I am pleased to see such a well thought out and designed site which is so desperatelyneeded in the current housing crisis in Bristol. Goarm Homes have thought this out well with theirteam, not only does it bring a decent amount of afforadable housing to a city with 20k people onthe waiting list for social housing but it also embraces the need for sustainable energy and thenecessary use of modern methods of constrcution.

I am aware that people often will have objections to housing being built in areas like this whenthere is a loss of green space but we are in a total housing crisis both in terms of number but alsoin affordability.

With an additional number of 1.1k people and families in temporary accommodation, children (likemy grown up daughter) having to leave Bristol as housing is unaffrodable for those in lower paidwork and businesses in bristol struggling to recruit as the workforce is priced out we desperatelyneed well thought out schemes like this.

We are past the stage where if we want a functioning city we can cling to the 'nice to have' inareas and underutilised space and need to accept that we need more schemes like this for thefuture of our children and the city.

Dear Angelo, Having now read the NCO's comments (attached for those cc'd to this email who may not yet have seen it), we have decided to delay submitting our detailed comments as they are largely covered by the NCO's report. We await sight of the applicant's response to these. However, a number of other issues arise as a result of this report: 1. We note that the PEA states that a schedule of trees to be removed has not yet

appropriate habitat type given the mix of trees here. 5. It is indicated that the Line of trees habitat in the B-1 On-Site Hedge Baseline tab

will be enhanced, yet no proposed enhancement calculation is provided. Please clarify this.

6. Looking at the proposed whole-site post-development habitats (see below), it would appear that there will be a significant deterioration in the quality of the wildlife corridor from the north of the site, particularly from the Mounds to the north-west. Can the NCO please be asked to comment on this.

I look forward to hearing from you. In the meantime, please publish a redacted version of this email on the planning portal." Regards Mark CD Ashdown Chair - Bristol Tree Forum

Ward Councillor Statement on Hengrove Park Reserved Matters - 23/02376/M

As can be seen from comments submitted from residents, the development of Hengrove Park stillelicits significant feeling from local residents who value the park as a local amenity for a number ofrecreational and leisure purposes. Whilst we accept that development of Hengrove Park will goahead, we want to make a number of points in relation to this application and the wider plans forthe development:

Density of Development

We note that Goram Homes has decided to reduce the number and density of homes built inPhase 1 as detailed in this application. Although there is a planning condition stating that the entiresite should have a build density of 66 dwellings per hectare - a condition that applies to the site asa whole - this application will only be 21.7dph overall, and 56.5dph for the residential area.

We note comments that it is intended that more central phases should be built more densely butare concerned about the impact this phase-by-phase may have - we do not want to see the laterphases having to shoe-horn in increased density to meet the condition in the outline planningapproval.

It is our position that this phase could have been developed at a higher density, and that if it hadbeen, this would have provided more flexibility when future phases are developed (in the absence

of a masterplan, as noted below). We would like to see full details of planned densities across allphases in order to be reassured that this condition can be met without compromising public spacewithin the development.

Community Space, the Residual Park, and Open Spaces

We particularly do not want to see the density target met by sacrificing either community space,the residual park, or other open spaces; we consider these to be sacrosanct. Further, any car-parking or other amenities associated with the proposed community buildings should not be at theexpense of parkland or open space.

We will therefore be keeping a watching brief on developments to ensure that the public spaceprovided for in the Outline Permission - and in particular the green space - does not get eroded.

For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any land that it is proposed will be fenced off for the useof individual groups - e.g. in the development of the replacement Scout Hut. If additional land isrequired (over and above the footprint of the existing hut), and that will not be available for publicuse, then this should not be at the expense of the requirement for a park and other open spaces.

Lack of Masterpan

We are disappointed that there is, as yet, no masterplan for the whole area allowing for the currentapplication to be viewed in context. We appreciate that work is being progressed on this, but feelthat this would have aided members of the committee in their deliberations as well as helpinginform public comments.

As well as helping answer the above concerns over development densities in each phase, andprovision of the new park and green spaces, this would also help with understanding how thephases will relate to each other, and the neighbouring areas, a number have also undergone, orare due to undergo, significant development.

Relationship with neighbouring sites

Immediately adjacent to the wider site is Hengrove Play Park, a Strategic Play Facility for childrenfrom across South Bristol (and beyond) - development of future phases must not compromise thisamenity which will also face challenges associated with the development of the neighbouringleisure park site, not least as the city is about to invest a significant sum of money in updating thefacilities.

Trees and Ecological Assessments

We have been copied into a significant amount of correspondence relating to the ecological

impacts of the development. Regretfully these have generally been one-way generating morequestions than answers. We believe that the applicants should be meeting their requirements toprotect and/or enhance the natural environment of the site, and to mitigate any loss of currenthabitat as per local and national planning policy and the outline planning conditions.

Cllr Andrew BrownCllr Sarah ClassickCllr Tim Kent

There is not the infrastructure in the area to support this level of housing so I object tothe plans in full

As with many others the concern is infrastructure, which was not set up for so manynew residents, there have been a number of increases of late, yet no inmprovement / investmentin the infrastructure.It appears to be expected that new residents will not have cars, children or medical requirements.I feel improvements / additions need to be made before residential buildings.

thousands of the members of the community use the park, by foot or cycle, in transit and forrecreation. Removing trees and shrub and fundamentally changing the use of the wooded areasreferred to here as ‘park’ will affect the community’s use of this space.

A further concern is the lack of car parking, and a lack of allocated spaces, in the housingdevelopment. Parking is a severe problem in the wider community surrounding the developmentwith insufficient space for vehicles off-road as it is, and adding more housing with insufficientcapacity for car parking will make road safety worse with more parked cars on the surroundingstreets. I am pleased to see a reasonable proportion of cycle parking provided, although it would bebetter to provide secure cycle lockers for the flats, than communal spaces which are not as secure.And I am pleased to see the presence of EV chargers, but the specification and security of these hasnot been identified (how will they be charged if not connected to a particular house or apartmentand if not secured for the development, has the developer considered other people from thecommunity may wish to use the facilities, taking up resident parking space?)

I note that the ‘Belvedere Tower’ appears to overlie a culvert of an Ordinary Watercourse tributary tothe Brislington Brook. It is a shame that the opportunity to open up this culvert is not being taken.

Kind regards

I object to this application in full. The area should be left as it is, it is an area used bydog walkers and a very successful car boot. The local schools are already over subscribed and itis extremely difficult, if not impossible to get an appointment at the health centre. There havealready been a lot of other housing developments in this area and every one of them have beenapproved. The roads and infrastructure cannot support a development of this size and I do not feelany of the above has been taken into consideration

We object to houses being built on this area. The Hengrove fields are used daily by dogwalkers, children, runners, people playing sports and the car boot sale. It is full of wildlife as wellas a used area for the local community. The local area is short on facilities Drs, schools, transportas it is. The traffic caused by the additional houses will bring Whitchurch/Hengrove to a standstill.Parking is already a problem in the area and will be made worse with all the extra houses.

I object to houses being built on this area. The Hengrove fields are used daily by dogwalkers, children, runners, people playing sports and the car boot sale. It is full of wildlife as wellas a used area for the local community. The local area is short on facilities Drs, schools, transportas it is. The traffic caused by the additional houses will bring Whitchurch/Hengrove to a standstill.Parking is already a problem in the area and will be made worse with all the extra houses. Whynot build more schools, doctors and dentist before building accommodation. Our area is short ongreen space as it is. Just leave it alone and let everybody enjoy the space to play

We have already fed back that the plans are excessive but this doesn't seem to betaken on board.

Our schools and doctors are already over subscribed, traffic is horrendous and the amount of carsbeing parked all along the side of the roads is getting ridiculous. Adding 1435 extra homes,alongside the god knows how many homes that have recently been built in the area will causechaos. What are your plans to tackle this? You only care about meeting housing quotas but don'tconsider the infrastructure at all in any of your plans.

I am sick of reading about plans to 'improve the plot of land' when the local community are happywith it in its current state - we do not want you to build on it! Ive lived in Whitchurch my whole lifeand am strongly considering moving out of the area as the council seem hell bent on destroying it.Why don't you build else where instead of cramming everything into one tiny area?

There is already insufficient infrastructure to support the existing residents in theWhitchurch/hengrove area. Schools are over subscribed, there is only one doctors surgery for theentire area which is impossible to get in to. To build these additional homes on an area of land thatis used by local residents is unsustainable and impractical.

We just don't want the building work or the 200 extra houses in this area where we havelovely greenery. This is where the rugby club plays and our children and dogs play. This is beingruined and demolished to line someones pocket and put an eye sore where a nice place used tobe. Filled with potentially 400 additional people taking up places in local school and making trafficand our local shops chaos.The area was nice and you are about to ruin it with another council estate.This is to line others pockets and is ruining Bristol and the area.Noone wants this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's all very well asking for our say but it is never taken into account - your minds aremade up about what you are building on that land, whether we like it or not.

You are building on every little scrap of land you can get your hands on in the local area and can'tseem to sell what you've already built (E.g houses on airport road). Our doctors are oversubscribed, roads congested but you will not listen and think you know best. I can guarantee if youwere to do a referendum in this area to ask if they would like this land built on, the answer wouldbe no. You do not care about the impact on local people let alone the negative effect on localwildlife.

You have received feedback time and time again about the excessive plans but still you continueto ignore us and plan to build more houses, without the supporting infrastructure. You changedthis area to brown belt land, simply to get your hands on it, which is corrupt in itself and shouldnever have been allowed.. and then ask for our opinions on something we don't want!!

This area is used by so many people for dog walks, for a mental health break, an open space forgames, exercise ..but you think building on it and including a tiny scrap of parkland is acceptable.If you think having parkland is important you wouldn't build there in the first place.

It was one of the only civil airports open during ww2 (alongside one in Liverpool). The site is rich inhistory but that clearly means nothing to the council, just so long as you meet your housingquotas!

Whitchurch used to be a lovely area but you are absolutely destroying it. Not to mention the otherplans in the surrounding areas such as a permanent traveller site and tower block flats at Broadwalk, which again no one wants but you'll find a way to proceed with (even after initial rejections!!)

I object to these plans and any building on green land/park land!