BTF Comments – 25 April 2025

2

4. There is no opportunity to test this application against current planning policies.

Most of this site is designated on the Bristol Local Plan Policies Map3 as an Important Open Space and it is thus protected by SADMP DM17, which states that ‘development on part, or all, of an Important Open Space … will not be permitted unless the development is ancillary to the open space use.’ This site is also protected under Core Strategy policies BCS9 and BCS22 and under SADMP DM31. Granting this application would prevent proper scrutiny of whether what is proposed complies with these and other policies.

5. There is no opportunity to protect the trees impacted by this application.

Since the original grant, the trees on and around the site are now some 30 years older and will have grown considerably in that time. Many are now mature. The works proposed are likely to impact these trees. Any decision to allow this application should be informed by arboricultural evidence based on a survey undertaken using BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations (which did not exist in 1996). This is a prerequisite for any planning application likely to affect trees.4 To allow this application without this evidence would subvert this protection.

6. There is no opportunity to achieve measurable biodiversity net gain.

The proposed development of this site, if made today, would also be subject to the obligation to achieve at least a 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG). BNG is a way of creating and improving natural habitats by ensuring that a measurably positive impact ('net gain') on biodiversity, compared to what was there before development, is delivered. This obligation came into force in February 2024.

Even if it were not so obliged, the developer would still be subject to the requirement under NPPF 193(d) that states: ‘when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should … secure measurable net gains for biodiversity or enhance public access to nature.’

To allow this application would subvert these protections.

7. Granting this application may prejudice the pending PROW application to designate the adjacent path.

The current layout of the car park impinges on the pathway which runs along the northern boundary of the now-closed Bristol Zoo gardens. This is subject to a pending PROW application.5 If this application is granted before the PROW application is decided, it may prejudice its outcome.

The Site Location Plan is of such a scale that it is impossible to ascertain the extent of the redline area which appears to cover a different area to the location plan area used in the

3 https://maps.bristol.gov.uk/policies/. 4 https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/10-planning-applications-local-list-of-requirements/file. 5 Reference: 2140920 - www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/8550-app4-and-map-bristol-zoo-dmmo/file

BTF Comments – 25 April 2025

3

1996 application and which includes the pathway identified in the PROW application.

8. This application is contrary to laws preventing the enclosure of common land.

The proposed development site lies within the Clifton Downs Common and so may not be enclosed without the prior consent of the Secretary of State.6 The original 1996 grant enclosed the site without prior consent and so was illegal. As such, any further work to enclose the site, including works for the resurfacing of land, would also be illegal. Granting this application cannot remedy this.

Natural England may also need to carry out an environmental impact assessment if the planned works could affect the environment of the common or surrounding areas.

9. The application is contrary to the Clifton and Durdham Downs (Bristol) Act 1861.

Under the Clifton and Durdham Downs (Bristol) Act 1861 (the Act), the proposed development site shall ‘for ever hereafter remain open and unenclosed, and as a place for the public resort and recreation of the citizens and inhabitants of Bristol.’ The original 1996 grant enclosed the site thereby preventing ‘open and unenclosed’ access. This was and remains contrary to the Act and was (and is) therefore illegal. The applicant (created under the Act) is also prohibited from further restricting access to the site by its proposal.7 As such, any further decision to enclose the site would also be illegal. Granting this application cannot remedy this.

6 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/carrying-out-works-on-common-land#works-you-need-consent-for 7 It has been held that just parking a car on common land can constitute enclosure