, an

asset that happens by chance to be at the disposal of decision-makers who appear to be guidedby the values of property developers rather than zoologists (and the Zoo's Director is anarchaeologist, not a zoologist).

Many of the proposed mitigating factors - restrictions on parking, the proportion of affordablehousing etc., or the guarantee of public access to the site, will be up for negotiation after the sale.If new residents padlock the gates, there will be scope for civil disorder, or the public will simply beforced out.

The proposal fails as it stands to satisfactorily account for its long-term carbon budget. It willimpose strains on local services. It will reduce the attractiveness and value of surroundingproperties. Crucially, a public good that has lasted for 186 years will be stolen from the community,'enclosed', without due consideration of alternatives and their economic, environmental andeducational benefits. An opportunity to enhance the image of the City, and its attractiveness tovisitors, will have been squandered. And the loss of green space and trees, recognised as sourcesof health and mental wellbeing to urban residents, will be similarly irreversible.

There remain, of course, questions of possible conflicts of interest of key decision-makers, whichare presumably outwith the considerations of the Planning Committee, but I do hope that acommunity asset that I have valued all my life can be retained. Until the case for change of use isproven, permission should not be granted.

The zoo is a community (whole city) resource, and this zone of the city should remainas an amenity for all. The present plans are essentially for a select private dwelling complex. Thezone must be kept as a city-wide resource, with ecology and biodiversity as its core function.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Application no, 22/02737/F

I am writing to object to the proposed development of the Bristol zoo site on the grounds that the

area isn't suitable for housing. The buildings proposed are not in keeping with the area.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear Bristol City Council,

Bristol Zoo's well-loved, animal park and historical gardens will be forever lost to the people of

Bristol if this application is approved.

A city is not just a place to work so that you can pay a mortgage on some over-priced housing - it

is a place to live and live well. Bristol needs attractions and spaces for all members of society

including the youngest and the oldest to enjoy. The Zoo has served this purpose since 1836 and

there seems to be no good reason for stopping now.

Bristol Zoo is so much more than gauping at some caged animals. It's a place where small

children can run around safely, where picnics can be had on the lawns while learning about

parrots, splash about in the water features on hot summer days, walk through a jungle and feed

the parakeets from your hand or stroll through the butterfly enclosure.

Sure, times change and the concept and the role of zoos naturally have to change as well. But just

closing down is not in the public interest. ( But very much in the interest of property developers

that have smelled a nice and profitable opportunity ).

The Wild Place has never been remotely close to a replacement for many reasons, but above all

how inaccessible it is. Firstly, it is not in Bristol, but by a major motorway junction in South

Gloucestershire. Try to get there if you don't want to or can not drive. It involves an hour's bus

journey from central Bristol and a miserable walk from an out-of-town shopping centre and

crossing the M5. The Wild Place claim that it is "an easy 15 walk" but I challenge you to attempt

that with a tired toddler and granny with walking aids.

If Bristol is so keen to hit net zero and wants to encourage active or public travel, why close down

one of the few attractions that can be enjoyed by all, at any time of the year, that is within easy

reach?

The planned housing will not make a dent in the housing crisis but will create some extra luxury

appartments in an already exclusive address.

The trustees of the Zoo have failed in their duty to safeguard and run this wonderful little oasis. I

want this planning application to be rejected and the site to be returned to public use.

Yours sincerely,

I am objecting again to the proposed development as it contravenes the BristolDevelopment Framework Core Strategy Policy BCS22 by failing to 'safeguard or enhance heritageassets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance', namely the site ofBristol Zoo Gardens.

The modifications to this Application are minor and are clearly contrary to BCS 22. The proposeddevelopment is over intense, unsympathetic to the period and style of the adjacent buildings andnegatively impacts them. It will adversely affect this part of the Clifton Conservation Area and thesetting of its listed buildings, views shared by Bristol City Council's Conservation Advisory Panel.The National Planning Policy Framework states that heritage assets should be sustained andenhanced and that 'great weight should be given to the asset's conservation' (para 199). Itcontinues that 'local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development withinConservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, toenhance or better reveal their significance.'(para 206). This proposed development does notensure this or meet these criteria.

There is a shortage of affordable housing in Bristol and it is very disappointing that the provision inthis scheme will be reduced by half so that the work can start more quickly and a greater numberof non-social housing residents can cover the ongoing costs of the long-term maintenance of thesite. This appears to be a back handed way of reducing the affordable housing provision whichobviously does not generate the level of income that the other units might do. This approach isboth short sighted and short-termist.

The issues caused by traffic from the 196 proposed units will severely impact the area around thesite. It is naïve to expect that residents will not have cars and those numbers are likely to be higherthan the numbers suggested by Bristol City Council's calculations. The area already has trafficissues at school drop off and pick up times. It is also an area that is frequented by school childrenthroughout the day. The amount of traffic that this development will produce will lead to it beingunsafe for school children (4-18 yrs olds) to circulate during the day.

The views of Northcote Road as submitted on 13 January are very deceptive. They presentNorthcote Road, with the proposed development, as light and airy. The road is not like that noweven on a bright, sunny day. The views also omit to show the southern end of Northcote Road withthe extreme height and massing of building E3. The views presented by the developer aremisleading and misrepresentative and do not clearly show the effects of the height and scale ofthe proposed development.

Building E3's height and location has not changed. It remains domineering and overbearing. Itsscale and height dwarfs the other buildings in Northcote Road (see doc. BZG-PPA-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-2602-PL1) including no 1 and no 2 Northcote road, both tall, substantial Victorian houses. BuildingE3 is significantly taller (8m measured to the eaves) than these and will block more light fromNorthcote Road due to E3's extreme height. The overall massing and scale of the proposedbuildings on Northcote Road need to be reduced to ensure more light reaches Northcote Roadand for reasons of safeguarding as they look directly onto the school and a number of its boardinghouses.

I strongly object to the proposed development in its current form and ask that it is rejected by thePlanning Committee.

I want to voice my objection to the current plans for redevelopment on the old andhistoric Bristol Zoo site.

The proposed development at the site is very disappointing and completely out of keeping, notonly for within Clifton and the local area, but in the historic site of Bristol Zoo itself. The proposeddevelopment dwarfs the current Zoo buildings and boundary walls (which are not small) and willlead to the new buildings being very imposing. Unless the proper protections are put in place anypublic areas which are kept could be removed again in the future, taking away public access to thehistoric site and important green area of the city. I am not against the redevelopment of the site butthe current plans need to be significantly altered before they are acceptable.

Also, current TPOs seem to have been completely ignored. This is a clear indication of the lack ofcare the developer is showing towards, not only the site, but the local area and residents.

Having reviewed the plans for the new development on the former site of Bristol Zoo Iwould like to register my objection to the plans in their current format.

More should and must be done to work with the historic character of the site rather than in spite ofit. This is especially the case for the characterful walls of the former zoo, which give it much of itsdistinctive personality and clear link to its former use/history (much like the old city walls). This linkto its previous use will become all the more important as time passes and generations losememory with the site's original use. Currently, the plans create an overbearing fortress rather thanan inviting walled garden or park. The design is currently more suited to the industrial warehousesof the docks or paintworks than a former low height zoological gardens. This does not appearsympathetic or in keeping and creates little distinctions between the different city neighbourhoodsand their characters.

As such, the development as proposed would have an overbearing impact at street levelespecially due to the height, cladding design and scale of the proposed blocks.

It is also unclear what combination of facilities will support the new residents to make a liveable,walkable city and draw in natural foot traffic from non-residents (e.g. a GP surgery and othermixed use facilities other than the park).

There appears to be an excessive amount of trees being felled which are covered by TPOs. Againthis appears to indicate a lack of working with the site, with TPOs trees being seen as an easily

overcome hurdle than a feature worth preserving.

Bristol has been doing much in recent years to positively deal with the legacy of previousdevelopments. The plans in their current format are more akin to the rushed post-warreconstruction/infil of bombed out Bristol than a modern, sustainable and liveable citydevelopment. This is something that the city has spent many of its recent years attempting toreverse and the plans in their current format would be a step backwards to the ill thought outblocks of the 60s and 70s.

I am writing to you because I strongly object to the development of Bristol ZoologicalGardens into housing.

It has so much community value and cultural significance that Bristol and England would loseforever and never be able to replace it. Generations of Bristolians have first learnt about natureand developed a lifelong love and understanding of the environment at the Bristol Zoo .

Many of us voted for green councillors, and expect them to strongly and unequivocally oppose thisapplication on ecological grounds as there can be no justification for turning a conservationzoological garden into flats with all the environmental damage of the relocation of the site and thesubsequent additional driving and both in the clifton conservation area and by everyone in Bristolthat has to drive to take their children to south Gloucester Zoo.

This will harm the generations to come by depriving an opportunity to learn by observation andinteraction.

The new South Gloucester Zoo is destined to fail as it is a terrible experience. Something peoplewould do once or twice unlike the current Bristol zoo site being somewhere that you meetregularly. Its new site already has terrible numbers and with the current Trustees in charge willmost probably be deemed more profitable as housing within a few years.

I believe with the right people in charge of the zoo it would still be a thriving well loved financially

viable zoo and I believe it could be again. I believe that the Shareholders, the councillors and thepublic have been misled into believing this is inevitable as the trustees try to present it as a faitaccompli.

The zoo needs to change and adjust to modern expectations. Instead of building another zoo thefocus should be on relocating the larger animals and focussing on community engagement andenvironmental education.

These listed buildings are of historic importance and I believe there are many ways this busy andpopular site could have been monetized through new innovative environmental exhibitions andattractions. Instead of long term planning to fund an additional unwanted Zoo with the expectationthe original could be sold for profit.

It is not surprising that trusties are from property development businesses because if you ask aproperty developer how you make money at a zoo that they say build some housing.It is clear that this application needs to be refused but it looks like there should also be an enquiryinto how this has come about. The lack of community engagement, lack of transparency, and themisleading of all local stakeholders.

The remit of the Zoo and the local council is to protect the environment that we live in andamenities that we have access to. Despite having one of the more green councils we have seenthe steady decline in central Bristol attractions that can be walked to while replacing with car onlyaccessible alternatives.West Bristol is particularly badly catered for now with council releasing the Lido into privateexclusive ownership, The Icerink into student flats, and community centres long disappeared.

Please protect the Zoo from this shameless profiteering and destruction of a well loved historicalcommunity resource.

I am writing this because I strongly object to the development of Bristol ZoologicalGardens into housing.

It has so much community value and cultural significance that Bristol and England would loseforever and never be able to replace it. Generations of Bristolians have first learnt about natureand developed a lifelong love and understanding of the environment at the Bristol Zoo .

Many of us voted for green councillors, and expect them to strongly and unequivocally oppose thisapplication on ecological grounds as there can be no justification for turning a conservationzoological garden into flats with all the environmental damage of the relocation of the site and thesubsequent additional driving and both in the clifton conservation area and by everyone in Bristolthat has to drive to take their children to south Gloucester Zoo.

This will harm the generations to come by depriving an opportunity to learn by observation andinteraction.

The new South Gloucester Zoo is destined to fail as it is a terrible experience. Something peoplewould do once or twice unlike the current Bristol zoo site being somewhere that you meetregularly. Its new site already has terrible numbers and with the current Trustees in charge willmost probably be deemed more profitable as housing within a few years.

I believe with the right people in charge of the zoo it would still be a thriving well loved financially

viable zoo and I believe it could be again. I believe that the Shareholders, the councillors and thepublic have been misled into believing this is inevitable as the trustees try to present it as a faitaccompli.

The zoo needs to change and adjust to modern expectations. Instead of building another zoo thefocus should be on relocating the larger animals and focussing on community engagement andenvironmental education.

These listed buildings are of historic importance and I believe there are many ways this busy andpopular site could have been monetized through new innovative environmental exhibitions andattractions. Instead of long term planning to fund an additional unwanted Zoo with the expectationthe original could be sold for profit.

It is not surprising that trusties are from property development businesses because if you ask aproperty developer how you make money at a zoo that they say build some housing.It is clear that this application needs to be refused but it looks like there should also be an enquiryinto how this has come about. The lack of community engagement, lack of transparency, and themisleading of all local stakeholders.

The remit of the Zoo and the local council is to protect the environment that we live in andamenities that we have access to. Despite having one of the more green councils we have seenthe steady decline in central Bristol attractions that can be walked to while replacing with car onlyaccessible alternatives.West Bristol is particularly badly catered for now with council releasing the Lido into privateexclusive ownership, The Icerink into student flats, and community centres long disappeared.

Please protect the Zoo from this shameless profiteering and destruction of a well loved historicalcommunity resource.

For 186 years Clifton was fortunate in hosting Bristol Zoo. Taking words fromwww.followthebrownsigns.com, such sites "encompass a huge variety of interesting places to visit,people to meet, things to do and sights to see, seamlessly incorporating all our history, geography,culture and heritage into a little appreciated and massively underestimated tourist network. Eachone is important in its own special way and inspiring people to get interested in a variety ofdifferent things they didn't even know could be interesting...".

Unlike sites that acquired brown signs through accidents of history (National Trust properties aretypical examples), the Zoo was founded in the spirit of the words above, for the benefit of localresidents. The inheritors of the property now propose to destroy this heritage. One can appreciatewhy National Trust protection was deliberately made strong, as some owners will contrive "endjustifies the means" logic to justify monetizing an asset that means little to them.

Sadly there are few brown sign sites to relieve the housing monoculture that makes up most ofBristol. I feel strongly that the city should encourage the Zoo trustees to try much harder to havethe site continue in some form as "a permanently established attraction or facility which attracts oris used by visitors to an area and which is open to the public without prior booking during itsnormal opening hours". [The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016]. Wild PlaceProject, 6 miles north, has nothing like the pedestrian catchment area.

One way the Council can do this is by refusing thoughtless and insensitive plans. The manyobjectors to the proposed conversion to a housing estate make it obvious that the interior and

exteriors of the numerous functional blocks of flats completely fail to measure up to the aspirationsof current local residents for future residents. I urge the committee not to acquiesce in the creationof such an uninspiring collection, on a site with such potential. Even if some of the site has to besacrificed to housing, given the conservation area context the bar for planning committee approvalshould be high eg a design that could be a serious submission for a Housing Design or Civic TrustAward.

I don't believe that the planning committee should feel pressured into giving a quick assent, asowners themselves can be unhurried in pursuit of their objectives (as an example, planningconsent for the nearby 2-16 Clifton Down Road site was given in April 2020, but building work hasnot yet started).

Please reject the application, and give time for alternative proposals to be more fully developed.

This is a disgraceful ugly exclusive plan that will impact the area negatively inappearance and architecture.Plus the corrupt dealings around it will be probed for evermore especially to hold certain people toaccount.

I strongly object to the proposals insofar as they relate to the southern end of NorthcoteRoad in particular.

Contrary to the impression given (for instance Penoyre & Prasad's answer to Q2 raised by CliftonCollege, as set out in Appendix 5 of the October 22 Planning Statement), building E3 has been setno further back than shown in the October 2021 consultation, nor has it been reduced in height.

Building E3 itself dwarfs the other buildings in Northcote Road in scale and height, as is clearlyshown in document BZG-PPA-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-2602-PL1. What is not shown so clearly in thatdocument is its height in relation to numbers 1 and 2 Northcote Road, both substantial Victorianhouses. Based on the proposals, building E3 would be over 8 metres taller (measured to theeaves) or 6.5 metres taller (measured to the ridge) than these houses, contributing strongly to theoverbearing effect.

I have previously raised a concern as to the adverse impact on the front gardens of numbers 1and 2 Northcote Road from overshadowing, particularly the loss of afternoon and evening sun. Ido not believe that this has been adequately addressed.

The gap between buildings E2 and E3 is of limited benefit to those neighbours who are positionedfurther along Northcote Road, particularly towards the southern end, where the unrelenting massof building E3 will dominate.

The daylight and sunlight assessments show adverse impacts to several rooms, beyond BREguidelines, with the rather trite comments that the 'retained daylight levels are consideredacceptable' or 'the neighbouring residential properties will generally remain with adequate levels ofdaylight and sunlight'. To whom they are considered acceptable is unclear, but it is certainly notthe owners of the properties concerned. Nor does there appear to be any recognition that it isgenerally the principal reception rooms (those on the lower floors) that are worst affected, andwhere the loss of residential amenity will be most felt.

Those residents towards the lower (southern) end of Northcote Road are particularly severelyimpacted by the proposals, largely because of the extreme height of building E3 and its proximityto neighbouring properties. Without a significant reduction in the scale of this building, I urge theplanning committee to reject the proposals.

The revised proposal still consists of excessively high blocks all around the siteperimeter which are far taller and denser than any surrounding buildings.The design does not compliment or reflect local building styles.

The number of mature trees that will either be removed or relocated is very concerning as is theproximity of building works very close to trees being retained.

Whilst it seems inevitable that the Zoo site will be used for building it is still importantthat the area be used for the benefit of as many and diverse individuals as possible.This includesaccess as an open space and housing provision for people of limited means or with disability. Itseems sad that the committee in charge of housing development should be willing to accept a20% provision of such accommodation in return for a guarantee of the work being commencedquickly (short term benefit) whereas the full 40% legal requirement would be of major long termbenefit.The original much vaunted open access to the site and provision for its long term maintenancenow seems at risk. The suggestion that ongoing costs of this should be borne by the residents (apart from those in social housing) and this necessitates the maximum number of residents andthe minimum of those in social housing is a spurious way of reducing the % of social housing. Iwould suggest that there should be a sum of money put in trust by the developers for the groundsmaintenance from the outset.

The aesthetic and scale of the buildings proposed is entirely out of keeping with thehistoric features and character of Clifton, the reason residents chose to live in this area. The heightand stark design of the buildings proposed further emphasises this.

Clifton's character has been preserved against previously sought developments, for example thedestruction of the Lido. I feel that this proposed development would be looked upon as similarlyshort sighted in years to come.

On street parking in Clifton village and towards the downs is stretched as it is. With the density ofresidents proposed the number of vehicles (when parked and when on the road) would be a hugeproblem for the narrow quiet streets of the area.

I also object to the proposed removal of so many mature trees, for wildlife and conservation andwith air quality improvements otherwise sought in the City.

Acquiring an appointment at the local GP surgery or dentist is already a huge challenge with thenumber of patients, the massive density of units proposed will put all local services under furtherstrain.

The reasons for my objection are as follows;

1. The proposed buildings are not architecturally sympathetic to the period and style of theadjacent buildings.

2. The proposed buildings appear higher and closer together than neighbouring buildings.

3. The proposed development will create an environment which is not in keeping with the feel andambiance of the existing area.

4. I am horrified that such a beautiful and historically important site would be given over to suchvulgar and unattractive buildings. I totally agree there is a need for additional housing in Bristol butI cannot support any development which is not architecturally in keeping with the existing buildingsin that particular area.

5. The number of proposed housing units will result in a site that is overpopulated for the size ofactual building plots compared with adjacent and neighbouring homes.

There's still time to save the one and only Bristol Zoo, so much history and progresswould be lost. This unique Bristol institution has huge cultural and architectural significance. It is ofunrivalled importance to the identify of Bristol as well as providing irreplaceable value to thepeople of the wider area too, as an educational and spiritual sanctuary from the fast pace ifmodern life. Sell part of the Cribbs Causeway site for houses instead, it makes so much moresense, in terms of transport links, there is no history there and very little evolutionary development- Clifton holds the soul of Bristol Zoo. If the Clifton site as we know it is destroyed, we will trulyloose Bristol Zoo forever. This is an ill thought plan, made in a snapshot of time by anunrepresentative management. Don't give up on Bristol Zoo Clifton, adapt where necessary tosurvive and save this Bristol Institution for the families and people of the past, the present andpossibly most importantly our families of the future.

The minor modifications recently made to this Application entirely fail to address theconcerns of CHIS who consider it to be clearly contrary to BCS 22. It represents an over-intenseand overbearing development which would, without reasonable justification, adversely affect thecharacter of this part of the Clifton Conservation Area and the setting of its listed buildings.

Our views are entirely in line with those of Bristol City Council's Conservation Advisory Panel ofwhich CHIS is a member and whose letter of 20 November 2022 sets out in some detail thearchitectural poverty of the scheme and its detrimental impact on heritage assets.

We would like to object again to the proposed development at Bristol Zoo which wouldundoubtedly make life difficult for Clifton College. The buildings overpower all those nearby andthe parking provision appears totally inadequate. Moreover, the strain on local services such asdoctors' surgeries would be excessive.

It's very disappointing to see such a valuable site be potentially ruined by blocks ofmonotone flats which don't have any character or individuality. Clifton is a beautiful, historic areaof Bristol, where the buildings are unique. The proposed flats would tower over the decades-oldbuildings and impose on the rest of this beautiful area. Bristol zoo was a special place to so many.The council should invest in something which would do it justice, like a botanical garden or greenarea. There are so few areas in Bristol which aren't packed full of tower blocks and social housing.Clifton is special in this sense, which is why some many chose to live here. Bristol city councilshould value their residents and stop putting money before everything else.

Bristol Zoo is the jewel in Clifton, Bristol's crown, world re known and it's gardens andbuildings of historic interest.It is a travesty to allow it to be desecrated in favour of new expensive flats when the real need inBristol is for homes for young people and people on low incomes.It is not clear why the Zoo cannot continue, there is no transparency on why these decisions havebeen madeLoss of public amenity, while climate change is on everyone's minds, almost half of the trees beremoved and some of the others may be damaged.The buildings proposed will completely overpower the surrounding buildings, they will completelychange the character of the area

Please Bristol Council be brave and be the first council in the UK to reject a commercialapplication, in favour of being seen to do the right thing for local people and the city of Bristol. Ifthere is no going back for Bristol Zoo then please reject this application and insist on housing foryoung people and low income families who currently cannot find suitable housing.

just make all the apartments with a covered balcony/terrace - so much better forenjoyment of the outdoors

support it if they all have covered balconies, would make it lovely.

buildings could be more attractive - more glass, more balconies

Through the enormous mass of documents revising the plans, I couldn't see anythingaddressing the awful external nature of the proposed development. The proposals are still totallyout of keeping with the visual appearance of the local area and would be a blot on the landscape.Any development must fit in with the rich architectural character of this part of Clifton - the proposlshave total disregard for the fact this is a Conservation Area.

object on multiple grounds - congestion, safe guarding (Young children at school inneighbouring buildings), health and Safety. This appears to be motivated by financial return ratherthan enhancing the community.

Having recently seen some scale visualisations of the Zoo's proposed housingdevelopment for their main site, I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the plans putforward.Bearing in mind that planning law states that for a conservation area, "special attention shall bepaid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of the area", it seems to me thatthe monolithic mass and form of this proposed development is entirely incongruent with such ahistoric conservation area in design, scale, mass and form and in its overall impact.These large, long, flat-roofed block housing developments are overpowering and appear totally outof keeping with the surrounding conservation area.

Again we write to object to the current proposals for these developments. Previouslyyou have ignored all objections from residents of adjoining properties, many other localresidents, interested friends and professional advisory bodies. This is to the detriment ofClifton and needs to be corrected ASAP. To date you are failing in your duty to enhanceand protect the conservation district of Clifton. Some of the land was covenanted byprevious residents and other benefactors to the city. This should be honoured and evencelebrated for its unquestionable worth and contribution to the benefit and reputation ofthe city of Bristol. Various promotional misinformation has been disseminated and itappears from the current plans that only the Zoo will benefit particularly financially.

Alternative proposals should be considered where the architecture and density isreconcilable with surrounding listed buildings.

Yours faithfully

I wish to object to the proposed plans for the redevelopment of the former Bristol ZooGardens site.The appearance of the proposed development is incongruous with the surrounding historicbuildings. In addition, the scale and height of the blocks of flats will have a negative impact on thelevel of light and skyline views in adjacent roads and buildings.I consider the removal of a significant number of mature trees and the negative impact of this onwildlife to be a serious concern and inappropriate for a conservation area.The parking and road safety issues in the area, which will result from the additional vehiclesassociated with the development, is of significant concern and another reason why I object to thisplanning application.

We object to the proposed development/planning application. The six storey blocks arenot compatable with the Conservation area and are an abuse to the legacy of the Bristol Zoo.Public access to the gardens and magnificent trees will be lost forever, this too is unacceptable.More careful consideration must be made of a site which issuch a huge part of Bristol's heritage and played such a large part in the lives of generations of itsresidents.The proposed development will be immensely damaging to the precious place that has promotedconservation and sustainability in the centre of the city.

The proposed plans to develop the existing Bristol Zoo site are not in keeping with theexisting conservation area surrounding it. The scale of the buildings and the unimaginative designwill dwarf the existing buildings that surround the zoo i.e. Clifton College, potentially blocking lightalong with creating an eye sore in the local area of period architecture and general street scenesof Clifton. The proposed design looks more like a housing estate than a high end development.

The amount of dwellings proposed will increase traffic and stretch already over used street parkingavailability. A small number of townhouses would be more appropriate rather than a mass overdevelopment of this site.

I live 5 minutes walk of the zoo site and to upkeep our period property we have to get planningpermission from the Council to maintain the building (eg change windows) and trim the trees. Icompletely understand the need for these rules in order to keep the conservation area... but thento allow a development like this in the area defeats the point!

From an environmental point of view the amount of mature trees the developers will have to pulldown within the zoo in order to build the new development is also a big concern.

This development does not appear to be in keeping with the character of the Victorianarea. The number of units seems excessive and will change the ambience of the locality. 196 newproperties in a small area will cause congestion on the roads, additional noise and parking issues.All the local facilities such as the doctors surgery are already under pressure and this will just addto the situation.

I am objecting strongly and seriously against the above application.

The proposed Zoo's application for the main site plan bears no relation to its unique conservationarea. It would look unsuitable in any part of this great city due to its unsympathetic and massivescale, which will dwarf the proposed community garden. It is brutalistic and Putinesque in design.The application is working against respecting a conservation area and contrary to the NationalPlanning Policy. The site faces The Downs with its natural beauty currently enhanced byneighbouring listed buildings. The plan will take the soul out of a beautiful area which has beenenjoyed for centuries by the people of Bristol and even more so with the arrival of the Zoo in themid nineteenth century.

Who will benefit from this?

This can not be allowed to happen, with so many children attending Clifton College,what is but in place for their safty?What about boarding children? These buildings will look directly on to the school! What about allthe extra traffic with all the child pedestrians?Absolutely should not be allowed to go ahead

I have read the applicants' new replies to the planning officer and viewed most of thesupporting documents. My chief objection remains, relating to the failure to abide by requirementsof the conservation area status of the local area and resulting incongruous and overbearingdesign.The latest inputs on the conservation area and heritage appear to acknowledge harm and speakof "mitigation" rather than "enhancement". There are some arguments referring to "enhancement"but they are weak or even bogus, relying on the quality of the development and public accessrather than the design or density of the development.The objections based on the scale and blockiness of the buildings are unmitigated by the veryminor proposals to soften the outline and to limit overlooking.The proposal says there need be enough free market dwellings to contribute about £1300 each inestate service charge to fund the public realm aspects. But there could be many fewer dwellings,contributing less than this, if proper account were taken of using volunteer gardeners, surplusesfrom events, and voluntary public donations (compare with quantum of such funds collected byClifton Suspension Bridge).The idea of the Clifton Conservation Hub is extremely welcome and could be very successful aswell as a source of funding for the public realm.I ask the planners to take full account of the risk of blowing the whole concept of conservation areastatus out of the water, yielding an unmanageable precedent not only in Clifton but elsewhere.Among all the public comments I have noted only one recent one in support and as it isanonymous there must be doubt about the weight to give it.

Highly uncreative & poor use of a valuable public space. Poor architecture. Jarring tolocal environment.

Once again I write to object to this scheme. Tower blocks surrounding the site - totallyout of keeping with the present Clifton landscape. A blight on an attractive part of Clifton. Thewhole project appears to be a money making exercise for the Zoo.

Please take note of the myriad objections you have received over the long time this proposal hasbeen in the pipeline. If this proposal goes ahead it will be a matter of great upset and regret tomany of the citizens of Bristol.

I also note that very few of the animals are being relocated to the Wild Place. Lions, penguins andmeerkats, to name a few, are waiting for some other Zoo in the world to take them - they will notbe at the Wild Place at all.

To whom It may concern,

I wanted to raise my objection to these plans base on the historic site at Bristol Zoo. Although I ama resident of Bath, I live in Bristol for the vast majority of my life, and have visited the zoo onhundreds of occasions. My grandparents, parents and children have all visited the site with me, soit hands been an intergenerational part of my life.

I do not believe these plans have taken in the full historical significance of the site, which one gonewill be lost forever. A much more detailed plan and analysis must be taken of the site, which issuch a huge part of Bristol's heritage. This will cause irreversible damage to a historic site, andtake it from the public's reach. There are also massive concerns about the lack of green space,and also that generations of people will lose access to a site that promotes conservation andsustainability in the centre of the city. To remove this for housing is a step backwards when itcomes to improving the cultural heritage and green credentials of the greatest city on Earth.

Bristol Zoo is a unique place, and more care must be taken over its future.

Thank you for your time, and I implore you to understand the strength of emotion these wordshave within them, and to reconsider this planning permission.

The designs for the new buildings are such a contrast to the rest of the houses andbuildings in the area. They will create a visual block of hard materials in an otherwise nature leadcommunity. The buildings will also cause a loss of trees and public green space. It is listed as alocal Historic Park & Garden and an Important Open Space.

I have placed several objections to these plans over the previous months. To my mindmismanagement of the Zoo's aims top my list, followed by inappropriate financial greed,inappropriate architectural dreams, and inappropriate hectoring of those involved with the outcomeof traffic planning, amongst others.To those who have taken issue with Clifton College for fighting the planning application I ask; isn'ttaking care of No. 1 exactly what the Zoo are doing?Bristol Zoo Gardens are approximately 30 years older than the original Clifton College buildings. IfClifton College Chapel, and perhaps other buildings on the campus, is designated as a Grade 2building by English Heritage could it not be feasible for Bristol Zoo Gardens to become part ofEnglish Heritage, Landmark Trust or National Trust to preserve what has been known forgenerations?

I strongly object to the proposed development/planning application. The monolithicblocks are absurdly incongruent with the surrounding structures in design , scale , mass and form .They will completely overwhelm the gardens and obliterate streetviews of the sky, mature trees ,and the nearby historic buildings that characterise Clifton. The entire development is entirelydisproportionate and totally unsympathetic to Clifton and a violation of the neighbourhood. I deeplyregret the passing of the zoo and the proposed development must be stopped.

So many new documents added but I would suggest deliberately uploaded separatelyso that people don't have the time to go through each in detail.What is obvious though is that the plan is still to build 4/5 stories overlooking the Pre Prep andPrep schools and that residents of this new development would be able to spend all day looking atchildren should they wish which is very concerning.There is no comment in the plans and multiple other docs to address the safeguarding concerns ofparents of Clifton College Pupils and the Developments proposed height will be an eyesore inamongst the Older period buildings.This looks like a plan out of the 70's where anything goes and are we so desperate for housingthat all rules go out the window.

To summarise:1. Why shouldn't children attending Clifton College have the right to feel safe?2. Why is it ok to build something so out of place with the area?

Cannot believe this has even reached this stage but then we are talking about a Labour runCouncil!

I remain supportive of this development. The housing proposals are simply beautiful andgive the public access to a lovely garden for free. I do not sympathise or empathise with thereflexively negative commenters objecting to this proposal. As far as I can tell these people wouldonly be happy if nothing ever changed, if no new people ever moved into Bristol, and they couldmaintain a static city. I implore the council to ignore the objections from people who are simplyresistant to any change - they will never be pleased by any proposal. If it were up to them theirown houses would never have been built in the first place as they would have objected to anybuilding without a thatched roof. Modern buildings with timber frame construction are brilliant, longlived, and have a much lower environmental footprint. They allow for modern energy efficiencystandards to be met and they can be built quickly.

Bristol is a growing and vibrant city. Trying to block people being able to get new homes here issimply an injustice and is leading to increasing problems of housing insecurity in the aggregate.Consigning people who want new homes to only buying in the suburbs on brownfield sites is notfair and also not going to allow the city to meet climate targets. We need more density to promotealternative transport modes such as cycling, walking (not to mention fee paying customers tosupport more bus routes) which lessens the climate impact of people who would otherwise bespread further and more inclined to drive. Bristol Council should be embracing this fortunateposition it finds itself in as a popular city for people to move by enabling more housingdevelopment at density. In time this will significantly support plans for e.g. a Bristol metro byproviding the customers that will use it.

I also think the arguments re "not enough affordable housing" should be ignored - the site needs tobe commercially viable to support the new Zoo site, and also 20% of ~150 homes is a lot of newaffordable housing that would not be available if this site is not built. International data from citiesin New Zealand and Canada has demonstrated the clear correlation of easing housingdevelopment through e.g. permitting reform/planning rules promoting density, and reducing therate of house price growth. This should not have to be explained but if you increase supply to meetdemand, price falls. People understand this with daily purchases but seem to think housing is aspecial case. Notably in Harlem, New York City, USA recently a housing development of a largeapartment block was opposed through similar arguments of "insufficient affordable housing" - thesite is now being continued to use for its current purpose, a truck (lorry) stop. These objections arewhat I class as bad faith objections. Often such objections are made simply to prevent any newbuilding and are not truly concerned with provision of affordable housing.

Finally, I feel this site should not have any barriers to increasing density or implementing the fullvision of its design. The architect has designed a truly beautiful site and it would be a shame toallow these NIMBYs who seem to be organising an undemocratic astroturf campaign against thedevelopment to win with their regressive arguments. These objectors just want to maintain theirproperty values at the expense of the rest. The losers of such an outcome are the people ofBristol.

Zoo and Housing Developer (Savills) making extraordinary financial gain

- Zoo's closure reasoning does NOT support evidence of recent trends (pre covid) and profit.- Zoo's closure reasoning also CONTRADICTS the value of the site (plants, heritage)- Zoo's LACK of clear and transparent voting procedure- MINAMAL impact on social housing due to area- Modern housing architecture does NOT fit the local area (height, material, colour)- Well being of 2000+ students at Clifton College (plus other surronding schools) NOT considered.The risk, and pollution, of traffic on pupils is NOT considered.- Roads NOT fit for increased traffic during peak times

As a person who lives in a house which overlooks the zoo, these plans are awful. Notonly will they take away from the natural beauty of Clifton they will also pose a huge threat towardsthe school and safeguarding of children. The plans will overlook school buildings, includingboarding houses and bedrooms which is very inappropriate and unfair on the staff and pupils ofthe neighbouring school. This It will significantly affect the privacy of the school and overlookplaygrounds too. I am very against it as a resident in Clifton. The land could be used in a muchmore sustainable way, and the introduction of new housing into the market in Clifton is notnecessary. With students moving around the near area of plans, requiring to cross roads and goabout their daily life, the introduction of so many new properties would significantly increase trafficand therefore the risk for students.

These building plans will ruin the neighbourhood and look terrible among the historicbuildings of Clifton, and will be devastating to the nature and wildlife around it.

The plans to redevelop Bristol Zoo Gardens into a housing development will ruin thepreservation of the Clifton community. The design will ruin its character and does not fit with thearchitecture of the area. Please reconsider.

I can't believe these plans have been put through. We need permission to changewindows but to create this within a consecration area goes against everything it should. It is alsoagainst safeguarding for the local school and will create danger that is unnecessary.

To install the proposed buildings in a Conservation Area that includes residential homesand school buildings seems problematic. Not only are the proposed buildings too tall to be inkeeping with their surroundings or protect the privacy of the present residents, but the additionaltraffic created on what is a small road would also create traffic congestion and danger for thehundreds of pedestrians, including school children, who use the area each day.

These proposals(a) are wholly unsympathetic, unsuitable and incongruent in scale, mass, form and design for aunique Conservation Area;

(b) would overwhelm the proposed community garden and all the surrounding buildings. Note theprofessionally produced visualisations which have been commissioned by local residents.

(c) are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and the statutory obligation to ensurethat proposed development preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area;

(d) will never attract people from across Bristol. (Who would want to come and see gardens in themiddle of an upmarket housing estate?);

(e) come nowhere near satisfying the requirements of sustainable design; and

(f) present insuperable safeguarding and, because of the traffic they will generate, serious Healthand Safety problems for the children of the adjoining school;

They would do enormous damage done to the Conservation Area.They represent a thoroughly inappropriate legacy for the Zoo to leave after 186 years, particularlybearing in mind alternative options for the use of the site.

A luxury housing estate some six stories high may, financially, be the best option for the Zoo but itwould represent a disaster for the City of Bristol. It would allow the Zoo to sell the Gardens to aproperty developer for an estimated £40 million when it could easily adopt one of the alternativeoptions that are available and which would enable the site to be developed in a sustainablemanner and one which respects the integrity of the Conservation Area.

The Committee is under no obligation to support an organisation which is in any event abandoningthe City and has transformed itself from a conservation charity into, frankly, a greedy developer.

The Zoo routinely claims made that the site will provide 'desperately needed housing' but this ideais risible. It is housing at the lower end of the scale that is needed in Bristol while the apartmentsproposed at the Zoo will be sold as luxury flats. The current design includes '20% affordablehousing.' This is, most definitely, not social housing - but 80% of market rent and well out of rangefor key workers.

If this scheme is approved there will be substituted for the iconic gardens of which the people ofBristol are rightly proud a series of ghastly, unimaginative tower blocks which will forever representan ugly blot on the landscape. Future generations will wonder how this can possibly have beenallowed.

;

Objection - full

Any potential housing development on the former Bristol Zoo Gardens and West Car park site istotally inappropriate usage of this unique green site with it's cultural and historical significance, in aconservation area.

In the 1960's Bristol Zoo was apparently very fortunate to be gifted a very large part of the formerHollywood Estate (164 acres), (now developed as Bristol Zoo's 'Wild Place').Generosity of this kind is highly commendable.

The Zoo Trustees should consider echoing this historic generosity, together with the support givento the Zoo by Bristol's citizens over the last 186 years, by gifting the whole site (Zoo Gardens andZoo West Car Park) to the 'Citizens of Bristol for ever in perpetuity', - effectively as an extension tothe Clifton and Durham Downs.

Gifting the whole site to the Citizens of Bristol is something that the former Zoo and all Bristolcitizens would be proud of for centuries.

(The Zoo Trustees would make a significant 'profit' as a result of such a generous gift, as the on-going maintenance of the grounds and existing structures, would immediately cease. )

Objection - fullReasons for objection:

1. Harm to the overall historic interest and significance of the site

2. Loss of the Communal ValueThe plans do not address the need for more local and accessible green spaces (to address theincreasing mental and physical health issues).The plans do not preserve all the mature trees and shrubs (valuable assets to address climatechange issues).

3. Does not reflect the dilution of UK Government's housing targets.The proposal (for a housing development) does not reflect the relaxation in the UK Government'shousing plan - aka 'dilution of the housing targets' (6/12/2022).This UK government decision to be more flexible / realistic with housing targets has been madespecifically to protect key sites in areas of historic interest (e.g. Clifton), which the Government hasnow realised are at risk of inappropriate housing developments.

4. Squandering of a public spaceThe proposal (for a housing development) does not reflect the concerns that 'some public spacesare being squandered' (Michael Gove, MP, (27/12/2022)

It's hard to know where to start. My principal objections concern loss of amenity to theCity community and the inappropriate replacement of a heritage site with mundane and over-tallflats. I am especially concerned about the loss of the wonderful gardens and about likely damageto the trees. The contemporary view about the urban environment is to make lives and localamenities just that: local, hence as an example the council's closure of Princess Victoria Street tomotor vehicles. This proposal will force Wild Place visitors into their cars thus contributing toenvironmental degradation.

I object to the closure of Bristol and it's conversion to housing on a number of grounds:

1) The records of the Zoo show it was profitable for most of the preceding decade, and could wellbe again post-COVID, many animals are not being relocated way (e.g. seals, lions)

2) The proposed buildings will not be harmonious with the surrounding houses or collegebuildings, and will make a very over-bearing block along the lengths of the surrounding roads.

3) The loss of public amenity is not tolerable - it would be much better, if the Zoo has to lose, tohave the site developed with continued access to gardens, lake, and public facilities (e.g. aperformance venue) - such as the proposals made by Clifton College Education Group

These proposals(a) are wholly unsympathetic, unsuitable and incongruent in scale, mass, form and design for aunique Conservation Area;

(b) would overwhelm the proposed community garden and all the surrounding buildings. Note theprofessionally produced visualisations which have been commissioned by local residents.

(c) are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and the statutory obligation to ensurethat proposed development preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area;

(d) will never attract people from across Bristol. (Who would want to come and see gardens in themiddle of an upmarket housing estate?);

(e) come nowhere near satisfying the requirements of sustainable design; and

(f) present insuperable safeguarding and, because of the traffic they will generate, serious Healthand Safety problems for the children of the adjoining school;

They would do enormous damage done to the Conservation Area.They represent a thoroughly inappropriate legacy for the Zoo to leave after 186 years, particularlybearing in mind alternative options for the use of the site.

A luxury housing estate some six stories high may, financially, be the best option for the Zoo but itwould represent a disaster for the City of Bristol. It would allow the Zoo to sell the Gardens to aproperty developer for an estimated £40 million when it could easily adopt one of the alternativeoptions that are available and which would enable the site to be developed in a sustainablemanner and one which respects the integrity of the Conservation Area.

The Committee is under no obligation to support an organisation which is in any event abandoningthe City and has transformed itself from a conservation charity into, frankly, a greedy developer.

The Zoo routinely claims made that the site will provide 'desperately needed housing' but this ideais risible. It is housing at the lower end of the scale that is needed in Bristol while the apartmentsproposed at the Zoo will be sold as luxury flats. The current design includes '20% affordablehousing.' This is, most definitely, not social housing - but 80% of market rent and well out of rangefor key workers.

If this scheme is approved there will be substituted for the iconic gardens of which the people ofBristol are rightly proud a series of ghastly, unimaginative tower blocks which will forever representan ugly blot on the landscape. Future generations will wonder how this can possibly have beenallowed.

;

View from main Zoo entrance looking east along Clifton Down: monolithic 150 metres block of 4-6 storey flats up to 80 feet higher than existing wall.

Scale visualisation of proposed Housing Development at Bristol Zoo Gdns Planning Ref 22/02737/F May 30th 2022

View from east Zoo entrance/car park looking west along Clifton Down.

Having had a brief look at these proposals, I feel that the Zoo's development plans goagainst all the benefits that the area has derived from the Zoo Gardens in the past.The proposals seem ugly and inappropriate.

The proposed buildings on the periphery of the site are not respectful of the precioussite within Clifton.

The blocks of flats are bleak and too high. Clearly the developers are, as usual, hell bent onmaking maximum return without designing imaginative buildings suitable for the site.

The Bristol Zoo has such a legacy within the community and the broader city - it is sucha shame to see the conservation area being turned over for commercial use in the form of largeapartment complexes that don't fit with the area. The community gardens, being surrounded byapartments, are not a good enough use of that space and will decrease community engagement inthe area. I'm concerned by the increase in traffic, noise, and pollution that increasing thepopulation in the area so drastically will bring. The plans for the project go against the feel of theneighborhood and are a drastic change.

I object to this application because it is so obviously out of keeping with the character ofthe rest of the neighbourhood.

There will be a loss of greenery and an increase in built up areas.

The building work will be very disruptive to the whole area.

I also doubt that the infrastructure is there to support all the extra residents - roads are alreadybusy in that area.

We strongly object to the proposed development on the former zoo site. The proposeddevelopment does not conform with Planning policy DM26: Local Character and Distinctiveness,of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Policies Local Plan (2014). The local area and inparticular the surrounding school and residential buildings are period buildings and serve toenhance the unique character of this part of Clifton. The proposed new buildings are whollyinappropriate in size and character. They have complete disregard for the character of thesurrounding Conservation Area, being of high density and modern design.

The development also does not conform with the Council's adopted Urban Living SPD (November2018). The spirit of this document is cited as being summed up by the following quotation: 'Weshall be judged for a year or two by the number of houses we build. We shall be judged in tenyears' time by the type of houses we build.' The proposed development achieves a large numberof houses without due consideration to the type of houses being provided. The proposeddevelopment does not meet the stated aim: "New development should contribute positively to anarea's character and identity, creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness". There is no positivecontribution to the area's unique character and identity.

Having seen the plans for the Clifton development I am very disappointed. Thisdevelopment seems to have been planned to maximize as much profit as possible without takinginto consideration designing something which matches the beauty of the area. Clifton is an areathat should be treasured and protected. I am also very concerned over the reported loss of 150mature trees which should be preserved and protected in line with the character of the area andthe loss of the historic gardens which seem to be being cut considerably. From the plans, thislooks like it would be an eyesore and would reduce the loveliness of the area and damage theunique character.

I lived next to the Zoo for ten years and am disgusted with the proposals. Any Architectwho can design such brutalist and ugly buildings should be banned from his profession. The Zooarea is full of elegant Victorian buildings: these proposals are too tall, lack any charm, merely aimat packing in as many people as possible on economic grounds and take no account of peoplealready living there. Remarkably - and stupidly - they are white! This is a rare and unusual chanceto show some imagination and talent: these architects and developers clearly lack both. The planmust be rejected.

Bristol Zoological Gardens are LISTED as a local historic park and garden and are animportant open space. There are national collections of some plants on the site as well as wildlifewhose existence on this planet is threatened.The proposed building plans would result in the loss of a major and quite unique public amenity forBristolians and for visitors to the city. The zoo has enhanced the lives of generations for over 150years. During the last ten years alone it has been open to not less than half a million visitors ayear. In these days when we are being encouraged to plant trees and to conserve our gardensand open spaces no fewer than !62 trees will be uprooted form this site to make room for highdensity, luxury accomadation in blocks which are unsympathetic to the remaining buildigns on thesite and to what will remain of the glorious gardens which have been appreciated by millions ofpeople over the years. They have brought peace of mind and rest to many. It has been a sitewhere people have asked to have their remians scattered, where weddings have been celebratedand where people have been able to sit and contemplate or wander with pleasure amongst thebeauties of nature. The resulting harm of these plans to the public in terms of social and materialharm cannot be justified on any basis.Many of the listed buildings will be turned into apartments, their very nature changed and the sitewill no longer be accessible tot he public.The scale of the proposed development which includes six storey flats is totally out of keeping withthe surrounding area not merely in terms of scale but also in terms of building materials.The need for change of use has not been proven certainly in financial terms and the trustees ofthe zoo have misled the public in asserting up the last minute that the animals would be moved tothe Wild Place. It has become apparent that this is not going to be the case . Only the gorillas and

the lemurs will go there.I object to this planning application in the strongest possible terms.

HTp/2250/TN/02 Page 2 of 6

Figure 1 – Site context

6. Clifton College also holds charity and community events weekly, such as the Rotary Club

concert, Independent Schools rugby tournament (500 people), Schools Triathlon (2,000 people), as well as have Residential lettings for local and International schools and community groups throughout the Easter and Summer holidays.

7. Given the above, it is clear that Clifton College is extremely busy, operating 52 weeks of the year, with thousands of pedestrian movements daily concentrated in and between Guthrie Road, College Road and Northcote Road in particular.

8. The main issue with the BZG application, as set out in Technical Note 01/A, is the omission that Clifton College has thousands of pupil movements (from the age of 4 years old) throughout the day, six days a week, walking to and from the various buildings on Northcote Road, Guthrie Road, The Avenue and College Road, as well as to New Field to the west, off Cecil Road and Percival Road. These well-used desire lines associated with pupil movements have been repeatedly ignored within the assessment work. See Appendix 3 for a visual representation of pupil movements.

HTp/2250/TN/02 Page 3 of 6

9. The transport work has failed to consider the impact of the vehicular trips generated by the redevelopment, with its new access points, on the pupils of Clifton College. Not only were the majority of vehicle movements associated with BZG confined to the northern side of the site (the A4176) i.e. away from Clifton College pedestrian movements, but the peak hours and peak season i.e. the busiest times for BZG trip attraction (as used for the baseline assessment in the transport work) do not coincide with the daily movement of pupils as would the proposed residential scheme.

10. Given this, the net traffic impact benefit cited in the application is of no significance when considering the increase in vehicular traffic forecast on Northcote Road, Guthrie Road and College Road as a direct result of the redevelopment. This is to the detriment of highway safety of vulnerable road users.

11. The recent reduction from 201 to 196 residential units on the BZG site does not materially lessen the impact. Local Highway Layout & Pupil Movements Northcote Road

12. Northcote Road operates one-way (northbound only) with one footway around 1.8 metres wide on the eastern side and no footway on the western side. On-street parking, marked by dashed white lines, occupies much of both sides of the carriageway, with gaps for some property accesses. Northcote Road sees heavy pedestrian traffic throughout the day, particularly south of the entrance to the Prep school, as pupils regularly walk to and from facilities on Guthrie Road.

13. In summary, there are a minimum of around 100 pupil movements along Northcote Road hourly, rising to around 200 during the lunchtime period, up to around 400 pupil movements on Wednesday afternoons, and as many as 500 movements between 0745 and 0815 and also between 1600 and 1800 hours i.e. thousands of vulnerable road user movements per day.

14. Given this level of footfall, it is clear that further pedestrian movements on this single footway will result in either adults or children walking in the carriageway, significantly increasing the risk of a serious or even fatal pedestrian/vehicle collision occurring.

15. The proposed pedestrian crossing build-out from the BGZ site centrally on Northcote Road is clearly of no benefit to Clifton College pupils given there is to be no footway on the western side to cross to i.e. this is only a link to the site. It should be noted here that the transport assessment work failed to acknowledge the vulnerable road user personal injury accidents recorded. Guthrie Road

16. Northcote Road forms a simple priority junction at its south eastern end with Guthrie Road. A raised table and carriageway narrowing provides a crossing over the north eastern arm of the junction, and the north western footway on Guthrie Road is built out to narrow the carriageway on the south western arm.

HTp/2250/TN/02 Page 4 of 6

17. In summary, there are a minimum of around 100 pupil movements crossing the carriageway at the junction of Northcote Road and Guthrie Road hourly, the majority of which are unaccompanied (aged 11-13) and accompanied (aged 4-11) pupils travelling between Northcote Road and Guthrie Road (west). This rises to at least 300 pupil movements crossing the carriageway at the junction during the morning and evening peaks. There are further east-west movements of around 100 Upper School pupils at the junction each hour.

18. It is clear that an increase in pedestrian and vehicle traffic across this junction will result in a corresponding increase to risk, particularly to the vulnerable road users - who are the main users of the junction. No improvements to the crossing facilities at this junction are proposed as part of the BZG development. College Road

19. Guthrie Road forms a simple priority junction at its western end with College Road. A raised table covers the area of the junction, which forms an informal shared space between pedestrians and vehicular traffic and provides a calming effect to vehicles traversing the junction. Uncontrolled crossings are also provided on each arm, marked by tactile paving.

20. This junction facilities a high number of pedestrian movements across it – at least 300 hourly throughout the day, with significantly more during the peaks, due in part to the College facilities on both sides of the roads and coach pick-up/drop-off point situated adjacent to the junction. These movements are made over all arms of the junction, and also diagonally across the carriageway.

21. It is understood that this arrangement operates satisfactorily with current levels of traffic. However, an increase in traffic during the peak hours and throughout the day (arising from the new access locations around the BZG site on key roads) is likely to result in serious additional risk to the vulnerable road users crossing at this junction.

22. College Road is a single carriageway road, with footways around 1.9 metres wide on both sides of the carriageway. On-street parking, marked with dashed white lines, is present along much of the length of the road on both sides. College Road, at and south of Guthrie Road is an important thoroughfare for pupil movements to, from and around Clifton College, as college facilities and pupil accommodation buildings are located on this road. Pupils accessing the College from accommodation on the western side of College Road cross the carriageway, and vice-versa. A zebra crossing facilitates some of these movements, however, it is located off the main desire lines. Informal crossing movements are common throughout the day, at around 200 pupil movements per hour. Access to New Field

23. New Field lies to the west of the main Clifton College buildings and facilitates rugby and cricket activities. It is also occasionally used for large-scale parking for events held by Clifton College.

HTp/2250/TN/02 Page 5 of 6

24. These pedestrian movements are made via Percival Road or Cecil Road, with up to around 150 pupil movements in an hour cross this junction during the day when accessing New Field, with significant increases on event days, which may see many hundreds of pedestrian movements in a short space of time. See Appendix 2. Deliveries

25. Throughout the day, deliveries to the college are made at Porter’s Lodge, situated on Guthrie Road approximately opposite the junction with Northcote Road. A loading bay is marked on the carriageway with dashed white lines, with space for two vans or LGVs.

26. Catering deliveries are made to the college to a loading area on the south side of Guthrie Road. A dropped kerb forms a vehicle crossover of the footway, allowing LGVs and HGVs to reverse into the loading area. It is noted that the loading area is not large enough to accommodate a large HGV, which blocks the footway and protrudes into the carriageway during unloading. Coach & Mini-Bus Travel

27. Coaches and minibuses are regularly used to transport pupils attending Clifton College to the Sports Ground in Leigh Woods or to other schools for fixtures. There is a coach pick-up/drop-off point on the north side of Guthrie Road, close to the junction with College Road. Coaches pick up and drop off pupils here multiple times Monday to Saturday to transfer pupils between sites. Coach movements during term time are listed in Table 1. Table 1 – Coach movements on Guthrie Road

Day Time Pick-up/drop-off Number of Pupils Pupil age group

Monday 1400 Pick-up 100 Upper 1430 Pick-up 200 Prep 1600 Drop-off 100 Upper 1700 Drop-off 200 Prep

Tuesday

1330 Pick-up 655 Upper 1730 Drop-off 655 Upper

Wednesday 1330 Pick-up 400 Prep 1600-1700 Drop-off 400 Prep

Thursday 1330 Pick-up 655 Upper 1730 Drop-off 655 Upper

Friday 1430 Pick-up 200 Prep 1700 Drop-off 200 Prep

Saturday

0930 Pick-up 200 Prep 1100 Pick-up 200 Prep 1100 Drop-off 200 Prep 1100 Pick-up 655 Upper 1230 Drop-off 200 Prep 1900 Drop-off 655 Upper

HTp/2250/TN/02 Page 6 of 6

28. Minibuses operate daily, transporting pupils to various locations. These minibuses operate to and from a parking area accessed via a crossover on the south side of Guthrie Road. BGZ Traffic Generation

29. The submitted transport assessment work has again been reviewed and in the context of the expected rise in vehicle/pedestrian conflict on College Road, Guthrie Road and Northcote Road, can be summarised as:

i. 752vpd forecast from the development (using very low trip rates) – 635vpd of these are residential trips

ii. 53vph in the AM peak hour of 0800-0900 i.e. one vehicle per minute iii. 48vph in the PM peak hour of 1700-1800 i.e. one vehicle per minute

30. It should be noted that Clifton College is not in agreement with the trip rates and distribution from the submitted transport assessment work. The work does also not take Saturdays into account, where high volumes of development trips to/from Clifton Village will use these three important road links, in direct conflict with vulnerable road users. Summary

31. In summary, it is clear that Clifton College has not been sufficiently acknowledged as part of the BZG application and given the close proximity of the school along the entirety of two of the BZG boundaries, this is a concerning admission.

32. No account of desire lines associated with the pupils at Clifton College has been taken into account, or of the significant volume of pedestrian movements in this location that occur hourly throughout the day.

33. It is also clear that the BZG proposals do not mitigate the impact the redevelopment will have on Clifton College pupils and the road safety dangers arising.

Reps on behalf of Clifton College

Technical Note on Pupil Movements

HTp/2250/TN/02 Appendices

Appendix 1

Bristol Zoo Gardens Masterplan

Reps on behalf of Clifton College

Technical Note on Pupil Movements

HTp/2250/TN/02 Appendices

Appendix 2

Summary of Pupil Movements

PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTSSchool Day: 0845-1800 hours Monday to Saturday, 36 Weeks of the Year N.B. This spreadsheet is not exhaustive

School Activity To From Day Time Number of Pupils Pupil Ages NotesGuthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 0700 hrs 50 7-13 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 0745 hrs 50 7-13 yrsGuthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 1210 hrs 176 7-13 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1315 hrs 176 7-13 yrsGuthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 1710 hrs 85 7-13 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1750 hrs 85 7-13 yrsGuthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) 40 7-13 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) 40 7-13 yrsGuthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 1600 hrs 40 7-13 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1710 hrs 40 7-13 yrsGuthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) 40 5-7 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) 40 5-7 yrsCollege Road College Road (south) Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrs

College Road (east) Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrsGuthrie Road (north) Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrsCollege Road (south) Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrs

College Road (south) College Road Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrsCollege Road (east) College Road Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrsGuthrie Road (north) College Road Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrsCollege Road (south) College Road Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrs

Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 0745-0815 hrs 5-13 yrs plus others on footNorthcote Road Monday - Saturday 0745-0815 hrs 5-13 yrs 200 through northern entranceThe Avenue Monday - Saturday 0745-0815 hrs 5-13 yrsThe Avenue Monday - Saturday 0745-0815 hrs 5-13 yrs

Northcote Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 1600-1620 hrs 5-13 yrs plus others on footNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1600-1620 hrs 5-13 yrs 200 from northern entranceThe Avenue The Avenue Monday - Saturday 1600-1620 hrs 5-13 yrsThe Avenue Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1600-1620 hrs 5-13 yrsNorthcote Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 1730-1800 hrs 5-13 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1730-1800 hrs 5-13 yrsThe Avenue The Avenue Monday - Saturday 1730-1800 hrs 5-13 yrsThe Avenue Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1730-1800 hrs 5-13 yrsCollege Road College Road Monday - Saturday 0730-0815 hrs 13-18 yrs plus others on footGuthrie Road College Road Monday - Saturday 0730-0815 hrs 13-18 yrsCollege Road College Road Monday - Saturday 1530-1830 13-18 yrs plus others on footCollege Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1530-1830 13-18 yrsGuthrie Road (east) Guthrie Road Sunday - Saturday 0630-2200 hours - -Northcote Road Guthrie Road Sunday - Saturday 0630-2200 hours - -College Road Guthrie Road Sunday - Saturday 0630-2200 hours - -Guthrie Road Guthrie Road (east) Sunday - Saturday 0630-2200 hours - -Guthrie Road Northcote Road Sunday - Saturday 0630-2200 hours - -Guthrie Road College Road Sunday - Saturday 0630-2200 hours - -Guthrie Road (east) Guthrie Road Saturday - -Northcote Road Guthrie Road Saturday - -College Road Guthrie Road Saturday - -Guthrie Road Guthrie Road (east) Saturday - -Guthrie Road Northcote Road Saturday - -Guthrie Road College Road Saturday - -

Coach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Monday & Friday 1430 hrs 200 7-13 yrsCoach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Monday & Friday 1700 hrs 200 7-13 yrs

Coach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Wednesday 1330 hrs 400 7-13 yrs 6 coaches depart within 40 minutesCoach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Wednesday 1600-1700 hrs 400 7-13 yrs 6 coaches arrive within 40 minutes

Coach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Saturday 0930 hrs 200 7-13 yrsCoach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Saturday 1100 hrs 200 7-13 yrs

Coach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Saturday 1100 hrs 200 7-13 yrsCoach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Saturday 1230 hrs 200 7-13 yrs

Coach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Monday 1400 hrs 100 13-18 yrsCoach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Monday 1600 hrs 100 13-18 yrs

Coach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Tuesday & Thursday Tue & Thurs 1330 hrs 655 13-18 yrsCoach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Tuesday & Thursday Tue & Thurs 1730 hrs 655 13-18 yrs

Coach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Saturday 1100 hrs 655 13-18 yrsCoach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Saturday 1900 hrs 655 13-18 yrs

Guthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Friday 1210 hrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Friday 1315 hrs

Residentials Residentials College Road College Road Sunday - Saturday (throughout the day) 11-16 yrs Easter & Summer Vaccation PeriodsCollege Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) All (and vice versa - carrying instuments)Guthrie Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) AllNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) AllCollege Fields - Cecil Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 3x week 7-13 yrsCollege Fields - Percival Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 3x week 7-13 yrsCollege Fields Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 3x week 7-13 yrsCollege Fields - Cecil Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 3x week 13-18 yrsCollege Fields - Percival Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 3x week 13-18 yrsCollege Fields Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 3x week 13-18 yrs

150

150

500

400

400

500

Upper

Swimming Pool

Gym

Upper

Pre & Prep

Prep

Upper

Whole

Whole

Prep

Upper

Pre-Prep

Prep

Prep

Prep

Breakfast

Lunch

Tea

Gym

After School Club

Swimming

Coulson Building (lessons)

Drop Off

Collection

Collection (after school activity)

Music Building

New Field

New Field

Drop Off

Collection

Commercial

Swimming Classes

Holiday Club

Reps on behalf of Clifton College

Technical Note on Pupil Movements

HTp/2250/TN/02 Appendices

Appendix 3

Visual Representation of Pupil Movements

Hardelot

El Sub Sta

Sutton House

GlenavonCottage

Cliftonbank House

50

HouseButterfly Forest

ElephantUnderpass

48

Education

68.9m

7

40

FB

FB

LB

FB

House

Monkey Temple

Hippo

Tanks

GUTH

RIE RO

AD1

CLIFTON

The Clifton Pavillon

68.3m

COLLEGE

Centre

Conservation

The

Watsons House

Poole'sHouse

Chapel

Shelter

Shelter

Trees

71.9m

House

House

Reptile House

Tait's

Wollaston'sTown

10

Tanks

Maze

(Telec

ommu

nicatio

n)

NORTHCOTE ROAD

CLIFT

ON D

OWN

Bristol Zoo Gardens

Trees

Livingstone's Bat Enclosure

Twilight World

Tropical Bird

Monkey

8

Town

7

Mast

Trees

Terrace Theatre

Weirs

Preparatory School

FB

69.5m

6

12

ESS

10

2

1

69.5m

Langfo

rd Lodg

e

12

Southlands

TCB

65.8m

15THE AVENUE

75.0m

Deliver

ies

10

3a

21

67.1m

11

1 to 17

Office

Hankey's

19

73.5m

19a

19b

Butcombe

67.1m

6 4

Trees

11a

3b

8

11b

House

Clifton College

7

1

TCB

3

GUTHR

IE ROA

D

73.2m

5

Aquarium

Centre

67.4m

11

68.9m

26

38

1 to 18

2

Memorial Arch

Statue

9

68.3m

32

FB

7

Hallwards House

36

17

Coulson

House

68.0m

2

PERC

IVAL R

OAD

5

1

34

ROAD

1a

COLLEGE FIELDS

Pavilion

5

FB

CECIL R

OAD

40

Oakeley's

68.6m

9

30

10

2a

House

Moberly's House

24

Auburn House

68.0m

48

School

67.7m

28

KEY:

Drop-off/Collect Pre-Prep/Prep

Main Pre-Prep/Prep Routes

Main Upper School Routes

New Field Access Routes

Coach and Mini-Bus Zones

Deliveries

www.highgatetransportation.co.uk

First Floor, 43-45 Park StreetBristol BS1 5NL01179 349 121

© Highgate Transportation Limited

Highgate

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

PROJECT REFERENCE: DRAWING NUMBER: SCALE:

TITLE:

DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED:

FB DB12/12/22

PUPIL MOVEMENT MAPPING

N

2250 02 NOT TO SCALE

CLIFTON COLLEGE

BRISTOL ZOO GARDENSREPRESENTATIONS

HTp/2250/TN/02 Page 2 of 6

Figure 1 – Site context

6. Clifton College also holds charity and community events weekly, such as the Rotary Club

concert, Independent Schools rugby tournament (500 people), Schools Triathlon (2,000 people), as well as have Residential lettings for local and International schools and community groups throughout the Easter and Summer holidays.

7. Given the above, it is clear that Clifton College is extremely busy, operating 52 weeks of the year, with thousands of pedestrian movements daily concentrated in and between Guthrie Road, College Road and Northcote Road in particular.

8. The main issue with the BZG application, as set out in Technical Note 01/A, is the omission that Clifton College has thousands of pupil movements (from the age of 4 years old) throughout the day, six days a week, walking to and from the various buildings on Northcote Road, Guthrie Road, The Avenue and College Road, as well as to New Field to the west, off Cecil Road and Percival Road. These well-used desire lines associated with pupil movements have been repeatedly ignored within the assessment work. See Appendix 3 for a visual representation of pupil movements.

HTp/2250/TN/02 Page 3 of 6

9. The transport work has failed to consider the impact of the vehicular trips generated by the redevelopment, with its new access points, on the pupils of Clifton College. Not only were the majority of vehicle movements associated with BZG confined to the northern side of the site (the A4176) i.e. away from Clifton College pedestrian movements, but the peak hours and peak season i.e. the busiest times for BZG trip attraction (as used for the baseline assessment in the transport work) do not coincide with the daily movement of pupils as would the proposed residential scheme.

10. Given this, the net traffic impact benefit cited in the application is of no significance when considering the increase in vehicular traffic forecast on Northcote Road, Guthrie Road and College Road as a direct result of the redevelopment. This is to the detriment of highway safety of vulnerable road users.

11. The recent reduction from 201 to 196 residential units on the BZG site does not materially lessen the impact. Local Highway Layout & Pupil Movements Northcote Road

12. Northcote Road operates one-way (northbound only) with one footway around 1.8 metres wide on the eastern side and no footway on the western side. On-street parking, marked by dashed white lines, occupies much of both sides of the carriageway, with gaps for some property accesses. Northcote Road sees heavy pedestrian traffic throughout the day, particularly south of the entrance to the Prep school, as pupils regularly walk to and from facilities on Guthrie Road.

13. In summary, there are a minimum of around 100 pupil movements along Northcote Road hourly, rising to around 200 during the lunchtime period, up to around 400 pupil movements on Wednesday afternoons, and as many as 500 movements between 0745 and 0815 and also between 1600 and 1800 hours i.e. thousands of vulnerable road user movements per day.

14. Given this level of footfall, it is clear that further pedestrian movements on this single footway will result in either adults or children walking in the carriageway, significantly increasing the risk of a serious or even fatal pedestrian/vehicle collision occurring.

15. The proposed pedestrian crossing build-out from the BGZ site centrally on Northcote Road is clearly of no benefit to Clifton College pupils given there is to be no footway on the western side to cross to i.e. this is only a link to the site. It should be noted here that the transport assessment work failed to acknowledge the vulnerable road user personal injury accidents recorded. Guthrie Road

16. Northcote Road forms a simple priority junction at its south eastern end with Guthrie Road. A raised table and carriageway narrowing provides a crossing over the north eastern arm of the junction, and the north western footway on Guthrie Road is built out to narrow the carriageway on the south western arm.

HTp/2250/TN/02 Page 4 of 6

17. In summary, there are a minimum of around 100 pupil movements crossing the carriageway at the junction of Northcote Road and Guthrie Road hourly, the majority of which are unaccompanied (aged 11-13) and accompanied (aged 4-11) pupils travelling between Northcote Road and Guthrie Road (west). This rises to at least 300 pupil movements crossing the carriageway at the junction during the morning and evening peaks. There are further east-west movements of around 100 Upper School pupils at the junction each hour.

18. It is clear that an increase in pedestrian and vehicle traffic across this junction will result in a corresponding increase to risk, particularly to the vulnerable road users - who are the main users of the junction. No improvements to the crossing facilities at this junction are proposed as part of the BZG development. College Road

19. Guthrie Road forms a simple priority junction at its western end with College Road. A raised table covers the area of the junction, which forms an informal shared space between pedestrians and vehicular traffic and provides a calming effect to vehicles traversing the junction. Uncontrolled crossings are also provided on each arm, marked by tactile paving.

20. This junction facilities a high number of pedestrian movements across it – at least 300 hourly throughout the day, with significantly more during the peaks, due in part to the College facilities on both sides of the roads and coach pick-up/drop-off point situated adjacent to the junction. These movements are made over all arms of the junction, and also diagonally across the carriageway.

21. It is understood that this arrangement operates satisfactorily with current levels of traffic. However, an increase in traffic during the peak hours and throughout the day (arising from the new access locations around the BZG site on key roads) is likely to result in serious additional risk to the vulnerable road users crossing at this junction.

22. College Road is a single carriageway road, with footways around 1.9 metres wide on both sides of the carriageway. On-street parking, marked with dashed white lines, is present along much of the length of the road on both sides. College Road, at and south of Guthrie Road is an important thoroughfare for pupil movements to, from and around Clifton College, as college facilities and pupil accommodation buildings are located on this road. Pupils accessing the College from accommodation on the western side of College Road cross the carriageway, and vice-versa. A zebra crossing facilitates some of these movements, however, it is located off the main desire lines. Informal crossing movements are common throughout the day, at around 200 pupil movements per hour. Access to New Field

23. New Field lies to the west of the main Clifton College buildings and facilitates rugby and cricket activities. It is also occasionally used for large-scale parking for events held by Clifton College.

HTp/2250/TN/02 Page 5 of 6

24. These pedestrian movements are made via Percival Road or Cecil Road, with up to around 150 pupil movements in an hour cross this junction during the day when accessing New Field, with significant increases on event days, which may see many hundreds of pedestrian movements in a short space of time. See Appendix 2. Deliveries

25. Throughout the day, deliveries to the college are made at Porter’s Lodge, situated on Guthrie Road approximately opposite the junction with Northcote Road. A loading bay is marked on the carriageway with dashed white lines, with space for two vans or LGVs.

26. Catering deliveries are made to the college to a loading area on the south side of Guthrie Road. A dropped kerb forms a vehicle crossover of the footway, allowing LGVs and HGVs to reverse into the loading area. It is noted that the loading area is not large enough to accommodate a large HGV, which blocks the footway and protrudes into the carriageway during unloading. Coach & Mini-Bus Travel

27. Coaches and minibuses are regularly used to transport pupils attending Clifton College to the Sports Ground in Leigh Woods or to other schools for fixtures. There is a coach pick-up/drop-off point on the north side of Guthrie Road, close to the junction with College Road. Coaches pick up and drop off pupils here multiple times Monday to Saturday to transfer pupils between sites. Coach movements during term time are listed in Table 1. Table 1 – Coach movements on Guthrie Road

Day Time Pick-up/drop-off Number of Pupils Pupil age group

Monday 1400 Pick-up 100 Upper 1430 Pick-up 200 Prep 1600 Drop-off 100 Upper 1700 Drop-off 200 Prep

Tuesday

1330 Pick-up 655 Upper 1730 Drop-off 655 Upper

Wednesday 1330 Pick-up 400 Prep 1600-1700 Drop-off 400 Prep

Thursday 1330 Pick-up 655 Upper 1730 Drop-off 655 Upper

Friday 1430 Pick-up 200 Prep 1700 Drop-off 200 Prep

Saturday

0930 Pick-up 200 Prep 1100 Pick-up 200 Prep 1100 Drop-off 200 Prep 1100 Pick-up 655 Upper 1230 Drop-off 200 Prep 1900 Drop-off 655 Upper

HTp/2250/TN/02 Page 6 of 6

28. Minibuses operate daily, transporting pupils to various locations. These minibuses operate to and from a parking area accessed via a crossover on the south side of Guthrie Road. BGZ Traffic Generation

29. The submitted transport assessment work has again been reviewed and in the context of the expected rise in vehicle/pedestrian conflict on College Road, Guthrie Road and Northcote Road, can be summarised as:

i. 752vpd forecast from the development (using very low trip rates) – 635vpd of these are residential trips

ii. 53vph in the AM peak hour of 0800-0900 i.e. one vehicle per minute iii. 48vph in the PM peak hour of 1700-1800 i.e. one vehicle per minute

30. It should be noted that Clifton College is not in agreement with the trip rates and distribution from the submitted transport assessment work. The work does also not take Saturdays into account, where high volumes of development trips to/from Clifton Village will use these three important road links, in direct conflict with vulnerable road users. Summary

31. In summary, it is clear that Clifton College has not been sufficiently acknowledged as part of the BZG application and given the close proximity of the school along the entirety of two of the BZG boundaries, this is a concerning admission.

32. No account of desire lines associated with the pupils at Clifton College has been taken into account, or of the significant volume of pedestrian movements in this location that occur hourly throughout the day.

33. It is also clear that the BZG proposals do not mitigate the impact the redevelopment will have on Clifton College pupils and the road safety dangers arising.

Reps on behalf of Clifton College

Technical Note on Pupil Movements

HTp/2250/TN/02 Appendices

Appendix 1

Bristol Zoo Gardens Masterplan

Reps on behalf of Clifton College

Technical Note on Pupil Movements

HTp/2250/TN/02 Appendices

Appendix 2

Summary of Pupil Movements

PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTSSchool Day: 0845-1800 hours Monday to Saturday, 36 Weeks of the Year N.B. This spreadsheet is not exhaustive

School Activity To From Day Time Number of Pupils Pupil Ages NotesGuthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 0700 hrs 50 7-13 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 0745 hrs 50 7-13 yrsGuthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 1210 hrs 176 7-13 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1315 hrs 176 7-13 yrsGuthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 1710 hrs 85 7-13 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1750 hrs 85 7-13 yrsGuthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) 40 7-13 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) 40 7-13 yrsGuthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 1600 hrs 40 7-13 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1710 hrs 40 7-13 yrsGuthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) 40 5-7 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) 40 5-7 yrsCollege Road College Road (south) Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrs

College Road (east) Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrsGuthrie Road (north) Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrsCollege Road (south) Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrs

College Road (south) College Road Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrsCollege Road (east) College Road Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrsGuthrie Road (north) College Road Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrsCollege Road (south) College Road Monday - Saturday (hourly across the day) 350 13-18 yrs

Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 0745-0815 hrs 5-13 yrs plus others on footNorthcote Road Monday - Saturday 0745-0815 hrs 5-13 yrs 200 through northern entranceThe Avenue Monday - Saturday 0745-0815 hrs 5-13 yrsThe Avenue Monday - Saturday 0745-0815 hrs 5-13 yrs

Northcote Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 1600-1620 hrs 5-13 yrs plus others on footNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1600-1620 hrs 5-13 yrs 200 from northern entranceThe Avenue The Avenue Monday - Saturday 1600-1620 hrs 5-13 yrsThe Avenue Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1600-1620 hrs 5-13 yrsNorthcote Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 1730-1800 hrs 5-13 yrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1730-1800 hrs 5-13 yrsThe Avenue The Avenue Monday - Saturday 1730-1800 hrs 5-13 yrsThe Avenue Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1730-1800 hrs 5-13 yrsCollege Road College Road Monday - Saturday 0730-0815 hrs 13-18 yrs plus others on footGuthrie Road College Road Monday - Saturday 0730-0815 hrs 13-18 yrsCollege Road College Road Monday - Saturday 1530-1830 13-18 yrs plus others on footCollege Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday 1530-1830 13-18 yrsGuthrie Road (east) Guthrie Road Sunday - Saturday 0630-2200 hours - -Northcote Road Guthrie Road Sunday - Saturday 0630-2200 hours - -College Road Guthrie Road Sunday - Saturday 0630-2200 hours - -Guthrie Road Guthrie Road (east) Sunday - Saturday 0630-2200 hours - -Guthrie Road Northcote Road Sunday - Saturday 0630-2200 hours - -Guthrie Road College Road Sunday - Saturday 0630-2200 hours - -Guthrie Road (east) Guthrie Road Saturday - -Northcote Road Guthrie Road Saturday - -College Road Guthrie Road Saturday - -Guthrie Road Guthrie Road (east) Saturday - -Guthrie Road Northcote Road Saturday - -Guthrie Road College Road Saturday - -

Coach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Monday & Friday 1430 hrs 200 7-13 yrsCoach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Monday & Friday 1700 hrs 200 7-13 yrs

Coach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Wednesday 1330 hrs 400 7-13 yrs 6 coaches depart within 40 minutesCoach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Wednesday 1600-1700 hrs 400 7-13 yrs 6 coaches arrive within 40 minutes

Coach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Saturday 0930 hrs 200 7-13 yrsCoach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Saturday 1100 hrs 200 7-13 yrs

Coach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Saturday 1100 hrs 200 7-13 yrsCoach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Saturday 1230 hrs 200 7-13 yrs

Coach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Monday 1400 hrs 100 13-18 yrsCoach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Monday 1600 hrs 100 13-18 yrs

Coach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Tuesday & Thursday Tue & Thurs 1330 hrs 655 13-18 yrsCoach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Tuesday & Thursday Tue & Thurs 1730 hrs 655 13-18 yrs

Coach transfer to Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Saturday 1100 hrs 655 13-18 yrsCoach transfer from Beggars Bush Lane site Guthrie Road (west) Guthrie Road (west) Saturday 1900 hrs 655 13-18 yrs

Guthrie Road Northcote Road Monday - Friday 1210 hrsNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Friday 1315 hrs

Residentials Residentials College Road College Road Sunday - Saturday (throughout the day) 11-16 yrs Easter & Summer Vaccation PeriodsCollege Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) All (and vice versa - carrying instuments)Guthrie Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) AllNorthcote Road Guthrie Road Monday - Saturday (throughout the day) AllCollege Fields - Cecil Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 3x week 7-13 yrsCollege Fields - Percival Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 3x week 7-13 yrsCollege Fields Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 3x week 7-13 yrsCollege Fields - Cecil Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 3x week 13-18 yrsCollege Fields - Percival Road Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 3x week 13-18 yrsCollege Fields Northcote Road Monday - Saturday 3x week 13-18 yrs

150

150

500

400

400

500

Upper

Swimming Pool

Gym

Upper

Pre & Prep

Prep

Upper

Whole

Whole

Prep

Upper

Pre-Prep

Prep

Prep

Prep

Breakfast

Lunch

Tea

Gym

After School Club

Swimming

Coulson Building (lessons)

Drop Off

Collection

Collection (after school activity)

Music Building

New Field

New Field

Drop Off

Collection

Commercial

Swimming Classes

Holiday Club

Reps on behalf of Clifton College

Technical Note on Pupil Movements

HTp/2250/TN/02 Appendices

Appendix 3

Visual Representation of Pupil Movements

Hardelot

El Sub Sta

Sutton House

GlenavonCottage

Cliftonbank House

50

HouseButterfly Forest

ElephantUnderpass

48

Education

68.9m

7

40

FB

FB

LB

FB

House

Monkey Temple

Hippo

Tanks

GUTH

RIE RO

AD1

CLIFTON

The Clifton Pavillon

68.3m

COLLEGE

Centre

Conservation

The

Watsons House

Poole'sHouse

Chapel

Shelter

Shelter

Trees

71.9m

House

House

Reptile House

Tait's

Wollaston'sTown

10

Tanks

Maze

(Telec

ommu

nicatio

n)

NORTHCOTE ROAD

CLIFT

ON D

OWN

Bristol Zoo Gardens

Trees

Livingstone's Bat Enclosure

Twilight World

Tropical Bird

Monkey

8

Town

7

Mast

Trees

Terrace Theatre

Weirs

Preparatory School

FB

69.5m

6

12

ESS

10

2

1

69.5m

Langfo

rd Lodg

e

12

Southlands

TCB

65.8m

15THE AVENUE

75.0m

Deliver

ies

10

3a

21

67.1m

11

1 to 17

Office

Hankey's

19

73.5m

19a

19b

Butcombe

67.1m

6 4

Trees

11a

3b

8

11b

House

Clifton College

7

1

TCB

3

GUTHR

IE ROA

D

73.2m

5

Aquarium

Centre

67.4m

11

68.9m

26

38

1 to 18

2

Memorial Arch

Statue

9

68.3m

32

FB

7

Hallwards House

36

17

Coulson

House

68.0m

2

PERC

IVAL R

OAD

5

1

34

ROAD

1a

COLLEGE FIELDS

Pavilion

5

FB

CECIL R

OAD

40

Oakeley's

68.6m

9

30

10

2a

House

Moberly's House

24

Auburn House

68.0m

48

School

67.7m

28

KEY:

Drop-off/Collect Pre-Prep/Prep

Main Pre-Prep/Prep Routes

Main Upper School Routes

New Field Access Routes

Coach and Mini-Bus Zones

Deliveries

www.highgatetransportation.co.uk

First Floor, 43-45 Park StreetBristol BS1 5NL01179 349 121

© Highgate Transportation Limited

Highgate

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

PROJECT REFERENCE: DRAWING NUMBER: SCALE:

TITLE:

DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED:

FB DB12/12/22

PUPIL MOVEMENT MAPPING

N

2250 02 NOT TO SCALE

CLIFTON COLLEGE

BRISTOL ZOO GARDENSREPRESENTATIONS

It would be difficult to propose a less suitable development for this site for the followingreasons:

- The massing of the site is extremely poor, high density medium rise buildings are completelyunsympathetic to surrounding listed buildings and green space. The gardens will be decimatedalong with the removal of 162 trees.

- Six storeys is far higher than surrounding buildings and will be completely out of place.

- The loss of the Zoo which has been a major public amenity for Bristolians for over 150 years.

- Bristol needs affordable housing not luxury apartments. There are many brownfield sites strewnacross Bristol which are craving redevelopment and which currently lie stagnant. These brownfieldsites should use the massing and density that has been proposed for the Zoo site, not the Zoo.

- The Zoo was thriving until the pandemic which brought financial havoc across the country. Theowners seem to have jumped on this as an opportunity to wind the zoo up despite visitor numbersbeing higher than ever preceding the pandemic.

This development is not what Bristol needs and so it should not be allowed to proceed.

The Zoo Gardens are an essential part of the city's heritage. It's shocking to see aunique resource such as this being discarded so casually. There will be a massive loss of maturetrees. It seems that the financial justifications put forward don't stand up to scrutiny. The promiseof permanent public access to part of the site cannot, it appears, be guaranteed. The Councilshould be intervening to protect this element of Bristol's history.

I wish to register my objection to the planning application with reference 22/02737/F.

The scale of the proposed development is disproportionate to the surroundings and its design isinappropriate to the neighbourhood. They do not enhance or preserve the character of the area.

This planning application is very unsightly in an area of historical buildings.Furthermore, it will overlook school buildings, including boarding houses and bedrooms which isvery inappropriate and unfair on the staff and pupils of the neighbouring school. It is an eyesore oftowering flats in a nice, affluent area of Bristol. It will significantly affect the privacy of the schooland overlook playgrounds too. Very against it as a resident in clifton.

I strongly object to this building planning. It's an historical area and to put new flat isgoing to look awful and make people not want to live here. The flats will tower over existinghouses and a school. Privacy will be gone in both school and houses and the construction alonewill be extremely disruptive to the nearby school.

I have lived in Clifton for years and it is a lovely, private, safe and affluent area ofBristol. To accept and proceed with these plans would significantly damage this area. It would lookawful and create all sorts of issues for privacy and driving and parking around the area with allthose new flats/people, not to mention the risk to school children crossing the roads around thereand the school buildings which would be overlooked by people in flats.

I object to this development due to its proximity to Clifton College Preparatory Schooland its boarding house. Parking is already limited and traffic is already a potential hazard forpupils. It is also not in keep with the aesthetic of the area.

I would like to raise three further objections to those already raised:Economic BenefitsThe comment from the Council's Economic Development team - to the effect that "the EconomicBenefits Assessment document represents a reasonable estimate of the potential economicbenefits of the proposal" - cannot be taken seriously. The document is not balanced and does notfollow - as the report claims - HM Treasury Green Book Guidance for reasons I have set out in myprevious objection.Carbon FactorsThe Council's Sustainable City team have commented:"As SAP 2012 carbon factors were in use for Part L 2013 at the time of the initial submission, theuse of these carbon factors has been continued for the revised statement (rather than Part L2021). For the purpose of BCS14 calculations we consider this to be acceptable"The same applicant was recently awarded consent on the West car Park site. That application(21/01999/F) was submitted long before this application (22/02737/F). In a September 2022revision to the Energy and Sustainability Statement accompanying the application 21/01999/F, theapplicant's consultants, Hydrock, updated the carbon factors used in the calculation of the residualCO2 savings from the proposal from Pat L 2013 to Part L 2021. the comment from the SustainableCities team seems to indicate that the Council would find it acceptable under the newer applicationto make use of the older carbon factors.The Council's position should be considered in the light of the rather obvious point that it cannotbe for the applicant to pick and choose the carbon factors which suit its purpose of seeking todemonstrate compliance with extant policy, still less, for the Council to consent to the wishes of

the applicant when it is clear that the basis for the calculation has changed.To put this another way, the Council is sanctioning an approach to the calculation of carbonsavings from renewable electricity generation which have not been reflected in the carbon intensityof generation for more than ten years. It is obviously out of date. It is incredibly disappointing tosee a Council that has declared a climate emergency seeking to ease the path of an applicationbased on endorsing the use of carbon factors that are completely divorced from prevailing reality.This view is unacceptable and must be changed.Affordable HousingAs regards affordable housing, the Applicant's Planning Statement (from Savills, October 2022)states:"Application Policy BCS17 state that affordable housing will be required in residentialdevelopments of 15 or more dwellings. A minimum of 40% provision is sought in Inner WestBristol, subject to viability, although the Affordable Housing Practice Note (April 2018) allows a20% provision subject to meeting the required criteria. The tenure, size and type of affordableunits will reflect identified needs, site suitability and economic viability".Currently, the Council is likely to exceed targets it set for building new homes, but will fail to meetits target for affordable homes. The approach in the Affordable Housing Practice Note (AHPN)seemed inconsistent with a sincere attempt to deliver the required number of affordable homes.The AHPN does not form part of the statutory development plan. New policies cannot be set out inthe Affordable Homes Practice Note, so the Core Strategy policies would remain the locallyrelevant ones.BCS17 in the Core Strategy states:Affordable housing will be required in residential developments of 15 dwellings or more. Thefollowing percentage targets will be sought through negotiation:- 40% in North West, Inner West and Inner East Bristol;- 30% in all other locationsIt would be extremely difficult, in the circumstances, to argue that 20% affordable homes is theoutcome that would have resulted under the extant policy BCS17. If that is not the case, then itwould be reasonable to argue that the AHPN had materially influenced the policy in ways that itcannot do.There is a general understanding (it is a matter of public record) that the applicant seeks to sell theland to generate revenue in support of its objectives. It is not the role of the Council's planningfunction, or the development control committee, to facilitate the achievement of a higher value forland than might otherwise be the case. In the context, therefore, and recognizing that there is likelyto be sufficient residual value in the land value to justify a higher proportion of affordable homes,then if consent were given to the proposal, it would be difficult to argue that the AHPN had notgiven rise to a material change in the application of the extant policy on affordable homes, BCS17.

The 20% affordable homes offered by the applicant a) is inadequate, and b) has been arrived at ina manner that is inconsistent with the application of BCS17.

I appreciate that the area needs to be developed but the plans submitted areoppressive, not in keeping with the area and look like a old 1960s block.Terrible decision !

Oppressive, out of keeping and generally awful !

I strongly object to this monstrosity of a development. It is not in keeping with thehistorical fabric of the area. For this to be even showcased to the public shows how out of touchthe Council planning are. This development should be shelved. Also to add the removal of maturetrees is an outrage. I thought we had a Councillor/Lord Mayor who was supposedly 'Green'. I trustshe is objecting to this as well.

I strongly object to this monstrosity of a development. It is not in keeping with thehistorical fabric of the area. For this to be even showcased to the public shows how out of touchthe Council planning are. This development should be shelved. Also to add the removal of maturetrees is an outrage. I thought we had a Councillor/Lord Mayor who was supposedly 'Green'. I trustshe is objecting to this as well.

We are writing to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development ofBristol Zoo's main site.

As long standing residents of Clifton, we are deeply concerned that the historic character of theconservation area will be permanently blighted by this development. For all of the green washingthat the Zoo and its partners may put in place, the development is essentially a housing estate. Itwill be totally out of keeping with its surroundings, overshadowing the streets around it and actingas a magnet for congestion. No amount of tweaking can ameliorate the grotesque nature of thisdevelopment.

We have serious doubts as to how accessible the zoo gardens will be in the future if they areturned over to residential use. We are aware that there are competing proposals for the use of thesite which may be of far more use to the local community than providing overpriced apartments ina gated community for the privileged. Bristol City Council should think about the needs of the localcommunity which they serve as opposed to letting the zoo dictate what should happen because ofits alleged financial difficulties.

While I am in favour of building more housing in Clifton, and I think the former zoo is agreat site for it, I cannot support the plans for this development as they are. Although there doesappear to be a lot of central green space, the 6-storey high walls surrounding the development areclearly designed to make the development feel exclusive and unwelcoming to outsiders or non-owners of the apartments, and are not at all in keeping with the rest of the area. The aerial viewclearly shows that most of the apartment blocks dwarf the existing buildings of Clifton college,which are a gem of Clifton. The north view from Clifton down, which currently has a pleasingaspect of greenery will now be met with an imposing solid wall 25m high and 300m long,reminiscent of a London prison.

The colours of the walls, although pleasant in the proposed drawings, will not be nice for long, andwill stand out for all the wrong reasons in the future when they are dirty. In a development of thissize, keeping the outer facade of the buildings clean and tidy will not be a priority.

The buildings are just designed as square blocks with a few embellishments, to make them slightlymore interesting, but all of the buildings in the surrounding areas have pitched roofs and stonefacades. I also hope that the proposed 6-storeys will not be allowed, since there are no buildingsin the local area which are higher than 4-storeys, except for Clifton college, which should be ableto stand out from the development right next to it.

The NPPF Guidance states, para 189 "These assets are an irreplaceable resource andshould be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance for the enjoyment of futuregenerations." Blocks of luxury flats do not fit this bill.The Trustees took this hasty and incomprehensible decision at a time of national stress, thelockdown. One of the justifications for selling the zoo is apparently financial, yet for the last nine ofthe ten years prior to the Covid closure, there were never less than half a million visitors. It canthus be considered as being financially viable, even if current management requires changes.On heritage grounds alone therefore the zoo should be preserved. 150 years as one of Bristol'spremier public assets should not be casually disregarded as is currently to be assumed if thisproposal is accepted.On aesthetic grounds, the brutal scale and style of the proposed luxury flat buildings would bequite out of place in the context of the listed buildings which characterise Clifton.This proposal should be rejected to give Bristolians time to grasp the nature of this move and tounderstand the nature and scale of the loss that their children will suffer.

Comments on behalf of Mall Gardens Residents Association:- Loss of Heritage - loss of a major public amenity for Bristolians which has enriched the lives ofgenerations for over 150 years. The retention of the area as a public amenity in perpetuity is atrisk.- Scale - large blocks of flats some as high as six stories are entirely out of keeping with thecharacter of the area, which is a key conservation area. They are over intrusive and of poorarchitectural merit.- Aesthetics - high density accommodation which threaten the heritage asset of the gardens. Moretime is needed for the development of ideas and broader thinking on the future of the site (egEden Centre, RHS)

The scale of the large blocks of flats are out of keeping with the character of the Cliftonconservation area and the surrounding listed buildings. They are over intrusive and lackarchitectural merit appropriate for such a key and iconic siteThis is a historic and heritage site The development will result in the loss of a major public assetand amenity, potentially in perpetuity. The gardens are an integral part of the open spaces andinherent character of the Clifton area.The high density accommodation threatens the aesthetics and heritage asset of the site andgardens in particular. More time is needed for development of ideas, wider consultation andbroader thinking on how the unique aspects of the site could be protected in the immediate andlong term.

This proposal is totally unsatisfactory. It is proposed that the site, in a historicallyimportant part of Clifton, is sold for maximum financial gain, to develop a facility outside Bristol.The scale and unattractiveness of the residential properties are totally out of keeping with thearea. There will not be any social housing included.Already, the West car park development seems to be going ahead, despite overwhelmingobjections.If this plan is accepted, it will be a disgrace, revealing a lack of appreciation of aestheticimportance in such a sensitive area.Residents of Clifton, greater Bristol, and the wider region, will live with any development forcenturies. Planners should support something that everyone, including the zoological society, canbe proud of. The current proposal is not in that category. Any largely residential application shouldbe turned down.

1. Please do not allow random and unsuitable housing or other use on this beautifulsite. Our city is rightly proud of this historic neighbourhood. I feel the proposals are not in keepingwith the surroundings.

2. We should use existing empty premises for converting into accommodation, not open, greensites.

3. I am not persuaded that the site is not viable. Living along the road, I see the queues of peoplewaiting to get in, experience the build up of traffic on beautiful days, when families are taking theirchildren to the zoo. Many of those families will have limited access to green space. The zoo givesthem the opportunity to run around, to learn about our precious wildlife and the importance ofprotecting our environment. Please don't let an ever increasing desire to make money take thisaway from those families.

I object both to the zoo being closed and to the highly inappropriate planningsubmission currently being proposed.The zoo site has a massive historical value, which will be mostly destroyed if the present proposalwere to be approved.The public have had the right to access these area of historical importance for generations. Afterso long, there is surely a legal right for all individuals to retain that access.The proposed plans are totally out of keeping with the beautiful Clifton historic architecture, mostespecially Clifton College and surrounding Victorian townhouses. Also, the proposed buildings arefar too high and of a poor architectural design.The Zoo itself seems to still be a viable business and there seems to be no reason why it shouldnot remain so.Let's not put individual financial gain ahead of the chance to save such an important and historicalsite for the benefit of all.

1. Harm will be caused to overall historic interest. The Zoo has been on the site for somany years yet all this will be overridden.2. Loss of communal value to a site that Bristolians and others have visited for generations.3. Harm will be caused to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on thesite, but all buildings will be turned into apartments. These buildings will be changed and becomeunavailable to the public.4. Unjustifiable harm will be caused, the 'oasis' that the Zoo gardens provide being lost forever.5. Change of use not proven. Bristol Zoo has not proved that it cannot continue as a public site. Itsbusiness case is unclear. Alternative uses remain unexplored.6.Loss of public amenity. In similar cases green spaces have become private .7. The proposed buildings are completely out of scale with the surrounding buildings, and are notin harmony with the Clifton College buildings or nearby houses. A huge monolithic block will rearits ugly head facing the Downs.8. Loss of landscape. Almost 50% of existing trees will be lost; many more will be damaged. Thepublic green spaces will be small.9. The area may well lose its treasured conservation area status as a result of such a hugehousing estate being built. This would be a tragedy for all Bristolians.

I am really shocked that such a wonderful communal resource might be going. Being inthe inner city, it is easily accessible to many people and has always been such a wonderful placefor families and children. Bristol Zoo is Iconic..it is a site of great significance and is of Historicinterest. The proposals involve a loss of landscape..reducing the public green space and losingtrees. It has listing as a local Historic Park and Garden and is an Important Open Space. I cannotbelieve that the Council would allow a proposal which reduced any of these wonderful ZoologicalGardens and allow building on any of the site. Please refuse this application for the many familieswho now have been enjoying this very special place, and to ensure that it remains for futuregenerations. Thank You.

Overintensive development, buildings too big and too high, not in keeping withsurrounding area. Incongruous in conservation area.More traffic and parking could impact residential areas and have detrimental effect on The Downs.The plans should be completely withdrawn, not tweaked. There should be a new submission bymore enlightened architects taking into account local feeling and sensitivity of the location. Theheritage of the area should be valued and respected.

Although I no longer live in the BS8 area, my breath was taken away by the oppressiveugliness of the plans I saw yesterday for the re-development of the former Bristol Zoo gardens.Clifton is an area of outstanding architectural character. The proposed development would appearto be the City Council beginning the process of reducing this character in favour of cramming innearly 200 dwellings. The development seems to turn its back on the centuries of elegance andgrace, presenting a prison-like exterior to the immediate environment. Are the new residentsexpected to behave in a similar fashion? I do not object to the profits the developers could makebut the granting of permission for them to desecrate a beautiful part of Bristol seems to me to betantamount to vandalism.

Summary of ObjectionThe role of zoos within the UK and throughout the world has obviously changed over time fromwhat could be considered as traditional visitor attractions, to one where zoos are now centres oflearning and excellence whose function is to ensure the survival of critically endangered species.

From reviewing the latest available published figures, around 500,000 people visited Bristol Zoo in2019. Since it opened in 1836, over 90million people have passed through its gates. Families havebeen entertained and interacted with the animals at close quarters. They have learned about thevital conservation work that is integral to saving endangered species across the planet.

However, we are of the firm belief that the closure of this much loved and respected Zoo ispremature and ill judged.

We believe that the proposals to convert the site into a housing scheme has been poorlyconceived and designed and fails to recognise the architectural importance of the wider area.

Planning PolicyThe site of Bristol Zoo sits within the Conservation Area of Clifton & Hotwells. Clifton & Hotwellswas designated as a conservation area on 26 September 1972 and extended on 16 February1977 and 18 February 1981. The Clifton & Hotwells Conservation Area Character Appraisal wasadopted on 14 July 2010.

In exercising its planning functions in a conservation area, the local planning authority is under aduty to pay "special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character orappearance" of the area (s.72 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990).Bristol's conservation areas are the subject of policies in the Bristol Local Plan as describedbelow.

The Local Plan now consists of the Core Strategy which was adopted in June 2011 and the LocalDevelopment Policies plan, which was adopted in 2014. These documents alongside theConservation Character Appraisal form the Development Plan and all planning decisions putbefore the Authority should be based around these local plan policies and National Planning policyand guidance.

National Planning Policy is in the form of the NPPF 2021 which provides strategic and high levelguidance to Developers and Local Authorities in relation to development proposals. Specificguidance in relation to housing development and the potential impact on heritage assets isdetailed within Chapter 16 Conserving and Preserving the Historic Environment. This chapter goesinto more detail as to what is expected of an Applicant when submitting developments proposalsand how Local Planning Authorities should measure and assess such proposal in the context ofthe importance of such heritage assets, eg Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.

Local ContextThe conservation area of Clifton & Hotwells focuses upon the development of terraces, crescentsand streets that rise from Hotwells in the south before meeting the open landscape provided byAvon Gorge and Clifton Down to the west and north. The area is characterised by its dramaticclimb from 10m above sea level at the lowest point alongside the Floating Harbour, reaching up to90m at the highest towards Clifton Park where Bristol Zoo is located.

Bristol Zoo is surrounded by buildings that are owned and operated by Clifton College (GuthrieRoad and Northcote Road) and early, mid and late Victorian, 3 storey villas that are situated alongCollege Road and the wider urban environment beyond.

The predominant built form of the immediate area surrounding Bristol Zoo area large Victorian 3storey (plus basement) villas which are either detached or semi-detached being either two or threebays wide. These properties are set back from the pavement edge with front mature front gardensand low boundary walls. There is a very strong and prominent building line that is consistentacross the area. The dominant building materials used within these building is rubble limestone,pennant sandstone and Bathstone quoins and detailing. Windows are traditional timber sash withpanelled front doors. The overall architectural style provides a strong sense of place that managesto combine residential elements along College Road with a strong and robust architectural style ofClifton College seen along Guthrie Road and Northcote Road.

Figure 1 below provides an overview of the building type, context and character of the wider Bristol

Zoo area. Of note and of relevance to this application is;

- Blue highlighted buildings to the south of Guthrie Road - Listed Grade II- Brown highlighted buildings located along College Road and Northcote Road. These arebuildings which add value to the townscape character and make a positive contribution to theconservation area.- Mauve highlighted buildings. Key unlisted buildings such as Cilfton Pavilion and buildingsbelonging to the Clifton College along Guthrie Road and the wider educational establishment thatcontribute to the character of the area.

Figure 1 Extract of Buildings Types surrounding Bristol Zoo. Taken from Clifton & HotwellsConservation Character Area Appraisal 2010.

Of greater importance is the wider views (medium and long distance) that are found within this partof the Conservation Area. Clifton Downs is located directly to the north of the Bristol Zoo site. Itrises up steeply to provide panoramic views over the Zoo, Clifton and beyond. The significance ofthese views cannot be overstated and Bristol Zoo as well as Clifton College adjacent are identifiedas a 'Landmark of City wide importance' within the Character Appraisal.

Figure 3 below, provides an extract of the important views that have been considered prominentwithin and adjacent to the Bristol Zoo site. As can be seen many of these views look north towardsClifton Downs (L23 - L27) but equally views are equally possible looking south from Clifton Downsacross Bristol Zoo, Clifton and the wider urban environment (See green crescent shape in extractbelow).

The applicant proposes to construct a six storey high apartment block (spanning the entire width ofthe site), along the northern elevation, that will rise above the existing ground level by some19.35m. By doing so it will completely obliterate existing views looking south from the Downsacross Clifton and the wider environs of Bristol. See photo image (figure 2) below.

Figure 2 View looking south from Clifton Down onto northern boundary of Bristol Zoo. Red Lineapproximately defines height of proposed apartment block

The overall setting and character of Bristol Zoo is one that has evolved and developed over nearly180 years. There are buildings within the Zoo site and along the periphery of the site that do notcompliment the historic character of the area but they in most instances do not impose or detracthistoric integrity of overall historic importance of this area.

Figure 3. Extract of Important views as described in the Clifton & Hotwells. ConservationCharacter Appraisal. 2010.

As can be seen from Figure 4 below, a clear sense of place and architectural style has beencreated over the development of this part of the Conservation area. This has allowed the BristolZoo site and the Clifton College site to form a 'hub' of larger institutional buildings that issurrounding by smaller scale but none the less, important Victorian residential buildings. TheseVictorian villas broadly define the east and western boundaries of the Bristol Zoo (and CliftonCollege) site along College Road and Pembroke Road. The open space of Clifton Downs thenprovides a natural 'full stop' to any development directly to the north which is bordered by CliftonDown Road.

The Conservation Character appraisal states at para 6.1.4 that; The street pattern to the north ofthe conservation area is more regular, and sits more comfortably on a grid patternof cross cutting streets, with the Zoo and Clifton College at their heart.

The Applicant is attempting to redefine the very character of the conservation area by introducinginappropriate and poorly designed residential apartment blocks that will be entirely alien to thesetting of the conservation area and its setting. Such buildings will be at odds with the overallarchitectural layout and theme of this area that has taken almost 180 years to evolve. Thesemonolithic apartment blocks will impose an architectural style on this area that will be completelyalien to this character and setting of this area and will fail to preserve or enhance the conservationarea.

Figure 4 Extract of Land use within the Clifton & Hotwells Conservation Area. 2010.

Appraisal and review of the proposed designi). Comparative heights of buildings.There has been no critical analysis and discussion of the different roof heights of the proposedapartment block compared to the buildings immediately adjacent to the site along College Road,Guthrie Road and Northcote Road.

There are no cross-sectional drawings to show how the proposed apartment buildings will relate tothe existing buildings in height, scale and mass. If such drawings did exist, it would clearly showthe disparity between the height of the proposed apartment blocks compared to the educationalbuildings of Clifton College and the Victorian residential villas along College Road.

The apartment blocks (known as E1, E2 E3 and S1) will completely dominate the educationalbuildings of Clifton College, located along Northcote Road and Guthrie Road. From reviewing theproposed elevational drawings provided by the applicant, the buildings will rise up on averagebetween 14,0m to 17,0m above ground level. It is accepted that there are ground level differences

running north to south, but the overall impact of such inappropriately designed buildings beinglocated directly opposite these handsome educational buildings will lead to a downgrading of thearchitectural value of these buildings and will have a detrimental impact within the conservationarea.

Equally and potentially of more importance is the impact on the northern block (N1 2 & 3) on thelisted building in the North West corner of the site. (detailed as the Clifton Conservation Hub). Thisunique building which is listed Grade II will be completely dominated by the construction of thisnew apartment block. No attempt has been made by the Applicant to review or explain this impactor show the inter-relationship between the existing heritage asset and the proposed apartmentblock.

ii) Loss of open green space within the siteWhilst it is fully acknowledged that access into Bristol Zoo is via an entry fee, the Zoo has beendesignated as a Local Historic Park & Garden and an Important Open Space. The area provides atraffic free space that allows visitors to interact with the animals at very close quarters.

The proposals would completely and totally alter the character of this area by introducingtarmaced roads, parking spaces (for 121No vehicles) and garage parking throughout the site. Thesense of place would be altered from a traffic environment to a fairly standard suburban housingestate. It will resemble a gated community that will restrict access to the general public and willeventually provide communal garden areas for the sole use and enjoyment of the residents.

Inevitably the lack of parking spaces provided within the scheme, will mean that increasingly carswill be parked inappropriately along the internal access roads further detracting from what iscurrently a pleasant green open space.

There is increasing concern that despite the assertion from the Applicant that the internal greenareas will be open to the public, the layout and form of the proposed scheme will completelyalienate the general public from visiting this site. The newly formed entrances into the site willprovide direct road access into the site from College Road, Clifton Down and Guthrie Road. Theinvitation for the general public to explore the internal green space will not be clear and it will beincreasingly seen as the preserve of the use of the residents only. This is very much at odds withthe zoo's historic role as a key part of the city's green / open space fabric, reflected by its planningdesignation as a Local Historic Park & Garden and an Important Open Space.

iii). Loss of historic boundary featuresThe proposals for the development of the various apartment blocks along Guthrie Road andNorthcote Road means that entire lengths of existing rubble and pennant sandstone boundary wallfeatures will need to demolished. These stone walls range between approximately 2.5m high toabout 5,0m - 6,0m high at the junction of Guthrie Road and Northcote Road. The loss of suchhistoric features to accommodate these apartment blocks will further degrade the historic fabric of

the Zoo site and will have a detrimental impact on the conservation area in this locality.

Equally the construction of the apartment block running parallel to Clifton Down (northernboundary) will also mean the entire loss of this boundary wall that currently exists. The drawingsdo not make it clear at all whether this boundary wall feature is being retained or not. It is assumedcurrently that the boundary wall will be demolished.

There is an equally strong boundary wall feature that exists along College Road. It is not at allclear from the proposals as to whether this 2.5m high wall will remain intact or whether this will bedemolished also. Further clarification should be sought from the Applicant as to his intentions.

iv) Enabling DevelopmentIt is accepted that in some instances in order to make a development commercially viable, somealterations need to occur to listed buildings and heritage assets. This is the case for the GiraffeHouse and other listed buildings within the site such as the Bear Pit, the Monkey Temple and theAviary building. The Applicant is proposing to convert the Giraffe house into residentialaccommodation and the remaining heritage assets will be integrated into the wider landscapingscheme for the site.However, what has not be made clear by the Applicant is the justification for such a radical changefrom one use to another. Paragraphs 199 - 208 of the NPPF (2021) goes into greater detail as tohow harm should be assessed and whether the significance of that harm is acceptable or not. Theconcluding paragraph (208) is of particular significance for this application. It states that;

Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enablingdevelopment, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure thefuture conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies.

It is vital that the LPA carefully reviews the justification of harm to these important heritage assetsand whether the principal of development here has been fully explained and justified. We are ofthe firm belief that the significance of harm that the proposals will have on the Conservation areaas well as the listed heritage assets do not outweigh the benefits of the proposed scheme.

v). Tenure & OwnershipThe affordable housing statement (Savills, October 2022) seems to suggest that the spread of firsthomes and affordable rented accommodation (40No units in total) will be evenly spread out acrossthe site and that as a result the scheme will be 'tenure blind'. However, if one analyses theaccommodation schedule that has been prepared by the applicant, it is evident that Block S1, all30No units within this block will be rented and managed by a social housing provider. The 10nofirst homes will be spread out between Blocks E2 & E3.

We don't see how such a proposal will successfully integrate the different types of tenure into thescheme. It will only serve to potentially stigmatise the occupants of this apartment block (S1) and

the overall housing scheme will be poorly integrated as a result.

vi) Loss of a Community FacilityThere is a clear and direct link back to the Bristol Core Strategy (2011) and the Development PlanPolicies (2014) that seeks to prevent the loss of Community Facilities. The Local Plan does notprecisely define what a community facility is, but at para 2.5.2 it states that community facilitiescan be;

community centres and childcare facilities, cultural centres and venues, places of worship,education establishments and training centres, health and social care facilities, sport andrecreation facilities and civic and administrative facilities. It may also include other uses whoseprimary function is commercial but perform a social or community role i.e. sport, recreational andleisure facilities including local pubs.

Both Local Plan policy DM5 and Core Strategy Policy BCS12 make direct reference to the fact thatthe loss of Community Facilities will not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated thatthere is no longer a demand for the facility or that the building/s are no longer suitable toaccommodate the use and the building cannot be retained or adapted to another community use.Furthermore Policy DM5 goes onto state that the loss of a community facility will only beacceptable is a replacement facility can be provided in 'a suitable alternative location'. The locationof the Wildplace Project is in a location (off Junction 17, M5) that will require visitors to arrive viacar or other motorised transport. The site is totally inaccessible to people without the means of acar. The appeal of the Bristol Zoo site is that is centrally located and it is accessible via bus or byfoot or by bicycle.

We would strongly argue that the Applicant has not fully and sufficiently demonstrated that thealternative uses of the Zoo as a community facility has been fully and carefully explored. Therehas been no critical analysis and explanation as to whether the buildings and the site as a wholecan be enhanced, adapted or whether a mixed use scheme could be introduced in order to keepthe Zoo site operating as a commercial concern in its current location.

The Zoo has played a crucial and integral role in the local community for the past 180 years. TheApplicant appears to be ignoring the very strong relationships that have developed over this periodbetween the local community and the zoo and is basing decisions about the future of this facilitypurely of commercial and financial objectives. Scant regard has been paid as to the potentialimpact that the closure of this facility will have on the local community and its potentialreplacement in a total unsustainable location that can only be accessed if families or individualshave a car.

ConclusionsThe City of Bristol Local Planning Authority have a legal duty which is clearly set out in the Listed

Buildings & Conservation Act. The LPA must have special regard to protecting listed buildings andthe character and appearance of conservation areas. They must ensure that the setting andcontext of these important heritage assets are duly protected, preserved and enhanced.

The NPPF (2021) places considerable weight on ensuring that these importance heritage assetsare duly protected and requires Decision Makers to pay due regard to ensuring that such assetsare not negatively impacted by development proposals. LPAs are clearly advised that they shouldrefuse planning permission if the impacts of a development outweighs the benefits of such aproposal. (ie the delivery of housing units).

Overall the proposal that has been submitted by the Applicant for consideration does not preserveor enhance either the character or appearance of Clifton & Hotwells conservation area. Theimpacts on the various listed heritage assets (within and adjacent to the site) have not been fullyjustified and explained. The benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the impacts on theseimportant buildings as defined above.

The loss of green open space within the site is of great concern and the proposals put forwardprovide no evidence that this space would be guaranteed for public use in perpetuity.

We would recommend that your officers recommend refusal of this application and urge you tosupport our objection of this application. Both Local plan and National planning policy provide aclear route to substantiating a refusal of planning permission. Notwithstanding the above we haveoutlined below a number of reasons for refusal which we believe are relevant and pertinent to thisapplication.

Reasons for RefusalThe proposed development due to its insensitive design, form, scale, positioning and due to theloss of original fabric, would fail to respect the existing special character and historic significanceof the listed building. It would also harm the character and appearance of Clifton & Hotwellsconservation area. The harm is not outweighed by adequate public benefit and therefore theproposal is contrary to the NPPF, adopted Policies BCS21, BCS22, DM26, DM30 and DM31,Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 andrelevant guidance from SPD2 - A guide for designing house extensions and alterations.

The proposed development at roof level would impose visual disharmony and the impact on theadjacent educational and residential buildings. The change in building height would be particularlynoticeable when viewed from Clifton Downs and would undermine the appearance of theConservation Area thus failing to accord with Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildingsand Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The proposed works would amount to substantial harm, it isconsidered that there are insufficient public benefits associated with the development and wouldtherefore fail to accord with the requirements of Paragraph 202 of the NPPF and Policies BCS22 -Conservation and the Historic Environment of the Bristol City Council Core Strategy (adopted June

2011) and DM31 - Heritage Assets of the Bristol City Council Site Allocations and DevelopmentManagement Policies Document (Adopted July 2014) and is therefore unacceptable.

By virtue of its siting, scale, form, mass and overall design the proposed development as currentlydesigned would therefore appear as an unsympathetic and overly prominent addition in thissetting, failing to preserve the character of the established street scene; this part of the Clifton &Hotwells Conservation Area or the setting of surrounding Listed Buildings. Accordingly, theproposal conflicts with Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018); Section 16(2)of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; Core Strategy (2011) PoliciesBCS21 and BCS22 and Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) DM26,DM29 and DM31.

The Applicant has failed to suitably demonstrate that the loss of this important community facility isjustified. The evidence put forward does not provide sufficient justification as to why thiscommunity facility has to close and why an alternative or more suitable appropriate use cannot befound in this location that would allow the site to be utilised and be maintained as a communityfacility for the longer term. Core Strategy (adopted June 2011) Policy BCS12 and Site AllocationsDevelopment Management Policies DM5. (Adopted July 2014) and is therefore unacceptable.

As a Clifton Resident, I am firmly against this proposal at Bristol Zoo Gardens.

We recently moved to the areas from London and the main attraction to the Clifton area was ithistory, period architecture and the green urban area (not easily seen in any major UK city thesedays).

This proposal is completely incongruous with the rest of area and would significantly detract fromthe desirability of living in Clifton. I am concerned with further lead to drop in house prices in thelocal area. I struggle to see why building an eyesore in our beautiful city would be in keeping withthe ambitions for our city.

Additionally, I am concerned about the height of the building 60ft taller then. The existing perimeterwall. This again seems wholly unacceptable and unnecessary, and would result in significant lossof open sky and mature trees.

The destruction of so many mature trees completely contradicts Bristols ambition decarbonisedthe city, as can be seen through the introduction of the low emission zone. To tax high emissioncars and build this monolithic and uninterrupted structure makes no sense whatsoever.

Profit should NOT be the driving factor of this development, but should sympathetically maintainthe character of the area.

Our son is attends Butcombe Nursey, which is on Gutherie Road and the proposed developmentwould not only be extremely disruptive to his time there ( traffic / noise pollution / atmospheric &dust pollution), but also the proposed developments, in the long term would overshadow thenursery and children's playground.

Concerned Clifton Neighbour,David Raspin

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:As a Clifton Resident, I am firmly against this proposal at Bristol Zoo Gardens.

and the main attraction to the Clifton area was it

history, period architecture and the green urban area (not easily seen in any major UK city these

days).

This proposal is completely incongruous with the rest of area and would significantly detract from

the desirability of living in Clifton. I am concerned with further lead to drop in house prices in the

local area. I struggle to see why building an eyesore in our beautiful city would be in keeping with

the ambitions for our city.

Additionally, I am concerned about the height of the building 60ft taller then. The existing perimeter

wall. This again seems wholly unacceptable and unnecessary, and would result in significant loss

of open sky and mature trees.

The destruction of so many mature trees completely contradicts Bristols ambition decarbonised

the city, as can be seen through the introduction of the low emission zone. To tax high emission

cars and build this monolithic and uninterrupted structure makes no sense whatsoever.

Profit should NOT be the driving factor of this development, but should sympathetically maintain

the character of the area.

and the proposed development

would not only be extremely disruptive ( traffic / noise pollution / atmospheric &

dust pollution), but also the proposed developments, in the long term would overshadow the

nursery and children's playground.

Concerned Clifton Neighbour,

It would be a travesty to build such ugly dense blocks of flats in the middle of theconservation area.The plan is so very far away from the general mood of the country aiming for greener moreenvironmentally friendly communities to live in. These blocks are:

- Too tall- Too dense- Tower over the surrounding buildings- Necessitate the removal of precious and protected trees- Architecturally devoid of any aestheticism- Visually look like communist prison block

There is the opportunity to build something forward thinking, modern, environmentally friendly,good for the community and the individual people and families who live there.

PLEASE let's not blight this beautiful site for many years and generations to come.

It would be a travesty to blight this corner of Clifton with this block that is so very out ofkeeping with the area. From what we can see at present the development looks more like acommunist prison. It is very lacking so many ways:

- It would tower over all surrounding dwellings and building- It is devoid of any architectural aestheticism- The development necessitates the removal of many protected trees.

This development is so far from the general mood of the country looking to build greener moreenvironmentally spirited communities. Bristol has the opportunity to build something forwardthinking, modern, green and good for the health and welfare of those living there. Let's not wastethis fantastic opportunity.

Giving planning permission for housing should be denied.

Bristol gardens is an historical site, which has been a much loved local amenity.

Simply building houses is in direct conflict with the aspirations Bristol has as a green city.Considering all the alternatives (Eden project type, virtual zoo, city farm) all have much highersocial and environmental values and would showcase Bristol as a futuristic thinking city. Buildinghouses shows planning is stuck in old thinking.

Deny the planning permission and give time for alternatives to be planned out.

22/02737/F is going to severely disrupt this neighbourhood and add pressure to alreadystretched-out public services and infrastructure in this area.

22/02737/F will make acute issues such as lack of space in this neighbourhood worse. Thisneighbourhood already has to accommodate the influx of significant number of people during bigevents in the Clifton Downs. There still is no concept from the council on how to address parkingspace issues. The council so far has only introduced temporary solutions such as the conversionof parts of the Clifton Downs into parking space which is a disgrace and neither a green orsustainable solution to a growing issue. 22/02737/F will only add to this existing pressure.

Second, 22/02737/F will cause much noise, pollution and disruption. The building site noise andpollution will affect both the immediate bordering buildings as well as the neighbourhood morewidely due to the disruption to access roads. This neighbourhood already is struggeling withsignificant noise pollutions due to frequent mass student parties. The council is aware of this issueand had to introduce a special police patrol to police unsocial behaviour. However, there areseveral petitions ongoing and social cohesion in this neighbourhood is already at risk.

Third, pollution and stretch of public services. This neighbourhood already experiences infrequentcollection of bins/recycling through council services. This is made worse due to the inconsideratenumberof HMOs granted in this neighbourhood. Due to the high flux of students during terms,waste such as old furniture, mattress, kitchen utensils is laying on streets for weeks before thecouncil is taking care of this. All together, council services are already not coping with the need.

There is no sufficient consideration how council services will be expanded to accommodate theadditional need of 196 residential units introduced through 22/02737/F.

Lastly, the building design of 22/02737/F is not fitting in this neighbourhood as it isdisproportionally big. There are many listed budings in this neighbourhood and there is rightfulconcern on the damage 22/02737/F would cause to the integrity of this neighbourhood.

The revised proposals have minimal changes. The interior of the flats has beenamended, but little change has been made to the heights and massing of the buildings. This is aparticular issue for Northcote Road and Guthrie Road where five to six storey buildings areproposed where currently the buildings are three to four storeys high. The development does notreflect the existing architecture or the historic nature of the site and area. The number of dwellingsacross the site will also have a significant impact on the amount of traffic in the area and on roadsafety, both during the construction phase and thereafter.Whilst I understand that this is an opportunity for the Zoo to safeguard its long-term future, it isvery disappointing that the proposals are less than sympathetic to their surrounds and that littleconsideration has been given to innovative and thoughtful design and how it can sit well within aConservation Area. I therefore strongly oppose this development for the reasons listed above.

This development is not in keeping with the surrounding area. It will bring muchdisruption to the area both during construction but also after the proposed works have beencompleted.

Simply put, we need to make better use of the space for the current residents of Clifton and Bristolrather than 'cramming' in as many new homes as possible.

This is a bad proposal.

Dismayed as we were by the closing of the historic zoo, as frequent visitors we believedBristol Zoo when they explained the animals needed to be moved to the Wild Place for ecologicaland welfare reasons. They told us more space was needed, and welfare could be guaranteed bythe money from selling the site. This would appear to be misleading propaganda as we nowunderstand few of the mammals will be moved to their alternative site - leaving the Zoo withinexplicable desire to make tens of millions from cramming high density housing onto this site.

MY OBJECTIONS ARE :

I object to the scale of the buildings - 6 storeys high. They will tower over us and our beautifulGeorgian and Victorian streets. We are devastated that we will be deprived of the long vistas andmature trees that we value - and so should Bristol City Planning Department.

I object to the number of dwellings - this has nothing to do with Bristol's "housing crisis" - it is puregreed.

I object to the overwhelming nature and BLOCKHOUSE design - if only architects been employedwho had any sensitivity and aesthetic skill.

In summary - these plans should never have even been conceived as they ignore the veryessence of the Conservation Area and the requirement to preserve this unique cityscape - or evenenhance it - BUT Not Destroy it.

I strongly objejct to the proposed application. This is not what I had been led to believewould be the plan for the beautiful space of the Zoo. The removal of so many trees and the heightand breadth of the proposed apartment dwellings are simply not in keeping in the CliftonConservation Area. These propsed flats would be more in keeping in the ever-changing CityCentre, but totally bulky and unattractive for Clifton, in a spot where so many birds thrive and flyaround. It is overbearing and not in keeping with this beautiful site and the congestion, noise andparking etc... generated by so many tall-build flats would be unworkable.

1. The visual impact of the proposed buildings towering over the existing high perimeterwalls and neighbouring properties will be detrimental and completely out of character with thearea.

2. The proposal has inadequate provision for car parking for the number of dwellings.

3. There is no certainty or clarity how long term guarantees of public access and for funding theupkeep of the gardens are to be secured in perpetuity.neighbour

Having been to several of the Architects meetings held at Bristol Zoo to show theprovisional ideas of the Zoo site, I still feel as I did then.These plans which have been submitted to the planning office pay no attention to the wish of thelocal and wider community to preserve and enhance the character of the area.The plans mimic high-rise office buildings or future crammed slum conditions.The plans pay no respect the value to the work the Bristol zoological society has been doing toenhance our wildlife, our environment and our unique city for over 100 years.It is appalling of the Savills agency and the Architects to submit these plans or the city planners toeven consider them.

Converting a zoo into a block of 196 flats sounds like a grubby deal to provide extracash for the council. The proposed project will damage the neighbourhood by increasing thenumber of residents in the area without readjusting the current infrastructure. Hence, this projectwill burden the community already under pressure. The council does not seem to manage tocollect rubbish in our community on time and each rubbish collection is leading to a messy street.This project will have a lasting damaging impact and shall be aborted.

To build an eyesore where Bristol Zoo currently stands is horrific. I think the zoo shouldbe replaced with something considered, that will add to the community, just like the zoo did. Abeautiful gardens with amenities and picnic area would be a wonderful idea. Building hideousmulti-storey flats in the middle of Clifton which is a beautiful area full of period and listed propertiesshould be illegal. I am completely against the flats. I would like this area to be in keeping with whatcurrently stands there; nature and stunning scenery.

The Zoo's relocation to the Wild Place site leaves a heritage site which deserves to bedeveloped to for the benefit of the city and its residents. Sadly the proposed redevelopment is notin-keeping with the character of the area in either form, scale or surrounding landscaping. Thecontinuous frontage of blocks of flats dwarf neighbouring residential and college buildings, andconsidering the Conservation Area status of the neighbourhood, neither preserve nor enhance thecharacter of the area. Given the Zoo's long history within Clifton and the public amenity, greenspace and communal value it has offered to generations of Bristol citizens and visitors, the sitewarrants a more fitting, thoughtful legacy that will benefit the neighbouring and citywide communitythan the housing estate currently proposed.

Doesn't fit in with the architecture of clifton at all,

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development of theformer Bristol Zoo site. The proposed development is utterly inappropriate in terms of scale and ofvisual impact and shows no regard for the unique character of the site. This has no place in aconservation area and will bring only detriments to local residents. It is clear that this plan seeks tomaximise profit with zero regard for the fitting legacy promised to residents by Bristol ZoologicalSociety. To allow this, or any similar sized development, on this site would be an unforgivableerror that would permanently adversely affect the whole of the Clifton Downs area.

Architecturally Unsympathetic to the surrounding listed buildings and conservation area.Loss of trees & natural habitats.Increased pollution.Increased on-street parking pressure.Pressure on local primary school places.Insufficient 'legacy' for neighbourhood & local community..

Architecturally Unsympathetic to the surrounding listed buildings and conservation area.Loss of trees & natural habitats.Increased pollution.Increased on-street parking pressure.Pressure on local primary school places.Insufficient 'legacy' for neighbourhood & local community..

The plans shown for the redevelopment of the zoo in no way reflect the heritage, beautyand open spaces that are to be replaced. Mature trees should, in my opinion, not be removed forprofit only. Sky vistas are important for our mental health. Access, presumed permanent, waspromised to the beautiful gardens of the zoo, imagine this will now be shortlived.Concrete high rise buildings do not, in my opinion, complement the existing architecture ratherscream "lets make money"!!I recognise the need for more housing and that such a prestigious site will not be left abandonedbut surely we have architects in this country who can better reflect the existing community andpresent something with harmony.

I was horrified today to be made aware of the unsympathetic and overbearing nature ofthe proposed developments at Bristol Zoo. I believe that planning law requires that specialattention is given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of the area. Theproposals may be suitable for Broadmead, but surely not for Clifton. We don't want to lose thecharacter of Clifton and such a large unsightly development would harm the area in so manyways. It's too big, it's overbearing, it's overwhelming, it's unsympathetic. Please reject.

I wish to object to this planning application as the current plan does not take intoaccount the current character of the Clifton area. The current planning law states that "specialattention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of the area." Thecurrent plan shows a block of characterless flat which bear nothing in common with the existinglocal architectural and design of the building and thus the flat will stick out like an eyesore.

To be clear, I am not in sight of this development, so cannot be accused of 'not in myback yard' syndrome. However, this is a place dear to my heart and that of many Bristolians.

Is this a case of 'Big Business Wins No Matter What The People Say'? Sadly I think so, but havingsaid that I still wish to lodge my objection to what would be a complete and utter eyesore on one ofour most precious green and open areas for the general public in Bristol.

This could have been turned into a place for 'green education' for our younger generations, but itwill now sadly fall into 'fat cat developers' hands and become a concrete jungle instead.

A forward thinking council with the benefit of future generations in mind. Anyone know of any? Itcertainly isn't Bristol that's for sure.

Address: Bristol Zoo Gardens Guthrie Road Bristol BS8 3HA

The proposed redevelopment of the Bristol zoo site is an abomination. How on earth can thosebuildings be allowed in a Conservation Area? The scheme is ugly and entirely unsympathetic toClifton and its surrounds. The scheme will be blot on the landscape. Scale this development down- and please redesign this unimaginative mess.

The outlook is not aligned to the conservation area. It is ugly in this area and looks sodifferent in clifton. I will feel sad if I walk around here seeing this along the road. This is a very sadthing to see such contemporary sitting in a conservation area. Please do not do that.

We don't need any more people or any more housing stock in Clifton. I don't care whatthe finished buildings will look like - blocks of flats are totally incongruous with the character of thearea. Keep the gardens as they are and turn the rest of the site into a park.

Comments on Planning Application 22/02737/F - Redevelopment of Bristol ZooGardens

My comments fall into three different camps:1. Reflection on my time visiting the zoo.2. Comments on the architectural / technical proposals for the redevelopment.3. Comments on Bristol Zoological Society's (BZS) decision to close Bristol Zoo Gardens.

As I understand it Bristol City Council's Planning Officer (or Planning Committee) will solelyconsider the merits of redevelopment application and not retrospectively judge BZS's closuredecision - although there is a "grey area" surrounding "case for redevelopment not proven" wherethe Planning Officer could delve back into the reasonings why Bristol Zoo Gardens were shut.

My comments on BZS's closure decision are included in the hope they are read by BZS and that aU-turn might still be possible.

Part 1 : Reflection on time visiting zoo.

Just like many of the comments given so far, I'm starting from the 1970s with these twophotographs.ADD PHOTOSI think they are 1975 and 1978. Nice flowers and I'm wearing the panda tee shirt.

I haven't included more recent photographs of my children enjoying the zoo, but suffice to say thatBristol Zoo Gardens is a major part of the city and it is a great shame it has shut.

Part 2 - Comments on Planning Application Submission

It is sad that Bristol Zoo Gardens have closed but having read the Design and Access Statements,the Heritage Report, the Landscaping Proposals and viewed a number of the drawings I support:

1. The principle of "massing" of the development proposals around the perimeter to retain as muchof the central gardens as possible.

2. The opening of the many new access points around the perimeter.

3. The retention of the Aquarium (former Bear Pit), Aviary, Monkey Temple and Terrace Theatreas structures that will be retained (and refurbished etc) as public garden features etc. Dittoretention of the Grand Terrace.

4. The conversion of the Entrance Lodge into the Clifton Conservation Hub (CCH) with café,exhibition and office spaces - even though the last thing Clifton needs is another café.

I feel the following aspects of the Planning Application require further detailing:

1. Whilst the Design and Access Statement (page 10) gives overview details of the ManagementBoard that will be responsible for the upkeep of the public gardens and structures (upkeep to bepaid for via a Resident Service Charge to all residents, excluding the 20% "affordable housingresidents"), the Planning Application proposals should provide greater details for the ManagementBoard.

Matters such as (i) legal powers, (ii) longevity of tenure, (iii) frequency of meetings, (iv) disputeresolution arrangements and (v) Mission Statement for the Board should be fully defined at thisPlanning Application stage.

2. Who owns the CCH building?

3. Details of the type and height of back (private) garden fencing (or walls?) for the houses in thecentral areas of the site, as this information is not shown on any Plan or Elevation drawing that Icould find.

4. The high number of resident bicycle parking places and low number of resident car parkingspaces should be applauded. Will the 6.8m wide main road be double-yellow-lined to restrictparking?

5. What prevents a further planning application being submitted (in the near future) for furtherhousing on the West Lawn / East Lawn / Central Play Area etc?

6. What prevents "urban creep" for say paving over grassed areas for additional car parking ?

Part 3 - Comments on Bristol Zoological Society (BZS) earlier decision to close the zoo.

1. It does seem like a "rushed decision" as there was a vary rapid change in policy between 2019and 2020 when Bristol Zoo Gardens was declared no longer viable and "all eggs were put into onebasket" at The Wild Place. Why is there no clear independent security of this decision?

2. Whilst the graph of long-term visitor numbers is declining, the rate of decline is surely onlymarginal. Why was no "extra marketing strategy" and/or "no fund raising appeal" attempted?

3. Clearly "the general public" is fully aware that large animals can no longer be kept in smallenclosures and everyone understands how BZS needs to take this into account. Ultimately, givenits limited land footprint, this means Bristol Zoo Gardens evolving into a "smaller creatures only"zoo with a second facility at The Wild Place catering for "larger creatures". Why wasn't the two-sitere-branding of Bristol Zoo Gardens and The Wild Place into "small creatures" and "largecreatures" ever tried?

4. There is a long way to go and I fear BZS have under-estimated the scale of the technical task,the time periods involved, the financial risks and extent of "bridging the gap" between the zooclosing and a redeveloped Wild Place opening.

a) I suspect obtaining planning permission for the housing re-development will take significantlylonger than any original estimate would have stated. This delay will "knock-on" to everything, notleast the care costs of the animals currently caught in limbo. Ditto staffing costs.

b) The eventual purchase price of the Bristol Zoo Gardens land by the Housing Developer mightbe sizeably lower given:i) Housing developer's forecast build costs increasing with inflation:ii) The "financial model" starting with a bank base rate of 0.1% in December 2021, but now havingto deal with 3.5%.iii) General forecasts of house price reduction and the collapse of the buy-to-let market.

c) The BZS's development costs at The Wild Place are probably increasing with variouscomplication factors including:(1) Lack of skilled / specialist contractor resources / general "over-heat" of construction market(2) Difficult ground conditions at The Wild Place.

(3) Difficult topography meaning that only a small proportion of the land is actually usable.(4) Logistics of building new facilities at same time as keep venue open.(5) Costs of utility infrastructure (power, sewerage connections etc).(6) The phasing of the Wild Place redevelopment. Will BZS wait for 100% of re-development to becompleted or "part open" but risk new visitors thinking it was still mostly still a building site?

d) The overall "bridging period" between the Bristol Zoo Gardens closing and the expanded WildPlace fully opening will probably be a lot longer than original envisaged, and hence the "profit" foruse in (i) making the BZS yearly accounts more sustainable and (ii) funding new conservationwork may be considerably less than originally thought.

e) But perhaps my biggest fear is that The Wild Place does not have the heritage, tradition,location and following that Bristol Zoo Gardens has (even if it were to become "small creaturesonly") and hence I worry that BZS will face falling Wild Place visitor numbers in the years to come.

Conclusion

I do not support BZS's decision to close the Bristol Zoo Gardens and feel that a two-site strategyof "small and digital" at the current site with "large and wild" at The Wild Place was not properlyexplored - and ought to have been.

I do not have the facts and figures behind BZS's decision, but presumably it was taken afterextensive studies. I just find it strange there seems to be no public record of signatures from all ofthe BZS Trustees supporting the executive's decision.

The closure of Bristol Zoo Gardens will mean that Bristol, as a diverse city, will be forever poorer.A successful, world-class, Wild Place at the M5-motorway junction will clearly help fill the void leftbehind - and let's hope it more than fills it, but also enhances it.

As Bristol Zoo Gardens have closed, and unless BZS undertakes a U-turn, I support the PlanningApplication principles subject to the comments listed in the central "Part 2" of this letter.

I am writing to object to the planned development at Bristol Zoo Gardens.

The currently design is totally out of keeping with its heritage surroundings. Some of the buildingsare block like and too high and imposing. They are unsympathetic in scale and design. Thedevelopment as a whole does not preserve or enhance the character of the area.

Of course, we need new homes and homes that are affordable. No one can disagree with this.However, we surely need to make sure the priority is for well-designed housing which is not totallyout of keeping with its surroundings.

I am particularly concerned at the loss of so many established and mature trees. Recent researchby Prof Disney at UCL has shown that UK's old trees are critical to the fight to combat climatechange. In his words: 'The value you have in large mature trees is almost incalculable and so youshould avoid losing that at any cost - regardless of how many trees you think about planting.'

Importantly, the development seems totally at odds with the conservation and ecology aims andvalues BCC and the Zoo constantly claim to champion.

Once this historically rich site is lost we can never get it back. Bristol Zoo Gardens is iconic and itsanimals and garden have been a huge draw to people visiting Bristol for 185 years. Replacing thiswith such an unimaginative block is surely not the legacy we wish to leave to future generations?

The aesthetics of the buildings look completely out of keeping with Clifton buildings.Surely they should be made in a similar stone, to match Clifton. Any other building that applied forpermission in this material would not be permitted. Please don't ruin our beautiful area by allowingthis.

I am a former resident of Clifton, and the similar areas north of the downs. It's renownedfor its stunning historic buildings and character, and the scale of this treasure is quite unique. Itwas a very special place to live and I miss it dearly.

It has the odd but of modern infill, but they are few and far between, and small in scale.

This application is an absolute outrage. It is so monstrous in scale and so unbelievablymonotonous and ugly. It looks like a prison.

Most of Clifton is grade I or II listed to preserve its historical character. This is a headache as ahome owner, but one you respect and value as you and your neighbours all have to maintain thebeautiful historic character of the area, together.

This application is utterly out of keeping with the character and low level scale of the historicbuildings already in the area. Including those along College, Guthrie and Northcote Roads.

This should be immediately rejected.

This proposal is completely inappropriate for what is one of the most iconic andbeautiful parts of the City of Bristol. The sheer scale and mass of the proposed blocks of flat iscompletely out of character with the neighbouring properties and will seriously impact on thebeautiful gardens that lie within the existing zoo grounds. While not against the principle ofresidential development it should be on a smaller scale, with lower buildings and more empatheticto its immediate environment.

I have lived in Clifton for 20+ years adjacent to Bristol Zoo and it has always been afantastic community asset. It will be a very sad reflection of our city if this application for planningis accepted. A green space used by many (irrespective of seeing animals) would be lost, maturetrees cut down and in its place we would have a concrete jungle totally out of keeping with theGrade II + listed buildings which surround it.

I understand the need for housing but I believe every application must stand on its own merits andas a local resident I find very little merit with this proposal. Therefore I urge our councillors toplease REJECT this application.

WHY,WHY,WHY,WHY,WHY?Unbelievable.Firstly I am not against new housing of any sort and especially support affordable homes but thedesign of these flats is just not in keeping with the local area. SIX stories tall - NO parking - typicalinner city design in a much more rural area.Secondly - 150 Mature TREES being cut down. Bristol zoo is a conservation charity - obviouslyonly of animals which brings me to my third point....WHERE are all the animals going? Apart from the Gorillas they are being palmed off to anyonethat will have them. Perhaps I will be feeding them in cans to my dogs soon?If this is the legacy of Bristol zoo - then its a very sad day indeed. Its all about the money.

I object strongly to the proposed plans for Bristol Zoo. I have lived in Bristol all my liveand the zoo and Clifton have always been a beautiful space to spend time in. Modern blocks offlats are unsightly. They look unsightly in the city centre and in a few years time they will be out ofdate and unfashionable. Clifton is a beautiful area with stunning old buildings. Any developmentshould be in keeping with the architecture of the area. Whoever the developer is, they are clearlytrying to erect cheap material flats to maximise their profits. Bristol council should be looking afterit's residents and keep areas of beauty-beautiful. The zoo gardens are mature and diverse andshould be preserved at all costs. Protect historic treasures do not trash them with modernarchitecture that is not in keeping with the area at all.

The proposal is a horrendous monolith to the picturesque and historically significantsurroundings. It is wholly out of place.

The design must reflect and match the style of buildings surrounding it. It must not be so overempowering of the nearby buildings. It overly dominates the skyline

Absolute abomination of a design. I don't object to development but it should be housessimilar design to those in the surrounding roads. Not stuffing in a high rise block of flats. It's toohigh and not sympathetic to the local environment and architecture - sticks out like a sore thumb -and the design will date terribly. Not to mention the problems with parking in the local area.

The plans for these flats completely ruins the existing neighbourhoods profile. Thesurrounding road network is beautiful. These designs are not going to age well and will be aneyesore. Clifton landscape deserves better!!

I am objecting strongly to the proposed development on the basis of its total lack ofkeeping with the local area, with plans to build towering flat blocks that will dominate the skylineand destroy much of the beauty of this conservation area in which I have lived for 17 years. This isa legitimate concern based on requirements to pay special attention to the desirability ofpreserving or enhancing the character of the area. Even without getting into the appalling plans tofell over 150 mature trees and bulldoze historic gardens (at a time when green spaces and plantsare more urgently needed than ever), these plans are utterly out of proportion with andinappropriate to Clifton and the zoo site itself. I urge total rejection of these plans and developmentof more sympathetic, attractive plans that honour Bristol Zoo's long legacy.

Dear all, after having gone through some of the documentation provided in the next tab,I would like to object to the current planning application. Below are some of my reasons:1. The height of the buildings proposed will be disproportionately tall compared to the rest of thelower lying living areas. Such a massive block of flats in the area will lead to the surroundingstreets becoming shadowy and much less attractive to the eye. Architectural designs today,should consider the wellbeing of surrounding communities and be inclusive. As mentioned duringWorld Architecture Day 2022, architecture can make our lives better by protecting, developing andrestoring health. It has the power to contribute to the physical, emotional, environmental, financialand social wellness of humankind, all while having a positive impact on the environment.2. Secondly, as a critical part of Clifton's and Bristol's history and heritage, the design andplanning of the new use of the space should have be done, or should be done now, with theparticipation of the impacted community - ie: the Bristolians, who have lived, live and will live withthe Zoo and its future self.3. Bristol is a city that strives to be inclusive, and promote a just transition. This exceptional site inone of the hearts of Bristol should be representative of this energy. The use of the 'Dugnad'process of communal decision making where people come together from across the communityaround a shared interest could be used. A technique called 'splotting' could also be appliedallowing participants to map how they experienced and participated in their local place. Be part ofa Just Transition.4. As Heritage England had pointed out, the current design for the entire space is stocky andexclusive. If the aim is to open up the space and make it accessible to all, shouldn't the design beopen, social and regenerative?

- some examples of just transitions withinarchitectural design: https://medium.com/design-council/design-for-a-just-transition-co-design-community-care-ccbe1136ee05

Thank you for your consideration,Kindly

The proposed development is on too big a scale and the design is totally out of keepingwith the neighbourhood. If permitted it would have a completely adverse effect on the character ofthis conservation area and it would not be a fitting legacy for the Zoo.I also understand that many mature trees would be lost as part of this proposal: this is surely notappropriate particularly as the council has no funds for tree-planting with the consequence thatBristol residents have to sponsor trees to be planted. The city cannot afford to loose any trees.

As residents of Clifton living approximately 200-300 metres from the zoo, my wife and Ivery strongly object to this proposed development.

The plan submitted to the Council appears to entail the construction of hundreds of metres ofuninterrupted and overbearing blocks of flats up to five or six storeys high in material and in anarchitectural style that are grotesquely out of keeping with the historic buildings in this part ofClifton. It seems that the project will also entail the felling of a large number of mature trees at atime when, for ecological reasons, we are coming to think we should in fact be planting more ofthem. The proposal cannot possibly be regarded as an enhancement of the character of what is aconservation area. On the contrary, it will manifestly detract from the appeal of the area andrender the definition of it as a conservation area obsolete. Were the Council to permit this proposalto proceed, thus allowing buildings of quite incompatible appearance to stand next to one another,it would be difficult to imagine what justification there could be for continuing to require residents innearby houses such as ours to obtain formal permission to change the external appearance of ourproperties in relatively minor ways.

As a resident of the area, I have looked over the proposals. I was optimistic, as thepublic were to gain free access to the gardens, but the plans are disappointing.

The style given to the accomodation does not come close to respecting or matching thearchitecture of its surroundings. The historic surroundings of this green space need to be takeninto consideration. This seems to be over-development, in stark contrast to the environment thatresidents. The appeal of the gardens is greatly reduced if they are in the centre of a housingestate.

I object to this proposal. The scale of building and architectural style are inappropriate. Pleasereconsider, and if building, build beautifully.

This development will cause unjustified harm to the community. As well as the publicloss, this change of use and the social and material harm that results is completely unjustified.There is no need for more luxury housing in Bristol, this is a greedy money grabbing proposal thatdoes not satisfy any needs for this city.

It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a public site, the business case isn't clearand alternatives have not been explored. It is shameful to see such a site in Bristol go from beinga wonderful public attraction to more unaffordable housing in a city with a housing crisis. I firmlyobject to this proposal.

This is so sad! the proposed development is monolithic and totally out of keeping with ahistoric and valuable part of Bristol. 6 stories of uninterrupted blcks of appartments will dominatethe whole area downgrading neighboring historic buildings.I think overbearing is the most suitableword.. really destroying an area of great beauty.the cynicism of this development is also exemplified by their pretence that they are retaining thecurrent fantastic communal garden space. How can the council- in these ecosensitive times,consider cutting down about 150 mature trees plus ornamental gardens leaving only a smallenclosed space losing one of the really valuable open spaces in Bristol.

tThis is a total violation of the values I thought Bristol City council states it adheres too.I do hopeyou will see sense and turn down this appalling application that seems to pander to profit for a fewand loss of facilities for many

I used to visit Bristol zoo with my Dad as a child . It was one of the day trips in Bristol hewould take me on. I can remember it vividly because it was such a happy time. Bristol Zoo isiconic to Bristol, a key feature of its culture and what makes Bristol Bristol. It is a location forinspiring, learning and memory making for all ages.To lose the zoo would be a huge loss to the cultural and communal value of Bristol. It is a historicand fundamental part of Bristol.

I understand the need for housing, this is a pressing issue and a very serious one. HoweverHousing that demolishes a site with value and purpose , a site that brings joy to children's facesand prioritises nature and diversity , should not be shut after 186 years to create a site to house afew in comparison to the infinite number of smiles on people's faces if the zoo stayed open.

I wholeheartedly object the proposal. I am in favour of building new (AFFORDABLE) houses ,however not on sites that already have value and purpose to the community of Bristol. It is a wasteof resources , time , energy and a lack of understanding of what the people of Bristol need. Pleasereconsider this proposal.

The proposed development is aesthetically jarring. It is completely unsympathetic withthe area, a conservation area. No attempt has been made to blend in with the area. It is hugelyimposing and will completely change the appearance of the area. The proposal to build right up tothe boundary without softening the structure with the use of planting around the boundaries is attotal odds with the area.

It is appalling that a key historic site in Bristol has been allowed to close without any thoughts onhow it could be replaced with something that brings benefits to society in a similar way. Instead ofremoving planting and trees that help the environment. Bristol city council is happy to approve adevelopment that has a huge negative environmental impact. Surely this is at odds with thecouncils aims and objectives.

This could have been an opportunity to create a site that enhances the environment, that helpssupport learning about the environment, perhaps a similar project to the Eden project orWestonbirt arboretum, rather than another housing development of "luxury one and two bed flats".What a wasted opportunity, Bristol City council you should be ashamed!

The proposed development is aesthetically jarring. It is completely unsympathetic withthe area, a conservation area. No attempt has been made to blend in with the area. It is hugelyimposing and will completely change the appearance of the area. The proposal to build right up tothe boundary without softening the structure with the use of planting around the boundaries is attotal odds with the area.

It is appalling that a key historic site in Bristol has been allowed to close without any thoughts onhow it could be replaced with something that brings benefits to society in a similar way. Instead ofremoving planting and trees that help the environment. Bristol city council is happy to approve adevelopment that has a huge negative environmental impact. Surely this is at odds with thecouncils aims and objectives.

This could have been an opportunity to create a site that enhances the environment, that helpssupport learning about the environment, perhaps a similar project to the Eden project orWestonbirt arboretum, rather than another housing development of "luxury one and two bed flats".What a wasted opportunity, Bristol City council you should be ashamed!

I objected before the revised plans. I object again as the changes from the original plansare minimal. The proposed buildings are still too high, too imposing. They will completely changethe character of the area, which is a conservation area by the way. The original issues still remain.With these plans, there will be added traffic, more parking problems, added air pollution in thearea.

This site must remain as a public resource, and definitely not given over to privateinvestment.Disgusted that it is even being considered.

This development is not at all sympathetic to the character of the area which isunacceptable for a conservation area. Bristol zoo and its gardens were a beautiful green spaceand the scale and design of the proposal is at odds with preserving this historic site's character.Additionally, this will cause parking issues as it is unclear where residents would be able to parkand Clifton parking is already very tight.

I object to the planning application on the grounds that it will mean a loss of valuablecommunal and green space that has come to mean a great deal to the people of Bristol. The planwould require the felling of many of the trees at a time when we should be fighting for the plantingof trees not their destruction. Many others are likely to be damaged. The public green space willbe much smaller. The Bristol Zoo Gardens are listed as a local Historic Park and Garden and arean important open space.

If the space is turned over to apartments it will become inaccessible to others. Such intensivedevelopment is also likely to result in harm to listed buildings and the change in building density isa negative one. The buildings proposed are out of scale and unsympathetic to the surroundingbuildings. They do not complement the houses or college buildings nearby and will form a hugecontinuous block along the road. Other alternative plans for this site need to be explored

Absolute disgrace. The zoo (and anyone else associated with this proposal) should beashamed of these plans - clearly out to maximise profit with no consideration for anyone else. Thisshould never be allowed to happen and if the City planning department lets anything like thisthrough they should be ashamed too.It is totally out of keeping for the area, destroying a beautiful place in a conservation area withdreadful edifices which don't fit in.It is not wanted and not needed, totally unfair on the local residents, and the safety andsafeguarding concerns of the development and the tall buildings overlooking a school issignificant.

I've been visiting the zoo since I was a child (1998) and it holds many special memoriesfor me, as I imagine it does for many. I think it would be such a dissappointment to replace such ahistoric place with a housing estate! The area does NOT need more houses!!! I believe the spaceshould be turned into something which respects the environment and the history of the place. Itshould be a space for people to enjoy, relax and just be away from all the stress of life - like it hasbeen since 1836. Honestly, would be an absolute disgrace if it was replaced with a housingestate...

I object to this application because it is so obviously out of keeping with the character ofthe rest of the neighbourhood.I also doubt that the infrastructure is there to support all the extra residents - roads are alreadybusy in that area.Very disappointing that this is being proposed in this city.I live in Clifton although not can immediate neighbour.

As a resident of Bristol for 35 years, I find these plans to be completely contrary to whatis best for the citizens of the city as a whole, its richness of experience and culture, and a grim,joyless prospect for what was until recently, a colourful beacon of Clifton and the city as a whole. Ibelieve the negatives to be thus:

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has been there solong being of heritage value in itself.

Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that have visited,weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.

Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.

Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.

Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a publicsite, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.

Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

I write to voice my strongest possible objection to the proposed change of use at BristolZoo Gardens.

This asset belongs to my future grandchildren and to their children when I am long gone, to enjoyjust as my father enjoyed the days of Alfred entertaining the crowd and the students who borrowedAlfred after him. The Zoo is a part of Bristol's identity and the city will be lesser without it.

While I welcome an end to the caging of large animals, putting an end to this moral wrong shouldnot result in the loss to the community of a public site which holds such enormous cultural andhistorical value to the city. There is enormous potential for commercial use located within adensely populated area. The clientele of young families is literally on the doorstep

What evidence is there for professional and independent consultation over alternatives to closure?Has there been any consumer survey completed to demonstrate that the larger animals were infact the main attraction? If the larger animals were replaced with alternative exhibitions, with aneducational and perhaps a conservation theme, reflecting the enormous wildlife heritage of BBCBristol for example, would the business model not have worked? If businesses like Airhop, Par 59,The Wave can all make it work in out of town locations why on earth can the Zoo Gardens not runfor a profit when it has the population on the doorstep? These types of attractions have lowerrunning costs than cages lions and higher potential revenues. What efforts have been made topursue this sort of plan? Where is the evidence that climbing walls in the Giraffe house, adventureplayground in the monkey temple would not be viable? These are iconic buildings that belong to

the city and should not be given over to executive housing.

Furthermore, expecting families to travel out of the city to the new Wildspace site is a contradictionwith environmental requirements to make less journeys and there will be a huge loss of greenspace and trees.

This decision requires more public debate and consideration. Housing is not the answer here.

:I oppose this proposal which fails to enhance the Clifton conservation area.

- Proposed architecture is not sympathetic with the surrounding established character and context

- It will cause unjustified and irreversible harm to listed buildings

- There is no convincing argument that a better considered visitor attraction would not besuccessful in this site. It has heritage as a visitor attraction, existing infrastructure and the hugeadvantage of city centre location. If other visitor attractions like AirHop or The Wave can besuccessful then why not the Zoo Gardens? This needs a change of commercial direction andbetter management, not executive housing.

- The proposal has the impression of exclusivity and a gated community, which is at odds with theculture of the city.

- Public access to this public asset is not legally assured within the plan

- Not allowed for in the statutory local plan

- Failure to give "considerable weight" to a heritage asset Therefore not in accordance withapplicable conservation legislation

- Clear danger of erosion of BCC's standards applicable to future conservation area planningproposals

I support the BCC Conservation Advisory Panel's submission, and that of Historic England, whohave commented that the closure of the zoo site will have a pronounced harmful impact on thesignificance of the site

I was born, educated, and have lived all my long life within 10 miles of Bristol. It hasbeen a huge privilege to enjoy all the special features that the city has to offer.

Among those features the Zoological Gardens figured largely in my childhood, and in thechildhood of my daughter and my grandchildren. My memories of Rosie the elephant and Alfred,the gorilla with attitude, go back to the 1940s, and I find it incomprehensible that closure shouldeven be considered.

There are arguments to be had about keeping large animals in captivity, but they are notsignificant factors in the present debate. The Zoo is a magnificent asset to the city which Bristolcan ill afford to lose.

Please think again!

I have received a letter which says that this planning application will have blocks of flatsup to 6 storeys high built along the perimeter of the zoo site and that 150 mature trees will beremoved.

If this is the case then I object to this development in this conservation area.

I would like to be sent a copy of the plans so I can comment on the detailed plans please.

I fully support the comments below as put forward by save bristol zoo campaign. Wedesperately need exciting ways to enhance the lives of Bristolians to improve their wellbeing andoverall mental health. Squeezing more houses into an already over crowded city will not achievethis. There have been great alternatives put forward, particularly the ground breaking virtual zooconcept, that would be such a great attraction for our city and bring much needed tourist income.Please think strategically and conserve this unique site - a site that deserves so much more thanjust more boring houses that will only benefit a few.

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has been there solong being of heritage value in itself.

Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that have visited,weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.

Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.

Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.

Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a publicsite, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.

Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings and donot complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuous blockalong the road.

Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

I object to the whole concept of this development which is to delete a key component ofour rich and varied civic life to be replaced by private dwellings.With the whole planet in a crisis we desperately need local resources which are easily accessibleand which are working towards a sustainable future and the enrichment of nature.This proposal is an affront to the people of Bristol, it is destroying something which very many ofus have used and continue to value.It appears that the proposals have been railroaded through during the pandemic without anypublished documents about their value, or the options for maintaining a flourishing zoologicalgarden on this site.This is not a private development. It is a valued public resource and I request that the Councilcommission a detailed inquiry into the whole matter before they allow this act of cultural vandalismto the institution, the buildings, the trees and the gardens all set in this conservation area.

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has beenthere so long being of heritage value in itself.

Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that have visited,weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.

Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.

Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.

Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a publicsite, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.

Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings and donot complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuous blockalong the road.

Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

I object on the following grounds and others.- Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has been there solong being of heritage value in itself.- Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that havevisited, weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.- Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.- Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.- Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as apublic site, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.- Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.- Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings anddo not complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuousblock along the road.- Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

I am a retired Architect & live a couple of blocks away from the proposed development.The height & scale of the proposal are both unacceptable in a conservation area where planningregulations are very restrictive. The quality of the architecture is surprisingly poor & monotonous &shows no sensitivity to its surroundings. In my opinion, the whole scheme needs a complete re-think.

This proposal which is the largest construction project based in Clifton for manydecades takes no account of the area being a conservation area. The planning team have refusedto disclose the models they have used to seek planning permission but it is clear that a housingdevelopment for 196 homes will consist of several hundred meters of modern block of flats whichwill abut the perimeter walls. That will neither enhance nor preserve the character of the area. Inaddition, the buildings will overwhelm the gardens and obscure night views of the sky, maturetress and the historic buildings that characterise Clifton. Clifton is a major tourist attraction, boththe bridge but also the buildings and to lose that as a consequence is shortsighted. Once aneyesore is built it can never be removed. Those of us who live here have to abide by stringentplanning rules to ensure then integrity and historical nature of the area. If this development isallowed, it makes a mockery of the planning laws we abide by. In addition, it seems that 150mature trees, just under 50% will be destroyed together with the historic ornamental garden. Ifallowed to go ahead, this development will be an invasion not only for those of us who live inClifton, but for the City of Bristol as a whole which will have lost a unique and beautiful space.

The buildings on the boundaries of Guthrie Road, Northcote Road and A4176 areexcessively tall.The elevations are very domineering with little in their design relating to properties in thesurrounding area.

I strongly object to this planning application.As I understand it Clifton is a conservationarea and as a result 'special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancingthe character of the area'.It seems to me that this proposed development are entirely out of keeping with the character of thearea in design and sheer size.

These large, characterless blocks will overwhelm the surrounding houses, gardens and streets,spoiling the look and feel of the area for residents, visitors and people simply driving through.

I have lived in Clifton for twenty years and have always been pleased, and impressed, at the wayrecent buildings have blended in with the existing buildings. The Clifton College buildings alongGuthrie Road are good examples.It seems to me hugely inappropriate that this planning application can be considered appropriateby the owners of the site, the developers or Bristol City Council.

I cannot really see how the development of 196 luxury apartments can benefit Bristoland the Clifton community.This has nothing to do with the current housing crisis since no average Joe will be able to affordone of those.

What is planned here seems to be an enormous soviet style block of flats that is totally in contrastwith the style of the surrounding area.I find totally absurd especially considering the fact that we are not allowed to change not even ourextremely inefficient windows, yet such a money making monstrosity can be build.On top of this I find completely hypocrite to pretend that the garden will be somehow saved andaccess made available to the public.I understand the economic push behind such a project, but please consider that once we open tothe transformation of this conservation are there is no way back.I am not really sure why we want to turn Clifton into Wapping Wharf.

PSthe dream would have been to turn the zoo into a botanic garden like Kew Garden the wholeBristol community can enjoy

Dear SirsWith regard to the proposed planning on the former Zoo site, I feel I have no choice but to objectto the proposed plans

I fully appreciate that we need more housing and that this site could be used for this , but why in aconservation area would such an ugly, overbearing and completely out place development beproposed ?

I live in this area and I even have to get permission to maintain and cut my trees , yet you areseriously proposing this development , I am sorry but it simply does not sit and leaves manyunanswered questions

So much could be done with this site for it to provide dwellings but in keeping in an area we haveall been made fully aware is Conservation and must be respected

There is no Conservation considerations with these's plans

How very sad that yet again large developers are allowed to destroy beautiful area's with uglybuildings , why are we destroy our heritage that we will never get back

My reason for objecting to this planning application is that it is not the best option for thecity of Bristol. If the proposed development goes ahead, the citizens of Bristol will lose a hugelyimportant green space for which alternative uses more in keeping with the Zoo's charitableobjectives have not been explored.There are sufficient flaws in the proposal for the planning application to be rejected onenvironmental grounds in keeping with planning law. The application should therefore be rejectedand a better use found for this site originally intended as Zoological Gardens for the people ofBristol not a housing estate.

Bristol Zoo is such an important part of our local and national heritage.It has also helped to lead the way with animal conservation and preservation.The gardens were beautifully maintained and the animals were often part of a world heritagebreeding programme.It is appalling that this site is now under threat.The Mayor of Bristol, the members of his cabinet, and the members of parliament who serve thecity, and all city councillors must clearly demonstrate that they really care for the heritage of thiscity, so that future generations can enjoy this iconic site.

I object to the proposed plan on the following basis:

Harm to overall historic interest and significance of site. The fact that the Zoo has been there solong being of heritage value in itself.

Loss of Communal Value. What it means to the people of Bristol, the generations that have visited,weddings held, ashes scattered, loss of valuable green urban space.

Harm to listed buildings. There are a number of listed buildings and gates on the site. All thebuildings will be turned into apartments, changed and inaccessible to the public.

Unjustified harm. As well as the public loss, this change of use and the social and material harmthat results is completely unjustified.

Need for change of use not proven. It hasn't been proven that the Zoo cannot continue as a publicsite, the business case isn't clear and alternatives have not been explored.

Loss of public amenity. While a green space is planned for the site, in similar cases these havebecome privatised and gated off. This is a real possibility here.

Overall design. The buildings proposed are way out of scale with the surrounding buildings and donot complement the houses or college buildings nearby. They will form a huge continuous block

along the road.

Loss of landscape. Almost half the trees will go and many more may be damaged. The publicgreen space will be much smaller. It's listed as a local Historic Park & Garden and an ImportantOpen Space.

Scale and nature of proposed development not in keeping with historical use of the siteas a public space benefitting the community. Also, major impact on traffic flow to an already busyarea, and impact on rights of local residents for peaceful occupancy and enjoyment of theirhomes. PotentialImpact on the adjacent college and the historic character of the area.

The proposal is at odds with Bristol's ambition to be be Carbon Zero city by creating anenvironment that will reduce green space, increase traffic and destroy what is a beautiful part ofour city - it would never happen in Bath!

I strongly object to this site being used for private dwellings. I view this site as a heritagesite and should be used for the residents of Bristol and visitors.

The following represents a slightly revised version of the comments originally posted onAugust 7th.

CHIS strongly opposes these depressingly unimaginative and potentially destructive proposalswhich are entirely unacceptable.

The scheme includes half a mile of modern blocks of Flats several storeys high adjacent to all theZoo boundaries which will dominate and overpower the neighbouring streets. This is especially thecase along the west perimeter which would face the monolithic block proposed for the West CarPark site, permanently altering the feel, landscape, treescape, and skyscape of the ConservationArea. The scheme takes little, if any, account of the heritage, character and sense of space thatmakes this historic neighbourhood special, if not unique.

Despite strong concerns expressed during various public consultations, it has been the experienceof residents that most of their concerns have either been dealt with only at the most basic orcosmetic level or just completely ignored.

The following points summarise some of the most blatantly pernicious aspects of the proposals :

1. 196 dwellings represents a massively over-dense development of the site.

2. Given the provision of only 100 parking spaces the circular access drive is likely to be

permanently littered with cars and so appear even less discreet than the plans suggest.

3. The potential impact on the Conservation Area is poorly considered. In particular, the impact onthe surrounding listed buildings and gardens of a development so monolithic in its scale andmassing has not been justified. Especially appalling in this respect is the block on the northernboundary,

4. The proposed terracing is not appropriate in this area.

5. The loss of trees will be compounded by the inevitable damage to the roof systems of manyother trees by infrastructure work.

We urge rejection of this highly damaging Application.

These proposals are an affront to the present Victorian feel of this part of Clifton - aconservation area. The overbearing size of the proposed tower blocks which will overshadowvirtually all of the present buildings should not be allowed. 196 units of housing in modern blocklook and the destruction of over 45% of the trees inside the Botanical Garden can only bedescribed as appalling. The original site dating, in the main from 1846, has been a delight for thebest part of 200 years. Surely the best use of the site now is for a public park, to be enjoyed byand used by residents and visitors alike with leisure facilities commensurate with its use.

The Planning Statement from Savills makes much of the context in which theapplication is made, in particular, the situation that Bristol, Clifton & West of England ZoologicalSociety (BCWEZS) finds itself in. It also makes much of the economic impacts, as well as thesupposedly sustainable nature of the proposal.BackgroundThe economic plight of the Zoological Gardens site is significantly of BCWEZS's own making. Thepublicly available Annual Report and Financial Statements for BCWEZS, made up for the yearending December 2019, reported on the 2020-2025 Strategic Plan. Included in the Plan were:- "Capital investment at both Bristol Zoo gardens and Wild Place Project"; and- "...a clear long-term vision and masterplans for both Bristol Zoo Gardens and Wild Place Project.Bristol Zoo Gardens transformed by the time of its bicentenary in 2036. Wild Place will continue togrow into an even greater wildlife adventure, while Bristol Zoo gardens will place a greater valueon visitors' interactions with and understanding of individual animals.The Report and Financial Statements in the same document then reported that the closure of bothsites as a result of the coronavirus pandemic was impacting on this strategy. It noted:Following the Coronavirus pandemic and the financial implications arising from the closure of bothsites from 21 March to 19 June 2020 for Wild Place Project and 14 July for Bristol Zoo gardens,the Trustees will be reconsidering this strategy and the Society's ability to raise the capital neededto implement the planned major capital development projects. .... It will take time for the longerterm implications for the Society to be more fully understood and the impact on its future longerterm strategy. This will be the main objective for 2020 alongside the continued focus on ensuringboth sites operate safely for our employees, visitors and animals and the implementation of cost

saving initiatives.Note the wording here - reconsideration of the strategy was supposedly to follow, and not precede,the pandemic. The reported financial performance for the year was not at all suggestive ofimpending financial meltdown, though alarm bells were being sounded, as would have beenprudent in the circumstances.The Report contains a Report of the Trustees, which was approved by the Board of Trustees, andsigned off by its Chair on 24 September 2020. The accounts were signed off by the accountantson the 6th of October by the auditor acting on behalf of BCWEZS.Nonetheless, around two months after the Trustees Report report was signed off, at the end ofNovember 2020, the Zoo reported that it was closing the Clifton site altogether, relocating to theWild Place Project site in South Gloucestershire. Bristol Post reported:The new Bristol Zoo will offer spacious, modern facilities, significant growth in conservation andeducation work and a ground-breaking, innovative visitor experience, said a Bristol ZoologicalSociety spokesperson. [...]The plans have been announced after the second lockdown forced Bristol Zoo Gardens and WildPlace Project to close, after months of closure during the peak spring and summer months.Although BCWEZS has been keen to draw links between the closure of the Clifton site and thepandemic, there is more than a suggestion that this has provided a somewhat convenient way forBCWEZS to give a decision that had been considered for some time a softer landing. This isbecause the visitor numbers at the Zoo site in recent years appear to have been negativelyaffected by the growth in visitor numbers at Wild Place Project, which BCWEZS also owns.Although what was written in the Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ending endof 2019 gave no clear hint of this, as the Planning Statement for the West Car Park notes:A formal submission for pre-application request was made to Bristol City Council in March 2020.The proposed development submitted for pre-application comment related to a scheme for 78dwellings (no affordable housing provision and a proposed density of 153 dph) and the buildingsproposed ranged from 2-4.5 storey plus semi basement parking.It is clear, therefore, that well before the Report and Financial Statements for year ending 2019were signed off, and in advance of the first lock-down linked to the Covid-19 pandemic, BCWEZSwas exploring the option of developing the West Car Park.It is not entirely clear, therefore, that plans were not already afoot to sell the Clifton site well beforethe effects of the pandemic became known. Chris Booy, Vice Chair of Trustees, in his writtenstatement regarding the Zoo's application on the West Car Park, noted:In late 2020, Trustees of Bristol Zoological Society voted unanimously to relocate Bristol Zoo tothe Wild Place Project site.[...] This decision followed an extensive process to explore a number of options, as well as takingindependent professional advice.It seems clear that preparatory work to inform the decision had been underway for some time. It isa little surprising that the Trustees Report remained silent regarding the preparatory work ongoing,including the pre-application submission to Bristol City Council. The Charity Commission'sGuidance on preparing a trustees' annual report indicates:If your charity's income is more than £500,000 you also need to:

- explain your strategy for meeting its charitable purposes- list any significant activities you undertook as part of this strategy- give details of what your charity achieved in carrying out these activities to meet its purposesThe omission, in the Report, of any mention of the pre-application submission, or other workunderway at the time, is an omission in the Trustees' explanation of their Strategy.In a video purporting to explain its decision, the CEO, Justin Morris, reports that there has been a'significant decline over many years' in visitor numbers. The evolution in visitor numbers at theClifton site has, between 2008 and 2019 (we have excepted the 2020 year for fairly obviousreasons) exhibited a downward trend overall. This is true for both total visitor numbers and payingvisitors. The former exhibits a compound rate of decline of less than 1% per annum, the latter, aslightly higher compound rate of 1.4% (see Figure 1).Figure 1: Evolution of Visitor Numbers over Time, 2008-2019, Zoo Gardens Site

Source: all data are from previous versions of the BCWEZS Annual Report and FinancialStatementsNeither of these rates seems 'precipitous', though equally, that they were happening would havebeen risen to consider additional forms of income generation and / or a change in the nature of thevisitor experience, as mentioned in the Report and Financial Statements.The picture is rather different, though, if one looks only at the period before the Wild Place Projectwas up and running. In the period from 2008-2013 (2014 was the first full year where WPP was inoperation), there is no obvious downward trend in visitor numbers at all (see Figure 2). There is noclear increase either (there is, possibly, for the paying visitors).Figure 2: Evolution of Visitor Numbers over Time, 2008-2013, Zoo Gardens Site

Source: all data are from previous versions of the BCWEZS Annual Report and FinancialStatementsThe main period of decline in visitor numbers at the Clifton site coincides with the opening of WPP,and the increasing number of visitors choosing to visit there over time. This must have beenforeseeable: a competing (even if run by the same entity) attraction of a similar nature to anexisting one would be expected to draw some visitors away from the existing attraction. Indeed, asWPP visitors have steadily increased, it might be considered somewhat surprising that visitornumbers at the Clifton site held up as well as they did (see Figure 3).Figure 3: Evolution of Visitor Numbers over Time, 2008-2019, Zoo Gardens Site and WPP

Source: all data are from previous versions of the BCWEZS Annual Report and FinancialStatementsIf BCWEZS wanted to maintain visitors at the Clifton site, establishing a competing attraction wasa strange way of seeking to achieve that. Since 2013, total visitor numbers at the Zoo site haveheld up rather better than the number of paying visitors at the Clifton site: whilst the former havedeclined by 1.3%p.a. in the period up to, and including, 2019, the latter have fallen by 2.6% p.a.over the same period.In Chris Booy's statement referenced above, he noted that the decision was linked to operating

losses in recent years, coinciding with the opening of WPP:The decision to relocate after 185 years of memories was not taken lightly, but after making anoperating loss in four of the last six years, we had to move forward to safeguard the future of theSociety.It might be considered, therefore, that decisions of the Zoological Society's own making have beenat least partially responsible for its worsening financial performance.There was also a statement made to the effect that the relocation to WPP would enable 'millionsmore people to enjoy the magic'. The 2035 vision for the zoo sets out a target regarding visitors.By 2035, the aim is to:'Engage and connect with more than 800,000 visitors and members per annum.'In 2019, across the Clifton site and WPP, there were 830,000 visitors (see Figure 3), or more thanthe target for WPP to achieve by 2035. The implication is that by 2035, the main effect of astrategy that achieves the 800,000 targets will have been a net transfer of the half a million or sovisitors at the Clifton site to WPP. The potential environmental consequences of each scenario areexplored below.The suggestion that the new zoo site will have, in the words of the Chair of the Trustees, CharlotteMoar, 'conservation and sustainability at its heart' is questionable. Indeed, BCWEZS's strategylooks like the antithesis of what an entity concerned with wildlife would do, recognizing that - asBCWEZS well knows - one of the major threats (if not the major threat) to species extinctioncomes from climate change (see below).Although this preamble may seem of limited relevance, it does need to be recognized thatDevelopment Management Policy DM31 (see further below) requires that:Where a proposal would affect the significance of a heritage asset, including a locally listedheritage 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 newuses, or mitigate the extent of the harm to the significance of the asset;Given that BCWEZS's decision have been responsible for the drop off in visitor numbers at theClifton site, then it might have been expected to take 'all reasonable efforts' to sustain the existinguse (including, presumably, by closing WPP, or by rationalizing the use of each site according tosuitability for key species). The application has not demonstrated that this has been done.Economic BenefitsIf applicants make claims for their proposal that are obviously unfounded, it is important that theseare highlighted. The report by Savills - 'Economic Benefits Assessment' - is blatantly lopsided asan exercise in economic assessment, whilst also being riddled with errors and judgements of aquestionable nature. Officers and Councillors are at risk of being seriously misled by this report.The report claims that:The assessment of economic benefits follows guidance from the Homes and Communities AgencyAdditionality Guide (HCA, 2014) and HM Treasury's Green Book (2020).This report does not, though, follow the HM Treasury's Green Book: if it can be said to have doneso, it does so selectively and in a uniquely biased manner.The Treasury's Green Book would have required external costs and benefits to have beenincluded in any assessment. These are genuinely public costs and benefits and might have a

central role in determining whether the harm to heritage assets is justified. Because no attempthas been made to identify any external costs (because the assessment fails to respect theguidance it claims to have followed), it could not reliably be determined whether the harm toheritage assets was justified. Without a proper appraisal of these matters, attaching monetaryvalues as per the HM Treasury Green Book Guidance (including Supplementary Guidance), theCouncil cannot possibly determine whether the harm to heritage assets is justified.Nonetheless, we should explore the claims made further. The assessment suggests the referencecase for the assessment is as follows:The reference case for this assessment is the site in a vacant state once the Bristol Zoo moves toits new home.We can compare this with the words in the Addendum to the Transport Statement from PeterEvans Partnership related to the same application:Bristol Zoo Gardens closed to members of the public in September 2022, after the submission ofthe planning application. However the zoo use remains the permitted use for the site. Thereforeconsideration of this use and the associated traffic generation in the baseline position as set out inthe Transport Statement for the scheme remains appropriate.The Planning Statement sets out a range of benefits which are attributed to the application.5.75. What is abundantly clear is that, while the nature of the movements may be different as thesite moves from being a tourist attraction to a residential/community use, overall there will be asignificant reduction in movements associated with the proposals (DM23 states that developmentshould not give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions).5.76. It is also relevant to note that it is understood that in excess of 85.5% of visitors to the zoocurrently travel by private motor car, while the application proposals not only seek to reduce totalmovements, but also to encourage alternative modes of transport. [...]5.82. Residents will not be eligible for residents parking permits and so, in comparison with theexisting tourist use where there would be significant use of the pay and display on-street parking, itis anticipated that there will be a significant reduction in parking demand on surrounding streets.It is clear from the above that all the transport impacts are assessed against a baseline of the Zoooperating as an open visitor attraction, whilst the economic assessment assumes a baselinewhere the site is vacant. If the site was to be treated as an operating visitor attraction for thepurposes of assessing transport impacts, why would the economic assessment take a completelydifferent baseline as the basis for the assessment? It doesn't really matter which one believes ismore relevant - given the site is, de facto, not open for business, then it seems difficult to sustainthe fiction that it is still occupied. Either the claimed transport benefits are not as they are, or theclaimed economic benefits are not as they are.The applicant is guilty of choosing multiple different baselines to suit whatever case it is seeking tomake in a given document. A clear view is required on how assessment should proceed. Is it theTransport Statement or the Economic Assessment which is wrong? The approach to appraisingthe impact of the proposal is clearly not consistent across the application.Claimed Additional HomesThe social and economic benefits of the site include a suggestion that the 196 additional homesare to be included as a social and economic benefit. There are relevant questions to be

considered as to whether these homes are genuinely 'additional'. The Planning Statement is clearenough on the need for new dwellings due to a 'shortfall':BCC published its Five Year Housing Land Supply Assessment 2020 to 2025 in June 2021, whichconfirms that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. Itconfirms that the council only has a 3.7 years supply of housing land. The statement alsoconfirmed that BCC is failing to deliver sufficient homes against the Housing Delivery Test, at 72%of the delivery requirement. The administrative area of Bristol is, therefore, in need of significantnew residential dwellings to address the shortfallThe claim that the homes which are proposed will be additional raises questions regarding thecounterfactual. If there is a shortfall against existing policy requirements, then it become moredifficult to argue the 'additionality' case. Can it be argued that these houses are additional to whatwould otherwise be supplied when a) there is a shortfall against targets, and b) where growth inconstruction activity is limited by a shortage in availability of labour? If the homes were notdeveloped here, the shortfall might, after all, equally be met elsewhere, though ultimately, the paceof delivery of dwellings may be constrained by the availability of suitably skilled labour.Employment ClaimsIn respect of employment, the Assessment claims:The proposed development would generate more jobs, economic activity and revenues to the localgovernment than the reference case which is the vacant site once the Bristol Zoo moves to its newhome. The economic benefits include 125 on and off-site construction jobs during the 3-yearconstruction period for residents of Bristol; 54 on-site jobs during operation (including peopleworking from their home)Proposals such as this will not generate new 'jobs' in construction. The employment market acrossthe UK is currently tight, and it is especially tight in construction. The Construction Skills Networksuggests that there will be an additional quarter of a million workers required between now and2026 (it is not entirely clear where they are expected to come from). The likely impact of thisproposal is to contribute to overall construction activity, the pace of delivery of which may beconstrained by the availability of sufficient workers with the relevant skills. The net effect of theproposal is likely to be, at the margin, to slow down the pace of delivery of everything else.The figures for the on-site jobs are even less defensible than those for the construction sector. TheAssessment states:Once operational, the proposed development could generate up to 54 on-site full time equivalent(FTE) jobs upon completion based on the employment densities for each use class within theproposed development, including 41 homeworkers.5 The estimate for the numbers ofhomeworkers who will reside on-site is based on the ONS estimates of homeworkers as apercentage of working age residents in the South West6 and applying that on the household level.What this is identifying is - based on ONS estimates - how many of the residents at the site mightbe home workers. In order for it to be correct to claim the site might 'generate' these homeworkingjobs, it would also have to generate the people. These are people who do not spontaneouslyemerge once the site is built: they do already exist. Nor does the development spontaneouslycreate (anywhere) opportunities for homeworkers at the site. To attribute these jobs to the site isnot credible.

There may be some employment attributable to the development in terms of staff at the café,office and community hub, but one also needs to consider the relevant counterfactual. There mightbe some additional spend (relative to what would have occurred anyway) but much (not all) of it islikely to be 'displacement' of spend that would have occurred elsewhere.All this assumes that the appropriate counterfactual is a vacant site - if one took the view adoptedin the Transport Assessment - that the baseline is a still functioning Zoo, then even on themethodologically flawed grounds that the employment claims are made, the change at the sitewould look very different.In summary, the claimed employment generation is unsound.New ExpenditureSimilar comments can be made regarding 'new expenditure' by residents. The assessment makesthe following assumptions:To estimate the additional expenditure from new residents, we take the average householdexpenditure for convenience goods, comparison goods and food and beverages as detailed inTable 2.6. We multiply the expenditure by the respective retention rates to estimate how much ofthis expenditure is retained in Bristol City's retail and restaurant units. We then multiply the resultby the 196 additional households in the proposed development. This calculation gives an estimateof the weekly residential expenditure which is then multiplied by 52 to estimate the yearlyexpenditure. We estimate that the expenditure that would be retained in the local authority area tobe approximately £1.5m per annum.The residents will not be 'new people' (other than any new-born children). They already existsomewhere, and they spend money. Correctly considered, the expenditure is likely to implydisplacement of expenditure that would have occurred elsewhere (unless the occupants alreadylive nearby, in which case, their expenditure patterns may be similar). It would be difficult to justify,however, attributing any additionality to this spend. Some incremental uplift might be attributable tothe café simply because of its proximity to residents. This assumes, of course, that the appropriatecounterfactual is a vacant site - if one took the view adopted in the Transport Assessment - thatthe baseline is a still functioning Zoo, then even on the methodologically flawed grounds that the'spend' claims are made, the change at the site would look very different.The Assessment goes even further than this:2.5.3. This additional expenditure is expected to support additional jobs in retail and food andbeverage. Using average turnover per employee in these sectors we estimate that this will support13 jobs for residents of Bristol, which are accounted for in the multiplier effect outlined in Table 2.5above.2.5.4. Additionally, expenditure from new residents living at the Proposed Development wouldsupport employment in local shops and businesses in Bristol City.Again, it is very difficult to justify a view that the jobs supported would be 'additional'. The point atpara 2.5.4. seems to be double counting the effect described in 2.5.3., which itself is not genuinelyadditional.GVAThe Gross Value Added (GVA) calculations are effectively run off the employment assumptionsdiscussed above:

Gross Value Added (GVA) is an indicator of wealth creation by measuring economic activityassociated with the operations in the development proposal. This section outlines the estimatedGVA benefits which would be generated compared to the reference case. We have based ourestimates based on GVA generated per worker in the South West region7 and the number ofoperational jobs created by each use type presented in Table 2.3. The proposed developmentscheme is estimated to generate £1.6m per annum.Given the questionable basis for the employment figures claimed in the report, then it follows thatthe claimed GVA figures are also unsound.There are other reasons, though, why the GVA figures are unlikely to be attributable to this site.This may seem counter-intuitive, but it comes back to the question of the relevant counterfactual: ifthis scheme were not given the go-ahead, would the same level of GVA be generated fromconstruction across the year? If the labour market were not so constrained, then it might bepossible to claim the GVA as 'additional', especially in conditions where the consenting process forhousing was such that rates of build were in excess of what was required by Government (therewas clear scope to argue that the development was 'additional', in the sense of being above levelsrequired by Government policy). Neither is true in this case. Construction-related GVA will not beaffected by what in the UK context is a relatively small scheme.Tax Revenues as Economic BenefitsThe Savills Assessment goes on to describe how the proposals could lead to the generation ofadditional public sector revenue. It is rather odd to see taxes and other transfers included as'economic benefits'. Council Tax revenue is not 'an economic benefit': it arises as a transfer ofincome from private households to the Council. The same is true of Business Rates, except thatthe entity paying is a business, transferring funds to (at least for the majority of them) Bristol CityCouncil. The payment of CIL is also a transfer. The New Homes Bonus is a transfer of funds fromcentral government to local government. Where do Savills imagine the New Homes Bonuspayments come from? Does the revenue materialize from thin air? HM Treasury's Green Booknotes:6.7 Transfers of resources between people (e.g. gifts, taxes, grants, subsidies or social securitypayments) should be excluded from the overall estimate of Net Present Social Value (NPSV).Transfers pass purchasing power from one person to another and do not involve the consumptionof resources. Transfers benefit the recipient and are a cost to the donor and therefore do not makesociety as a whole better or worse off.Only under quite specific circumstances should taxes be included as a benefit. The Assessmentmakes no such case. It presents all forms of what are, for the most part, forms of charge or tax as'economic benefits'. Understanding the economic consequences of these transfers would requireadditional analysis of, for example, the deadweight loss implied by the imposition of the relevanttaxes / charges. In reality, the extraordinarily marginal nature of these in the macroeconomiccontext is such that they would not tend to have any meaningful impact on the framework oftaxation and spending that government would implement as a means to achieve its overarchingfiscal objectives.SummaryThere is little in the Assessment of Economic Benefits that stands up to close scrutiny. The

Assessment is lopsided in the extreme. It fails to follow Green Book principles in that none of theexternalities associated with building out the proposal are considered. There may also be affectson asset values for neighbours that the assessment overlooks. These would not be publicdisbenefits, but private ones. Nonetheless, they are a reflection of the affect of the site on theamenity of the existing property owners.TransportFirst of all, it seems clear that - as per the above - the baseline for the Transport Assessment is nolonger the relevant one. It is not clear what the BCWEZS would do in the absence of theapplication being granted consent but given that there appears to be no 'Plan B', then it would bestrange to assume that the baseline for the assessment is a state of affairs which no longerprevails. The attempt, in the Addendum to the Transport Statement, to reassert that theappropriate baseline for the assessment is 'the zoo use' because this 'remains the permitted usefor the site' belongs in the realms of magic realism. If BCWEZS has based its strategy on apresumption that one or other, or both, planning consents would be granted (irrespective of thenature of the application made), then to the reasons for presuming such an outcome deservescrutiny, especially if they effectively imply a fettering of the discretion of officers and Councillorsto arrive at a rational decision, achieved in a lawful manner.Nonetheless, the claims in the original assessment that, for example, the design of the schemereflects an assessment that 'in this location it would not be necessary to own a car' and that thescheme provides 'infrastructure and promotion measures ... to encourage non private car travel'cannot be taken seriously: there are 118 car parking spaces proposed. As regards collectivelyowned vehicles, the Transport Statement notes: 'A car club space and car is proposed as part ofthe scheme.' That is suggestive of a scheme that does only the bare minimum. The supposedbenefits of this car club space are overblown:Whilst provision of a car club vehicle still enables car travel the availability of this vehicle wouldreduce the need for residents to own their own private car, which in turn is a sustainable benefit tothe scheme. This is also a benefit to the wider Clifton area as would enable local residents to usethe shared vehicle instead of owning their own car. The aim for this vehicle to be electric bringsenvironmental benefits.In other words, it's not even guaranteed to have the car as electric.The Planning Statement from Savills notes:5.75. What is abundantly clear is that, while the nature of the movements may be different as thesite moves from being a tourist attraction to a residential/community use, overall there will be asignificant reduction in movements associated with the proposals (DM23 states that developmentshould not give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions).5.76. It is also relevant to note that it is understood that in excess of 85.5% of visitors to the zoocurrently travel by private motor car, while the application proposals not only seek to reduce totalmovements, but also to encourage alternative modes of transport. [...]5.82. Residents will not be eligible for residents parking permits and so, in comparison with theexisting tourist use where there would be significant use of the pay and display on-street parking, itis anticipated that there will be a significant reduction in parking demand on surrounding streets.One could be forgiven for thinking that the two consultants' reports are discussing a completely

different scheme, other than in the respect that they both assume - erroneously - that the effect ofthe proposal on traffic should be considered as if the Zoo was still open. The applicants maypretend all they wish that the Zoo hasn't closed, but it already has, and that decision was of theapplicant's own making. The appropriate baseline for this assessment is a non-functioning Zoo,with no visitors, and no visitor traffic, not a state of affairs that has now passed, and for whichthere are - apparently - no clear plans to return to.But why, if the location is so 'sustainable' (what does it even mean for 'a location' to be'sustainable'?), were 'in excess of 85.5% of visitors' to the Zoo, when it was still open, travelling bycar? Why does the Transport Assessment assume that the behaviour of the would-be residentswill be so different in the face of similar travel options? The reality is that the Transport Statementdoes not really envisage car-free travel, and is not expecting much by way of this in future.Indeed, notwithstanding the 118 car parking spaces, the Transport Assessment is happy toconsider the potential for this number being exceeded. It includes a thoroughly unconvincing planfor what it appears to anticipate will be pressure for additional car parking:However BCC confirmed early in the pre-application process that residents of the BZG site wouldnot be able to apply for on-street parking permits. This removes the potential impact of overspillparking from occurring on a daily basis, as pay and display parking locally is time limited.Therefore when residents move into the site they would be aware of whether they have space topark a vehicle or not. The level of car parking proposed is therefore designed on this basis. MfS[Manual for Streets] identifies at section 8 that lower car parking provision can be successful whenadequate on-street parking controls are present, which is the case at the BZG site. Ineligibility foron-street parking permits would be made clear though any sales and marketing agent.With allocated car parking proposed this provides residents with a clear understanding as towhether their property is car free or not. The internal streets around the site would be managed bya management company to make sure that no parking takes place outside of the marked parkingbays.The presumption is that there would be controls feeding into habits, but as the above extractsindicate, parking restrictions locally are time-limited. Those using cars for travel into work would,therefore, compete for spaces outside the hours of time-restricted parking. Since the Statementmainly considers impacts relative to 'peak time' traffic, it is unclear whether the Statement hasproperly considered the possibility that would-be residents may simply take a chance on out-of-restricted hours spaces being available. Contrary to what is stated, therefore, it seems likely thatthere could be intense competition for local parking spaces in the hours outside the restrictions -the exact same hours when visitors to the Zoo would not have been seeking to park their vehicles.All of the demand for parking spaces would be 'additional', even if one suspended reality andimagined that the relevant comparison was a zoo that was still open. The Assessment has notproperly considered the impact on parking at different times of day, especially during the 'out ofrestriction' hours.Climate ChangeThe Planning Statement offers a review of planning policy, but omits any reference to relevantparagraphs regarding the design of the proposal. It overlooks Government Guidance regardingdesign, which should have influenced if not the extent of refurbishment (which is limited) then the

choice of materials used for the new build properties, as well as the thermal properties of thebuildings, both refurbished, and new build, and also, the scale of the proposal relative to the abilityto generate renewable sources of energy.The National Planning Policy Framework has an environmental objective:8...c) an environmental objective - to protect and enhance our natural, built and historicenvironment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using naturalresources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climatechange, including moving to a low carbon economy.The NPPF also states:126. The creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental towhat the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect ofsustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps makedevelopment acceptable to communities. Being clear about design expectations, and how thesewill be tested, is essential for achieving this. So too is effective engagement between applicants,communities, local planning authorities and other interests throughout the process.It goes on:134. Development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflectlocal design policies and government guidance on design52, taking into account any local designguidance and supplementary planning documents such as design guides and codes. Conversely,significant weight should be given to:a) development which reflects local design policies and government guidance on design, takinginto account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents such as designguides and codes; and/orb) outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise thestandard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layoutof their surroundings.So, the above (p.126) indicates that good design is key to achieving sustainable development. Italso stipulates (p.134) that where good design is not achieved, applications should be refused.Para 152 of the NPPF notes:152. The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changingclimate.... It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions ingreenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse ofexisting resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and lowcarbon energy and associated infrastructure.153. Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change.....[footnote 53] In line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. ie in linewith the 80% cut by 2035 and net zero by 2050.As well as:154. New development should be planned for in ways that:......b) can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as through its location, orientation anddesign.In its response to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee report that

was published on 29 October 2021 following the Select Committee's inquiry into LocalGovernment and the Path to Net Zero, a Government (DLUHC) policy paper included thefollowing:On powers, local authorities already have a combination of powers across housing, planning andtransport which gives them significant autonomy to take action on net zero. We will havediscussions on any additional powers local authorities think they may need to play their part inmeeting national net zero targets, and the evidence for this, as part of the Local Net Zero Forum.It highlighted the respective roles of BEIS and DLUHC:As outlined in the Net Zero Strategy, BEIS has overall responsibility for achieving net zero and forcoordinating with local authorities and other local actors on designing effective policies, includingthe local delivery of net zero. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities(DLUHC) acts as a steward for the local government finance system and has overall responsibilityfor the planning system.(We reference the Net Zero Strategy below.) The same policy document referenced the uplift fornew homes in terms of carbon performance which we have discussed above:On 15 December, we implemented an uplift for new homes. This is a key stepping-stone that willenable us to successfully implement the Future Homes Standard. Once the uplift comes into force,new homes will be expected to produce around 30% fewer CO2 emissions compared to currentstandards. This will deliver high-quality homes that are in line with our broader housingcommitments and encourage homes that are future proofed for the longer term.The policy report references embodied carbon in buildings:The government's Net Zero Strategy also sets out our ambitions to help the construction sectorimprove its reporting on embodied carbon in buildings. We are exploring the potential of amaximum embodied carbon level for new buildings in the future while encouraging the sector toreuse materials and make full use of existing buildings. In championing low-carbon materials,increased energy efficiency and enhanced product design, we are supporting the sector to deliverthe cleaner, greener buildings of tomorrow.In referencing embodied energy, it makes specific reference to the National Model Design Code:The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that the planning system should supportthe transition to a low-carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk andcoastal change. It should help to shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions ingreenhouse gas emissions [...] The NPPF expects Local Plans to take account of climate changeover the longer term; local authorities should adopt proactive strategies to reduce carbonemissions and recognise the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008.In July 2021 we updated the NPPF, placing a stronger emphasis on delivering sustainabledevelopment and a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change.Simultaneously, we also published the National Model Design Code which guides local authoritieson measures they can include within their own design codes to create environmentally responsiveand sustainable places. The National Model Design Code encourages the implementation ofsustainable construction that focuses on reducing embodied energy, designing for disassemblyand exploring the remodel and reuse of buildings where possible rather than rebuilding. TheNational Model Design Code also provides tools and guidance for local planning authorities to help

ensure developments respond to the impacts of climate change, are energy efficient, embedcircular economy principles and reduce carbon emissions.Local authorities have the power to set local energy efficiency standards that go beyond theminimum standards set through the Building Regulations, through the Planning and Energy Act2008. In January 2021, we clarified in the Future Homes Standard consultation response that inthe immediate term we will not amend the Planning and Energy Act 2008, which means that localauthorities still retain powers to set local energy efficiency standards that go beyond the minimumstandards set through the Building Regulations. In addition, there are clear policies in the NPPF onclimate change as set out above. The Framework does not set out an exhaustive list of the stepslocal authorities might take to meet the challenge of climate change and they can go beyond this.The Government's Net Zero Strategy, a policy paper setting out policies and proposals fordecarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet the 2050 net zero target, stated:48. ...The National Model Design Code, published in July this year, guides local planningauthorities on measures they can include within their own design codes to create environmentallyresponsive and sustainable places. The National Model Design Code provides tools and guidancefor local planning authorities to help ensure developments respond to the impacts of climatechange, are energy efficient, embed circular economy principles and reduce carbon emissionsThe National Design Guide states:135. Well-designed places and buildings conserve natural resources including land, water, energyand materials. Their design responds to the impacts of climate change by being energy efficientand minimising carbon emissions to meet net zero by 2050. It identifies measures to achieve: mitigation, primarily by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and minimising embodied energy;and adaptation to anticipated events, such as rising temperatures and the increasing risk of flooding.[...]137 Well-designed places: have a layout, form and mix of uses that reduces their resource requirement, including for land,energy and water; are fit for purpose and adaptable over time, reducing the need for redevelopment andunnecessary waste; use materials and adopt technologies to minimise their environmental impact.It includes two key themes to be considered in well-designed proposals:R1 Follow the energy hierarchy138 Well-designed places and buildings follow the energy hierarchy of: reducing the need for energy through passive measures including form, orientation and fabric; using energy efficient mechanical and electrical systems, including heat pumps, heat recoveryand LED lights; and maximising renewable energy especially through decentralised sources, including on-sitegeneration and community-led initiatives.139 They maximise the contributions of natural resources such as sun, ground, wind, andvegetation.140 They make use of potential for renewable energy infrastructures at neighbourhood and

building level. These include photovoltaic arrays, heat pumps and district heating systems, toreduce demand for non-sustainable energy sources. IT advances and app-based solutions allowusers to take ownership or to manage these systems so as to use them most efficiently.141 They follow the principles of whole life carbon assessment and the circular economy, reducingembodied carbon and waste and maximising reuse and recycling.142 Good developments minimise the cost of running buildings and are easy and affordable foroccupants to use and manage.As will become clear from the discussion of the application below, the design fails to meet theseobjectives. In doing so, it fails to meet the requirements of the NPPF, notably in respect of thequality of design. It also fails to align - as Government (and the NPPF, through its references tothe Climate Change Act) says it should - with the Net Zero Strategy.The second theme relates to 'Careful selection of materials and construction techniques':143 The selection of materials and the type of construction influence how energy efficient abuilding or place can be and how much embodied carbon it contains.144 Well-designed proposals for new development use materials carefully to reduce theirenvironmental impact.The Guidance Notes on the National Model Design Codes state:197. Well-designed places and buildings conserve natural resources including buildings, land,water, energy and materials. Their design responds to the impacts of climate change by beingenergy efficient and minimising carbon emissions to meet net zero targets by 2050. It identifiesmeasures to achieve: mitigation, primarily by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and minimisingembodied energy; and adaptation to anticipated events, such as rising temperatures and theincreasing risk of flooding.It is clear that good design, therefore, also includes consideration of the embodied carbon andenergy in materials.We highlight below that although some existing buildings are proposed to be refurbished, themajority are not. Indeed, the majority of the dwellings proposed are new builds. For these newbuilds - the majority of the proposal - there has been no 'Careful selection of materials andconstruction techniques' in the proposal, and materials have not been considered in terms of howtheir selection might minimize embodied carbon, and as a result, the application fails to align withthe Government's Net Zero Strategy, and the requirements for good design in the NPPF. It should,therefore, be rejected.Bristol City Council PoliciesIn Bristol's own Core Strategy, the Core Strategy includes the following policy:Policy BCS13Development should contribute to both mitigating and adapting to climate change, and to meetingtargets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.Development should mitigate climate change through measures including:- High standards of energy efficiency including optimal levels of thermal insulation, passiveventilation and cooling, passive solar design, and the efficient use of natural resources in newbuildings.- The use of decentralised, renewable and low-carbon energy supply systems.

- Patterns of development which encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transportinstead of journeys by private car.Development should adapt to climate change through measures including:- Site layouts and approaches to design and construction which provide resilience to climatechange.- Measures to conserve water supplies and minimise the risk and impact of flooding.- The use of green infrastructure to minimise and mitigate the heating of the urban environment.- Avoiding responses to climate impacts which lead to increases in energy use and carbon dioxideemissions.These measures should be integrated into the design of new development.New development should demonstrate through Sustainability Statements how it would contributeto mitigating and adapting to climate change and to meeting targets to reduce carbon dioxideemissions by means of the above measures.Note that the policy BCS13 is not prescriptive, but neither is it restrictive, as regards whatdevelopment should consider. It highlights matters that should be included as regards mitigation,but the overarching principle is that:Development should contribute to both mitigating and adapting to climate change, and to meetingtargets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.The 'targets' referenced in the above seem to be (in the Core Strategy) the targets in the nowabolished Local Area Agreements. It might be considered that the NPPF's reference to theClimate Change Act would indicate that the targets therein should guide the application of BCS13.Nonetheless, the Core Strategy notes that, regarding Policy BCS13:This policy will be delivered through the development management process, by means of therequirement for Sustainability Statements and the implementation of Policy BCS14, Policy BCS15and Policy BCS16.The mitigation aspect is given further substance through BCS14:Policy BCS14Proposals for the utilisation, distribution and development of renewable and low carbon sources ofenergy, including large-scale freestanding installations, will be encouraged. In assessing suchproposals the environmental and economic benefits of the proposed development will be affordedsignificant weight, alongside considerations of public health and safety and impacts onbiodiversity, landscape character, the historic environment and the residential amenity of thesurrounding area.Development in Bristol should include measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from energyuse in accordance with the following energy hierarchy:1. Minimising energy requirements;2. Incorporating renewable energy sources;3. Incorporating low-carbon energy sources.Consistent with stage two of the above energy hierarchy, development will be expected to providesufficient renewable energy generation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from residual energyuse in the buildings by at least 20%. An exception will only be made in the case where adevelopment is appropriate and necessary but where it is demonstrated that meeting the required

standard would not be feasible or viable.The use of combined heat and power (CHP), combined cooling, heat and power (CCHP) anddistrict heating will be encouraged. Within Heat Priority Areas, major development will be expectedto incorporate, where feasible, infrastructure for district heating, and will be expected to connect toexisting systems where available.New development will be expected to demonstrate that the heating and cooling systems havebeen selected according to the following heat hierarchy:1. Connection to existing CHP/CCHP distribution networks2. Site-wide renewable CHP/CCHP3. Site-wide gas-fired CHP/CCHP4. Site-wide renewable community heating/cooling5. Site-wide gas-fired community heating/cooling6. Individual building renewable heatingThe underlined paragraph provides the only quantifiable requirement in respect of the climatechange performance of buildings. The Core Strategy adds further explanation of this:4.14.6 Proposals for development should be accompanied by an energy strategy as part of theSustainability Statement submitted with the planning application, which should set out measures toreduce CO2 emissions from energy use in accordance with the energy hierarchy. The energystrategy should:- Set out the projected annual energy demands for heat and power from the proposeddevelopment against the appropriate baseline (2006 Building Regulations Part L standards), alongwith the associated CO2 emissions.- Show how these demands have been reduced via energy efficiency and low carbon energysources such as CHP and district heating, and set out the CO2 emissions associated with theresidual energy demand.- Demonstrate how the incorporation of renewable energy sources will offset the CO2 emissionsarising from the residual energy demand.4.14.7 The energy strategy should integrate sustainable approaches to design and constructionsuch as optimising solar gain and natural light and ventilation to maximise the energy efficiency ofthe development and minimise its overall energy demand.The policy itself, however, demands 'at least' 20% reduction in residual CO2 emissions.Perhaps recognising the chasm emerging between the Council's declaration of a 'ClimateEmergency', and its existing Core Strategy, the Council developed a Climate Change andSustainability Practice Note, published in July 2020. The Climate Change and SustainabilityPractice Note (CCSPN) indicates that:The following key principles apply to all Sustainability Statements:1. Sustainability Statements should address both mitigation and adaptation as set out under policyBCS13.2. Sustainability Statements should engage with and address the energy requirements of policyBCS14, the water management requirements of policy BCS16 and each of the key issues listed inpolicy BCS15.3. In respect of each of these issues, Sustainability Statements should set out what possible

measures have been explored, which measures have been adopted and integrated into the designand, where relevant, why it was not feasible to incorporate certain measures into the proposeddevelopment.4. A failure to convincingly address each of these issues will result in a refusal of planningpermission.5. If it is argued that including sufficient measures to meet the energy requirements of policyBCS14 would render the development unviable, then the applicant will be required to submit a fullviability assessment.Again, it has to be noted that BCS14 indicates that use of renewables should, "reduce carbondioxide emissions from residual energy use in the buildings by at least 20%." Neither BCS13 norBCS14 are restrictive in what they say should be done, rather, they indicate what process theapplicant should demonstrate that they have followed in order to have their consent granted. Thatan application achieves a 20% reduction in residual CO2 would not, therefore, in and of itself,indicate compliance. It is the procedural logic of the policy that is set out. The CCSPN then placesflesh on the bones in terms of this process, as well as making it clear that where applicants fail todo what the CCSPN sets out, the result will be refusal of the application.This rendering of BCS14 is consistent with the view in the NPPF regarding good design: indeed,even if BCS14 were absent, para 134 clearly states that where the design fails against criteria thatare quite clear in what they require, consistent with national policy (see above), it should berejected.There is also sufficient already in the Core Strategy to support the view that those making planningapplications should ensure that embodied emissions and energy are considerations that shouldinfluence the design of housing for which planning consent is being sought. Notwithstanding theabsence (as yet) of specific policies or targets on embodied energy or embodied carbon, PolicyBCS15 allows for this, in stating:Sustainable design and construction will be integral to new development in Bristol. In deliveringsustainable design and construction, development should address the following key issues:- Maximising energy efficiency and integrating the use of renewable and low carbon energy;- Waste and recycling during construction and in operation;- Conserving water resources and minimising vulnerability to flooding;- The type, life cycle and source of materials to be used;- Flexibility and adaptability, allowing future modification of use or layout, facilitating futurerefurbishment and retrofitting;- Opportunities to incorporate measures which enhance the biodiversity value of development,such as green roofs.New development will be required to demonstrate as part of the Sustainability Statementsubmitted with the planning application how the above issues have been addressed.It would be consistent with the NPPF, as revised, for the Sustainability Statement to show howenergy efficiency had been maximized (not simply marginally exceeding what would be achievedby Part L Building Regulations compliant proposals), and how the choice of materials had beenmade such as to minimize embodied carbon emissions.Proposal's Impact vis a vis Operational Carbon

As regards operational carbon, the proposals as made in the Energy and Sustainability Statement,are not entirely clear as to what is applied where and are not transparent as to how the claimedoutcomes for the site (in terms of CO2) are derived. The figures for electricity and heat demandimplied in the Summary Table (on pages 4 and 23) are difficult to reconcile with what has beenproposed. For example, when moving from the Part L compliance row to the 'after energyefficiency' row, mathematically, the figures are consistent with a drop in electricity use and a dropin gas use. But since this stage includes the deployment of heat pumps, it would have beenexpected that the electricity use would have increased, with a more significant drop in gas use (notleast if one believes the claim - as per Figure 4.9 - that no gas heating will be required. The gasuse would also be reduced as a result of the choice of fabrics (though despite the claim in thePlanning Statement that buildings are 'super-insulated', there is room for improvement in manyareas), but the CO2 emissions drop would be driven by the overall seasonal coefficient ofperformance of the heat pump system. This appears to be claimed as 2.81 on page 16, thoughthis seems itself appears based on figures for the elements that seem high (Figures from the airsource heat pump manufacturer are shown below - https://www.daikinapplied.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/07/EWYT-B_Product_Manual_Daikin_Applied_UK-Updated_Apr_2020.pdf ), though admittedly, these figures reflect different operating temperatures.

More important is the fact that the scheme is only able to claim compliance with BCS14 becausethe choice of emissions factors (CO2 per kWh) has been wrongly made. I raised this matter withCity Council officers in email correspondence. The response was:'the current BCC position is that prior to the introduction of Part L 2021, applicants should continueto use SAP 2012 carbon emission factors. SAP 10.2 carbon factors and Part L 2021 are shortly tobe formally adopted by BCC.'In its application for planning consent on the West Car Park site, the same applicant - BCWEZS -used the SAP 10.2 carbon factors in its Energy and Sustainability Statement. This change wasmade when the application was amended in September 2022. There is, therefore, no reason whythe Council should not have required the applicant to use the same factors in the amendment tothe current proposal, dated after the amendment to the application on the West Car Park. It wouldhave been odd toAs regards residual emissions, the Statement notes:The final stage is modelling the proposed scheme including on-site renewables. An indicativeillustration of the required area of PV panel area is shown to the previous section.Total installed capacity of PVs (kW): 241While heat pumps are present in the proposals they have been included in the previous step aspart of the heat network.Regulated CO2 emissions for the residential scheme is 195 tonnes CO2/annum following theapplication of low energy/carbon measures, which is a 44% improvement over the baseline asshown in the tables below.The proposal indicates that residual emissions are 286,398 kg CO2 per annum, linked to energydemand of 1,266,057 kWh. After the on-site renewables, the CO2 figures are claimed to fall to

194,595 kg CO2 per annum based on energy demand of 1,087,272 kWh. The effect of on-siterenewables is reported as a reduction in CO2 of 91,803 kg per annum and a reported reduction inenergy demand of 178,785kWh (properly, the use of renewables might not reduce energy demandper se, but would render it lower in carbon intensity). This carbon saving is only possible if oneassumes that the old SAP 2012 (Part L 2013) figures apply for the carbon intensity of heat andelectricity (with heating from gas attributed emissions of 0.216 kg CO2/kWh and electricityattributed emissions of 0.519 kg CO2/kWh). The updated Building Regulations Part L has updatedthese factors. The Energy and Sustainability Statement itself states:The 2021 edition of 'Approved Document L, Conservation of fuel and power' has now beenreleased. It gives guidance on how to comply with Part L and the energy efficiency requirementsfor buildings including dwellings. This document is applicable to this project and takes effect from15 June 2022.The updated figures are such that heating from gas is attributed emissions of 0.210 kg CO2/kWhand electricity attributed emissions of 0.136 kg CO2/kWh, reflecting the decarbonisation ofelectricity over the last decade. Notwithstanding their use in the application on the West Car Park,and also, the admission in the document that these are the figures that should apply, the oldcarbon intensity figures are used. These have a major bearing on compliance with BCS14.Using these updated figures, it is not possible to demonstrate compliance with BCS14. The CO2savings, in absolute terms, associated with on-site renewables are 24,315 kg CO2. The residualCO2 emissions depend on the balance of electricity and gas use, but they cannot be more than172,184 kg CO2 (this would be the figure if all energy demand was less carbon intense (than heat)electricity). The maximum reduction in residual CO2 emissions, therefore, would be 14%. Inreality, because the use of gas is likely to be on-zero the mathematics in the Summary Table inthe Energy and Sustainability Statement are difficult to fathom (they make no sense given thecarbon factors that have been used).Note that I have repeatedly asked BCC officers to request more detailed information from theapplicant regarding how these figures were derived. Despite the fact that the Climate Change andSustainability Practice Note requires the applicant to provide detailed calculations, thesecalculations remain non-transparent (and it may now be clear why). It is becoming rather tooobvious that assumptions were selected with the clear intent of demonstrating compliance whereapplications are clearly failing.Embodied Carbon ImpactRegarding embodied carbon, it is surprising that the Planning Statement barely mentions thisimportant aspect of design. We have highlighted its significance above.The Table on Page 7 of the Energy Statement from Max Fordham indicates that of the 196dwellings, 18 will be refurbished buildings:The residential units are a mixture of multistorey apartments blocks and houses. The majority ofthe plots are of new constructions allowing them to be designed to modern standards. In totalthere are 37 houses, 159 apartments. 18 of these homes are refurbed existing buildings (8apartments, 10 houses) including the Clifton Pavilion (CP) which is locally listed.For 6 of the 10 houses, the refurbishment is of listed buildings. It is also suggested that theplanned Conservation Hub will be housed in a refurbished version of the entrance building, which

is also Listed.The attempts to make use of existing fabric are welcome, though clearly, they are partly driven bythe existing Listed status of the buildings being repurposed. 95% of the apartments are new build,and just under three quarters of the houses are new build. To put this another way, the majority ofthe existing fabric is not being repurposed and will be demolished (the CIL Schedule notes that,expressed in terms of Gross Internal Area (GIA), 9,937 m2 will be demolished, whilst 3,519 m2 willbe retained). The case for this, according to Max Fordham, is to allow them "to be designed tomodern standards". This is a lame explanation: it would always be true that building anew wouldenable a building to be 'designed to modern standards'. The question is not whether that can bedone - it is tautological - but rather, whether it can reasonably be avoided, consistent with gooddesign.Also, in the Sustainability Statement, is the following:Existing structures have been retained as much as is practicably possible, to minimise demolitionwaste and embodied carbon introduced to the site. The proposed design has adopted lean designapproaches such as smaller structural grid, optimum building services circulation network andform factor. The primary reinforced concrete construction will target 40% of GGBS cementreplacement, subject to availability, and 20% (by weight) coarse recycled concrete aggregates.Road construction will source 20-30% of materials from locally reclaimed or, on-site demolitionmaterials - subject to phasing and space availability on site for crushing and processing waste. Asper BREEAM Communities scoping commitments, material specification would meet the following:- 80% of public realm materials as A+, A or B rated- Greater than 15% of the road or path construction is locally reclaimed or comprises recycledmaterial (by either volume or weight).The applicants are most likely aware that the embodied carbon gain in respect of aggregates isrelatively trivial compared with that linked to cement or to steel. The use of recycled materials isalso likely to be commercially attractive (as a means to avoid the aggregates levy and the costs ofpurchasing primary aggregates).The application includes, in the Planning Sustainability Statement, Appendices seeking toestablish target figures for the embodied emissions per unit of Gross Internal Area for various ofthe structures proposed for the site. The main body of the report, however, states:The actual construction specification and building methods are to be established at the detaileddesign stages post-planning. Based on the energy modelling and architectural design assumptionsit is anticipated that the upfront embodied carbon of the development will around 675-875kgCO2e/m2 and whole lifecycle carbon performance of 1000-1200 kgCO2e/m2.These values can be compared with figures - see Table 1 - being proposed by LETI and RIBA forupfront embodied carbon, and for whole lifecycle performance (the figures reflect different scopesof analysis). The lower end of the range for the upfront embodied carbon - 675kg CO2 - is above(i.e., worse than) the LETI target value for residential construction in 2020 (and in the case of LETItargets, the year refers to the year of design, not the build), although the residential figures in theTable are based on data 'for multi-residential of 6 storeys and above'. At the upper end, it falls intothe 'next to worst' band. In terms of banding, performance is marginally better against the RIBAwhole life-cycle target for 2030.

In this context, given that the rationale for demolishing around three quarters of the existingstructures was to enable buildings 'to be designed to modern standards' (see above), we areentitled to ask what really is 'modern' about this anticipated level of embodied carbon emission?This is a function of the excessive scale, and the way in which the design has influenced thechoice of materials (rather than the other way round).We note the work of Price and Myers appended to the Sustainability Statement. That report states:

Several options for the structure have been considered during RIBA stage 2. Price & Myers haveworked closely with Penoyre and Prasad and Max Fordham to reduce the embodied carbon of theproposed building structure. This has included a consideration of the building's size, use, gridspacing, choice of materials and construction methods, future flexibility of use, and need forlongterm resilience to the impact of climate changeIt is impossible to take that statement seriously. Somewhere along the way, the matter ofembodied carbon has been sidelined or shelved by the applicant.Table 1: Banding Proposed for Embodied Carbon by LETI and RIBA (different scopes)

Source: LETI, with RIBA, GLA, IStructE and UKGBC (2021) Embodied Carbon Target AlignmentThe application noted also:Opportunities to reduce this to meet LETI 2020 and RIBA 2025 will need to be explored at thedetailed design stage. An initial assessment of the structural design proposed an upfrontconstruction (A1-A5) target of 310 kgCO2e/m2 for the apartment blocks and 250 kgCO2e/m2. SeeAppendix C.A detailed embodied carbon assessment will need to be undertaken by the developer to inform thematerial choices, including a study into the further use of demolition materials across the newstructures and infrastructure, and low impact construction process.This rather misses the point. The embodied emissions will largely be determined by choicesalready made at the stage the application has been submitted. Indeed, since the NPPF clearlyindicates (para 134) that minimising embodied energy is an aspect of 'good design', and thatdevelopment that is not well-designed should be refused, so it becomes rather difficult tounderstand how a development could be considered 'well-designed' if the basis for determiningwhat is likely to be the most important environmental impact of proposal, and a crucial aspect ofwhat determines good design, is being deferred to a later date. We note that the issue is notmentioned in the Draft Heads of Terms for the S106 agreement, but equally, it would not beappropriate to address this 'after the fact'.We estimate embodied carbon based on a figure in the middle of the range quoted by theapplicant, of 0.775 kg CO2e/m2, (excluding sequestration) which seems a reasonable figure giventhe nature of the construction. The mid-range figure for whole life cycle emissions is 1,100 kgCO2e/m2. This may be optimistic - there appears to have been little clear consideration of mattersof embodied carbon in the design for which the application has been made.We have based our estimate of embodied carbon on the GIA figures proivided in the CIL QuestionForm accompanying the application: the GIA of residential dwelings is 26,490m2. The GIA of non-residential buildings is 496m2. The same form indicates a figure for retained GIA hich is not the

same as that in the CIL Form (Schedule of Existing Buildings), but a figure of 3,400m2 might beappropriate.Based on a GIA of 26,956 m2, of which 3,400m2 are refurbished area, therefore, and based onembodied CO2 figures as indicated above (taken from the application), and attributing a 40%saving in embodied carbon to the GIA in refurbished buildings, upfront embodied emissions fromconstruction to be of the order 19,837 tonnes CO2e. Embodied emissions over the whole life-cyclewill be of the order 28,155 tonnes CO2e. To put these into context, these figures equate to 113and 161 times the operational emissions, respectively, based on a revised estimate (usingupdated carbon factors) of 175 tonnes CO2 per annum. Note that the operational emissions arelikely to decline further, year on year, as electricity decarbonizes in the expected manner. Theupfront CO2 embodied CO2 emissions are far less likely to change significantly if the proposal isbuilt in the relatively near future. The majority, by far, of the emissions, relate, therefore, toembodied carbon, and the vast majority of the opportunity to constrain them (the exception beingthe refurbishment of buildings) has apparently been foregone. It is not acceptable to leave thechoice of materials to a post-application stage, or a matter to be settled in S106 agreements, orsimilar. These are matters that are central to the design of the proposal. Were that not the case,then they would not have been included as design issues to be considered at the planning stage ingovernment guidance.And there are very good reasons related to climate change for requiring that. It seems obvious thatif the NPPF is to contribute to the Government's Net Zero Strategy (as is the intent), then tooverlook embodied carbon, as the source of the vast majority of the emissions associated with anynew construction, is no longer credible.The thread is clear:- Quality design would consider embodied carbon beyond the refurbishment of around a quarter ofexisting GIA, a reasonable part of this being driven by the Listed status of the existing structures.Around 10,000 m2 of GIA is being demolished. Over 23,000 m2 of GIA is to be newly built, or justunder 90% of the total GIA. Reducing the GIA of the 90% has effectively been overlooked.- Quality of design is an essential component of sustainable development;- Applications that are not of good quality should be refused;- This application fails the test of good quality design. It is not consistent with the Government'snet zero strategy, which the NPPF is intended to help deliver;- It also fails to align with BCS15 in respect of addressing 'The type, life cycle and source ofmaterials to be used';- Accordingly, the application should be refused.If this is the best we can expect, from an applicant one of whose charitable objectives relates toconservation, and developed by some of what are regarded as some of the UK's leadingpractitioners, then we are in for an extremely rough ride in future.Conflict with BCS9 / DM17 (Important Open Spaces)The Planning Statement includes the following:Policy BCS9 states that the integrity and connectivity of the strategic green infrastructure networkwill be maintained, protected and enhanced, while individual green assets should be retainedwherever possible and integrated into new development, though loss is acceptable on balance

where it is necessary to achieve the policy aims of the Core Strategy, with appropriate mitigation.National and local sites of biological and geological conservation importance are protected by thepolicy having regard to the hierarchy of designations and the potential for appropriate mitigation.This is a selective interpretation of BCS9, which includes specific conditions that would need to bemet for release of open spaces. These are not met by the proposal.Also, DM17 is clear that:Development on part, or all, of an Important Open Space as designated on the Policies Map willnot be permitted unless the development is ancillary to the open space use.The word ancillary can be defined as 'providing necessary support to the primary activities oroperation of an organization, system, etc.' Housing provides no 'necessary support to' ImportantOpen Space. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the applicant spends time seeking to justify aproposal for housing which DM17 seems clearly to rule out. Nonetheless, the Planning Statementnotes that:The development proposal will go beyond what can be described as being ancillary to the openspace use of the site, which results in a conflict with Policy DM17. [...]And elsewhere:[...] there is conflict with policy DM17 given that the proposal is located within a designated area ofImportant Open SpaceThat ought, presumably, to be enough, though the Planning Statement then uses its selectivecitation of BCS9 to argue that mitigation is possible, even though, for Open Space, BCS9 allowsthis only where specific conditions are met, and for 'Important Open Space', DM17 admits of nosuch possibility at all. Given DM17, and that the conditions in respect of BCS9 are not met by thisproposal, then the proposal is non-compliant with policy. What the applicant claims in respect ofmitigation is both subjective and irrelevant.The Statement also claims:the design approach mitigates this through extensive enhancements of the landscape, a carefullycurated public art and cultural offer, and free access for the public. As such, the proposal isconsidered to be consistent with the spirit of Policy DM17 and the detail of Policies BCS9, DM15and DM16.It would be surprising if the applicant's consultants felt otherwise. Nonetheless, the problemremains that the proposal takes a restricted view of what is required in terms of 'design' (seeabove). It considers only three (of several) aspects of 'design' (density, scale, residential amenity)which must be considered relevant for the application to be considered 'sustainable', and hence,appropriate for any consideration of a presumption in favour of its being granted consent.Conflict with DM31 / NPPFDM31 concerns heritage assets. It notes:Great weight is given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. As set out in the CoreStrategy, the historic environment is important not just for its own sake, but also as an asset thatcan add value to regeneration and help to draw businesses to the city, acting as a stimulus to localeconomic growth.DM31 states:- Listed Buildings:

Alterations, extensions or changes of use to listed buildings, or development in their vicinity, will beexpected to have no adverse impact on those elements which contribute to their specialarchitectural or historic interest, including their settings.- Conservation Areas:Development within or which would affect the setting of a conservation area will be expected topreserve or, where appropriate, enhance those elements which contribute to their specialcharacter or appearance.There can be no disputing the fact that listed buildings in the vicinity of the proposal will have theirsetting impacted upon.There can be no disputing the fact that the proposal will neither preserve, nor enhance, theelements which contribute to the special character of the Conservation Area.It is worth citing the Council's own Character Appraisal for Clifton and Hotwells Character Area 2,which includes the area of the proposal:Predominant CharacteristicsScale- Domestic buildings: large victorian villas of 3 storeys + basement, up to 4 storeys, detachedsemi-detached, two to three bays wide- Landmark Buildings: large, detached properties set back from pavement with front garden andlow boundary wall, forming strong building lineProportions & architectural treatment- Pitched and gable roof- Late Victorian, Italianate style- Round-headed windows- Stone detailingMaterial Palette- Main facades: limestone rubble, Pennant sandstone, with Bathstone detailing; occasional stuccorender; limestone ashlar; brick infill- Boundary treatments: Pennant sandstone with Bathstone gate piers; wrought iron gates (mostoriginal wrought iron railings lost)- Joinery: timber Victorian sashes and panelled doors- Roof coverings: natural slate, clay tiles; brick chimney stacks with clay potsThe settings are clearly affected by the 'greater than 4 storeys' development. The proposal willaffect the setting of the landmark buildings in the area as a result. There are a number of otherreasons why this proposal clearly fails the test of DM31 in respect of its impact on the character ofthis conservation area, taking into account Bristol City Council's own Character Appraisal.The same document as that cited above notes:7.1.2b The combination of formal Victorian Gothic architecture and mature planting are anessential focus of this part of the conservation area. The liberal use of rubble limestone andBathstone dressings on both building and walls also predominates, and creates a consistencybetween buildings and their settings.Quite how the proposal preserves or enhances these elements would be beyond the ability of anyreasonable objective person to perceive.

Regarding 'Conserving heritage assets', DM31 states:Where a proposal would affect the significance of a heritage asset, including a locally listedheritage 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 newuses, or mitigate the extent of the harm to the significance of the asset; andii. Demonstrate that the works proposed are the minimum required to secure the long-term use ofthe asset; andiii. Demonstrate how those features of a heritage asset that contribute to its historical,archaeological, social, artistic or architectural interest will be retained; andiv. Demonstrate how the local character of the area will be respected.It is not at all clear how substance has been given to any of the above, not least given the relevantcharacter appraisal. A sensible application of ii) above would surely question why, in demolishingbuildings with around 10,000 m2 of GIA, it is absolutely necessary to build, anew, some 23,000m2 of GIA. This approach gives rise to:- Excessive height (vis a vis the character of the area); and- Excessive embodied carbon emissions.The proposal is not compliant with DM31.The National Design Guide, in relation to Identity and Character, notes:Well-designed new development is influenced by: an appreciation and understanding of vernacular, local or regional character, including existingbuilt form, landscape and local architectural precedents; the characteristics of the existing built form; the elements of a place or local places that make it distinctive; and other features of the context that are particular to the area.This includes considering: [...] the height, scale, massing and relationships between buildings; views, vistas and landmarks; [...] roofscapes; the scale and proportions of buildings; [...] light, shade, sunshine and shadows;By these standards, the proposal is poorly designed. As per paras 126 and 134 of the NPPF (seeabove), this proposal is not well-designed, is not sustainable development, and should be refused.

Biodiversity Net GainWe note the objections made in respect of the loss of trees and the extent to which the massing ofthe proposed dwellings will seriously affect the character of the gardens (not to mention theConservation Area as a whole). We agree with those objections. We note, though, that in thisparticular matter, the applicant has had little or no interest in maintaining the existing asset: thebetter the condition of the site, the more biodiversity units are in the baseline, and the morechallenging it becomes to achieve net gain. We note that the Biodiversity Metric Excel assessmentassesses that in the Baseline, 3 habitat types are considered to be in 'Moderate' condition, whilstthe other 4 contributing to the metric are all considered to be in a 'Poor' condition. One is entitled, I

think, to ask what exactly BCWEZS has been doing with the site (or whether the assessment iscorrect). Had the habitats been in 'Good' condition, the baseline number of units would have been23, not 11.36. The loss of Units associated with the planned changes would have been greater asa result. There may be good reasons why some habitats would struggle to achieve 'Good'condition status, but the point is that because the applicant is the current occupier, then it seemsentirely legitimate to ask why the current condition is not better than 'poor' or 'moderate' (andhence, why the baseline number of biodiversity units should be so low).The area of urban trees being lost are disproportionately (50:50) split across those in 'Poor' and'Moderate' condition (the baseline is around 87:13 in favour of those in Moderate condition).Similarly, the time consistency of the units being 'present' is relevant. Whilst the metric uses adiscounting factor to assess this, the fact remains that at the time the site would be available forhabitation, there would be a net loss in biodiversity. After 5 years, those habitats which havereached target condition would generate 8.1 units, at that point just exceeding the suggested lossof on-site biodiversity.

Appendix: Environmental Consequences of the Zoo's ProposalsBackgroundBack in 2010, the BCWEZS prepared an Environmental Sustainability Strategy, which resides onthe 's website. It sought to understand various aspects of the Zoo's environmental performance. Itcontained several commitments which the Zoo intended to drive its environmental performance.For example, in respect of climate change, the BCWEZS used some software it had developed to'measure direct and indirect carbon emissions'. It reported that it was measuring this annually, andthe report included the commitments shown in Table 2.Table 2: Targets Included in the Zoo's Environmental Sustainability Strategy in Relation to'Carbon'

Source: Bristol, Clifton and West of England Zoological Society Ltd. (2010) EnvironmentalSustainability Strategy 2010.It gave some figures regarding measured performance in 2006-2009, which are shown in Table 3below.Table 3: Zoo's Reported Performance in Relation to 'Carbon'

Source: Bristol, Clifton and West of England Zoological Society Ltd. (2010) EnvironmentalSustainability Strategy 2010.The CEO at the time, Dr Jo Gipps, noted:Climate change is the greatest challenge facing humanity. Its effects are already felt and arebecoming more widespread. But it is closely associated with many other major environmentalissues, including population growth, urbanisation, resource depletion, water shortage, pollution,and, for us conservationists, the most dramatic loss of animal and plant species and 'wild'landscapes ever recorded. The evidence points unequivocally at human activity as the primecause of all these problematic issues. It is up to us as citizens, communities, organisations, and

nations, to change our habits and behaviour to reduce the social, economic and environmentalimpacts of all these factorsSince the publication of the Strategy in 2010, public reporting of emissions performance appearsto have fallen by the wayside. That might not necessarily imply an absence of progress, or anabsence of such monitoring. It would, however, be good practice, having published such astrategy, and included key performance indicators within the strategy, to both monitor performanceagainst them, and publish those performance data.We were unable to find any external reporting of this nature in any of the recent Annual Reports.The Annual Reports from 2011 and 2012 did reference some changes that had taken place duringthe year, but the 'Our Values' Sections that appeared in the Reports in those years disappeared insubsequent years. References to environmental management of a generic nature wereoccasionally made in sections outlining various (very rarely environment-related) statistics aboutthe zoo. One could be forgiven for thinking the issue had simply dropped off the radar. There wasno updating of the Strategy, or the associated figures and targets, when WPP was beingdeveloped.Web searches were undertaken to identify any relevant information, but none revealed anything ofrelevance in the public domain: there are press releases from Bristol Energy highlighting the greenelectricity being purchased by Bristol businesses, including , but even back in 2009, the 's strategyindicated that electricity tariffs were REGO-backed (i.e. the suppliers of the electricity hadpurchased or obtained certificates of origin guaranteeing the renewable nature of the electricityused). Consequently, whilst there might be some qualitative difference in the nature of thesuppliers being used, it could be argued that, depending on the accounting convention one wasabiding by (which was not made clear), no net improvement in emissions performance would haveresulted.Other 'hits' on web searches reference thermal imaging exercises, but nothing indicating actiontaken as a result. There is reference to the use of biomass boilers in a report of a 'Go Green' visitto the Zoo (undated), but there were already two biomass boilers installed as of 2008: one of theaforementioned annual reports references a third. Biomass boilers are, of course, not without theirown impacts in relation to emissions of NOx and particulate matter from the combustion of thefeedstock, the impacts of the sources of biomass used to fire them (which could be less of anissue for a Zoo), but also, in relation to the way in which the non-fossil greenhouse gas emissionsfor which they are responsible should be accounted for.In summary, it is difficult to understand what progress the BCWEZS has made, since 2010,towards meeting its own Key Performance Indicators. The main reason for this is that nothingappears to have been put in the public domain. The 'How do we do Business' document on theZoo website is outdated - it does, for example, reference carbon emissions, but it does so in thecontext of reporting improvements made between 2008 and 2009. One might reasonablyspeculate that environmental issues have not been accorded great significance, at least in termsof concrete actions taken, for the last decade, the same decade during which the evidence ofecological decline has been steadily mounting, and at the statrt of which, the then-CEO of the Zoowas articulating the view that climate change was closely associated with the most dramatic lossof species and ecosystems ever recorded.

As of the late Summer of 2021, the only webpage on the Zoo's website which explicitly includedreference to 'key performance indicators' was a job description - for a Sustainability ProgrammeLead / Lecturer in Sustainability - posted in June of 2021. This gave the impression of a rather lateconsideration, on the personnel side, of something which should have been assessed andmonitored on an ongoing basis.It is not clear that the document referenced as a 'Strategy' was ever really implemented as 'astrategy'. That is not to downplay the commitment of the staff in this regard, merely to highlightthat the absence of any public reporting of performance against environmental indicators, and thelimited extent of any updating of documents pertaining to the strategy that was published in 2010,not least, after operations were expanded to include WPP, suggest that 's senior leadership temaand the Trustees may not have given this issue a much attention. Whilst the WPP site does notseem to have influenced the Strategy, it's not clear either that the Strategy influenced decisionsmade at WPP.The Zoo's Environmental Policy can also be found on its website. This has not changed muchsince the publication of the Environmental Strategy in 2010. To put this into context, WPP was notoperational at the time the Strategy was written: nothing much seems to have changed. Both the2010 version of the Environmental Policy and the 2019 one include the following:In order to meet these commitments, Bristol Zoological Society will develop objectives and targetseach year in order to achieve continuous environmental improvement.It is very difficult for an outsider to see what these are, and what the BCWEZS is really doing tomeet any environmental objectives it may be setting, if indeed any have been set since 2010. It isalso difficult to know what progress has been made since 2010 any.The 'Strategy for 2035' includes scant information about environmental targets (amongst otherthings). It does include five objectives:1. Saving wildlife2. Engaging our public3. Creating conservationists4. Sustaining our environment5. Sustaining our futureIt then includes the following objective to be achieved by 2035:- Become a carbon-neutral organisationTo an informed reader, this type of commitment, unsupported by further information, is relativelymeaningless. There was no attempt to define what this actually means. Indeed, coming within abroader strategy that seems likely to lead to increased emissions (see below), it it is difficult totake seriously. The same document includes the following comment in relation to transport:In particular, transportation to our sites must be seen as an enabler, not a blocker, to a decision tovisit. The car will continue to provide a popular mode of transport for a family audience; however,we must continue to offer greater travel alternatives which must be affordable and reliable to thepoint at which they are genuine alternatives to the car.The message appears to be 'don't let the environmental consequences of using your car be abarrier to you visiting us as we move to an out-of-town location'. Advertisements for WPP, nowthat the Clifton site has closed, typically make much of the 'free parking' offer. It leaves open all

sorts of questions regarding the 's future environmental impact, and in particular, that of its visitors.As will become clear below, transport emissions associated with the planned strategy are unlikelyto fall rapidly.All of this matters, and it should have been closely considered already. The BCWEZS has beenconsidering major strategic plans and projects. Its current published Environmental Policy - dated2019 and signed by the current Chief Executive, Justin Morris (and barely changed over the lastdecade) - states that The Society will improve its environmental performance by:(Regarding 'Management')- ensuring that environmental issues are always considered when making decisions- reviewing all activities, products and services to identify, quantify and evaluate theirenvironmental impact- ensuring that Society buildings are operated and, in the case of new buildings, designed andconstructed to optimise their environmental performance- improving habitats on Society sites for the benefit of native species of fauna and flora(Regarding Pollution)- preventing pollution and monitoring and reducing any adverse impact of Society operations onthe environment, staff, visitors and the wider local communitySome of the wording is, of course, less than exact, and affords 'room for manoeuvre': BCWEZScould 'consider' environmental issues, but then push them aside. But if something other than thatsomewhat cynical view is intended, and recognising that the zoo's operations would besignificantly affected by the strategy now being pursued, how has the environmental impact ofthese changes been evaluated? What will be the contribution to climate change of housingdevelopment on the Clifton sites? What will be the environmental impact of moving half a millionvisitors from a central Bristol location to one in South Gloucestershire? And if the move leads to anincrease in visitor numbers arriving at the site, what will be the additional impact of these? It isunclear that these questions have been asked, still less answered, on the way to formulating thestrategy. It seems likely that no such analysis was undertaken.In November 2021, a blog entitled 'How Bristol Zoological Society is responding to the climateemergency', was posted in the 'Zoo news' section of the Zoo's website. This was not posted by asenior member of staff, but by a BSc student on a placement year. This included the following:So, what is Bristol Zoological Society doing to help? We are committed to preserving biodiversityand environments and have created our own Sustainability Plan, with the goal of becoming netzero by 2030. This means the Society would be carbon neutral, alongside further aims to reduceconsumption of water and waste production.The Sustainability Plan is not evident from the website itself. Furthermore, the terms 'net zero' and'carbon neutral' can be interpreted in different ways. The date for achieving the stated objective isalso different to the date - 2035 - given in the 'Strategy to 2035' document.In addition, in line with the above discussion, at least as important as the ultimate date at which'net zero' is achieved are the cumulative emissions which BW may be responsible for in themeantime. It is those emissions, and their contribution to global temperature changes, that aremost important.Impacts of the Zoo's Proposed Strategy

In what follows below, we focus on the following main changes:- The proposed use of the main Zoo Gardens site for housing development- The proposed use of the West Car Park site for housing development- The strategy of closing the zoo site in Bristol and increasing visitor numbers in WPP in SouthGloucestershire, notably the impact on climate change emissions associated with transport; and- The potential impact of increasing visitor numbers between now and 2035.More speculatively, we also consider the possible implications of provision of additional transportinfrastructure to support additional visitors to the Wild Place site.West Car ParkEmbodied EmissionsWe have calculated these based on figures reported in the Energy and Sustainability Assessmentfor the Main Car Park site:The actual construction specification and building methods are to be established at the detaileddesign stages post-planning. Based on the energy modelling and architectural design assumptionsit is anticipated that the upfront embodied carbon of the development will around 675-875kgCO2e/m2 and whole lifecycle carbon performance of 1000-1200 kgCO2e/m2.We estimate embodied carbon based on a figure in the middle of the range quoted by theapplicant, of 0.775 kg CO2e/m2, (excluding sequestration) which seems a reasonable figure giventhe nature of the construction. The mid-range figure for whole life cycle emissions is 1,100 kgCO2e/m2. This may be optimistic - there appears to have been little clear consideration of mattersof embodied carbon in the design for which the application has been made.These values can be compared with figures - see Table 4 - being proposed by LETI and RIBA forupfront embodied carbon, and for whole lifecycle performance (the figures reflect different scopesof analysis). The lower end of the range for the upfront embodied carbon - 675kg CO2 - is above(i.e., worse than) the LETI target value for residential construction in 2020 (and in the case of LETItargets, the year refers to the year of design, not the build), although the residential figures in theTable are based on data 'for multi-residential of 6 storeys and above'. At the upper end, it falls intothe 'next to worst' band. In terms of banding, performance is marginally better against the RIBAwhole life-cycle target for 2030.Table 4: Banding Proposed for Embodied Carbon by LETI and RIBA (different scopes)

Source: LETI, with RIBA, GLA, IStructE and UKGBC (2021) Embodied Carbon Target AlignmentThe Design and Access Statement Addendum of Sept 2022 indicates a marginal change in GIAfrom 6,514 m2 to 6,485m2. Based on this GIA, the upfront embodied emissions from constructionat the West Car Park site are of the order 5,026 tonnes CO2e. Embodied emissions over thewhole life-cycle will be of the order 7,134 tonnes CO2e.Operational EmissionsIt is extremely difficult to be clear what these will be because of the low quality of the Energy andSustainability Statement. We have assumed that the energy demand figures in the document arebroadly correct (even if the CO2 figures are difficult to make sense of). We then assume that themajority of the demand is of electricity, not gas (in this respect, we are generous in the sense thatthe carbon intensity of electricity is on a more rapid downward trend, and we also reflect the intent

of the proposal to provide heating via heat pumps - the adequacy of heat pump provision to satisfythe likely demand is unclear). To understand the likely impact of the demand for energy in future,then the actual impact (irrespective of the factors applied under SAP, the somewhat randomchanges to which are unhelpful) is best considered by viewing the housing as adding to UKdemand at the margin. It follows that, using the approach indicated under SupplementaryGuidance to HM Treasury's Green Book, the CO2 intensity of electricity generation should beconsidered at 'grid marginal' values. Taking electricity demand to be of the order 300,000 kWh(broadly in line with the Energy Statement), then the results are as shown in Table 5.Table 5: Carbon Intensity of Marginal Domestic Electricity Demand and CO2 EmissionsAssociated with demand at West Car Park SiteYear Electricity emissions factors, kgCO2e/kWh(long-run marginal, consumption based for domestic sector) Emissions from Electricity Demand atWest Car Park Site (tonnes CO2e per annum)2024 0.240 72.02025 0.224 67.22026 0.207 62.22027 0.189 56.82028 0.171 51.22029 0.151 45.22030 0.130 38.92031 0.105 31.52032 0.085 25.52033 0.069 20.62034 0.056 16.72035 0.045 13.52036 0.036 10.92037 0.029 8.82038 0.024 7.12039 0.019 5.82040 0.016 4.72041 0.013 3.92042 0.012 3.72043 0.012 3.62044 0.011 3.42045 0.010 2.92046 0.009 2.62047 0.008 2.42048 0.008 2.32049 0.007 2.12050 0.007 2.1Sum from 2024 567.5

The use of appliances at this proposed development would increase emissions further (weestimate this to be of the order 52 tonnes CO2 over the period to 2050, but this is a very roughestimate).Main Gardens SiteEmbodied EmissionsWe based our estimate of embodied carbon on the GIA figures proivided in the CIL Question Formaccompanying the application: the GIA of residential dwelings is 26,490m2. The GIA of non-residential buildings is 496m2. The same form indicates a figure for retained GIA hich is not thesame as that in the CIL Form (Schedule of Existing Buildings), but a figure of 3,400m2 might beappropriate.Based on a GIA of 26,956 m2, of which 3,400m2 are refurbished area, therefore, and based onembodied CO2 figures as indicated above (taken from the application), and attributing a 40%saving in embodied carbon to the GIA in refurbished buildings, upfront embodied emissions fromconstruction are estimated to be of the order 19,837 tonnes CO2e. Embodied emissions over thewhole life-cycle will be of the order 28,155 tonnes CO2e.Operational EmissionsThe figures in the existing Energy Statement are based on outdated figures for the carbonintensity of electricity (and gas, though to a far less important extent). Since the Energy Statementindicates that little heat will be needed from sources other than heat pumps, we believe itreasonable to assume that the million or so kWh of energy demand relates to the electricity thatwill not be supplied from renewable sources. Using the same method as for the Car Park site, weestimate emissions in 2026 would be of the order 207 tonnes CO2, falling to 7 tonnes CO2 in2050.Transport EmissionsA visitor survey in 2005 indicated that the majority of visitors travelled less than 25 miles but therewere a substantial minority travelling from further afield (Figure 4). The overwhelming majoritytravelled using private car (Figure 5).Figure 4: Distance Travelled by Visitors to Bristol Zoo, 2005 Survey Data

Source: The Market Research Group (2006) Bristol Zoo Gardens Main Visitor Survey: 2005,Prepared on behalf of Bristol Zoo, March 2006.Figure 5: Mode of Travel Used by Visitors to Bristol Zoo, 2005 Survey Data

Source: The Market Research Group (2006) Bristol Zoo Gardens Main Visitor Survey: 2005,Prepared on behalf of Bristol Zoo, March 2006.The Environmental Sustainability Strategy referred to above sought to quantify the transportemissions associated with staff and visitors. It noted:Car travel is the most common mode of transport for both staff and visitors (Fig 24), accounting formore than 90% of visitor travel in 2008 and 2009, but the average visitor car occupancy is high, at3.32 in 2008, and 3.75 in 2009. Whilst promoting more sustainable travel options, it is importantthat this high rate of car occupancy is maintained.Figures for 2007-2009 were estimated in the Strategy (see Table 6). The chosen modes of

transport are shown in Figure 6.Table 6: BCWEZS Emissions Related to Travel, 2007-2009

Source: Bristol, Clifton and West of England Zoological Society Ltd. (2010) EnvironmentalSustainability Strategy 2010.

Figure 6: ZooSoc Travel Modes for Visitors and Staff, Various Years to 2009

Source: Bristol, Clifton and West of England Zoological Society Ltd. (2010) EnvironmentalSustainability Strategy 2010.We have no access to the latest data, and no figures from BCWEZS as to what the currentemissions are. This is despite (see Table 2) the stated commitment in the Environment andSustainability Strategy to report on emissions annually, and to meet a target of a 25% reduction by2020 from the levels indicated above. Whatever the shortcomings of the subsequent analysis,therefore, they have to be seen in the light of BCWEZS 's failure to report on environmentalperformance in the manner it indicated it would. The Planning Statement for the Zoo Gardens sitenoted that 'in excess of 85.5%' of visitors travel my private motor car (no reference date wasgiven).In order to estimate the impact of moving from the Bristol Zoo site, then based on visitor numbers,the net effect of the closure of the Clifton site and the move to WPP would appear to be themovement of around 500 thousand visitors from the Clifton site to the WPP site. Whether theseare one and the same visitors matters less than understanding the nature of the changes in thejourneys made in terms of distance, the nature of the journey to the site (how much traffic, natureof driving etc.), and the mode of transport. The change in site location is also likely to lead to ashift in the distribution of distance travelled across the visitor population. Ideally, one considers thedifference between the 'current' emissions and the 'future' emissions, taking into account thedifferences in the distance, mode, and traffic conditions of the journeys made.It is possible that for some visitors, the impact of the move will be positive in terms of transportdistance, journey time, traffic, and emissions. This would be the case for visitors based in the northof Bristol, or in Wales, or on the M5 corridor. These, though, might also be the visitors who werealready more inclined to visit WPP than the Zoo Gardens site, to the extent that these areconsidered competing options. Without more detail, this is difficult to state. For visitors from thesouthwest, the journey is likely to be slightly further, but could take less time. The net effect of avisitor switching the end-destination could be more or less neutral. It might also be considered thatthe WPP might also attract more, or less, visitors than the 850,000 targeted by 2035 (indeed, onewonders what the case for the strategy is if the numbers remain, in aggregate, more or less wherethey stood in 2019, when the total visitor numbers across the two sites was 830 thousand).Focussing, therefore, on the more local residents, if one considers- The proportion of 'local' (less than 14 miles) visitors to the Clifton site is as it was in 2005 (45.6%- see Figure 4 above); and- the net effect to the change is to add (on average) a journey of 7 miles (one-way) to the journeymade by local visitors - this is a crude estimate, and based on the distance from central Bristol to

WPP; and- the visitors' average vehicle occupancy remains at 3.5 (the average of 2008 and 2009 indicatedin the Environmental Sustainability Strategy) (note that this is much higher than what is assumedin UK statistics for all journeys, the figure for which is 1.6).then an additional 912,000 vehicle miles would result relative to current emissions, based on noincrease in overall visitor numbers across the two sites. Note that this estimate is subject toconsiderable uncertainty. The counterfactual situation should consider the impact of the proposedClean Air Zone (CAZ) for Bristol City Council. This might mean that the nature of visits to theClifton site would have changed. It may also mean that the additional distance moved by visitors toWPP after the CAZ is introduced may be greater than suggested here as they seek to avoid beingcharged for moving through the central zone where their vehicles are chargeable in the CAZ (i.e.where they are in older diesel vehicles, or very old petrol-driven vehicles).In estimating emissions, we have used UK average direct and indirect emissions figures for 2020for 'average diesel', 'average petrol' and 'average electric' vehicles. The direct emissions wereincreased by a factor of 1.6 and then divided by 3.5 (to normalise to the vehicle occupancyassumed above). We weighted the mileage in line with (the latest) 2020 data for passengervehicle registrations.This gave a figure of an additional 181.5 tonnes CO2e each year from the additional distanceestimated. Across the 500,000 visitors, this represents 0.36 kg CO2e / visitor. Compared with thereported figures from the Environment and Sustainability Strategy, this amounts to a 9% increasein per visitor emissions, or a 12% increase if the 25% reduction targeted for 2020 was achieved ona per visitor basis. This is a basic estimate which reflects limited information available to us, but itindicates the potential for increases in emissions associated with the move.Impact of Additional Visitor TransportIn the short-term, dependence on private car transport to WPP is likely to remain strong - indeed,the 'free car parking' offer is prominent in BCWEZS's advertisements. Additional visitors to theWPP site may contribute additonal emissions (it depends on whether they would otherwise havemade visits to other sites, and where these are located). To the extent that visits are 'genuinelyadditional', then emissions can only be estimated. In 2009, the average emissions per visitor wereestimated at 3.82 kg CO2e per visitor. The aim was to reduce transport emissions by 25% by2020.Figure 7 below suggests that between 2010 and 2020, emissions per kilometer have fallensomewhat less - by around 15% - so that current emissions might be of the order 3.25 kg CO2eper visitor. Taking visitor numbers from annual reports, if it were the case that transport emissionsper visitor to WPP were the same as for the Clifton site, then overall emissions would have risenfrom 2,214 tonnes to 2,697 tonnes between 2009 and 2019, an increase of 20%.It seems reasonable to argue that additional visitors to the WPP site might be those travellinglonger distances than the average for the Clifton site, not least because of WPP's closer proximityto the motorway network. Consequently, the average distance travelled by additional visitors couldbe greater than that for the average visitor to the Clifton site. Nonetheless, here, we assume theaverage distances, and emissions, remain as per the Clifton site, with the 15% improvementapplied. Using these assumptions, increasing visitors by 100,000 would increase emissions by

325 tonnes CO2e.Figure 7: Projection of Change in Car GHG Emissions, Distance Driven and gCO2/km fromCurrent Policy Compared to 1990

Note: Historic emissions are final UK GHG statistics. Historic vehicle km are from road trafficstatistics. Car emission and demand projections are made using the National Transport Model,with inputs from the Road Carbon and Fuel Fleet Model. Modelling assumes increased uptake ofUltra Low Emission Cars and further car efficiency improvements. This is driven by the policiesand support listed above, and the falling costs and expanding market for Ultra Low EmissionVehiclesSource: Department for Transport (2020) Decarbonising Transport: Setting the Challenge, March2020.Figure 7, which also presents Government's estimate of the effect, going forward, of policiesannounced, gives little reason to be optimistic about the potential to eliminate emissions from cartravel by 2035. The BCWEZS 's less than transparent (in terms of what it actually means)commitment to 'Become a carbon-neutral organisation' by 2035, and the Mayor's support for theZoo's strategy and its move, should be seen in this light. By 2035, for every additional 100,000visitors, an estimated 185 tonnes CO2e would be emitted in the year.Putting It All TogetherBCWEZS includes, as the first of its charitable objectives:'to advance:a) The public understanding and the conservation of wildlife and the natural environment,The view expressed in the Global Biodiversity Outlook is that global warming has to be kept wellbelow 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, and preferably, close to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels:'to prevent climate impacts from overwhelming all other actions in support of biodiversity.'Given the BCWEZS's charitable objective, then it seems reasonable to ask whether the impact ofits activities are consistent with maintaining temperatures at levels which do not render its ownconservation activities worthless.Based on data from the IPCC, we can express remaining carbon budgets in terms of multiples ofexisting rates of emissions in order to have a given likelihood of keeping global temperaturesbelow a specified level.

Source: based on IPCC (2021) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, WorkingGroup 1 Contribution to the 6th Assessment Report, and emissions estimates for 2020, 2021 and2022 from Global Carbon Project.If the activities of the Zoo had remained as they were, then we can estimate the number ofmultiples of current emissions which would have resulted. If one excludes visitor transport:- if the emissions target from the 2010 Strategy was met (for a 25% reduction in emissionsexcluding vistor transport), then 2020 emissions would have been of the order 1,000 tonnes CO2eper annum. Staff and business travel accounted for 164 tonnes CO2e in 2009, or 12% of the total,

excluding visitor transport;- we have no information on the emissions associated with WPP. WPP emissions may be lowerthan for the zoo site, though it may be the case that staff commuting emissions are higher (perstaff member) than at the Bristol site, given the options available.It is not clear whether there are emissions which are currently 'duplicated' across sites that mightbe reduced as a result. Equally, some emissions may increase in the transition to a single WPPsite. We have assumed that WPP led to an additional 408 tonnes CO2e emissions (excludingvisitor transport) in 2020 (based on pro-rating Clifton site emissions in line with average visitornumbers over the most recent 4 years for which data were available).We have sought to understand how GHG emissions associated with the BCWEZS's assetschange as a result of the proposed house building and move. We have expressed this in terms ofmultiples of current emissions. In doing so, we seek to understand what would be the effect onglobal temperature rise if everyone's behavior led to the same multiples of emissions. If it isassumed - perhaps optimistically - that the BCWEZS target, expressed in the document 'SavingWildlife Together', of being 'zero carbon by 2035' translates into zero emissions at that date, thenon the basis of a straight line reduction in emissions, and excluding the impact of the plans for newhousing, and excluding any emissions from further development of WPP, BCWEZS would emit,cumulatively, around 7,322 tonnes CO2e in the period 2023 to 2035. This amounts to 5.6 timesour estimate of its current emissions. This is marginally above the emissions multiple which needsto be respected for there to be a high (83%) likelihood of keeping global temperatures below 1.5degrees C warming.Adding in the effect of the proposed buildings, however, and recognising the emissions associatedwith the construction of new dwellings on the BCWEZS's existing assets, these emissionsincrease by a factor of 4.6, even without accounting for any embodied emissions associated withnew development at WPP itself. Put another way, the multiple of current emissions increases from5.6 to 25.8.If all organisations managed their assets such that they were responsible for this level ofemissions increase, then we could only be relatively certain that global temperatures would remainbelow 2.1-2.2 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels. There would be virtually no prospectof keeping global temperatures below 1.5 degrees C, and a low likelihood of keeping temperaturerise below 1.7 degrees. The likelihood of keeping temperatures below 2 degrees C would be of theorder 65%. If all organisations' emissions changed in the way BCWEZS is now proposing, theoutcome would be catastrophic for the planet; it would be disastrous for conservation.The embodied emissions associated with the construction of housing on the two Clifton sites may,alone, be responsible for 19 times our estimate of the estimated 2022 emissions of BCWEZS.

Concluding CommentWith carbon dioxide in particular, scientists now predict a linear increase in global temperatures inline with the cumulative emissions (net of removals) of the gas. That means that all emissions, byall of us, contribute, at the margin, to global warming, and the increasing likelihood and severity ofextreme weather events linked to rising global temperatures. The Strategy of BCWEZS will almostquintuple its cumulative emissions projected to 2035.

If all organisations behaved in the same way, and assumed similar multiples were acceptable,cumulative future emissions would be almost six times the level that can be sustained whilstretaining a high likelihood of keeping within a 1.5 degree C trajectory.Hot temperature extremes over land would increase in frequency and severity. Events that used tooccur once every 50 years, which are already 4.8 times more likely (and 1.2 degrees C hotter),would be around 15 times more likely (and around 2.7 degrees C hotter) than in the latenineteenth century. Extreme rainfall events that used to occur once a decade, already 1.3 timesmore likely (and with rainfall intensity increased by 7%), would be around 1.8 times more likely(and with rainfall intensity increased by 14%) than in the late nineteenth century. Similar evolutionsin ecological drought would also be experienced.The impacts on nature and species would be severe. The view expressed in the GlobalBiodiversity Outlook is that global warming has to be kept well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, and preferably, close to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, 'to preventclimate impacts from overwhelming all other actions in support of biodiversity.' If everyone madeuse of their assets in the same way as BCWEZS, then its own activities would be rendered futile.The BCWEZS's strategy is a metaphor for the ongoing loss in biodiversity: a loss of habitat isoccasioned by land being used for construction. Rather than leading to the conservation of wildlifeand the natural environment - the first of BCWEZS's charitable objectives - the strategy that isbeing embarked upon will further imperil it.

To who it may concern,

As a long time resident of the area the Bristol Zoo gardens holds a special place in my heart.

I object to the proposed plans for this site on the following grounds:

1. The proposed buildings are far too large and completely out of character with the surroundingarea. To solve this please reduce the gargantuan nature of the blocks by splitting them up andreducing their heights to be similar to that of the surrounding buildings. I believe the perimiterfaces of the new buildings should be in the clifton vernacular style to limit the development lookingdisjointed from the surrounding areas.

2. The amount of destruction to the beautiful gardens and historic trees is far to great. Less largeold trees should be cut down and more must be saved for future generations to enjoy.

3. There is no safeguarding that the gardens will remain open to the public in the future. Thisshould be rectified by creating legal documentation denoting how the green spaces will beprotected in the future for public use.

4. Much of the development seems to revolve around residents using cars, this is out of line withBristol's will to go Green (BCAZ). Car parking spaces should be removed (Especially those on thesurface.) this will free up more area for the park. Much greater importance and thought must be

given on public transport links to the site.

The current proposal is completely out of alignment with the values and wishes of the cliftoncommunity and greater Bristol wide goals. In its current form the plans are untennable. Pleasemake the appropriate changes.

I would like to object to the current plans to develop the zoo gardens. The buildingsproposed do no fit in with the character of this suburb of Bristol. I believe that they areinappropriate in design, scale, mass and form and would adversely change the nature of this partof Clifton and the Downs.Additionally parking in the area, which is limited, would be badly affected.Please reconsider the application and, if housing must be built, then require that the style andscale of any new buildings match the existing surrounding Victorian properties and that adequateparking is provided with the new development.

I am extremely concerned about the irreversible damage to the unique historical andaesthetic character of this part of Clifton should this proposal be granted permission.

This is one of the most distinctive parts of BS8 and has continued to attract visitors (not just to theZoo) as a place to be and in which to walk. The proposed structures appear (at least from theplans submitted) to be out of character aesthetically with the surrounding area and the existingstructures in the immediate vicinity.

The buildings appear to be huge in scale and height in particular, appearing especially vast next tothe historically important and unique Zoological society building that will remain.

The scale and scope of the proposed buildings are totally out of keeping, in height, aestheticappearance and design.

There are a number of mature and distinctive trees that would be felled for the proposeddevelopment. There is no going back once they are destroyed and the proposed structures built intheir place.

The excessive number of residences within the proposed plan would also further exacerbateparking problems in the area. The preponderance of parking spaces (to the detriment of publiclyaccessed external spaces) seems to run counter to BCC's declared commitment to a moreenvironmentally sustainable city plan.

Three different elevations of this development detrimentally and radically affect the appearanceand character of three highly visible and distinctive parts of our district and our city.

I object on the above grounds.

Please think again, Bristol Zoo developers and architects, and please try to come up with plansthat are sympathetic to this distinctive and unique area- it is such an important part of this city'shistory and culture. Smaller and more aesthetically in-keeping plans are required. You can do somuch better than this. We have to protect and nurture our special spaces. When they are gone,they are gone forever.

This proposal is entirely inappropriate for the area.

The current design and planning of the proposed development is not congruent withClifton in design, scale, mass, and form. I utterly object this application.

I oppose this proposal primarily on the basis of its complete failure to preserve orenhance the Clifton conservation area.- Failure of the architecture to respond properly to or integrate with the surrounding establishedcharacter and context- Overbearing, over-intensive and unsympathetic scale of development- Unjustified and irreversible harm to listed buildings- Appearance of a gated community, even a prison complex behind high walls, completely theopposite of what Bristol considers as its general outlook on life- Public access not legally assured- Not allowed for in the statutory local plan- Failure to give "considerable weight" to a heritage asset- Therefore not in accordance with applicable conservation legislation- Clear danger of erosion of BCC's standards applicable to future conservation area planningproposalsI support the BCC Conservation Advisory Panel's submission, and that of Historic England, whohave commented that the closure of the zoo site will have a pronounced harmful impact on thesignificance of the site (and have not withdrawn this view while giving credit for some extremelyminor revisions).

The revised plans have done nothing to improve the overall hideous size andappearance of this proposed development.The huge blocks of flats on the perimeter of the site are just not in keeping with the conservationarea that the zoo has been part of.No consideration has been given to the affect these blocks of flats will have on existing adjacentproperties .My original objection of the 6th July 2022 still stands.

I strongly oppose the plans for the zoo gardens for the overbearing nature of theproposed blocks of flats that show no sympathy for the Clifton conservation area and theneighbouring buildings. lack of sympathy the design shows for this conservation area and itsneighbouring buildings, the poor quality of the public park, loss of sunlight to neighbouring streetsand the access issues around Guthrie Road.

The proposed buildings give the appearance of a prison block and are totally unsuitable for aconservation area. The perimeter buildings are too overbearing, too large and extensive, too closeto the perimeter and have no sympathy in scale or design to the neighbouring buildings. The newbuildings completely overshadow and dominate the Zoo entrance building. The view of the sitefrom the Downs will be a wall of modern buildings that remove the feeling of openness and visualamenity from the Downs where currently the buildings are well below the tree line.

The main access point on Guthrie Road opposite the school is completely inappropriate for such alarge site. This is a street with chicanes to slow traffic, which makes it hard for traffic to movealong it. On top of that, the stretch of road next to the site entrance is used by the school to loadand unload school buses several times each day- other streets being unsuitable for this purpose. Ifthe main entrance is located on Guthrie Road, the number of dwellings on the site needs to bedecreased significantly

The public park is hidden away within this gated community with controlled access. The wall of tallsurrounding buildings will deprive the park of sunlight and make the area feel walled in. Theaccess roads within the site represent further loss of green open space. The beautiful heritagegardens will be ripped up along with established trees. This is not conservation.

The neighbouring streets will lose sunlight for much of the year as they will be overshadowed bythe excessively tall, uninterrupted blocks of flats.

Any development in a conservation area should have to answer the basic question ofwhether or not it improves or, at a minimum, conserves the area in which it is sited. This proposaldoes neither and is quite clearly detrimental to the area in its scale, monolithic and repetitivenature and lack of public amenity.

I have no doubt that it, or something very similar, will land on this site. But that represents multiplefailures in three particular areas.

Firstly, it is obviously an attempt by the site owners and developers to simply maximise profit atminimum effort to themselves with scant consideration for historic buildings and conservationfactors other than as necessary to greenwash the proposal through the process. You setyourselves a low bar and barely crawled over it.

Secondly, it is a failure of imagination and competence by the architects. Seven years of trainingto design that? Walk around Clifton, open your eyes and think for half an hour. It is hard toconceive a site in Western England which represent such an opportunity to design somethingwonderful and organic. It is equally hard to imagine anything which better fails to reach anywherenear that goal.

Thirdly, it is a failure of the planning process to achieve the simple goal of improving andconserving this environment.

I recommend a journey on the newly opened Elizabeth line stopping at every station along the wayto have a look at what can be achieved. Then look back at this and ask yourselves why you havefailed so badly. Thankfully talent and determination still exists in places. None of it appears to havebeen applied here.

Local views will no doubt be ignored and you will build your totally average pile of steel, concreteand glass. Just don't expect anyone who lives here to be thankful for your efforts.

Bristol claims to be a green city yet is willing to destroy one of the most diverse gardensit has. Removing nearly 46.5% of the current unique trees that the historic Bristol zoo contains.Why not convert this area into a Bristol Kew Gardens equivalent? Let's drive more tourismr atherthan creating more exclusive tower blocks that will damage the environment. Let's keep the zoo'shistory and maintain it as exciting place for people to visit across the generations.

I object to the current proposal for the zoo site. It is completely out of character with andwill destroy the conservation area. The current proposals appear to be based on maximum profitwithout any consideration for the environment, conservation or legacy. If an individual made anapplication to add any building of a similar sort to their residence or anywhere on their property inthis area, it would be rejected immediately. Why do different planning rules apply to big business?I cannot believe that a proposal that is so incompatible in its design with and so opposite to thevery essence of a conservation area has been allowed to be submitted after pre-applicationenquiries and advice and is in accordance with The Major Applications Protocol. I am unaware ofany local support for the proposal. I understand that the site will be developed but would hope thata more imaginative design that preserves and enhances the historical conservation area for futuregenerations could be developed.

The proposed redevelopment of Bristol Zoo Gardens is completely out of keeping forthe conservation area of Clifton. The modern blocks of flats above the perimeter walls tower abovethe street and gardens. These monolithic blocks are entirely incongruent with our area in design,scale, mass and form. They will overwhelm the gardens and obliterate street views of the sky,mature trees and the glimpses of historic buildings that characterise Clifton.

A construction project on this scale in a conservation area will completely detract from thedesirability and preservation and enhancement of the character of the area.

The scale and design may be suitable in a city centre, but is surely inappropriate for ourconversation area and looks like something more suitable for Disneyland with hideous balconieswith stencils of animals and a humongous 6 storey high green brick giraffe on the side of abuilding.

We were led to believe that the sale of the Zoo Gardens was to pay for new enclosures at WildPlace, but this does not seem to be the case as only the Gorillas and one species of lemur arebeing relocated! The rest have been shipped off to other zoos, this was not the impression wewere given when the Zoo needed to maximise the value of this site.

The Zoo is retaining some communal garden space, but it is expected that over 150 mature treeswill be removed for this hideous proposed development along with the historic ornamental garden.The towering blocks of flats around the perimeter will not make the communal garden space

desirable.

The proposed housing development on the north side along Clifton Down and the east sideNorthcote Road show a building of almost 300 metres of monolithic, uninterrupted block of flats upto 6 storeys high, towering over the existing high perimeter wall and dominating the neighbouringhistoric buildings. On the north side along Clifton Down from the historic zoo entrance is 150metres of monolithic, uninterrupted blocks of flats rising to 6 storeys high, some 60ft taller thanexisting high perimeter walls. Along Guthrie Road near Clifton College's historical buildings thescale is once again overwhelming and completely out of keeping for an area like Clifton in aconservation area.

It has to be opposed until a more moderate low level development (3 storeys high max) isproposed that is in keeping with the conservation area and not in some cheap brick with giraffeson the side which is completely out of character with the bath stone and other quarried stonealready seen so much in the surrounding roads.

The proposed planning application is completely inappropriate for a conservation area.The proposed buildings are way too big - they are very unsympathetic to the surrounding area andtower over the existing adjacent buildings.

The proposal is hideously out of character with the surrounding conservation area and I stronglyurge the council reject it.

I strongly object to the proposals insofar as they relate to the southern end of NorthcoteRoad in particular.

There have been only minor changes to building E2 and no changes at all to building E3. Contraryto the impression given (for instance Penoyre & Prasad's answer to Q2 raised by Clifton College,as set out in Appendix 5 of the October 22 Planning Statement), building E3 has been set nofurther back than shown in the October 2021 consultation, nor has it been reduced in height.

Building E3 itself dwarfs the other buildings in Northcote Road in scale and height, as is clearlyshown in document BZG-PPA-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-2602-PL1. What is not shown so clearly in thatdocument is its height in relation to numbers 1 and 2 Northcote Road, both substantial Victorianhouses. Based on the proposals, building E3 would be over 8 metres taller (measured to theeaves) or 6.5 metres taller (measured to the ridge) than these houses, contributing strongly to theoverbearing effect.

I have previously raised a concern as to the adverse impact on the front gardens of numbers 1and 2 Northcote Road from overshadowing, particularly the loss of afternoon and evening sun. Ido not believe that this has been addressed.

The gap between buildings E2 and E3 is of limited benefit to those neighbours who are positionedfurther along Northcote Road, particularly towards the southern end, where the unrelenting massof building E3 will dominate.

The daylight and sunlight assessments show adverse impacts to several rooms in residentialproperties in Northcote Road, beyond BRE guidelines, with rather trite comments such as'retained daylight levels are considered acceptable' or 'the neighbouring residential properties willgenerally remain with adequate levels of daylight and sunlight'. To whom they are consideredacceptable is unclear, but it is certainly not the owners of the properties concerned. Nor does thereappear to be any recognition that it is generally the principal reception rooms (those on the lowerfloors) that are worst affected, and where the loss of residential amenity will be most felt.

To summarise, those residents towards the lower (southern) end of Northcote Road areparticularly severely impacted by the proposals, largely because of the extreme height of buildingE3 and its proximity to neighbouring properties, but also because it is positioned in such a waythat it will take away much of the afternoon and evening sun. Without a significant reduction in thescale of this building, I urge the planning committee to reject the proposals.

Page 2 of 4

engraved in the psyche of thousands and will be lost or unavailable under this scheme. The communal value of this site cannot be underestimated and once lost will be gone forever. Harm to listed buildings The original and particular use of many of the buildings is integral to their historic significance and is cited as a key reason in the listing designations of the four animal houses on the site, justifying their listing at Grade II and their national importance. Harm to an asset of this significance should clearly be only as a last resort. The D&A statement refers to ‘Historically significant buildings retained and sensitively converted to unique, environmentally sustainable homes’. But the CAP finds that such conversion would completely change the presentation and significance of these buildings, meaning the loss of: the Clifton Pavilion, Great Aviary/Parrot House, Giraffe House and the Museum/Activity Centre, all to apartments. It is not considered that the applicant has made the case for the level of harm proposed to the listed buildings within the site. Justification of harm It is recognised by the NPPF that new uses are sometimes needed for heritage assets to generate income for their long-term future. In order to do this, it may be necessary to cause some harm, but it is clear that in identifying the ‘optimum viable use’ for a heritage asset, the optimum viable use is one that causes the least harm to significance. The CAP argues that the proposed scheme would cause significant and irreversible harm and is not justified. Alternatives Other proposals for the site have been put forward either in broad outline or in detail and this suggests that other schemes are possible. Covid has provided a distraction so that disposal of the site is presented as a finished decision. But this is a nationally important site and time could usefully be taken to allow further time for ideas or to run a competition to determine its future. While the governance of the Zoo is that of a limited company, it is also a charity with long-standing public responsibility. While it is acknowledged that the Trustees have fiduciary duty, the Objects of the Charity itself are to promote the public understanding and the conservation of wildlife and the natural environment and the scientific study of plants and animals. This housing estate proposal does not deliver either of these, while an alternative, perhaps in association with a body such as the Eden Project or the RHS, would do so. Public amenity

Page 3 of 4

The proposed public access and maintenance of the gardens is to be funded by a levy on the residents. But there is insufficient evidence that this right will be granted in perpetuity as this access is permissive and could be modified or withdrawn. It is the prediction of many objectors to his scheme that the diverse, spontaneous visitors imagined in the D&A statement will not materialise; residents will object to funding a public amenity and in time it will become a private space. As presented, while pedestrian access is marginally improved, it is still tightly controlled and timed. The general perception and experience of the site will be as a gated community, not welcoming and few will cross town to go there. Design Even if there were no alternative to building densely on the site, the proposal is a homogeneous scheme that does not respond to the architectural character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area, which is predominantly large detached and semi-detached villas alongside imposing educational buildings situated within a verdant landscape and tree-lined avenues. The scale of development within the southern end of the site would be over-intensive with a consequential poor relationship with the adjacent school and its listed buildings. The north building at six storeys is an unrelenting monolithic block that does not respond to the character and appearance of the area. The relationship between the existing listed buildings and the scale and location of proposed development is extremely poor, in particular the Bear Pit would be overly dominated by new development. Landscape Bristol Zoo Gardens are a locally listed heritage asset designated as a Local Historic Park/Garden and an Important Open Space. The Avon Gardens Trust has voiced concerns around the loss of trees, the viability of translocating other trees and hedges and the general impact on green infrastructure from ground and environmental disturbance during the long phases of works and the eventual overshadowing from tall buildings. Cars and Parking The Grand Terrace is a defining feature of the gardens and is not worthy of being used as a deliveries and service route. The circular road to access houses needs to be rethought not least as it creates another visual and psychological barrier for free pedestrian access to the green spaces within the site. There is concern that there will be insufficient car parking provision, which will result in the reality of extensive areas of on street parking throughout the site. Conclusion

Page 4 of 4

As set out within Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Council has a legal duty to have special regard to the desirability of protecting listed buildings and their settings, and also to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. This means that decision makers must give ‘considerable importance and weight’ to heritage issues when assessing an application. This has not been done in this instance. The NPPF requires great weight to be given to the conservation of heritage assets. If there is substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, then permission should be refused unless the public benefits outweigh this level of harm, or the applicant can demonstrate that there are no other viable uses. It is considered that the proposal would neither sustain nor enhance the significance of relevant heritage assets including the Conservation Area and listed buildings within and without the site. It would provide insufficient substantial public benefit to outweigh the substantial harm caused by the impact of such a poor scheme on the relevant heritage assets. It is not considered that this scale of development can be justified in a heritage context and the loss of the site as a public amenity is unacceptable. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other viable uses for the site. Consequently, the application does not accord with the applicable legislation, relevant Local Plan heritage policies nor the requirements of the NPPF and cannot be supported. BCC Conservation Advisory Panel 20 November 2022

Dear Sir,

I am writing in support of the above planning application and thoroughly approve of all ofthe changes made in Savill's cover letter, Planning Statement and supportingdocuments.

Yours faithfully

The revised proposals have minimal changes. The interior of the flats has beenamended, but little change has been made to the heights and massing of the buildings. This is aparticular issue for Northcote Road and Guthrie Road where five to six storey buildings areproposed where currently the buildings are three to four storeys high. The development does notreflect the existing architecture or the historic nature of the site and area. The number of dwellingsacross the site will also have a significant impact on the amount of traffic in the area and on roadsafety, both during the construction phase and thereafter.Whilst I understand that this is an opportunity for the Zoo to safeguard its long-term future, it isvery disappointing that the proposals are less than sympathetic to their surrounds and that littleconsideration has been given to innovative and thoughtful design and how it can sit well within aConservation Area. I therefore strongly oppose this development for the reasons listed above andin my original objection of 6 July 2022.

The Trust also remains concerned at the impact on trees, in particular TPO trees. The development would result in the loss of 80 trees and 31 groups or part groups of trees. The translocation of 17 trees and 11 part groups (41 total trees), and 2 hedges is proposed as part of the proposals, but the Trust is concerned as to whether such translocations would be successful. Whilst the Arboricultural Report includes a drainage plan overlay showing root protection areas, there will be a need for other below ground services and the location of these may result in further trees needing to be removed, and difficulty in accommodating new planting. The proximity of some trees to proposed buildings, and the need for working areas and construction compounds, may also result in difficulties during the construction period leading to the loss of further trees. Future residents of the development may also call for trees to be removed where they are considered to be too close to windows, and block views out, even where daylight and sun lighting requirements are met.

Summary:- The Trust maintains its objection to the proposed development as it considers that the proposed development would be in contravention of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy Policy BCS22. The proposed development would fail to’ safeguard or enhance heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance’, namely the Local Historic Park / Garden of Bristol Zoo Gardens. .

Yours sincerely,

Kay Ross MA Chair, Avon Gardens Trust

Registered Office: Avon Gardens Trust, The CREATE Environment Centre, Smeaton Road, Bristol BS1 6XN Registered Charity Number: 900377

I believe this application meets all the necessary planning guidelines/policies and woulddeliver much needed additional housing into Clifton, including affordable homes. it is also a veryattractive development and allows the central historic gardens to be open to the public for free.The development of the site will allow the Zoo to continue its development of a new Bristol Zoo atits Wild Place site together with its ongoing conservation and education work, which would benefiteveryone living in the Bristol area and beyond.

The removal of a number of historic buildings and trees are concerning for the area.building new homes but not providing parking is not a good thing.I am all for development but the loss of things that make Clifton and Bristol so good, is sad.I suggest that this goes back to the board so it can be revised in better keeping with the area andis more supportive.

Having read the updated design documents there are no material changes to alter suchan inappropriate development for the site, in particular the over sized "blocks" of flats, so there isstillsome obvious areas where significant changes and improvements must be made.

Key issues;

- Height of development not in keeping with surrounding buildings & conservation area- Loss of a unique amenity for the whole of Bristol in a unique and irreplaceable site/area- New buildings because of significant height increase will overlook into school areas- New buildings because of significant height increase will mean loss of light to existing properties- Negative visual impact on existing buildings close by of significant architectural appeal- Road safety and traffic impact on what are already congested small city streets (all of whichsurrounding the site are in effect single track), with significant pedestrian use by school children- Allowance of public traffic/cars onto the site for the first time in its history seems whollyinappropriate- Limited access to the site/gardens for the public

Bristol & the Zoo should be leaving a far better legacy on a site that has sustained them for 200years - the current scheme's approach appears to be simply squeeze as many units on the sitethat they can get away with, rather than leaving a legacy that is appropriate for both Bristol, Cliftonand the Zoo.

Whilst I understand and support the need for more new homes especially affordable in our city,adding 201 homes is very minor. Also I note 80% of the properties proposed do not need to be"affordable" so I'm sure will some be the most expensive properties in Bristol in terms of price persquare foot - therefore I believe this scheme in its current form is wholly inappropriate and I hopewill be refused until a scheme is proposed that befits this wonderful site and our city. We will onlyget one chance at getting this development right so please reject this scheme in its current form!

My original objection is pasted below and I see little in the revised planning proposalsthat counters any of the points previously made by me or other objectors. Savills have proferred areduction in the number of residential units from 201 to 196 and a tacit acknowledgement that thespace within its footprint would soon become ghettoised, necessitating the imposition of openinghours for the gardens. That does not translate into the returning of this part of our city's landscapeto the people of Bristol. In short, the revisions comprise slightly fewer ugly boxes crowbarred into awholly flawed concept.

Original Objection:The developer's ability to put housing on this site obviously provides its motivation for pressingforward with this development and the funding to relocate the zoo. But the plans are whollyinadequate for several reasons:1) Unhampered public access to this space which surrounded by high walls and the proposedhousing will create an unsafe ghettoised space, especially after dark2) The proposed new buildings are utilitarian, almost comedically Stalinesque, over-storeyed, andwill self-evidently prove, if they are built, to be an utter eyesore talked about for years afterwardsas the Clifton Carbuncle. What ever possessed the architects, planners or others to proffer such abuild?3) There is inadequate provision of social housing and first homes4) The plan encourages car usage contrary to the sustainability policies put in place by Bristol CityCouncil.5) More imaginative schemes, even ones focused on creating a social/community space, and one

that has a wider geographical, i.e., regional, draw would be infinitely preferable to this proposedplan. There is other less expensive derelict and unused land in the City that would be far moreadequate and provide better affordable housing.The leaflet pushed through Clifton letterboxes recently is insulting. The implied choice to be madeis a false one. One can support both good development and conservation action; one need notcome at the expense of the other.

I wrote on July 4th 2022 to object strongly to Bristol Zoo's proposals for building largeresidential buildings on the main Zoo site. I write as a resident of Northcote Road, immediatelyadjacent to some of the enormous blocks of flats being proposed. Since my last letter, revisedproposals have been submitted by the Zoo. My original criticisms remain but I would like to makesome additional comments.

The Zoo has made the most minor and cosmetic of adjustments to their plans and these revisedplans just do not address (at all) the concerns raised by myself and my neighbours. The plans forhigh density and totally inappropriately tall blocks of flats remain and the proposed development isquite clearly totally inappropriate for this conservation area. The visualisations commissioned byone of my neighbours show clearly the completely overwhelming impact the buildings will have. Itis no exaggeration to say that they will have a devastating impact on the totality of the localenvironment - and not just where I live in Northcote Road. The massive block housingdevelopments proposed - very close to the adjacent roads (some of which are very narrow) - aretotally out of character with the environment of this part of Clifton.

A few particular points arising out of comments made recently on the planning website (Summaryof Design Changes and Revised Documents):- The planners have stated that the buildings opposite Clifton College are "in keeping with the localcharacter". Having lived and worked within the buildings of Clifton College for 34 years, I assertthat this statement is very wide of the mark.- I dispute the statement that "a traffic analysis demonstrates that the proposed development

would generate less traffic than the average daily traffic associated with Bristol Zoo and wouldcause a reduction in local on-street parking". I have observed local traffic and parking in the area(Northcote, Guthrie and College Roads) for over 40 years (at all times of day) and, knowing thenumber of units of accommodation proposed and about the limited amount of parking which will beprovided on site, I cannot accept this statement.- It is also stated that the noise during the construction phase is not being considered as part ofthe Noise Impact Assessment. I would suggest that it is vital that consideration of the noise impactduring construction should be included as this will be of huge importance to local residents over aperiod of, I estimate, 5 years of clearing the site and construction of new buildings. The noise andgeneral impact of such a large construction site - in very close proximity to many living spaces - islikely to be enormous and, I predict, is very likely to have a seriously adverse effect on the mentalwellbeing of local residents, myself included.

Finally, I would like to express great concern about the future of the Zoo's Education Centre (nextto the Clifton College Music School). This was a new build just a few years ago and, as I haveseen myself, it is a "state of the art" building able to be used for all kinds of educational purposes.As I walk past it each day, I can see that it is, thankfully, still being used. However, the proposedbuilding plans have one of the large residential blocks in the place where the education centre nowsits. This obviously means that the Education Centre will be demolished. This is nothing short ofcriminal - to destroy such a new and useful facility; a terrible waste of resources. I know that theZoo plans to build a new Education facility at The Wild Place but this will cost a great deal ofmoney and, being much further from the centre of Bristol, make it more difficult and costly forstudents to reach. This - and the elimination of the wonderful herbaceous border - are just twoexamples of the needless destruction that will take place if the Zoo's plans are allowed to goahead. I urge you to reject these plans

The revised Biodiversity Metric 3.0 calculation is in a file type that not available toeveryone who might be interested and should be substituted with the information in the generallyused .pdf file type.

This important environmental document is presented in the superceded Biodiversity Net GainMetric 3.0. This version had flaws in the way certain entries were used in the calculation whichslewed the results to give a misleading result. These flaws were responsible for giving a resultsthat were unrealistically optimistic.Biodiversity Net Gain Metric 3.1 is now the current version with this problem rectified and has beenavailable for about a year. It is the version that is incorporated in the forth coming Environment Act2020 legislation.

A city that declared an Ecological Emergency in 2020 could be expected to use the currentlyavailable standards as a minimum.Perhaps the City Planning Department should require this and other all applicants to use thecurrent version for Biodiversity Net Gain calculations.

I note that there is no guarantee of perpetual public access to the gardens. Indeed,access gates with keypads, such as are proposed for the pedestrian gate on the boundaryalongside Clifton Down Road, are definitely not 'open access'. Whilst the site is currently gated,there is no reason for this to be perpetuated. To create a ghetto, albeit one with wealthy residentsseems undesirable.The revised proposals do not address the concerns raised by myself among others to the originalhigh density and physical height of the block of flats, N1 etc. . Amendments to the layout within theblocks are immaterial when the block itself is the problem.

The proposed housing development is totally inappropriate for this conservation area.- It is too high on all sides of the site and blocks light and openness.- It is too dense, extensive and flat/block-like, looking more like a fortress - the design is really poorquality.- The appearance is not in keeping with the Victorian and other houses in the area.- It causes the loss of mature trees that provide oxygenation, habitat for birds and other fauna- It causes the loss and destruction of world- renowned herbaceous borders that mean the loss offlora and fauna- There is no protection for public access to the whole area, in perpetuity.- The density of the building will require extensive parking on site. There is insufficient streetparking already so there is no space for the cars of additional residents. Nobody can reasonablybelieve that the home buyers will not have cars that need parking. The area has already sufferedfrom traffic pollution and additional cars parked or coming into the housing will place a heavierburden on the area in terms of traffic crowding and pollution. The roads around the site are smalland mainly reduced to single flow traffic which can already be prone to bottle necks. This will posea danger to children at the adjacent school.Overall, the scale, density and height of the development is wrong for the area and the impactsbeyond just the building have not been considered.The site has a long history of being a public amenity as gardens and should continue as a publicamenity, or at the very least be primarily a public amenity with some low rise housing on the placeof existing buildings. I believe that there are insufficient safeguards to guarantee public access inperpetuity and that there is inadequate financial provision for ensuring that the gardens are

properly maintained in the long term.

The updated plans remain wholly inappropriate in an area of conservation. Theproximity to the school, the Downs and a Resedential neighbourhood has not been considered inproposing a huge block of flats that are an eyesore. I'm not opposed to development but I can seeno sensitivity demonstrated here. Strongly oppose

Whilst being broadly in favour of this site being used for a mixture of private/socialhousing and public access and welcoming many of the proposals for the open areas, I continue tobe concerned about two aspects that these revised proposals fail to address:I remain of the opinion that the design of the flats surrounding the site is not in keeping withneighbouring properties in the conservation area and that they are too tall to fit in comfortably. Noattempt has been made to design them to harmonise with local building styles and it is imperativethat such an important and sensitive site should benefit from more sympathetic and appropriatenew construction.The proposals for managing the open areas still fail to provide adequate safeguards for ensuringpublic access in perpetuity. The proposed funding model means that residents will have a strongincentive for restricting access - this could be mitigated by establishing a trust fund at the outsetfor maintenance of the grounds using funding provided as a condition of granting planningpermission. Without adequate funding the gardens and buildings will soon deteriorate.

I think the city of Bristol should decide what the best use of this iconic, historic andquasi-public site could be for the benefit of everyone and not just maximising the Zoo's profitmargin.

For example, Bristol Zoo carrying on but in a modified form, a 'Bristol Kew Gardens', Our WorldBristol's proposal for an augmented reality zoo or another type of visitor attraction.

The Zoo's planning proposal is advocating for the loss of at least a third of the trees across thegardens.

The Zoo's own website describes their gardens as "one of the UK's most important collections ofplants" and "170 years of nurture and gardening artistry."

The iconic herbaceous border pictured above will be bulldozed and become someone's multi-million pound home.

How can the Zoo - a conservation charity dedicated to fighting climate change - justify destroyingany of these gardens - against the backdrop of Bristol being a Green Capital and the currentclimate crisis?

Only a fraction of the site will be available to the public.

The Zoo offers no guarantee that the gardens will stay open to the public in the long term.

There are many other solutions and options that the Zoo could explore and pursue if they wouldlisten and engage.

If it was proposed that London, Dublin or Berlin Zoo were to be sold off for private housing therewould no doubt be significant public outrage. Bristol is not a capital city but the principal remainsthe same.

The Zoo's desire to bankroll their new attraction in South Gloucestershire is a completely separateissue from the sale and future use of this site.

The objections raised so far are mostly not just NIMBY neighbours. Most people do notobject in principle to the development of the zoo gardens to provide housing. Many of the localresidents are not living in multimillion pound properties, but flats and apartments in sensitivelyconverted older buildings, and some ( mostly compatible) modern multi occupancy buildings. It isin the interest of all people in Bristol , not just those fortunate enough to live in Clifton, to maintainan attractive environment, with open green space and well designed buildings.

This development raises concerns about the density of residence, and the height of the residentialbuildings proposed. This is particularly an issue in Northcote Road and Guthrie Road. Threestories would be preferable to 5 and 6, and more compatible with the surrounding environment.The buildings along Clifton Down are more acceptable, as they will be set back behind the existingmature trees.We need to have a more spacious environment, less dwellings packed in to a small area, and lesshigh rise dominating the development.

As other commentators have stated, there must be a secure way of sustaining the gardens forpublic access with a high standard of maintenance guaranteed for the future.

I have previously commented on the plans to redevelop Bristol Zoo for residentialpurposes and whilst I was broadly supportive to these proposals, I was very disappointed with theunpleasant visual aspects of the proposed design.As a long-standing local resident is a matter of great concern that the unsightly eyesore whichconstitutes this design has not been significantly modified in the latest proposals. Indeed, it is hardto discern what changes have been made and good design cannot be replaced by themeaningless spin set out in the Design Guide.Therefore, I must continue to express my disgust at the unsympathetic nature of these proposalswhich are wholly out of keeping with the surrounding historic area. I must also emphasis thatsuccessful design does not stop at the site boundary but must produce a development which fitsinto the local environment comfortably. The current proposals fail on these grounds and so shouldnot be allowed to proceed unmodified.Moreover, permitting this ill-fitting development to proceed, will set an unhealthy precedent for thefuture and could easily lead to a rash of similarity ill-conceived development proposals in theClifton district which will destroy the ambience of the local area. Hence, the applicant should thinkagain and devise something more keeping with the situation of the site.

I have lived in Bristol all my life and Bristol zoo has a big significant's in my life it is amajor land mark for Bristol.I remember Alfred the gorilla.The elephants Christine and one other that children could ride on.Polar bears and many other magnificent creatures,I think if we need to move the zoo to build houses on is very sad when there is many areas in andaround Bristol we could build houses on.I also understand the new zoo the wild place is impressive but we need to save are zoo in Cliftonnot just for now but for Bristol Heritage.And for many generations to come.

I really cannot quite believe what I see regarding the proposals for the zoo site .Completely overbearing,out of character, inappropriate buildings proposed , how dare there besuch a over development of the site where once stood low bearing and old buildings were .No doubt large mature trees will be taken down . No , that must NOT happen .

I strongly object to the proposed development of Bristol Zoo gardens; the proposedbuildings,size and architecture would be completely out of character and completely spoil theexperience and appearancence of the historic buildings adjacent and in the area.

Clifton is a suburb of great importance both for residents and Bristol dwellers and tourists whocome for the beauty and open nature of the area, this would be a great own goal and well as anact of desecration.

I object strongly to these plans for housing that have been submitted regarding the siteat the Zoo.

The BZG planning committee have made very detailed and considered changes to theoriginal development proposal. It remains a much needed source of new housing in Bristol whilstpreserving the heritage of the zoo site. It will add very well designed new housing to a veryconstrained housing stock in Bristol.

I remain shocked at how selfish very affluent local residents and parents/members of an eliteprivate school can be in carpet bagging this planning portal with objections to this extremelyreasonable proposal. If this was so important to keep things as is these same people should haveactually found a way to financially support the zoo to keep the site. Appeals were made and metwith deaf ears at that time hence the BZG site being proposed.

As it is, the BZG team are taking a very considered approach to the design which is above andbeyond what a standard private developer should do: the site is being made accessible to thepublic and for free (this was not the case before when the zoo was open); they are providing a mixof housing for more affluent residents whilst also providing a significant percentage of affordablehomes; there is real preservation of garden and iconic parts of zoo architecture. With the amendedapplication the BZG has made amendments to reduce some multi-family housing due to theaforementioned objections. I personally do not think these changes were needed, but they didmake them thus demonstrating the BZGs real commitment to acknowledging and responding tocriticism as reasonably possible.

In terms of the overall site, I remain fully supportive - we desperately need more homes in Bristol,

and especially need more homes in central areas of Bristol. To really fight climate change at acouncil level we should be improving density so people can walk/cycle instead of commute toworkplaces. Building densely supports business by increasing their market too. Building morehomes helps increase the supply of housing and helps gradually deal with the homeless situation.These are not disputed facts. I hope the bad faith objections of NIMBYs in Clifton do notoverwhelm reason when it comes to this application.

Also it is worth emphasising, people in Bristol who own very expensive homes have a personalfinancial interest in keeping the housing stock limited at this end of the market - it inflates the valueof their homes accordingly. Many of the objections appear to be obfuscating their true intent.Frankly if a detailed, well considered application like this does not meet an acceptable standard,what would? Inaction will lead to an empty undeveloped site, or some parking - that is not a gooduse of space. (I am not even acknowledging the what can only politely described as 'eccentric'proposal to build a VR zoo in a massive hangar building that has been astroturfed as a supposedlyreasonable alternative).

Finally, this whole process highlights the unfair nature of the state of planning permission in theUK. Who comments on these applications, and whose voices are unheard? Do comments on thisapplication reflect the sentiment for the wider community? Do random comments from pressuregroups reflect democracy or justice? I hope when the council considers these objections orcomments in support of the application these questions are also considered carefully.

I hope my comment does not appear intemperate but as a millennial medical doctor in the NHSand also researcher at the University I have struggled with the housing market in Bristol, anddespite my profession being relatively well paid. I think the council should work for everyone ratherthan those sections of society who happened to buy housing 20-30 years ago when the averagemortgage was 3-5 times an average yearly salary as opposed to the 10-20x it stands now.

All the new properties should have covered balconies.Surely we learnt that during the pandemic, and makes them feel so much more airy, accessible,environmental (plants), communal and practical.Could envisage buying one of the new properties, as this is potentially a lovely development, butonly if with a balcony (or terrace if ground floor).

The site of such a cherished zoo needs to be honoured with special care andconsideration, not turned into yet another generic housing development with no identity. Theproposed development is too close to the school, it will overcrowd the local homes and there won'tbe enough parking. We need to use the land in a respectful way that preserves green space,protects ecosystems and wildlife and pays homage to Bristol Zoo.

My original objections are unchanged by the revised proposals.The proposed development is in a Conservation AreaThe design of the houses is totally out of keeping with the Victorian houses in the neighbourhoodand indeed most of Clifton. What's more they are high, much higher than most of the perimeter ofthe existing site so will stand out very prominently.I don't object to new houses being built but it is a Conservation Area and therefore the designshould be in keeping with the surroundings and the heritage of Clifton.

It is a terrible shame that the zoo had to close but it appears there wasn't enoughmoney or interest to keep it going. The historic site should be made into a park and community/education site for the people of Bristol to enjoy. Businesses can provide food entertainment andother sorts and leisure facilities so the council receives rate payment and the city becomes abigger attraction.It will do nothing for the long term benefit of the city to build more flats and houses which will nodoubt hand a large amount of cash into the bank accounts of a few developers.Save the zoo site for the people of Bristol

The proposed housing development is totally inappropriate for the area.- It is too high and blocks light and openness.- It is too dense, extensive and flat/block-like, looking more like a fortress- The appearance is not in keeping with the Victorian and other houses in the area.- It causes the loss of mature trees that provide oxygenation, habitat for birds and other fauna- It causes the loss and destruction of world- renowned herbaceous borders that mean the loss offlora and fauna- There is no protection for public access to the whole area, in perpetuity.- The density of the building will require extensive parking on site. There is insufficient streetparking already so there is no space for the cars of additional residents. Nobody can reasonablybelieve that the home buyers will not have cars that need parking. Just because the area hasbuses doesn't mean they can get to where they need to, by bus.

Overall, the scale, density and height of the development is wrong for the area and the impactsbeyond just the building have not been considered. If they had, these would not be the outcome.

The zoo area should remain a botanical garden and green space and I object to theredevelopment. It forms part of a historic conservation area of Bristol and should be a protectedsite in Bristol. If it is protected and nurtured it would attract visitors and tourists and add to thebeauty of the area. The pedestrianisation would aid the environment and the maintenance of thegardens would bring birds, bees and other animal life back to the area ..thereby enhancing thepublic good through the protection of wildlife and reducing emissions from vehicles..being close tothe suspension bridge it would also generate income for the historic city of Bristol through tourism.

The height of the proposed structures is far too high. There are just too many flatssquashed in. It will look very ugly. As must be obvious to all, this proposal has nothing to do withprotecting the heritage of the site. It is all to do with maximising revenues.

The plans, especially the housing stock proposed, are not in keeping with the streetscene and the conservation area. The housing is too high and as such will both obscure light andaffect trees. The area has already suffered from traffic pollution and additional cars parked orcoming into the housing will place a heavier burden on the area in terms of traffic crowding andpollution. The roads around the site are small and mainly reduced to single flow traffic which canalready be prone to bottle necks. The area is already becoming overpopulated due to many localresidences in BS8 being converted in to HMOs for students . The site has a long history of being apublic amenity as a gardens and should continue as a public amenity, or at the very least beprimarily a public amenity with some low rise housing on the place of existing buildings.

Very ugly and not in keeping with the beauty of Clifton and the Downs.

I am a local parent and have frequented the zoo often. I use and love the area. Theredevelopment is ugly and uncalled for. It brings More people more traffic. More pollution. It isobscenely too high, aesthetic pollution. It excludes the public from a space that was meant for thepublic. We should treasure our historic sites, buildings and open spaces not just see them asprofiteering opportunities by offices, shops and dwellings on them. There are so many ugly office,industrial sites to redevelop. Just because it is in Clifton the profit margins for developers, ownersand council must be huge. Quality of life is important. I object this redevopment.

Having read the proposals I cannot agree to the scale of the development. I doappreciate that the Zoo requires a goodly sum for their site but the proposal by the developermaximises every aspect of the site and the surrounding streetscapes.

The canyon-like streets that are created by the development are totally unacceptable and totallyagainst the cocept of the Conservation area that was set up to guard Clifton against developmentslike this.

I am totally opposed to this proposal.

Having just seen some modelled visuals of the Zoo's proposed housing development, tosay I am shocked would be an understatement. The flats are ugly concrete blocks, at least twostories too tall, which totally dominate the surrounding streets and existing houses. Not only dothey have no architectural subtlety or interest in themselves, but there has been no attempt atblending in with the surrounding Victorian buildings. It's bad enough that the Zoo has gone, but toput in its place such hideous constructions is an insult to the local residents, and indeed the wholeCity of Bristol. The Zoo was something that made me proud to be a Bristolian, but this proposeddevelopment is an embarrassment. For a City that prides itself on its creative talent and heritage, itshows no innovation or intelligence in design and quite how anyone could even propose such ascheme in the first place is beyond my understanding. If planning permission is granted it will bean incredible missed opportunity to create something beautiful for the future on a site of suchhistoric importance, and will be yet another example of Bristol City Council getting things so verywrong.

There is much to be welcomed in this proposal, and it is clear that the provision of apublic open space and the construction of additional housing is an appropriate use for this much-valued site. However, having read through the documentation I am left with two major concerns:The first centres on the quality of the design of the proposed residential buildings and their scale.The impression I get from the plans is that three of the four sides of the site will be dominated bymonolithic slab-sided blocks that tower over the surrounding buildings, rather than enhancingthem, and do not fit in with the character of the conservation area. Why is it not possible to designbuildings that are sympathetic to those around them, and why is it necessary to seek to buildfive/six-storey blocks when those in the rest of the area do not rise above three storeys? I urgeplanners not to accept second-rate design and not to allow over-development, and accordingly toreject the current designs and insist on lower buildings.The second arises from the issue of public access. I applaud the proposals with regard to the openspace in the centre of the development. However, I believe that there are insufficient safeguards toguarantee public access in perpetuity and that there is inadequate financial provision for ensuringthat the gardens are properly maintained in the long term. Any permission granted must becontingent on an appropriate sum of money being set aside to provide for the maintenance of thesite and for a suitably robust management structure being put in place to oversee its maintenance.

Hello planning department,

I've just gone through the visuals of the planned build of our former zoo.

I'm incredibly disappointed at the proposed development and hope you see the sense of reviewingwhat has been laid out.

I pity the poor local neighbours who will be overshadowed by the far to high proposed buildings aswell as this development bringing nothing in keeping to this area, we're not far off of it looking likea soviet block built prison.

There are far to many house/flats/etc in these proposed plans and to me the whole developmentreally stinks of commercial greed(which I guess is nothing new in what we've all witnessed these past years) by developers.

Why can't this be a low level green development with more affordable units and more of theexisting park space available to all to enjoy?

The visuals show nothing to engage in the conservation area that the zoo sits in.

You haven't addressed the massive increase in vehicles (from number of proposed dwellings, I'dpredict an extra 300+ vehicles) in this area further clogging the narrow roads that surround the zoo

and given local residents a further headache in being able to park 'near' their residence.

When will we learn that instead of potentially destroying a local beauty spot (yes it could bechanged into a walled garden or virtual zoo) we line the pockets of the developers who really don'tgive a damn about what they do as long as a profit is made.

We live in very sad times and I hope you see sense to reject the proposed plans and plan better inkeeping with this historic area and have a development that is environmentally less damaging.

Yours in hope,

Bill Brown.

I find it difficult to believe that this application is considered to be complete given thelack of evidence on, notably, the environment / energy side. I have made these views known torelevant officers, but in the absence of a response to most recent questions, I note the following:

The absence of an integration of a commitment to reduce embodied carbon in the design (both interms of materials and the completely inappropriate scale) is not aligned with National planningPolicy Framework, notably para 134 and the associated Guidelines. It nis inconsistent with eventhe existing Net Zero Strategy, and not in line with stated policy in this respect. The Council hasthe ability through existing policies, notably BCS13, BCS14 and BCS15, to reflect therequirements of the NPPF in respect of design quality in its decisions. Given that the design fails inrespect of embodied carbon / energy, then it should be refused.In respect of other matters, the 'Economic Benefits' assessment is completely lopsided. It claims tofollow guidance on additionality from the now abolished HCA, making highly subjective decisionsregarding the magnitude of these benefits. It also claims to follow guidance on appraisal from theTreasury Green Book. If it does so at all, it does so only in the most impartial and lopsidedmanner. No professional economist ought to render such a document on the basis that it capturesthe economic benefits. It is of concern that the comment from 'economic development' simply asksfor further elaboration of these benefits without highlighting any of the very obvious deficienciesand shortcoming of the presentation. Whether or not the document concerned should carry anyweight at all in a development control decision is moot, in any case, yet since the Committee andofficers have tended to reference these in decision making, possibly considering this (rightly orwrongly) as part of the balance they must weigh up, then it seems entirely appropriate to indicate

that the benefits assessment is, literally, Cyclopic in its outlook, focusing only on 'positive' benefitswithout weighing up - as per Treasury Green Book - the wider impacts of the development. Theseinclude, but are not limited to, environmental impacts, none of which have been considered in theassessment of benefits.In the expectation of further information and revision, these comments are not as detailed as theywill be on receipt of a revised proposal.

The Bristol Zoo site has been a marvellous resource for the residents of the whole ofBristol and a wide surrounding area for a very long time. I believe it should be preserved andmaintained as a Botanical Garden which it has been up until now.

The surrounding prison-like walls should be demolished - they are no longer needed to protectcitizens from ferocious wild animals. The area can be opened up for free access on a permanentbasis for Bristol residents at least. It is very likely that residents in the surrounding areas would bewilling to contribute by subscription to maintain this as a free service for everyone, and I certainlywould.The model in my mind is that of the very old and spectacular Botanical Gardens in Durban, SouthAfrica.

I do not think that present plans will lead to this site being freely open to the public for very longbecause those who have paid considerable sums for the larger accommodations will inevitablywant to exclude the public after some time and I doubt the efficacy of any safeguards to preventthis.

Affordable housing is a praiseworthy concept which I would support. In fact, it would be better toset aside an area on the periphery of the site for modest but well designed affordable housingonly, perhaps available to key workers for rent (otherwise modest purchased houses would bepassed on at immodest prices after a while).

The present building plans are, as usual, completely out of character for the heritage of historicBristol. The buildings are too tall and too monolithic. Whatever else is decided, far prettierbuildings are needed to fit in with local character. The ground floor parking under the proposednew buildings is inexpressibly ugly and inappropriate in these times. Vehicle parking should onlybe available to staff maintaining the gardens. There has never been parking on the zoo site and itshould not start now. There is a very good adjacent public bus service.

Like the Cribbs Causeway development which is not in Bristol, the new Wild Place Project zoo siteis outside Bristol and no benefits, financial or reputational, accrue to Bristol.

Let us at least make a new and spectacular Botanical Garden a credit to Bristol.

As a local resident I am concerened about the effect of the residential development ofthe Zoo Site. Clifton as a whole is already running low on space for existing households. Inparticular the issue of parking for cars. 201 extra households will invariably mean a significantincrease in the number of cars. Either 201 parking spaces (an undesireable idea) will need to beprovided or residents will end up parking their cars in surrounding streets which are already veryfull.

The aesthetic of the area also must be considered. There are several examples of unsympatheticdevelopment throughout the Conservation Area already. It is of course impractical to demolishthem. The Zoo site should not become another of these unsympathetic developments. Theaesthetic of the area is integral to what makes Clifton a unique part of Bristol. The style of many ofthe proposed buildings do not fit the style of other residential properties in the area. I am alsoconcerned that some of the building are too tall. Many of the buildings in the surrounding area areharmonious in height. The number of stories ought to be reconsidered to fit in better with thesurrounding buildings.

As I understand it Clifton College have pointed out their own concerns with the developement. Themajority of the surrounding area is in fact boarding houses and school buildings. Not that youwould really know as the College buildings on the whole blend in almost seamlessly with theresidential area. If the College is able to provide boarding facilites for its many students withoutimpacting the aesthetic of the area, why should Bristol Zoological Society not be held to the samestandard?

As mentioned the surrounding area has many young students living and studying 24/7 almost yearround. The plans for redevelopment of the site seem unconcerned about the welfare and safety ofthese students. Proposed buildings overlooking school buildings and play areas is an undeniablesafeguarding concern. The increased traffic in the area caused by the redevelopement is likely toincrease the already present risk of traffic accidents involving students.

In summary I feel that the redevelopment of the Zoo site ought to be a heavily community focusedproject. The residential plans ought to be scaled back significantly and also radically redesigned tobetter suit the surround area. The redevelopment of such a historically important site should not beseen as a financial opportunity but a preservation project. BZS should be looking to leave theClifton site on a high note after so many years of being a treasured part of the Clifton Community.If these plans go ahead they will instead be causing lasting damage to a community thatsupported them. Preserve the integrity of the local area and the history of the site.

It is not surprising a new housing development on a much loved zoo site attracts strongfeelings. Notably when it came to finding means to support the zoo to stay open at this site withfunding from this same public, that did not materialise.

Bristol needs new housing. This is a large area of land being redeveloped with carefulconsideration to provide this very much unmet need. It is heartening to see a mixture of newhousing including the provision of some affordable housing as well. The objections from thenearby private school and parents of pupils from this school strike me as incredibly unjustified andunfair. We should not be giving undue weight to the already very privileged to pull the ladder upfrom others in society (in this cases through maintaining the status quo of insufficient housingstock in Bristol).

Finally, the following is not likely to be a popular opinion, and overall I remain supportive of thisapplication, however I think more rather than less housing should be planned and provided. I donot think it is particularly good land use or equitable for the wider community that large tracts ofthis development are dedicated to public space. It would be better for this to be used instead tosite more housing but I also understand that often people like having areas of green space next tothem. It is worth considering that the zoo site is right next to the very large green space of thedowns however.

As a major conservation zoo in the UK and one which has undergone major capitaldevelopment across the last decade including complex planning applications we welcome andfully support the plans for Bristol Zoo Gardens. It is clear that the society have thought long andhard about the application to not only provide housing in a popular and beautiful area of Bristol butto ensure the legacy of Bristol Zoo Gardens remains and providing an inclusive space forresidents and visitors to enjoy.Retaining such an important site to the people of Bristol and Clifton is of huge importance and theteam at the zoo have put this front and centre in their thinking from day one.As chairman of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums and CEO of Chester Zoo,I applaud the careful consideration the zoo team have taken in the project and would recommendit for approval.

With the confirmed departure of the Bristol Zoological Society ('the Society') in Clifton,there is need to consider change of use of the zoo site as is holds such significance both in termsof heritage and it's position in a conservation area, adjacent to Clifton College School and a rangeof significant historical buildings . This is the largest building scheme in Clifton for many decades(perhaps ever), and must be very carefully planned and orchestrated. This application saddens meas it appears the line between need and greed has become blurred. The Society will not be theones commissioning or managing the build, and all safeguards must be thought through byplanning, ahead of any proposal being passed.- loss of light or privacy - the scale of the proposal will overlook Northcote Road properties (inparticular) and limit their light, and privacy. At most, any buildings on that perimeter should notstand taller than those existing buildings in Northcote Road- overshadowing - the adjacent Northcote and College Roads are very narrow, with residentparking bays or double lines - roads that the height and overscaled apartment blocks along theperimeter walls would dominate at a scale disproportionate to all adjacent conservation areabuildings- highway safety - there is no detail about a street lighting plan, nor how this will impact the locality.The plan denotes seven new entrances, four of which will allow vehicular access, which will impactthe surrounding streets which are already crowded with school vehicles at any time of day (minibuses, maintenance vehicles, delivery vehicles and full size coaches) plus parents at drop off andpick up times in numerous cars.- traffic and parking issues - whilst the Society have been making efforts to explain their proposalthrough production of printed materials distributed through letterboxes in the neighbourhood, the

literature is misleading, as it fails to illustrate any cars (bar one parked under an awning), butdepicts children playing and families picnic-ing, ambling or in a learning space. The gardens looklovely, but the reality is this is a housing development for 201 homes. Cars will need to access thesuggested 120 spaces provided in 'undercroft' or 'covered parking' but this is not denoted in anyillustrations, giving a false representation of the planned 'other-worldliness' atmosphere. GuthrieRoad and the surrounding streets encompass the 'hub' of the Clifton College school campus. Theexisting traffic for school drop off and pick up times is already unmanageable, despite efforts bythe school to encourage the 'if you care, park elsewhere' mantra and are unable to restrain parkingon yellow lines, yellow zigzags, and road corners. The proposal suggests an increase inpedestrians in the area, who will be in jeopardy with the subsequent congestion generated by ahousing scheme of this scale. The Society propose that residents of the site will be less likely toneed a car, but on what grounds do they know that? The lack of parking spaces will create spill outinto surrounding roads directly or indirectly - perhaps through visitors to the 'free' gardens- amenity - the concept of amenity suggests that a building project would be considered attractiveand agreeable, adding pleasantness to a surrounding area. The design to date illustratesoverdevelopment of six storey structures which will dominate surrounding homes and detract light,limit privacy and possibly present safeguarding issues for the adjacent school buildings and playareas

- wildlife - 44 trees to be relocated in a limited landscape? Where is the plan for these trees? Treesare not just what is illustrated on the surface by trunk, branches and foliage - they haveestablished and interlinked root systems - whilst on the surface it looks like the trees areaccounted for, and the significant ones will be left in place, what about their roots? There is littledetail, if any, about the affect the installation of utilities, drainage and water management which allrequire deep digging and excavation will have significant impact on the roots. The gloss of theleaflet sounds reassuring, but the tree report from the tree experts shows more concern that mustbe factored into this decision.- historic buildings - this is the most significant project of scale in Clifton ever to be proposed, andmust be in keeping with the architectural assets of the locality. The scale and design of theproposal jars with neighbouring historic buildings- conservation - the Society holds conservation amongst it's key objectives, but this proposal doesnot fully integrate the context of building conservation for all the elements, only in the existingbuildings e.g. Clifton Pavilion and the Giraffe House- design - the standout flaw of this application is the scale of overdevelopment around theperimeter- appearance of the development - the glossy illustrations are misleading for many people who willtake a leaflet at face value and believe the Society will deliver the application on based on thoseillustrations. The reality, sadly, is more likely to be that the Society will be long gone, having soldthe site and secured the funding needed for the Wild Place Project site. As members of theproposed Management Board of the 'gardens' they will have no influence or say on the buildproject

I object to this planning application, and hope that one evolves that is of better scale and is more

fitting in local scale and conservation interpretation. As the Society's brochure says 'it is importantwe leave a legacy we can be proud of in this beautiful part of the Clifton and HotwellsConservation Area'.Well then, do just that, not this.

Dear Matthew

As you are the Case Officer for the above, I am writing to ask for your advice and helpregarding a number of matters concerning the Bristol Zoo Planning Application Ref.22/02737/F and in particular, I have questions regarding the processes likely to beinvolved from now.

I am a resident of 6 Northcote Rd and Chair of the Northcote Rd Residents Association.You will have seen various objections, concerns and fears expressed from differentNorthcote Rd residents, who are almost certainly the Zoo's residential neighbourspotentially most adversely affected by the proposed development. This wasacknowledged in the townscape assessment and to us personally, by the Zoo planningteam.

Our Primary Concerns

Our concerns have been primarily based on the potentially overpowering, overbearing,overshadowing and intrusive impacts of the immediately adjacent proposed blocks offlats planned so high and so close to us all. In our particular part of the neighbourhoodat the bottom end of Northcote Rd, the incongruence of the design and its scale andpotential adverse impacts on the townscape in an historic conservation area plus thesignificant losses of daylight and sunlight, really are much larger than the planningapplication and some of its supporting documents imply. There is nowhere in this part ofClifton where such large-scale block of continuous modern housing development exists

directly opposite other housing in such close proximity.

We have been particularly concerned by the quality, limitations and implications of twodocuments supplied in the application:

1. The daylight and sunlight survey: acknowledged privately as a "dark art" byGeraint Jones the Savills surveyor, this was full of inaccuracies, with dozens ofomissions and seemed utterly misrepresentative of the effects of the development.Some more but not complete detail about the levels of omissions and inaccuracy iscontained in my personal, previously submitted objection.

2. The townscape and visual impact assessment: where the suggestion that thiswas all an urban rather than suburban landscape (only really true for some parts of thewall) and a few select photos in the appendix gave no impression at all of the impacts ofthe scale of this development in reality as experienced at ground level. For example,appendix photo 45 seems to imply that two mature trees and a significant amount of skywill not be obscured by the 5 storeys intended block, which they surely will be. Indeed,the overall planning application is very light in demonstrating this real ground and streetlevel visual impact - using just a couple of highly selective sketches. This seemssurprising for the most major development in Clifton for decades where surely everyoneshould be getting a much fuller and proper representation of the proposed outcome.

Given the huge negative impact of these current planning designs on what I believe youcall the "residential and visual amenities" of the residents of Northcote Rd, we are allvery worried that decisions are now going to be made based on what we believe to beeither inaccurate, substandard, biased or misrepresentative documents.

And, although we know that loss of private views and property price losses are of norelevance to planning decisions, for some of us the potential adverse impacts in thecurrent proposal are genuinely heart breaking. If implemented, they would seriouslydiminish the quality of our lives and our living. This would be true if we stay or if weleave after having incurred the costs of moving and the devaluations of our properties

Our Questions

We are exceptionally keen to know that the planning process will allow our concernsand our alternative viewpoints and/or documents to be properly considered. This isespecially so given the undoubted potential scale of damage to our mental and financialwellbeing from these current plans. However, we freely admit we do not know how bestto ensure this can happen. Are you able to advise us please? We have becomeincreasingly worried partly because of what everyone feels has been a "sham tick boxneighbourhood consultation" process by the Zoo's team and partly because some of thedocuments commissioned by them seem biased and misrepresentative - perhapsunsurprisingly. In their clear pursuit for maximum profit, the Zoo planning teamrepeatedly seem to have shown almost complete disregard for the concerns expressedby neighbours on all sides of the Zoo including the West Car Park and Clifton College.

If possible, we would like to know the following please:

i) What is the process from here on in and where or how do we at Northcote Rd getour concerns properly explored?

ii) What happens on the Monday 12th September determination date/what is theprocess?

iii) What is likely to happen or could happen after this date?

iv) Is there anything we could do privately in advance that would help/or we could doafterwards?

v) Will there be another independent light survey commissioned?

vi) Will there be a requirement to model ground level and street views of thedevelopment from inside and outside the zoo? Will they be independent? If so, who willpay for them?

vii) Would it make sense for the neighbours to commission some of these servicesand if so, by when would they now be needed? Could we be given access to some ofthe Zoo's team data/models already built to help do this?

viii) Would it be helpful to submit some more illustrative pictures and correctedphotographs of the visual impact at ground and street level even if not terriblysophisticated? Would it be helpful to submit these with some constructive suggestions?

ix) Would it be possible for you or a representative of the Planning Committee tomeet briefly with us and literally see things from our points of view? And if so, when? (Alate afternoon as the sun drops is quite illuminating!)

In our experience, once people have seen the current heights of the proposeddevelopment in relation to the existing trees and buildings on Northcote Rd a short 5minutes' walk is sufficient to reasonably visualise how (shockingly) overbearing theimpact would be. This is all due to the combination of the proposed building heights andtheir proximity to the street. It is immediately obvious that huge amounts of sky andpractically all glimpses of mature trees and of the historic buildings, plus almost all thelate afternoon sunshine will be obliterated. It is these characteristics that give this part ofthe neighbourhood its character and keep it feeling suburban and spacious, despitesome low-level urban features being present. Once these features or characteristics arelost, the Northcote Rd area becomes much more urban, more enclosed and quite a lotdarker for much of the afternoon and early evening. Some of these elements wereslightly acknowledged but in a very understated way in the townscape assessment..

In our personal instance at 6 Northcote Rd, the proposed outlook changes from lookingat broad skies and trees stretching almost a mile away to simply looking at a 50ft -60 fthigh brick wall just 66 feet away, with barely a glimpse of sky from any window -intruding and dominating all our key living and working spaces. To visualise thispotential change is truly shocking and deeply dispiriting. It is a genuinely distressing

experience I now have many times each day, every day since the planning applicationwas submitted - after the last consultation we were all shocked by the absence of anyfundamental changes.

I would really welcome an opportunity for you to visit us so that you can so simply andeasily visualise all this. The adverse impact here at this end of Northcote Rd is evidentlymany times worse and much more instantly visible than that of the West Car Park. Yet,if there were a meaningful conversation with the neighbours we feel these particularconcerns might be reasonably addressed with some reductions in heights and scale orincreases in distance in the right places. The Northcote Rd residents are not inherentlyopposed to plans for housing. However, we have become very upset by the Zoo'sapproach which has come across as feigning interest, feigning sincerity and feigningconcern. They have proposed a scheme with almost complete disregard for our clearlyexpressed key concerns and constructive suggestions and which is directly and veryevidently at the significant expense of our own mental and financial wellbeing. Thecurrent application clearly seeks to maximise their profit with complete disregard and athuge direct emotional and financial costs to their direct neighbours. (They can only getan extra million pounds because we, collectively, lose a million pounds so to speak!).While we appreciate both the Zoo's needs for money and Bristol's needs for housing itis surely not the responsibility of the Council to maximise the profits for the Zoo, to theclear disadvantage of the existing neighbouring community. The legacy the Zoo's teamare proposing to leave Clifton after 186 years does not currently appear to be either aninspiring or a happy one for its erstwhile neighbours.

We are now very much hoping and relying on the Planning Committee to help addressthis matter fairly - obviously, with full regard to planning law and planning guidelines.We understand there are many stakeholders and demands including present housingneeds and Zoo trustees to be taken into account. As the Northcote Rd residents whoare directly adjacent, we have been acknowledged as the most adversely affected ofthe residential neighbours. We simply cannot see how the current plans for ourneighbourhood can reasonably be argued to preserve and enhance theneighbourhood's character. More detailed examination and understanding of thesignificant reductions in daylight and sunlight plus the obliteration of almost all views ofhistoric buildings and trees from within the terrace and at street level show thedevelopment would significantly damage the neighbourhood's character for us all andmassively diminish the quality of very many more lives at our end of the developmentthan it will ever enhance.

We would like to be reassured we will be given a proper and fair chance of properrepresentation regarding our expressed concerns and we would very much like tounderstand how best we might achieve it. Any advice you can give will be greatlyappreciated.

Please do forgive the length of this letter. I know things are slow in August but given thepending September 12th determination date I would greatly appreciate your promptacknowledgment of your receipt of this and welcome your response and advice as soonas possible, please.

Many thanks and best regards

ChairNorthcote Rd Residents' Association

I object to the proposed plan because:

The proposed medium rise buildings are out of character with the surrounding area.

'Affordable ' and 'for social rent' are not defined in the plans.

Few houses, as opposed to flats, are planned. Those that are, will no doubt be astronomicallyexpensive as houses in Clifton always are. This debunks the claim that the zoo sale will provide,admittedly, much needed housing ie houses, not flats, in Bristol.There are already plenty of flats available for private rent in Clifton , at similar prices to other partsof the city.

Only some of the accommodation that is planned will have access to on road or off road parking.Although the bus service has improved, this means that the accommodation is less likely to besuitable for families.

The proposal that the residents' service charges will fund the upkeep of the public garden isunsustainable in the long, or even medium term .

Only a small proportion of the beautiful and historic gardens are to be retained, presumably thelawn and other easy to maintain areas.Instead of planning permission for an inner city, densely populated housing estate , the council

should have bought or helped to buy the site to keep the gardens, accessible to the public for asmall annual fee.Alternatively a body, such as English Heritage it the National Trust could have taken over thegardens.

Re: Objection to Bristol Zoo Society's planning application to turn its Clifton site into ahousing estate 22/02737/F

I was very sad to see the proposal to turn Bristol Zoo into a housing estate.

I write in objection to this planning application as someone who has grown up, lived and worked inBristol, enjoyed the zoo as a child and has taken my own family there regularly in more recentyears. I am also a scientist, author and broadcaster, and I have been Patron of Twycross Zoo inthe West Midlands for more than a decade, so I have very good insights into the challenges - andopportunities - facing zoos in the 21st century.

It is important to be very clear about what is at stake here, and what the proposal contained in theplanning application really means. It means the loss of a huge cultural asset for Clifton and Bristolmore widely. At a time when we should be promoting sustainable travel and green spaces, andbuilding our cities accordingly, it means the loss of a place in the city that could be easily walkedand cycled to. It means the loss of a place where people could learn about biodiversity andconservation.

And ultimately, it means the selling off of a much loved attraction in Bristol in order to bankroll theexpansion of another attraction in South Gloucestershire.

The proposal includes 201 new homes, in five- and six-storey blocks of brick-built flats - taller than

anything around them, and completely unsympathetic to the surrounding architecture - andparking for 124 cars. Many mature trees will be felled to make way for more concrete and tarmac.Is this what Clifton really needs, rather than a place where families could come to learn aboutnature, and enjoy green space? The application somewhat fancifully suggests that the public willstill be able to enjoy the fragment of the botanical gardens that is left. But who will really feelwelcome walking in between those tall flats into what will surely feel like a private garden (and willprobably become one once new residents become dissatisfied with this sharing of space)?

This is an important change of use for a green and educational space in the city of Bristol. Theplanning decision will be important not just for this site, but for what it signals about Bristol itself - acity which prides itself on its green credentials and green spaces, and its educational and culturalassets.

The planning decision about this proposal to turn Bristol's zoological and botanical gardens into ahousing estate must, of course, be considered completely separately from the fundingrequirements for the Wild Place attraction in South Gloucestershire.

Professor Alice RobertsNorth Somerset

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Re: Objection to Bristol Zoo Society's planning application to turn its Clifton site into a

housing estate 22/02737/F

I was very sad to see the proposal to turn Bristol Zoo into a housing estate.

I write in objection to this planning application as someone who has grown up, lived and worked in

Bristol, enjoyed the zoo as a child and has taken my own family there regularly in more recent

years. I am also a scientist, author and broadcaster, and I have been Patron of Twycross Zoo in

the West Midlands for more than a decade, so I have very good insights into the challenges - and

opportunities - facing zoos in the 21st century.

It is important to be very clear about what is at stake here, and what the proposal contained in the

planning application really means. It means the loss of a huge cultural asset for Clifton and Bristol

more widely. At a time when we should be promoting sustainable travel and green spaces, and

building our cities accordingly, it means the loss of a place in the city that could be easily walked

and cycled to. It means the loss of a place where people could learn about biodiversity and

conservation.

And ultimately, it means the selling off of a much loved attraction in Bristol in order to bankroll the

expansion of another attraction in South Gloucestershire.

The proposal includes 201 new homes, in five- and six-storey blocks of brick-built flats - taller than

anything around them, and completely unsympathetic to the surrounding architecture - and

parking for 124 cars. Many mature trees will be felled to make way for more concrete and tarmac.

Is this what Clifton really needs, rather than a place where families could come to learn about

nature, and enjoy green space? The application somewhat fancifully suggests that the public will

still be able to enjoy the fragment of the botanical gardens that is left. But who will really feel

welcome walking in between those tall flats into what will surely feel like a private garden (and will

probably become one once new residents become dissatisfied with this sharing of space)?

This is an important change of use for a green and educational space in the city of Bristol. The

planning decision will be important not just for this site, but for what it signals about Bristol itself - a

city which prides itself on its green credentials and green spaces, and its educational and cultural

assets.

The planning decision about this proposal to turn Bristol's zoological and botanical gardens into a

housing estate must, of course, be considered completely separately from the funding

requirements for the Wild Place attraction in South Gloucestershire.

North Somerset

Looks like a fabulous idea.However I would propose 2 things:Firstly that almost all the properties have a covered balcony - so much nicer to live in andenvironmentally sound - covered to provide an outside space even in inclement weather.Secondly - consider stone/brickwork as used in the Redland Girls School development (Bathstone?) Which looks lovely and in keeping with the area.Some indication of likely prices of resulting properties would be interesting please.

To confirm my objection to current proposals as follows:-

Concept:It's unfair to argue this project must be approved/ accepted on the basis its a requirement of ahard to argue mission statement "Saving Wildlife Together"It's unlikely to find anyone in Bristol & further afield that wouldn't support saving wildlife

Design:A huge scale, bulky 5 & 6 storey project encircling & overwhelming historic gardens & retainedbuildings isn't sympatheticImages illustrate a project that appears more to do with a time-share apartment, hotel/ center parcdevelopmentProposals fail to grasp the beauty & timeless architecture of a Clifton & Hotwells context - streets,squares & terraces that have informed many urban design projects across the world.Furthermore glib giraffe & elephant graphics on blank gable facades are a legacy in theConservation Area that won't stand the test of timeA design that reflects the scale, materials, architecture & urban streetscape of Clifton & Hotwellswould be easier to understand & support

Environmental:The immediate site area is a vehicle gridlock - especially mornings & afternoons & it's hard tocomprehend how a proposal to create over 200 properties won't exacerbate the problem

The drawings, as presented, are difficult to understand/ grasp in terms of vehicular access, egress& parkingIt appears the scheme relies on an extensive shared inner "ring-road" for traffic circulationalthough images don't illustrate any vehicles or day to day site/ context reality (?)An easy to follow study needs to be undertaken so existing & proposed residents understand thenoise impact of heat pumps, vehicles (including motorbikes & performance cars) under-croft car-parks, public events & open access space within a walled, 5/ 6 storey building settingGiven the impact of climate change it would be helpful to understand how pv panel/ green roofsare to be maintained on a practical level for example will high level access arrangements &perimeter details grow as the scheme evolves (?)

Conclusion:After 185 years the zoo has decided to leave Clifton & their decision isn't unreasonableHowever, it's more than reasonable for Clifton & Hotwells to have a project that isn't based on aflawed nostalgic philosophy & inappropriate design model

Please note that the Zoo site is in a conservation area with many notable listedbuildings nearby. It is a heritage site of importance and distinction:Problems:1. 2001 homes is too many on a site of this size2. Parking for 100 cars is insufficient3.The modern design is inappropriate and unimaginative4. The buildings are too high and will dominate the area5.Important trees will be lost6. When the Zoo closes First Bus may well reroute the No 8 bus so there is no stop near the Zoosite

I strongly object to the current proposed plans

I object most strongly to this application. I do so for the following reasons:

1. Design. The Heritage Statement submitted in support of the application makes the followingclaim:

'the introduction of bespoke, bold architecture into this historically separate and different site willhave negligible impact to [sic] the setting of the listed buildings of Clifton College, nor to its locally-listed buildings along Guthrie, College and Northcote Roads.'

Nothing could be further from the truth. The shoe-horning of 5 and 6 storey perimeter blocks offlats of monolithic design lacking in any finesse is wholly out of keeping with the robust rhythm ofweighty Victorian villas, constructed predominantly from dressed rubble and Bath stone detailing,that are the feature of the surrounding buildings. The proposals fail to take any account of theheight, scale, massing, shape, form or proportion of the existing buildings, skylines androofscapes. They cannot conceivably be said to satisfy the test of preserving or enhancing thecharacter of the Conservation Area.

2. Daylight and sunlight. The overwhelming design of the tower blocks will impact significantly onthe daylight and sunlight of the surrounding buildings. I support the objections of the residents ofNorthcote Road and Clifton College.

3. Traffic. The scheme involves the creation of 201 residential units. This will result in a significant

increase in traffic with consequential effects on pedestrian safety and substantial pressure on on-street parking. The concerns of Clifton College and of the residents in Northcote Road are entirelyjustified.

4. Embodied carbon. The design means that the embodied carbon and greenhouse gas emissions(that is the energy generated and greenhouse gas emitted, associated with the materials andconstruction process) will be far above what is recommended. Giving consent to this proposalwould be wholly inconsistent with the Council's declaration of a climate emergency.

5. Charitable status. The Zoo trustees are on record as saying that they have a responsibility toachieve maximum PRICE for the land. That is wholly wrong. Their responsibility is to achieve bestVALUE in accordance with their charitable purposes which include a responsibility forenvironmental concerns - a matter which has been pointed out to them on numerous occasionsand consistently ignored.

The proposals for Bristol Zoo will spoil the open feel and make it look like a prison.Thebuildings are ugly and will not enhance this lovely piece of natural area.If these residences arebuilt there will be congestion all around this area.It is busy enough now but this will lead to anenhancement of traffic which will then build up further into Clifton.I am totally against this proposal.

I am a local architect and consider this to be a good design in very many respectsexcept for one, and that is the height of the perimeter flats along the lower half of Northcote Roadand along Guthrie Road.As is clear from page 68 of the Design and Access Statement, the proposed blocks of flats inthese locations are between about 4m and 6m higher than the existing buildings across the streetfrom them. There is no good reason why we should accept that this represents good urban design.Put very simply, the flats in question would fit their immediate environment better by being 1 storeylower. The general height of buildings in those areas, when so clearly consistent and longestablished, should be respected and conformed to. Higher opposite the Downs works fine, butnot where I have identified in this objection.It is no justification to point to the overall density of the proposals being in line or even belowexpectations or targets generally accepted for this type of development, because to reduce overalldensity merely reduces land value and there are good design reasons, well articulated by thedesigners, why more of the site is not built on.So, in short, I hope the planners will focus on this aspect of the design and agree with myobjection, and I hope that this scheme, so good in so many other respects, can be amended,approved and built without too much fuss and too much delay.

I write concerning the planning application above re the proposed development of the Bristol Zoo site.I moved to Bristol in 1981 and was fortunate enough to be a master at Clifton College. A post I stayed in for 34 years.The Zoo was an integral part of the College and was enjoyed by many college students, masters/mistresses alike. I understand that the Zoo would want to capitalise on the sale, but the proposed design seems to want to cram as many people in as possible. The buildings are far too high and not in keeping with the surrounding properties. Along with people come cars and pressure on amenities. Doctors,dentists and parking. It is the aesthetics in design which need to be addressed and to be realistic about what the area could feasibly tolerate in a population hike.It is for these reasons that I most strongly object to the planning application cited above.

I work at Clifton College and with over 200 new homes opposite the school traffic andparking will become a major problem. College road, the Avenue and Guthrie road will havequeuing traffic, especially at school drop off/pick up times. On street parking will be reduced if thepublic wish to park and go to the zoo gardens and café. The site is over developed and theplanned new houses are not in keeping with the surrounding houses most of which date from thetime on or after the school was built in 1862. There will be overlooking from the new houses intoschool buildings and this raises safeguarding concerns. Pupils walk on all of the roads aroundschool going to and from lessons and there will be road safety concerns with increased traffic fromthe new site. Many trees will be lost during the demolition process and the green public space inthe centre will end up being taken over by the residents as people will not want to visit gardens inthe middle of a housing estate. During the building process there will be inevitable noise anddisruption to the school and all local residents.

I work at Clifton College and with over 200 new homes opposite the school traffic andparking will become a major problem. College road, the Avenue and Guthrie road will havequeuing traffic, especially at school drop off/pick up times. On street parking will be reduced if thepublic wish to park and go to the zoo gardens and café. The site is over developed and theplanned new houses are not in keeping with the surrounding houses most of which date from thetime on or after the school was built in 1862. There will be overlooking from the new houses intoschool buildings and this raises safeguarding concerns. Pupils walk on all of the roads aroundschool going to and from lessons and there will be road safety concerns with increased traffic fromthe new site. Many trees will be lost during the demolition process and the green public space inthe centre will end up being taken over by the residents as people will not want to visit gardens inthe middle of a housing estate. During the building process there will be inevitable noise anddisruption to the school and all local residents.

Objection

a) The proposed housing development is much too dense for the Clifton Conservation area.

b) The proposed modern apartment block-style buildings design is totally inappropriate and out ofkeeping for Clifton Conservation area (an area with many historic buildings, natural stonebuildings, and a conservation area with a spacious leafy ambiance). In addition the proposedbuildings are too tall (taller than nearby properties)Small Mews style development would be significantly less intrusive (visually) and much lessoverpowering in the area.

c) The proposed building materials (modern grey blocks) are totally out of character for the historicClifton Conservation area.Use of local stone, Bath stone, Redland stone etc. building materials would be more compatiblewith the nearby elegant historic housing (c.f. the materials used for the 2018 new build neo-Victorian Villas on Canynge Road, built by Edward Ware).

d) There are inadequate parking facilities for the proposed density of dwellings. This will potentiallycause the nearby roads on the Downs (White Ladies mile etc.) to be used as a permanent carpark by new residents.

e) The proposed design seems inappropriate because the site has been viewed as a green space

with no constraints. Only 22% of the site currently has existing buildings, any proposal shouldensure that it is only the same 22% of the site (i.e. the existing developed footprint) is the onlyarea with any development. This would ensure that the majority of the mature trees and the largegardens could be preserved.

Objection

A) The Bristol Zoo Gardens and the adjacent (Bristol Zoo) West Car Park individual planningapplications (22/02737/F and 21/01999/F) should be withdrawn and only reconsidered as a singlesite.The combined site has significant historic interest, a large number of mature trees, superbgardens, a large percentage of green space and historic walls.

B) Treating the Bristol Zoo Gardens and Bristol Zoo West Car Park as potential housingdevelopment site(s) is totally inappropriate use of the historic site(s).

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Bristol City to actively demonstrate a commitment to theever increasing need for more green spaces for the mental health, physical health and well-beingof citizens.

The Downs (the green space, adjacent to the Zoo) has seen an unprecedented increase in usagein recent years. This is an opportunity for the City of Bristol (together with the Downs Committee,Merchant Venturers, Bristol University, etc.) to invest in the long-term future of Bristol citizens, byexpanding the Downs green space, thereby making the ex-Zoo sites accessible to all citizens 'forever hereafter' (i.e. consider protecting the Zoo site along the same basis as the Downs isprotected).A precedent has already been set, as the Zoo's North Car Park site, has apparently already been

reclaimed by the Downs.

I personally think that it is terrible that fellow parents and the College have mountedsuch a petty organised assault on the zoo's plans.

From all of the information that I have been able to find it would appear that the plans put forwardare robust and I for one fully support them in their enterprising efforts to build more houses whilstkeeping their beautiful gardens open into the future.

This application ensures that the land will still be accessible to the general public toenjoy and will create welcoming community spaces and play areas.

Whilst I think this will be the very best use of this area, I also think that the number ofparking spaces MUST be adequate for the number of residential units being built. I feel Guthrieroad should be upgraded even if this means taking a bit of the downs and that the type of housingshould be affordable, not just for very well off people from the Clifton area but also for ordinary folkor even to house some of the homeless.

Private housing build type along some perimeters of the Zoo appears to be featurelessin design and lack sympathetic character as was to be expected. Would like to have seen the useof pitched roofs also.Richard ColesBSG ex-employee/current volunteer

Clifton College, 32 College Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 3JH - T +44 117 315 7000 E info@cliftoncollege.com

Registered Charity No. 311735

significant concerns directly with the BZS which included concerns in relation to safeguarding and overlooking into sensitive school buildings and grounds, highways safety, daylight/sunlight and heritage impacts. These concerns remained following the March 2022 consultation and it was requested that a further meeting between Clifton College and the BZS be held prior to the submission of the planning application. Clifton College met with the BZS team to discuss these concerns directly on the 9th June 2022 following the submission of the planning application. These concerns remain within the submitted planning application. Key Concerns Highways Safety Clifton College has an overall responsibility for the safeguarding and safety of its pupils and has a particular concern in relation to highways safety. Clifton College has instructed Highgate Transportation consultants to review the planning application from a highways perspective. A technical note summarising their concerns is appended to this letter. An overriding concern is that the presence of a large operational school with children ranging from nursery age through to sixth form pupils on the boundaries of the BZG appears to have been given limited attention within the submitted Transport Assessment. The College buildings are spread across an area that is intersected by six different roads. The operating functions of the College require significant movement of children of all ages, but predominantly those aged 11-18, without direct adult supervision, along and across College Road, Guthrie Road, Northcote Road and The Avenue, throughout the day and into the early evening, as they move between lessons and activities. As the College provides accommodation for around 350 boarding pupils, these movements extend to 9pm as pupils visit the sports centre, library and dining halls. There are significant concerns in relation to the proposed access and circulation patterns associated with the masterplan. The proposed vehicular access points on Guthrie Road and at the top of Northcote Road directly conflicts with the access points for the College and the movement patterns of children. These roads at present are mainly used by Clifton College staff, pupils and parents rather than for general traffic movements. As noted above throughout the school day there are regular pedestrian movements of children as they move between lessons and between sites. There are particular concerns around conflicts at drop off and pick up times. The potential conflicts with the new access points are a significant safety concern particularly for some of the College’s youngest pupils who are currently dropped off along Northcote Road. There are also concerns in relation to the lack of road safety audits and in relation to the compliance of the parking surveys with Bristol City Council’s guidance. The coaches that Clifton College uses to transport its pupils to its sports ground in Leigh Woods park along Guthrie Road on a daily basis, in a location consistent with the location for the BZG coach parking. Any forthcoming Traffic Regulation Order (‘TRO’) amendment to the highway will need to consider the existing coach parking and the College’s drop off and pickup requirements. Clifton

Clifton College, 32 College Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 3JH - T +44 117 315 7000 E info@cliftoncollege.com

Registered Charity No. 311735

College would resist a TRO which would significantly impact upon the existing operations of the College. The attached Highgate Transportation Technical Note fully details the concerns of Clifton College from a highway safety perspective which we wish BCC to be aware of. Safeguarding, Privacy and Overlooking In relation to safeguarding there are significant concerns around the overlooking impacts of the proposed buildings into various sensitive College buildings, play areas and College grounds along both Guthrie Road and Northcote Road. Northcote Road in particular predominately houses the Preparatory School and the College’s youngest pupils. As an example, proposed building E3 to be sited at the corner of Guthrie Road and Northcote Road is located directly opposite Poole’s House which houses prep school children aged 9-13 and also looks directly into the sports hall on Guthrie Road. The first floor podium garden and the balconies and terraces on the upper floors are a particular concern as these would look directly into these sensitive College buildings. There is also overlooking from the proposed new building S1 on Guthrie Road into the South Town Day house and the Watson’s Boarding house which house pupils in the Upper School. The new pedestrian route between the new Building S1 and the Joseph Cooper Music school is also a concern. This new pedestrian route would bring pedestrians along a narrow path which has windows immediately onto the path within both the Joseph Cooper Music School and the new Building S1. Clifton College queries whether this route is necessary given there is a new pedestrian access point at the main gates on Guthrie Road. There is also an overlooking concern with the windows at the eastern end of the Joseph Cooper Music School and the windows at the western end of the new Building S1 looking directly onto each other in addition the overlooking potential and privacy issues arising from the new pedestrian route. Daylight / Sunlight We have reviewed the Daylight/Sunlight Report submitted in support of the application in relation to the impacts on the surrounding Clifton College buildings. Clifton College is concerned that there will be a reduction of the daylight/sunlight within a significant number of its buildings. Additionally there is no reference to potential design mitigations within the submitted report to address these impacts. In relation to Poole’s House on Northcote Road, the report identifies that 35% of windows would fail to meet the VSC guidelines and 25% would fail the NSI guidelines. It is noted within the report that 4 rooms located at lower ground level have the potential to receive a medium to high reduction in daylight levels (under the NSI measurement). The report notes that these are not believed to serve habitable rooms. Clifton College can confirm that these rooms are habitable rooms used as dining, social and study spaces. These are all used throughout the day and evening and therefore impacts on their daylight/sunlight is a material consideration which needs to be addressed.

Clifton College, 32 College Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 3JH - T +44 117 315 7000 E info@cliftoncollege.com

Registered Charity No. 311735

It is also notable that for the South Town building (a boarding house on Guthrie Road) the report states that this building will have the highest amount of windows that will fall below the BRE recommendations. The report notes that this building is used as an events space, however this is a boarding house and therefore it is sensitive to this loss of light. The rooms on Guthrie Road include bedrooms for pupils and staff living within the building. Finally, the Daylight and Sunlight Report does not assess the impact of the proposals on the existing play areas and amenity spaces that surround the site. The impact on these should also be assessed. Clifton College reserves the right to comment further on the daylight/sunlight position at later point during the determination of the planning application. Heritage Clifton College are the guardians of a significant number of heritage assets which includes locally listed and listed buildings, important open spaces, as well the Clifton College Local Historic Park and Garden which also has a protected view crossing over it (View LC24 as identified within the Conservation Area Appraisal). The Conservation Area Appraisal also notes that Clifton College is a crucial landmark nationally and within Bristol. Clifton College is concerned that this sensitive heritage context has not been fully considered and appreciated within the planning application and within the submitted Townscape and Heritage Statements. Christopher Balme Conservation has been instructed to review the planning application on behalf of Clifton College. The submitted Heritage Statement considers that the ‘the introduction of bespoke, bold architecture into this historically separate and different site will have negligible impact to the setting of the listed buildings of Clifton College, nor to its locally-listed buildings along Guthrie, College and Northcote Roads.’ This is not correct, it is considered the scheme will have a significant impact on the setting of Heritage Assets. The proposed five storey, flat roofed, perimeter blocks would be a stark juxtaposition against the variety of Clifton College buildings and residential buildings that surround the site. The predominance of ‘bold architecture’ that does not respond to the context cannot be considered neutral. Furthermore, the submitted Townscape Appraisal does not provide a clear overview of the views within the area as a comparison against the existing situation and therefore it is difficult to fully appreciate the impact the proposals will have on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. To fully appreciate the impact on the setting of the Clifton College Listed and Locally Listed buildings it is important that the impact of the proposals within the setting of these buildings is fully considered. In particular the view across the Close Playing Fields towards the Clifton College buildings should be produced in order to confirm whether the BZG proposals are visible within the setting and backdrop of these important buildings. Clifton College has asked the BZS team if this view can be produced.

Clifton College, 32 College Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 3JH - T +44 117 315 7000 E info@cliftoncollege.com

Registered Charity No. 311735

Clifton College reserve the right to comment further on the above heritage concerns during the determination of the planning application. Design Concerns Clifton College considers that the form and scale of the proposed buildings around the perimeter of the site are not sympathetic to the surrounding historic buildings. The scale and massing of the new buildings is also out of keeping with the surrounding buildings and townscape. In particular the scale of the 5 storey buildings along Northcote Road is not appropriate in comparison to the more modest scale of the adjacent Clifton College buildings which are generally 2 to 3 storeys in height . In addition the proposals will introduce the 4 storey Building S1 adjacent to the much lower rise Joseph Cooper Music School which is also locally listed. Clifton College is concerned that the proposed perimeter buildings fail to conform to Policy DM26: Local Character and Distinctiveness, of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan (2014). In particular it is considered that the proposals do not respond appropriately to the height, scale, massing, shape, form and proportion of existing buildings, skylines and roofscapes. It is considered that the proposals fail to reflect locally characteristic architectural styles, rhythms, patterns, features and themes taking account of their scale and proportions. Demolition of the Conservation Education Centre This building on Guthrie Road was only recently refurbished and extended. Clifton College questions the sustainability of demolishing a recently developed building and whether it would be more appropriate to retain this in education use which would require minimal works given the existing use of the building. Construction Impact Clifton College is concerned around the construction impacts on its day to day operations as an existing school. In relation to the impacts of construction deliveries there is a highways safety concern as its pupils move between lessons on the surrounding streets. Construction noise is also a particular concern given the need for quiet to teach, conduct music lessons and to conduct examinations. Clifton College requests that it is consulted on any future Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and Construction Method Statement (CMS) before it is approved by the Council so that its activities can be considered in the development of these documents. Summary As long-standing members and neighbours of the BZS, Clifton College are supportive of the BZS in securing its future for the continued conservation of its animals and to support the vital education they provide for the wider community. Clifton College acknowledges that the site will need to be developed however Clifton College has significant concerns relating to the impact of the proposals as set out in this letter which will have a lasting detrimental impact on the College. We trust these comments will be taken on board by the Council in the determination of this planning application and

HTp/2250/TN/01/A Page 1 of 6

Highgate Transportation Ltd First Floor, 43-45 Park Street, BRISTOL BS1 5NL

0117 934 9121 Company Registration Number: 07500534

TECHNICAL NOTE PROJECT: Reps on behalf of Clifton College for Application 22/02737/F REPORT: 2250/TN/01/A –Technical Note DATE: July 2022 1. The focus of this report is to review the methodology outlined in the submitted transport

assessment work to ensure that it is clear and robust. 2. It is considered that the largest omission in the transport assessment work is the lack of

acknowledgement that Clifton College is located on at least two boundaries of the site, with students from nursery through to sixth form regularly walking (or being transported) to and from the various buildings on Northcote Road and Guthrie Road. These well-used desire lines associated with student movements are also ignored within the assessment.

3. The other two main issues that require resolution are: i. The need for a Road Safety Audit Stage 1 to be provided regarding the proposed

changes to the public highway arising from the new accesses and associated works, to ensure that confidence can be placed in the proposals at this full planning application stage.

ii. The non-compliant parking surveys need to be revised in accordance with the published Bristol City Council Parking Methodology.

4. These issues will be addressed in this report. Background

5. An application (ref: 22/02737/F) has been validated on 13th June 2022 for the redevelopment of Bristol Zoo Gardens (BZG). The proposals include:

i. 201 residential units (Class C3) ii. the provision of community floorspace (Class E, F1 and F2) iii. open space with associated landscaping iv. play space v. parking vi. accesses (pedestrian, cycle and vehicular) vii. infrastructure viii. works to listed buildings ix. selective demolition of buildings

6. The application was supported by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.

HTp/2250/TN/01/A Page 2 of 6

7. Clifton College is a day and boarding private school within Clifton, with the prep and upper school wrapping around the Zoo site. The operating functions of the school require significant movement of students of all ages, but predominantly those aged 11-18, without direct adult supervision, along and across College Road, Guthrie Road, Northcote Road and The Avenue, throughout the day and into the early evening, as they move between lessons and activities. As the College provides accommodation for around 350 boarding pupils, these movements extend to 2100 hours as pupils visit the sports centre, library and dining halls. Traffic Generation

8. The submitted Transport Assessment sets out that compared to the existing BZG traffic generation, the forecast traffic generation from the redevelopment would be less and therefore there is a net traffic benefit of the scheme compared to the existing use of the site.

9. However, this does not take into account that the majority of vehicles associated with the BZG would be accessing the car parks on the A4176 and the overflow car parks accessed via Lady’s Mile, rather than travelling on Guthrie Road and Northcote Road, where there is currently no access for BZG.

10. Therefore, this statement does not account for the increase of traffic on Guthrie Road and Northcote Road associated with the new vehicular accesses and the resultant increase in conflict between pedestrian and vehicle movements in this location, to the detriment of highway safety.

11. Furthermore, the proposed residential development peak hour traffic is likely to be 0800-0900 and 1700-1800. Given that the school operational hours are 0700-2100 with day pupils arriving between 0800-0900 and the majority leaving between 1600-1800, this will conflict with the vehicular movements of the residential aspects of the redevelopment (201 units; 118 parking spaces allocated), to the detriment of highway safety.

12. The transport assessment work cannot rely on the statement that “it is expected that many of the residents would be retired and so not exiting the site at peak times”, given that the units proposed are not part of a retirement complex. This calls into question the validity of the transport assessment work. College Road Access

13. The main site access is proposed as a new priority access arrangement to be provided on College Road, immediately south of the existing priority junction with Cecil Road i.e. a new staggered crossroad junction.

14. Given that this is a Full planning application, to include for access, this arrangement should have been supported by a Road Safety Audit Stage 1 to give the Council confidence that the provision of this access can be relied on, including confirmation of the acceptability of the swept path analysis and visibility splays provided.

HTp/2250/TN/01/A Page 3 of 6

Northcote Road Northern Vehicular Access 15. This new two-way vehicular access will be gated and closed at all times, opened with a

fob and will be for resident access only. The access will be 4.8 metres wide and will allow two-way movements for cars (and cycles), with a pedestrian access immediately north, which will also be gated.

16. The vehicular access gate is to be set back 8.0 metres from the highway. The Transport Assessment sets out that this will allow one car to wait clear of the highway whilst waiting to enter through the opening gates, and that this would not impact the flow of vehicles on Northcote Road.

17. However, if two or more vehicles were to be waiting to enter the site, the second vehicle will be within the highway, therefore impacting the flow of vehicles on Northcote Road, and given that Northcote Road is a one-way road heading north, all vehicles waiting to access will be within close proximity to the school on the eastern side of the carriageway. No analysis has been carried out to confirm the likelihood of such an event occurring.

18. Furthermore, no Road Safety Audit Stage 1 has been carried out to give the Council confidence that the provision of this new access arrangement can be relied on. Guthrie Road

19. The existing gated access on Guthrie Road is not currently in use. The access is directly opposite the Clifton College minibus car park.

20. It is proposed to utilise the existing gated access with cars having entry-only and cycles with two-way access. The width of the existing gates is 3.36 metres. This width is not suitably wide enough for a car and cycle to safely pass. Therefore, if a cyclist is exiting the development, a car will have to wait across the footway for the cyclist to emerge. This is therefore a highway safety issue and could result in conflict with pedestrians, especially school children, using the footway. This could also result in cycle/ vehicle conflict should they meet at the access. Again, no Road Safety Audit has been carried out to give confidence to this proposal. Delivery Vehicles

21. It was noted from the recent meeting minutes between Clifton College and BZG that there is expected to be a concierge service to take deliveries. If this is implemented, and it is not clear that delivery vehicles cannot enter the development from Guthrie Road and Northcote Road, delivery vehicles are likely to circulate the outside of the development to find the correct unit.

22. Furthermore, given there is pedestrian access for staff/ deliveries/ maintenance from Guthrie Road, would this encourage the associated vehicles to wait on Guthrie Road – taking up on street parking and/or parking on double yellow lines. This has potential implications for Clifton College coach parking.

HTp/2250/TN/01/A Page 4 of 6

Parking 23. We do not agree with the statement that future residents of the development not being

able to apply for a resident’s parking permit removes the potential impact of overspill parking from occurring on a daily basis.

24. There is nothing stopping resident’s owning a vehicle and parking it on street and using the pay and display between the hours of 0900 and 1700 Monday to Friday and feeding the meter, or parking only outside those times.

25. Therefore, we consider, as set out in the following paragraphs, that parking demand and impact on on-street parking has been underestimated and there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that this has been assessed appropriately. Visitor Parking

26. Regarding accommodating proposed visitor parking, the Transport Assessment summarises the following:

“Visitor car parking is proposed to be on-street making use of the existing pay and display bays. Parking surveys have identified that there is a significant amount of available on-street parking in the evenings, and the available on street parking during the day would increase once BZG has closed. Therefore making use of the existing available parking for visitors rather than providing new visitor parking is the most sustainable approach to visitor parking provision. This approach has been agreed with BCC highways officers.”

27. There is no quantifiable data included in the Transport Assessment to confirm that this is

achievable. 28. We have concerns that the lack of detailed assessment on parking pressure has

underestimated on street parking demand arising from the proposals (as well as the adjacent application for the residential redevelopment of West Car Park on College Road). This would lead to on street parking pressure issues and therefore an increase in vehicle movements as drivers circulate around the local roads looking for a parking space, resulting in an increased risk to pedestrian safety.

29. Furthermore, given the proposals require a review of the current Residential Parking Scheme (RPS) TRO in operation, and the future residents of the scheme will not be entitled to RPS permits, there is no guarantee that there will be enough on-street parking for visitors as this has not been quantified. Parking Survey

30. The parking survey information provided is not sufficient or robust. 31. BCC guidance requires at least two weekday evening surveys and it is considered that in

this instance, further surveys should be carried out during the operational hours of the RPS as well as surveys carried out to specifically pick up school drop-off and collection times. The Council’s guidance clearly states regarding surveys that:

HTp/2250/TN/01/A Page 5 of 6

i. Parking availability on roads within 150 metres walking distance of the site ii. Snapshot survey Monday – Thursday 2200 – 0000 iii. Morning and early evening surveys may also be required due to conflict with

commuter / commercial use parking. In these cases, surveys between the hours of 0730-0900 and 1730-1900 may be required, noting the amount of parking on a 15-minute basis over this time

iv. For a site near to an existing regular specific evening / weekend use which may impact on parking in the area, such as places of worship, evening leisure uses: additional surveys should be undertaken when these uses are in operation.

32. Also, whilst the Transport Assessment includes for two surveys, they do not mirror each

other and are therefore unrepresentative for the analysis required. 33. It is understood that presently, with permission from BZG, students are dropped off and

collected from the north car park, which is owned by the Downs Trust and used by BZG. Following the closure of the zoo, the loss of on street parking on Northcote Road will further compound issues in relation to school/drop off arrangements.

34. The information presented cannot be considered a robust record of current on street car parking activity or relied upon. Therefore, more surveys are required in line with the Council’s methodology to ensure a robust analysis and assessment of parking pressure has been carried out. Accident Record Review

35. Whilst the Transport Assessment claims that there is no issue with the accident records, it has not been sensitive to the evidence that there is a history of accidents involving vulnerable road users. We note that three uncontrolled pedestrian crossing points are proposed (kerb building outs with tactile paving and dropped kerbs on Northcote Road only), but query that this is substantial mitigation particularly as no account has been taken of the desire lines associated with the students at Clifton College. Summary

36. In summary, it is clear that Clifton College has not been sufficiently acknowledged as part of the BZG application and given the close proximity of the school along the entirety of two of the BZG boundaries, this is a concerning admission.

37. The transport assessment work in support of the BZG application must demonstrate that the Clifton College desire lines have been taken into account and mitigated the effect of the development on highway safety, particularly that of child pedestrians and cyclists.

38. Furthermore, the Full planning application requires a Road Safety Audit Stage 1 to be carried out to review all accesses and associated works on the public highway to give the Council confidence that the provision of the access arrangements can be relied on.

HTp/2250/TN/01/A Page 6 of 6

39. Additionally, the Transport Assessment’s parking surveys are not in accordance with BCC methodology and therefore are not sufficient or robust. The parking surveys should be carried out again to provide further information that specifically picks up school drop off and pick up, as well as during the operational hours of the RPS, so that a robust assessment of the existing parking provision can be demonstrated.

40. Finally, formalisation of the existing coach drop off and pick up provision for Clifton College on Guthrie Road should be safeguarded and secured by relevant Traffic Regulation Order to ensure no impact following the closure of BZG and subsequent impact on on-street parking.

41. The Clifton College Coach drop off and collection arrangements pre-date the current RPS, yet have still to be taken into account.

This is a dreadful proposal in so many ways.It would mean too many people living on what is a relatively small site. This in turn will generatemuch unwanted traffic on already busy surrounding roads.The perimeter building designs are hideous and far too large, completely out of character for thearea and far too imposing for the residents adjacent to the site.There is no consideration for the site's neighbours, in terms of traffic flow and also there would bemajor disruption during construction. Apartments overlooking a school lead to safeguardingconcerns, as well as concerns of road safety & pollution.In the proposal, the gardens are to be kept for the public, but why would 'the public' visit such aconfined ugly site, which would be effectively a private housing estate. Also the removal of severaltrees etc. is not showing much protection for this side of the proposal and the surroundingbuildings would detract from them anyway.For an organisation so committed to the environment and ecological issues, this is anembarassing proposal which disregards these values for the surrounding area. It just looks like aplanning application looking at profiteering rather than considering any impact on the surroundingsand is irresponsible. Even if this is refused and a smaller design is resubmitted, it would still be aninappropriate proposal for the regeneration of the site.

My Son goes to school at Clifton College and I have a interest in the area as my familylive in Stoke Bishop and lots of our friends live very close to this proposed development.These plans are terrible and very short sighted and greedy.The dwellings planned will make the local area look hideous and the security and privacy of pupilsof Clifton College have been completely overlooked in the pursuit of money.

Who thought up these plans?Terrible idea to have 5/6 story buildings overlooking a school full of children.Children should go to school feeling safe, not visible to anyone who lives in floor 4 upwards at alltimes.This is just pure greed.Not to mention the impact on local infrastructure and traffic surrounding the school.

Having seen the plans displayed I believe the proposed development will provide muchneeded housing in Clifton and also create a beutiful park for the use of Clifton residents, who atpresent can only appreciate the grounds of Bristol Zoo if they are visitors. Modern housingdesigned with the environment in mind from the start is a great upgrade on much of Cliftonhousing, which tends to be much older and almost certainly energy inefficient compared to modernbuildings.

I vehemently object to the proposed plans for the housing that will be built in place ofBristol Zoo. We live around the corner, on Apsley road. My son goes to Clifton College and Ibelieve there is a strong case for the height of the proposed flats which would overlook the schoolgrounds to be a huge safe guarding issue. One which I am very uncomfortable about. I amamazed it has even been suggested due to it being in a conservation area, and I would beappalled if the plans were agreed. Some of the proposed changes to the space I support, such asthe gardens, and playground, which are respectful to the conservation area we live in.Thank you.

I am writing to you concerning the proposed development of the Zoo gardens in Cliftonand would like to make the following objections:

1. Highways safety concerns, in particular, concerns in relation to the potential for vehicularconflicts with school drop-offs/pick-ups and with the movement of Clifton College children alongGuthrie Road, Northcote Road, College Road and The Avenue.2. Concerns around the potential for overlooking into Clifton school grounds and buildings.3. Safeguarding issues for Clifton College pupils.4. Daylight/sunlight impacts on Clifton College school buildings.5. Impacts on the setting of Clifton College school buildings which comprise important heritageassets as well as impacts on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;6. Concerns around how construction would be managed and any impacts this may have on theoperation of the schools in the local area, in particular the close neighbouring school, CliftonCollege.

1. Highways safety concerns, in particular, concerns in relation to the potential for vehicularconflicts with school drop-offs/pick-ups and with the movement of children along Guthrie Road,Northcote Road, College Road and The Avenue.

There are two large schools close to the zoo, Clifton High and Clifton College, which alreadycreate considerable congestion to the area at school dropping off and pick-up times.

There is already an unacceptable amount of illegal parking, occasional drive blocking and'frustrated driving' and the situation would become much worse.

There is no mention of the soon-to-be ongoing development in the Zoo West car park off CollegeRoad. So, it is not just the 200 households as described in the Zoo gardens but the twodevelopments together and considerably more households will add considerably more pressure ontraffic congestion including parking.

The area will become too densely populated and will lead to even more pressure for residents, thestaff of Clifton College, Clifton High and the staff and patients at the nearby Pembroke Roadsurgery, who will all be competing for parking spaces with the residents and visitors to the newdevelopment. The area will be overdeveloped, especially with the development of the Zoo's WestCar Park

There is little provision for residents' and guests' parking within the planned development. Therewould be more households than allocated parking spaces.

I object to the amount of traffic that will be generated around the local roads of the site by thisvolume of housing plus that of the West Car Park site. The increased volume of traffic will not onlybe detrimental to the air quality but will also cause a considerable safety concern for a largenumber of school children on foot walking to all the schools in the area. Bristol council would beshowing a complete disregard for the safety of children if they proceed at this scale.

This excess traffic is of concern for the safety of the pupils of Clifton College and Clifton High andChristchurch C of E Primary school. In particular, Clifton College pupils, who spend a lot of timeeach day walking between buildings in this area. The density of the development is too great tomaintain public safety around this site.

Clifton College also uses the area outside the Zoo in Guthrie Road for coaches on a daily basis totransport students to their sports grounds. How will this be possible if the development proceeds?

There also seems to be no provision for social services (carers etc) attending to the elderly andothers.

2. Concerns around the potential for overlooking Clifton school grounds and buildings.

3. Safeguarding issues for Clifton College pupils.

4. Daylight/sunlight impacts on Clifton College school buildings.

5. Impacts on the setting of Clifton College school buildings which comprise important heritageassets as well as impacts on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;

The proposed design plans will mean that Clifton College grounds and buildings will beoverlooked. There are safeguarding issues for children playing in school playgrounds, looking intoclassrooms or walking between facilities on the large campus. These children will be overlookedand have the potential to be targeted or abused. This development does not consider thesafeguarding and safety of children attending the schools close to the site. Children are oftenwalking around the campus site of Clifton College, they will be unaccompanied by adults so are atrisk of a road accident, particularly in the winter when it is dark. Clifton College is a co-ed boardingschool there will be young pupils walking on the pavements and crossing roads in large numbers,as well as individuals late at night. There are many evening functions and boarding houses in theimmediate area leaving students, particularly at risk.

The proposed height of the developments is unacceptable to Clifton College and to the residentsof Northcote Road, and College Road, with an increased lack of sunlight. I object to the design ofthe perimeter buildings. The surrounding roads will feel like dark alleyways. The scale and impactof the losses of daylight and sunlight for most of the neighbourhood adjacent to the Zoo have beensignificantly under-represented in the plans. The report provided by the Zoo's daylight and sunlightsurveyors appears to include errors and omissions in the presentation of its data.

The scale, height and proximity have resulted in numerous breaches of BRE planning guidelinesfor reductions in daylight and sunlight within the proposal adversely affecting many of the directlyneighbouring properties, residents and children.

The proposal to build 5 story buildings alongside Northcote road will significantly alter thecharacter and charm. How is this possible in a conservation area? The area of Clifton has beendesignated a Conservation Area to protect it from developments like the one being proposed, sothat it can remain unique.

The proposed 5 & 6-story modern style buildings will dwarf the scale of current buildings and willdominate, as well as significantly harming the visual environment and the architectural beauty ofthe buildings of Clifton College. The architectural design does not take into account thesurrounding historical buildings.

The proposal does not take into consideration the close neighbours or show any regard for thefunctioning of Clifton College which is in such close proximity to the development. It willsignificantly reduce the sense of spaciousness and deprive people of the views of the sky, sunlightand views of mature trees as they live work and play in the neighbourhood.

6. Concerns around how construction would be managed and any impacts this may have on theoperation of the schools in the local area, in particular the close neighbouring school, CliftonCollege.

Given the lack of consideration in the aspect and overall plans, I would also be very concernedthat the actual construction process itself has been equally poorly considered.

The building works alone, which will take several years, will have a severe impact on thesurrounding local schools. With construction likely taking place throughout the school year and inparticular through the periods of public exams, it will bring disruption, increase traffic and a lot ofnoise. This will heavily disrupt the safe running of the school and affect the education andexaminations of hundreds of students. This following several years of Covid disruption which thesestudents have already suffered. We cannot support a development that will heavily disrupt theeducation and examinations of hundreds of students, during particularly difficult years whenresults are re-normalised. This does not seem to have been considered by these developers.

Finally, I object to the view of the site from the Downs with 6-storey tall buildings built up to theboundary wall. The frontage should be no more than the current two-storey height.

I don't believe the original garden will be welcoming to the public. The layout of the site, with overlytall buildings around its perimeter, and narrow gated access will make it seem private. There is nosimilarity to the amenity of the current zoo gardens. There will be a loss of many mature treespecies There does not seem any guarantee that once the development is completed that publicaccess will be maintained to the gardens in the long term.

On the basis of all these concerns, I would like to record a strong objection to the plans aspresented.

I object to the this planning application as it will increase the density in an alreadyoverpopulated area. It will have an adverse effect on air quality, infrastructure, increase traffic andnoise. The surrounding area is already in trouble: potholes, filthy roads, blocked drains and brokenstreet lighting. KEEP THIS SITE AS A LEARNING CENTRE FOR BRISTOL'S CHILDREN.

I fully support this application. The plans are well thought-out and provide a muchneeded stock of sustainable and low cost housing in the area. While it is undoubtedly sad to loseBristol Zoo Gardens, the new scheme will provide a hugely valuable and biodiverse communityarea that can still be enjoyed by the public (and for free!). The historical and heritage-rich buildingswill be preserved, and there will still be a conservation presence in terms of the new CliftonConservation Hub. The current site of Bristol Zoo Gardens is highly dilapidated and needs anunsustainable level of funding to maintain it. The proposed plans offer the only sustainable wayforward. 'NIMBY' objections hold little weight in this context as they are short-sighted andacknowledge the decline of the site (owing to insufficient visitors and investment)

Whilst some internal aspects of the existing zoological grounds appear to be"preserved" under these plans, the negative impact of the development Far Far outweigh thesefew sympathetic elements.Apart from the enormous disruption the actual construction works will have on the neighbouringcitizens, school pupils & staff, wildlife and visitors that support this community, once completed, itis clearly evident that ongoing everyday life for these groups will be detrimentally affected by theproject as it is currently proposed.The impact on local traffic, for example, with pollution and safety concerns amongst otherconsiderations, will be excessive in comparison to the area expected to cope with such a hugeincrease in volume.The immediate neighbourhood and wider Clifton community is a conservation area that is thecouncil's responsibility to protect. Whilst we should be open minded to how buildings and townsneed to evolve to support people and the environment, these proposals do not present benefits ineither respect apart from pure number of "housing". And the volume of this is far too excessive forthe local infrastructure to cope with.Additionally, the outlooks that will be created are not nearly sympathetic enough for a conservationarea.

The local infrastructure can not possibly support this development without majordisruption to traffic, safety and pollution.The overdevelopment of this site is contrary to the principles of this conservation areaThe project is not sympathetic to the zoo's heritage or the Clifton community

Objecting to a monstrous overdevelopment in a conservation area adjoining a school.

The proposal seeks to triple the elevations of some of the existing buildings to then overlookschool playgrounds, walkways and classrooms.

Clifton College and buildings were designed by a legendary architect in Charles Hansom. The Zoowas also constructed in a sympathetic style to reflect the Clifton community and heritage. Thisproposal is not in keeping with any proportionality or sympathy for the existing neighbourhood andwould ruin the nature of the area.

In addition to the concerns for local school children, this proposal seeks to create the most denselypopulated area within Clifton which is renowned for being a historical setting without beingencumbered by high rise blocks for which there is there is not sufficient road space to support.

It is deeply inappropriate to position high rise housing with balconies overlooking school childrenand these plans have not taken into account these effects. Privacy will be completelycompromised and adding so many residences with so many vehicles will deteriorate the safetyand tranquility of the area for generations of school children to come.

1. Highways & child safety concerns, in particular concerns in relation to the potential for vehicularconflicts with school drop offs/pick ups and with the movement of children along Guthrie Road,Northcote Road, College Road and The Avenue. I am concerned around the increased risk to

child safety during pick up/ drop off from schools, caused by the excess traffic that this overlydense proposed housing area would create

2. Concerns around the potential for overlooking into the school grounds and buildings- as asociety we have a duty of care to protect children, and the current proposals do not allow suchprotection with the overlooking of school grounds enabling increased risk of predatory advances,photographs and targeting of specific children. The proposed plans totally subvert the existingharmony in which the school exists.

3. The development will have a significant impact on the setting of school buildings whichcomprise important heritage assets as well as impacts on the character and appearance of theConservation Area. This devalues the heritage of the school and surrounding area.

4. The current proposals will have a negative impact on daylight/sunlight on school buildings whichdirectly effects the learning of pupils, and in particular those that suffer from Seasonal AffectiveDisorder, and other mental health conditions.

5. I have serious concerns around how construction would be managed and the significant impactthis may have on theoperation of the school during this period, which is likely to be extensive.

- Dust is a major concern as many young children, mine included, suffer from Asthma and theresulting dust will be a major health concern for the young children attending school and playingsport outside.- Noise is a huge distraction for students at study and the gargantuan structures being proposedwill require heavy digging & noisy construction with heavy equipment.

We object strongly to this application and request that it be modified into a more appropriatescheme.

Objecting to a monstrous overdevelopment in a conservation area adjoining a school.

The proposal seeks to triple the elevations of some of the existing buildings to then overlookschool playgrounds, walkways and classrooms.

Clifton College and buildings were designed by a legendary architect in Charles Hansom. The Zoowas also constructed in a sympathetic style to reflect the Clifton community and heritage. Thisproposal is not in keeping with any proportionality or sympathy for the existing neighbourhood andwould ruin the nature of the area.

In addition to the concerns for local school children, this proposal seeks to create the most denselypopulated area within Clifton which is renowned for being a historical setting without beingencumbered by high rise blocks for which there is there is not sufficient road space to support.

It is deeply inappropriate to position high rise housing with balconies overlooking school childrenand these plans have not taken into account these effects. Privacy will be completelycompromised and adding so many residences with so many vehicles will deteriorate the safetyand tranquility of the area for generations of school children to come.

1. Highways & child safety concerns, in particular concerns in relation to the potential for vehicularconflicts with school drop offs/pick ups and with the movement of children along Guthrie Road,Northcote Road, College Road and The Avenue. I am concerned around the increased risk to

child safety during pick up/ drop off from schools, caused by the excess traffic that this overlydense proposed housing area would create

2. Concerns around the potential for overlooking into the school grounds and buildings- as asociety we have a duty of care to protect children, and the current proposals do not allow suchprotection with the overlooking of school grounds enabling increased risk of predatory advances,photographs and targeting of specific children. The proposed plans totally subvert the existingharmony in which the school exists.

3. The development will have a significant impact on the setting of school buildings whichcomprise important heritage assets as well as impacts on the character and appearance of theConservation Area. This devalues the heritage of the school and surrounding area.

4. The current proposals will have a negative impact on daylight/sunlight on school buildings whichdirectly effects the learning of pupils, and in particular those that suffer from Seasonal AffectiveDisorder, and other mental health conditions.

5. I have serious concerns around how construction would be managed and the significant impactthis may have on theoperation of the school during this period, which is likely to be extensive.

- Dust is a major concern as many young children, mine included, suffer from Asthma and theresulting dust will be a major health concern for the young children attending school and playingsport outside.- Noise is a huge distraction for students at study and the gargantuan structures being proposedwill require heavy digging & noisy construction with heavy equipment.

We object strongly to this application and request that it be modified into a more appropriatescheme.

I am worried with the current plans about the damage to the biodiversity of the area.

The Root Protection Act also would be broken by this property development as the trees aremature in the zoo and would be unduly damaged/ killed by the building foundations.

During a period where Bristol is leading the march on environmental issues (such as the recentClean Air Zone) why are we destroying local vegetation in order to build properties not even inkeeping with the local area.

Clifton, Bristol is also known for its beauty and classical architecture. This development looksgeneric and quite frankly ugly, this wold destroy part of the character of the area and would lead toa loss in appeal for tourism and new residents looking to join the area.

I am also concerned about the affect this development would have to the wider area. Residentswho already live in the surrounding area already have difficulty parking and accepting deliveries.There are not enough parking spaces in the new plan which would lead to even more traffic issuesin the surrounding areas.

The zoo is looking to maximise the value of its land sale and to leave us with a terriblelegacy. The council's job should be to protect the interests of its citizens - but as has been seenwith the zoo's other application for the west car park it seems to side with the interests ofdevelopers. The zoo's development plans for the west car park have only been halted through thedogged work of a number of local residents - I am guessing that same group will challenge anyapproval given for this application of the main site.

We are being asked to accept a high density, high rise development that will despoil a beautifulenvironment. Who, other than the zoo and its developers, could possibly think that was a goodidea?

The bitter pill is being sweetened with some greenwash about the development and some publicaccess to the gardens - that seems a terrible deal to me.

I hope the council roundly reject these plans and force the zoo into radically changing theirstrategy.

At first sight the plans would appear to have some positives - providing a range ofhousing, keeping the gardens as a community resource, as well as preserving historic zoobuildings. There are many admirable box ticks - eco friendly credentials in spades, a conservationhub, disabled parking, play areas, exhibition and meeting spaces.

Get past the idealised artist's impressions, however, and a different story emerges. Thesurrounding conservation area, which includes the many listed buildings on the Clifton Collegecampus, is famous for the harmoniousness of its architectural style and proportions. I am reluctantto use the now overworked 'iconic' but the view of the College as you walk up College Road,alongside The Close and towards the Chapel can only be described thus. Imagine passing theMemorial Arch and being confronted with this proposed abomination.

The planners seem keen to preserve or repurpose the historic structures in the zoo and some ofthese existing buildings will no doubt become very desirable homes, though why anyone wouldwant to preserve structures such as the Bear Pit and the Birds of Prey Aviary, where beautifulbirds and creatures lived a life of monotony and misery eludes me. Unfortunately the architectsseem to have gone out of their way to provide the most incongruous design possible when itcomes to the apartment blocks around the perimeter. They can only be described as an eyesore inthe context of their surroundings. No amount of animal murals, cascading greenery and elephantbunting will disguise this. I am sure the new designs have architectural merit in many settings butplease, not here. Apart from the lack of aesthetic appeal the blocks are far too tall and their closeproximity to other buildings will have a negative impact on the daylight and privacy of local

residents and the students working and living at Clifton College.

The desire to keep large areas of the site as communal gardens is laudable, but the ambitiousplans for landscaping and planting will require a large team of gardeners and groundsmen tomaintain. Will the residents in affordable housing be willing or even able to contribute to this? Thenumber of spaces allotted for parking - 100 - is totally inadequate for 200 residences in an areawhich already struggles for space.

Twelve acres is a comparatively small area for this project and I believe it is too much of acompromise to provide this density of housing alongside the planned areas of open space.

I strongly object to these proposals.

The Bristol Zoo site has been a marvellous resource for the residents of the whole ofBristol and a wide surrounding area for a very long time.

I believe it should be preserved and maintained as a Botanical Garden which it has been up untilnow.

The surrounding prison-like walls should be demolished - they are no longer needed to protectcitizens from ferocious wild animals. The area can be opened up for free access on a permanentbasis for Bristol residents at least. It is very likely that residents in the surrounding areas would bewilling to contribute by subscription to maintain this as a free service for everyone. The model inmy mind is that of the very old and spectacular Botanical Gardens in Durban, South Africa.

I do not think that present plans will lead to this site being freely open to the public for very longbecause those who have paid considerable sums for the larger accommodations will inevitablywant to exclude the public after some time and I do not know how effective any safeguards wouldbe to prevent this.

Affordable housing is a praiseworthy concept which I would support. In fact, it would be better toset aside an area on the periphery of the site for modest but well designed affordable housingonly, perhaps available to key workers for rent (otherwise modest purchased houses would bepassed on at immodest prices after a while). This might require the financial and administrativeinput of Bristol City Council and I don't know how they would regard this.

The present building plans are, as usual, completely out of character for this part of Bristol. Thebuildings are too tall and too monolithic. Whatever else is decided, far prettier buildings areneeded to fit in with local character. The ground floor parking under the proposed new buildings isinexpressibly ugly and inappropriate in these times. Vehicle parking should only be available tostaff maintaining the gardens. There has never been parking on the zoo site and it should not startnow. There is a very good adjacent public bus service.

Like the Cribbs Causeway development which is not in Bristol, the new Wild Place Project zoo siteis outside Bristol and no benefits, financial or reputational, accrue to Bristol.

Let us at least make a new and spectacular Botanical Garden a credit to Bristol.

I object most strongly to these proposals.

Could I be thinking, possibly, that greed, misappropriation, misjudgement are involved?

The artists' impressions of how the Bristol Zoo Gardens will look when completed are just anidealised utopia. Don't be seduced- in practice, the realities will be very different. Will theConservation Hub actually include details of the surrounding conservation area outside the Zoogardens? I think not.

In theory there will be two kinds of people who will live in what is proposed- this who are able toafford what is on offer, and those who are unable to do so. There will be resentment betweenthose who can and those who cannot.

I have been unable to come to terms with the 40% of 'Affordable Housing' in this setting, therefore,for those who, like me, are not sure what this means, I recommend two pieces of reading. One isthe entry posted on the 15th. July named 'Housing Enabling' and the other on the internet by TheBureau of Investigative Journalism on 'Affordable Housing'.

There are approximately 20,000 names on the Bristol City Council's and surrounding areas waitingfor 'Social Housing'. In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher's Government introduced the 'Right to Buy'for those in long term tenancy agreements, and some 2,000,000 Council owned propertiesbecame privately owned at a heavily subsidised Government rate. Less than 5% have been

replaced by new builds. So why has Boris Johnson stated publicly that he intends to extend thescheme? Council/Social housing has always been, and will continue to be, a badly needed sourceof housing, especially as the population increases at an exponential rate.But, please, not in theZoo's new build, even though inclusion of 'Affordable Housing' is compulsory. Therefore the wholescheme should be stopped in its tracks with immediate effect.

No trees should be felled or damaged in whatever happens in the Zoo Gardens. The gardensthemselves that will be open to the public will be a magnet for those aimless individuals who sitarounddrinking alcohol and leave their discarded containers for others to dispose of.

The plans include a grand plan to save the Bear Pit and the Raptor Aviary. These are wildcreatures that need to roam. I do hope that the Polar Bear Corner will not be saved. To see thePolar Bears in their confined quarters rocking their heads from side to side as a result of theirmadness was pitiful. They were shot, as I recall.

I would like to see local billionaires offering a substantial collective amount to the presentZoological Society so that The Wild Place Project can go ahead but to leave the present ZooGardens and Car park without the shameful blocks of flats and new builds. Surely, in this day andage, an agreement along these lines could be mobilised?

The present planning application is a disgrace and needs a radical rethink. It is not fit for purpose.

I'm writing to object to the proposal of the redevelopment of the Bristol Zoo grounds asset out in 22/02737/F.

As a parent of several children that attend Clifton College I have the following concerns:

1. Highways & child safety concerns, in particular concerns in relation to the potential for vehicularconflicts with school drop offs/pick ups and with the movement of children along Guthrie Road,Northcote Road, College Road and The Avenue. I am concerned around the increased risk tochild safety during pick up/ drop off from schools, and during the movement between buildingsduring the school day. This includes during proposed construction. As a former Chair of Governorsof another Bristol school, who's son was hit by a car coming home from school I wrote to theCouncil requesting revisions to road safety - this was ignored - and regrettably, a few years later apupil was killed by a vehicle meters from where my son had been hit.

2. Concerns around the potential for overlooking into the school grounds and buildings- as asociety we have a duty of care to protect children, and the current proposals do not allow suchprotection with the overlooking of school grounds enabling increased risk of predatory advances,photographs and targeting of specific children.3. The development will have a significant impact on the setting of school buildings whichcomprise important heritage assets as well as impacts on the character and appearance of theConservation Area. This devalues the heritage of the school and surrounding area.4. The current proposals will have a negative impact on daylight/sunlight on school buildings which

directly effects the learning of pupils, and in particular those that suffer from Seasonal AffectiveDisorder, and other mental health conditions.5. I have serious concerns around how construction would be managed and the significant impactthis may have on theoperation of the school during this period, which is likely to be extensive.

This is an abomination! The design is totally out of keeping with what is a very beautifuland historic part of the City. The principle of housing on the site of the zoo is not in question, butthe design is dreadful and should be completely re-thought.

We would like to object strongly to the proposed plans for the development of the zoo -for the reasons outlined so succinctly by the Tobacco Factory. They would forever change thenature of a very special area.

We would like to object to the proposed development at Bristol Zoo. The intendedbuildings at the edge of the site are totally out of keeping with the surrounding late nineteenthcentury architecture, in building materials, design and scale. This is particularly undesirable in aconservation area. Moreover, it is surely unrealistic to think that private houses within the site willmix with play areas and paths for cyclists travelling at speed. Such density of housing would set adangerous precedent for future development in Clifton. We would also deplore the felling of anytrees at the site.Jon and Pat Millington

I write as a former pupil of Clifton College who is still connected to it and also as a part-time local resident. I wish to object to the proposals.

The Zoo has enjoyed and earned a fine reputation locally, nationally and internationally since the1830s. It has had a very good relationship with the College and other neighbours for at least 160years. If these proposals go through, its legacy will be seen very differently.

Specifically, the addition of 200 dwellings on this site will greatly increase the flow of traffic,particularly larger and service vehicles, through College Road, Guthrie Road and Northcote Road.All of these are used throughout the school term by pupils - some of them very young - as theytravel within the wider College campus. Northcote Road is particularly vulnerable, being a narrowone-way, residential street often already filled with parking and is used by large numbers of youngpupils. The anticipated significant increase in the volume and nature of traffic has to create a realrisk for the pupils of the College (and those who supervise them) and other neighbours.

The proposal includes buildings of 5, 6 and 7 storeys and these will overlook many neighbours.There have to be specific safeguarding risks in the current proposals, particularly relating to thechildren of the College (and other children living locally) in these circumstances. It is highlypertinent that this will include children boarding in the College on a full-time basis.

Many very local neighbours will be significantly impacted by the reduction in sunlight. Thesurrounding area will be significantly impacted by these proposals in terms of the loss of historic

views, whether that is from within Clifton Village or from the Downs.

The proposed development is within a Conservation Area and in what has been described as "thefinest suburb in England". The planning authorities should be seeking to maintain that reputation.This does not mean not allowing the site to be developed or sanctioning only a pastichedevelopment. What it does mean is that any development should be modern, proportionate andsympathetic to the surrounding area.

This proposal is none of those things and the Zoo will leave the site it has enjoyed for almost 2centuries with a regrettable legacy and its fine reputation diminished and with the planningauthority creating a precedent for development it may also regret.

15 July 2022

Bristol Zoological Gardens Redevelopment

22/02737/F

Letter of Objection

Dear Mr Bunt

Speaking as Bristol resident for most of my adult life, a large part of which was spent in Clifton, Istrongly object to the shocking proposals for the development of the Zoo following its impendingdeparture. The Zoo has always been a vital part of the community as well as for the entire City ofBristol as well as an attraction for the whole of the Southwest of England and Wales. For it to bereplaced by such a massive housing development of such proportions is too horrible to fathom.

Although aerial projections show pleasing parkland and a smattering of reasonable sized houses,the perimeter of the Zoo site is nothing but relentless barricades of high-rise flats which are ahorrifying addition to the neighbourhood, whether viewed from within or from the surroundingroads, residences and the school. The whole concept is absolutely abhorrent, especially within theConservation Area. The architecture alone does not reflect this part of Bristol in the least.

I gather that 200 homes are envisioned. The result of such a plan guarantees the arrival of at least400 new residents and the strain on infrastructure for matters more than increased traffic andparking mayhem. Our experience when living in this area always involved the challenge of streetparking, but there was always greater ease when school was not in session. But now - theproblems will be more constant with many more permanent residents.

My greatest objection, however, regards the monstrous perimeter structures - their height, size,volume, architecture and complete lack of a sympathetic blend with the Clifton Conservation Area.Having not been to previous consultations, it is hard to comprehend that something like this hasbeen allowed to progress to this stage.

As stated, I strongly object to the proposals on all counts, but particularly for the scope of thisappalling project.

Yours sincerelyMary Isaac

I am concerned about the scale and number of the additional residential buildings thatseem totally out of keeping for a conservation area. This large construction project that will bringsignificant heavy goods vehicles and plant machinery during construction will have a detrimentaleffect on local traffic, increase pollution and could compromise schoolchildren's safety in GuthrieRd and College Rd. If and when completed, this scheme will bring with it too many additionalresidents' vehicles for the inadequate parking proposed for the development. A spuriousassumption that residents probably won't have vehicles would not I'm sure hold water. Theseadditional vehicles will invariably park in the local residential roads that are already choked withcars especially during University term times when we are inundated with student vehicles thatrarely move. The proposal that will bring yet more vehicles to Clifton without providing anyadditional parking is surely counter to BCC's environmental and transport policies and certainlyimpacts on residents such as ourselves who do not have off road parking. It appears obvious thathigh density, high price housing planned to enrich the developers is driving a proposal that will addlittle to the local community, will increase road traffic and pollution whilst removing an historic andaesthetically appropriate visitor attraction. I totally understand the Zoo's need and wish to moveand understand that something must use the valuable space they vacate. The alternative proposalfloated for a future environmental visitor attraction seems to have many merits. But I object totallyto the proposal for high density scheme that does not consider the impact on the local communityas currently configured.

Bristol

I am a parent of a a child who boards at Clifton College in a house directly opposite thishouse. I do not want under any circumstances people living in these 201 houses lookking into mysons dormitory or indeed whilst he is in lessons. Any person, potential sex offender, secretpaedohpile can buy or rent one of these properties. It is disgusting of the Zoo to propose this. Thesite should be kept as an environmental learning centre for ALL children in BCC area. The Zoocares for animals - why not children?. Surely there is a safeguarding issue here?

I fully support this proposal, which will add much needed smaller housing units toClifton. It's particularly welcome that there will be free access to the gardens for all (not the casenow). I have complete confidence that the Zoo will have carefully considered all viable options andthat the proposed scheme, when finished, will be of benefit to the neighbourhood and localresidents.

I fully object to the proposed plans as they stand for the following reasons:

Major concern over the height of the new buildings. They will limit light to the surrounding homes,school and frankly make no sense in a conservation area. Furthermore, the school grounds andbuildings will be overlooked.

Whilst I appreciate the need for homes - this is a completely inappropriate site. Due to size of theplot 200 homes requires a 'high rise' modern type build, will increase traffic (in an already busyarea), reduce air quality, create major safety issues for the neighbourhood and 2 large schoolsand destroy the feel of the conservation area. Why does it have to be 200 homes - I fail to see therationale for this number in this particular area.

The overall management of the build in an area with constant flow of school traffic and children isa major concern. The area already suffers from unsafe drivers. I can't see a constructionmanagement plan.

Whilst it would be wonderful to see this historic site continue to benefit Bristol - this current planappears to benefit the pockets of the developers at the detriment of those who actually reside inBristol.

I object most strongly.The plan to build so many blocks so close to the boundary and with buildings so high ispreposterous as it will upset the local residents of College Road and Northcote Road as well thestudents and staff of Clifton College whose privacy will be invaded. The noise disruption shouldalso be considered and the air pollution that would ensue with so many extra vehicles would beundesirable.The interior area of the site looks delightful so would it be possible to develop this idea further byconstructing more houses there?

When I first saw the proposal I uttered the words of John McEnroe: "You can't beserious!". Even a child would spot the failings of this proposal. Too high, too many and far toougly.

This is a wonderful opportunity to develop probably the best building site in the UK and what isbeing proposed is shameful. The City of Bristol deserves better than to allow greed to offsetconservation of the aesthetic of its architecture.

I note that many of those in support don't live anywhere near the site and this should be borne inmind when the planning decision is made.

I support this application. Although I am sad to see the Zoo go from its existing site, Ithink the the proposed use of the land is very much in keeping with the area and will provideamenities for the community for years to come. I note that not only are there plans for public use ofthe gardens, but also mixed tenure housing to bring balanced communities to one of the mostaffluent parts of Bristol, building on its legacy as a city where opportunities created by the greatcity are shared.

The parking is already difficult here in Clifton, and the shops and cafes have sufficienttrade. Princess Victoria Street - narrowed as it now is - has now become over-cluttered. Anincrease in numbers of cars, bikes and e-scooters would not improve the area.

The proposed development is completely inappropriate in this location between theDowns and Clifton College School. It will be very detrimental to the heritage aspects linked tomultiple buildings in the immediate vicinity which is a Conservation Area.It is hard to see how the safety risk and nuisance from the number of additional and heavy trafficmovements both during construction and once complete can be adequately mitigated - if youconsider the construction of Crossrail as an example; although the main construction works had avery good safety record, 4 members of the public were killed, in separate accidents byconstruction lorries associated with the project - this is a risk that cannot be ignored particularlybearing in mind the proximity of a major school.

I accept that the Zoo animals will have more space at the Wild Place project. However,it is a big shame that we cannot be more imaginative about the use of the site and have to turn itinto a strange housing estate. In effect, the plan is to have a few premium houses within the actualgrounds of the zoo surrounded by very tall blocks of flats. These blocks of flats will seem veryincongruous in the neighbourhood and will be towering over current neighbouring buildings,blocking their natural light and views and creating more traffic and parking concerns. Indeed, theplan provide some parking, but don't take into consideration the extra visitors to the new lodgers,which will add to the parking problems. The idea of keeping the gardens open to the general publicis a good gesture, but in effect, the general public won't be travelling to the area just to walkthrough these gardens and in time, these will only be to the benefit of the people living there. Alsothese new flats will probably be overlooking the adjacent school's playgrounds and classrooms,which could be a safeguarding issue for the school. My main concern is the height of thesebuildings and their design which will make them stand out in the area and not be in keeping.

I am concerned about the general increase in road use around the area. In spite of aproposed pedestrian crossing, the extra traffic that will result from the new housing, and also theconstruction traffic in what would be a lengthy development, will be a danger. The high numbers ofpupils, at Clifton High School and in particular Clifton College in the immediate vicinity pose asignificant risk of road traffic accidents. There have been near misses in the past and byincreasing traffic flow, this simply raises the chance of a fatality or life changing injury. Whilst thereis allocated parking on the designs, there will inevitably be extra cars parked on the street, whichwill add to congestion and danger during drop-offs and pick-ups.

The height of the buildings will also reduce the light along Northcote Road and Guthrie Road, aswell as meaning that the apartments will be overlooking a school playground and classrooms, aswell as blocking views and light for residents in these roads too.

Dear Sirs

I would like to raise the following concerns:Highways safety concerns, in particular concerns in relation to the potential for vehicularconflicts with school drop offs/pick ups and with the movement of children along Guthrie Road,Northcote Road, College Road and The Avenue; Concerns around the potential for overlooking into the school grounds and buildings; Impacts on the setting of school buildings which comprise important heritage assets as well asimpacts on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area; Any daylight/sunlight impacts on school buildings; Concerns around how construction would be managed and any impacts this may have on theoperation of the school.

Potential safeguarding for high rise flats overlooking school groundsConflict with school trafficConflict with main traffic as is already caused by access to the zooVery important heritage site and buildings will dramatically change the landscape

As a zoo member for 17 years I can understand why the zoo wants to redevelop the siteand am not against the principle of redeveloping the site. However, I am also a parent of a child atClifton College and am therefore very familiar with the vehicular access issues of the roadsimmediately surrounding the zoo.

I have read the access documents, Highways Agency report, and the transport statement. It is truethat compared to current traffic levels generated at the site from its existing three car parks(assuming we include the Ladies Mile temporary car park), that traffic generated at the siteproposed will probably be lower. However, it is disingenuous to therefore conclude that theproposed vehicular access to the site is acceptable.

Currently most vehicle access to the BZG site is from Clifton Down into the existing car park at thefront of the zoo and closest to the visitor entrance. As proposed there will be no vehicular accessto the site from Clifton Down. The next most busy vehicular access is to the Ladies Mile car park(albeit only on certain days of the year). Again this will not be in use in relation to the site. The onlycurrent vehicular access that will also be in use in the new site is College Road - as there iscurrently an overflow car park here.

As proposed, vehicular access to the site will primarily use roads which are not currently used byvisitors to the BZG site. This is a change at the micro level despite what the planning applicationstates re the overall levels of traffic in the vicinity to the existing site.

It is completely inappropriate for access to the site to either be from Guthrie Road or NorthcoteRoad.

Northcote road is a particularly narrow one-way road with a very tight bend, which will deliver carsto The Avenue. Both Northcote Road and The Avenue are surrounded by Clifton College buildingswhich children have to cross continuously throughout the day. They are already busy enough withexisting traffic and it would be unsafe to add any more traffic.

Guthrie Road is also already very busy and is not wide enough for two cars to pass for most of itslength. Adding any more traffic would make the safety for school children even worse thancurrently as again there is a need to cross the road continuously to access the spread out schoolbuildings. The existing access for buses for sports transport to the school's sports ground inFailand and trips would also be significantly affected.

Overall I think the traffic access needs to be revised and the only acceptable vehicular access tothe site should be from Clifton Down. If this is not possible because the zoo does not own the landthat would enable this, then the zoo needs to rethink its intentions.

This is before we consider overlooking, impact on heritage assets, and how construction will bemanaged given the access points proposed. All of which are reasons to object in their own right.

Should one drive from Cribbs Causeway, past Westbury on Trym and up FalcondaleRoad onto Westbury Road, there appears before one's eyes beautifully constructed buildings inwhat is a familiar red stone. At White Tree roundabout the Downs open up to the right whilst onthe left are the buildings that used to be St. Christopher's School. That view continues until SpireHospital at the top of Blackboy Hill. The houses there are just the frontispiece for Henleaze,Redland and Cotham, mostly in the locally quarried red stone. Turning right at the top of BlackboyHill takes one onto Downs Road, and the commencement of more beautiful red stoned housesdown Pembroke Road, (the only exception being called euphemistically 'Paddy's Wigwam'), andthen The Avenue with Clifton College Prep School in red stone. And the The Zoo.Approaching Bristol from the Long Ashton Bypass one has the splendid view of the Crescentsoverlooking the river and harbour. Along the Portway there are no houses as such until one turnsright up Bridge Valley road. At the top, on the right, is Canynge Road which leads into Clifton, buton the right there is a building called The Mansion House, and a substantial row of houses that,again leads to Clifton. What a splendid sight those red houses are. And then the Zoo.I have been familiar with what I have described for seventy odd years.I am dismayed to find the plans for the 'refurbishment' of Bristol Zoo gardens are not in keepingwith what I have described, but more of mass habitation out of kilter with the conservation areasurrounding it. The tall blocks on the perimeter of the zoo, with animals depicted, will be aneyesore, and once winter arrives with lights on in the windows and the heat pumps operating, theywill appear more like a cruise ship at sea. So, with that in mind, I suggest that the planners insiston funnels being included in the plans and the whole being called, 'SS Clifton Encore'.

Dear sir/madam, The idea of the zoo turn into residential will be DISASTER. it will beclogged with car park problem, congestion etc., it would be good to preserve and make the Zoo formore environmentally friendly.It will only profit the company who make the building/housing. It will affect our community, theschool - Clifton College. Please do not give permission to build into a commercial or propertydevelopment.

This space should remain as an area of natural beauty for general public enjoyment. Analternative plan ought to be implemented without the creation of further dwellings in the relevantarea.

The addition of peripheral housing will detract greatly form accessibility of the remaining gardens,irreversibly diminish the historic nature of the preexisting buildings, all while increasing thepopulation density of the area and causing significant additional burden on the surroundinginfrastructure. Clifton is already densely populated and this planning application will worsen theliving conditions of all, including new residents within any complex.

Converting an important national public asset (in public, charitable hands) into a housingdevelopment is very far from the stated objective of BZS/BZG "protecting the legacy of Bristol ZooGardens".

The Charity Commission ought to be invited to comment on the conversion of critical charityassets so inseparable from the charitable objectives of BZS/BZG.

Whilst I understand the need for the site to be developed the design of the proposedresidential buildings are ugly and totally out of keeing with their surronding properties.Please ensure a more appropriate design is used.

Dear Sir I would like to object in the strongest possible terms to the plans recently released for the development of The Zoo Gardens of Clifton. Application number: 22/02737/F I have lived and worked in Clifton for much of the last fifty years and have always enjoyed both the relative tranquillity and the architectural magnificence around me. As such, I can only view the proposed plans for the Zoo Gardens with both horror and dismay. I am sure that many have already articulated the concerns about the impact that that many people and that many cars moving into such a small area will have, but for me just as important is the damage it will do to the aesthetics and character of the place. Clifton has always been a jewel in the crown of Bristol and admired far and wide, both within the UK and, as I have found on my travels, further afield as well. It is the part of the city that people who have visited here generally remember well and wax lyrical about in their recollections of the city as a whole - and that surely makes it a key aspect of our legacy. A legacy which you as custodians should be protecting, rather than compromising. I have seen the once beautiful towns surrounding the metropolis of London, places like Dorking and Leatherhead, reduced to customised and characterless imitations of each other, and fear that that is what could well be in store for Clifton. There are areas of outstanding natural beauty which are now protected for the future by law. Surely Clifton as a whole, and the Gardens in particular warrant the same. Generations of citizens have enjoyed this oasis of green and calm and, especially at this time of crisis and concern, about global warming, about such things as the pandemic, surely we owe the future generations the opportunity to enjoy it in the same way. Filling

it with huge numbers of new residents and ringing it with buildings that will dwarf the surroundings is not the way forward. It is instead a cul de sac that will ruin a place that so many treasure and love - and accelerate the remorseless march of concrete and metal across our landscapes. We can do better than that - and definitely should. The Gardens are very special, both to Clifton and to Bristol, and create a diversity and a pleasure that your plans would go a long way to eliminating. It is time to think again and to choose a different path. Yours sincerely Nigel Siddall

I think the planned proposal responds sensitively to its setting. I approve of itssustainability proposals, and as someone whose ancestor, Francis Adams, sold the land to theZoo in the first place, I like the way that some of the historical buildings including the Aquarium arebeing conserved.I particularly approve of the public access to the gardens in the daytime and of delivering 200 highquality eco friendly new homes for Bristol.

22/02737/F Bristol Zoo Gardens Guthrie Road Bristol BS8 3HARedevelopment of site to include 201 residential units (Class C3), the provision of communityfloorspace (Class E, F1 and F2), and open space with associated landscaping, play space,parking, accesses (pedestrian, cycle and vehicular), infrastructure, works to listed buildings, andselective demolition of buildings.

Principle of redevelopmentThe Zoo Gardens are designated as public open space in the development plan and on reflectionthe Society is not convinced by the current plans to partially develop the site for housing whilstretaining open space as publicly accessible gardens. We think that the proposal is neither fish norfowl. It would be better either being kept as open space or redeveloped for housing.The Society questions who will wish to visit the site when it is surrounded and dominated byprivate housing. The special character of the existing Gardens will be further eroded with vehiclesaccessing an area where no vehicles have previously been permitted, both passing through theopen space and parking there on a permanent basis. The verdant nature of the area will inevitablybe completely transformed.

In addition, there will be the challenge of maintaining such a significant area of open space,presumably paid for by service charges on future residents. There will be inevitable pressure tocreate a gated community at some point in the future.The Zoo Gardens currently provide an oasis of calm that has been enjoyed by Bristolians forgenerations. We consider that they are of such special environmental and historical importance

that they should be retained as a fully accessible public asset.

Detailed responseNevertheless, if the development in something like its current housing plus open space form isaccepted, we have the following comments.

In our response to the earlier consultation we welcomed the principles published to guide thefuture of the Bristol Zoo site. The Society has considered whether the proposals match theaspiration of these principles.

In particular, the aim to "create an inspiring and sustainable development that celebrates the site'snatural and built heritage. We will create space for communities to thrive and the wider public toenjoy - a legacy to make us and Bristol proud."

The retention of open space for future public access (even if used less than if it was completelyopen space), and the reuse of historic buildings, are positive proposals. The proposedConservation Hub is welcome. However, in the Society's view the current proposals fall short ofthe stated aspirations in a number of ways. Aspects of the proposals also cut across adopteddevelopment plan policies, in particular DM17 in the Bristol Local Plan - Site Allocations andDevelopment Management Policies which states, "Development on part, or all, of an ImportantOpen Space as designated on the Policies Map will not be permitted unless the development isancillary to the open space use."

The Society has reservations over the heights of several of the proposed residential blocks andconsiders that further detailed assessment will be required. The Society also has reservationsabout the quality of the architecture, and notes that others have also expressed the view that thissite deserves building design proposals which make a much more positive contribution to theappearance of the Conservation Area and to the setting of Listed Buildings. This particular issueremains a critical aspect when making an overall assessment of the case to change the main useof the site.

The Society is disappointed by the lack of ambition with respect to the eco credentials of theproject, particularly with such a high level of car provision in such an accessible location.

Height of buildingsThe Society has significant reservations about the heights of several of the proposed residentialblocks and considers that further detailed assessment will be required. These reservationsconcern the impact of the heights of the perimeter blocks on the wider conservation area and onthe internal character of the gardens themselves. The latter concern also applies to the townhouses arcing around the lake, albeit to a lesser extent.

Further assessment is required with respect to the proposed residential blocks to the north and

northeast. At 7 storeys the corner block may well have adverse impacts both on the generalappearance of the Conservation Area and on the specific amenities of neighbouring properties.Whilst the heights on the northern edge reduce gradually from 6, 5 and 4 storeys there is a needto carefully assess their visual impact.

The Society is not convinced that the planning application demonstrates the potential impact of theproposed buildings by means of verified views. It has proved difficult to identify which views arebeing demonstrated and to assess in detail the potential future impact, particularly onneighbouring residents.

Clifton Conservation HubThe Society welcomes the proposal to repurpose the iconic entrance building to provide for arange of conservation related activities. This seems an appropriate future for this historic part ofthe site.

Vehicle access, circulation, and parkingThe Society is disappointed by the lack of ambition with respect to future car ownership andparking. Surely this well-located site has the potential to become an exemplar for a car-freedevelopment. The developers' own plan showing "resident routes to key local facilities" providesvery real evidence that key local facilities are all within easy walking distance.

The need to provide circulation routes and undercroft parking areas makes the development muchmore invasive in terms of its impacts on the gardens than would be necessary with a car-freescheme.

Details are required to demonstrate how the proposed vehicle access off Northcote Road willactually operate in practice. The Guthrie Road access exists and is more straightforward in termsof future operation.

Retention of public accessAs noted above, there is clearly a challenge in retaining public access to the open spaces whenthey will be bounded by private residential areas. The juxtaposition of private and public outsideareas will need very careful design and planning to ensure satisfying experiences for all parties.There is lack of clarity about the future of the water body - is it really to be utilised for wind surfingand boating or for more conservation related purposes?As the illustrations demonstrate, and notwithstanding the efforts made to avoid significantincursions into the gardens, the Society fears that much of the essential character of the gardenswill be lost. This is because of the likely visual dominance of the apartment blocks and theresulting sense of overbearing the gardens. Currently the gardens offer oases of tranquillity andprivacy from urban bustle, with a minimal sense of intrusion from the outside world. There is a veryreal risk these will be lost, in part because of the dominance of the proposed buildings but alsobecause of the manner in which the service roads dissect the site and will bring vehicular

movement deep into the gardens.It is absolutely fundamental that if the BZS truly want to deliver a legacy consistent with theprinciples it published, then it should commit to binding any future developer to the proposals.

I fully support preservation and propose enhancing the existing historical Zoo; andwholeheartedly oppose the redevelopment plans.

This is a terrible and unimaginative use of the space and I strongly object. We do notneed more houses and instead and need a peaceful space that the existing community can enjoy.More housing will only add to increased population and traffic in an already heavily populatedarea.

Whilst commending the preservation of listed buildings, I find the unimaginativeproposals for the rest of the site overbearing, without consideration for the conservation area andfailing to consider fully the negative impact on neighbouring residents, their lives and theenvironment. Specifically, I object to the:1. overdevelopment of the site: there are too many dwellings crammed around the perimeter,giving the appearance of post war communist blocks.2. the height of the proposed apartment blocks: residents in Northcote Road, as well as theschool, will lose their privacy and suffer considerable loss of light because of the proximity andheight of the buildings opposite which is unacceptable. The apartment blocks, particularly the oneopposite the Downs will dominate the area, permanently changing the skyline of mature trees andelegant buildings to an ugly grey mass.3. lack of sensitivity to the conservation area: the proposed new buildings are by both size anddesign oppressive and without interest. They are neither sympathetic to the many historicbuildings in the vicinity nor do they compliment them by innovative design. The visual impact willcause irreversible harm to the conservation area.4. insufficient consideration for nature and the environment: the loss of trees and potential damageto others during the building process is unacceptable, effecting nature and bird life in particular.Also there is little thought about the negative impact of the construction process and long termtraffic and parking to the gardens.5. inadequate parking provision and regard for traffic flow. The lack of parking is likely to lead toresidents parking on, and damaging the garden verges of the circular road. Residents cars,delivery and service vehicles will cause congestion, particularly in Guthrie and Northcote Road

which are both narrow giving rise to safety concerns for residents and especially the children ofClifton College.

We OBJECT to the above planning application for the following reasons

- Out of keeping with the conservation area- Over developed and way too high buildings- Overlooks the boarding houses and playgrounds of Clifton College so is a safety hazard andcompletely unacceptable.- Congestion of an extra 200 residents in the roads already very congested, there are not enoughparking spaces provided within the development and the surrounding roads are already congestedenough.- Extra traffic is a safety issues to both Clifton College and Clifton High School- Demand on services, hospitals and doctors in the area are already oversubscribed- Schools in the area are already oversubscribed- The strutures proposed are too tall and cover the whole perimeter of the existing zoo, a block ofgrey is incredibly ugly and out of keeping for this area of outstanding beauty with Durdham Downs.- 4-6 storey buildings proposed, a 6 storey building on the northern boundary by the Downs iscompletely unacceptable for local historic buildings and architecture and completely out ofkeeping.- The plans drawn up are deceptive and shown green space in the middle, however the wholeperimeter is surrounded with a mass of 4-6 storey buildings looking into Clifton College andsurrounding houses gardens, bedrooms etc

I should like to express my support for this application.Bristol zoo has presented proposals that fit well with the local area. This is not intensive housing,but instead the plans retain the open aspect of the existing gardens, protect the historic buildingsand maintain the public space for the use of the entire community.The zoo has been one of the city's greatest assets during its time in Clifton and the currentproposals will help to ensure a smooth transfer of the zoo to a more appropriate location where itcan continue to stimulate the local economy as one of the largest visitor attractions in the WestCountry, while contributing to the conservation of our natural world.There will no doubt be some opposition, it would be impossible to develop a 12 acre urban sitewithout stimulating various responses, but these look to me like a proportionate set of proposalsthat provide a sensitive approach to the ecology and the context of the site.I wish them well.

I fully support Bristol Zoological Societies plans. As an Environmental Organisation theyare consolidating their work of conservation and education and using their resources wisely. Theyare responding to the challenges of climate change and loss of biodiversity. They are consideringthe care of their animals, the plot of land they are vacating, and the people living in Clifton. It is achallenging balance to make.I think they are proposing a good compromise which I hope will offer an example of good ecohousing, mixed with public access to a well loved historic site.I wish them well.

The proposals are not in keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and are harmful to the Conservation Area and also the setting of a significant number of listed and locally listed buildings. The Townscape Visual Assessment report outlines a number of relevant planning policies such as BCS21 and DM26 which set out objectives for new development, including to contribute positively to an area’s character and identity, creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness. Policy DM31 requires alterations, extensions or changes of use to listed buildings or development in their vicinity, to have no adverse impact on such elements which contribute to their special architectural or historic interest, including their settings; and for development within or which would affect the setting of a conservation area to preserve or enhance those elements which contribute to their special character or appearance. It notes the special requirements from the being part of the Clifton & Hotwells Character Area 2 - distinctive in its own right due to the presence of Bristol Zoo Gardens and Clifton College. The main elements of distinction to be noted include large Victorian villas, detached, semi-detached up to 4 storeys; strong building lines, with use of pitched/ gable roofs and late Victorian (‘gothic’) and Italian style design; varied materials including limestone and sandstone pennant, bath stone detailing and brick infill; roofing of slate, clay tiles and brick chimneys. In presenting proposals for up to six storey buildings, in dense, modern apartment blocks, lacking the traditional designs or materials, we consider that the proposals fail to address the planning policies. In particular they fail to respond appropriately to the height, scale, massing, shape, form and proportion of existing buildings, building lines and set-backs from the street, skylines and roofscapes. They also fail to reflect the locally characteristic architectural styles, rhythms, patterns, features and themes and fail to reflect the predominant materials, colours, textures, landscape treatments and boundary treatments in the area. It appears that almost none of the planning guidelines have been followed. We feel that the development as put forward, will materially compromise the feel of Clifton and is not at all in keeping with the intent of the conservation area. More attention seems to have been paid to matching the boundary wall than to the streetscape as a whole, where the character and nature of the neighbourhood will be fundamentally changed. This seems to be rather missing the point. In terms of our own streetscape in Northcote Road, the report rightly describes the devastatingly severe impact on our views to the West, where we currently benefit from uninterrupted views of the college and zoo gardens from the first floor upwards. The protected views from Guthrie Road to the ‘To the Zoo’ sign on the corner will also be fundamentally changed by the addition a modern 5 storey building (E3). The report describes Northcote Road as relatively narrow urban road corridor, a minor one-way street with a pavement on one side only. On the eastern side there

are a number of 3/4 storey traditional Victorian villas reasonably close to the road, but with areas of private open spaces/ gardens. The report calls the character of the road strongly urban but the presence of the zoo and its animals, well planted residential gardens, and the wonderful views of the zoo gardens and the college give it a completely different character. It is correct that these proposals ‘reinforce the effect of urban enclosure’. They will overwhelm it and degrade the townscape irreparably in the way that a carefully designed low rise development, with appropriate setbacks from the already narrow road, and mirroring the surrounding buildings would not do. In terms of separation distances it is noted that there will be a minimum of 21 metres between habitable windows. This not in keeping with the character of the area and the streets in Clifton which are generally much wider and this is what contributes to the character of the Conservation Area. The Visual Assessment report could easily have shown the visual representations of the proposed scheme, as it says it will do in its introduction. Instead, it uses simple lines to show where the new buildings will be. We are forced to conclude that this is because showing the actual visual impact would make the detriment to the area from the dense massing so obvious, that they chose not to. Loss of Light & Privacy We would also like to express our concern as to the degree of light we will lose as a result of the proposed height and proximity of building E3. We occupy a three/four storey Victorian villa which has a front garden that enables us to enjoy the sun, particularly in the afternoons and evenings, as our back garden is in shade for most of the latter part of the day. We also have family rooms on the front elevation – in the semi-basement providing light to a sitting and dining area, on the ground floor to a sitting room from a large bay window, on the first floor to a bed/ sitting room and the second floor to an office/ bedroom. These rooms are in constant use and the windows on the front of the house are their only natural light source. A degradation in the light will be a very substantial loss to our residential amenity. The Daylight and Sunlight report that has been provided seems to highlight that the losses we will incur in the house are substantially higher than the BRE guidelines allow, and the garden, which will be impacted even more, has not even been considered. The report indicates the VSC values for the sub-basement and ground floors will be in the low 20%s, and as low as 0.72 of their former values, thus being well below the BRE guidelines. As the reports says, this means that loss of daylight resulting from the development ‘will be noticeable and the area lit by the window is likely to appear more gloomy and electric lighting will be needed more of the time. Any reduction below this level should be kept to a minimum’. The report further states that ‘the property currently has an open outlook across the development site and therefore it is unavoidable that a small reduction beyond the

BRE guidelines will occur if a building of similar scale of massing is constructed opposite’. In fact, a building of a very much larger scale of massing is being proposed opposite and at such close proximity that it will have a disproportionate impact on the residential amenity for its neighbours. This includes an impact on Clifton College and its pupils, whose classrooms, library and boarding houses will also suffer substantial detriment. We also have concerns over the design of the building E3, which has a first floor garden area and walkway, as well as balconies and terraces all the way up the building which allow overlooking directly into our bedrooms (and those of the College boarding house, which clearly presents a serious safeguarding issue). The garden areas (whilst welcome in pushing the development line of the 5-storey building backwards), combined with the balconies and terraces will present an unacceptable loss of privacy and risk of noise and disturbance at night. An absence of potential for overlooking and residential noise at night-time was an important factor for us in buying our property, and we value it highly. If the gardens could be set at ground level, behind the wall, as is normal for residential properties, and the building designed with the main windows facing into the zoo gardens, this would help to mitigate against the potential for noise and the loss of privacy. Due to the significant concerns around overlooking, in particular from the podium garden and the new terraces and the impact of reduced daylight/sunlight which seem substantially to have been glossed over, we would like to request that the Council consider commissioning an independent review of the applicant’s daylight/sunlight report. Parking & Traffic Northcote Road, as has been previously noted, is a narrow road which has few dedicated parking spaces for residents. It acts as a thoroughfare for parents dropping off and picking up children for the College and is congested at certain times of the day. It is not uncommon to be unable to find a parking space close to the house, and we believe this will be exacerbated by the future loss of the North car park, which we understand is to be returned to the Downs. The parking situation in the road will then become acute. The addition of a vehicular entrance to the site on a tight corner of Northcote Road means further traffic and loss of residential parking. Likewise further parking bays are proposed to be removed with the addition of a new pedestrian entrance. Further, we question what will stop residents of the new development and their visitors parking their cars in the adjoining roads. The combination of the additional traffic and loss of parking amenity in this narrow, unsuitable road will, we fear, cause great difficulties for the existing residents. We would also like to express concern about the additional traffic turning in Northcote and Guthrie Roads, both of which are full of schoolchildren moving

_. The potential for accidents is surely increased and the health and safety impacts of the vehicle entrances alongside so many unaccompanied children would seem to be unwise. We therefore ask the planners to consider the severe impact of this scheme, as currently proposed and ensure that it is modified to protect the Clifton heritage and mitigate the significant detriment that will be felt to our residential amenity. Yours sincerely, L & B Ryder

I am very concerned about the proposals to develop the main Zoo site. My concerns arelinked to the additional proposal to develop the former Zoo car park in 62 dwellings (as quashedby the High Court on 14th June 2022).

In light of the density of the housing proposed and the knock on effect on roads, road safety andsocial infrastructure, I believe the schemes cannot be looked at separately.

Road impact:201 houses are proposed on the site, with an extra 62 proposed over the road at the Zoo's secondproposed housing .

The latest census information from Bristol City Council (2011) showed average car ownership is1.04 cars per household. Other estimates suggest this has risen to 1.39 in the south west over thelast 10 years. The impact on the junction with College Road and the Downs will be detrimental toroad safety, air quality and traffic flow. The overflow on parking and the excess of delivery vans tothe properties throughout the day has not been properly considered.

In addition I am concerned for the road safety of children at Clifton College with all the increasedtraffic.

I also object to the fifth oldest zoo in the world dating back to 1835 being turned into a veryunimaginative housing development. Surely Bristol City Council is capable of leaving a better

legacy to the city? The 'Our World Bristol' plan looked much more exciting and visionary and a farbetter legacy for Bristol. I appreciate the Zoo site needs to change but I object strongly to the plansas they stand.

What will this development’s legacy be? In fifty years or so time this proposed ghetto will be akin to the disastrous aftermath of Corviale, Rome, a social experiment that failed miserably, and mainly deserted now apart from the graffiti artists. I will mention, too, a likeness to socialist hotel resorts on the Black Sea from the 1950s, or Imperial Apartments in Hartcliffe. It has been designed to the lowest common denominator.

I view the designs as a new set for a TV game show; for Clifton, certainly a No, but for Filwood Broadway or Broadwalk perhaps a Yes.

Yours most sincerely,

Andrew Potter

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I wish to object to the above planning application but do not want to provide my home address.

My objection is as follows:

The proposed plans are not in keeping with the local amenities and would negatively impact neighbouring school children .

The proposal presents a safeguarding and safety risk to children at Clifton College for three reasons:

first, the height and proximity of the proposed apartment blocks means that children will be in view of residents as they are learning in the teaching building, 8 Northcote road; second, the proposed accommodation is a threat to safety due to increased road traffic; and third, the sense of wellbeing suggested by the central park and lake is diminished by the overbearing, invasive outer development.

It is important to note that some children may have court protection orders due to challenging family contexts.

Counselling and teaching directly opposite the development would be negatively impacted upon both during construction and thereafter.

The proposed outer development needs to be reduced in height, so as to avoid intrusion to education and safety of children. -- Regards,

Dr Caroline McGrath

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I wish to object to the above planning application but do not want to provide my homeaddress.

My objection is as follows:

The proposed plans are not in keeping with the local amenities and would negativelyimpact neighbouring school children .

The proposal presents a safeguarding and safety risk to children at Clifton College forthree reasons:

first, the height and proximity of the proposed apartment blocks means that children willbe in view of residents as they are learning in the teaching building, 8 Northcote road;second, the proposed accommodation is a threat to safety due to increased road traffic;and third, the sense of wellbeing suggested by the central park and lake is diminishedby the overbearing, invasive outer development.

It is important to note that some children may have court protection orders due tochallenging family contexts.

Counselling and teaching directly opposite the development would be negativelyimpacted upon both during construction and thereafter.

The proposed outer development needs to be reduced in height, so as to avoid intrusionto education and safety of children.--Regards,

Dr Caroline McGrath

I am a Bristol resident living close to the zoo (zoo member too). I am most concernedabout this proposed development and strongly object to the plans presented.

There seem to be a number of issues that have not been considered properly.

This development neighbours a school (i am a parent of school children in this vicinity), and in factchildren circulate the area from a number of nearby schools as well, both in the morning andafternoon.

The amount of traffic, parking and access considerations seem to have been overlooked in thecontext of safety for nearby residents and also school children and parents dropping children off toschool. There are many children in this area, particularly along Guthrie road, the Avenue, CollegeRoad and Northcote road where all the school building are.

This feels like an extremely dangerous development as regards the safeguarding and safety ofchildren. By necessity, children have to travel between buildings or for pick-ups and drop-offs, andfor the older children, they will be unaccompanied by adults so are at huge risk of a road accidentor other more horrific risks, particularly in the winter when it is dark. The school is co-ed so therewill also be potentially vulnerable pupils walking on the pavements and crossing roads in largenumbers, as well as individuals late at night. There are many evening functions and boardinghouses in the area leaving students particularly at risk.

I would strongly object to the plans on that basis alone.

In addition to that however, and again with the safeguarding of children playing in schoolplaygrounds, or walking between classrooms, these unsightly and far-too tall buildings beingproposed present a real risk for those children. These children will be overlooked and could easilybe targeted or abused.

There is already an issue with poor lighting in the area from a safety perspective, but the largebuildings will further block sunlight and create more danger.

Apart from the final design failing to take these issues into consideration, the proposed designsalso fail to take into consideration the character and historic importance of the architecture in thearea. Bristol Planning & conservation go to great lengths to uphold the historic characteristics ofBristols building heritage & local areas. The proposed development is grossly non compliant withthis approach & in my opinion is being driven to maximise financial return for the charity /beneficiaries, rather than the community & Bristol heritage. This proposed development will be in aconservation area too.

Given the lack of consideration in the aspect and overall plans, I would also be very concernedthat the actual construction process itself has been equally poorly considered. The building workswill take some years, which will mean construction taking place throughout the schooling year andin particular through the periods of public exams. Having come from a few years of Covid wherechildren have been massively disadvantaged, the building work disruption would again bedetrimental to the children's wellbeing and education. Given these will be the particularly difficultyears when results are re-normalised, this will be bring even greater stress and furtherdisadvantage to the futures of hundreds of students in the schools in the area. The lives /wellbeing of Bristol future generations once again seems to have been neglected by thedevelopers.

So on the basis of these concerns outlined, I would like to record a strong objection to the plans aspresented.

Best Regards

Kirsty Jephcott

We object on the following grounds.1. Whilst the stepping of the Clifton Down Block is to be welcomed, the 6 level height at theNorthcote road end is too great. It may fit a giraffe graphic but as the Clifton Down elevationshows, it is too dominating. Reducing that level to 5 and stepping down accordingly would be agreat improvement.2. We remain unconvinced by the parking provision. The planning documents suggest that asresidents would know when they purchased that there would be no allocated parking, there will beno problem. We think this is unrealistic and residents will struggle to find on street parking incompetition with residents from the West Car Park development.3. We feel that the planning for both the Gardens and the West Car Park should be consideredtogether to ensure design harmony and a coordinated approach to issues such as parking.Tony and Jenny Dugdale

I work at Clifton College Prep School and have a number of concerns with the proposedre-development of the zoo. The proposed buildings will overlook our school and playground andwill pose a safeguarding risk. In addition, the entry and egress of cars to the proposed buildingswill have a direct impact on the safety of our pupils as they are dropped off and collected fromNorthcote Road and Guthrie Road. This would be particularly dangerous during the constructionperiods of the buildings.Clifton currently has a good mix of old and new buildings, but those proposed do not match withthe environs of the College and the Downs. I am not against modern architecture but these doseem excessive in height and design and as such, I object wholeheartedly to the proposed plans.

There was a time when Bristol Zoological Gardens elicited warm praise and loyalappreciation from Bristol residents, as well as from far afield - roadside directional signs attest tothat. Alas - No more. The stunning oasis of calm, so conveniently situated within the community,will be severely diminished as an inspiring social and learning venue, surrounded on all sides bytowering structures of massed humanity - hardly a conducive setting for enjoying a day out in"natural" beauty. I'll take the Downs and Ashton Court any day.

The relentless lines of vast perimeter flats fail to reflect this Conservation Area. Local homes nearthe site, as well as a very large school, will be overlooked from all angles by their close proximity.Balcony potted plants and quirky animal murals will not disguise the boxed brutalist style of thesemonoliths which in no way enhance the area or preserve the character. A Clifton Carbuncle sumsit up accurately.

Anything which is constructed must correspond in height, scale, shape, form and proportion toexisting buildings in the vicinity, and there are a significant number of listed and locally listedbuildings on the doorstep, whether residential or within the College. The proposed designs fail toreflect these imposing architectural styles, even worse with such an abrupt clash at close range.

The Roads: These will suffer from traffic overload and pressure for parking, especially with theelimination of road space due to the proposed access points for vehicles and pedestrians.Considering the City of Bristol's commitment to traffic reduction and elimination, this is a recipe forfurther pollution and mayhem, exacerbated by the daily school run. Pupils of all ages traversing

the roads to lessons will face increased jeopardy for safety.

Northcote Road: Consider the narrow one-way thoroughfare with a single pavement, whereresidents will be overlooked by 4 and 5 storey structures. A similar fate awaits the school for itsmany teaching buildings, playground, library and boarding houses. Tall buildings, lining one side,will smother the outlook as has been cited in light surveys. Elsewhere in Clifton, where buildings ofsuch height exist, they aren't directly opposite or nearly so close to each other, or so near thepavement.

Light Surveys: I defer to my neighbours who have found, through professionals, that BREguidelines will have been breached, although it's blatantly obvious that the reductions will beconsiderable, especially for those at lower elevations. Winter light, especially, will simply beeclipsed to an intolerable degree. Those with lofty views, although receiving more daylight, will stillbe confronted with a walled expanse from most angles.

The plan itself: There is no clear indication in the published plans of how the proposals will actuallyLOOK from key views. An artist's impression is not good enough with such a watered down,softened appearance intended to look more appealing.

Landscape in the Zoo site: I refer to the detailed BTF analysis for a number of shocking statistics,regardless of the replanting scheme. Depressing is the projected net loss in biodiversity of 22%, incontrast to the Zoo's projection of a net gain of 38% Even more depressing is the planned loss ofa third of the mature trees. The present Zoo, uniquely, is a masterpiece of GARDENS, as isproudly proclaimed in its name. Plans for the development of communal public parkland cannotpossibly keep or maintain such a paradise that has been created over the decades. This alonewith be a huge loss, even at ground elevation.

Infrastructure in the Community: 200 dwellings would suggest a population surge of twice thatnumber. Can the public services manage that, bearing in mind the need for medical appointmentsand other services? The total number of dwellings in this area has grown gradually, but a surgewould be detrimental in this environ.

Pollution: Much has been said about the environmental benefits of this project, but the pollutiongenerated in the area during construction will be undeniable and permeating. This will not be acase of "Wait till the dust settles." The cement pollution alone, during construction, has beenproven to affect those, especially with respiratory conditions -- and seriously so, lasting for life. In asimilar vein, the mental health of pupils and residents will surely take a knock, just as it is duringthese deliberations.

And finally: It is obvious that I strongly object to the proposals on many counts. Most immediatelyis the sheer size and scope of the plans regarding structure, height, style and the volume ofhousing. As has been stated by others, the original founders of the Zoo would be saddened and

shocked to know that a housing estate is on the cards. The plans are completely out of characterwith the surrounding Conservation Area and come not even close to enhancing or improving it.Housing is not the appropriate answer for the Zoo's legacy. But - if it must be so, a far smallerscale should be the ultimate aim.

I am objecting to the proposed redevelopment of Bristol Zoo Gardens for the followingreasons

1 An unacceptable number of over 200 residential units in a relatively small site putting strain onlocal service provision2 Rediculously high apartment blocks on all of the zoo site boundaries affecting the character ofthe conservation area and both light and privacy issues to properties adjacent to the zoo site3 Insufficient parking provision on the site for the number of dwellings which will affect theneighbourhood despite the zoo's assurances4 The planned loss of a number of mature tree specimens which despite new planting will take 50plus years to replace5 Increased background noise from the planned extensive use of heat pumps6 The zoo says it cares so much for the environment and the animals in it . What about thehumans that have to live with the environment that they leave as their legacy ?!

This sounds a wonderful plan for Clifton. It will add much needed housing and benefitfor local people.

I support this application in every way.

The Zoo will continue at the Wild Place project and will be a bigger and better Zoo for Bristol

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you concerning the proposed development of the Zoo gardens in Clifton and would like to make the following points and a counter suggestion. For sake of brevity I am making them in point format.

!. The suggestion as described makes no mention of the soon to be ongoing development in the Zoo car park off College Road. So it is not just the 200 households as described in the Zoo gardens in the reference above, but the two developments together and considerably more households will add considerably more pressure on traffic congestion including parking.

2. There are two main schools in the area: Clifton High at the other end of College Road, and Clifton College (including a prep School and a nursery) along College, Guthrie and Northcote Roads. At present the area is primarily an educational and residential area, but if the developments were to go ahead, this delicate balance would be destroyed.

3. There will/would be considerable congestion at schools' dropping off and picking up times. The assumption is made that at least some of the residents of the proposed development would be dropping off picking up their own children at the same or similar times. There is already an unacceptable amount of illegal parking, occasional drive blocking and 'frustrated driving' at these times especially and the situation would become much worse.

4. The proposed height of the developments is clearly unacceptable especially for the residents of Northcote Road, and College Road, with an increased lack of sunlight. I am sure the residents will make this point and others more in depth and clarity than me, but I can sympathise with their predicament.

5. There seems to be little provision for residents' and guests' parking within the development. There would be more households than allocated parking spaces. At a recent meeting at Clifton High School, this issue was raised and the response from the floor was that peoples' behaviour will change. Gasps could be heard in the audience. There seems to have been no provision for social services (carers etc) attending the elderly and others. Never forget we are living with an ageing population.

Much correspondence of this nature tends to be of a critical nature with few, if any alternative or positive suggestions. May I briefly make a couple of my own.

1. The development should consider having the same 'density' of proposed housing/residents as the surrounding area, Canynge Road, Northcote Road, The Avenue etc. Of course, provision for the fact that both Schools have extra land (playing fields etc) should be taken into account.

2. Architects might consider at looking at revolutionary parking techniques. (Singapore, for example where admittedly small cars were parked on large balconies adjacent to their owners' flats. One drove ones car into a lift and drove out onto the balcony of ones own flat).

3. The boundary of the development seems finite, perhaps guided by existing walls and possible legal constraints. The development could be extended by for example incorporating the existing car park at the top of the Avenue/Northcote Road, enabling the developers to reduce, for example the height of the proposed properties along Northcote Road, College Road.

In conclusion, I wish the Zoo every possible success in the future and its legacy in Bristol and beyond is an excellent one. However, the developer's proposals I have read and heard, as they stand, seek to undermine that legacy. In short the proposals if enacted unchallenged will be an example of levelling down, not levelling up.

Thanking you for your kind attention.

Kind regards

Paul Bartlett. MA

Long term economical affects of replacing culture with residences means a temporarygain for property owners at the cost of future generations who inherit what is left of local industry.Local communities will become even more divided, closing locations that open conversations is asure fire way to create more anxiety and hostilities. This furthermore removes safety andindependence from your kids. Their development and reliance on you and your time driving themto these places will stifle their intrigue and willing to challenge themselves. The more cars youintroduce into cities the more isolated those walking the streets feel. To summaries - you willtemporarily increase the wealth of property owners at the cost of your children's future, their abilityto take control and believe in their abilities. The gardens should revisit their price plan - free toenter model with additional transactions/subscriptions/season passes being available with greenworkshops.

"In Britain, any piece of land left undisturbed will first be colonised by small plants, then shrubsand then trees. After a hundred or so years, it will become mature broadleaf woodland - and,having reached that steady state, will remain that way for ever - a state known as "climaxvegetation". 'Why is Britain so bad at planning cities?' - The Guardian, David Rudlin 2019

I note that most of the support for this application comes from those who do not livewithin close proximity of the Zoo, and are therefore not directly affected by these proposals.

As a resident of Northcote Road, I am one of very few residents whose immediate livingenvironment will be changed for the worse should the development go ahead as proposed.

Living on the ground and lower ground / basement floors, the light entering my property and thegeneral visual amenity will be badly compromised by buildings ( E2 and E3 ). These twodisproportionately large and close blocks represent a very small proportion of the total scheme,which the Zoo and its architects could have easily adjusted - and could still - to avoid blighting thehomes of us neighbours in Northcote Road. These would be new, oversized constructions loomingover the street and our properties, and changing the character of the only length of NorthcoteRoad which is currently open and 'airy' and which houses residents.

The lego-brick, squared-off, monlithic design of the these blocks, the lack of detail and finesse intheir appearance, the overwhelming impression of blank, flat, monotonous facades with dead-eyedwindows - all of this would completely alter the feel and atmosphere of what is at present aneighbourhood with architectural interest and variety and character on a human scale, and withnatural greenery visible from outside the Zoo.

Such a precious, unique site in this beautiful, highly valued and high-profile area of Bristol and theSouth West should be able to be enhanced, not degraded, by any new development.