This would be a serious loss of a neighbourhood amenity. As a pedestrian, I frequentlyuse this pleasant green space to walk from Henleaze to Tesco and Horfield Common. Areas likethis, surrounded by trees, encourage walking which I understand is an important part of the City'saim to decrease car use. I would not wish to use it if it is reduced to a narrow alleyway. Pleaserefuse this application.

I use this green area at least weekly, if not more frequently. I would oppose this sapcebeing taken away to squeeze another house in here

Comments – 22 October 2023

2

accessible. So far, no detailed method statement has been produced. This will need to be

addressed in detail.

We also note that, because the RPA of T1 will be close to or within the foundations of the

building, it is proposed that ground protection will be installed. Again, no detailed method

statement has been provided. This too needs to be addressed.

Biodiversity Net Gain

Whilst no biodiversity net gain proposals are currently required under the Environment Act

2021, paragraph 179b of the NPPF2 requires that developer’s plans should ‘identify and pursue

opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.’ In this case, a biodiversity

metric calculation needs to be provided.

In the normal course of events, a Small Sites Metric calculation would be sufficient given the

size of the development but, given that offsite provision will be required, this is not permitted

and a full calculation using BNG 4.0 is required3.

Our analysis shows that the baseline tree habitat (individual tree – Urban) area for the trees on

site is 0.1506 ha, of which 0.0407 hectares will be retained. We have set the condition of the

habitat to Medium and the Strategic significance of the habitat at Medium – ‘Location

ecologically desirable but not in local strategy’. This provides 1.33 Habitat Units (HUs).

We have assumed that the rest of the site comprises a Modified Grassland habitat of 0.302 ha

in Moderate condition but of low strategic significance – ‘Area/compensation not in local

strategy/ no local strategy.’ This provides 1.21 HUs. We have assumed that one-third of this

habitat will be retained with the rest being developed and its biodiversity lost.

On this basis, we calculate that the proposals will result in a loss of 69.97% of the baseline

habitat – 1.77 HUs.

If the application is to achieve a biodiversity net gain of at least 10% and comply with the Rule

3 Trading rules, then 148 BNG 4.0 Small category trees will need to be planted offsite to create

0.6026 hectares of new Individual tree habitat in Moderate condition in an area of Medium

Strategic significance within the LPA after 27 years.

The Headline results of our calculation are set out below.

2 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1182995/NPPF_Sept_23.pdf 3 https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6047259574927360 and see https://nepubprod.appspot.com/publication/6049804846366720

Comments – 22 October 2023

3

Our calculation assumes that all the lost BNG will be wholly provided by creating Individual tree

habitat. However, it is possible to meet the BNG 4.0 trading rules and achieve at least 10% BNG

by providing just 71 BNG 4.0 Small category trees (worth 0.97 HUs) so long as the remaining

lost habitat provides a further 1.10 HUs comprising Medium Distinctiveness habitats. This will

still need to be provided offsite given the site size.

A copy of our calculation will be made available.

I have found the following document on the Bristol City Council website:-

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/4255-03-3-2-walking/file#:~:text=minimum%20width%20for%20footways%20with,as%20the%20minimum%20effective%20width.

The interesting part is as below :-

Manual for Streets states that the absoluteminimum width for footways with low flowsshould be 2m. 2m allows two people to pass inrelative comfort, and should be treated as theminimum effective width. However, this is wherethere is no street furniture present.

We therefore require minimum of 2.5m footwaywidth for more active residential streets,to ensure a high quality, sociable and safepedestrian environment.

As this proposal only includes a 1.2m pathway surely this is inadequate.

The land has been used by local people at least since I moved to area in 1979.Please can we continue to have a free open space where we can meet, socialise and foster aneighbourhood feel good factor in these times when so much of our world is negative in so manyaspectsKind regardsKeith pike

As a previous resident of the area who is still welcomed to picnics in this area, and whomakes regular use of the pathway, my attention has been drawn to this application. I'm afraid that Iobject to the current scheme as applied for the following reasons.The neighbourhood community of Sates Way and Ridge Hill have enjoyed use of the area formany years (and with no objection). The land in question was deemed a public space at the timeof the original property development, and has been the location of many picnics organised by thelocal community, who not only use it for pleasure and enjoyment of a small tranquil area of nature,but also as an important route to local shops and services including local bus routes etc. Theresidents have also maintained upkeep of the area, through organised litter picking activities,maintaining the walkway, and making the area attractive through use of flower planters anddecorative stones.The current application would be of detriment to the local community who would beunderstandably heartbroken if this area was lost.The area is also subject to a Town Green application, and this application should be fullyconsidered and completed before this planning application is to be considered.Section 4.1 of the Design and access statement states that the site does not have any ancillarybeneficial use. Given the above, it is clear that this statement is misleading.Given the above, I am also surprised to see that the neighbour notification list is limited to a fewproperties on Sates Way and Ridgehill, while it is clear that this application will affect many people,not only everyone who live on Sates Way and Ridgehill, but also those who live in further,neighbouring streets who also make use of the pathway. I would have suggested extending theneighbour list accordingly, but the number of objections from the local area have made it clear thatthis is something that the community are passionate about.The above matters aside, the current application maintains a 1.2m width pathway. I thank theapplicant for understanding the importance of the path at the very least, however 1.2m is

considerably narrower than the rest of the path, and indeed a tree blocks some of this path. Iwould propose that the path be widened to help ensure the pathway is suitable for dog walkers,cyclists (the remainder of the path has designated cycle and pedestrian paths), wheelchair usersand so on.Section 9.1 of the Design and access statement states that shopping and transport links are aclose walk away. Yes, this is indeed true, but only thanks to the pathway!In an acceptable arrangement, the owner should be responsible for the upkeep of hedges andtrees on the land to prevent overgrowing onto the path. Path obstructions may reduce access, andmay result in injuries to those that use the path.Many thanks for taking the time to read and consider these key points. I'd also like to make clearthe following notes:From elevation drawings, it is not clear what cladding is for 1st floor, as this should be somethingin keeping with the street scene as viewed from Ridgehill but also from Sates Way.The existing and proposed site plan does not label the path to the rear of 15 Sates Way (this pathconnects to a Supermarket, bus stops and other shops and services which are closest to the site.)The rear first floor windows of the proposed property may overlook 15 Sates Way Garden.CIL mentions a gross internal area of 106 square metres, whilst the floor plan suggests an internalarea of 107 square metres.

There is not enough green spaces in this built up area. Taking away this green spacewill be of detriment to wildlife. Green space helps with mental health. It is a nice route walking toTesco. It would be terrible if this went through.

I totally oppose this proposal as this piece of land is for the benefit of residents and toconnect Henleaze with Golden Hill and Tesco's via walking & cycling. By building an expensivedetached house , which will be of no benefit to residents of this area just yet another quick profitfor some builder, and destroying a piece of land which is used by residents and the public. Nodoubt they will be taking down trees as well which should all have TPO on as they are of benefit tothe public.Also, is this not a public right of way? & have they not applied for Village Green status as it is usedby the residents?

I have lived in the area since the mid eighties. Since I can remember there has beenaccess through this piece of land I believe because the original developer deemed the land to betoo small for a dwelling. Since Tesco was built it has provided an invaluable access way forshoppers this side of Golden Hill to cut through either on foot or by bike to save using their car fora trip to the supermarket or to Horfield Common. It is frequently used by (dog) walkers, joggers,cyclists, children, parents with push chairs and the proposed plans do not allow for sufficientaccess.

The area is well maintained, not an abandoned piece of land and is now a haven for all kinds ofwildlife. There are established trees which would undoubtedly need to be removed and likely morethan indicated on the plan and a lot of the vegetation would also be lost to allow light into aproperty and the new access thus also disturbing the wildlife.Village Green status has been applied for and this would be a much better use of the land allowingcommunity and a safe space for kids to play as they have done so for the last forty or so years.Please refuse this application.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:The land has been used by local people at least since I moved to area in 1979.

Please can we continue to have a free open space where we can meet, socialise and foster a

neighbourhood feel good factor in these times when so much of our world is negative in so many

aspects

Kind regards

Please do not build on this green space

This is a valuable entrance to the pedestrian and bike path, it allows for people to notuse their vehicles to go to golden hill. If this is blocked off it will mean an increase in traffic andrisks alienating elderly and young family with children

This is a much loved and used public space by the community and should not be builton

A little Green space for people in a built up area to enjoy and it is proposed to take itaway.

I have previously raised my objection to this application (on 06/10/2023 at 10:45pm). Ihave since been told that when the land around this plot was developed for the housing which nowstands beside it, in the course of the planning process, it was decided that this particular plotwould be not be built on (in the interests of local residents). I do not know whether this informationis accurate but, if it is, it would explain why the plot is not already built on. My purpose in raisingthis further comment is to ask the planning officers to investigate it and have due regard to it intheir decision making process.

This is a valuable alternative entrance for pedestrians, dog walkers and bike path, itallows for people to notuse their vehicles to go to golden hill.If it is blocked off it will mean an increase in traffic,alienating elderly and anyone who choses to walk rather than drive.In addition to the practical elements of is a uplifting little oasis of nature for the soul, nature is aproven benefit for mindfulness and destresser. It is a lovely walkway that should be kept as is.

This land is a much needed and loved community space and has been for many years.There is an application to adopt as a village Green I understand and I assume this application tobuild is as a result of this.The area provides a rich environment for wildlife and is a key access point for people of henleazeand Horfield to travel without use of cars to the Tesco that would otherwise be accessed via manymore car journeys. Please turn this application down.

This is an extremely well looked after and needed community space. It gives joy tothose who use it and to anyone walking through with its beautiful plants and painted stones.

This is supposed to be a green city. We are experiencing dwindling green spaceshowever small day by day until one day we wonder why everyone's well being is suffering andthere's no where to walk where there's nature. Green spaces need to be protected not bought andsold by people who have more money than a conscience. Please protect this site for everyone'ssanity and for future generations who will live us for putting nature in our cities before profit. Thankyou

We have lived here for over 40 years and for at least 30 years I have walked my dogsacross that land. I have seen the local residents having street parties there for several years andthey have looked after and planted flowers there for many years. It also gives the local childrensomewhere outdoors to be able to play. That loss of that land would be a travesty if planningpermission was granted.

Dear Council,If we lose this lovely green space, we will lose all of the wildlife which would be horrible for all thecreatures that live here.This area has lovely big trees which birds are always sitting in and chirping all day long so I wouldbe sad if we got rid of this.People have been putting painted rocks with nice messages here for years and they are reallykind and make people feel happy.I have been here for 9 years, and this place has always made me feel happy and ready to do goodthings for the world.

Please save this nice little area!From Thomas KingAge 10

We are experiencing a climate and biodiversity crisis. Small green spaces like this aredesperately needed in built up area to help with both adaptation and mitigation. There are alsomental health benefits of being around green spaces.

At the same time there are lots of derelict/ruined brownfield property sites that could be rebuilt.

My wife and I have lived in Ridgehill for 37 years and we object to the application for thefollowing reasons:-

There is inadequate access to the site, which is at the end of a cul-de-sac, for construction trafficwhich will cause serious disturbance to many residents for many months. Even when work takesplace on any one existing property in the road, parking and access problems are caused by thedelivery of materials and parking of workers vehicles. With a 'Full build' there will be multipledeliveries of materials and equipment together with many workers all using their individual carsand vans. This will result in chaos and much disruption to everyone in the street for months asmany extra vehicles will be parked on the road and illegally on the pavements.

There is insufficient room to store materials, tools and equipment on the site during anyconstruction work and none surrounding the site.

The on-site parking shown on the plan is inadequate. Experience shows that with a 'tandem'parking arrangement, any second vehicle will in practice end up being parked on the streetcausing ongoing congestion and access difficulties for other residents. The existing turning space,which would form the vehicular access to the proposed property, will also almost certainly getfrequently used for parking making it unavailable to other road users for its intended purpose. Theturning space is currently used many times daily by residents, visitors and delivery drivers, andweekly by refuse and recycling lorries. At present the turning space is largely respected limitingthe number of times large vehicles need to reverse up or down the street which minimises thehazard to young children and the elderly.

The proposed development is too large and unsuitable for the site. It will be overbearing and

unacceptably overlook 15 Sates way in particular. When considering the application I believeaccount should also be taken into how and by how much the property may be extended in thefuture without planning permission and without neighbours having a say. As I understand it underthe current "Permitted Development Rights" the owner could extend the ground floor at the rear by4 metres which would bring it very close to the rear fence and also completely build over theparking area up to the side boundary of the site thus creating more parking, access and vehicleturning difficulties.

Because of the restricted site and access I believe it will be impossible to maintain safe access toand use of the essential footpath routes across the site during any construction work. This iscompletely unacceptable.

The existing footpath routes have been safely used day and night by us and many otherpedestrians and cyclist for at least 37 years. The proposed diversion of the two routes, whichcurrently run separately across this pleasant safe wide open space with excellent visibility, will, instark contrast, become a narrow path between high fences. For people coming from Ridgehillthere will also be a blind right-angled turn part way along. The path will be very unpleasant to useat any time of day or night and at night it will be dangerous, feel unsafe and may attractundesirable activity. The section of the path diversion along the rear of the proposed house is only1.2m wide and partially obstructed by one of the few trees that it is proposed to retain. This widthis inadequate for cyclists to safely pass other cyclists, pedestrians and pushchairs.

It is unclear what materials and finishes are specified for the proposed property. The Applicationform states that the walls will be rendered while the Design and Access Statement says they willbe "Facing Brick". Meanwhile the elevations show a mixture of both!

In the Design and Access Statement document, section 3 "Planning History", it is stated that "Thesite does not have any publicly available planning history". This is not true. The site and basicdetails of the original application for the houses built by Ladbroke Homes in 1978 is accessibleonline and clearly shows that the area covered by the application included this plot of land.Furthermore I have original documentation, in the form of a sales brochure for the properties,which shows that this plot of land was set-aside by the developers as a play area/open space forthe use of the residents.

The land was sold in 2006 without, as far as I am aware, most of the residents being informed.The buyer would have done research before purchasing the site and will therefore have beenaware of this use agreed in the original planning consent. He would also have been aware at thattime that it had been used by many people for more than 20 years as a footpath to KellawayAvenue.

Also in the Design and Access Statement document, section 4.1 "Existing Use and Amount", it isstated that "The site does not have any ancillary beneficial use". This is also not true. Over the

years the space has been maintained by residents and used for many community gatherings andactivities including, barbeques, summer parties and national celebration events such as last year'scoronation. This has very much encouraged communication between residents resulting in a greatsense of community and neighbourliness. The loss of this community asset would be highlydetrimental to this process and show a total disregard for the mental and physical welfare ofresidents and the wider public who pass through the space.

The "Bristol City Council Ecological Emergency Action Plan 2021-2025" has as its first strategicgoal "Space for nature - at least 30 per cent of land in Bristol to be managed for the benefit ofwildlife by 2030". To permit this development would be contrary to this target.

This site is the only publicly accessible open green space between Ridgehill and Henleaze road.The loss of this site through development would be a significant loss of open green space, wildlifehabitat and importantly mature trees. In addition to the wildlife mentioned by others we have alsoseen woodpeckers.

The site is currently the subject of an application to designate it as a Town/Village green. Itherefore believe consideration of this application to build on the land should be deferred until theoutcome of this prior application for Town/Village green status is known.

Wish to preserve green space for the community

Objections to the proposed development can be made on a number of grounds. Firstly,that the space was shown on the original plans, I understand, as an open space without a housesqueezed in. Presumably, when the development company was approached by the proposer,offering money for the patch, the offer was readily accepted.Secondly, residents have taken great care of the area, putting down pathways, buying andplanting flowers, cutting the grass, ie area is not a wasteland.Thirdly, for 30-50 years, we residents have benefited by direct access to Tesco, by foot, thusavoiding yet another car journey. I have understood that a throughway used for such a longcontinuous time has become a public right of way.

This is a lovely little park. It changes the character of the whole area and is a focus forcharming community actions e.g. collection of painted rocks. Shoe-horning a dwelling into thespace will make the adjacent path much less open and pleasant and it would be a real loss to theneighbourhood.

I generally use my bicycle to get to Tesco and this provides an important and usefulthoroughfare for getting to Tesco and avoiding the busy Kellaway Avenue route. I also see manypedestrians using this route for the same purpose. I am impressed with how well the localresidents keep this space and fully support it being a public space.

The paths around this location that this space forms a part of support and enable positive activetravel choices, which I understand are a key objective of Bristol Council's longer term planning.Removing this thoroughfare flys in the face of that objective in my opinion and would remove aroute I and many others find very useful.

I'm very much against a house being built on our lovely picnic area which has been verywell maintained by the local neighbours and is used for picnics and barbecues and is a friendlycommunity area. It is also used by countless people as a route to shops in Kellaway avenue andhas a good cycle path.

I have already strongly objected to this proposal but did not mention that the proposedhouse will over look my back garden and seriously effect me and give me no privacy in my ownhome and my well-being will be affected.

The area is currently used by many different groups as part of the pathways aroundHenleaze. I regularly see dog walkers, shoppers and people of all ages using this route whichprovides a useful and pleasant pathway for local people. Any future development of the land(which does seem somewhat snug for a whole house!) should allow for continued safe use of theadjoining footpaths. The current footpaths which link on to this land are leafy and the felling of anyhealthy trees in this area surely can not be allowed. Thank you.

I would like this space to remain open for community enjoyment. It is much valued andneighbours are working hard to keep it. I support their work and their campaign.

Having reviewed the documentation which has been submitted setting out the proposeddevelopment, I am writing to submit my objection to the application, especially given some specificdetails of the current application.1) The replacement footpath does not look appropriate. A footpath between two tall fences willcreate a dark alleyway which will not feel safe, especially in the dark. The fences surrounding thenew property should have a limited height and the footpath must be well lit.2) The replacement footpath does not look wheelchair friendly as there is a tree in the middle ofthe path. Many disabled users access local shops via that footpath every day.3) The removal of so much plant life is not positive for the area and neighbourhood. Especiallywhen considering the age and maturity of the trees, this is significant. Furthermore, there are treeswhich are currently noted for felling which belong to the neighbouring property owners.4) The persons listed on the "notification list" have not been notified as is the correct process.5) Any parking outside of the property will significantly impact on our being able to access ourdriveway.6) The development will have a significant impact on the view from our front room. At present theview is of a green space, with mature trees and flowers (attended and maintained by the localcommunity) - there will be a significant impact on the value of our property if our house becomesoverlooked by this new dwelling. Note that the house currently opposite looks to be lower set thanthe proposed dwelling.

Further to the above, it will be disappointing to lose a space which is actively used and maintainedand even improved by the local community. Both young and old use this area and it brings muchpleasure to those on surrounding roads.

I object to the construction of the proposed dwelling.

If the proposals are to progress, consideration MUST be given to making the walkway safebetween the existing fences and those which are to be erected. It is in nobody's best interests tocreate a dark and narrow tunnel leading to these roads.

I also believe that the felling of the existing and mature trees must be prevented.

I agree with all of the other objections submitted.

If this development were to be permitted the proposed with of the public foot path, 1.2 meters, istotally inadequate. The fences either side are both 6 feet high and passing other people wouldwould involve entering other people's private space. This would be very frightening for everyoneespecially children, the elderly and women. The path is used constantly for people to cut throughto access Tesco, Horfield common, Horfield common play park, the Ardargh cafe and tenniscourts. There is no other near by ways for people on foot or bicycle to access these places.

I have been using the footpath since moving into the area over 50 years ago. I amextremely concerned that the access is only 1.2m wide. This is not wide enough for doublepushchairs, wheelchairs and cyclists. There needs to be room for people to be able to pass. Iworry that a narrow alleyway will be unsafe for these users and also it could become an areawhere drug dealing could occur.

I wish to object to the application because of the adverse impact on access. Thedeveloper's proposal to provide an adopted right of way is welcome but the proposed layout isunacceptable. In summary, a footpath width of 1.2m would:not comply with Bristol City Council's design guidancenot comply with the Government's best practice for inclusive accessbe a bottleneck in its entirety and frustrating for userslead to pedestrians feeling fearful and intimidated due to the lack lightingrender the existing cycle path alongside The Furlong a dead-end.The proposed transport impact would be contrary to Bristol City Council's local plan policiesDM23, DM25 and design guidance. The following paragraphs give the background to myobjection.

Existing connections

The existing footpaths adjacent to 31 Ridge Hill and 15 Sates Way are approximately 2.0m widthwith vertical faces on one or both sides and benefit from street lighting. Pedestrian and cyclistdemand through the existing open space is constant throughout the day, with an occasionalbottleneck at the gate. The existing community has financed and installed demand-responsivesecurity lights to cover the dark spot at the gate.

The existing north-south footpath along the eastern boundary of the proposed development,towards The Crescent/Dyrham Close, is rural in character with a vertical face on one side andvegetation on the other.

The segregated footpath/cycle path alongside The Furlong is a total width of approximately 3.0m

with vegetation on both sides and is well lit. The path functions as a greenway between Henleazeand Bishopston/Horfield. This is a popular walking/cycling route for commuting, leisure, shoppingand transporting young children. Older children frequently take advantage of the culs-de-sacaround Sates Way, Ridge Hill and The Furlong to cycle for fun.

Proposed connections

The footpath adjacent to 31 Ridge Hill would be retained but application does not specify thewidth. To maintain the existing connection to the footpath and greenway, a new 1.2m widthfootpath is proposed between the development and 15 Sates Way. Assuming privacy in theproposed dwelling's back garden, the new footpath would be bounded on both sides by highvertical faces.

Width of footpaths

Bristol City Council's 'Transport Development Guidance' for design (online) specifies a minimumfootway [footpath] width of 2m where there is no street furniture, which allows two people to passin relative comfort. Further to this, 'Inclusive Mobility' (Department for Transport, 2021) states that,under normal circumstances, 2.0m width is the minimum that should be provided. There are noapparent reasons for the proposed development to provide anything less than the minimum. Theproposed 1.2m footpath is therefore too narrow and would be a bottleneck.

Lighting

The existing light spill would not cover the new footpath, creating a dark, narrow path bounded byhigh vertical faces. Pedestrians could feel fearful and intimidated. People would be disinclined touse the path after dark, encouraging driving instead when they can currently walk.

Cycling

There is no reference to a connection to the existing cycle path that runs alongside The Furlong.The width and status of the proposed new footpath would render the cycle path a dead end.Cyclists would have long detours by road and children would lose an important fun/learningopportunity.

'Local Transport Note 1/20 Cycle Infrastructure Design' specifies a minimum width of 4.0m for atwo-way cycle path, allowing for high vertical faces on both sides. Again, there are no apparentreasons for the proposed development to provide anything less than the minimum. A width of 1.2mwould be too narrow for a single cargo bike let alone anyone passing.

I moved into Ridgehill with my very young family in 1994. Within a few weeks we hadbeen invited to a B .B.Q to meet the neighbours on a piece of land at the end of the road, whichwe were told was a play area for children. It was wonderfull to meet other families with childrenand also older people living in the area. Over the years we have attended many B.B.Qs andpicnics, bringing chairs and blankets to sit on. The land is just the perfect size to hold this activity.Since then my children have grown up and a new generation of families have moved into the areaand we are still enjoying the B.B.Qs and picnics and meeting these new families with theirchildren. It is a very inclusive space for all ages to enjoy and it would be a great pity if the landwere to be built on.For these reasons I object to this development

I am a Ridgehill resident and I object to the proposed build. I am yet to receive anyformal notification of the proposal.

Building the proposed property will significantly increase how built up and overshadowed the endof the cul de sac is, impacting my home and others around it. There is not sufficient space toaccommodate a further house, particularly for parking and highway safety at the turning circle. Itwill lose a natural space at the end of the cul de sac which provides a home for wildlife and agreen outlook for many houses on the street. We regularly see many birds on the site includingwoodpeckers, jays and wrens as well as animals such as foxes, squirrels, a badger and batsoverhead.

I am pleased the current proposal retains the pathway towards Golden Hill from Ridgehill; this isfrequently used by residents and the wider community. If the proposal were to be permitted to goahead, please ensure this pathway provides ample and well lit access for all of the communityincluding pushchair and wheelchair users so it can continue to be safe and of value.

I strongly object to the development of this plot of land.

I have lived near to this piece of land for 18 years. When I bought my house, the deeds recordedthis land as 'open space' and it was owned by the building company, Ladbroke Group HomesLimited. I understood it to be a protected green space and therefore when it was re-sold, Iassumed that nobody would be able to build on it due to it being a designated green 'open space.'

This piece of land is not a derelict building plot but a much-used green space, and a habitat forwildlife.

Green spaces should be protected. Just because a property developer buys a piece of green landdoes not mean they should automatically have the right to build upon it, especially when that wasnever the intended purpose of that land.

The original planning application for Ridgehill (back in the late 1970's) show this piece of land asan 'open space'. If Ladbroke Group Homes had had planning permission to build on this land, thenpresumably they would have done so as they would have better profited from building on it.

Contrary to the 'Design & Access Statement', this plot of land does have a great benefit to thelocal community and would most definitely not benefit from a 'modest development'.

The neighbours have looked after this piece of land because it was left to the neighbourhood bythe original builders. The neighbours have made a proper track where there was previously amuddy messy footpath & have tended to the green space, as well as planting it so that it is a

pleasant area to hold picnics as well as to walk through. It is used constantly by the community toaccess Tesco, Kellaway & Gloucester Road, saving many car journeys. There are oftenneighbours stopping in the space for a chat.

The loss of the established trees would be detrimental to the area, and it is highly unlikely that 5replacement mature trees could fit into the garden of any new dwelling, as is stated in theArboricultural Assessment.

Bristol prides itself on being a 'Green City' with 'green spaces to spend a lazy afternoon'(visitbristol.co.uk), so it should be actively retaining green spaces and not losing them todevelopment. Our local community should not lose its green space.

The plans make a recommendation for the retention of a footpath, but this is much narrower thanthe existing path and would inhibit the passage of pushchairs and bikes.

Property developers should not be given planning permission to take green spaces, remove treesand hedgerows and wildlife habitats and build upon them. And the owner of this plot of land is aproperty developer & not an unsuspecting member of the public.

I would like to raise objections to this proposed development, made in response to and,presumably, in an attempt to frustrate this year's application to register this small piece of 'publicopen space' as a town or village green. Looking at the title and plans from the Land Registry, itwas clearly intended by Carlton Homes Limited, when they built the houses and set out the roads,following their 1965 purchase, that this was to be a small but safe, quiet and adequate area forcommunity gatherings. This is, not least, because there was a clear need to leave access to theadjoining footpaths through to Dyrham Close and through to what became Lime Trees Road andKellaway Avenue. Carlton did not seek to build a property there, at the same time as the others,despite having title to this piece of land at the eastern side of 31 Ridgehill at the time.

The use made of this small but pleasant space by local residents goes beyond the two adjacentroads. My wife and I moved into the top end of Henleaze Park Drive in September 2001. Sincethen, we have attended social functions there, as well as, in my case making extensive use of theright of way/footpath through to the cycleway down to Lime Trees Road, to commute, by bicycle,from home to Filton Abbey Wood rail station. In my case I used the path from Sates Way ratherthan that from Ridgehill. We have both used this path throughout this time since 2001 to walk toand from Tesco and on towards Horfield Common.

It has provided a safe space for local children to play, as well as for larger gatherings, oftenorganized through the local neighbourhood watch group. This group extends beyond the roadsimmediately by this public open space, hence our long involvement.

In the event that permission were granted, we have concerns that the proposed consolidation ofthe two existing paths, which lead diagonally to the gate, from Sates Way and Ridgehillrespectively, into a single path, appears to be far narrower than is necessary for the passage of

prams, pushchairs, more robust mobility scooters and bicycles as well as pedestrians. The maturetree, presently on the line of the proposed path, means that there is not going to be sufficient roomfor people to pass easily unless the proposed garden of the property is shrunk somewhat, toensure the path is of adequate width.

This site is totally unsuitable for this development as it necessary for access forresidents.

This proposed new dwelling would cause the pathway linking the surrounding houses tothe amenities of Kellaway Avenue and Horfield Common to become restricted. This Y shapedfootpath appears on the Bristol City Map online (also showing on Google Maps) which seeminglydemonstrates that a public right of way exists over the land. I would expect Bristol City Council todo their due diligence and establish whether a public right of way exists on this land before aplanning application could be submitted. A restriction of this pathway, would result in our familyhaving to take the car to Shine kids club, Horfield Common and Tesco. This would have anegative impact on the health and mental health of our family, not to mention additionalunnecessary pollution. I would prefer for the council not to teach our children that destruction ofgreen spaces and wildlife areas is acceptable, especially when there are multiple brownfield sitesavailable for regeneration across the city. Green spaces contribute to the conservation of ourwildlife and flora and fauna.Finally,this planning application also raises traffic concerns due to the increase in car/s within aquiet road network and a subsequent lack of off road parking.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear Council,

If we lose this lovely green space, we will lose all of the wildlife which would be horrible for all the

creatures that live here.

This area has lovely big trees which birds are always sitting in and chirping all day long so I would

be sad if we got rid of this.

People have been putting painted rocks with nice messages here for years and they are really

kind and make people feel happy.

I have been here for 9 years, and this place has always made me feel happy and ready to do good

things for the world.

Please save this nice little area!

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment: and we object to the application for the

following reasons:-

There is inadequate access to the site, which is at the end of a cul-de-sac, for construction traffic

which will cause serious disturbance to many residents for many months. Even when work takes

place on any one existing property in the road, parking and access problems are caused by the

delivery of materials and parking of workers vehicles. With a 'Full build' there will be multiple

deliveries of materials and equipment together with many workers all using their individual cars

and vans. This will result in chaos and much disruption to everyone in the street for months as

many extra vehicles will be parked on the road and illegally on the pavements.

There is insufficient room to store materials, tools and equipment on the site during any

construction work and none surrounding the site.

The on-site parking shown on the plan is inadequate. Experience shows that with a 'tandem'

parking arrangement, any second vehicle will in practice end up being parked on the street

causing ongoing congestion and access difficulties for other residents. The existing turning space,

which would form the vehicular access to the proposed property, will also almost certainly get

frequently used for parking making it unavailable to other road users for its intended purpose. The

turning space is currently used many times daily by residents, visitors and delivery drivers, and

weekly by refuse and recycling lorries. At present the turning space is largely respected limiting

the number of times large vehicles need to reverse up or down the street which minimises the

hazard to young children and the elderly.

The proposed development is too large and unsuitable for the site. It will be overbearing and

unacceptably overlook 15 Sates way in particular. When considering the application I believe

account should also be taken into how and by how much the property may be extended in the

future without planning permission and without neighbours having a say. As I understand it under

the current "Permitted Development Rights" the owner could extend the ground floor at the rear by

4 metres which would bring it very close to the rear fence and also completely build over the

parking area up to the side boundary of the site thus creating more parking, access and vehicle

turning difficulties.

Because of the restricted site and access I believe it will be impossible to maintain safe access to

and use of the essential footpath routes across the site during any construction work. This is

completely unacceptable.

The existing footpath routes have been safely used day and night by us and many other

pedestrians and cyclist for at least 37 years. The proposed diversion of the two routes, which

currently run separately across this pleasant safe wide open space with excellent visibility, will, in

stark contrast, become a narrow path between high fences. For people coming from Ridgehill

there will also be a blind right-angled turn part way along. The path will be very unpleasant to use

at any time of day or night and at night it will be dangerous, feel unsafe and may attract

undesirable activity. The section of the path diversion along the rear of the proposed house is only

1.2m wide and partially obstructed by one of the few trees that it is proposed to retain. This width

is inadequate for cyclists to safely pass other cyclists, pedestrians and pushchairs.

It is unclear what materials and finishes are specified for the proposed property. The Application

form states that the walls will be rendered while the Design and Access Statement says they will

be "Facing Brick". Meanwhile the elevations show a mixture of both!

In the Design and Access Statement document, section 3 "Planning History", it is stated that "The

site does not have any publicly available planning history". This is not true. The site and basic

details of the original application for the houses built by Ladbroke Homes in 1978 is accessible

online and clearly shows that the area covered by the application included this plot of land.

Furthermore I have original documentation, in the form of a sales brochure for the properties,

which shows that this plot of land was set-aside by the developers as a play area/open space for

the use of the residents.

The land was sold in 2006 without, as far as I am aware, most of the residents being informed.

The buyer would have done research before purchasing the site and will therefore have been

aware of this use agreed in the original planning consent. He would also have been aware at that

time that it had been used by many people for more than 20 years as a footpath to Kellaway

Avenue.

Also in the Design and Access Statement document, section 4.1 "Existing Use and Amount", it is

stated that "The site does not have any ancillary beneficial use". This is also not true. Over the

years the space has been maintained by residents and used for many community gatherings and

activities including, barbeques, summer parties and national celebration events such as last year's

coronation. This has very much encouraged communication between residents resulting in a great

sense of community and neighbourliness. The loss of this community asset would be highly

detrimental to this process and show a total disregard for the mental and physical welfare of

residents and the wider public who pass through the space.

The "Bristol City Council Ecological Emergency Action Plan 2021-2025" has as its first strategic

goal "Space for nature - at least 30 per cent of land in Bristol to be managed for the benefit of

wildlife by 2030". To permit this development would be contrary to this target.

This site is the only publicly accessible open green space between Ridgehill and Henleaze road.

The loss of this site through development would be a significant loss of open green space, wildlife

habitat and importantly mature trees. In addition to the wildlife mentioned by others we have also

seen woodpeckers.

The site is currently the subject of an application to designate it as a Town/Village green. I

therefore believe consideration of this application to build on the land should be deferred until the

outcome of this prior application for Town/Village green status is known.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I moved into Within a few weeks we had

been invited to a B .B.Q to meet the neighbours on a piece of land at the end of the road, which

we were told was a play area for children. It was wonderfull to meet other families with children

and also older people living in the area. Over the years we have attended many B.B.Qs and

picnics, bringing chairs and blankets to sit on. The land is just the perfect size to hold this activity.

Since then my children have grown up and a new generation of families have moved into the area

and we are still enjoying the B.B.Qs and picnics and meeting these new families with their

children. It is a very inclusive space for all ages to enjoy and it would be a great pity if the land

were to be built on.

For these reasons I object to this development

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I am a and I object to the proposed build. I am yet to receive any

formal notification of the proposal.

Building the proposed property will significantly increase how built up and overshadowed the end

of the cul de sac is, impacting my home and others around it. There is not sufficient space to

accommodate a further house, particularly for parking and highway safety at the turning circle. It

will lose a natural space at the end of the cul de sac which provides a home for wildlife and a

green outlook for many houses on the street. We regularly see many birds on the site including

woodpeckers, jays and wrens as well as animals such as foxes, squirrels, a badger and bats

overhead.

I am pleased the current proposal retains the pathway towards Golden Hill from Ridgehill; this is

frequently used by residents and the wider community. If the proposal were to be permitted to go

ahead, please ensure this pathway provides ample and well lit access for all of the community

including pushchair and wheelchair users so it can continue to be safe and of value.

This is unsuitable on all levels - flora and fauna, access and totally unsuitable new widthof footpath as well as denying the neighbourhood a communal space which is well maintained byvolunteers and well used. Planning application should be rejected

I strongly object to this planning application for the following reasons;

1. The original 1970s planning application which Ladbrooke Homes submitted for this estate andthe deeds of our house, show this piece of land as being "open space". So it has always been myunderstanding that this was the intended purpose for this piece of land.

2. Since the estate was built local residents have used this open space for communal activitiesand maintained it. They created the gravel path across it to link up the 2 footpaths (which form thewest and east boundaries to the site) which are public rights of way.

3. The width of the footpath included in this new planning application at only 1.2m wide is toonarrow and will cause a health and safety risk to all users of this busy footpath. If this planningapplication is permitted it must include a condition that the footpath must be a minimum of 1.8mwide.

4. The original 1970s planning application Ladbrooke Homes submitted for this estate and thedeeds of our house, show a paved footpath running down the south boundary of this open space(along the side of 15 Sates Way) which the builders did not end up building. This missing pavedfootpath is clearly shown as being the same width as the rest of the proposed paved footpaths onthe estate which were all built and are all a minimum of 1.8m wide.

Note - it is correct that the gravelled path across this open space is not registered as a formalpublic right of way - but residents adjacent to this site submitted a public rights of way 'claim'(Reference: ID3/654) to Bristol council back on 14/10/2006, and for the last 17 years this has been"Awaiting investigation." according to the Bristol city council website!

I use the footpath across this open space every day to commute by bike to work during the weekand at weekends to access Tesco and other local shops on Kellaway Avenue, as do most otherresidents.

It would be a tragic and irreversible decision to allow development of this open space if thisplanning application were to be approved.

I understand the current owner of this land also owns many other brown field sites and otherderelict buildings around Bristol which would benefit from development, and serve other localcommunities more so than developing this open space!

I have been using this green space for over 20 years and have always admired howlocal residents have maintained and used the space.

People in neighbouring houses & roads have tended, maintained, and cared for thisland for decades. I visit this site when using this route on an almost daily basis. It is a very wellused route which would require a significant detour if access becomes difficult (which it will,despite the impression given by the plans). For many, this would rule out walking by making thedistance too great, or diverting through a back lane which some find intimidating.The land is a valuable community space as well as a thoroughfare. A site visit will show howplanting, paths, and art enhance the site (unless it is vandalised - which has not happened in thelast 10 years...)I would object to any unsympathic development on this space, but it is particularly pressing sincethe developer has a history of neglecting properties, and lack of cooperation with the council andlocal communities.

I wish to object to this proposal on three grounds:1. Over development of the area - the housing density in this street and those surrounding isalready high and an additional house will add to the congestion. Furthermore trees will need to befelled to allow construction and this will impact negatively on wildlife.2. The development will remove the paths that have long existed from Ridgehill, and also SatesWay, to the footpaths beyond the plot. These have been in use for many years, at least 20, andare marked on the street plan used in the application. I believe that rights of way across the plothave thus been created through time, both of which will be removed should this development goahead. These paths are in frequent use by local people cutting through between Kellaway Avenueand Henleaze Road, and points between. Not to have these shortcuts would add at least half amile to the walk, not to mention requiring people to either negotiate more roads or narrow, darkand isolated footpaths which many find threatening.3. I see that a property developer with the same name as the applicant has recently been finedover £10,000 by Bristol Magistrates Court for failing to comply with previous court orders tomaintain his properties elsewhere in the city. While this man may of course have no connectionwith the applicant, but if he is in fact the same person I question whether he will adhere to buildingregulations or any requirements stipulated by Bristol City Council planners.

I'd object to this planning application on the basis of the impact on wildlife primarily. Thisarea is one of few wilder areas, ie not a playing field in the local area and provides a vital habitatfor numerous species. Developing it will remove this vital little piece of wilderness, so badlyneeded in our urban areas.I do also feel that given this has been a valued community space, indeed if I understand correctlythe community have been responsible for its upkeep, that the community's rights must beexamined.

I refer to adjoining cycle footway link at rear of the Furlong and Sports Field constructedover 30 years ago and note cyclists have used this application site to gain access to Ridge Hill. Inote the applicant has only shown the width of footway at 1.2 metres and this should be a jointcycle/footway path at the minimum recommended width of 3 metres.

Therefore should planning be granted for a house on this plot then the footway should be adjustedto cycle/footway at a width of 3 metres. I also hope that this provision will be constructed withlighting and at no cost to the City Council.

I would like to object to this planning application.Building a house on the site would remove a public piece of land that I have walked across mostweeks over the last 20years.There is no need for a house here it should remain as publicly available green space.I urge the council to reject this application.

This plot has been open space for decades since Ridge Hill and Sates Way were firstdeveloped. The plot is too small for a house, which is presumably why it was not built on when theother houses were built. Since then it has become a welcome open space, tended by the localresidents and used for community events. It is also part of a pleasant walk from Henleaze toGolden Hill which I use from time to time. The footpath diversion would totally change thecharacter for the worse. I also object to the loss of some trees, and I believe the other trees on theplot would in time be at risk also

As a local resident I am concerned about the loss of public amenity and right of way.

I have been told by older residents that originally this area was designated for a children's playarea. The fact the developers left this land and did not build on it themselves suggests it isunsuitable for development due to the constrained site.

I have used these foot paths myself since 2009. I understand there was an application in 2006 byresidents to register the Y shaped footpaths as a Public Right of Way which would be added to thedefinitive map. The paths appear on the Bristol City Map online which would seem to indicate theywere adopted.

Recently residents have applied for Town Village Green status for this land.

The planning application makes no reference to either of these resident applicants.

I think it important for the Public Right of Way to be determined before any planning application forthis land can be determined.

The land is host to many trees and animals. Green corridors contribute to biodiversity and shouldbe preserved.

I strongly object to this planning application. This area is used by possibly hundreds ofpeople a day for recreation. It provides safe access to the foot and cycle path. These proposeddesigns would have a devastating impact on the local community who use this area and havedone for many years. It would have a huge impact on the wild life and building on this land goesagainst Bristol city councils commitment to their biodiversity action plan, and ecologicalemergency. This is a community green space that should absolutely not be built on! Me and mychildren ( 8 and 5) walk and cycle through this area every day and continually talk about what apleasant area it is. They are devastated by the thought of these plans especially the loss ofwildlife.

I object to this proposal. This land is used by many, many people to access manycritical amenities from across the neighbourhood. It will cut through a well maintained and lovedarea solely to provide profit for the land owner.

The land has been vacant since the houses were built circa 1970. Since then the localcommunity have gradually adopted it and the site has been used 'as a village green' which is whythe application is in to register it as such. Would a dwelling be allowed on an establishedregistered village green?The land has a number of ancillary benefits to the neighbourhood, walk through, picnic area, playarea and acts as a local village green.The proposed location of the actual house will block access to the rest of the site therefore wherewill new and waste material be stored? Presumably pallets and skips will be dropped on the publicroad.The neighbourhood have worked hard to keep the turning circle free of parking and obstructions.This is because of a high number of retired people in the area plus children regularly play andcycle on the road and pavements. The frequent home shopping and courier vans were having toreverse when the turning circle was obstructed, it was an accident waiting to happen.

This development would negatively impact the local wildlife and green space, causingthe loss of trees and be negatively impacting a very convenient and safe access route betweenHenleaze and Goldenhill. The access route is used by a diverse community, including children andthe elderly. The plans claim that this could be maintained but it's not clear this would be done to anappropriate degree and is highly likely to, in practice, be impossible to do so safely - includingduring construction work. It is currently a well cared for community space with natural art work anda peaceful environment. The disadvantages created by allowing these plans will effect far morepeople than the advantages of constructing one further home.

The planned development would entail a substantial loss of amenity for local residentsmany of whom pass through or beside this land regularly and frequently. Whilst there may be,generally speaking, a case to be made for "in-fill" housing developments, the use of this land forsuch a development would be ineffecient given the loss of amenity it would entail.

To lose the community space would be a great shame for residents that have used it foryears.And would be of better use to preserve for the future,not just for local people,but wildlife.Thelatter which is all important at such a crucial time.

I recently moved out of my parents house on Sates way but have used the lane behindthe plot for many years and continue to do so often when I visit. It's lovely having a communityspace. I can't understand the motivation to build on land that has been vacant for so long with noparking access. Sates way already has too many cars parking on the road. The plot has remainedunused for so long it feels as though it should have become public

I strongly oppose the planning proposal for the site adjoining Ridgehill and Sates Way.I have lived in Sates Way for nearly forty years, during which time the site in question has beenmaintained solely by the local community. The site has been added to and improved when fundshave permitted, for example - the kissing gate, planters, plants and gravel paths, which areparticularly welcome after wet spells.I strongly oppose the proposed development and find the statement 'The site would benefit fromthe modest development proposed' very offensive. It shows a complete misunderstanding of thevalue of this precious and much-loved and nurtured green space which was specifically listed assuch on original plans and which promotes the well-being of those who use it. Although the plot isbordered by Ridgehill and Sates Way, this precious community space is used by the widerneighbourhood incorporating the Neighbourhood Watch area. There are many youth groups,including school, using the neighbouring sports facilities and a safe and open pathway is essentialfor many of these families to avoid lengthy diversions. Any building work, including treepreservation, would make it very difficult to cross this land safely.The transport links and convenience shopping highlighted in the planning proposal assume goodaccess routes being maintained across this plot. The adjoining paths include a cycle path,although cycling is not permitted on the path directly adjoining this green space, I do not believethat the proposed path has allowed for this as a bike with a rider alongside requires additionalspace.I notice that the footpath that runs alongside 31 Ridgehill is clearly marked on the original planningdocuments for this development as being situated further into the green space, with a border leftadjoining 31 Ridgehill. It would be interesting to know what the new owner of the land actuallybought.

I strongly oppose the planning proposal for the site adjoining Ridgehill and Sates Way.I have lived in Sates Way for nearly forty years, during which time the site in question has beenmaintained solely by the local community. The site has been added to and improved when fundshave permitted, for example - the kissing gate, planters, plants and gravel paths, which areparticularly welcome after wet spells.I strongly oppose the proposed development and find the statement 'The site would benefit fromthe modest development proposed' very offensive. It shows a complete misunderstanding of thevalue of this precious and much-loved and nurtured green space which was specifically listed assuch on original plans and which promotes the well-being of those who use it. Although the plot isbordered by Ridgehill and Sates Way, this precious community space is used by the widerneighbourhood incorporating the Neighbourhood Watch area. There are many youth groups,including school, using the neighbouring sports facilities and a safe and open pathway is essentialfor many of these families to avoid lengthy diversions. Any building work, including treepreservation, would make it very difficult to cross this land safely.The transport links and convenience shopping highlighted in the planning proposal assume goodaccess routes being maintained across this plot. The adjoining paths include a cycle path,although cycling is not permitted on the path directly adjoining this green space, I do not believethat the proposed path has allowed for this as a bike with a rider alongside requires additionalspace.I notice that the footpath that runs alongside 31 Ridgehill is clearly marked on the original planningdocuments for this development as being situated further into the green space, with a border leftadjoining 31 Ridgehill. It would be interesting to know what the new owner of the land actuallybought.

I would like to register my objection to the proposed development of the green spaceand thoroughfare adjacent To 31 Ridgehill.

Neighbours have tended, maintained, and cared for this land for decades. It is a very well usedroute which would require a significant detour if access becomes difficult (which it will, despite theimpression given by the plans). For many, this would rule out walking by making the distance toogreat, or diverting through a back lane which some find intimidating.

The land is a valuable community space as well as a thoroughfare. A site visit will show howplanting, paths, and art enhance the site (unless it is vandalised - which has not happened in thelast 10 years...)

I would object to any unsympathic development on this space, but it is particularly pressing sincethe developer has a history of neglecting properties, and lack of cooperation with the council andlocal communities.

I comment as a regular visitor to the area with friends in close proximity to Ridgehill.

I strongly believe that this application for a single, modest new dwelling is a sensitive andproportionate development request, by the legal owner and should be allowed.

The array of objectors seem to feel some kind of entitlement to demand access to someone else'sproperty and to determine what they may, and may not, do with it. To allow this kind of"community" appropriation of a privately owned plot would set a dangerous and unwelcomeprecedent.

I feel very sad that the narrow-minded "not in my back yard" attitude being demonstrated here isall too common and I believe it to be entirely without merit or justification.

Please approve this application.

I use this passageway frequently and believe that the planning does not allow enoughspace for 2 cyclists or a pedestrian and a cyclist to pass each other, especially round the rightangle. It is also dangerous to come round a right angle and not have a view of what is coming theother way.It is not a suitable ending for the existing cyclepath coming up from The Furlong/Lime Trees Road.

It will also be extremely sad to lose the little community green, used by local people, foxes,squirrels and birds.

My main objection to the erection of a house on what is known as the 'Picnic area' isthat it robs the area of a well used recreational facility, causes damage and/or loss to existingtrees/fauna etc and leaves insufficient room to construct a proper replacement foot/cycle path tolink with the 'tarmac' foot/cycle path which goes to Tesco/Lime Trees Road/bus stops/ ArdaghPark etc.

The history of the 'Picnic' area, is that Ladbroke Homes original plans of the late 1970's did notmeet the standards called for by BCC - They were revised to include 'affordable' housing, bybuilding of the terraced houses round Sates Way 'Square', including the provision of arecreational' area for use by all residents - It was therefore disingenuous of Ladbrokes to sell the'Picnic Area' as a 'spare plot' some years later, and remiss of BCC not to ensure it was legallyprotected as a recreation area originally.

Nevertheless it is well established that the 'Picnic' area has been used for recreation and leisureby local residents since the early 1980's and also as a footpath going to Kellaway Avenue (beforeTesco and the estate on The Furlong were built). Part of the of the planning remit for 'The Furlongestate', called for the narrow footpath from Sates Way/Ridgehill going towards Tesco be widenedand made into a hard surfaced, dual function cycle/foot path, thus providing a traffic free routebetween BS9 and BS6

Due to the new Tesco Store and Furlong estate, much greater use began to be made of theimproved cycle/foot path. So for well over 30years it has also been heavily used as a cycle path aswell. I understand that regular usage over this period of time equates to 'squatters rights' orwhatever the legal terminology is.

Indeed in an article/report on Henleaze, by City Design Group of BCC, published in 2016, theymention in Section 12 that - lane with footpath and cycling lanes, giving access from Lime TreesRoad to Ridgehill and Sates Way -- It appears to describe it as a continuous route with noexclusions or restrictions.

The new site/house plans do not appear to show what boundary walls/fences surround theproposed property; Also the amount of space for the 'diverted' foot/cycle path is derisory at1.2metre, and part of it is obstructed by a tree.

If a high fence/wall surrounds the new property, it is likely to create narrow alleyways, both for thediverted path leading to Tesco and for the path already running down the side of 31 Ridgehill,where a high wall already exists. Such designs give users feelings of danger/insecurity and do notgenerally get a Police seal of approval. To overcome this, the standards to apply are those in the'Department for Transport' publication 'Cycle Infrastructure Design' - Local Transport Note 1/20 ofJuly 2020 - The current requirements for a cycle/foot path, call for a width of 2.0metre + an extra500mm if the path is bounded by a structure of greater height than 600mm (Fence/wall). Re-vamped lighting will also be needed to improve safety.

However, should the development go ahead, it essential for safety that the site is tightly contained,with no construction overspill whatsoever, where the public is permitted to go. I cannot figure outeither, how building materials, plant & machinery etc can 'be gotten' onto site, There appears to tono access for such items via path to Sates Way 'Square' and it is understood that part of the stripof land between the proposed site and the turning bay on Ridgehill may be owned by someoneelse.

Regardless of ownership of the above, this turning bay is used many times a day by large deliveryvans eg Ocado/Sainsbury/Amazon/DHL etc. etc. Not being able to turn around here would meanthey have to reverse several hundred metres. Many children live on this section of Ridgehill,varying from pre-school upwards - An accident waiting to happen?

Finally, if the 'House' is built, the developer's main objective will be the "The House", the foot/cyclepath will be a - 'sometime/later/never' - priority. It is therefore CRUCIAL that the replacementPATH IS CONSTRUCTED FIRST in order to provide a safe passage for the public and this shouldbe a LEGALLY BINDING CONDITION of any approval granted.

My objections to this planning application are as follows:

1) The proposed pathway width of 1.2m is too narrow. This route is used by many people on footand on bike to access Tesco, Horfield Common and beyond and I believe that suddenly narrowingthe path from 6 feet (path from Sates Way to proposed development area) to 4 feet will create adangerous bottleneck. 1.2m is insufficient width for a person to pass a cyclist safely and below thewidth recommended by Sustrans. I am assuming that the intention is to keep the path open tocyclists to encourage the use of sustainable transport methods (since the alternative long detourwould certainly drive people into their cars) and, as such, it's design should cope with existingusage and also allow for growth. Care will be needed to ensure that users of the pathwayapproaching from opposite directions can see each other in plenty of time to avoid collision as thenew path seems to have a 90 degree corner in. I am not clear whose responsibility it will be tomaintain the path and ensure any overhanging growth is regularly cut back. Is Bristol City Counciltaking on responsibility for this? If not, what long term provision will be put in place to ensure thepath is actively maintained moving forwards.

2) The proposed development claims to mimic the original buildings around the site in its 'Scale &Massing' statement but has a much reduced house:garden ratio compared with the houses in theneighbouring roads. The garden is of insufficient size for a house designed for a proposed 6inhabitants (as stated in the application). Post covid, the need for dwellings to have adequateoutdoor space has been sharply brought into focus and should not be ignored when scrutinisingplanning applications. A smaller 3 bed house with improved house:garden ratio would be moreappropriate for the plot size.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I recently moved out of my parents house but have used the lane behind

the plot for many years and continue to do so often when I visit. It's lovely having a community

space. I can't understand the motivation to build on land that has been vacant for so long with no

parking access. Sates way already has too many cars parking on the road. The plot has remained

unused for so long it feels as though it should have become public

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I strongly oppose the planning proposal for the site adjoining Ridgehill and Sates Way.

I have for nearly forty years, during which time the site in question has been

maintained solely by the local community. The site has been added to and improved when funds

have permitted, for example - the kissing gate, planters, plants and gravel paths, which are

particularly welcome after wet spells.

I strongly oppose the proposed development and find the statement 'The site would benefit from

the modest development proposed' very offensive. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the

value of this precious and much-loved and nurtured green space which was specifically listed as

such on original plans and which promotes the well-being of those who use it. Although the plot is

bordered by Ridgehill and Sates Way, this precious community space is used by the wider

neighbourhood incorporating the Neighbourhood Watch area. There are many youth groups,

including school, using the neighbouring sports facilities and a safe and open pathway is essential

for many of these families to avoid lengthy diversions. Any building work, including tree

preservation, would make it very difficult to cross this land safely.

The transport links and convenience shopping highlighted in the planning proposal assume good

access routes being maintained across this plot. The adjoining paths include a cycle path,

although cycling is not permitted on the path directly adjoining this green space, I do not believe

that the proposed path has allowed for this as a bike with a rider alongside requires additional

space.

I notice that the footpath that runs alongside 31 Ridgehill is clearly marked on the original planning

documents for this development as being situated further into the green space, with a border left

adjoining 31 Ridgehill. It would be interesting to know what the new owner of the land actually

bought.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I strongly oppose the planning proposal for the site adjoining Ridgehill and Sates Way.

I have for nearly forty years, during which time the site in question has been

maintained solely by the local community. The site has been added to and improved when funds

have permitted, for example - the kissing gate, planters, plants and gravel paths, which are

particularly welcome after wet spells.

I strongly oppose the proposed development and find the statement 'The site would benefit from

the modest development proposed' very offensive. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the

value of this precious and much-loved and nurtured green space which was specifically listed as

such on original plans and which promotes the well-being of those who use it. Although the plot is

bordered by Ridgehill and Sates Way, this precious community space is used by the wider

neighbourhood incorporating the Neighbourhood Watch area. There are many youth groups,

including school, using the neighbouring sports facilities and a safe and open pathway is essential

for many of these families to avoid lengthy diversions. Any building work, including tree

preservation, would make it very difficult to cross this land safely.

The transport links and convenience shopping highlighted in the planning proposal assume good

access routes being maintained across this plot. The adjoining paths include a cycle path,

although cycling is not permitted on the path directly adjoining this green space, I do not believe

that the proposed path has allowed for this as a bike with a rider alongside requires additional

space.

I notice that the footpath that runs alongside 31 Ridgehill is clearly marked on the original planning

documents for this development as being situated further into the green space, with a border left

adjoining 31 Ridgehill. It would be interesting to know what the new owner of the land actually

bought.

This land gives access to the lanes running to kellaway avenue and would stop peoplewalking to Tesco and horfield common increasing traffic

This is a valuable open space, loved and tended by all. Contains many floral & wildlifespecies. Not to mention a valuable thoroughfare to Kellaway Ave. Strongly object to this proposal.

This is an important walk way for both young and older residents. I object strongly.

This dwelling will cause the only cut through cycle path to become unusable if erected.The only other cut though is a no cycle restriction.Also what about the pedestrian access path - where will they goAlso can you image how dark and dingy it will beIt is also the only open access area on the area . The rest are locked and fenced.

Has been a community resource for decades, kept at personal community expense.

This is a community space that adds alot of value and a positive and friendly feeling tothe area. It also provides access between this housing area and the lane. We use this accessmultiple times a week. Strongly object to this proposal.

I support this application, I live close-by, and whilst I can empathise with the neighbourswho are losing access to this land, it is rightfully owned by someone else, who has every right tobuild on it, and should be welcomed to this friendly area if they do move here. The response to thisapplication demonstrates the opposite of the community spirit that makes me proud to live aroundhere.

I simply believe the excuses about the turning circle, visual impact during the build and loss ofwildlife is a poor excuse to try and not have it 'in their backyard' - lots of streets don't have aturning circle, almost every street around us is having some form of building work being done, and,whilst there will be some impact on wildlife, I think if people are truly worried about losinggreenspaces and the environmental impact, perhaps they should put their energy in to fighting thison a meaningful scale, not trying to stop someone building a house to retire, on land they rightfullyown.

The entitled response from neighbours makes me a little embarrassed for them, because really,the only person who can rightfully use this space, is the owner. They are really showing ourcommunity in a negative light, and I hope when this is approved (as it should be), they don'tcontinue to make this man's life hard and welcome him to our lovely community. I understand it'semotive, but this doesn't need to be personal, which people seem to be making it.

The legal owner should be able to build a property on this land, he legally owns theland, and whilst it's nice people have been maintaining it for years - perhaps they should haveenquired about who owned the land (council, private etc), so understand 1) if they were allowed,and 2) if their contribution to this land would be beneficial long term, in the event someone were tobuild on it.

This land is used, at best, as a cut through to Tesco, and there's the odd gathering on here.Perhaps in the future, the road can close the road and have a street party instead (like lots of otherstreets in Bristol) and their new neighbour can join them.

I am quite torn on this. I support the use of communal spaces and the protection ofwildlife. I think we need more community spaces and green spaces in most neighbourhoods inBristol. However, this land belongs to somebody. It is not public. We are lucky that the ownerdidn't fence it off and stop people using it years ago. Why should he not be allowed to do what hewants with it? Other people shouldn't get to decided what to do with his own land, that is simplyunfair. Instead of alienating him and feeling entitled to his land it might be better to reach out tohim and agree on a compromise, although he may be unwilling now. Maybe the proposed newpath could be made wider. Maybe he'd be open to fencing off some of his garden space andallowing neighbours to continue using some of the green space. I just can't support somebody'sproperty being unfairly taken from them.

Just... no. Local residents have loved and cared for this space for almost 30 years. Ibelieve there's also an application to turn it into a village green which we would all very muchsupport.It's an oasis of calm and tranquility and it gives local residents a sense of community and purposeto plant flowers, hold picnics and residents meetings, and enjoy the wildlife in this space. Buildinga house on this land would take all of that away, whilst restricting local residents' access to theshops and amenities on Kellaway Avenue.

During the 28 years that I have lived in Ridgehill, I have been to numerous picnics andbarbecues on the small plot of land known locally as the 'picnic area'. This area is a very valuablecommunity resource, particularly in an area with so little public open space. I therefore wish tolodge an objection to the plans to build a house on this plot that was originally set aside forcommunity use.Also, passing through this area is a busy and very important footpath that provides walking accessfor the whole of Henleaze to Tesco, Horfield Common with its children's play area, and buses onKellaway Avenue, plus walking access for people of Golden Hill to the shops and buses onHenleaze Road. This footpath must be retained and not squeezed into an unsafe and excessivelynarrow path between high walls. The proposal states that a "formal and purpose-made right ofway could be provided to the rear of the dwelling". Note the use of the word "could", which meansit may or may not be provided if this proposal were agreed.The proposal also states that transport links within the area are substantial with established busroutes close to the property, and that convenience shopping is available close to the site and asupermarket and shopping complex nearby. By eliminating the footpath, access to these facilitieswould be available to this property, but would be removed for hundreds of people.

We have lived at Ridgehill for 37 years and have enjoyed the community spirit in thisarea, using the picnic area as the venue to meet up for either the yearly bbq or picnic.The area was used as a route to school by our children and we use the route to access Tescos orthe Ardagh community cafe.I personally assist in the upkeep of this area, though we have made no attempt to count thenumbers using the path in my estimation it must be 100 to 150 people per day, and many of thesepeople are not from Ridgehill or Sates Way but further afiield.Also when we purchased our house this area in the plans was designated as a public area

I regularly cycle from my home in The Furlong along the cycle path and emerge at thisgreen on my way to Westbury on Trym and Southmead. I do not consider that the proposalsprovide a safe or suitable exit for cyclists using the existing cycle way.

I have used this passage of land for decades to walk from Kellaway Avenue toHenleaze Rd. I have often spoken to local people who are using it for recreation or tending theflower beds. I had always assumed it was a vital , public green space , giving access to peopleand wildlife. This is a corridor for both foxes and badgers and bats. I'm sure the building of ahouse would necessitate felling of trees and disturb ancient habitat and animal routes. I objectmost strongly and hope that this unnecessary application is turned down.

I can see no valid reason why the legal owner of this land shouldn't be able to build ahouse on it. The house will be built in an established housing setting and will not detract from theoverall street scene.

The objectors come across as a load of self-entitled NIMBYs who think they have the right to usesomeone else's land, and then throw their toys out of the pram when the rightful owner decides touse it themselves.

I support this application.

I use this patch of land as a safe cut-through for cycling, which adjoins the cycle pathtowards Tesco. It has good sight lines and is well lit. I object to this development as its remodellingis likely to involve sharp turns and poor visibility. The environmental damage would also beirreparable.

I live close to the site of the proposed build. I have two young children who love to beoutside and we use the space almost daily for the following purposes:Practising cycling/ scootingLearning about nature through observation and discussionSitting for picnicsMeeting neighbours/ friends

When we use the space it is rare we do not see others using the space for similar purposes. If thehouse were to be built, it would be an irreversible loss to the community .

I've lived locally for over 20 years and it's only in the past 3 years or so that the land hasseen any maintenance!

Where there now lies a nice gravel pathway and lawn there used to be a muddy track surroundedby large conifer trees so I've no idea what the objectors are on about with "barbecues and picnics"- it used to be forgotten scrubland!

Anyway, I think the plans make sense. Today's makeshift pathway that's not disabled friendly orparticularly wide should be replaced by a safe and accessible footpath.

As for the environmental impact of clearing the ash tree and lawns - the objectors didn't think twiceabout their environmental impact when they cleared all the undergrowth a couple of years ago!What hypocrites.

I see no reason why this land shouldn't be developed. It's not a right of way and as far as I'maware it's not enjoyed much use beyond being a convenient footpath. Besides, if these peoplehave enjoyed its use, haven't they just been trespassing this entire time?!

I would like to see this small patch of land remain as a green space. It is special tomyself, my family and the wider community because of its beauty, tranquility and richness ofwildlife.

There is plenty of established research proving the value of maintaining small or very small greenspaces in urban environments. For example, but not only, the following. I hope the planningcommittee can take on board the results of such research in their decision making.

European Environment Agency"The health benefits of urban green space are well recognised for children, whose physical andmental development is enhanced by living, playing and learning in green environments."https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/who-benefits-from-nature-in

The Natural History Museum"Research shows really clearly that we need nature in our surroundings. We need trees in ourstreets, plants in our gardens and flowers on our balcony. We need nature as our neighbour all thetime"https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/why-we-need-green-spaces-in-cities.html

Earthwatch EuropeUrban nature can... result in a significant range of benefits, such as: a cleaner and healthierenvironment, adaptation to climate change, reversing the decline of urban biodiversity,improvement of deprived areas, new socio-economic opportunities and green jobshttps://earthwatch.org.uk/news/blogs/361-nature-in-cities

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:During the 28 years that I I have been to numerous picnics and

barbecues on the small plot of land known locally as the 'picnic area'. This area is a very valuable

community resource, particularly in an area with so little public open space. I therefore wish to

lodge an objection to the plans to build a house on this plot that was originally set aside for

community use.

Also, passing through this area is a busy and very important footpath that provides walking access

for the whole of Henleaze to Tesco, Horfield Common with its children's play area, and buses on

Kellaway Avenue, plus walking access for people of Golden Hill to the shops and buses on

Henleaze Road. This footpath must be retained and not squeezed into an unsafe and excessively

narrow path between high walls. The proposal states that a "formal and purpose-made right of

way could be provided to the rear of the dwelling". Note the use of the word "could", which means

it may or may not be provided if this proposal were agreed.

The proposal also states that transport links within the area are substantial with established bus

routes close to the property, and that convenience shopping is available close to the site and a

supermarket and shopping complex nearby. By eliminating the footpath, access to these facilities

would be available to this property, but would be removed for hundreds of people.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:We have and have enjoyed the community spirit in this

area, using the picnic area as the venue to meet up for either the yearly bbq or picnic.

The area was used as a route to school by our children and we use the route to access Tescos or

the Ardagh community cafe.

I personally assist in the upkeep of this area, though we have made no attempt to count the

numbers using the path in my estimation it must be 100 to 150 people per day, and many of these

people are not from Ridgehill or Sates Way but further afiield.

Also when we purchased our house this area in the plans was designated as a public area

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I regularly cycle from my home in the cycle path and emerge at this

green on my way to Westbury on Trym and Southmead. I do not consider that the proposals

provide a safe or suitable exit for cyclists using the existing cycle way.

This area has been a valued amenity including several mature treesGarden areas have been created and maintained over several years by a voluntary group ofresidentsResidents have also improved access to the footpath from the crescent to the Tesco store.Closure of this area will make access to the store difficult and if trees are removed environmentallyundesirable

Dear Sir /Madam

I am writing to object to the above planning application for the following reasons:-

I use this public path daily and feel very nervous about the very public way beingreduced to a narrow alley between two houses with no hope of escape if I was attackedor mugged.

The community have maintained this land well for as long as I can remember doingweeding and planting flowers, it is a lovely haven for wildlife.

This piece of land has no direct access for parking vehicles this will cause congestion tothe surrounding side streets (they are not allowed to park in the turning circle).

We are all trying to encourage wildlife into our gardens as do you in your parks andgardens by planting wild flowers and no mow may and now a property builder wants todestroy a wildlife haven.

When the estate was built this land was earmarked for recreation, who sold to it aproperty developer when and why?

I look forward to your reply.

This land is subject to a current application for registration as a town or village green,which has no doubt prompted the planning application. The City Council should co-ordinate theconsideration of both applications.

Regarding the planning application, it should be refused because:The land was shown as public open space on the plan attached to the planning approval for the'Golden Park' Ridgehill/Sates Way residential development. It was therefore always intended asrecreational land for the neighbourhood.The land has become a valuable local amenity enjoyed and maintained by the community overmany years.The proposed house is far too big for the land.The proposed footpath is too narrow and should be at least the width of the paths leading up to itfrom Ridgehill and Sates Way if permission is given.The land has no highway access and will lead to problem parking on the adjacent cul de sachammer-head.

Since moving to 10 Ridgehill in 1986 there has been access to Kellayway Avenue viathe pathway through the proposed development. Furthermore, this patch of land was originallydesignated as a play area by the builders of the surrounding houses, so it seems odd that it wassold in the first place.

Use this pathway all the time detriment to the area to lose this!!

My family and I regularly use the land that is the subject of this planning permission. It isa lovely green spot and an important access route to Tesco, the sports ground at Golden Hill,Horfield park and the Kellaway Avenue and Gloucester Road amenities.

A narrow footpath as proposed on the plan, potentially surrounded by high fences, would not beappropriate for the types of pedestrian and bike traffic that use the site. It is a fairly busy route andimportant for cyclists to get through from the cycle route, as well as buggies and those of limitedmobility. A dark narrow path with high fences would not be safe for the young children that use theroute as a means to access sports activities.

This area has been maintained by the local people for years and is a lovely green spot with maturetrees and plants and wildlife and I object to putting a house here.

I regularly use this footpath for access to Tesco and Gloucester road and horfieldcommon. Or would be very disruptive to lose this public access.

I use this area/path to walk and cycle as it is the quickest, easiest, way for me to reacha variety of locations. For instance:

- For cycling, all the other routes are longer, hilly and/or more dangerous.- It's a short, flat walk to Tesco on a wide path which means I'm able to carry heavy, bulkyshopping home on foot.

The proposed path is narrow and inappropriate for cyclists + bicycles.

As a (female) cyclist, having to dismount when it's dark is not something I want to do anywhere,but especially not in a narrow alleyway.

Several people have commented that cyclists need to dismount currently to cross this land as thecycle path ends abruptly at the corner of the playing field; this raises questions which may concernthe use of this land:- why does the cycle path end so abruptly?- in the past did it join up to Ridgehill or Sates Way or to another cycle path? If so:- was it across this land or elsewhere?- why doesn't it join up now?- was it removed and not replaced?

For ten years until recently I commuted via the Green to my place of work near ParkwayStation: the Green gives ready cycle access to Kellaway Avenue, and thence to Concorde Wayand Bristol's Northern Fringe.

The proposed 1.2m path, with its right-angle corner, does not afford sufficient space to allow thesafe passage of bikes, be they pushed or ridden. It also doesn't allow for the safe passage ofprams, pushchairs, or wheelchairs.

Alternatives to the Green to access Bristol's Northern Fringe by bike are vastly inferior both interms of an increased amount of up and down (important for those of us with conventional non-electric bikes) and reduced access to off-road cycle routes such as Concorde Way.

Whilst it is the case that Phoenix Grove is relatively near to the Green, and that Phoenix Grovemight be considered to be an alternative cycle route to Kellaway Avenue, its status as a cycleroute is ambiguous: until recently it had a "No Cycling" sign at one end and it's only marked as a"Public Footpath" on maps.

Aside from cycling, my wife and I walk via the Green to do our weekly grocery shop at Tesco'sGolden Hill store. I don't fancy having to negotiate a narrow, dark, overgrown, dog-fouled path of awinter's evening whilst carrying two heavy shopping bags.

It seems to me inevitable that, should this planning application succeed, car journeys in the areawill increase at the expense of pedestrian and cycle journeys.

I have used this cut-through for 24 years either on foot or on my bike. It is an importantaccess point for residents in this neighborhood to get to Kellaway Avenue. There are severalmature trees under threat too.The path links with a cycle path adjoining Golden Hill.This green space should be protected - we need green lungs in the city.

I object to the development of this land on the grounds of the environmental andsustainability impact, and the impact on the local community and wellbeing of residents.

This public open space is extremely valuable to the neighbourhood, is enjoyed by many, is wellmaintained and attracts an abundance of wildlife. The proposed dwelling is far too large for thespace, and construction would result in the loss of an Ash tree.

This site is an open space, managed by the community and linking Golden Hill toHenleaze, providing a well used community path.This enables community connections for all.

In addition the applicant has recently been in the local press and taken to court and fined for notmanaging properties and sites effectively.

This pleasant green space provides a handy and safe cut through to Tesco for manyresidents. Removing this amenity would involve the felling of mature trees that provide a haven forwildlife and is hard to see how it fits in with Bristol's claim to be a green city. If the turning spacewas also lost then larger vehicles would be manouvering in the road causing safety issues foranyone passing through or playing in the street.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment: 1986 there has been access to Kellayway Avenue via

the pathway through the proposed development. Furthermore, this patch of land was originally

designated as a play area by the builders of the surrounding houses, so it seems odd that it was

sold in the first place.

I and my family use this area several times a week. At present it is an attractive andsafe space, which is beautifully maintained by local residents. It is a fantastic little wildlife haven.

We use the footpath to access the sports ground, park, cafe and shop. We have also attendedcommunity events in the space, which has been a very welcome opportunity to meet neighbours.

This proposal would make the footpath feel unsafe and cause considerable inconvenience topretty much every household living this side of the sports field including our and many otherchildren, and more elderly and less physically able residents.

This local amenity should not be lost.

This is a lovely and popular public walk way with a great community feel. There wouldbe several trees lost and associated wild life (bats, squirrels, birds, fox and badgers). It would be areal loss to our community.

This area is a focal point for the community who have maintained the space for anumber of years and have used it to host community events in a safe area without the need forroad closures.

It is a vital access route to local amenities including Tesco's and reducing the path width to 1.2mwould impact the ability of local residents (including those with mobility issues, buggies andbicycles) to use the path safely.

This is the only place for the community to get together without road closures so itwould be a great loss to the community. Events have included annual summer celebrations andthe King's coronation party.

The local children use it as part of their activities, for example painting stones and maintaining thearea.

Reducing access will have a big impact on the residents as this is a very well used path,particularly given it has a cycle path leading up to it.

I use this area on my running route and dog walk and would be sad to see it lost to anew house .

We walk the children to school daily using the current path accross the green. Thesuggested 1.2m footpath with a 90 degree angle would present much more risk of harm especiallyon dark mornings and evenings.

We also regularly walk back from the bus stop at night and again would find this a much riskierpassage.

I live in Henleaze and have done so since 1971. I strongly object to a house being builthere. This space is too small to build a house on and will be too cramped and will affect all thehouses close by.

I also object to the trees being cut down; it can be a lovely walk and this would ruin it. The newlane which they propose is too narrow and my wife and I would not feel safe walking through itwith the high walls.

Only one person will gain from this proposed development but many local people would lose out.This should not be allowed to happen.

Objection: We strongly oppose the proposed dwelling on the community land that hasbeen a vital pedestrian route and save recreational space for over three decades. This space hasserved as an essential pathway for all members of our community to access local shops andparks. Its historical significance and continued use as a shared resource are undeniable. Erectinga dwelling here would disrupt the accessibility and communal harmony that we have cherished forso long, and we urge reconsideration of this plan in light of its adverse impact on our community'swell-being and heritage.

The area where permission for a 4-bed house has been sought is a community amenitywhere neighbours can meet and socialise and childen can play safely. It also provides easyaccess to Tesco and Horfield Common. We (the residents of the surrounding streets) have workedhard to improve it with flower beds and tubs and generally keeping it tidy. It would be a great pity ifwe were to lose it.Furthermore it seems far too small for a house of the proposed size. I strongly urge the council toreject the application.

I was disappointed to see this planning application for an area that for as long as I'velived here (since 2006 and even long before that from speaking with neighbours who've lived hereearlier than that) has been an area looked after by the Golden Hill Neighbourhood Watch group.Multiple community events have been held here such as picnics, afternoon teas, bbqs, and bankholiday gatherings to celebrate national events as well as just being a cohesive community.Much work by the local community has gone into improving this little area including planting,working parties to maintain this area, lawn mowing, putting down surfacing across the grass toavoid muddy shoes, the management of a hedge and solar lights to make it lighter and feel safe towalk through at all times of day. I would've thought that this plot had effectively been abandonedby the owner, who appears to have done nothing to maintain it in decades, and the rights shouldbe transferred to the community who've tended and improved it.The proposed build would destroy an established wooded area (trees and shrubs) that supports alot of wildlife (badgers, foxes, owls, bats, birds, insects) along with the damage to the adjacent treeroots of mature trees and the shade that would be created that would completely change theecosystem. The planning application states that trees would be planted as 5 would be removedbut the land after building is tiny and no one in their right mind would want trees that close to theirfoundations.The proposed amended pathway is very narrow and will have 6ft fencing either side which willremove the safety aspects of what is currently in place. As this is also used as a cycle route(indeed the route from Tesco up to Ridgehill is designated a cycle path) then the proposed 1.2m isinadequate and for cycles to pass each other (or cycles to pass pushchairs) would need to beconsiderably wider (2m or more) particularly as visibility would be reduced to almost none with theintroduction of a corner coming from Ridge Hill to proposed moved pathway. The proposed siteplan also appears to have a tree right in the middle of the proposed moved pathway.The list of properties notified seems to imply that only immediate neighbours would be affected -

this pathway is used by dozens of people on a daily basis. It affects a major route betweenHenleaze and Horfield Common, the children's play area and Gloucester Road. I live in WalliscoteAvenue and my mum lives over in Horfield and she walks to us at least twice a week. Members ofmy household also walk to Tesco at least 4 times a week as it is quicker than taking the car. Ioften walk to Gloucester Road via this route to use the myriad of cafes and independent shops forgrocery shopping. I see people walking, cycling and scooting to work, school, nursery and theshops daily and many use this little oasis as the entrance way to a nice walk or jog. This is a verywell used route - it's also a flat short cut for many of our older residents and people with youngerchildren. Changing it to a narrow alleyway from the wide pathway currently in place does notacknowledge how this area has been used for decades and will put people off using sustainabletransport options.

This planning application is a travesty and the area should protected as a village green orcommunity asset or PROW.

This small parcel of land has been a communal space for decades, it not only providesclear and open access to the local shops, surrounding pathways and roads but it supports wildlifewhich is abundant in this location as highlighted by the nature trails around the adjacent footpaths.There is no need to shoehorn a house into such a space which would be a detriment to thesurrounding area.

This is an appalling application. The area is a natural wildlife habitat which has beenlovingly cared for by local residents for many years. They must have acquired an easement overthe land

The proposed property is located on land extensively used by the local community, bothas a thorough fare and as a recreational area.The local residents have maintained the area for many years in a way which is sensitive to theenvironment. The area supports trees and wild life, so important in a urban area.I object to the building of any dwelling on this land and support the area having Village Greenstatus.I use this thorough fare almost on a daily basis to visit my near by elderly parents. Otherwise Iwould have to drive there if this access was denied. The walk through this piece of land fills myheart with joy. I feel great dismay that any land owner would even consider this a suitable place tobuild a property.

I walk a lot through this space, which is being very well looked after and very pleasant togo through, this takes me to see my daughter and her family. I have met a lot of people there, lotsof them will stop there to have a chat with others, it's a safe place for the local community and veryenjoyable. It's also a shortcut for pedestrians (lots of them are old) to go and do their shopping.Please do leave it as an open space. Thank you.

This is a pleasant leafy communal space where neighbours can socialise and childrenplay safely.The footpath which bisects it is very well used to access, for example, Tesco and the Common.We have worked hard to make this area attractive and it would be tragic to lose it.

Community Amenity. The loss of the green space would be a serious loss of acommunity amenity, for neighbours and people transiting the area via the foot paths. My studyspace in our house overlooks one of the routes and of people of all ages that use the pavementand road in Ridgehill to go to the green area and onwards to Tesco and Horfield. I can testify thatthere is a very large amount of foot and cycle traffic between Henleaze and the Tesco/Horfieldarea along the three footpaths/cycle routes which converge on the green area (where pedestrianscross it and where cyclists temporarily dismount to join the main cycle path to Tesco and Horfield).The area is open, pleasant and under observation from several houses. The proposed footpathmodifications will see the footpath forced into narrow paths between tall walls and tall fences.Such areas are worrying for lone women, youngsters and in fact for anyone. The new narrowfootpath will be difficult to navigate for people pushing bicycles or prams or push chairs.

Highway Safety. The government and Local Councils want people to adopt cycling. As part of thiseffort they create and promote cycle paths which are attractive and safe. The loss of the greenspace will be a backward step. Three cycle routes converge on the green space: Henleaze viaSates Way, Henleaze via Ridgehill and the Tesco/Horfield route (this last route being a designatedcycle way). Cyclists need to dismount to cross the green space but it is an open area making thecrossing between routes easy, pleasant and safe. The green is a pleasant space for walkers too(people who prefer to travel by foot rather than by car!). At one point in the new footpath proposalthe route of the footpath includes a right angle which will be difficult for cyclists to navigate whilepushing their bikes in the face of pedestrians and other users coming the other way. The sameapplies for cycle-propelled children carriers which use the same routes to access local schools.Preserving the green space will not only make peoples' journey to school and to work much saferand more pleasant but it will also improve road safety by reducing car traffic (contributing tocleaner air) and by reducing parking near schools. Please recognise these efforts and continue to

encourage them by rejecting the proposed development.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I object very strongly to the loss of the small piece of land by the Kissing Gate by

building a new house on it.

I have lived here 17 years and the neighbourhood regularly use this space for communal

gatherings, like Royal Weddings and the late Queen's Platinum Jubilee and picnics and Parties.

These gatherings are a great way to cement the neighbourhood together and allow everyone to

get to know each other. This is particularly important after the enforced separation of Covid 19

regulations. Children and older people like me at 75 particularly benefit.

I sincerely hope the Council will not allow any development on this important amenity for Sates

Way and Ridgehill residents.

Thank you.

The space involved in this application has been used as a safe communal area for sucha long time, enjoyed by Sever families over the years for community activities encouraging helpfulsocial interaction within the neighbourhood. It also provides easy access for pedestrians to thepublic footpath. Residents have made a great deal of effort regarding the upkeep and plantingflower tubs to create such a pleasant space. It would seem it would have otherwise become anovergrown, messy area as clearly the owner is not inclined to become involved in any upkeep.

I have lived in Walliscote Avenue for 25 years and I want to register my strongobjections to the proposal for a four bedroom property in the land adjacent to 31 Ridgehill.The area referred to in the planning application is NOT an unused plot but has been an integralpart of the community throughout this time. The local neighbourhood watch have organisedregular community picnics in this area. The footpath which runs across this area is used regularlyby pedestrians, young and old, families with pushchairs, dog walkers, and cyclists to access theTesco on Goldenhill, Horfield Common and Kellaway Avenue. It is also a route used by parents toaccompany their children to Henleaze School. The proposed new pathway appears to be verynarrow and will cause problems particularly for push chair access, those with mobility issues andfor children going to and from school.The area has been carefully looked after by members of the neighbourhood watch and thefootpath has been regularly maintained over the years. There are planters containing flowers andthe area has been planted with shrubs and flowers for the enjoyment of all. The area is a magnetfor a variety of wildlife eg foxes, badgers, hedgehogs.Access of construction vehicles to the site will cause major noise and disturbance to localresidents and will necessitate some impediments in the turning circle at the end of Ridgehill.I strongly object to this proposal.

I wish to object to the proposed development on the land adjacent to 31 Ridgehill on thefollowing grounds

This much appreciated green space is considered a community asset. It is regularly used by theRidgehill and Sates Way community to celebrate cultural events and support social andcommunity interaction. This has been facilitated by the dedicated maintenance of the area by localresidents which has resulted in the area being kept free of litter and graffiti as well as the grassbeing mowed, the planting of many plants and the area remaining well presented. Losing this areato a property will likely result in no affinity between the local residents and the remaining pathwhich will likely quickly succumb to litter, graffiti and undesirable characters and behaviour.

Additionally, this area is a mature woodland and established habitat to many species of birds andanimals, all of which would be destroyed by the building of a house.

Totally object to this application to build on an essential green space which is currentlybeautifully maintained and well used by the local community. Children regularly pass this way onthe way to Shine sport facilities, it would not be safe for them to made to walk through a narrowlaneway instead.

I have been living at my present address since October 1998 and have been an activemember of the local community over this period. I am writing to vehemently oppose this planningapplication.

In the application it is stated that the plot of land is 'unused'. This is entirely incorrect and in factnothing could be further from the truth. Over many years this area has been used forNeighborhood Watch picnics and other community activities. Reflecting this, the local communitymaintain the public footpath, regularly mow the grass, and tend to the hedges and shrubs, and thelocal children have decorated the edge of the path with beautiful painted stones.

The existing footpath is heavily used by the community, young and old, parents and children, asan access route to the Tesco store on Golden Hill, the recreational / community facilities atHorfield Common, the local shops on Kellaway Avenue, and for families and their childrenaccessing Henleaze Infant School. The planned re-routing of the existing path proposes a verynarrow passage at the back of the property that will affect all users and will restrict access forfamilies with pushchairs and individuals with mobility issues.

Access to the site is also heavily restricted. The community plot lies at the end of a residentialroad, Ridge Hill that has NO through route. Lorries delivering building materials and generalconstruction traffic will have to reverse in and out (there is no turning circle) and this will lead toserver congestion. This will impact residents and their children on Ridge Hill and all those living onneighboring residential roads, Walliscote Road, Walliscote Avenue, Henleaze Park Drive, andSates Way that also have NO through routes. All roads mentioned are accessed by ONE entrypoint on Henleaze Park Drive, and it is here that all constructive traffic must enter. The disruptionand noise that this will generate will be server.

Finally, the community plot is a small local haven for wildlife. I have personally observed badgers,foxes, hedgehogs, bats, and an array of birdlife in this area. Destroying this habitat by cuttingdown mature trees and shrubs and concreting over the grassland will be an insult to the localcommunity who have carefully tended and used this community plot for the last 25 years.

I have been living at my present address since October 1998 and have been an activemember of the local community over this period. I am writing to vehemently oppose this planningapplication.

In the application it is stated that the plot of land is 'unused'. This is entirely incorrect and in factnothing could be further from the truth. Over many years this area has been used forNeighborhood Watch picnics and other community activities. Reflecting this, the local communitymaintain the public footpath, regularly mow the grass, and tend to the hedges and shrubs, and thelocal children have decorated the edge of the path with beautiful painted stones.

The existing footpath is heavily used by the community, young and old, parents and children, asan access route to the Tesco store on Golden Hill, the recreational / community facilities atHorfield Common, the local shops on Kellaway Avenue, and for families and their childrenaccessing Henleaze Infant School. The planned re-routing of the existing path proposes a verynarrow passage at the back of the property that will affect all users and will restrict access forfamilies with pushchairs and individuals with mobility issues.

Access to the site is also heavily restricted. The community plot lies at the end of a residentialroad, Ridge Hill that has NO through route. Lorries delivering building materials and generalconstruction traffic will have to reverse in and out (there is no turning circle) and this will lead toserver congestion. This will impact residents and their children on Ridge Hill and all those living onneighboring residential roads, Walliscote Road, Walliscote Avenue, Henleaze Park Drive, andSates Way that also have NO through routes. All roads mentioned are accessed by ONE entrypoint on Henleaze Park Drive, and it is here that all constructive traffic must enter. The disruptionand noise that this will generate will be server.

Finally, the community plot is a small local haven for wildlife. I have personally observed badgers,foxes, hedgehogs, bats, and an array of birdlife in this area. Destroying this habitat by cuttingdown mature trees and shrubs and concreting over the grassland will be an insult to the localcommunity who have carefully tended and used this community plot for the last 25 years.

I strongly object to the construction of a building in the open space near 31 Ridgehill asthis is used as a communal space by local residents like us. It also serves as a public footpath forlocal neighbourhood to walk to Tesco and importantly for kids to access the Henleaze Juniorschool and Claremont School in Henleaze. Access from Satesway to Tesco/ Furloung would beimpacted as Tesco will not be in walking distance anymore. Further, the impact this would have tothe flora and fauna in this areas should be considered as well.

Loss of wildlife habitatLoss of community spaceDestruction of trees when more are neededUnsuitable passage way

This should be protected community space. Absolute disaster to turn this into adwelling.

I object to the plans to build a detached dwelling on the green space. It is widely andfrequently used by ridgehill residents. Thank you

I object to the plans because of the impact on wildlife, because of the restriction ofaccess to local amenities - and the related negative impact on other dwellings if the access isrerouted - and because it will negatively impact community life, since it is a gathering place for thecommunity, and a safe place for children to play.

This is a well used and very pleasant green space which should be retained to continueto aid the well-being and mental health of the community. It is also currently a well-lit, open spacewhich allows people to walk safely and confidently between Ridge Hill etc and the area aroundKellaway Avenue. It is well used for this by school children and provides a safe well lit spaceespecially in the mornings and early evenings during the winter months.

I have lived in this neighbour hood since 1997.

During this time the land has been used as a community meeting place.

The path is well used and maintained by the neighbourhood, at some expense

Amenity. The loss of this green space ( i.e. the plot on which the proposed buildingwould be constructed and called herein "The Green") would be a serious loss of an amenity, notjust for the immediate locality but for the wider area. There is a very large amount of foot and cycletraffic between Henleaze and the Tesco/Horfield area along the three footpaths /cycle routeswhich converge on The Green (where cyclists temporarily dismount for the crossing). The Greenpresents a safe interchange for these routes. The area is open, pleasant and under observationfrom several houses. The proposed footpath modifications will see the footpaths forced into"canyons" between tall walls and tall fences. Such areas are frightening for lone women and hardto navigate for people pushing cycles or prams.

Highway Safety. To support its net-zero goals the government is encouraging people to cycle andit is making efforts to provide cycle paths which are attractive and safe. The loss of The Green willhave the opposite effect. Three cycle routes converge on The Green. - Henleaze via Sates Way,Henleaze via Ridgehill and the Tesco/Horfield route (this last route being a designated cycle way).Cyclists need to dismount to cross The Green but it is an open area making the crossing betweenroutes easy, pleasant and safe. At one point in the new footpath proposal the route of the footpathincludes a right angle which will be difficult for cyclist to navigate while pushing their bikes. Manypeople use these footpath/cycle routes to make the school run by bicycle. This is surely apraiseworthy aid to road safety as it reduces the number of cars on the roads and reduces theamount of car parking near schools. Such laudable efforts need assistance, not discouragement.

For the above reasons I object to the plan.

I strongly object to this proposal on the basis that this area is valuable green space andmuch used by local pedestrian traffic.

Like many other local people I use the footpaths that currently cross the green space as part of adaily dog walk routine. The space is well kept and much loved by the local community. Being openit means I can easily see who is about and take appropriate measures to ensure my own safety.

Unlike some green spaces, this is not an area that suffers from anti-social behaviour. It is a rareoasis of nature and greenery in a housing estate that doesn't have a lot of such space. There arealso mature trees in the area that may be impacted by local development.

We need to keep our green spaces

This little piece of land has been a local community resource for decades, used forneighbourly gatherings and has managed to be both a clever mix of pleasant garden and also avaluable wildlife corridor. It is also part of the network of paths throughout Henleaze which make itsuch a leafy suburb with a good quality of life. I understand that pedestrian and cycle accesswould still be provided but I don't see how it would do anything other than detract from thewellbeing of users to become a narrow passage rather than an open space with a healthy treecanopy. Overall, building a house on this land would diminish the area for most even it is profitablefor the owner.

I saw this planning application for a house on the small plot of land at the end ofRidgehill.

My Grannie lives on this road, I visit her twice a week and I cannot believe that you havedescribed this plot of land as unused. It is used by children and adults and is a safe passage toHorfield and Tesco. The people who live here look after the space and use it for special occasions.This safe path to Tesco keeps my Grannie able to live on her own and get to the shops.

It sounds like you have permission to cut down 3 trees. Is this allowed? There is loads of wildlifethere. What will happen to them?

A two story house, and car park on this small plot of land would be overcrowding the space. Thebuild would mean trucks and builders on the street causing danger to my Grannie and the childrenthat play. There will be disruption to all the local residents and this is a quiet road with limitedaccess.

I am very unhappy about this planning application.

I have used this path/green for over 28 years. I have stopped on the green to watch thebirds and often see small children playing there. Local people have gardened and maintained thespace. I smile when I see bunting up and a party happening. As a lone woman I feel very safewalking to the lane because visibility is good and I feel if a house is built this will severely affectme. I will have to walk along a narrow walled alley and this will heighten my anxiety. This path iswidely used by bikes, pushchairs and dogs along with walkers. The lane alongside a house wouldnot be wide enough. I am very worried this will become a no go area for me if this development isgranted.

This will completely block the pedestrian walkways to neighbourhood.

We need more trees and flowers not buildings on top of other buildings

Land next to 31 Ridgehill

The plot of land is situated at the closed end of a cul-de-sac with very limited vehicle access.There is a small turning circle in front of the plot, which would be lost if the build goes ahead.The road is not wide enough for cars to pass if vehicles park on both sides on the road and thereis limited parking available for residents and visitors.

The current infrastructure can not support additional traffic in the form of large builders merchantslorries and other similar sized vehicles.There is no space on site for storage of new or waste materials, so these will present anobstruction on the road.

We have lived in Ridgehill for almost 8 years, during which time the land has regularly been usedby local residents for recreation, social gatherings and access to local services.We understand from neighbours that the land had been used in this way for many years prior toour arrival.

Local residents have maintained the area, cut the grass, replaced the fence, planted and wateredbulbs and flowers.Chippings have also been laid to make the path less muddy and more accessible to the manypedestrians and cyclists who use the walkway every day.

There are seven families with young children in this section of Ridgehill, many of whom enjoyplaying out on their bikes and scooters in what is, and has always been, a safe space for them.This would not be possible during the build as their safety could not be guaranteed.

This is vital space for the local community, offering the opportunity to gather forcommunity events - recently neighbourhood gatherings as well as celebrations such as te jubileeand coronation. Nature is also abundant in this little area with trees and plants which already caredfor by the local residents. The once adjoining fields have already been closed off for private useand/or been built on. It is vital for this community that this patch of unspoilt land is allowed toremain; far more important to the lives of many in this area than one more house.

We have lived in Ridgehill since 1982. The estate plan described this plot of land as a"public open space" and it has been much used as such by our community for over four decades.We have attended numerous events there. Our community spends time and money maintaining it:cutting the grass regularly, laying chippings on the paths and planting flowers in tubs and edgingbeds. It is a safe place for our numerous local children. It is a safe space for our plentiful localwildlife. To describe it as an "unused plot .... having no ancillary value" is absurd.

The details of the single, very narrow footpath are inadequate (lighting and so on). The turningpoint at the top of Ridgehill is essential for safety.

I have lived in Ridgehill for 25 years. In all that time the plot of land adjacent to 31,Ridgehill has been a plot of land that has been used by the local community for social eventsbringing people of all ages together and bringing a strong sense of community so important inrecent times for the mental health of all.

The land has been tended to by local residents, out of community money to make it such apleasant and well-maintained area enjoyed by all. To lose this well used area would adversely avery significant number of residents in the area. For the elderly the area provides an easilyaccessible flat green area within easy walk from their homes. This allows them to enjoy thesurroundings and feel part of the community.

A further issue for why I am adamantly against the development of this site, is the fact that manypeople from the area further afield than Sates Way and Ridgehill use this land to walk to Tescos,and Horfield Common . Many cyclists, and people with prams and buggies pass through this route.I fail to see how narrowing the path is not going to create a bottle neck of local communityresidents of walkers and cyclists. This will be a potential serious safety issue, particularly asdismounted cyclists need significantly more than 1.2m to safely pass other cyclists andpedestrians. not to mention if elderly people who may be unsteady, and children are runningunpredictably in the same narrow area.

Finally, many children play in the road and its critical vehicles can use the turning circle as theycurrently do so they are not reversing down the road (three point turns are not possible for largevehicles), so by changing this area into a driveway creates a dangerous hazard.

In conclusion, I vehemently object to this proposal. I fail to see why so many local residents should

have to suffer for one person to make monetary gain!

This area has a number of mature trees and is the home of wildlife, including bats -which are a protected species.Trees are vital to offset the pollution in a city such as Bristol -we don't have enough of them. Theyneed to be conserved.I am also objecting to the increase of traffic in a very quiet cul de sac.

Please don't build on this beautiful green space. It would be if huge detriment to wildlifeas well as destroying an important community area. It's completely unnecessary and wouldnegatively impact the area visually.

Object object object! This little corner is a tiny green breathing place which is deeplyloved by the neighbours and often made use of by users of the path. It would be utterly terrible forsomeone to plonk a house here and the only reason is to make money. Please please don't letthese people do it. It must be saved from greed and exploitation.

This is a lovely open space, which for several years has been used by residents andtheir families. The animals around there would be disturbed at their familiar landscape beingaltered quite dramatically. We can see what happened to the wildlife at Stoke Lodge to know theeffect this can have. Please don't build on this green space.

I personally use this area for both passing through and as a quiet spot to spend time in,and its loss would be a real negative for myself and local people and nature.

I have lived on Ridghill for 40 years and it has been a real community space that is safefor animals and children.

There are many families with young children in this section of Ridgehill, many of whom enjoyplaying out on their bikes and scooters in what is, and has always been, a safe space for them.This would not be possible during the build as their safety could not be guaranteed.

We also have natural wildlife that would suffer. I've seen hedhogs, bats, a massive amount ofbirds all who take refuge in this area. The area is maintained by local residents to live in harmonywith these animals.

This area is also a safe route to Horfield and Tesco for many of the older residence who rely onthis route for their wellbeing. Building work would significantly impact this community. It wouldcause an access restriction. I would suffer significantly from this.

This little piece of land is used for community events. It brings the community together regularlyand helps support local residents in many ways.

I contest this application.

This is a well used and well loved community space which provides a small haven't ofquiet in our busy city. The area is beautifully maintained and allows access to nearby amenities formany local residents not just those in the houses nearby. Fully object this planning

This space is used by the community

The "Design and Access Statement" makes a number of erroneous statements whichpaint a different picture to reality.It states:2.0 Context: The site occupies a vacant area, which has a graveled route across to the adjacentfootpath.This land was set aside by the original site developers as a play area and open space for thebenefit of the estate occupiers. It has remained a much loved open public space or "village green"ever since with no restriction to access ( for some 40 years) and it provides pedestrian and cyclelinks from the estate to local amenities and transport links. To prevent the green space from beingovergrown and unusable, the residents banded together as a community to maintain the space, attheir own expense, relying on financial donations and labour from residents, hence the path,grass, flower beds and planters etc. that you see. This has been a coordinated community effortwhich has bonded the neighbourhood throughout the years. It has been used as a communityspace for neighbourhood activities such as picnics and barbecues to promote neighbourhoodcohesion. When I first moved to Ridgehill in 1994, I personally met all the neighbours on the estateat the annual community barbecue, on that green, an experience I think every neighbourhoodshould experience. The community spirit expressed at that meeting was a revelation. At myprevious address I was on talking terms with only four of my immediate neighbours due to poorcommunity interaction. Over the following years new neighbours being inducted into thecommunity via these activities.3.0 Planning History The site does not have any publicly available planning history.Some years ago designated rights of way were applied for. I see no mention of this. Recently anapplication for village green status was submitted and this building application appears to be anattempt to usurp this.4.1 Existing Use The site does not have any ancillary beneficial use

The site has been a public open space for use by the residents since the construction of the estateand that has never changed. It has been a children's play area and the neighbourhood has heldregular and annual community activities (picnics and barbecues) garden maintainance sessionssince long before I moved here in 1994. The gravel paths were installed by residents, for thebenefit of all users of the adjacent foot/cycle path which give access to local amenities such as asshopping, sports facilities, Horfield Common and transport links. The years of investment by thiscommunity in this small green space, to promote community activities, should be recognised. Theterm "vacant area" does not convey the attachment this green space has to this community.10.8 Management: The site is self-contained, and aside from the necessary site traffic, worksshould have little impact on the neighbouring community.Poppycock! Ridgehill and Sates Way is a series of cul de sacs, with the only pedestrian access tolocal amenities' transport links and pedestrian/cycle lane is through this green space. The impacton the community by construction traffic and tradesmen's parking will be huge. In 9.1 it states"abundantly available on-street parking". The reality is that parking in Sates Way square, is justabout adequate for residents, whereas residents of Ridgehill will have to contend with access totheir driveways being blocked by construction traffic and construction workers vehicles. This willalso impinge on construction traffic accessing the site. Any closure of the lane will impactpedestrian and cycle access to amenities and transport links. The plan to provide a 1.2 m widepath with high walls as access to the lane is wholly inadequate. Access will be restrict to one waytraffic at a time. Bicycles/prams/ pedestrians with shopping will find it challenging to pass eachother in the restricted space. My shoulders are more than half this width!To approve this planning application would be to misunderstand the community's need andattachment to this green space and deprive this neighbourhood of this invaluable neighbourhoodactivity locale, which has been enjoyed freely by all for some 40 years. A place that promotesCommunity.For these reasons I object whole heartedly to this planning application.

The Design and Access Statement states that "this site is self-contained and worksshould have little impact on the neighbouring community". This is absolutely not true and I have noidea where you got this idea from.

This is a quiet area that people choose to move to for safety and quiet. There are many familiesthat have moved to Ridgehill and this build would pose a severe health and safety risk for childrenwho play here daily.

As for the cutting down of trees. This area is home to much wildlife. I've seen bats at dusk,hedgehogs and a variety of birds all that would be disrupted.

I have an elderly mother who relies on this path to Tesco to keep her independent and my sonuses this route to get to school. The whole community use this land and it is constantly in use, notonly by local residents, but by people who travel ecologically both on foot and on bike.

There have been a variety of extensions in the area, causing more congestion as it is and thissmall very used area isn't big enough to support a 2 story build and parking. building developmentwould be yet another disruption. Building work in this area would impact everyone: Adults,children, elderly and whildlife.

This area has been used to hold community events for over 40 years. It brings people togetherand is a real hub of activity in the summer.

Please do not let this building application go ahead. It would have a devastating impact on ourlocal and wider community who use this area each and every day. It is always maintained by local

residents as we value it so much.

Thank you

The area the house would be built is currently used as a safe public footpath for localresidents including children. It is also a well used public space for families in the local area. Thespace has been tended for by the local residents for many years with the owner of the landoffering nothing.

The area also had tress and wildlife.

Object to the house being build due to the above. The house will also make the area darker.

I used this path for many years when I lived on Sates Way, and continue to use when Ivisit the area.1.2m is not wide enough for the footpath. The area is a shared access for both pedestrians andcyclists, guidelines state therefore that a shared use path should be a minimum of 3metres wide.The house would totally restrict the area from being a vital communal space and would overlookother houses as well as the surrounding footpaths.

I strongly object to the building of a house, reasons are:1) the land is not empty. It is used as a pathway on an every day basis and from the community forgathering events. The land is maintained, cleared, planted, decorated with the work and expensesof volunteers.2) the applicants did not notify the adjacent neighbours, and I cannot convince myself that this wasan incinerator omission.3) the plot is too small for a house and any dwelling will impact on the quality of life on theneighbouring houses, by overlooking them and casting shadow.4) the wildlife will be hugely affected with the plans to cut three trees. Firstly, one of the trees theyplan to cut is not on their land. Secondly, one of the remaining two trees is really not in badcondition and even the submitted report recognises the need to reevaluate next year. Lastly, thesetrees support an abundance of life. There are small birds like various types of tits but also bats,squirrels, owls etc.5) the proposed pathway is a disaster in the making suggesting a narrow dark alleyway instead ofan open safe walk through.6) the turning point is vital for a cul de sac.

I sincerely hope that you take our comments into consideration and help us maintain the wildlife inour neighbourhood and our community's gathering place.

Object to loss of dwindling vital green space for wildlife in a climate emergency.

This is vital space for the local community. Nature is also abundant in this little area withtrees and plants. Nature and green space is important for mental wellbeing and environmentalwellbeing.

Just leave this little bit of green space.

An available open green space for local people for over forty years. Always valued evenin its early scrubby grass state; known as the 'play area'. I remembered the builders agreeing toleave this space as a commitment for being allowed to build on a green field.

Would also be such a step back to destroy beautiful mature trees.

This area of green space at the top of Ridgehill and Sates Way in Henleaze is underthreat due to this planning application to build a house on it; this includes the felling of threemature ash trees. If this was allowed to go ahead, the abundent wildlife and nature there (includingbirds, bats, squirrels and badgers) will be destroyed.This plot of land is a much-loved community space and enjoyed by locals for regular barbecuesand picnics there; this area is also used by children to play in and by pedestrians and cyclists as apublic through way. Local residents pay for its upkeep and mow the lawn, do gardening and tendto the tubs of flowers there.I grew up 2 streets away and now live just down the road and have always used this pathway. Iwould be devastated if this building work were allowed to happen and would be horrified that landthat has been disregarded by its 'owner' to manage and use by the public over the last 20 plusyears is taken away.

This application would obstruct a much used and loved right of way. It is a genuinelyessential walkthrough for residents. I use this frequently as do many others, any property builthere would severely impact access but more importantly an area of nature. Such a smalldevelopment cannot possibly be in the public interest, to consider this application viable would beridiculous.

We moved to Hill Grove 42 years ago and frequently make use of this short cut toHorfield Common and amenities including Tesco, Ardagh and Gloucester Old Spot pub.My 3 children live locally and often use this pathway too.I always thought it was a public footpath and part of the numerous green lanes around this area.It's important to me to access green spaces as it's so calming to walk where there is a trees andplants and birds. It's a magical space.Walking this way is part of mine and others daily exercise. I often see runners and cyclists.I'm appalled that the community there will lose that space for their get togethers especially after allthe hard work they have done to maintain this area from their own funds.It's a crazy idea to build a house in such a tiny but impossible space and thoroughfare.I strongly object.

Please do not destroy the wonderful green area behind Sates Way and Ridge Hill.It hasbeen wildly used over the last 20 years for garden party's special occasions and many otherevents loved by the community young and old.Everyone enjoys taking time out to look at the lovelypot plants and flowers and all the fantastic wildlife in the area.Also there is place there that people(many of them young children) have left painted pebbles and stones as a thank you to all thesacrifice for the workers and local people who helped us through the pandemic.The proposed pathnew path way will be surrounded by a high wall and be much to narrow it will be dangerous tonavigate and will lead to accidents or much worse.I strongly object to this development which willdestroy such a lovely green area.

I have lived in Ridgehill for 38 years, a minute's walk away from the plot and use it dailyon my walks. Over that time it has been used as a village green by local residents and aconnection from Ridgehill/Sates Way to the paths running to Tesco, The Crescent and DyrhamClose for many members of the public. The first barbecue was held in 1988 and nearly every yearsince. Note that the area was marked on the original plans as a 'Public Open Space'.The plot has always been well maintained by local volunteers. The grass is cut regularly, flowertubs have been purchased and are looked after and fallen leaves cleared. Paths of chippings havebeen laid to avoid the mud which would otherwise accumulate. Twice a year a group effort ismade to tidy the area, trimming bushes and removing accumulated debris. Local children haveadded to the area's natural beauty by painting stones and a large collection of these is now ondisplay.

Access to the plot is severely restricted. Ridgehill terminates abruptly and there is only a smallplace where cars can turn. On the plan this is now to be used as a drive for the house. The strip ofland between the plot and Ridgehill is owned by No 30 which means the only legal vehicularaccess is via the current turning place. So construction would cause enormous disruption toresidents in Ridgehill.

Another concern is the proposed path between the house and the fence on the south side of theplot. The planned width is 1.2m. There is a large tree in this path which will apparently remain.Given the high number of people that cross the plot daily, many with bicycles, buggies or pramsthis must be a safety hazard. The tree produces a huge number of leaves which fall each autumnwhich will make any path slippery and dangerous and could block it completely. How then will thepath be maintained? Will it be lit? Such a narrow path with potentially high walls raises securityworries too.

Given the value of this area to local residents over very many years I strongly object to it beingtaken away from us and ask the Council to please reject the landowner's application.

I strongly object to this development which will destroy the open community area that itwas designed to be in the original planning permission granted here. The community hasALWAYS used this area for events by the local people and as a play area for the children. Avaluable asset to the community will be lost not to be replaced.

The new right of way that is proposed will be narrow and walled on each side making in it into adangerous alley which will encourage mugging and be unsafe for children.

The present green area encourages wild life and much valued trees and greenery and as acommunity we maintain and respect our open space.

Lastly we will lose an intrinsic turning area for vehicles in Ridgehill as it will become an entrance toa driveway so not at all ideal for cars turning safely.

I do not support this application for all of the above reasons.

The recommended removal of 3 trees from Ridgehill is unacceptable. Reference to ashdieback does give sufficient consideration to the habitat disruption that this development wouldcause to the mature woodland at this location and the impact this would have on the entireecosystem. As we know, the interdependence of all species from invertebrates to plants to birdsand mammals is in delicate balance. The proposed work seems entirely out of line with Bristol CityCouncil's core values and all the hard work being done with the Clean Air Zone for example. Mostobvious is the wealth of birds nesting and feeding at this site. Blue tits, great tits, long tailed tits,sparrows, magpies, jays, gold finches, robins, goldcrests, crows, black birds, wrens, chaffinches,thrushes and great spotted woodpecker; all indicative of the thriving natural community thatsupports them. This list is non exhaustive.There is also a substantial body of research evidencing the correlation between access to natureand improved mental and physical health, and immune response. There are elderly residents whofrequent this green space, unable to walk much further. The loss of this habitat would be to thedetriment of their wellbeing.In conclusion I would like to see a thorough environmental impact assessment and more detailedarboriculture inspection and further consideration of the effect on species richness and diversityhere. This is absolutely not a baron green area as misleadingly stated in the application.

The land proposed for the building of a house is an essential part of the Ridgehill andSates Way community. We have lived in Ridgehill for almost 30 years and have passed throughthis plot almost every day.The area cannot be regarded as a 'building plot' because it serves many functions:- as a path for the community to walk through to the Tesco superstore, the Horfield play area andsports centre and Kellaway shops and other amenities, including a chemist and buses;- as a 'communal green space' for get-togethers such as picnics;- as a 'community garden' with flowers and flower tubs, and a collection of painted stones;- as an area looked after by volunteers, bringing people together;- as a place to make people smile and realise that not everything is awful.Vehicular access for this 'building site' would be problematic as the only access road is a cul-de-sac with limited turning space.The 1.2 metre-wide proposed walkway between high walls should never be considered - ownersof mobility scooters, buggies, etc., would feel excluded from using such a narrow walkway.If this plot of land had not been maintained by the community over many years, it would now be awasteland of brambles and nettles. Please do not allow it to be taken away from the community.We ask that this planning application be rejected.

I have lived round the corner from this beautiful green space for 26 years and it hasbeen used by the public as a footpath and community area all the time I've been here. Theproposed development leaves a very narrow pathway which will not be wide enough for the manypeople with double buggies, cycles, mobility aids and bags of shopping who use this walkwayevery day and certainly not wide enough for them to pass each other. There is a widecycleway/pedestrian walkway leading from the green space to Tesco and the proposed newpathway round a house would suddenly squeeze people into a bottle neck situation which is notsafe for anyone.

As a former resident, and with family still residing in the area, I am writing to object tothe proposed development on land adjacent to number 31 Ridgehill, Henleaze.

When the original Ridgehill/Satesway development was completed in the late 1970s, the subjectplot of land was left as an amenity space for the residents. Indeed, it has been widely used forevents such as bar-b-ques for as long as I can remember. For planners to describe the plot as'having no ancillary value' is unfair and entirely incorrect.

As mentioned, the plot was left undeveloped as part of the original plans, which begs the questionof whether, in addition to the need for community space, it was simply too small! Whilst Iappreciate developers have designed the proposed dwelling to be in-keeping with existingproperties, when taking into account its size, it is simply too big or, rather, the plot of land too smallfor the proposed dwelling. It is yet another example of developers 'squeezing' buildings ontoentirely unsuitable pieces of land.

Additionally, to describe the area as 'having an abundance of on street parking' is untrue. Indeed,referring to this at all implies that planners recognise that the proposed parking arrangements forthe new dwelling are inadequate: it seems that they expect that the new residents will resort toparking along the street. On top of this, the removal of the turning space at the top of Ridgehill isworrying - as a cul de sac, this will undoubtedly result in vehicles, especially large/deliveryvehicles, reversing down the road. This has implications for traffic coming the other way, damagecaused to parked cars and injury to children playing in the street.

It is also important to remember the wildlife. When the original development was completed in thelate 1970s, wildlife was substantially affected with the loss of vast green spaces. The little plot of

land that is at the heart of all of this is all that remains in the immediate vicinity for foxes, badgers,frogs, bats, mice and much, much more. It would be nothing short of devastating to lose thiswooded habitat, and seems at odds with Bristol's claim to be a green city.

Finally, I am curious as to why number 31 Ridgehill has been left off the notification list? Given thatthe proposed development is immediately adjacent to the boundary of number 31, it seemsnonsensical not to notify them. The development will impact upon it's residents substantially.

Can you please confirm that a footpath from Ridgehill and Sates Way joining the cyclepath to The Furlong and Tesco at Golden Hill will remain open on the land adjacent to 31 Ridgehillalbeit in a different position; that it will be of tarmac construction and appropriately lit. What roadswill be used for access to the site if planning is granted and what are the timescales to erect adetached dwelling on the plot.

As a resident of the area I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development ofthe land adjoining 31 Ridgehill, Henleaze (who incidentally have not received notification of thisapplication!)I am involved in the maintenance of this village green area which is used at very regular intervalsfor events which benefit the well being of residents of the local community and their families. Wehold picnics, get togethers and BBQs, have regular working parties to maintain the area and plantup the borders and pots using our own expenses to enhance the natural beauty of a well usedgreen space.The right of way is used daily by many people including mothers with their pushchairs, youngpeople on bicycles and the elderly making use of the short cut to Tescos.The potential development of this area will necessitate heavy vehicles being unable to turn aroundto exit the road putting the lives of the young children who live and play on this road in danger. Istrongly object to this development and implore the council to consider the impact to manyresidents of the area.

I purchased my property adjoining this plot in 2008.Prior to then, I was informed by the previous owners of my property who had it since 1980, thatthey and locals used the area as a village green. From 2008 I am aware, it has been used by myfamily and local residents as a play area, picnic area, summer fete area, and recreational area.It has been tended, cleaned, cleared, pruned, weeded, seeded, landscaped and watered regularlyannually, with lovely large wooden planters filled with flowers every year. The work and costs forthis have been met by local residents.The vehicular "turnaround"next to the plot was cleared of weeds and a new fence built by myselfand other local residents.It is also used by pedestrians and cyclists as a walkway and cycle way which also leads directly toTesco nearby.The Agent's statement that it is a vacant, unused plot is therefore completely incorrect and untrue.In addition, I note that I have not received any letter informing me of this possible development,despite being next to it on Ridgehill, when I'm informed others have.I am very concerned by this. Was this omission done on purpose?Why was I not sent such a letter ? I was only informed of all this today by a neighbour.I completely object to this development.If a new property is built there, there will be overshadowing and overlooking of my property.This area has been used as a village green for over 20 years.It is a nesting area for wood-pidgeon, magpies, owls and other local birds. It is not suitable for ahouse and such a development would take away a local community asset.Please do not allow this residential development to proceed.I look forward to hearing from the Council on this.

I have owned the property opposite the plot of land in question for 27 years, since 1996.

I object to this proposed construction for the following reasons:

1. It is my front garden and my hedge that will be immediately in front of the proposed building. T5is my tree and I do not give permission for it to be felled.

2. Construction vehicles would be constantly parked and moving in/out of the cul-de-sac, sovehicular access to my house would be severely restricted.

3. The turning space which is essential at the end of the cul-de-sac would be unavailable toresidents, visitors and delivery vehicles during construction, if not permanently.

4. It would be inappropriate for un-vetted workmen and their welfare facilities to be immediatelyadjacent to the playing field where very young children have their forest school during the schoolholidays.

5. I work from home sometimes and do not want the noise and disruption of a building siteopposite my property.

6. It is my understanding that a right of way through the plot has long been established. Owing topast uncertainty regarding the formal address of the land, the right of way may have been grantedbut using another description, so may not have been linked to this application.

7. The land has been used by the community for gatherings and events for many years.

8. The land is a wildlife habitat.

In summary, the following statement in the Design and Access Statement - The site is self-contained, and aside from the necessary site traffic, works should have little impact on theneighbouring community - is untrue.

I am aware that the neighbour who be primarily effected by the development has notbeen made aware of this build. Which show a shocking disregard for the high rate payingcommunity.

As a resident for many years I had not been made aware of this development. Which will visuallyimpair my view of the mature Ash trees which I assume given there age will be protected by anydevelopment.

I understand the proposal is to have narrow lanes which will be surrounded by high walls. I regardthis to be a safety hazard given the undesirable people that hang around the lanes in the day and Iam concerned this will risk the safety of my children and younger children in street. As well aselderly residents. I would like to know how the developer and local council plans to deal with thehealth and safety hazard.

We understood the original plan for the residential development had this as a green area.

Finally this is an area of natural beauty trees over 50 years and many animals including stoates,badgers and great crested newts inhabit.

I look forward to the local councils taking my concerns seriously and taking the appropriate actions

I understand that at least two of the houses listed on the Neighbour Notification Listhave not been notified - why is this?

The Agent states that this is a vacant, unused plot - this is completely inaccurate and untrue. Fromthe 1980s (I frst moved to Ridgehill as a child in 1981 and live here now with my own children) thispicnic area has been used as a village green by residents of Ridgehill and Sates Way includingpicnics, barbecues, and a space for children to play.

The plants and grass are tended to regularly by neighbours and enjoyed by all. The right of waythrough the plot has long been establised and is used by pedestrains, dog walkers, and cyclistsdaily; this includes elderly residents who live on Ridgehill and who use this area to walk throughevery day.

This plot of land is a haven for wildlife, including birds, bats, squirrels and badgers. I understandthat one of the trees which is propsed to be felled is an old, healthy Ash tree. This damage cannotbe allowed to go ahead.

In the Design and Access Statement it states that this site is self-contained and works should havelittle impact on the neighbouring community; again this is completely untrue. The turning bay at thetop of Ridgehill would be out of use to local residents and delivery drivers which would mean therewould be no safe turning point, plus construction vehicles coming in and out would cause severedisruption. Furthermore, such factors would pose a severe health and safety risk to the childrenwho play outside in the top part of Ridgehill daily.

Many local residents work from home, myself included; the noise and chaos caused by such a

building development would be yet another disruption.

If this proposed development is allowed to go ahead, there would be long-lasting damage causedto the wildlife and trees in this plot and local area, and there would also be long-lasting, negativeconsequences for the community of people who live here.

PLEASE do not let this residential development go ahead.