BTF Preliminary Comments – 01 July 2025

2

habitat may be set to high.

The following Strategically Significant BNG habitats are available for creation (no habitat is identified for enhancement):

Woodland and forest - Lowland beech and yew woodland: Woodland and forest - Lowland mixed deciduous woodland: Woodland and forest - Wood-pasture and parkland: Species-rich native hedgerow with trees - associated with bank or ditch: Species-rich native hedgerow with trees: Species-rich native hedgerow - associated with bank or ditch: Species-rich native hedgerow: Ecologically valuable line of trees: Ecologically valuable line of trees - associated with bank or ditch: Rural tree.

Only onsite Rural tree and Species-rich native hedgerow habitats have been identified for creation on the site. These may be set to high strategic significance. All the other onsite habitats must have their strategic significance set to low.

Here is the published guidance:2

2 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/669e45fba3c2a28abb50d426/The_Statutory_Biodiversity_Metric_-_User_Guide__23.07.24_.pdf - Page 28

BTF Preliminary Comments – 01 July 2025

3

On this basis, the net area habitat loss should be adjusted to -35.11% (-14.82 Habitat units (HU), with the hedgerow habitat gain increased to 238.46% (4.07 HUs).

2. Taking into account these adjustments to habitat strategic significance, we calculate that, as currently cast, the following trading rules breaches for these medium distinctiveness broad area habitats arise:

Grassland: -4.63 HU.

Heathland and scrub: -3.74 HU.

Individual trees: -5.51 HU.

Woodland and forest: -1.07 HU.

Under the trading rules medium distinctiveness habitats may only be replaced with the same broad habitat or with a habitat of a higher distinctiveness.

Without changes to these proposals, it is inevitable that the mitigation for these trading rule shortfalls, together with the obligation to achieve an overall 10% area net gain, will have to take place offsite. As there are currently no registered biodiversity gain sites (BGS) within the LPA, these losses will have to be delivered somewhere else where these habitats are available to buy. This could be anywhere in England.3

Here is just one of many possible scenarios for offsite habitat creation which meets both the trading rules requirements and achieves at least 10% BNG (10.25%):

This would involve planting 443 BNG ‘small’ category trees. We have assumed that each habitat will achieve moderate condition, have low strategic significance and be within the Bristol, Avon Valleys and Ridges Nature Character Area.4 These parameters may need to be

3 https://bristoltrees.space/BGS/home.xq?mode=site&format=map 4 https://bristoltrees.space/BGS/home.xq?mode=NCA&NCA=Bristol,%20Avon%20Valleys%20and%20Ridges

BTF Preliminary Comments – 01 July 2025

4

adjusted as necessary.

Other permutations can be projected, but this gives a flavour of the likely impact of this proposal on the local nature of Bristol and needs to be considered as part of the planning balance when deciding this application.

We are writing to strongly object to planning application 25/12231, submitted under themisleading title "Kings Weston Open Spaces Footpaths." This title bears no obvious relation towhat the public and local community have consistently been told is the Bristol Family CyclingCentre. Given the scale and significance of the proposed development - and its branding in allprior community engagement - this mislabelling comes across as, at best, deeply confusing, andat worst, potentially deliberate. It has made it unnecessarily difficult for residents and interestedstakeholders to locate and respond to the application, undermining the spirit of open consultation.Beyond the issue of transparency in process, We have significant concerns about the content andimpact of the proposed development, as outlined below.

1. Access and AffordabilityThere has been a clear lack of transparency around pricing and access. Public consultationmaterials fail to mention that the facility would be a paid-for leisure service, in contrast with theexisting free-to-use amenities in the area, such as the skate park, BMX track, fitness trail, andopen paths. According to the centre's existing website, prices stand at £5 per child (plus £5 peraccompanying adult) and £7 per adult. For a family of four engaging in regular activity three timesper week, that amounts to around £240-£300 per month - an amount that is prohibitivelyexpensive for many local families. The lack of clarity about costs risks alienating the verycommunities this project purports to serve.

2. Toilets and FacilitiesAll Bristol City Council-run leisure centres participate in the Community Toilets Scheme and the

Welcoming Spaces Network - both vital tools for promoting inclusive, accessible public spaces.Yet, the proposed centre is not included in either. This represents a missed opportunity to supportspontaneous, informal use of the site by the broader public. Access to toilets and basic facilitiesshouldn't be conditional on paid entry.

3. Loss of Green SpaceThe proposed car park would remove a patch of open green space currently used by nearbyresidents - particularly those in adjacent flats - for dog walking, informal cycling, and familyrecreation. There's no clear offer of replacement public space or open-access amenities tocompensate for this loss. At a time when protecting public green spaces should be a priority,especially in urban communities, this sets a troubling precedent.

4. Exclusion of Existing Assets: BMX, Scooters, and SkateboardingThe plans fail to meaningfully incorporate the existing BMX track and skate park, despite the newcentre's emphasis on cycling. BMX - literally "bicycle" motocross - is not only relevant, but deeplyembedded in Lawrence Weston's identity. The track has been a long-standing asset for localyouth and its exclusion feels tone-deaf at best and dismissive at worst. Similarly, the exclusion ofscooters and skateboards is puzzling - especially when scooter safety sessions are offered at thecurrent Hengrove site. A cycling centre that doesn't include these complementary modes of travelmisses an opportunity to build on what's already working in the area.

5. Need for Free and Open AccessTo ensure this is a genuinely inclusive and equitable facility, the plans must incorporate some levelof free public access. A sensible compromise might be to establish separate zones - for example:An enclosed, bookable space for lessons and structured training (e.g. Bikeability) An open-accessarea with toilets, changing rooms, a bike workshop, and a short cycle loop linked to the NationalCycle Network This hybrid model would make the centre more accessible while still allowingrevenue from structured sessions and services.

6. Sustainable Transport and Travel PlanningWhile the proposal is framed as a sustainable transport initiative, there are serious gaps in itstravel and access planning, particularly when scaled against its own projections. According to theapplication, the centre is expected to attract approximately 97,000 visits per year by Year 3.Spread over a 365-day operating model, that equates to an average of 265-270 visitors per day,potentially rising higher on weekends and during events. This is a significant daily volume- andone that the existing road network and public transport infrastructure simply cannot supportsustainably.Key concerns include: Public transport limitations:Lawrence Weston is poorly served by buses, and none of the local services accommodatebicycles, making multimodal journeys (bike + bus) impossible for most. Car dependency risk:Without viable active or public transport alternatives, the centre could quickly become reliant onsingle-occupancy vehicle trips - exactly the opposite of what the City Region Sustainable

Transport Settlement (CRSTS) is intended to promote.Parking management and overspill:There is no clear plan for how parking will be managed, priced, or enforced. Local roads arealready under pressure and are not designed to absorb an additional 270 vehicle movements perday. Overspill could easily impact nearby residential areas, degrading quality of life and increasingtraffic risk. Lack of active travel links: If this is truly a hub for family cycling and active travel, then itshould be connected to safe, accessible infrastructure - including links to the National CycleNetwork, segregated cycle routes, and a dedicated cycle highway from the nearby Park and Rideor from the city centre. There's a strong argument that CRSTS funding could be better spent onsystemic improvements to cycling infrastructure across Bristol - enhancing everyday journeys forthousands of people, rather than concentrating resources on a single site with unclear long-termsustainability. Having reviewed the supporting Travel Plan document, I find that while it outlinesgeneral aspirations to promote sustainable travel, it lacks any substantive or enforceablemeasures to address the real-world impact of increased visitor volume to the site.Specifically: - No Traffic Impact Assessment: The plan does not include any modelling orprojections of the number of visitors expected, nor does it assess the impact on local roads,parking, or public transport infrastructure.Lack of Concrete Measures: The measures proposed-such as cycle parking and travelinformation-are minimal and do not constitute a robust strategy for managing large numbers ofvisitors.- Reactive Rather Than Proactive: The plan relies on post-occupation monitoring and theappointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator, rather than setting out clear, proactive steps to mitigatecongestion and access issues from the outset.No Event or Peak-Time Strategy: There is no mention of how the site will manage traffic duringpeak times, events, or weekends, when visitor numbers are likely to be highest.- Insufficient PublicTransport Integration: While the plan references nearby bus stops, it does not assess theircapacity or frequency, nor does it propose any collaboration with transport providers toaccommodate increased demand.Given these shortcomings, We urge the planning authority to request a revised Travel Plan thatincludes:A full transport and traffic impact assessment.Specific, measurable commitments to infrastructure improvements.A detailed strategy for managing peak visitor periods.Clear accountability and enforcement mechanisms. Without these, the current Travel Plan fails todemonstrate how the development will avoid placing undue strain on local infrastructure andcommunities.

7. Community Engagement and Risk The consultation references the Ambition Lawrence Weston(ALW) Community Plan, but local voices have been notably absent in the development of thisproposal. Projects of this nature must be co-designed with local residents - not just presented tothem.Branding the centre as a "first of its kind" also introduces unnecessary risk. Lawrence Weston is acommunity with many existing challenges; the last thing it needs is an underused or poorly

integrated facility, which could easily become an expensive white elephant. True success lies inmeeting local needs - not in chasing national recognition.

8. Community Involvement StatementThe activities stated in the Community Involvement Statement were carried out in 2019, prepandemic, and therefore is totally outdated, useless and should be given no consideration.ConclusionThis proposal, as it stands, raises serious concerns about transparency, accessibility, affordability,and alignment with community needs. The planning process has lacked openness, the proposedfacility lacks inclusivity, and the long-term benefits for local people remain unclear. Unless theseissues are addressed - including a revised access model, better integration with existingamenities, and genuine community involvement - We urge the planning authority to refuse theapplication in its current form.

We write to object to this application.

The facility as described is a type of Leisure Centre. The fact that most of the "action" takes placein an open-air but otherwise enclosed area is of no matter. It is a closed-access and fencedfacility; and is run as a business for the benefit of a paying clientele.

It fences off enclosing green space that formerly was and otherwise would be freely accessible bylocal residents for leisure and informal recreation. This is especially valuable in this location sincethe surrounding residences are principally a large number of high-density low-rise flats, mostly infamily occupation. A sizeable proportion of the available green space has already been ceded byresidents for housing development on the understanding that surplus earnings from thedevelopment would be directed to improving the surrounding flatted accommodation. This promisehas not been fulfilled but a large tranche of the green space has now been taken by 128 newhomes.

This development is set to remove the remaining very important open space from free access bythese residents.The recent pandemic has taught us the importance of green outdoor space for people's health andpositive mental condition and outlook. This importance is especially - hugely - important for flatdwellers.

This proposal describes a closed gated facility essentially 'beamed down' into the community and

NOT an improvement or added amenity. It is NOT what a challenged community needs - a seriousdetraction from the limited amenities this community currently enjoys.

Residents have very clearly expressed what their community needs via their regularly updatedCommunity Plan, via their formal Neighbourhood Development Plan and its associatedNeighbourhood Design Statement. These have clearly identified the shortfall in amenities and setout objectives, for Lawrence Weston more widely but also for this area. These include not only theupgrade to the BMX track facility but also the need to revamp the adjacent skate park, anddevelop an open-access user-maintained cyclo-cross track, none of which would, as described,detract from use of the area as a public amenity.

What is proposed is not a velodrome, but something less-specialized and of more general appealand availability. It is a generally useful and applicable facility that can benefit and be enjoyed bythe majority of our population.

As expressed in its current format, this proposal only imposes on, damaging, a community workinghard to improve its situation. We have pressed our case with the those proposing thisdevelopment, describing what we see as its short-falls, advancing our own suggestions for how itmight be improved to become valuable to the community, and requesting that the proposers makefirm modifications of their own design that would answer the problems that we see. But apart fromvague assurances no serious attempt has been advanced to meet our objections. Our residents'are not inflexible in their outlook, and have been ready to compromise if that looks to be of mutualbenefit - witness being the only community in Bristol to agree to ceding its valued green space forhouse building in return for a promised benefit. But hard experience, even over this very area, hasshown that general assurances will be ignored and easily dismissed. Firm plans and commitmentshave to come forward if promises are to be realised and the development made to be a realbenefit for our community, and not to be yet another detriment. The area has also seen its onceopen-access sports fields enclosed and removed from public enjoyment to boost privatelycontrolled, gated, holdings. (St Bede's College).

There has been no serious consultation or engagement beyond general assurances thatcommunity needs would "be looked at". Even the advertised public "consultation" was careful notmention that the facility would be of controlled paying access, merely that it would be fenced off"for security". Community involvement in its design has been negligible, and what little, grudging,additional engagement that has occurred has been in response to us campaigning and pressinghard.

A facility properly configured to benefit the Lawrence Weston community would be very welcome,but the current application is not such a proposal, and we would much prefer to keep ourrecreational green space than lose it to a closed-access leisure business. The proposal as set outis in no-way a widely accessible public amenity.. No matter who are its originators, it is a business

development that will be a detriment to the much needed amenity of our challengedneighbourhood, and we ask that it be refused.

I object to this application for the reasons stated by our Neighbourhood planning forumsprevious objections.

The Bristol Family Cycling Centre in Whitchurch is planned to close to be replaced bythe new Regional Cycling Hub in Lawrence Weston.I object to the closure of Cycle Centre at Whitchurch.It is an important facility for a populated area and needs to remain open open.If children are going to learn how to ride bikes and practice in in a safe environment,then it needs to stay open. It is important for everyone's health to exercise regularlyespecially children.Poor accessibility for residents of South Bristol who are faced with losing their cyclingfacility.A third of Bristol's population live in South Bristol. Will be almost impossible for mostfamilies in South Bristol to access Kingsweston facility unless by car. Bristol needs anorth and south cycling centre.

Regards

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Travel Plan submitted in support ofplanning application 25/12231/FB.

Having reviewed the document, I find that while it outlines general aspirations to promotesustainable travel, it lacks any substantive or enforceable measures to address the real-worldimpact of increased visitor volume to the site. Specifically:

- No Traffic Impact Assessment: The plan does not include any modelling or projections of thenumber of visitors expected, nor does it assess the impact on local roads, parking, or publictransport infrastructure.

- Lack of Concrete Measures: The measures proposed-such as cycle parking and travelinformation-are minimal and do not constitute a robust strategy for managing large numbers ofvisitors.

- Reactive Rather Than Proactive: The plan relies on post-occupation monitoring and theappointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator, rather than setting out clear, proactive steps to mitigatecongestion and access issues from the outset.

- No Event or Peak-Time Strategy: There is no mention of how the site will manage traffic duringpeak times, events, or weekends, when visitor numbers are likely to be highest.

- Insufficient Public Transport Integration: While the plan references nearby bus stops, it does notassess their capacity or frequency, nor does it propose any collaboration with transport providersto accommodate increased demand.

Given these shortcomings, I urge the planning authority to request a revised Travel Plan thatincludes:

- A full transport and traffic impact assessment.- Specific, measurable commitments to infrastructure improvements.- A detailed strategy for managing peak visitor periods.- Clear accountability and enforcement mechanisms.- Without these, the current Travel Plan fails to demonstrate how the development will avoidplacing undue strain on local infrastructure and communities.

I am writing to object to planning application 25/12231, submitted under the misleadingtitle "Kings Weston Open Spaces Footpaths." This title bears no obvious relation to what the publicand local community have consistently been told is the Bristol Family Cycling Centre. Given thescale and significance of the proposed development - and its branding in all prior communityengagement - this mislabelling comes across as, at best, deeply confusing, and at worst,potentially deliberate. It has made it unnecessarily difficult for residents and interestedstakeholders to locate and respond to the application, undermining the spirit of open consultation.

Beyond the issue of transparency in process, I have significant concerns about the content andimpact of the proposed development, as outlined below.

1. Access and Affordability

There has been a clear lack of transparency around pricing and access. Public consultationmaterials fail to mention that the facility would be a paid-for leisure service, in contrast with theexisting free-to-use amenities in the area, such as the skate park, BMX track, fitness trail, andopen paths.

According to the centre's existing website, prices stand at £5 per child (plus £5 per accompanyingadult) and £7 per adult. For a family of four engaging in regular activity three times per week, thatamounts to around £240-£300 per month - an amount that is prohibitively expensive for many localfamilies. The lack of clarity about costs risks alienating the very communities this project purports

to serve.

2. Toilets and Facilities

All Bristol City Council-run leisure centres participate in the Community Toilets Scheme and theWelcoming Spaces Network - both vital tools for promoting inclusive, accessible public spaces.Yet, the proposed centre is not included in either.

This represents a missed opportunity to support spontaneous, informal use of the site by thebroader public. Access to toilets and basic facilities shouldn't be conditional on paid entry.

3. Loss of Green Space

The proposed car park would remove a patch of open green space currently used by nearbyresidents - particularly those in adjacent flats - for dog walking, informal cycling, and familyrecreation. There's no clear offer of replacement public space or open-access amenities tocompensate for this loss.

At a time when protecting public green spaces should be a priority, especially in urbancommunities, this sets a troubling precedent.

4. Exclusion of Existing Assets: BMX, Scooters, and Skateboarding

The plans fail to meaningfully incorporate the existing BMX track and skate park, despite the newcentre's emphasis on cycling. BMX - literally "bicycle" motocross - is not only relevant, but deeplyembedded in Lawrence Weston's identity. The track has been a long-standing asset for localyouth and its exclusion feels tone-deaf at best and dismissive at worst.

Similarly, the exclusion of scooters and skateboards is puzzling - especially when scooter safetysessions are offered at the current Hengrove site. A cycling centre that doesn't include thesecomplementary modes of travel misses an opportunity to build on what's already working in thearea.

5. Need for Free and Open Access

To ensure this is a genuinely inclusive and equitable facility, the plans must incorporate some levelof free public access. A sensible compromise might be to establish separate zones - for example:-

An enclosed, bookable space for lessons and structured training (e.g. Bikeability)-

An open-access area with toilets, changing rooms, a bike workshop, and a short cycle loop linkedto the National Cycle Network

This hybrid model would make the centre more accessible while still allowing revenue fromstructured sessions and services.

6. Sustainable Transport and Travel Planning

While the proposal is framed as a sustainable transport initiative, there are serious gaps in itstravel and access planning, particularly when scaled against its own projections.

According to the application, the centre is expected to attract approximately 97,000 visits per yearby Year 3. Spread over a 365-day operating model, that equates to an average of 265-270 visitorsper day, potentially rising higher on weekends and during events. This is a significant daily volume- and one that the existing road network and public transport infrastructure simply cannot supportsustainably.

Key concerns include:

Public transport limitations: Lawrence Weston is poorly served by buses, and none of the localservices accommodate bicycles, making multimodal journeys (bike + bus) impossible for most.

Car dependency risk: Without viable active or public transport alternatives, the centre could quicklybecome reliant on single-occupancy vehicle trips - exactly the opposite of what the City RegionSustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) is intended to promote.

Parking management and overspill: There is no clear plan for how parking will be managed,priced, or enforced. Local roads are already under pressure and are not designed to absorb anadditional 270 vehicle movements per day. Overspill could easily impact nearby residential areas,degrading quality of life and increasing traffic risk.

Lack of active travel links: If this is truly a hub for family cycling and active travel, then it should beconnected to safe, accessible infrastructure - including links to the National Cycle Network,segregated cycle routes, and a dedicated cycle highway from the nearby Park and Ride or fromthe city centre.

There's a strong argument that CRSTS funding could be better spent on systemic improvementsto cycling infrastructure across Bristol - enhancing everyday journeys for thousands of people,rather than concentrating resources on a single site with unclear long-term sustainability.

Having reviewed the supporting Travel Plan document, I find that while it outlines generalaspirations to promote sustainable travel, it lacks any substantive or enforceable measures toaddress the real-world impact of increased visitor volume to the site. Specifically:

- No Traffic Impact Assessment: The plan does not include any modelling or projections of thenumber of visitors expected, nor does it assess the impact on local roads, parking, or publictransport infrastructure.

- Lack of Concrete Measures: The measures proposed-such as cycle parking and travelinformation-are minimal and do not constitute a robust strategy for managing large numbers ofvisitors.

- Reactive Rather Than Proactive: The plan relies on post-occupation monitoring and theappointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator, rather than setting out clear, proactive steps to mitigatecongestion and access issues from the outset.

- No Event or Peak-Time Strategy: There is no mention of how the site will manage traffic duringpeak times, events, or weekends, when visitor numbers are likely to be highest.

- Insufficient Public Transport Integration: While the plan references nearby bus stops, it does notassess their capacity or frequency, nor does it propose any collaboration with transport providersto accommodate increased demand.

Given these shortcomings, I urge the planning authority to request a revised Travel Plan thatincludes:

- A full transport and traffic impact assessment.

- Specific, measurable commitments to infrastructure improvements.

- A detailed strategy for managing peak visitor periods.

- Clear accountability and enforcement mechanisms.

Without these, the current Travel Plan fails to demonstrate how the development will avoid placingundue strain on local infrastructure and communities.

7. Community Engagement and Risk

The consultation references the Ambition Lawrence Weston (ALW) Community Plan, but localvoices have been notably absent in the development of this proposal. Projects of this nature mustbe co-designed with local residents - not just presented to them.

Branding the centre as a "first of its kind" also introduces unnecessary risk. Lawrence Weston is acommunity with many existing challenges; the last thing it needs is an underused or poorlyintegrated facility, which could easily become an expensive white elephant. True success lies in

meeting local needs - not in chasing national recognition.

Conclusion

This proposal, as it stands, raises serious concerns about transparency, accessibility, affordability,and alignment with community needs. The planning process has lacked openness, the proposedfacility lacks inclusivity, and the long-term benefits for local people remain unclear.

Unless these issues are addressed - including a revised access model, better integration withexisting amenities, and genuine community involvement - I urge the planning authority to refusethe application in its current form.

As per the consultation that was done, we support this development as long asbiodiversity and nature conservation is a consideration.

I wish to raise a strong objection to the proposed development on the grounds of pooraccessibility and the disproportionate impact it will have on residents of South Bristol,particularly in terms of access to cycling facilities.

Currently, this part of South Bristol provides one of the few dedicated cycling facilitiesaccessible to local families, schools, and cycling groups. The proposed relocation of thisamenity to the Kings Weston area—on the opposite side of the city—represents asignificant and deeply inequitable shift in provision. South Bristol is home toapproximately one-third of Bristol's entire population. Despite this, communities in thesouth of the city already face limited access to green space, recreational infrastructure,and active travel opportunities when compared with those in the north. The removal ofthis local facility without providing a viable, equally accessible alternative risks furtherentrenching that imbalance.

Kings Weston is not realistically accessible for many South Bristol residents—particularly children, teenagers, or those without access to a car. The journey across thecity is lengthy, involves congested roads and indirect public transport routes, and inmost cases would necessitate car travel, undermining both the city's active travelambitions and its commitments to reducing carbon emissions. This runs counter toBristol City Council's stated priorities around environmental sustainability, transportdecarbonisation, and equal access to recreational and health-promoting infrastructure.

The decision to remove a cycling facility from South Bristol—without simultaneously

providing a comparable alternative within the area—represents a clear oversight interms of inclusive city planning. Bristol needs cycling centres in both the north and thesouth of the city to serve all communities fairly. Any new development must take intoaccount the need for geographically balanced provision, especially where existing, well-used community assets are being lost.

I urge the planning authority to reconsider the current proposal and to commit tomaintaining dedicated cycling infrastructure within South Bristol. The health, wellbeing,and mobility needs of a third of the city's residents should not be disregarded in favourof a centralised or northern-only provision.

Hello,

A third of Bristols population lives in South Bristol. Losing this cycling facility will createmore accessibility issues for residents. It will be almost impossible for most families inSouth Bristol to access Kingsweston facility unless by car. Bristol needs a north andsouth cycling centre.

Best,

Dear Development Management Team,

I am writing to formally object to planning application 25/12231/FB for the proposedRegional Cycling Hub in Kingsweston, which is intended to replace the Bristol FamilyCycling Centre in Whitchurch.

The closure of the Whitchurch facility will leave a significant gap in provision for the one-third of Bristol's population who live in South Bristol. The proposed Kingsweston locationis extremely difficult to access for many South Bristol families—particularly thosewithout a car—making it an unrealistic alternative for most users of the current centre.

Rather than closing one site to open another, Bristol should be investing in cyclinginfrastructure that serves all residents. A single hub in the north is not an equitablereplacement. The city urgently needs both a north and south cycling centre to supportaccess, inclusion, and sustainable transport citywide.

Please take these concerns into consideration as part of the consultation process.Regards,

Dear Sir or Madam,

I understand that The Bristol Family Cycling Centre in Whitchurch is planned to closeand is to be replaced by the new Regional Cycling Hub in Lawrence Weston and thatthe planning application for the new Hub is open to consultation until 24th June.

I am just sending this e mail to object to the application due to the following points :

Starting with poor accessibility for residents of South Bristol who are faced with losingtheir cycling facility.A third of Bristol's population live in South Bristol and it will be almost impossible formost families in South Bristol to access Kingsweston facility unless by car.

Bristol needs a north and south cycling centre.

On a personal note, my sister has recently took on an 'adoptive kin' due to his he spent years of his younger life being brought up in a child's

pen, eating, sleeping and playing, as a result of this, he has learning and physicaldisabilities.Since he's been in my sisters care she has tried to broaden his physical and mentalskills, by enrolling him in various activities but as you are aware, in South Bristol theseopportunities are VERY limited, but she did find one …. the cycling centre inWhitchurch, which she has been told is soon moving to Lawrence Weston, no problem!!

How long do you think it will take for him and my sister to get two or three busses to andfrom Lawrence Weston after school?

I know BCC has something against the South Bristol residence and I think the protest tokeep the cycle centre will fall on deaf ears but confidence in your Management willeventually pay off when we show how bad you've actually been by voting and hopefullywe will finally elect a party who are not 'Nimby's'.Who knows it may come to a stage where the only houses that ex Councillors canafford will be in the concrete jungle formerly known as South Bristol.

Yours Faithfully

I have concerns regarding the proposed changes to the NCN cycle route and AvonCycleway which are diverted around the edge of the site. My concerns relate to the effective widthof the path, forward visibility for cyclists, personal security and the route of the path between the 2zebras.The proposed NCN route seems to run tightly against the the boundary fence of the proposedcycling hub whilst planting is shown right up to the path on the opposite site. As you know, wherevertical features are tight up against a cycle path, this reduces the effective width. In this case theboundary fence/hedge and planting on the opposite side will reduce the effective width to just2metres. Any growth in the hedge or other planting will reduce the effective width below 2m.Running the path tight up against the cycle hub boundary fence will also seriously impede forwardvisibility. Having hedges an other planting so tightly against the path will produce a tunnel effectwith no way out which may intimidate/discourage some vulnerable users. I would like to see aminimum 1 metre grass verge on both sides of the path to preserve the 3m effective width of thepath. The planting on the opposite side of the path to the cycling hub needs to be as open and lowas possible so that users feel safe.Where the NCN route and Avon Cycleway cross the proposed 2 zebra crossings, the proposedroute of the cycle path is awkward and does not follow the desire line but rather takes cycliststhrough 90 degree bends. I would like to see the proposed path follow a straight line between the2 zebras.Finally, I would like to see the proposals include way finder signage for the diverted NCN Routeand Avon Cycleway.

This land was never intended to build on.And given a short time this will just become a recipe for disaster, will attract all the wrong sort ofpeople.And will be a place for more antisocial behaviour.The people that thought this ideal would be good probably don't live in the area, I live close andwill have to put up with this on a regular basis.A few years ago money was spent on planting native trees to turn the area into a small naturereserve,

What a waste of money, time and effort that was?

To whom ever it may concern,

As someone who lives in South Bristol, a short walk or cycle, to our current familycycling centre it is absolutely essential this remains. There are very little facilities as it isin south Bristol, losing The Bristol Family Cycling Centre would have a detrimentalimpact on the local area. The family cycling centre is part of our weekly life as a family,as well as local schools and nurseries who use it. It would be impossible for us alongwith many other families and cycle centre users to access Kingweston facility unless bycar.

South Bristols population needs it's cycle centre.

Regards,

To whom it may concern,

Along with many others I'd like to voice a concern about this planning application. It isdue to replace our local facility in Whitchurch which is desperately needed in the southof bristol.

It's impossible for anyone to reasonably travel right across the city to make use of acycling or indeed running facility.

It'll cause unnecessary congestion, and clubs will have ended by the time anyone hasnavigated the constantly more and more car unfriendly Bristol infrastructure. Buses areunreliable and impossible to accommodate bikes most of the time.

Hence I'd like to object to this application due to its wider impact on local communities .

Thank you.

Dear Bristol City Council,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed closure of the Bristol Family CyclingCentre in Whitchurch, the area in which I have lived all my life and the track have usedsince a child.

While I fully support the development of a new cycling hub in Lawrence Weston, thisshould not come at the cost of losing the only facility of its kind in South Bristol. Ourarea, home to roughly a third of Bristol's population, is already underserved in terms ofhealth and social facilities. South Bristol continues to face the closure of key communityspaces, and this proposal feels like another step in the wrong direction.

The idea of "relocating" the centre to the opposite side of the city is, at best, misleading.For many residents—especially young people and families without cars—accessingLawrence Weston by public transport is impractical, if not impossible. Convenience andaccessibility are fundamental to the success of community facilities, and removing thatfrom South Bristol effectively excludes thousands from taking part.

What we need is not either/or—but both. A hub in the north and south of the city wouldreflect the demand and support clearly shown by the thousands who have signedpetitions and engaged with recent media coverage.

I urge you to reconsider the closure and retain the Bristol Family Cycling Centre inSouth Bristol.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Council

I am writing to express my strong objection to the recent application concerning thecycling facility in South Bristol. The proposed changes will significantly impact theaccessibility for residents in this area, who are already facing the loss of their localcycling facility.

South Bristol is home to a third of Bristol's population, and the proposed relocation toKingsweston will make it almost impossible for most families in South Bristol to accessthe facility unless they have a car. This move undermines the need for equitable accessto recreational facilities across the city.

Bristol urgently requires both a north and south cycling centre to ensure all residentshave the opportunity to engage in cycling activities without facing undue hardship. I urgeyou to reconsider the application and prioritize the needs of South Bristol residents.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I am writing to express my objections to the Bristol Family Cycling Centre being movedfrom Whitchurch to become the cycling hub in Lawrence Weston.

South Bristol has a vast population. We are in need of these facilities. South Bristol isbeing stripped of facilities. It is unfair to neglect this part of Bristol time & time again.Many residents of South Bristol will struggle to travel to Lawrence Weston, so this willbe unavailable to them.

The local people do not want to lose this. Please stop & consider the impact. It is widelyopposed.

Hoping you will take on board the people's objections but I doubt you will.

This will be a fantastic facility for North Bristol, bringing employment and volunteeringopportunities and enabling access to cycling for everyone. Providing a safe space away fromtraffic for inclusive cycling is really important for children and adults learning to cycle, for SENDriders and for those looking to increase confidence before venturing out on to the wider network ofcycle infrastructure and roads. Having a connection to the NCN path will be hugely beneficial forpeople travelling to and from the site as pedestrians or riders and the improvements to the NCNroute will be beneficial to local residents using it for commuting or leisure journeys. This facilitysupports active travel, improved physical and mental health, road safety and air quality. It will alsoprovide links to the local and wider community for sport, leisure and learning activities.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:

supporting riders with additional needs, teaching learn-to-rides & additional cycling

skills. I hope that the new cycle centre will be as successful as the Hengrove site, both for local

community & the wider Bristol (and West of England). Over the years the Hengrove site became a

great & much loved resource for the local South Bristol community, for all ages & abilities. I am

sure that the same will happen at the new Lawrence Weston site.

I note that the new site will be within easy reach of the Kingsweston school children & their

families. These schools have been long time regular users of the all-abilities cycling facitilties since

2010. I can testify to the incredibly positive impacts that the all abilities cycling has had on the

children from Kingsweston (and all the other special needs schools/colleges). Teachers & families

can testify to the hugely positive aspects of cycling for the children.

Given the substantive improvements that are planned for the proposed new cycling centre (the

third "incarnation"), I would expect that the facility will become a centre of excellence in all-abilities

cycling, learn-to-ride & family cycling fun for the South West. With easy access via the M5, it may

also be able to serve a wider community including South Wales, South Midlands, Devon &

Somerset. If the site is sucessful, it should also provide great employment & volunteering

opportunities for the local community in & around Lawrence Weston.

Over my 15+ working years, having taught/supported thousands of riders, of all ages & abilities,

and thereafter seen the huge smiles on the riders faces as they experienced the joys & confidence

boost of riding cycles, I expect the new custom-built cycling centre will deliver such outcomes

many times over. I hope that the plans become reality & hope to see the new centre openning as

soon as possible.

Commenter Type: Other

Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:

It is a shame that it has to close due to house building plans, however this new site

at Lawrence Weston looks like an excellent replacement so that families and SEND customers

can continue to cycle in safety and learn important skills to keep then safe when they graduate to

riding on roads. Some users will never be in a position to ride on roads, so this site provides the

space and opportunities for all to enjoy cycling. Let's get it up and running ASAP.

Another loss of open space. More traffic to the area. Increase in noise and lighting in thewinter.

Good Afternoon.I would like to submit my objections to this proposal as there is already a bike track within thesame area, that is free for everyone to use. By allowing this construction, trees and green space(for all) will be removed when, are we not, trying to protect and enlarge are green spaces toenhance mental health and reduce carbon emissions.The area is considered to be a deprived area and in this time of rising costs and erosion of livingstandards, how can a track that will be charged to use be an improvement to the area.There are many flats close to where the building will be done and the green space is particularlyimportant if you do not have a garden. The roads are already busy and the infrastructure does notsupport such a construction. The area is often a haven for Deer, Rabbits, Squirrels and a naturalnature reserve for them and the birds that are prevalent there. Housing construction has alreadyeroded this green space, the rest of the area should be left as it is and allow all to benefit from thenature and green space it provides to the locals and anyone else, preserving our environment andour mental health.

My ONE massive concern for the whole of this proposed planning application, is theNOISE ISSUEThis project abuts directly my property.Noise issues would completely ruin my life.Can any kind of assurances be given to me please concerning this?

I think this idea is absolutely ridiculous its going to cause such a noise nuisance as wellas a heavy traffic fall and it's going to ruin the nature as kids always love playing on the fields andwalkways and it's such a lush area for them and now youre planning to take that away I just thinkit's outrageous

The location of this is unsuitable from an access and safety point of view, the lightcontrolled crossroads at the end of Kingsweston Avenue is already heavily congested especially atpeak times with traffic queing back to the Roman ruins and back to the Avonmouth Bridge onLower High Street, Henacre Road residents already struggle with parking having to resort to thegrass verges. It was bad enough for residents and locals users having to deal with constructiontraffic last time when the houses were being built. There will be additional light pollution into thehouses facing the development plus displacement of wildlife that have been using the greenspace. This money would be better spent upgrading the existing cycle hub and residue being putto better use to improve existing open spaces if it has to be spent on that type of thing.

An excellent use of space. This would not only be of direct benefit to the local area butalso makes use of low lying, former landfill.