Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

There are four points that I make here.

With regard to the following two points please see viewpoint 3 (from Guildford Road south of thesite looking north) on page 28 of the Design and Access Statement.

1 - Objection - black material of the raised forms.

The black material of the raised forms is disharmonious with the materials and colours of the localand wider environment. This might be intentional, but it is inappropriate intent; there are othersuitable materials.

2 - Objection - the angular raised forms.

The angular raised forms are disharmonious with the forms of the hillside as they will interfere withthe natural shape of the horizon observed in local and wider views of the site. This might beintentional, but it the inappropriate intent; there are other suitable forms.

With regard to following two points there is nothing mentioned of them in the application, but Ibelieve must be material considerations.

3 - No detail offered, but must be considered - external lighting.

External lighting that might interfere with the natural behaviour of any wildlife, and, that any thatwill or might be visible from anywhere outside of the site boundary, must not be permitted

4 - No detail offered, but must be considered - ownership.

This is a remarkable design for a privileged site in an area of Bristol not known for either; that thehouse is occupied full time by owners and so contribute to the local community and economy isvital - this, to avoid the situation of holidayers doing neither at the expense of the value that suchsite might bring to the local community.

Dear Case Officer,

We are writing to express our support for planning application 24/05119/F concerning the land tothe rear of Damson Cottage, 33 Lamb Hill, BS5 8JD.

As neighbours, we believe the proposed development is well-suited to the character of the localarea and makes excellent use of the site's size and topography. We feel that the plans strike athoughtful balance between utilising the space efficiently for a new domestic property, whileenhancing the landscape and biodiversity value of the site.

We are particularly impressed by the design's rigorous sustainability principles, which we feel alignwith Policy DM1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development. The proposeddevelopment's sunken design means that it would blend in well with the hill's topography and haveminimal visual impact on the surrounding landscape. While the footprint of the property is relativelylarge, we appreciate that this has been done to ensure the building is low-rise and does not havean overbearing and overshadowing impact on neighbouring properties. Additionally, we feel thatthe proposed design features align well with Policy BCS13, which aims to mitigate the impact ofclimate change through high energy efficiency standards in new development. This proposal setsa high standard for sustainable home design and will no doubt serve as an excellent benchmarkfor similar residential schemes across the city.

The site's location within the Avon Valley Conservation Area (Policy BCS22) and the Avon ViewCemetery/Beaufort Road Important Open Space (Policies BCS9 and DM17) means that the siteand surrounding area is classified as an important green space of community value where nature

conservation should be maintained, protected and enhanced. Policy BCS9 requires newdevelopment to incorporate green infrastructure, and we feel this proposal exceeds therequirements of this policy. The inclusion of a green roof, replacement trees, hedgerows, andwildflower planting will enhance the site's ecological value and strengthen its role as a 'greencorridor' between the Blackswarth Road woodland and Trooper's Hill Nature Reserve. The currentsite is mainly open lawn which has low ecological value, so we believe that this development willresult in biodiversity net gain.

As Bristol continues to face significant housing pressures, we are concerned that refusingpermission for this site could result in inappropriate development proposals for this parcel of landin the future. We feel that this particular proposal is not unreasonable in terms of scale, especiallygiven the size of the plot and it would not result in high volumes of traffic along Lamb Hill orMalvern Road. While we do accept that the construction associated with the development maytemporarily increase traffic levels, we trust that planning conditions will be put in place to minimizethis inconvenience and ensure building works take place during suitable times of day.

In conclusion, we believe this development represents an exceptional opportunity to deliver asustainable, well-designed home that respects the local environment and planning policies. Westrongly support this application and hope it will be approved.

Yours sincerely,

Kieran Cheesman and Philip Dyke(Residents of 35 Lamb Hill)

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Dear Case Officer,

We are writing to express our support for planning application 24/05119/F concerning the land to

the rear of Damson Cottage, 33 Lamb Hill, BS5 8JD.

As neighbours, we believe the proposed development is well-suited to the character of the local

area and makes excellent use of the site's size and topography. We feel that the plans strike a

thoughtful balance between utilising the space efficiently for a new domestic property, while

enhancing the landscape and biodiversity value of the site.

We are particularly impressed by the design's rigorous sustainability principles, which we feel align

with Policy DM1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development. The proposed

development's sunken design means that it would blend in well with the hill's topography and have

minimal visual impact on the surrounding landscape. While the footprint of the property is relatively

large, we appreciate that this has been done to ensure the building is low-rise and does not have

an overbearing and overshadowing impact on neighbouring properties. Additionally, we feel that

the proposed design features align well with Policy BCS13, which aims to mitigate the impact of

climate change through high energy efficiency standards in new development. This proposal sets

a high standard for sustainable home design and will no doubt serve as an excellent benchmark

for similar residential schemes across the city.

The site's location within the Avon Valley Conservation Area (Policy BCS22) and the Avon View

Cemetery/Beaufort Road Important Open Space (Policies BCS9 and DM17) means that the site

and surrounding area is classified as an important green space of community value where nature

conservation should be maintained, protected and enhanced. Policy BCS9 requires new

development to incorporate green infrastructure, and we feel this proposal exceeds the

requirements of this policy. The inclusion of a green roof, replacement trees, hedgerows, and

wildflower planting will enhance the site's ecological value and strengthen its role as a 'green

corridor' between the Blackswarth Road woodland and Trooper's Hill Nature Reserve. The current

site is mainly open lawn which has low ecological value, so we believe that this development will

result in biodiversity net gain.

As Bristol continues to face significant housing pressures, we are concerned that refusing

permission for this site could result in inappropriate development proposals for this parcel of land

in the future. We feel that this particular proposal is not unreasonable in terms of scale, especially

given the size of the plot and it would not result in high volumes of traffic along Lamb Hill or

Malvern Road. While we do accept that the construction associated with the development may

temporarily increase traffic levels, we trust that planning conditions will be put in place to minimize

this inconvenience and ensure building works take place during suitable times of day.

In conclusion, we believe this development represents an exceptional opportunity to deliver a

sustainable, well-designed home that respects the local environment and planning policies. We

strongly support this application and hope it will be approved.

Yours sincerely,

I'm objecting to this application because of problems caused in the past with work onthis property my house is on the right hand side of the access lane to the property this lane is aprivate lane that was put in for access to the rear of my property and the houses to the right of myhouse when they were built there is no legal access to the land or damson cottage from this lanelamb hill doesn't start until the top of my lane as you will see by the sign at the bottom of the laneMalvern rd work carried out in the past caused a lot of damage to the lane and my property with 8wheel lorries going in and out of the site also the extra inconvenience of more cars using the laneon a regular basis there has already been 3 extra houses built on the land in the past years aplaning application was put in to rebuild the stable that is now on the site some years ago this wasaccepted but the structure was built in the form of a bungalow with France doors and Upvc dubbleglazed windows last year prior to the owners selling the house another application was put in toturn the so called stable into a bungalow this was withdrawn after the sale of the house the point Ican't understand is why no letter regarding this work has been sent to myself or my Nighbour's asit affects us more than anyone because the only access is at the side of our houses i think youneed to look at the legal side of the access to this land because there has be many problems inthe past also with access to land in lamb hill that has also had applications put in

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I'm objecting to this application because of problems caused in the past with work on

this property this lane is a

private lane that was put in for access

when they were built there is no legal access to the land or damson cottage from this lane

lamb hill doesn't start until the top of my lane as you will see by the sign at the bottom of the lane

Malvern rd work carried out in the past caused a lot of damage to the lane and my property with 8

wheel lorries going in and out of the site also the extra inconvenience of more cars using the lane

on a regular basis there has already been 3 extra houses built on the land in the past years a

planing application was put in to rebuild the stable that is now on the site some years ago this was

accepted but the structure was built in the form of a bungalow with France doors and Upvc dubble

glazed windows last year prior to the owners selling the house another application was put in to

turn the so called stable into a bungalow this was withdrawn after the sale of the house the point I

can't understand is why no letter regarding this work has been sent to myself or my Nighbour's as

it affects us more than anyone because the only access i think you

need to look at the legal side of the access to this land because there has be many problems in

the past also with access to land in lamb hill that has also had applications put in

Development to the rear of Damson Cottage Lamb Hill

I object to this development of a further large property in the grounds of Damson Cottage.

The grounds of the objection are

I believe I should have received a letter regarding this development application as an interestedparty.

The only access for all delivery and building vehicles and workforce is down a narrow private lanethat belongs to numbers 50 to 60 Malvern Road. There will be a significant amount of heavy trafficusing a lane for which those six houses are responsible for the upkeep of. If the surface of the laneis badly damaged that is likely to cause a financial burden on those property owners for the repair.

Since purchasing my property in 1993 there have been additional properties added in the land tothe rear of my property and I believe another large home is one too many.

The building that the proposer is going to demolish and replace with a house was originally built asa stable block and therefore not a property for occupation.

If this property is allowed to go ahead I will be approaching the other owners of the lane to discussthe access rights. We would be looking into whether we would be within our rights to refuse allaccess to the proposed site both during and after the development allowing no vehicular access.

My other concern is that if this development is allowed what will the use of Damson Cottage be.Would this be sold to pay for the new property or let either as a home or as a HOMO or evenconverted to flats.

When Damson Cottage was originally built to the rear of 31 Lamb Hill in what was just a paddockwith a public footpath linking Lamb Hill and Strawberry Lane. When this property was built theyblocked the access from Lamb Hill. Although I understand they were obliged to put a gate for theoccupants of Strawberry Ln, Bristol BS5 8AZ

The area of Troopers Hill is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and the paddock has been part ofthe route of local wildlife between different areas of the locality. This large development will blockthis route and have a detrimental effect on nature.

I am writing to object to planning application 24/05119/F for the erection of a singledwelling with a garage, swimming pool, pool house, access, landscaping, and associated works.This also includes the demolition of an existing car port, stables, and outbuilding.

I am not against a people building houses in a time when we are in need of housing but I don't feelthis design fits with the neighbourhood, considers the vernacular of the area or addressesimportant biodiversity concerns.

My primary concerns are outlined below:

1. Incompatibility with Neighbourhood CharacterThe proposed design does not align with the vernacular of the area. The scale and style of thedevelopment fail to consider the architectural context and established character of theneighbourhood.

2. Unnecessary Development on the Same LandThe conversion of barns and stables into dwelling spaces seems redundant, given that the landalready contains a five-bedroom house built as recently as 1980. Constructing another largeproperty on the same parcel of land appears excessive and unnecessary.

3. Disruption During ConstructionThe proposed development will require extensive use of the existing access lane, which haspreviously sustained damage from smaller-scale construction projects. The sheer scale of thisproposed build, along with the materials required, could exacerbate wear and tear on local

infrastructure, causing long-term disruption to residents.

4. Impact on Important Open Space: The proposed development encroaches upon the Avon ViewCemetery, Beaufort Road, St George Important Open Space (IOS0276). While I understand thatthe emerging Local Plan may not retain this designation, the current Development Planunequivocally protects Important Open Spaces. Unless the development can be demonstrablyproven as "ancillary to the open space use," as stipulated by policy DM178, I believe it should berejected based on the current planning framework.

5. Biodiversity Net Gain Concerns: While the applicant claims exemption from the Biodiversity NetGain (BNG) requirements due to the site falling just below the 0.5-hectare threshold, the BristolTree Forum has raised valid concerns about the development's potential impact on biodiversity.The proposed mitigation measures, such as grassland enhancement, hedgerow and tree planting,and habitat creation, do not necessarily guarantee "measurable net gains for biodiversity." Theapplicant should be required to provide a BNG calculation that demonstrates compliance withcurrent requirements to ensure the development truly enhances the local environment.

Furthermore, the applicant's deliberate exclusion of a portion of their land (the "blueline area") tomeet the 0.5-hectare threshold raises concerns about the integrity of their commitment toenvironmental responsibility.

I urge the planning authority to give careful consideration to these concerns and to engage inmeaningful consultation with affected residents before reaching a decision on this application.

As a close neighbour I'm concerned that the footprint of the site and the sheer quantityof earthworks needed to achieve the earth bank design, the subterranean areas of the build andassociated foundations, and the sheer mass of water required for a swimming pool are going to beincredibly disruptive to the stability of the land. Also the large and heavy machinery needed tobuild and landscape the proposed build. The land on Troopers Hill and the surrounding areas washistorically used for mining and then as a waste disposal site. The ground is made up ground andhas very little structural integrity, you can see evidence of this if you dig into the soil, you'll quicklycome across a lot of trash objects. My property is situated immediately below the proposeddwelling on the Troopers Hill side, with a steep bank to the rear of my property leading up to theproposed new dwelling. I have legitimate concerns that the stability of the land and therefore thesafety of my own property are at risk with such a large development above my house.

It is also notable that the applicant has carefully drawn the western boundary of the proposedredline area so that this site is just under the 0.5 hectare threshold when the biodiversity net gain(BNG) obligations set out in Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Act 1990 take otherwise effect.Instead, they rely on Article 8 of the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations2024 which state:The biodiversity gain planning condition does not apply in relation to planning permissionfor development which(a) consists of no more than 9 dwellings,(b) is carried out on a site which has an area no larger than 0.5 hectares; and(c) consists exclusively of dwellings which are self-build or custom housebuilding.

As the area inside the redline boundary is 0.49 hectares, the application becomes exempt. Had

they instead included the blueline area, which I assume also lies within their title for this site, thisexemption could not have been relied on and the applicant would have had to deliver abiodiversity gain of at least 10% greater than the summed value of the baseline habitats on site.

Since the redline area of the plot divides the land for Damson cottage up from the proposed'garden plot' in a way which raises questions about the environmental integrity of the applicantsintentions. I would question whether the 'garden plot' can really be considered as such consideringnot connected to or accessible to the property at Damson Cottage. My understanding is that thegarden should form part of the domestic curtilage of the property. 'The definition of a 'curtilage' or'domestic' curtilage is usually a garden, but can include parking areas, access roads, vegetableplots, children's play areas, and stables. The domestic curtilage is not necessarily marked off orenclosed, but it should be clearly attached to the house or serving the purpose of the house insome useful and intimate way.' I'm unclear how the steep plot on the other side of thedevelopment can be used in this way by Damson Cottage.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that 'studies estimate that more than half of all Earth'sspecies live in soil.That makes it the single habitat where the greatest number of species live.The report, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, claims thatsoil is home to 90% of world's fungi, 85% of plants and more than 50% of bacteria - and 59% oflife overall. As a result of this I would consider the proposed development to be very disruptive inthe context of the overall biodiversity of the site above and below ground.

The site is part of the Avon View Cemetery, Beaufort Road, St George Important Open Space(IOS0276).7 As such it is protected under Site Allocations and Development Management PolicyDM178, which states: 'Development on part, or all, of an Important Open Space as designated onthe Policies Map will not be permitted unless the development is ancillary to the open spaceuse'. As this proposal is clearly not 'ancillary to the open space use', it may not be permitted underthe current Development Plan.It is indeed the case that the proposals for a new Development Plan will abandon this ImportantOpen Space protection across the board and that no new protections are proposed for this site.However, these proposals have not yet been adopted, nor is there any guarantee that they will be,so that they have little if any planning weight in the face of section 38(6) of the Planningand Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which states: 'If regard is to be had to the development planfor the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts thedetermination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicateotherwise.

As a local resident I'm concerned that granting of this application will set a precedent for therecently auctioned Blackswarth Road Wood to also be developed as housing, which would thenmean that the wildlife corridor between Avonvale Cemetery and Troopers Hill will be severelycompromised, causing a significant issue for animals passing through.

Overall, the proposed development seems unnecessarity lavish and needlessly disruptive whenthere is aready adequate provision for housing on the site. Building work will cause a large amountof disruption to the land and immediate surroundings, and to neighbours living on the access road.The remedial works proposed will, at most, maintain the existing level of biodiversity rather thanenhance it. The lack of generosity in this regard seems indicative of a minimal approach to theenvironmental aspects of the project, which is disappointing given the protected conservation areastatus and designated important open Space that the proposed property is to be sited within.

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:As a close neighbour I'm concerned that the footprint of the site and the sheer quantity

of earthworks needed to achieve the earth bank design, the subterranean areas of the build and

associated foundations, and the sheer mass of water required for a swimming pool are going to be

incredibly disruptive to the stability of the land. Also the large and heavy machinery needed to

build and landscape the proposed build. The land on Troopers Hill and the surrounding areas was

historically used for mining and then as a waste disposal site. The ground is made up ground and

has very little structural integrity, you can see evidence of this if you dig into the soil, you'll quickly

come across a lot of trash objects. the proposed

dwelling on the Troopers Hill side, with a steep bank

I have legitimate concerns that the stability of the land and therefore the

safety of my own property are at risk with such a large development

It is also notable that the applicant has carefully drawn the western boundary of the proposed

redline area so that this site is just under the 0.5 hectare threshold when the biodiversity net gain

(BNG) obligations set out in Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Act 1990 take otherwise effect.

Instead, they rely on Article 8 of the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations

2024 which state:

The biodiversity gain planning condition does not apply in relation to planning permission

for development which

(a) consists of no more than 9 dwellings,

(b) is carried out on a site which has an area no larger than 0.5 hectares; and

(c) consists exclusively of dwellings which are self-build or custom housebuilding.

As the area inside the redline boundary is 0.49 hectares, the application becomes exempt. Had

they instead included the blueline area, which I assume also lies within their title for this site, this

exemption could not have been relied on and the applicant would have had to deliver a

biodiversity gain of at least 10% greater than the summed value of the baseline habitats on site.

Since the redline area of the plot divides the land for Damson cottage up from the proposed

'garden plot' in a way which raises questions about the environmental integrity of the applicants

intentions. I would question whether the 'garden plot' can really be considered as such considering

not connected to or accessible to the property at Damson Cottage. My understanding is that the

garden should form part of the domestic curtilage of the property. 'The definition of a 'curtilage' or

'domestic' curtilage is usually a garden, but can include parking areas, access roads, vegetable

plots, children's play areas, and stables. The domestic curtilage is not necessarily marked off or

enclosed, but it should be clearly attached to the house or serving the purpose of the house in

some useful and intimate way.' I'm unclear how the steep plot on the other side of the

development can be used in this way by Damson Cottage.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that 'studies estimate that more than half of all Earth's

species live in soil.That makes it the single habitat where the greatest number of species live.

The report, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, claims that

soil is home to 90% of world's fungi, 85% of plants and more than 50% of bacteria - and 59% of

life overall. As a result of this I would consider the proposed development to be very disruptive in

the context of the overall biodiversity of the site above and below ground.

The site is part of the Avon View Cemetery, Beaufort Road, St George Important Open Space

(IOS0276).7 As such it is protected under Site Allocations and Development Management Policy

DM178, which states: 'Development on part, or all, of an Important Open Space as designated on

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

use'. As this proposal is clearly not 'ancillary to the open space use', it may not be permitted under

the current Development Plan.

It is indeed the case that the proposals for a new Development Plan will abandon this Important

Open Space protection across the board and that no new protections are proposed for this site.

However, these proposals have not yet been adopted, nor is there any guarantee that they will be,

so that they have little if any planning weight in the face of section 38(6) of the Planning

and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which states: 'If regard is to be had to the development plan

for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the

determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate

otherwise.

As a local resident I'm concerned that granting of this application will set a precedent for the

recently auctioned Blackswarth Road Wood to also be developed as housing, which would then

mean that the wildlife corridor between Avonvale Cemetery and Troopers Hill will be severely

compromised, causing a significant issue for animals passing through.

Overall, the proposed development seems unnecessarity lavish and needlessly disruptive when

there is aready adequate provision for housing on the site. Building work will cause a large amount

of disruption to the land and immediate surroundings, and to neighbours living on the access road.

The remedial works proposed will, at most, maintain the existing level of biodiversity rather than

enhance it. The lack of generosity in this regard seems indicative of a minimal approach to the

environmental aspects of the project, which is disappointing given the protected conservation area

status and designated important open Space that the proposed property is to be sited within.

I am writing to express my support for planning application 24/05119/F.

The current property, with its extensive footprint, appears underutilised given its central locationwithin the city. The site has a large grassy paddock with stables, very few shrubs and plants thatcould provide habitats, and consequently low levels of biodiversity. The proposed developmentseems to find a good balance between improving biodiversity and making more efficient use of thespace.

I am particularly impressed by the rigorous sustainability principles used in this design - to a levelrarely reached in new-build properties. If the development achieves its intended Passivhauscertification, it would become one of few certified Passivhaus properties in the UK.

I also appreciate the house's intended blending with the landscape, with the property built into thebank, to minimise its visual impact.

In summary, I fully support this application and hope to see more developments of this calibre inBristol, a city that has a name for itself as a leading sustainable city.

Yours sincerely,

Sophie Chatziapostolou

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I am writing to express my support for planning application 24/05119/F.

The current property, with its extensive footprint, appears underutilised given its central location

within the city. The site has a large grassy paddock with stables, very few shrubs and plants that

could provide habitats, and consequently low levels of biodiversity. The proposed development

seems to find a good balance between improving biodiversity and making more efficient use of the

space.

I am particularly impressed by the rigorous sustainability principles used in this design - to a level

rarely reached in new-build properties. If the development achieves its intended Passivhaus

certification, it would become one of few certified Passivhaus properties in the UK.

I also appreciate the house's intended blending with the landscape, with the property built into the

bank, to minimise its visual impact.

In summary, I fully support this application and hope to see more developments of this calibre in

Bristol, a city that has a name for itself as a leading sustainable city.

Yours sincerely,

Preliminary Comments – 12 January 2025

2

In light of this, we ask that planning officers take steps to satisfy themselves that the site is

indeed no larger than 0.5 hectares and that the proposed dwelling is indeed a self-build or

custom housebuilding which complies with the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015.3

Be this as it may, the proposal is still subject of the provisions of the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF, December 2024) and, in particular, to paragraph 193 of which states:

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the

following principles:

a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided

(through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately

mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be

refused; ...

d) ... opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments should be

integrated as part of their design, especially where this can secure measurable net gains

for biodiversity ...4

We are advised that grassland enhancement, new hedgerow and tree planting, together with

the translocation of trees, a Green roof, Bird boxes and Hibernacula will be created (though

the preliminary ecological appraisal referred to has not been published).5 We are also told that

the applicant is committed to ensuring site improvements and associated build works will

enhance diversity and natural habitat flourishing. While this may well be the case, this is not

evidence that there the development will ‘secure measurable net gains for biodiversity’.

The recent August 2024 judgement of Holgate J in the matter of Vistry Homes Limited ([2024]

EWHC 2088 (admin)), dealt with, amongst other things, the requirement to ‘secure measurable

net gains for biodiversity as a benefit under what was then NPPF September 2023 180(d) but is

now NPPF December 2024 193, stating that:

Where a development is required to provide a measure in order to overcome or mitigate,

or compensate for, a harm caused by that project, ordinarily that measure could not

rationally be described as a benefit. So, for example, where a development would result

in a loss of biodiversity, the provision of additional biodiversity on the same site or on

other land nearby in order to completely offset that loss, so that in overall terms there

is no net reduction in biodiversity attributable to the development, is not a benefit. It

is simply the development "consuming its own smoke" [paragraph 152].

This judgment makes it clear that just replacing lost habitat, albeit with new habitats, is not

enough. A benefit beyond just offsetting the net biodiversity loss must be shown, i.e. there

must be ‘measurable net gains for biodiversity’. The only way that this can be done is by

3 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/17/contents. 4 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/675abd214cbda57cacd3476e/NPPF-December-2024.pdf. 5 24_05119_F-BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_-_EXEMPTION_STATMENT-3836085 & 24_05119_F-PLANNING_STATEMENT-

3830690.

Preliminary Comments – 12 January 2025

3

producing a BNG calculation that complies with the current requirements.6 We urge the

applicant to do this.

The site is part of an Important Open Space

The site is part of the Avon View Cemetery, Beaufort Road, St George Important Open Space

(IOS0276).7 As such it is protected under Site Allocations and Development Management Policy

DM178, which states: ‘Development on part, or all, of an Important Open Space as designated

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

use’.

As this proposal is clearly not ‘ancillary to the open space use’, it may not be permitted under

the current Development Plan.

It is indeed the case that the proposals for a new Development Plan will abandon this Important

Open Space protection across the board and that no new protections are proposed for this site.

However, these proposals have not yet been adopted, nor is there any guarantee that they will

be, so that they have little if any planning weight in the face of section 38(6) of the Planning

and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which states: ‘If regard is to be had to the development

plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the

determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations

indicate otherwise.’9

6 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-biodiversity-metric-tools-and-guides. 7 https://maps.bristol.gov.uk/policies/. 8 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/2235-site-allocations-bd5605/file - page 36. 9 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/5/section/38.

I object to this planning application because of all the disruption it will cause to me andmy family with the use of the access lane at the side of my property the lane in question was onlyever originally put in for the access to our houses in Malvern rd 60 to 52 Malvern rd it has beenadded to with bungalows at the end an 2 new houses in the past years and each time the lane hasbeen damaged and never repaired properly plus damage caused to my house and the house theother side of the lane by heavy lorries going up and down the lane lamb hill does not star until theend of the lane as indicated on the name plate and the section of lane in question is a private lanewhen I have spoken with the council in the past about repairing the lane they have told me it's notthere's to repair I also think the property's in Malvern rd should be consulted regarding thisapplication as it affects them more than anyone else

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I object to this planning application because of all the disruption it will cause to me and

my family with the use of the access lane the lane in question was only

ever originally put in for the access to it has been

added to with bungalows at the end an 2 new houses in the past years and each time the lane has

been damaged and never repaired properly plus damage caused to my house and the house the

other side of the lane by heavy lorries going up and down the lane lamb hill does not star until the

end of the lane as indicated on the name plate and the section of lane in question is a private lane

when I have spoken with the council in the past about repairing the lane they have told me it's not

there's to repair I also think the property's in Malvern rd should be consulted regarding this

application as it affects them more than anyone else