Architecturally the design of this "complex" is abysmal, lacking in character anddisplaying what can only be described as a concrete monstrosity.

As this building application stands it is not acceptable in many aspects. To expect human beingsto live in such a cramp dismal space is detrimental to their well-being and health.

Back to the drawing board. If you must having residential space then make it residential andliveable.

Plenty of /drinking establishments with expanded food provision and laundrettes\.

Are you trying to create lots of over weight alcoholics? At least they would have clean clothes!

The whole application seems to be making a complete mockery of the City of Bristol and shouldbe rejected outright and re-designed with due consideration to the environment and the health andsafety of residents who, would only regard this as very temporary accommodation.

This is a deeply depressing application. My reasons for (strongly) objecting are:- I do not see a single element from the extensive public consultation in these plans. There was anexercise (possible lead by the Temple Quarter team) where residents were invited to addcomments to a map of Temple Island with ideas for the site, things they wanted to see and whatthey didn't want on the site. Sadly this plan excludes all of the things people wanted to see andincludes everything people didn't want.A huge amount of time, energy and resource goes in to an exercise like this. Consultation andengagement needs to be taken seriously if the views of the residents of the city are to be taken into account when developing new spaces, especially one as unique and important as this one.

- Minimal, box ticking consultation by Legal and General

- Lived experience of the Legal and General development on Avon Street, known locally as

Howling Towers. This experience includes:o Zero consultationo Design - the balconies emit an otherworldly howling noise at the slightest wind. This creates a nogo atmosphere for pedestrians.o Design part 2 - a lack of awareness or care on the part of Legal and General of this design flawas they replicated in with the second tower they put up.o No accommodation outside for residents with dogs. The impact of that is felt by neighbouringdevelopments.o No spaces for children to play. It was built to accommodate transient, young professionals buthas families living there.o Build to rent. This creates a black hole in terms of connection to community.There needs to be learnings taken from this development.

- No sense of place. What is it about this plan that says Bristol, let along Temple Island.

- A depressing lack of innovation or interest in the designs. What a waste of an extraordinaryopportunity to create something world class and exciting. Copenhagen is leading the way withinnovative, sustainable, green, inviting contemporary architecture. This island space provides afantastic opportunity for Bristol to do the same.

- There is a very high risk that the Island becomes a place no one goes to apart from the unluckyfew who have no other option but to rent a small space in a generic high rise structure in a blandcity scape. A combination of rows of howling towers, no innovation, no personality and genericpublic spaces would create Avon Street on steroids.

What would ideally happen as a result of the responses from the residents of Bristol to thisapplication is that Legal and General are asked to go back to the drawing board, to come backwith an application that reflects Bristol and the views of the residents and creates a genuinelyinteresting and exciting new part of the city that draws in visitors and those who want to live there.

What I fear will happen is that Legal and General have too much of a stronghold over the city andwill continue to do as they wish and replicate the poor offerings already made, squandering a oncein a generation window to create an exciting new chapter for the city.

Within this scheme, Bristol had an opportunity to create some landmark architecture tomake a Bristol a destination city. Instead proposed is generic, bland architecture that will notbenefit the public realm. The proposed scheme is not only colourless and uninteresting, it willcreate wind tunnels and the lack of tree planting will create overheating. We are in a climateemergency, any new building that happens now should be build to last. We can't afford to throw uplazy architecture like which is driven by a return on profit instead of a return in social investment.

I saw this and immediately felt sadness for our wonderful cultural and creative city.Please, as custodians in our short time here, care for Bristol for the next 250 years living with yourdecisions.

Architecture and design should elevate. This is likely to depress the city. Our mental wellbeing aspeople and a city are no doubt linked.

Our lived experiences in a city with such architectural fug with likely diminish and feel senses ofdepression without your love and kindness. Please make the designers work much harder toimprove our wellbeing, life us up, because who knows what challenges well be facing over thattime, but I suspect, they'll be tough mentally.

Specifically it's:

1) Lack of street trees2) Colour3) Generic Architecture4) Wind tunnels

But generically it's:

Keep Bristol Amazing not Depressing

Hope that helps you refocus

Richard x

Temple Quarter has already been scarred by a wave of soulless, corporate architecture-a drab, uninspired sprawl that leaves the area feeling lifeless and desolate. This development is achance to break the cycle, to inject Bristol's unique character, creativity, and vibrancy back into thecity.

Instead, the proposal doubles down on dullness, offering yet another forgettable, uninspireddesign. Why condemn this district to more architectural monotony? Where's the colour, thegreenery, the imagination? A city that once prided itself as Green Capital should demand better.

Bristol, we can do so much more than this-so why aren't we?

Here again we are seeing a virgin generic proposal for what should be a more inclusivepublic space and community asset. Architecture itself lacking any colour or character, creatingwind tunnels as is an already ongoing issue and seemingly standard feature of the area alongsidea lack of trees or green space accommodated within the design.

Yet again, this development proposal fails capitalise on the any of the positive aspects of the cityin terms of design and aesthetics and we only see more of the same generic modernist planningwhich already bliss the area and makes it so un appealing as any kind of community space or adestination people would wish to spend any time in

I object on the grounds of wellbeing and overall aesthetic of the proposed development.This is another generic architecture turning the city more grey and leaving no space for streettrees!

This looks depressing and has no positives characters. There are no trees, or colour.There is no creative, interesting or welcome architecture, it is just bland and generic and has nolocal sense of place - could be anywhere in the world.

Also seems like it could create wind tunnels with the tall buildings.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer made comments neither objecting to or supporting the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:I saw this and immediately felt sadness for our wonderful cultural and creative city.

Please, as custodians in our short time here, care for Bristol for the next 250 years living with your

decisions.

Architecture and design should elevate. This is likely to depress the city. Our mental wellbeing as

people and a city are no doubt linked.

Our lived experiences in a city with such architectural fug with likely diminish and feel senses of

depression without your love and kindness. Please make the designers work much harder to

improve our wellbeing, life us up, because who knows what challenges well be facing over that

time, but I suspect, they'll be tough mentally.

Specifically it's:

1) Lack of street trees

2) Colour

3) Generic Architecture

4) Wind tunnels

But generically it's:

Keep Bristol Amazing not Depressing

Hope that helps you refocus

The character of the development, particularly the architecture lacks any sense of place.At least make each building a vibrant colour to site it within the context of Bristol.

Black is incredibly repressive! - Not Black. It is not Bristol.

Where are the street trees? Has anything been done to look at wind tunnels between buildings formovement of people/ cyclist/cars.

Firstly, it is good to see previously developed land promoted for a mixed-usedevelopment. However, Bristol is a small city, and its capacity for tall buildings is limited, to say theleast.

I object to this application as:

1) Weak Architectural RationaleFor a building with such height and massing, though an interesting concept as façade design, itdoes not relate to Bristol's architectural character in the area from the immediate street level tomore expansive views. It is as though the architecture has been developed in a vacuum with zerothought on the wider context and visual impact.

2) Major impact on microclimate

The area is already prone to the high urban heat island effect. Black facades emitting more heat,and tall buildings with strong winds will create an even more significant impact on the area and anunpleasant public realm.

3) Poor street/public realmThe streetscape is poor with a lack of street trees, and where trees are, there is not enough spacefor them to grow adequately to create a broad canopy cover in an area with high impact fromurban heat island effect. There needs to be more information on the water-sensitive designstrategy for this site to improve water quality and SUDs

4) Negative landscape and visual effect

Some of the views have negligible/low impact on the area. However, the verified montages fig. 84shows an open-view skyline; Fig 85 demonstrates the scale and effects negatively, creating afeeling of ominous buildings. Again, this is illustrated in Fig 89, a barrier to a broader landscapesetting. But the worst is the Fig 94 view 20 for Park Street. The view is dominated by largeimposing buildings with no gaps or views through and further impacted cumulatively-significantnegative impact on the residents - appalling. View 20 needs to be revisited, and a new VVM mustbe created to be fully photorealistic so that the effect will be better understood. All the existingbuildings on this skyline are pale in colour and recede, cumulative proposed buildings are alsolower in height.

"Totterdown is Moderate/substantial adverse effect (residents) due to the notable increase in scaleof built form to that currently experienced in views. Significant."

Yet, no mitigation or recommendations are offered to reduce this impact. This is a significantproblem with the architectural rationale and LVIA lacks substance; the massing and scale do notrespond to the local context or mitigate the effect.

Overall, it is a rather generic and 'plonky' development.

The buildings are too tall. There is not enough open and green space. The access fromBath Road is not good enough and should be improved taking into account the narrow cycle andfootpath that's there currently. Wildlife use the new cut River as a corridor and in the current plansthere seems to be a lack of biodiversity along the edge next to the river. This should be improved.

Current proposals

The Access & Movement section of the Design & Access Statement shows a pedestrian entrance to the site from the A4 Bath Road. In one diagram this is denoted as “Stairs / lift to Bath Road”. Two of the scenario diagrams in this section show the Bath Road access to be used for office workers approaching from Totterdown or for school children from Totterdown passing through the site to the new Silverthorne Lane secondary school.

However, the other public realm plans, such as on Pg 154 of the Masterplan – Public Realm, do not show provision for a lift at the Bath Road entrance but only show flights of steps, with no building that might accommodate lift access for those who cannot manage stairs. This is despite on Pg 200 saying “The overriding principle adopted for all external areas and public realm is that all routes are step free and accessible to all throughout.”

In section 6.3.6 of the Transport Assessment it says:

“The masterplan and public realm design has therefore been developed to incorporate a proposed vertical connection (stepped and lift access) onto the Bath Road…” “Furthermore, recognising the wider BCC and WECA wider aspirations to deliver cycle and pedestrian improvements to the Bath Road, incorporating a cantilevered widened route on the eastern side of Bath Road, the proposed massing of the Hotel building has been set back into the Site to safeguard space for the delivery of such infrastructure.”

Walking is considered in greater detail in section 7.5.4 of the Transport Assessment. It predicts over 7000 walking trips to and from the site each day, with over 800 of those trips occurring in each of the morning and evening peak hours. No separate assessment seems to have been made of the number of pedestrians likely to use the Bath Road entrance. The figures for those using walking as their main mode of travel allow only 9% connecting via the south (I.e.via the Bath Road towards Totterdown). However, 36% are expected from the west, presumably including those from Bedminster who might also be expected to use the Bath Road entrance. In addition 10% of those using buses are expected to arrive from the south. It would therefore not be unreasonable to assume that there might be an additional 250 people per hour using the footway along Bath Road atpeak times.

The conclusion of the Transport Assessment (section 7.6) in its entirety says “The trip generation andimpact assessment carried out has demonstrated that there are no significant transport impacts generated by the proposed development that require mitigation.”

Our objection

BWA believes that insufficient mitigation has been built into the plans to improving the pedestrian access along Bath Road.

Under the draft Bristol Local Plan, developers are expected to contribute to improvements to walking infrastructure. In particular, in section 10.28, it says “Where development proposals exacerbate existing or create new traffic problems mitigation measures will be sought.”

The pedestrian entrance to the development site from the Bath Road is essential to avoid lengthy circuitous diversions to reach the site from the south or the south-west. However we believe this new entrance will exacerbate the already extremely poor footway provision (shared with cycles and e-scooters) between Bath Bridges and Three Lamps junction.

2

We would have expected the masterplan for this development to have provided more support for improving this footway. Rather than just reserving space for a potential widened footway, we would have expected that the infrastructure would have been put in place as part of the development.

We appreciate that, in order to complete the new footway along the whole of this section of road, there will also need to be additional bridges for pedestrians and/or cyclists across the railway lines and the river. There are already some improvements proposed near the river as part of the new Southern Gateway to Temple Meads station. The Temple Island development should be actively contributing to a solution for the section that passes by its site.

We would be happy to remove our objection if the developers would commit, in association with Bristol City Council and the West of England Combined Authority, to create a widened footway alongthe Bath Road that meets current national standards. This will require infrastructure to be built within the red line of the development, such as a cantilever over the access roadway, during the development not afterwards.

We would also want to see a firm commitment from the developer to provide full accessibility at thisentrance, with 24-hour access lifts for those who cannot manage steps.

Bristol Walking Alliance9 February 2025 enquiries@bristolwalkingalliance.org.uk

3

The below comment is submitted on behalf of the Windmill Hill and Malago PlanningGroup (WHaM) and relates to the detailed and outline proposals, that comprise the application forclarity we have dealt with each section separately. WHAM objects to this proposal.

DETAILED APPLICATION FOR THE OFFICE BUILDING.

SIZEThe group were concerned that the building demonstrates considerably more height and mass interms of anything currently in existence.When taking into account the buildings proposed as part of the tall buildings adjacent that areunder construction (as part of the university) the nature of the massing is still noticeably differentthe large block (and others proposed in outline) do not reflect the current character of the area in

terms of grain, footprint, or scale.

APPEARANCEThe elevations appear generic and without character, little attention has been paid paid to theorientation of the building, with the same fenestration being applied to all sides regardless ofpotential heat loss or gain through the glass or representation of the function, as a result thedevelopment is far from legible and not representative of any of the human function that will takeplace within them.

The façade treatment appears to make little concession to passive measures for solar protection.There is no apparent external shading, the depth of reveal seems to be low and conducive toletting unrestricted solar heat penetrate into the building, requiring more energy to maintainacceptable climate internally.

This set of buildings will be one of the first things seen when people arrive in the city, andquestions were raised about the presence of a set of black obelisks as a welcoming and invitingimage of the city. We think this is an opportunity to provide a welcoming image for the city, but thisis not being taken up by this proposal.

TRAFFICThere is a lot of public realm devoted to traffic circulation when a more compact, more efficientroute could be devised which would provide much more space for green planting and an attractivepublic realm or nature garden. It has in effect created a back of house section that will be lessattractive and potentially less safe and secure where it borders onto the Bath Road.

COLONNADESThe colonnades shown on the elevations do not seem to be well supervised for the office building,more measures to try to avoid these feeling dark and menacing places at night for future residentspassing through.

INTERNAL CIRCULATIONThe group was concerned that some of the internal circulation routes within the office are not wideenough for passing wheelchairs, these are routes that a wheelchair user would have to use toreach the accessible WC. A wheelchair user would also have to negotiate 3 sets of doors to reachthe office space from the accessible WC (and of course in the opposite direction) whilst not strictlya planning matter, this should be reviewed to make the office space truly useable for all abilities.

It is noted that under Part M of the building regulations an individual in a wheelchair should nothave to travel more than 40m horizontally to use a WC and so this will need to change in thefuture anyway.

OUTLINE APPLICATIONThis section applies to the outline proposals for the hotel, flexible space and second office, andresidential buildings.

OVERALL MASSINGThe scheme is overly large for the immediate context, we are concerned that the repetitive façadetreatment applied to the detail application will be repeated across the remaining buildings andcreate a homogenous appearance that will be devoid of character and with a black finish to thebuildings this will only serve to darken the public realm and not make the most of limited directsunlight that will reach ground level.

OFFICE BUILDING 2The office 2 building does not seem to have a column layout on the ground floor that is compatiblewith the end of journey layout and may prevent some of the facilities being used.The strategy developed for office 1 that includes a colonnade does not seem to have beenadopted for this building, it would be good to see a consistent element of the public realm carriedthrough as part of the outline application. If the concerns of the crime prevention officer (alreadyon the portal) can be addressed.

LANDSCAPINGThe public realm is overshadowed by the proposals and must have a heavier emphasis on habitat,despite an increase in biodiversity, new habitat could be a much stronger component of theproposal as much of the focus appears to be on recreation rather than furthering aninterconnected green network for animals.We don't think that the animals which will already be using the site as a commuter route betweenfeeding and habitats will retain their presence on the site as there are no provisions for anundisturbed natural area. This would support Bristol City Councils commitment to improvingmeasurable biodiversity and tree cover noted in the one city plan and forthcoming planning policy.

There is little in the way of on-site food growing or play space despite both being required inforthcoming planning policy and play space being a requirement under the SPD for urban living.

ACCESS FROM BATH ROADIt is not clear how the stairs and lift access will be kept secure at night and not provide a spot toloiter out of sight for pedestrians walking along the Bath Road to other locations, this should beclarified.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

HEIGHTS AND MASSING

The scale and bloc sizes of these buildings seem very tall for their surroundings and much moreso than any proposed surrounding buildings despite citing massing principles in the DAS, theoutline proposals show a much larger block size than the examples shown.Those examples have differences in the blocks which reveal a human scale and these blocks areunrelieved and without those key pieces of interest that break the appearance into legible chunks.

FLEXIBLE SPACEIdentifying a use for the flexible space is key to make it successful, at the current time it is notclear what the intention is for use of the space, infrastructure within the building needs to beprovided so it can be put to use for the community.

HOTELIt is noted that the proposed energy use intensity of the hotel is high when compared to theaspirations of the other parts of the development. It is understood that this will be partly down tothe operator but it would be good to see a similar commitment to low carbon across all theproposed buildings.

CONCLUSIONWHAM objects to this proposal.The group would like to see a greater commitment to improving habitat, providing a welcomingapproach to south Bristol from the train station and provision of a more welcoming public realmand private space for residents.

Please read the Ecology surveys Appendix of the Ecology Chapter.

The data clearly shows that the site is an important commuting route for Lesser horseshoe batsallowing the population at Arnos Vale to leave Bristol heading southwestwards using the river andthen via the proposed development site through the tunnel under Bath Road being used as a dayroost by that species. They are also clearly flying along the wall from there northwards and to thehabitat corridor leading westwards following the train track.

The developer must protect that route otherwise possibly destroying the Arnos Vale roost bycutting it off from the larger population outside Bristol.

Whilst supportive of this proposal, and keen to see redevelopment of this brownfield siteas a local resident, I do feel that some of the elements can be made taller and more architecturallyexciting. If we cannot build taller buildings in this area, then where can we.

The masterplan for St Phillips needs to be released and include taller elements to bring Bristol onpar with other cities.

Being a plot of land connected to the busiest station in the southwest, with a new entrance justacross the river, we should encourage taller buildings to allow more architectural merit - as tallerwould allow developers to give architects some creative leeway.

I object to this work being carried out and the buildings being erected due to the noise,pollution, distrubance and the drastic reduction in natural light to my property this will cause.

I believe I am the closest resident to this proposed work and I object. This will affect everythingabout my home including the natural light which is very important to my mental and physicalhealth.

I am concerned about Disabled Access to this site.The Flexible building. The main entrance is at the side of the building from the road. This makes itharder to see especially with the trees and forage planned right in front of the entrance. I wouldrecommend moving the main entrance round so that it is facing the road.Office 1. Great toilet coverage. Is the larger toilet on the ground floor going to be an Accessiblewet room? I guess all Accessible Toilets meet minimum standards. Can we look at designingbetter than minimum standards. I not their isn't a designated Quit Room, although I appreciate thatthis could be added later.Hotel. Again I guess the toilets, will meet minimum standards. I hope the hotel operators providequality Accessible Accommodation. As minimum hotel standards are very poor.The Flats. Having lots of Accessible Accommodation is great. I wonder how vertical living will besafe for Disabled People. I note the corridors have no nature light which is very poor. I'm not surethe 50Sqm Accessible flats will be Accessible. I guess this is the minimum standards, the problem

is that these minimum standards are designed by non disabled people, who have no livedexperience. And don't understand the issues faced by Disabled People. Will these Accessible flatsonly be available for those will Access needs. I think the 70Sqm is going to be more Accessible,depending on layout. I wasn't not that most Accessible flats do not have balconies, do DisabledPeople not want to sit out and enjoy an outdoor private space. I would hope that these flats areproperly Accessible before the building is built.Outdoor space. I didn't see any community seating and kids play area on the plans. Also missingis the outdoor lift onto Bath Road. I can see steps here. I think the lack of parking is going to be anmajor issue. With 50 Accessible Flats, large offices and hotel. This is going to be a nightmare forresidents which is going to lead to conflict between residents and other users of the site.

RESPONSE TO 25/10013/P - TEMPLE ISLAND.

Response to pre-application proposals.

Bristol Civic Society considered the pre-application proposals for this site. We expressed ourdisappointment. We noted,"Temple island will be the gateway to the commercial centre of Bristol on the approaches fromBath on the A4 and Wells on the A37. The Society feels strongly that the proposal, as presented atthis stage, fails to live up to this important role which would require an outstanding development.Instead, the site is to be laid out with a series of buildings of varied height but mostly tall. Despitesome architectural relief, these buildings are largely orthogonal in nature and located around theperiphery of the site. The Society believes that Bristol deserves a response to this importantlocation which accords with national policy to produce beautiful architecture. We strongly urge the

applicants to address this."

We were concerned that this layout would create an unattractive environment at ground levelwhich would be exacerbated by the effects of the tall buildings on wind currents. The Societywould have preferred a far greater sense of enclosure and intimacy at ground level and we feelthat the proposal's aspiration of creating a square in the centre will not work well with the proposedlayout. We suggested this could have been achieved with a lower rise development spread over abroader footprint comprising more interesting building shapes, particularly at ground level.

Response to 25/10013/P.

This application seeks full planning permission for office block 1 with flexible commercialfloorspace at ground floor level in the northwest corner of the site and outline permission for thedevelopment of the remainder of the site with office, residential, hotel and flexible commercial usesincluding eating and drinking facilities mainly in tall blocks close to the perimeter of the site. Therehas been little fundamental change from the preapplication proposals and so the Society's viewsare largely unchanged. We are particularly concerned about the impact of this cluster of tallbuildings on the approach to Bristol's city centre from Bath Road and Wells Road especially in thecontext of proposals for further intensive and high rise developments proposed for the adjacentsite to the north and the former Peugeot site on the corner of Clarence Road.

It is the height and massing of the proposed buildings which give rise to the harmful impact of theproposal. They are mostly tall, the highest being nineteen stories. Whilst there has been somemodification of the orthogonal character, they have a very bulky mass. Grouped together theyhave a huge impact not only on the approach to the city restricting views across it but also on anumber of views towards, over and across the site which are revealed by verified view montagesin the application. In particular, we are very concerned that the setting of Listed Buildings atTemple Meads will be compromised. Looking towards the development from the north, theproposed buildings would interrupt and obstruct views of the Totterdown escarpment, an importantfeature in the topography of the city. We object to the height of these buildings and strongly urgethat a revised proposal is prepared with building heights respecting these features. The proposeduse of dark grey materials will, the Society considers, exacerbate the adverse impacts and beparticularly depressing on dull and damp days of which there are many in Bristol.

We continue to be concerned that the largely linear route through the site will not feel welcomingwith four tall buildings on each side. This route is also likely to be adversely affected by shadingfrom the tall buildings and the impact of the buildings on wind currents. A revised layout andlandscape plan is required which results in a greater sense of enclosure and shelter for spacesalong the route and which creates a more welcoming environment for residents, employees andother people using it.

The pedestrian and cycle connection to Bath Road is a positive aspect but provision should be

made to ensure adequate maintenance of the cycle lift so that it remains usable or an alternativecycle access should be provided.

The proposals include public access to the river bank on the eastern boundary. This would bebeneficial although the backdrop of the high rise buildings would detract from its ambience andcast a lot of shade in the afternoon and evening.

520 homes would be provided, largely of one and two bed units. 20% are scheduled to beaffordable homes for private rental. The Society questions whether this mix is right for meetinghousing need in the city.

Provision of space for varied commercial and service uses is positive so long as they prove viable.

Conclusion.

Although the Society wishes to see the redevelopment of this site, we feel strongly that a radicalchange in the character of this part of Bristol would result from these proposals and we questionwhether this is what Bristol's residents want. We would be willing to take part in discussions withinterested parties to explore alternative approaches to the site's redevelopment which createdmore enclosed, intimate and friendly public spaces, reduced the height and impact of the buildingsand resulted in a welcoming approach to Bristol's city centre.

We object strongly to the application as it stands.

At the core of my objection is the substandard architectural quality of this development.The proposed buildings exhibit an uninspired, monotonous aesthetic that fails to reflect Bristol'srich and diverse architectural character. Bristol has a proud legacy of innovative and historicallyresponsive architecture-qualities that this development entirely overlooks.

The façade designs are particularly problematic. The dominant use of uniform dark materials givesthe buildings a foreboding, oppressive appearance. This design choice diminishes the sense ofwarmth and vibrancy that should characterize a city like Bristol. Instead of creating a welcoming,human-centered space, the rigid, repetitive patterns in the façade generate a sterile anduninspiring environment. The rocky facade, to put it plainly, it's hideously ugly.

Bristol deserves better.

This application appears to claim that this payment has been made. Isthis correct? If so, can you please provide details of this, what unitswere purchased and where they are located.

How will the onsite Biodiversity mitigation arising from the previous bedelivered? Will this be separate from the mitigation being proposed inthis application.

The LEMP/HMMP Issue

I see that some of the BNG conditions of the 2022 application have been discharged or variedunder 23/03424/NMA, but that Condition 6 - the LEMP - has not.

Given that the current application must be dealt with under the statutory BNG regime, where a

HMMP will be required, how is it proposed to deal with this disparity between the old, BNG3.1, and the new statutory regime (I assume the applicant agreed to bebound by these BNG obligations even though its earlier application wasnot bound by it save, of course, for NPPF 174 d) (now NPPF 193 d))?

Generally, perhaps the applicant needs to prepare a clear statement setting out all thesematters in such a way that they are understandable by the lay reader and so that we allunderstand what BNG mitigation is being delivered and when and how it will be delivered. Atthe moment it is almost impossible for us to understand what has and what will happen.

Please publish this email on the planning portal.

RegardsMark

Mark CD AshdownFor Bristol Tree ForumTrees of BristolFacebook: facebook.com/BristolTreeForumBluesky: @bristoltreeforum.bsky.social

This email is managed by a group of volunteers from the Bristol Tree Forum. This group is not constituted, registeredor affiliated with any other group. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and do notnecessarily represent those of the Group.

Depressing and uninspiring architecture. Is this really the best they could muster.Again another prominent site wasted.

I should also mention a quote off L&G site"Temple Island will include a large capacity conference centre and exhibition space"

Where is this situated currently, or has it been conveniently omitted.Bristol Council needs to demand more from these redevelopment.