The reasons I am object to the granting of planning permission are as follows1. The city council have stated an aim to maintain green corridors into the city centre and thisdevelopment represents a direct contravention of this ai. Already there have been containers andincreased car parking which has continued the restriction of the green corridor linking AshtonCourt rich source of wildlife and the city centre2. The building should have been demolished. The proposal to demolish and build an even largerdevelopment defeats the prid pro quo of demolishing the original building.3. The area of the cricket field and adjacent land has suffered continued threat from developers aseach time a new building - such as the cricket pavilion - obtains planning permission thencommitments are made in the planning application to remove the previous building. The buildingshave never been removed. Consequently planning permission has later been obtained for thebuilding that was supposed to have been demolished. Consequently, the Clanage green space isbeing continually eroded by car parking, temporary buildings and yet more permanent buildings.This development increases the commercial space of the Teddies development area.4. The continued development of temporary buildings will continue to cause traffic congestion andincreased danger to other road users and pedestrians.

The reasons I am object to the granting of planning permission are as follows1. The city council have stated an aim to maintain green corridors into the city centre and thisdevelopment represents a direct contravention of this ai. Already there have been containers andincreased car parking which has continued the restriction of the green corridor linking AshtonCourt rich source of wildlife and the city centre2. The building should have been demolished. The proposal to demolish and build an even largerdevelopment defeats the prid pro quo of demolishing the original building.3. The area of the cricket field and adjacent land has suffered continued threat from developers aseach time a new building - such as the cricket pavilion - obtains planning permission thencommitments are made in the planning application to remove the previous building. The buildingshave never been removed. Consequently planning permission has later been obtained for thebuilding that was supposed to have been demolished. Consequently, the Clanage green space isbeing continually eroded by car parking, temporary buildings and yet more permanent buildings.This development increases the commercial space of the Teddies development area.4. The continued development of temporary buildings will continue to cause traffic congestion andincreased danger to other road users and pedestrians.

Following planning refusal and dismissal of their appeal to the Secretary of State, thisdeveloper is yet again attempting to push through their development which would lead to urbancreep on greenbelt land, on a flood risk site whose main link to the city is via an already heavilycongested Clanage Road, which has no prospect for widening and whose pedestrian walkway iswoefully inadequate in width and slope, so as to make it dangerous and unpleasant to use it asyou are forced into very close proximity to the already constant traffic which would only beworsened by approval of this proposed development.

The points I made in my objections to the previous applications still stand, which are as follows...

The history of this application is riddled with disingenuous arguments for its approval.

It is attempting to sell the idea that the applicant is simply going to replace an old building with anew one of similar size and for similar use. However, the building they are proposing to demolishshould already have been demolished under the applicant's previous application Ref: 20/01909/F(May 2020). It was a condition of the granting of approval for the building that has already nowbeen constructed under this previous application on green belt land.

The applicant is now exploiting a loophole in the wording of that condition, claiming that it cannotbe enforced and so they will not remove the existing buildings unless they are granted permissionto build yet another building. What is more, they are now storing waste on site to make it asunpleasant as possible.When reading the Planning Statement, which has some inaccuracies and in many parts is a 'cutand paste' job from the one for 20/01909/F (see 3.3 which describes the location of the proposed

building exactly where the existing building from 20/01909/F is), a lot is made about the poorcondition and poor visual impact of the current buildings and associated rubbish on site. However,this is completely the consequence of the applicant refusing to rectify the situation. Isn't the wastematerial dumped there (images 9-11) the responsibility of the applicant? Are there notenvironmental laws that can be used to enforce them to clear this up?There is also an argument being made that 'City Mazes' has nowhere better to relocate to. Again,this is the fault of the applicant. They could have relocated to the building previously built in20/01909/F. In fact we were led to believe that this was the intention of application 20/01909/F,rather than the 'Eco Studios' that they have in fact become.

I quote the following from the Officer Report for application 20/01909/F:

'The NPPF states that the purpose of the Green Belt, is to prevent urban sprawl, with the essentialcharacteristics of the Green Belt being its 'openness and permanence'. Paragraph 89 of the NPPFstates that construction of new buildings will be considered inappropriate in the Green Belt, subjectto certain forms of development that would be exceptions, including provision of appropriatefacilities for outdoor recreation, and the replacement of a building, provided that the new building isin the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces, as long as it preserves theopenness of the Green Belt. In this case, the proposed development would provide a building tosupport outdoor / indoor recreation. The building would be of a similar size to the buildings thatwould be lost due to demolition (old cricket pavilion and associated storage facilities). As a result itis concluded that the proposed development is appropriate development in the Green Belt andwould preserve the 'openness and permanence' of the Green Belt'

You simply cannot use the same building twice to argue for the replacement clause. What is beingproposed here in the current application is a NEW building by the same applicant on green beltland, which is urban sprawl.

What is more, the building already constructed by the applicant in 20/01909/F, the 'Eco Studios', iscausing significant inconvenience for us in that large parcels intended for delivery to thebusinesses there are frequently being left on our doorstep by delivery personnel who areunfamiliar with the location of the 'Eco Studios'.

I strongly urge you to reject this application. Even if you cannot enforce the applicant's obligationto remove the old buildings, as required under approval of their previous building in applicationRef: 20/01909/F, I do not think allowing a new building on green belt land is an adequate solution.I think the applicant has proven to be a poor custodian of the land, as evidenced by the waste theyare allowing to build up there, and I do not think their cynical exploitation of planning law should berewarded with approval for a new building.

I strongly object to the further development on this greenbelt site.

1. Urban Creep: I have live here for over 40 years with my relatives living here before then andhave seen more and more new building. For many years there was only a small cricket clubpavilion on the entire greenbelt site was one continuous open field. I would strongly argue that thisis urban creep. Especially with the arrival of office in the Eco Studios.In the last 30 years the following new development has occurred on this greenfield site:- Teddies Nursery building and associated car parking - which was the original proposed as thenew building for the Cricket Club- New Cricket Club and associated car parking. And then an extension to the cricket club- A separate cricket club store- Replacement of temporary changing rooms with a permanent building.- Eco Studios and associated car parking - which was supposed to replace the existing Pavilionbut has not been demolished yet.- Tarmac road has been laid- The land has been divided up with fencing- which stops the wildlife from roaming across the site.The field that used to be used by Bedminster Cricket Club is now home to the Clifton Car BootSale (according to the sign) - virtually every Sunday with associated car parking. This field is alsoused as a match day carpark for the local Ashton Gate Stadium, eg, football and rugby matchesand concerts. It is also a carpark for Ashton Court events.

2. Flood Risk: The surface water seems to gather more now than ever before. In 2022 in the theproposal for the Police Dog Application 20/01930/F by the Caravan Club was rejected on thegrounds relating to flood risk by the Secretary of State 20_01930_F-APPEAL_DISMISSED-

3177237.pdf (bristol.gov.uk). The site is in Zone 2 and Zone 3 for Flood risk. There are plentymore site more suitable for indoor recreation that are not in the flood risk area.

Tighter planning rules apply from 2021 for planning applications in flood risk areas. "Tighterplanning rules to protect communities from flood risk" | LocalGov

3. Car Parking: I seriously question whether another car park is required. The current one isvirtually empty most days.

4. Lighting at night: Currently there is lighting on at the current existing Eco Studios all through thenight. This the greenbelt land; when the site is not being used there should be no lights on.

5. Lack of Transparency and clarity about Planning Applications from this developer: The previousapproved application (Ref. No: 20/01909/F) also listed the Pavilion as the being demolished butdue to an error in planning process this never happened, despite being very clearly the intention.

Dear Development Management.

The documents published in support of this application show trees on or adjacent to the development site which will be impacted by the proposed development and form part of the Statutory Metric calculation, yet no arboricultural evidence has been published even though this is a prerequisite requirement under the Planning Application Requirements Local List May 2022.

Why this?

RegardsMark

Mark CD AshdownChair - Bristol Tree Forum