I would like to cite overdevelopment in the area, Elderberry Walk has been created withconsiderable delays. The neighbourhood aesthetics are being impaired, the square is a socialarea that holds events. More homes with inadequate parking provisions will restrict road accessand impact businesses. Throughout construction risks and hazards will peak. There are negativeenvironmental effects associated with building homes and natural flood defences will beweakened. This project will impact on mature trees with established habitats. Furthermore therewill be a loss of light to local homes and gardens, impacting vegetable crop yield.

This development with the new amendments is vital for Southmead.I fully support thechanges that have been made which were necessary because of the loss of the Health Centre.We have increased the green space and bio-diversity of the development in the courtyards byremoving some of the car parking spaces.There will be 52 new trees planted to replace the 12 that are being removed as a result of thedevelopment.There will be a beautiful green space at the top of Glencoyne Square for residents tosit and enjoy the wildlife.

GLENCOYNE SQUARE ECOLOGICAL SURVEY, APRIL 2022

The verges along Greystoke Avenue, approximately 150 metres to the south-west, are designatedas part of a Wildlife Corridor.

The demolition of a building and destruction of an established orchard and hedging on the WhiteHall site since this report will have had an impact on wildlife habitat and massively impacted onwildlife routes in the area. No one has told the wildlife they have to use Greystoke Avenueparticularly as it makes them much more likely to become a victim of roadkill. Evidence of astruggling hedgehog found near the wall of St Stephen's Church shows they are active on andnear the Square. A dead hedgehog on Greystoke is evidence of the dangers.

3.4 Protected Species No badger setts or other signs of badger activity were seen on the site, or insurrounding areas. None of the trees has any hole, crevice or significant growth of ivy that couldbe used by roosting bats. No other signs of protected species were seen. Further details are givenin the Assessment section below.

There is a possible sett and evidence of badger activity in Doncaster Road Park at the far endnear Lilac Close. The displacement of no one knows how many animals and birds from the landbeing developed for housing on the way to Cribbs as well as the White Hall site could well meanan increase of wildlife seeking new routes and territory.

3.5 Data Search BRERC hold large numbers of records of notable species from the wider area.

Most involve bird records from residential addresses and plant records from Badock's Wood.Records of protected species are as follows: Hedgehog: In the grounds of the Health Centre,2015; there are several older records in the wider area.

The Hedgehog Highway Map will be more accurate than a record 8 years old that was madebefore the loss of a huge green and wildlife friendly space at the Dunmail School site for a 128units high density housing development. This site is also not that many yards away from theSquare resulting in potentially 1,000 more people living on what was green space.Walls and fences in the Square's high density housing development will need an integralhedgehog hole in them allowing them (and other small wildlife) a safe route through.

4.2 Protected Species No badger setts were seen within the survey site, and they are unlikely tobe present in the wider area

There is a possible sett and evidence of badger activity in Doncaster Road Park at the Tesco endnear Lilac Close. The displacement of no one knows how many animals and birds from the oldDunmail school high density housing development and the land being developed for housing onthe way to Cribbs means a substantial increase of wildlife seeking new territory that needsinvestigating. The Square, as well as local gardens is likely one of their routes.

5.3 Protected Species No potential impacts on protected species have been identified. All treeswithin the area have the potential to support nesting birds and mitigation measures to prevent thedestruction of occupied birds' nests would therefore be required.

Since this report was made, prior to the loss of valuable insect and wildlife habitat on the WhiteHall site, and during the displacement of the wildlife on the development site for 5,000 homes onthe way to Cribbs, the situation for wildlife, including birds, in north Bristol is massively changedand graver than it previously has been. The green space lost in recent years has been green for agreat many years - long before the current estates were built. Wildlife and insect habitat havebecome a 'luxury' that planners are willing to write off. No number of environmentally friendlyheating systems or car club parking spaces is going to compensate for that long term.

This development when taken as part of the big picture for wildlife in North Bristol adds morejeopardy to an already perilous situation in the area. It gives precedent to the concept that we ashumans with our own agendas can define the ecological destiny of our part of the planetregardless of long term or big picture results.

Still Objecting....

Please could the 'support' comments be interrogated for duplication and absolute unfairedness ....If multiple staff employed by Southmead Development Trust are inputting numerous 'support'comments - that is wholly and completely inappropriate and unfair. My view is that, in effect, thestaff are being PAID (and/or coerced) to submit supportive comments on a planning applicationthe Trust have submitted themselves. Of course we all know 'Southmead Development Trust'agree with the planning - they designed it and their name is all over it!!!!.... I'd hazard a consideredguess that it maybe a rather high hurdle to overcome for their staff to do anything else but complyif they are instructed to pop in a 'support' comment to this application, particularly during a cost ofliving crisis !!!! This check could be achieved fairly easily by noting those clearly commenting onbehalf of Southmead Development Trust, and also using a staff name list.

I will also add while here (although I have previously commented); 3 lovely, very separate anddistinct moments I've personally witnessed on the Glencoyne Square over the last week:-During one there was an adult and child (possibly mother and child) on the bottom corner near StStephens Church and they were having an absolute ball feeding the birds. They were throwingfood for them up in the air repeatedly in a completely lovely nurturous, wholesome bit of familytime with each other, nature, sheltered from the sun by the lovely trees at a perfect spot. It lookedlike pure bliss.-And another, on a different day and time but in very near proximity to that same spot on thebottom corner...a female sat having her lunch surrounded by an absolutely huge circle of birds.Her sat cross-legged at the centre, with about 50 or more birds dancing and hopping around her,

happily welcoming small morsels from her lunch at intervals. It was like she was in-sync withnature and the open space, and completely basking in that ever so important green energy. I haveto say I was very envious when I saw her and I whispered over my awe.-The last (but by no means the last...I've got shed loads of these from Glencoyne...this is just thelast of my favourites to share right now)....there was a really cute little dog out walking with itsowner, criss-crossing over the green. The dog did the thing where it showed off its absolute andadorable cuteness and then wanted nothing more to do with me whatsoever...even though theowner ever so kindly gave smoothing permissions that gorgeous dog was adament I was gettingnowhere near...running and darting off to chew on fallen twigs and branches with little glancesover just to remind me and make clear that all my rather high-pitched-animal-loving-talkings werefutile. I spotted 2 small sprigs of red clover on my walk away...love red clover!!

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:GLENCOYNE SQUARE ECOLOGICAL SURVEY, APRIL 2022

The verges along Greystoke Avenue, approximately 150 metres to the south-west, are designated

as part of a Wildlife Corridor.

The demolition of a building and destruction of an established orchard and hedging on the White

Hall site since this report will have had an impact on wildlife habitat and massively impacted on

wildlife routes in the area. No one has told the wildlife they have to use Greystoke Avenue

particularly as it makes them much more likely to become a victim of roadkill. Evidence of a

struggling hedgehog found near the wall of St Stephen's Church shows they are active on and

near the Square. A dead hedgehog on Greystoke is evidence of the dangers.

3.4 Protected Species No badger setts or other signs of badger activity were seen on the site, or in

surrounding areas. None of the trees has any hole, crevice or significant growth of ivy that could

be used by roosting bats. No other signs of protected species were seen. Further details are given

in the Assessment section below.

The displacement of no one knows how many animals and birds from the land

being developed for housing on the way to Cribbs as well as the White Hall site could well mean

an increase of wildlife seeking new routes and territory.

3.5 Data Search BRERC hold large numbers of records of notable species from the wider area.

Most involve bird records from residential addresses and plant records from Badock's Wood.

Records of protected species are as follows: Hedgehog: In the grounds of the Health Centre,

2015; there are several older records in the wider area.

The Hedgehog Highway Map will be more accurate than a record 8 years old that was made

before the loss of a huge green and wildlife friendly space at the Dunmail School site for a 128

units high density housing development. This site is also not that many yards away from the

Square resulting in potentially 1,000 more people living on what was green space.

Walls and fences in the Square's high density housing development will need an integral

hedgehog hole in them allowing them (and other small wildlife) a safe route through.

4.2 Protected Species No badger setts were seen within the survey site, and they are unlikely to

be present in the wider area

The displacement of no one knows how many animals and birds from the old

Dunmail school high density housing development and the land being developed for housing on

the way to Cribbs means a substantial increase of wildlife seeking new territory that needs

investigating. The Square, as well as local gardens is likely one of their routes.

5.3 Protected Species No potential impacts on protected species have been identified. All trees

within the area have the potential to support nesting birds and mitigation measures to prevent the

destruction of occupied birds' nests would therefore be required.

Since this report was made, prior to the loss of valuable insect and wildlife habitat on the White

Hall site, and during the displacement of the wildlife on the development site for 5,000 homes on

the way to Cribbs, the situation for wildlife, including birds, in north Bristol is massively changed

and graver than it previously has been. The green space lost in recent years has been green for a

great many years - long before the current estates were built. Wildlife and insect habitat have

become a 'luxury' that planners are willing to write off. No number of environmentally friendly

heating systems or car club parking spaces is going to compensate for that long term.

This development when taken as part of the big picture for wildlife in North Bristol adds more

jeopardy to an already perilous situation in the area. It gives precedent to the concept that we as

humans with our own agendas can define the ecological destiny of our part of the planet

regardless of long term or big picture results.

I am writing to support the proposal as I believe, on balance, that it will improve theinfrastructure of Southmead and provide much needed homes as well as community and businessfacilities, whilst supporting biodiversity.

Whilst I know there are concerns about the loss of mature trees on the green, it is worth notingthat the development proposes to plant 52 new trees to replace the 12 being removed and with anew and improved park there is a net gain in biodiversity which has been a challenge as there is aloss of green space, but the proposals support biodiversity. The Trust have done all they can tosupport biodiversity e.g. they were part of local response which said we should not build homes inDoncaster Road park, so they are not supporters of development at any price, but rather trying toget a balanced approach which sees housing development as meeting both social and communityneeds as well as improving housing options. There is a lack of 1- and 2-bedroom homes inSouthmead and we have seen a loss of existing 3 bedroom homes as many of these are beingrefurbed to meet the demands of staff, etc from Southmead Hospital. Increasing the numbers of 1and 2 bedroom homes will allow us some option to maintain the stock of 3 bedroom homes, whichare still needed. The original planning aspiration was to be able to allow existing older people in 3bedroom homes whose families had grown up, but they have strong connections to Southmead sothey want to stay and plans are still in place for a local letting policy to encourage existing Counciltenants to transfer to the new homes- this has yet to be agreed, but is the aspiration.

Car parking is an issue which creates debate on both sides; I know of local people who object to

the proposals for the potential increase of parking and others who object that there is not enoughparking in the proposed development. The Trust have tried to get the balance with an increase inthe level of green space in the courtyards, supporting the provision of a Car Club space if requiredat a future point, creating space for van loading/unloading and reducing car park provision.

The development will deliver improved library and other services, including small business uses onthe ground floor to support Arnside and local businesses and in these challenging economic timesanything which can be done to support and develop local businesses should be supported. Place-based services are rightly being seen as important and the development of 15-minutecommunities, where local services are genuinely locally is supported by the proposal.

Southmead Development Trust have carried out significant consultation on the first application andfollowed this up with more consultation, including online and face to face opportunities for peopleto comment on the revised proposals. The Board of the Trust has a majority of local people sittingon it and they are the ones who have been developing the proposals for the last 7 years. Whilstnot everyone in the community will support housing development, the Trust are trying to balance arange of conflicting priorities and their overarching aim is to improve the outcomes andopportunities for local people and to improve Southmead. In the last 8 years they have taken onthe Youth Centre and the Ranch to maintain local service provision and they remain committed toSouthmead. They are local residents so they will be living with the outcome of the proposals andthey believe this is a positive development for the community.

I am writing in support of the amendments to the current proposals including:

- The proposed increase in the amount of green space in the courtyards. The courtyard redesigns(including removing the car parking) improve the use of internal courtyards for amenity space,enhancing facilities for residents and mitigating against biodiversity loss by increasing the plantedarea. Following this adjustment, there will be 73 spaces in the plans (2 for loading, 2 for future carclub, 4 disabled spaces and 65 general use). While this is a reduction from the 97 spaces in theoriginal planning application, this is in line with Highways Feedback on parking provisionrequirements and the number of parking spaces meets the requirements of the transportassessment.

- Provision of car club space if required in the future.

- Space for van loading and unloading.

- Planting and maintaining 52 new trees to replace the 12 being removed as a result of thedevelopment proposals thereby increasing the total number of trees on the site to 68.

- Air Source Heat Pumps now moved to the roof, this will improve energy efficiency andsustainability of each home without residents losing balcony space to heating equipment andwithout equipment being visible from the street.

- Biodiverse green roofs are also included on the cycle shelters which will be visible from the flats

above improving the quality of views from each home.

- New and improved park with biodiversity net gain achieved.

- The project will deliver improved library and other services and small business uses on theground floor to support Arnside and local businesses.

I hope the amendments are approved, enhancing this important local project and enabling it toproceed.

BTF Comments - 05 July 2023

2

layout of the estate and the central location of the open space at the centre of a radiating

street scheme makes it an essential part of the Southmead townscape and adds to its landscape

quality and visual amenity. To lose this site to development would destroy this.

DM172 states that: ‘Development on part, or all, of an Important Open Space as designated on

the Policies Map will not be permitted unless the development is ancillary to the open space

use.’

Given that the applicant’s proposals cannot be described as ‘ancillary to the open space use’,

these proposals may not be approved. This prohibition is not conditional.

Applying DM17/BTRS

Paragraph 180 a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that: ‘if significant

harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an

alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort,

compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.’3 This is known as the mitigation

hierarchy.

DM17 also requires that ‘All new development should integrate important existing trees’ and

that only ‘where tree loss or damage is essential to allow for appropriate development,

replacement trees of an appropriate species should be provided ...’

The calculation of replacement trees set out in DM17/BTRS is therefore ‘a last resort’ and

should not be applied unless the initial ‘avoid’ and ‘mitigate’ steps have been thoroughly

explored and found to be impractical. No evidence has been produced to show that this exercise

has been undertaken or that ‘tree loss or damage is essential to allow for appropriate

development.’ The applicant has simply moved straight to ‘compensate’.

DM17 / BTRS calculation

It is generally accepted that trees increase in diameter by about 0.8085 cm a year. This means

that they are likely to grow about 4 cm wider than they were at the time of the survey in

November 20184, nearly five years old. We have accordingly increased the stem diameters

reported by 4 cm each. We have done the same to the habitat values given in our Biodiversity

Net Gain analysis below.

There are 32 trees on site, of which 12 will be removed. The table at Appendix 1 shows that 45

trees will need to be replaced under DM17/BTRS. The AIA reports that 45 trees will be planted

on site, so none will need to be planted offsite.

2 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/2235-site-allocations-bd5605/file - page 36. 3 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005759/NPPF_July_2021.pdf 4 22_03309_F-ARBORICULTURAL_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT-3254985

BTF Comments - 05 July 2023

3

Note – The Softworks schedule produced by the applicant5 lists 52 new trees and shrubs being

planted. The apparent conflict between these two numbers needs to be resolved.

Biodiversity Net Gain analysis

Save for the comments made below, we adopt the applicant’s biodiversity net gain (BNG 3.1)

calculations.6

Area habitat

The applicant’s BNG 3.1 calculation gives a combined baseline habitat area (excluding Urban

tree habitat) of 1.62 hectares. However, their application form gives a development area of

1.48 hectares.7 We agree and have adjusted our calculations to allow for this by reducing the

baseline area of the Modified grassland habitat from 1.596 ha to 1.46 ha.

We have also reduced A-2 Site Habitat Creation calculation Developed land; sealed surface

habitat from 1.368 ha to 1.23 ha as this has no impact on the total habitat units created.

Strategic significance

The development site is designated as both Park and Green Space and as Important Open Space

and so is protected under the Local plan under BCS9 & DM17. Table 5-4 of the BNG 3.1 User

Guide states that an ‘area/action formally identified within a local plan, strategy or policy’ has

High strategic significance. We have assigned this to all baseline and created habitats.

Urban tree habitat

The applicant has assigned a baseline habitat area of 0.337 ha to the Urban tree habitat on the

site. Using the 2019 AIA survey data, we calculate that the baseline area is 0.2873 ha (see the

table at Appendix 1). Of this habitat, 0.1718 ha will be retained and 0.1155 ha (just over 40%)

removed.

Urban tree habitat has Medium distinctiveness. The BNG 3.1 trading rules require Medium

distinctiveness habitats to be replaced with ‘Medium distinctiveness habitat from same broad

habitat type or with any habitat from a higher distinctiveness band’.

However, paragraph 7.8 of the BNG 3.1 User Guide advises that: ‘... given the important

ecosystem services value provided by trees, where possible “like for like” compensation is the

preferred approach (i.e. where possible any loss of Urban trees should be replaced by Urban

trees - rather than other urban habitats)8. Accordingly, lost Urban tree habitat should ideally

be replaced only with newly created Urban tree habitat.

On the basis that the baseline condition of this habitat is Moderate and that it has High strategic

significance, this represents 2.21 Habitat Units (HUs), of which 0.89 HUs will be lost.

5 22_03309_F-SOFTWORKS_SCHEDULE-3464596 6 22_03309_F-BNG_CALCULATIONS-3453856 7 22_03309_F-APPLICATION_FORM-3254905 8 Under the latest BNG 4.0 guidance, Urban tree habitat is now called Individual trees habitat and is its own separate broad habitat from the BNG 3.1 Urban broad habitat.

BTF Comments - 05 July 2023

4

The applicant plans to plant 45 trees on site. As Standard-sized nursery trees under BS3936-1

will be used, we calculate that these will grow into Small category BNG 3.1 trees after the 30-

year time-to-target period allowed and eventually produce 0.1831 hectares of new habitat in

Moderate condition of High strategic significance. This will generate 0.64 HUs, as shortfall of

1.57 HUs. If we assume that the applicant aspires to achieving a 10% BNG on the baseline

habitat, the loss increases to 1.791 HUs.

This Urban tree creation habitat calculation assumes that all the 45 trees proposed will be

planted in publicly accessible spaces. If any of these trees are to be planted in private gardens,

then the habitat created as a result must be discounted, as trees planted in private gardens

cannot be managed under the proposed 30-year landscape and ecological management plan

(LEMP).

Conclusion

On the basis of the above, we calculate that the applicant’s proposals will result on a net loss

of area biodiversity of 50.87%. The Headline Results summary is set out below:

BTF Comments - 05 July 2023

5

We calculate that a further 257 Urban trees would need to be planted in order to achieve at

least 10% BNG and comply with the trading rules.

We also note that additional Grassland Broad habitat may also need to be created to comply

with the trading rules - at least 0.21 HUs.

Had the applicant undertaken its BNG calculation using the current Metric - BNG 4.0,9 then the

calculation of the baseline Urban tree habitat area (now called Individual trees habitat)

increases to 1.3559 ha, with 0.6962 ha being retained and 0.4397 ha being lost, and result in a

far greater net loss of biodiversity than is calculated using BNG 3.1.

A copy of our BNG 3.1 calculation can be downloaded here - 22_03309_F-

BNG_CALCULATIONS-3453856 - BTF Comments.

The underlying calculations upon which our analysis of the trees on the site is based can be

downloaded here - BNG 4.0 Tree Analysis Model.

9 Natural England has advised us that BNG 4.0 will become compulsory when Part 6 of the Environment Act 2021 comes into force later this year.

BTF Comments - 05 July 2023

6

Appendix 1 – DM17/BTRS Analysis

Totals 32 12 45

Tree ID Tree

Category Tree Count

Trees Removed

DBH (cm)

Trees x Trees

Removed

T243 B2 1 1 43 4

T244 B2 1 1 49 4

T245 B2 1 1 47 4

T246 B2 1 1 41 4

T247 B2 1 1 58 5

T248 B2 1 0 40 0

T249 B2 1 0 40 0

T250 B2 1 1 38 3

T251 B2 1 1 36 3

T252 C2 1 0 35 0

T253 B2 1 0 33 0

T254 B2 1 0 35 0

T255 C2 1 0 39 0

T256 B2 1 0 40 0

T257 B2 1 0 52 0

T258 C2 1 0 34 0

T259 B1 1 0 63 0

T260 B2 1 0 50 0

T261 U 1 1 42 0

T262 C2 1 0 62 0

T263 B2 1 1 55 5

T264 C2 1 1 52 5

T265 C2 1 0 45 0

T266 B2 1 0 42 0

T267 B2 1 0 63 0

T268 C2 1 1 41 4

T269 C2 1 1 46 4

T270 B2 1 0 37 0

T271 B2 1 0 47 0

T272 C2 1 0 34 0

T273 C2 1 0 38 0

T274 C2 1 0 36 0

BTF Comments - 05 July 2023

7

Appendix 2 – BNG 3.1 Urban Tree baseline habitat area analysis

Trees 31 12 BNG 3.1 Totals

0.2873 0.1155 0.1718

Tree

ID Common Name

Tree

Count

Trees

Removed

DBH

(cm)

RPA

(m^2)

Baseline

RPA (ha)

Removed

RPA (ha)

Retained

RPA (ha)

T244 Bird cherry 1 1 43 83.65 0.0084 0.0084 0.0000

T245 Bird cherry 1 1 49 108.62 0.0109 0.0109 0.0000

T246 Horse

chestnut 1 1 47 99.93 0.0100 0.0100 0.0000

T247 Sycamore 1 1 41 76.05 0.0076 0.0076 0.0000

T248 Norway maple 1 1 58 152.18 0.0152 0.0152 0.0000

T249 Sycamore 1 0 40 72.38 0.0072 0.0000 0.0072

T250 Whitebeam 1 0 40 72.38 0.0072 0.0000 0.0072

T251 Norway maple 1 1 38 65.33 0.0065 0.0065 0.0000

T252 Cherry 1 1 36 58.63 0.0059 0.0059 0.0000

T253 Cherry 1 0 35 55.42 0.0055 0.0000 0.0055

T254 Cherry 1 0 33 49.27 0.0049 0.0000 0.0049

T255 Norway maple 1 0 35 55.42 0.0055 0.0000 0.0055

T256 Silver maple 1 0 39 68.81 0.0069 0.0000 0.0069

T257 Whitebeam 1 0 40 72.38 0.0072 0.0000 0.0072

T258 Common lime 1 0 52 122.33 0.0122 0.0000 0.0122

T259 Whitebeam 1 0 34 52.30 0.0052 0.0000 0.0052

T260 Common lime 1 0 63 179.55 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180

T261 Common lime 1 0 50 113.10 0.0113 0.0000 0.0113

T262 Common lime 1 1 42 79.80 0.0080 0.0080 0.0000

T263 Common lime 1 0 62 173.90 0.0174 0.0000 0.0174

T264 Common lime 1 1 55 136.85 0.0137 0.0137 0.0000

T265 Common lime 1 1 52 122.33 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000

T266 Common lime 1 0 45 91.61 0.0092 0.0000 0.0092

T267 Common lime 1 0 42 79.80 0.0080 0.0000 0.0080

T268 Norway maple 1 0 63 179.55 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180

T269 Cherry 1 1 41 76.05 0.0076 0.0076 0.0000

T270 Cherry 1 1 46 95.73 0.0096 0.0096 0.0000

T271 Cherry 1 0 37 61.93 0.0062 0.0000 0.0062

T272 Common lime 1 0 47 99.93 0.0100 0.0000 0.0100

T273 Norway maple 1 0 34 52.30 0.0052 0.0000 0.0052

T274 Norway maple 1 0 38 65.33 0.0065 0.0000 0.0065

Over development loss of amenities limited parking

I object because from the original plan the apartments have gone up over 50% and theparking have gone down to 65 general parking which might i add are not additional parking theyare taking what is already there so not a true reflection.Glencoyne square is a busy section of southmead 4 churches on each corner only 1 has carparking facilities many elderly peoples homes 2 with parking facilities woodnook possible 2 spaceskirkstone gardens none and of course Arnside shops.Then you have Southmead Health centre which also serves the reidents of Brentry and Henburywhich does have a car park primarily used by staff very lucky to get in there.There have been general parking spaces took away going up Arnside with the recent work goingon there.There is a possible increase of over 600 residents yet alone what is being proposed for the groundfloor.Less than 65 additional parking is not enough.4 wheelchair adaptable units is also a low number

I personally object.- Glencoyne Square is a lovely green space. Tonight I was there for about 5 minutes and noticedthere were 2 separate people sat on 2 separate benches, another person sat under a tree on thenorth side and 5 people walking through. About 50+ birds (mixture of species) were feeding onsouth side. The trees there are amazing. I picked a parking spot out of the 3/4 left at approximately5pm in the evening.-My view is .....When 'somebody' asks a question in a survey like 'Housing is likely to be built aspart of a development. Would you want to see...' it makes me wonder who led the development.Who is leading the development????? 'No high rise flats', '..please no more housing..', '..no morebuilding', 'we have enough housing thank you', 'would like no developments to be built' - weresome of the seemingly ignored qualitative responses to this question. 130 out of the over-estimated 900 surveyed skipped this question. Of those who did answer the question...the mostunwanted thing people surveyed wanted to see built was flats (after a gypsy & traveller site and ahostel.). Why are these views, which are a majority in my view, being ignored-I have read briefly the results of the whole survey at different points in time and I do consider thewhole analysis of people's given views has been mis-analysed. Even in the 'plan' produced itscreams something else to me that is absolutely NOT 'build on our green/open space'!?-And, Glencoyne Square is a park and green/open space but it was not included in the questionabout useage of parks and open spaces for some odd reason?-There are GP's. There is a community centre. There is the Greenway Centre. There is adevelopment at Dunmail. There is a blooming mighty one in South Glos which is going to impactus immensely. There was/is a library. There was a youth centre. There is a children's centre.Maybe some of those are not as best positioned as they could be, or of a deserving enough

quality but they are/were there and used, and appreciated. Why can't they be funded forimprovement.-There was ASB in the North of Glencoyne which you were meant to apparently be stopping bybuilding housing .....but then the north of the site is left clear of housing??-Parks and open spaces were recorded in the survey as 2nd top in ratings for positively affectingpeople's health in Southmead. Why are you reducing access to it! Rated first was healthservices...although my guess is access to this access will only be reduced if housing is built andmore people are requiring services.- Parking - I can only still say that based on my ongoing experience your parking survey is utterlywrong. Parking there is already sought after and chaotic at times. This has only been furthercompounded by the reduction in spaces resultant from the changes to Arnside.-I have sadly seen in a few meetings where this issue has been raised that people taking adifferent view to those involved in the seemingly 'community-led plan to build shed loads ofhousing' have been shouted down and/or unheard.... It seems that people not knowing about theplans at all, and raising their concerns is just not acceptable. That's really really awful.

You are taking the parking spaces which the residents from above the shops use.Where are we all going to park? You need to keep parking spaces for us who have parked therefor many years.

The green space is very valuable. This was proven during the pandemic when peopleneeded local areas to exercise and their own gardens. I would like to see only proper houses builtwith their own gardens, not flats.Flats only suit a very small demographic. People need their own gardens, especially families.Also, older people who can't cope with steps so they can stay in houses for longer.

I ask of the planning officer whether consideration has been given to the shade of thebuildings with regard to the trees and horticulture in the area as this is not discussed in theArboricultural Impact Assessment or other related documents to my knowledge.

My concerns allude specifically to T262, T258, T261, T263 and T264 in the landscape plan asthese trees are located north of the western block and within ~9m which is within the shadow castof the building (assuming the building is to be ~13m tall) even at the height of summer. This maynot allow adequate sunlight for these trees to grow and impact the quality of the green space inthe north of the site.

Please may it be considered and the impact of this conveyed.

I consider myself a neighbour. However, I don't seem to have been included on thenotification list!! And, most importantly to me, I am one of the people never asked for an input atthe door to door knocking where-it-was-all-apparently-borne-stages of this development, or anyafter?. I only became aware of any of these plans in 2021 despite living in Southmead for manyyears.

I love the pictures of the plans - they're quite lovely ....although they look like most otherdevelopers plans.... A bit like Bedminster, and Cheswick, and a lot like the plans for thedevelopment at the swing bridge on the Harbourside. Very, very samey.

Yesterday, I sat for only a few minutes at Glencoyne Square and it was completely more thanlovely. There was 1 person walking home off at the tangents with their shopping, 2 people walkingalong together who then took a moment to sit at a bench with a teddy and some children playingfootball on the grass at the top of the square. Birds. Grass. Gorgeous trees. Nice Space. Somerubbish strewn - but then that's because for some completely strange reason someone has putresidents bins on the square - random!!!

I can't quite see too clearly how it has got to to this. There are soooooo many documents in thisplanning application its tricky to see where this has started, what the benefit is to the community,and who on earth is making the money!? Who would be responsible for the space and itsamenities when the developers disappear? I also worry immensely that what seemed like the'driver' of this...to get smaller homes for people in Southmead is simply lost. Would the people whocontributed views about wanting to remain in Southmead in smaller homes want to live in these

flats? And would they even get a flat here?. How many people in Southmead need a smaller home- a flat like these? And, How many smaller homes (already in existence) are available regularly inSouthmead? (Smaller flats, split houses,... supported living opportunities?).... There often seemsto be vacant properties left vacant for prolonged periods of time, both small and large councilproperties!!! I just don't get it.

Why have you not advised anyone living on and near Trowbridge Road of this planneddevelopment is beyond me. My experience and view is that the flood risk here is real. If we are allput at higher risk of flooding due to this (and other!) developments I don't understand why we arenot included!? Infact, the whole 'not-many-people-seem-to-know-about-this-development' withregards to this really bothers me. This week alone, I have communicated with 3 separate familiesliving in various parts of Southmead who had absolutely no idea of this planned development!!!Also, I question if notifications have been received by people on the notification list at all? Thisshould be checked.

Reading all the snippets from the various surveys conducted around this, and those which fed intothis idea....I would argue there has been a huge mis-analysis of a few people in Southmead'sviews!. I have only read views that a majority of people who were asked in Southmead like greenspaces, and would like these improved, of a better quality, and with additional green spacefacilities. I'm confident I've not seen anything in what is available which says anybody inSouthmead wants to lose a green space to all this housing.

I also have a problem with the parking surveys as their methodology and results are so absolutelyunclear; there is no clear mapping & in my view doesn't reflect reality at all.

I OBJECT.

Dear Case Officer,

I think this development plan is not a good idea. First of all Southmead doesn't have a lot of greenspaces and Glencoyne Square is a very precious area of green space for us residents inSouthmead. It would be an utter disappointment to see it go and instead seeing the greenfield sitebeing destroyed for buildings and homes to appear.The area will become very congested and not easy to travel in and out off.Instead I think the greenery should be maintained and improved by including more plants andtrees in the area instead of houses.With more and more green space gone, the likelihood of floods are increased due to precipitationnot being able to infiltrate through concrete.

I sincerely request for the project not to go ahead and to leave this green space of land alone forthe residents at Southmead.Please do not destroy the greenfield sites in Southmead and instead use brownfield sites to createbuildings on.

Thank YouKind Regards

I think the environmental considerations are essential, and whatever can be done forbiodiversity and reduced carbon emmissions must be done.

I understand there is a real need for affordable hosuing in Southmead, so long as these are asaffordable as possible, and primarily for local residents, then that is great.

This development will aid the housing crisis Bristol is experiencing, it will improve thesocial space allowing for more public spaces where people can be, together. I support this project.

As a Group we have spent many hours in public consultation, both formal and via popup stalls all over Southmead. As a Community led housing scheme this is something not onlySouthmead but the whole of Bristol can and should be proud of. As has been said many times,there are people living in family homes that would willing consider downsizing if there was asuitable alternative smaller homes to move into, thereby releasing much needed family homes tothe housing register.As a Group we have spent too many hours putting this together to see it falter at the last minute. Ithas my whole hearted support, I trust it has yours.

I am in support of this project and while fairly recently learning about the project andappears to be a fantastic example of the community coming together, being empowered andtaking ownership of the site and considering the needs of the community. It appears that if willoffer housing that will meet need of residents looking to downsize and those considering their firsthome. I feel that also having space for community organisations seems to be important and greatto see that there will hopefully be a library amongst other things. I look forward to seeing how itdevelops.

I work in Southmead and I am very supportive of the scheme. I was very supportive ofthe first planning application and understand that this updated proposal provides even moreaffordable housing and community benefits so very pleased to see that. It should create lots ofjobs locally and provide a huge boost to a much relied-upon high street.

It is amazing how much community control has been enabled in the design process. An inspirationthat we must hope to see elsewhere.

I also like:- new cycling routes- better green spaces- new library- design; its not just a big square block!- retention of existing trees

The community really needs an NHS dentist. Also, plenty of car parking for residents,people shopping etc, and for people who work in the local businesses.

I fully support this proposed development which is a shining example of a community-led housingproject that will bring up to 187 additional, much needed, small housing units to this area of Bristol.

Overall, with the potential to include a relocated library, this whole development will bring new lifeinto the area. It also gives plenty of opportunities for locals to downsize from 3-bedroom semi-detached houses into smaller properties - thereby freeing-up family-sized homes that havebecome under-occupied over time.

Glencoyne Square is currently a large, bleak and underused green space that when redevelopedwill still retain a sufficiently large area of enhanced communal green space to support localrecreational needs. The design of the development is totally in keeping with the area and greatcare has been exercised at the design stage to ensure that the development will blend seamlesslywith the existing adjacent properties.

I think this is excellent for Southmead it will provide much needed housing and breathefresh air into the space, as well as brightening it up with the landscaping planned.

Amazing opportunity for the area to grow and look refreshed. Brilliant for people to geton the ladder and small businesses to thrive.

This project will help towards solving the housing crisis,will help local people to remainin their community with reasonable costings.

This planning application has been made as a result of 6 years of the communityworking together with The Southmead Development Trust,Bristol City Council and our localCouncillors.After door knocking the whole of Southmead asking residents their views in 2015 and producing aHousing needs study the following year it was obvious that this regeneration plan was badlyneeded.The impact of the new Southmead Hospital being built means that house prices in the area havealmost doubled.Therefore we need this community led housing and we need more 1 and 2 bed homes as shownin the housing needs study.Many residents that live in a 3 bed Council house have told me that they would like to downsizebut don't want to leave Southmead.As two thirds of the Council homes are 3 bed family homesthere isn't really much choice.I believe that this regeneration will bring new businesses into the area with the increased footfall.Arnside/Glencoyne Square deserves a facelift as many residents tell me that it hadn't changed for70 years !!!!I cannot wait as it's been a long slog with COVID delaying it for 2 years.