Additional Comments 11 May 2024

2

- Specification for trees and shrubs.6 Only a semi-mature nursery tree with a girth greater

than 94.25 cm would qualify as a ‘medium’ category size SM tree as specified in Table 14

– Tree size classes and area equivalents - of the Statutory Metric User Guide (also annexed

to Appendix 3). It is unlikely that any of the trees proposed in table 6-1 would ever be this

large.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the trees proposed will have stem diameters

greater than 30cm – the maximum ‘small’ category SM size.

8. It is not yet established whether the offsite locations proposed are viable.

9. We do not understand why the applicant has factored in 4.10 ha of offsite baseline Modified

grassland habitat in moderate condition and of moderate strategic significance, all of which

will be retained. This makes no difference to the offsite post-development mitigation

proposed. Nonetheless, we have included this habitat in our calculations, although we

doubt that Modified grassland habitat is of moderate strategic significance.

On the basis that 32 ‘small’ category size (BTRS) trees which will achieve moderate condition

and have high strategic significance will be planted off site, these proposals will result in a loss

of -66.33% of the onsite area baseline habitat with a net loss of 42.33% of area habitats overall.

We hope the Council will agree to abide by its SM obligations in this application. If the Council

declines to do so, it is still obliged to comply with paragraph 185 b) of the NPPF, which states

that plans should ‘identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for

biodiversity.’7 It is generally accepted that this means that development proposals should, at

the very least, achieve a biodiversity gain greater than zero. The use of the term ‘measurable

net gains’ makes it clear that a biodiversity gain calculator tool must be used, as this is the

only accepted tool for achieving this. This is the tool designated by the Environment Act 2021,

the SM.8

If the Council agrees to abide by the current SM obligations, then, in order to comply with the

trading rules and have no net loss of broad individual trees habitat, a further 83 small category

size SM trees (or higher distinctiveness habitats) will need to be created off site after a one-

year delay. These will achieve moderate condition and have high strategic significance. If 83

small category size SM trees are planted off site, then a net gain of 16.92% can be achieved.

A copy of our SM calculation is available here - 23_00611_FB-UPDATED_BNG_METRIC-3676264 -

BTF Annotation.xlsx.

6 https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/nursery-stock-specification-for-trees-and-shrubs?version=standard. 7 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a11af7e8f5ec000f1f8c46/NPPF_December_2023.pdf 8 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-metric-calculate-the-biodiversity-net-gain-of-a-project-or-development#using-the-metric-tool.

Additional Comments 11 May 2024

3

Appendix 1

Statutory Metric (SM) - Individual trees – Urban tree habitat calculation

Additional Comments 11 May 2024

4

Appendix 2

SADMP DM17 / BTRS calculation

Totals 37 37 32

Tree

ID

BS5837

Category

Tree

Count

Trees

Removed

DBH

(cm)

BTRS

Replacements

T3 U 1 1 22.0 0

T42 B2 1 1 66.0 6

T43 B2 1 1 41.0 4

T49 C1 1 1 45.0 4

T52 C1 1 1 4.0 0

T53 C2 1 1 24.0 2

T54 C2 1 1 29.0 2

T55 C2 1 1 36.0 3

T56 C2 1 1 24.0 2

T57 C2 1 1 34.0 3

T58 C2 1 1 24.0 2

T59 C2 1 1 25.0 2

T60 C2 1 1 20.0 2

G1 C2 5 5 13.0 0

G2 C2 5 5 13.0 0

G6 C2 4 4 6.0 0

G7 C2 5 5 6.0 0

G8 C2 5 5 6.0 0

Additional Comments 11 May 2024

5

Appendix 3

BS 3936-1:1992 - Nursery stock - Specification for trees and shrubs

Whilst the idea of opening up the Malago sounds like a positive, creating a pleasantopen space, this particular proposal does not, upon closer review, have our support.

Our reasons for objecting are the number of mature trees and hedges which will need to beremoved to make this scheme work.

We would require assurance that loss of biodiversity caused by the loss of habit (the mature trees)is mitigated and that the diversity can be restored.

We also note that this seems to be more of a flood prevention scheme for developments nearbythan a creation of amenity space and we are further concerned that more trees could be sacrificedfor the development of the heat network. We object to this proposal as it stands.

Additional Comments 24 May 2024

2

which states that plans should ‘identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net

gains for biodiversity.’5 It is generally accepted that this means that development proposals

should, at the very least, achieve a biodiversity gain greater than zero. The use of the term

‘measurable net gains’ makes it clear that a biodiversity gain calculator tool must be used, as

this is the only accepted tool for achieving this. This is the tool designated by the Environment

Act 2021, the SM.6

If the Council agrees to abide by the current SM obligations, then, in order to comply with the

trading rules and have no net loss of broad individual trees habitat, then the -0.89 shortfall of

habitat units will need to be made good.

A copy of our recast SM calculation is available here - 23_00611_FB-

UPDATED_BNG_ASSESSMENT-3686798 - BTF Annotation.xlsx.

5 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a11af7e8f5ec000f1f8c46/NPPF_December_2023.pdf 6 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-metric-calculate-the-biodiversity-net-gain-of-a-project-or-development#using-the-metric-tool.

Additional Comments 24 May 2024

3

Appendix 1

Statutory Metric (SM) - Individual trees – Urban tree habitat calculation

Additional Comments 24 May 2024

4

Appendix 2

SADMP DM17 / BTRS calculation

Totals 37 37 32

Tree

ID

BS5837

Category

Tree

Count

Trees

Removed

DBH

(cm)

BTRS

Replacements

T3 U 1 1 22.0 0

T42 B2 1 1 66.0 6

T43 B2 1 1 41.0 4

T49 C1 1 1 45.0 4

T52 C1 1 1 4.0 0

T53 C2 1 1 24.0 2

T54 C2 1 1 29.0 2

T55 C2 1 1 36.0 3

T56 C2 1 1 24.0 2

T57 C2 1 1 34.0 3

T58 C2 1 1 24.0 2

T59 C2 1 1 25.0 2

T60 C2 1 1 20.0 2

G1 C2 5 5 13.0 0

G2 C2 5 5 13.0 0

G6 C2 4 4 6.0 0

G7 C2 5 5 6.0 0

G8 C2 5 5 6.0 0

Additional Comments 24 May 2024

5

Appendix 3

BS 3936-1:1992 - Nursery stock - Specification for trees and shrubs

Additional Comments 11 May 2024

2

- Specification for trees and shrubs.6 Only a semi-mature nursery tree with a girth greater

than 94.25 cm would qualify as a ‘medium’ category size SM tree as specified in Table 14

– Tree size classes and area equivalents - of the Statutory Metric User Guide (also annexed

to Appendix 3). It is unlikely that any of the trees proposed in table 6-1 would ever be this

large.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the trees proposed will have stem diameters

greater than 30cm – the maximum ‘small’ category SM size.

8. It is not yet established whether the offsite locations proposed are viable.

9. We do not understand why the applicant has factored in 4.10 ha of offsite baseline Modified

grassland habitat in moderate condition and of moderate strategic significance, all of which

will be retained. This makes no difference to the offsite post-development mitigation

proposed. Nonetheless, we have included this habitat in our calculations, although we

doubt that Modified grassland habitat is of moderate strategic significance.

On the basis that 32 ‘small’ category size (BTRS) trees which will achieve moderate condition

and have high strategic significance will be planted off site, these proposals will result in a loss

of -66.33% of the onsite area baseline habitat with a net loss of 42.33% of area habitats overall.

We hope the Council will agree to abide by its SM obligations in this application. If the Council

declines to do so, it is still obliged to comply with paragraph 185 b) of the NPPF, which states

that plans should ‘identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for

biodiversity.’7 It is generally accepted that this means that development proposals should, at

the very least, achieve a biodiversity gain greater than zero. The use of the term ‘measurable

net gains’ makes it clear that a biodiversity gain calculator tool must be used, as this is the

only accepted tool for achieving this. This is the tool designated by the Environment Act 2021,

the SM.8

If the Council agrees to abide by the current SM obligations, then, in order to comply with the

trading rules and have no net loss of broad individual trees habitat, a further 83 small category

size SM trees (or higher distinctiveness habitats) will need to be created off site after a one-

year delay. These will achieve moderate condition and have high strategic significance. If 83

small category size SM trees are planted off site, then a net gain of 16.92% can be achieved.

A copy of our SM calculation is available here - 23_00611_FB-UPDATED_BNG_METRIC-3676264 -

BTF Annotation.xlsx.

6 https://knowledge.bsigroup.com/products/nursery-stock-specification-for-trees-and-shrubs?version=standard. 7 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a11af7e8f5ec000f1f8c46/NPPF_December_2023.pdf 8 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-metric-calculate-the-biodiversity-net-gain-of-a-project-or-development#using-the-metric-tool.

Additional Comments 11 May 2024

3

Appendix 1

Statutory Metric (SM) - Individual trees – Urban tree habitat calculation

Additional Comments 11 May 2024

4

Appendix 2

SADMP DM17 / BTRS calculation

Totals 37 37 32

Tree

ID

BS5837

Category

Tree

Count

Trees

Removed

DBH

(cm)

BTRS

Replacements

T3 U 1 1 22.0 0

T42 B2 1 1 66.0 6

T43 B2 1 1 41.0 4

T49 C1 1 1 45.0 4

T52 C1 1 1 4.0 0

T53 C2 1 1 24.0 2

T54 C2 1 1 29.0 2

T55 C2 1 1 36.0 3

T56 C2 1 1 24.0 2

T57 C2 1 1 34.0 3

T58 C2 1 1 24.0 2

T59 C2 1 1 25.0 2

T60 C2 1 1 20.0 2

G1 C2 5 5 13.0 0

G2 C2 5 5 13.0 0

G6 C2 4 4 6.0 0

G7 C2 5 5 6.0 0

G8 C2 5 5 6.0 0

Additional Comments 11 May 2024

5

Appendix 3

BS 3936-1:1992 - Nursery stock - Specification for trees and shrubs

Yes, I support this. It will help improve the natural biodiversity in the area and improveexperience and connection with nature of people nearby.

I'm responding as a member of the Bristol Rivers & Streams Network, an informal groupof Bristol residents who undertake/support grassroots work to improve our watercourses and theirwildlife across the city.

Firstly, it's really positive to see the proposed removal of culvert over the Malago and improvementof the channel - both of which are in line with Bristol Avon Catchment Partnership (BACP) fishrecovery strategy signed up to by Bristol City Council.

Having done so, as far as possible, I'm hopeful that the work will return the river back to a morenatural l form (where the channel can re-wiggle a bit, depositing and eroding some material overtime so enabling maintenance of a mix of micro-habitats, boosting diverse species). I assume thisis what is meant by 'restoration' in the title of the planning application (restoring it to a naturalstate)?

With better habitat there is the opportunity to increase diversity so a wider variety and largernumbers of invertebrates and coarse fish (eels, three spined stickleback, possibly even roach)may occur in the Malago, plus some aquatic macrophytes may also become established.

So, in principle I like the idea - but whilst I recognise the positives I nevertheless wish to object tothis proposed development in it's current form as I have a number of specific concerns, sharedwith others who know the stream well, which I don't believe have been properly addressed:

1) During the preparation and construction phase:

1.a) Risk of releasing contaminated soil into the watercourse/onto the river banks. The industrialheritage of the site means this could pose a significant risk for aquatic life within and downstreamof the site (including in the Avon New Cut, which is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest and aLocal Nature Reserve). Careful planning and control is needed to prevent this, plus ideallysurveys/sampling to monitor levels of potential contaminants before and after the work (so thatimpact assessment is undertaken to demonstrate the work/controls were successful).

My response: I am not confident based on what I've seen that identification and controlledmanagement of potential contaminants of the soils/potentially entering the river is demonstratedsufficiently in the current documentation.

1.b) Interference with fish movements up and downstream. Fish have been observed in theMalago:- Bullheads, Cottus gobio, have been both seen and sampled. An adult bullhead was present inthe sampling net at the completion of the standard 3 minute Riverfly kick-sweep exercise on 10thFebruary 2024 near this site where it flows alongside Hereford street). This record has now beensubmitted to Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre (BRERC).- Freshwater eel, Anguilla anguilla have been observed in the Malago with validated records onthe BRERC database (most recently in 2022 at Grid Square ST5769, i.e. the Malago at ManorWoods Valley - i.e. upstream of Bedminster). Freshwater eels have a very high conservationstatus in the UK, they are a Priority Species under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework andare listed as Critically Endangered on the global IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

The design and the way the project is delivered must therefore ensure fish populations and fishpassage through the site are not adversely affected.

Response: I am not confident currently that issues relating to fish and eel populations have beenaddressed sufficiently in the documentation.

2) Shading/artificial light impact on bats - bats have been observed in the area and along thecourse of the river Malago in Bedminster. They may be passing through or possibly may reside inor adjacent to the site.

Records from the BRERC show the following bat species have been observed in the 1km gridsquare surrounding the site: Bechstein's Bat, Myotis bechsteinii; Lesser Horseshoe Bat,Rhinolophus hipposideros; Pipistrelle, Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Not in the BRERC records for thisgrid square but potentially also present are Daubenton's bats, Myotis daubentonii. The WildlifeTrust advise that this latter species roosts near water, under bridges or in tunnels, and in holes intrees. Also Daubenton's bats hibernate underground over winter, in caves, tunnels and mines. If

present, the conservation status of this species is high, it is protected in the UK under the Wildlifeand Countryside Act, 1981, European Protected Species under Annex IV of the European HabitatsDirective.

Question, have the old stone walls alongside the Malago and the tunnels/culverts and the treesnear the river been surveyed to confirm the presence or absence of bats (including Daubenton'sbats)? If not this must be included in the preparation work for the development and if present stepstaken to avoid any disruption.

Also how will bats respond to the shading (during the day) and light (at night) once the newdevelopment is in place and will this disturb either their roosting behaviour or flight-paths? Has thishabitat aspect been considered and planned for under BNG requirements?

Response: I am not confident risks and actions regarding bats have been demonstrated in thecurrent documentation. Under BNG an obligation exists to enhance and maintain a habitat - with alegal agreement for off-site or on-site gains lasting for at least 30 years. How have the bat habitatsbeen considered in relation to this requirement both in terms of assessment of any potentialdegradation of the habitat and off site gains elsewhere?

3.) In the Habitat management and monitoring plan for BNG:

3.a) To enhance the habitat for wildlife polluting fly tipped rubbish and litter needs to be removed.This needs to take place both on the immediate site plus also for a reasonable distance (say1km?) upstream. If this isn't done the site will quickly be affected by fresh deposition of rubbishmoved by the stream flow and therefore adding chemicals and microplastics to the water columnand sediments.

In addition high quality blue-space is recognised as an aspect which complements green-space sowhich together provide excellent support for local residents' well being. Visible rubbish/pollution isa real eyesore and will undoubtedly diminish the amenity value of the Malago, including the newlyexposed section of the river, unless an ongoing action plan is put in place to remove litter/rubbishfrom the river at regular intervals. Experience of volunteers with other water courses (BrislingtonBrook, River Trym) is that if the river is full of rubbish more will be chucked in, whereas once cleanlittering is less frequent (people respect the space more).

I note in the documents a commitment to undertake work to remove excess silt on an annualbasis. I suggest that a more frequent plan is required to ensure rubbish/litter is removed regularly,say every quarter - otherwise the wildlife and amenity value will be badly compromised.

Questions: Who is responsible for maintenance, management and monitoring in the Malago/alongits banks?

Response: The proposal needs to be amended to include specific rubbish clearance plans, bothan initial site clearance (on the site and up to say 1km upstream) and with regular follows-upsthereafter so the value of the habitat is maintained - and amenity value for the public ismaintained.

As it stands I am not confident that the documentation demonstrates robust pre and post deliveryactions, with assigned owners, for enhancing and maintaining the aquatic habitat over the mediumterm.

3.b) Pre & post surveys of wildlife. What plants/invertebrates/fish/birds/bats are currently using theMalago (before the development work)? As referred to above, a Riverfly sample was taken inFebruary 2024 using the methodology approved by the Environment Agency and FreshwaterBiological Association. This sample revealed the presence not only of bullheads (fish) above, butalso of a variety of aquatic invertebrates. Also BRERC records suggest a variety of other speciesin the vicinity.

So there is definitely some wildlife in there - but has the development project undertaken or is itplanning to undertake a comprehensive site survey? If not what is the justification for indicatingthat a habitat management and monitoring plan for BNG is in place?

I suggest that the actions under any such plan must include wildlife surveys - otherwise how willanyone know that the habitat is actually being maintained effectively (it could look OK and be awildlife free zone due to chemicals in the water)?

One final point, I believe the design of the reconfigured channel may include plastic membrane orplastic netting? I strongly suggest this is not progressed. Exposure to sunlight, temperaturechanges and flowing water will over time lead to release of microplastics in to the water - definitelyto be avoided at all costs.

I hope these points can be considered, responded to and addressed in updated plans and aheadof that wish my objections to the current plans/documents be noted.

The attention of Development Management

Because this application is subject to the biodiversity gain condition it needs to contain withinthe documentation:

A statement confirming whether the applicant believes that planning permission, if granted,would be subject to the biodiversity gain conditionThe pre-development biodiversity value of the on-site habitat on the date of application (or anearlier date) including the completed metric calculation (showing the calculations, thepublication date and version of the biodiversity metric used to calculate that value)Where the applicant wishes to use an earlier date, the proposed earlier date and the reasons forthat dateA statement confirming whether the biodiversity value of the on-site habitat is lower on thedate of application (or an earlier date) because of the carrying on of activities (‘degradation’)Where unauthorised degradation has taken place between 30 January 2020 and the submissionof the planning application, the relevant date should be immediately before these activitieswere carried outA description of any irreplaceable habitat on the land, that exists on the date of application (oran earlier date)A plan drawn to an identified scale (including the direction of north), showing on-site habitatexisting on the date of application (or an earlier date), and any irreplaceable habitat.

And because there is a requirement "for a significant increase of on-site biodiversityenhancements” a draft Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan should be included in thedocumentation. While there is a maintenance schedule this is a utility maintenance plan notthe Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan as required.

Can you confirm that this application will not go before a committee until satisfactory.submissions are made that meet the minimum requirements as set out in Article 7 of The Townand Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: for bothof these essential documents.

Additional Comments 20 February 2024

2

that can be restored within 2 years to be excluded from the calculations.’4 The now-

obligatory Statutory Metric refines this and states:5

However, the standard time-to-target period for lost Individual trees habitat ranges

from 10 to 30+ years, depending on the target condition. Since there are no plans

to enhance this habitat, this exemption cannot be relied on.

5. Accordingly, we have included the removal of these three trees in our biodiversity gain and

BTRS calculations for this application - Appendix 2 sets out our suggestion for a possible

way to apportion the baseline habitat and replacement trees required between these two

applications, to overcome the risk of under- or over-compensation.

6. On this basis, we calculate that the baseline Statutory Metric Individual trees – Urban tree

habitat area is 0.3009 hectares, none of which will be retained (see Appendix 1).

7. In light of this we calculate that 203 ‘small’ category trees will need to be planted offsite

to create the 0.8265 ha of new habitat required in order to comply with the statutory

metric trading rules. These state that: ‘The trading rules only apply up to the point of no

net loss. Once trading rules have been met, biodiversity net gain requirements can be met

by the creation and enhancement of any habitat, provided it is within the relevant

module.’ 6

8. As a consequence of this, the onsite area biodiversity loss of 68.27% becomes an overall

area biodiversity gain of 20.75%.

9. Our calculations are based on the Statutory Metric. However, if the LPA requires BNG 4.0

to be used, then the baseline BNG 4.0 Individual trees – Urban tree habitat area becomes

4 23_02915_F-BNG_EXEMPTION_NOTE_REV_B-3501172.pdf 5 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c60e0514b83c000ca715f3/The_Statutory_Biodiversity_Metric_-_User_Guide_.pdf - page 34. 6 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c60e0514b83c000ca715f3/The_Statutory_Biodiversity_Metric_-_User_Guide_.pdf - page 14.

Additional Comments 20 February 2024

3

0.4024 hectares. This will require 271 ‘small’ category trees to be planted off site to create

the 1.1034 ha of new habitat required in order to comply with the BNG 4.0 trading rules.

This turns an onsite area biodiversity loss of 75.57% into a gain of 15.90%.

10. We have credited the replacement trees required under DM17 and BTRS in both these

scenarios.

11. The applicant’s arboriculturist calculates that 31 replacement trees will be needed under

DM17 and BTRS, whereas we say that 52 replacements will be needed. The arboricultural

has excluded the three trees being removed as a result of the heat network installation

application. If we too were to exclude these, then 32 replacements would be needed. It

appears that the difference between us is because they use stem diameters accurate to

one decimal place in their calculation table, whereas all stem diameters are reported in

the tree schedule at Appendix 1 are rounded up. We have used the rounded-up value so

that tree T60 requires two replacement trees - it has a stem diameter reported as 20cm -

whereas the calculation table reports it as 19.5cm and so only one replacement tree is

required. This needs to be resolved. However this is done, these replacement trees are

included in our biodiversity gain calculations.

12. There is no realistic prospect that 203, let alone 271, new tree-planting sites can be found

within a one-mile radius of the development site – this is the normal usually requirement

in any replacement agreement. In this case, the applicant is at liberty to find suitable sites

elsewhere, either within the city or beyond it anywhere else in England. The process by

which decisions may be made to find mitigation sites elsewhere is set out on the

biodiversity mitigation hierarchy.7 We discuss the implications of this in our recent 24/7

article, IT SEEMS INEVITABLE BRISTOL WILL SEE A STEADY, INEXORABLE BIODIVERSITY

DECLINE.8

13. The LPA’s ecologist challenges the designation of the strategic significance of the onsite

habitats as high. Whatever the overall merits of this, we say that the trees growing on site

should be given high strategic significance because trees are expressly identified in the

Local Plan under BCS9 and DM17. A Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) has yet to be

adopted by the planning authority. As a consequence, planners may look to local strategies

which have been adopted. These can include:

• Draft Local Nature Recovery Strategies

• Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans

• Local Planning Authority Local Ecological Networks

• Tree Strategies

• Biodiversity Action Plans

7 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain - Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 74-008-20240214 8 https://www.bristol247.com/opinion/your-say/it-seems-inevitable-bristol-will-see-a-steady-inexorable-biodiversity-decline/

Additional Comments 20 February 2024

4

• Woodland strategies

• Green Infrastructure Strategies

• River Basin Management Plans

• Catchment Plans and Catchment Planning Systems.9

14. We agree with the rest of the ecologist’s report, though we suggest that, because tree

groups G6 to G8 do not qualify as Individual trees habitat (the trees’ stem diameters are

too small) they should be included as a separate habitat. We suggest Mixed scrub. We have

calculated their combined Root Protection Areas (RPA) as 175.93 square metres.

9 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c60e0514b83c000ca715f3/The_Statutory_Biodiversity_Metric_-_User_Guide_.pdf - page 26.

Additional Comments 20 February 2024

5

Appendix 1

Statutory Metric - Individual trees – Urban tree habitat calculation

Additional Comments 20 February 2024

6

Appendix 2

The following table shows three possible ways of distributing baseline and replacement

habitats, depending on the metric used. Our preference is for the statutory metric because it

replaces BNG 4.0 and BTRS for all calculations of biodiversity gain.

Metric Used Habitat Data

Application Sites

Malago Restoration

Share

Heat Network

Share

All Habitats

Statutory Metric

Baseline area (ha)

0.1715 0.1294 0.3009

New trees needed to comply with the trading

rules

116 87 203

BNG 4.0

Baseline area (ha)

0.2527 0.1497 0.4024

New trees needed to comply with the trading

rules

170 101 271

BTRS Requirement for

replacement trees

32 20 52

The green is popular with the local residents and as evidence of this a petition to keep the green as a local green space, which has attracted interest and at time of writing has over 1000 signatures, a link can be found below, the green space is valued as it is and so should be carefully maintained as complete and unfragmented as possible:

https://www.change.org/p/keep-bedminster-green-a-local-green-space?recruiter=99767730&recruited_by_id=073496de-e821-4a9e-8e65-559b6e4abe01&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_for_starters_page&utm_medium=copylink

Existing development impacts and impacts of the proposals Wham is concerned that each one of the developments already given permission has led to a marked reduction in biodiversity over the plots and the local area. For example, in this area there has been:

• Removal of trees on the planted car park of the farm federation building (felled early 2023)

• Loss of trees on Little Paradise car park for a multi storey replacement • Loss of trees around the subway as part of the St Catherine's redevelopment • Loss of green space and shrub planting adjacent to Dalby Avenue as part of the

redevelopment of a tall building

The group was dismayed when trees were removed from the car park without any notice to residents at all. As far as the group is aware no permission for the removal of these trees has been secured, and the application for development of that plot not submitted.

While in principle restoring the river Malago is something to welcome and the proposed low level plantings look attractive, if it comes with the destruction of at least 25 mature trees this means less biodiversity. Wham does not support the removal of any more trees from the green.

The group is also aware that there are bats using the railway line as well as roosting birds using the green space. It is keen that these are not disturbed or prevented from using roosts or feeding grounds.

New habitats It was noted that no reference in the biodiversity net gain calculation was made the stepped areas, boardwalks or cycle ways.

We are concerned that the result of these works will require significant replacement trees (perhaps as many as 225 using the BNG 4.0 metric) and there is no clear plan as to where these will be or how they will be looked after and how the sites will be protected from development for the next 30 years once allocated which is a key part of the metric.

Replacement tree policy The group does not accept that the planting of replacement trees that may be required should be anywhere other than on the site or immediately adjacent to it. The trees support the biodiversity that lives in that area. Removing any trees may force existing occupying animals (which includes rare bats using the area for feeding) to compete to survive in less space with fewer resources and this is unacceptable. WHaM is concerned that the requirements laid out in the Biodiversity net gain calculation will not be met in a way that preserves the habitat local to the site, The proposed locations should be clearly stated.

To satisfy the provided biodiversity net gain 4.0 calculation, the applicant would need to have the details for the replacement trees to understand their contribution to the mitigation. We do not believe that the medium value applied to the street trees is correct, and that this should be classed as small unless evidence is submitted to prove otherwise - this has not yet been provided. Without the evidence replacement street trees should be counted as small, and at their current level of proposed provision the amount is not sufficient1.

At the current time the group does not believe that these proposals safeguard the future of the green as a local hub of green infrastructure and does not support the proposals. It was also concerned that the anomalies in the application should not permit determination.

We are informed by the regeneration team that there is no public system for the monitoring of replacement trees, but that health of public trees can be recorded by members of the public through the city council website. It is not acceptable for the public to have to monitor health if they are to be maintained by the developer on a site secured by the developer for a period of 30 years. Evidence needs to be gathered and reported that this is occurring. The maintenance plan for the opening up of the Malago should

1 The Statutory BNG Metric Guide, published on 29 November 2023, states that: ‘You should categorise most newly planted individual trees as ‘small’, unless the tree is medium sized or above at the time of planting.’ All BS3936-1 nursery stock trees fall below the BNG ‘small’ category - Median DBH between 2.23cm and 6.84 cm.

include measures for the replacement trees to ensure their commitment to the mitigation of any harm will be successfully implemented, the sites for off-site planting clearly identified. Site contamination The analysis documents indicate that there are high levels of lead, beryllium, cadmium and nickel recorded at various points over the application area, but it is not clear what measures are to be taken to avoid them becoming harmful run-off into the proposed water courses. There is no CONTROL FRAMEWORK published with the documents on the website as to how harm is to be controlled and avoided. WHaM has been advised that this is a document that should be provided with the application. Ownership of the Land in Question and Maintenance Plans and Flood Risk WHaM also notes that the EA is concerned that adjacent landowners might not have been informed by BCC that the runoff might change and affect their land. BCC has responded saying that it owns all the land. But WHaM is aware from FOI requests that BCC has entered into a conditional sale agreement with the developer for Plot 5 in 2017. It is not known precisely what part of land will be sold but changes in ownership affect maintenance and flooding plans for the area. Are EA aware of the changes of ownership to take place? How does a potential change of ownership affect any maintenance and flood prevention plans? The position needs to be transparent. Access to the river The works are being put forward as amenity works to the green but seem in fact to have a purpose which is to do with flood alleviation. It is noted for example, how little access to the river there will be for residents. With this in mind, the works do not seem to have been designed in their current form as ancillary to the green, but rather as a replacement function, to do something else – a flood defence for future building sites. Reduction of the green space and using the area for a flood defence for buildings is not permitted by DM17. It is not ancillary to the purpose of the green space. Consultations The consultation undertaken with Wham at an earlier stage focussed on the amenity potential of the proposals rather than the stated aim of flood alleviation. Very little mention was made of tree loss. We note that the consultation document only referred to the loss of ‘some trees’ which suggests a small number and in fact the reality is the loss of at least 25 trees, along a narrow open channel that is not particularly accessible to the public and an amphitheatre that acts as a flood barrier.

Upon referring to the consultation record, we see the terms ‘some trees’ is used rather than a quantified amount. This seems to infer a lower number than those which are proposed to be removed which would appear to be around 1/3 of the trees in the updated arboricultural impact assessment. Documentation The group is aware of the other applications under consideration on the site and has been looking through the parallel documentation produced. Currently there are discrepancies between the tree surveys where they overlap, the BNG calculations are each from different eras (not all are version 4.0 which has been in circulation since February 2023 and is now required for applications form 12 February 2024) so are producing different outcomes where again sites overlap. Within the documents for Plot 5 there is a conflict between the Environment Agency and the KRS flood assessment in the need for flood prevention measures on the Green. This of course has an impact on the application to open the Malago. The independence of the three schemes means is difficult for the officers to make accurate judgements of the impacts on public space and impossible for a lay committee to assess accumulative effects of each scheme. We are concerned that if there is no consistency measuring the same features between applications, there will be no full understanding of the impacts. Safety We note that the Environment Agency’s comment includes some reservations about the stability of the banks to either side of the Malago, and that not all the walls are being strengthened. WHaM would like to reassurance that these are being resolved in some fashion, e.g. by the owners of those walls or as part of the river opening-up works to ensure they do not cause an issue with future stability of the river, so that it does not affect the safety of the public realm or future development. WHAM objects to this proposal and is concerned that such works are proposed to a much-loved green space, that will be harmed and diminished, whilst there is a record of the loss of biodiversity the replacement quantity of trees seems to be under what is required, and there is insufficient detail on how this will be provided in such a way as to avoid diminishing local biodiversity on the site and seems to conflict with the aims of current and forthcoming planning policy in a city that has declared a biodiversity crisis less than 5 years ago.

The revised Arboricultural Impact Assessment recently posted on the Planning Portal isat fault for not making an accurate statement about tree replacement.This application is being made as a discrete application and cannot include assumptions that otherapplications for the same tract of land will be given consent. It is necessary for all trees felled, toachieve this project, be accounted for in this application.For example of the five Lombardy Poplars listed in the tree schedule three are due to be removedfor this project but only one is accounted for in the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard Table 2.This is just one easily spotted inaccuracy which should not not have appeared in a reviseddocument.This document must be replace with a accurately revised document before consideration is givento this application.

- Bedminster Green is a well loved community open green space. The Green has awonderful display of crocuses each spring, of which we are very proud. It has a good selection ofmature and semi-mature trees, including some very large poplar trees, visible from quite adistance as well as locally. This proposal intends to cut down many of these trees. I would be keento restore the river to the surface if there is a plan which maximises the benefit for biodiversity andcuts down as few of the trees as possible. This proposal does not do that.- Although, at first glance, it would appear beneficial to restore the River Malago at BedminsterGreen, this work would have to be done in a way which will preserve all the biodiversity we can onsite, and to make this newly visible river excellent for biodiversity. The current plans seem to go forchopping down the maximum number of trees possible, rather than selecting the route for the riverthan disturbs the minimum of tree cover. The route could be better thought out, to keep as manytrees as possible.- As local people, we were initially consulted on bringing back the river for wildlife and for people.But this aim seems to have changed over the last few years, so that the current plan has become,restoring the river for flood alleviation. It seems that one of the plots needed to be designated theflood zone, and our Green has been given that status, whilst all the other sites which could havebeen allocated for flood alleviation, have been allocated for development, and making a lot of profitfor Developers. We are not happy that our Green, an Important Open Space (IOS) in the currentLocal Plan, should be given over to flood alleviation. And indeed, this use is not ancillary to theopen space (as specified in the Local Plan), it is a different function.- There is also no clear maintenance plan for the restored river, and this is vital, to make sure it is

kept as good as possible for wildlife, and the trash screen kept clear for wildlife to move up anddown the river.- We would like to see a plan which makes the river restoration as good as possible for wildlife,loses as few trees as possible on the Green, and has a clear and well funded maintenance plan.The Developers, who are making large profits on nearby land, reliant on the fact that the floodalleviation plan is on our Green, thus freeing up the other land for development, could easily funda long term and well run maintenance plan.- Replacement trees are mentioned - to be planted within 1 mile of the Green. We would like toknow exactly where these trees could be planted. But wherever they are, they are not here on thisGreen. And Bedminster Green will need every single mature tree it can have, with climate changehappening, temperatures rising, and all these new flats being built around the Green. The veryidea of removing all these wonderful mature trees at this time, is inexplicable. Bristol hascommitted to improving its biodiversity. We would like to see a very clear Biodiversity net gainanalysis for this proposal.

Additional Comments 06 February 2024

2

(iv) insofar as registered offsite biodiversity gain cannot be allocated to the

development, the purchase of biodiversity credits.2

The broad habitat, Individual trees, is a Medium distinctiveness habitat and so scores four.

It can only be replaced with the same broad habitat or one with a higher distinctiveness

score of 6 or 8.

If habitat creation must happen outside Bristol, or if biodiversity credits need to be bought,

then there will be a net loss of biodiversity within the city. This is unacceptable. The whole

purpose of the new biodiversity gain regime is to improve overall biodiversity by at least

10%. This will not happen if the net effect is that Bristol suffers an overall decline in

biodiversity.

4. In either case, the applicant will be obliged to prepare a Biodiversity Gain Plan under Part

2 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act.3 It will also need to agree, secure

and fund a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) for at least the next 30 years

so that the post-development habitat mitigations proposed are properly managed.

Given the above, and for all the other reasons we have already set out, we continue to object

to this application.

2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/50/made - regulation 37A. 3 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/schedule/7A

Additional Comments 06 February 2024

3

Appendix 1

Statutory Metric - Individual trees – Urban tree habitat calculation

I strongly object to the revised plans to remove so many trees in the proposeddevelopment site.

The comments by Bristol tree Forum (BTF) to the revised plans, bring up yet again that the plansare flawed, with omissions of important tree information, overlaps and conflicts with planningapplication 23/02915/F, and do not meet the required regulations in relation to the trees they planto plant, to replace the mature and other trees they want to remove.

Worryingly, the Environment Agency (EA) comments that these revised plans include, show thatdue to the past industrial activity of the area in the planning proposal, there is going to be aproblem if the Malago river is let loose, as it will erode some of the land it would go through, thusreleasing contaminants into the environment, risking human and animal health.

Based on these evidences alone means that the revised plans cannot be accepted, so Bristol CityCouncil (BCC) will yet again have to rethink their plans and submit ones that actually meet therelevant planning regulations. Or, abandon the project as it is very unlikely that they can adjust theplans accordingly, as they have already submitted revised plans that are inadequate, to say theleast!

Please see the BTF comments for full details.

It is vitally important that the trees be left where they are, as the area needs them to improve thehealth and wellbeing of the residents, air quality of the environment and other living creatures thatdepend on them. Please leave them be!

I am in support of the regeneration of the River Malago, however the current proposal istaking out too many trees, groups and hedgerows, at a time when mature green environmentsshould be protected. I would support an adjusted proposal to the number of trees being felled. Thisapplication should also be taken in consideration alongside the other development proposalswhere up to 40 trees are being proposed to be taken down. This would destroy the ambiance,green area of Bedminster - when more is needed given the increased development and thereforepopulation increase coming to the area. Also has a negative impact on well being.

Further Comments 29 December 2023

2

themselves, it must not result in any shortfall in the compensation required as a result of

the loss of either trees or other habitat by either of these developments.

2. We also note that Bedminster Green is an Important Open Space as defined by SADMP

DM17.5 DM17 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.’ Whilst the proposals made in this application might be said to be

‘ancillary to the open space use’, the proposal to install heat network infrastructure across

Bedminster Green, certainly is not and so cannot be permitted. As such, all the trees

growing within the redline boundary of this application ought to be included in these

calculations.

3. There are 28 trees impacted by this application of which 26 will be removed. We calculate

that 45 replacement trees will need to be planted in order to comply with DM17 and BTRS

(see Appendix 1). The applicant says that only 27 replacements will be required but we

have not seen their BTRS calculation supporting this. They say that these will be planted

offsite within a mile of the development, however they have not identified the new sites

where this will take place, as is required under DM17. We also doubt that it will be possible

to find new replacement planting sites within this radius.

4. We calculate that the baseline BNG 4.0 Individual trees – Urban tree habitat area is 0.3421

hectares and that none of this habitat will be retained (see Appendix 2).

5. The applicant concedes that onsite mitigation for the loss of this habitat (-69.58% BNG) is

not possible and so has proposed that 27 ‘medium’ category trees with a habitat area of

0.99 ha be planted offsite in areas within the LPA boundary which are of high strategic

significant and achieve moderate condition after the standard time-to-target period of 27

years has elapsed. We do not agree.

6. Any offsite Individual trees – Urban tree habitat mitigation is likely to be created in public

locations which are ecologically desirable but not in local strategy. This gives them medium

strategic significance, not high.

7. The applicant has also used the wrong BNG 4.0 Individual trees – Urban tree habitat

category size. Paragraph 8.3.13 of the Biodiversity Metric 4.0 - User guide states that:

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.6

As the applicant has produced no evidence to ‘justify the input of larger size classes’, BNG

4.0 small category tree sizes must be used to calculate the mitigation required.

8. 27 ‘small’ category trees planted within the LPA in areas of medium strategic significance

which achieve moderate condition will create 0.1099 ha of new habitat and result in a

5 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/2235-site-allocations-bd5605/file p.36 6 The Statutory BNG Metric Guide, published on 29 November 2023, states that: ‘You should categorise most newly planted individual trees as ‘small’, unless the tree is medium sized or above at the time of planting.’ All BS3936-1 nursery stock trees fall below the BNG ‘small’ category - Median DBH between 2.23cm and 6.84 cm.

Further Comments 29 December 2023

3

breach, by -2.70 BNG 4.0 Individual trees – Urban tree habitat units, of the trading rules

and a net BNG loss of -59.02%.

9. We calculate that 225 ‘small’ category trees would need to be planted offsite within the

LPA in areas of medium strategic significance which will achieve moderate condition and

create the 0.9161 ha of new habitat required in order to comply with the trading rules and

achieve a net BNG gain in excess of the 10% the applicant aspires to in their BNG 4.0

calculation - in this case 18.41%. There is no realistic prospect that 225 new local (within

a one-mile radius) tree planting sites are available.

Further Comments 29 December 2023

4

Appendix 1 – SADMP DM17/BTRS Calculation

Totals 28 26 45

Tree

ID

BS5837

Category

Tree

Count

Trees

Removed

DBH

(cm)

BTRS

Replacements

T3 1 1 22.0 2

T42 B2 1 1 66.2 6

T43 B2 1 1 41.2 4

T44 B2 1 1 44.0 4

T49 C1 1 1 45.0 4

T51 B1 1 1 83.0 8

T52 C1 1 1 4.0 0

T53 C2 1 1 23.6 2

T54 C2 1 1 28.8 2

T55 C2 1 1 36.0 3

T56 C2 1 1 24.2 2

T57 C2 1 1 34.4 3

T58 C2 1 1 24.0 2

T59 C2 1 1 25.2 2

T60 C2 1 1 19.5 1

G1 C2 3 1 13.0 0

G2 C2 7 7 13.0 0

G6 1 1 6.0 0

G7 1 1 6.0 0

G8 1 1 6.0 0

Further Comments 29 December 2023

5

Appendix 2 - BNG 4.0 Individual trees – Urban tree habitat calculation

Tree Totals

28 26 BNG 4.0 Totals 0.1143 0.3421 0.3421 0.0000

Tree ID

Tree Count

Trees Removed

DBH (cm)

RPA (m^2)

Baseline RPA (ha)

BNG 4.0 Category

Baseline Habitat

Habitat removed

(ha)

Habitat Retained

(ha)

T3 1 1 22.0 21.90 0.0022 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T42 1 1 66.2 198.26 0.0198 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T43 1 1 41.2 76.79 0.0077 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T44 1 1 44.0 87.58 0.0088 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T49 1 1 45.0 91.61 0.0092 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T51 1 1 83.0 311.65 0.0312 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T52 1 1 4.0 0.72 0.0001 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T53 1 1 23.6 25.20 0.0025 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T54 1 1 28.8 37.52 0.0038 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T55 1 1 36.0 58.63 0.0059 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T56 1 1 24.2 26.49 0.0026 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T57 1 1 34.4 53.53 0.0054 Medium 0.0366 0.0366 0.0000

T58 1 1 24.0 26.06 0.0026 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T59 1 1 25.2 28.73 0.0029 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

T60 1 1 19.5 17.20 0.0017 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

G1 3 1 13.0 22.94 0.0023 Small 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000

G2 7 7 13.0 53.52 0.0054 Small 0.0285 0.0285 0.0000

G6 1 1 6.0 1.63 0.0002 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

G7 1 1 6.0 1.63 0.0002 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

G8 1 1 6.0 1.63 0.0002 Small 0.0041 0.0041 0.0000

I strongly object to the plans to remove the trees. In an already highly developed area,these trees are a green oasis in a concrete jungle.

The trees provide an essential area of natural calm, a balm of nature's sights and sounds, birdssinging, leaves rustling in the wind, the shades of green, brown and the bright colours of autumnall soothes the affects of frenetic city activity on us, and other living things, supporting the mentalhealth of those able to see, hear, or visit this green heartland. This cannot be replaced by youngsaplings.

I also strongly object to the planned hours of work seven days a week, which would be cruel,increasing the mental strain on those living within earshot of the development, adding greatly tothe stress of living in a city. The residents are having their quality of life harmed already by 18months of road works, with roughly another year to go until completion.

By removing these trees you greatly add to the risk of increased crime, which has been shown tobe higher in areas with little or no nature areas, and an excess of tightly packed buildings. In fact,what the council should be promoting is the increase of green spaces like this with bold plantingprojects, involving the local community in creating these spaces, with inclusion of fruit and nuttrees to feed animals and people.

That area is very dense and doesn't have enough trees already, losing more will onlydecline health of the community, river and animals further. Application is not planned thoroughlyand as a person living in the area I object

Trees provide shelter and reduce wind speed, thus reducing heat loss from buildingsduring winter. They provide shade in the summer and evapotranspiration of water from the leaveshas a cooling effect on the surrounding air. This can significantly reduce the need for airconditioning during hot weather. These trees are essential to the health and wellbeing of the areaand as such cannot in anyway be replaced by saplings. Bedminster Green is an essential placelocally even more so now that the level of development is so intense. Removing these trees is, toput it simply, an act of vandalism that will leave the area significantly bereft of essential greencanopy.

Strongly object to the removal of trees. The associated works around Dalby Avenuehave already removed one mature tree outside Catherine's House and the area is quickly beenturned into a concrete jungle. How can you even associate these developments with 'BedminsterGreen' when you're planning on removing aspects of the only green spaces in the area.

Also strongly objecting to the hours of work. Sunday work should not go ahead. The residents ofthis area have already been subject to 1.5 years of road works with another year to go.. How canwe deal with the constant noise and disruption for 7 days a week.

I support the preliminary comments made by the Bristol Tree Forum, and think furtherwork needs to be done to this application in order to guarantee that the approach is suitable forsuch a key part of connective green infrastructure.As pointed out by the Bristol Tree Forum, I do not believe the proposals allocate the correct levelof importance to the green space which is an important feature of Bedminster generally andWindmill Hill in particular.I would like clarification on why there appears to be a discrepancy in the areas of biodiversity thathave been assessed which seems lower than the actual length of the Malago in the plots.Development along Dalby Avenue has begun recently and I am concerned that this has alreadyresulted in a reduction in biodiversity over the plots and contributed to the same in the wider localarea.

It would be a great shame to lose the trees on Bedminster Green. It looks like the proposedreplacemtns are inadequate.Please ensure there is no work on the site on Sundays. Local residents have already been subjectto over a year of road works.

Whilst I am in favour of opening up and restoring the Malago I object strongly to anymore trees being lost. The trees are well loved by the comunity who feel under seige by all theintensive building being done in the small area.

I object on two counts: first trees, second, noise, three stupidity

First the tress. Please do not cut down any more trees in Bedminster. Bedminster is one of theleast biodiverse areas in Bristol and you are taking more of it away. Trees have already beenfelled outside St Catherine's House. In Japan, when there are new developments, they dig thetrees up, protecting the roots as the do so, and plant them elsewhere. Here, we just kill them.Leave the trees of Bedminster Green alone. Do not chop down 14 beloved trees.

Secondly, can we please have consideration for the people that live here. There is so muchdevelopment work going on. It goes on until late at night on weeknights, it starts early on Saturdaymornings and, sometimes, there are works on Sundays. Many complaints have been made to noavail. I work really hard and want my evenings and weekends to be peaceful.

Thirdly, the stupidity. I have lost count of just how many times over the past few years I have hadto come to this portal and object. Not because I am an objectionable person and not because I amopposed to the regeneration of the area but because, with each and every application, I've read itand thought, "are you kidding me?" and "who the hell proposed this ridiculous, ill-conceivednotion?" Just for once. Just once. Could someone, someone, put forward an application that theBedminster residents could look at and go "that would work. That would enhance the area. Thatdoes not destroy our previous habitat" and then either approve it or, even better. Not. Have. To.Comment. At. All.

I am concerned about the plan to remove 14 trees at the green space at bottom ofWindmill Hill between Malago Road and Whitehouse Lane.

My husband and I both support this River Restoration plan.It has the potential to improve the health of residents and local ecosystems.We hope the final details will include how the area will be maintained and by whom.Thank you to BCC officers for thorough work on the plan so far.

Broadly I support this development though there are nowhere near enough trulyaffordable homes or social housing included. It's great to open the Malago but unless the Councilis committed to its upkeep it will become quickly another litter strewn , weed choked, clogged upmess, like Colliter's brook often is. The hypocrisy of this Council astounds me, with Nicol Beechsaying in the Southbristolvoice that 'We have declared climate and ecological emergencies,committing to do as much as we can to combat climate change....' yet at the same time grantplanning permission for a High Ropes course in Ashton Court and a massive hosting developmenton Longwell field, both of which will decimate natural wild habitat and its associated wildlife .Despicable. I hope the Green elements of this development don't end in the same farcical way,though I hold out no hope of that.