Brislington East and West

Neighbourhood Partnership 12 – Brislington East and West

I feel very strongly about the proposed changes to the village green area at Hill Lawn and some of the proposed changes to Nightingale Valley Wooded area and list below my reasons for an objection:

The woodland area of nightingale valley and the green area at the bottom of Hill Lawn Brislington, is a very important green area in Brislington, we have a situation in Brislington where there are numerous terraced houses with small gardens and very little greenery in these gardens and very few natural green spaces. The nightingale woodland/ village green type area at the bottom of Hill Lawn is very important for wildlife, adults and children alike. At the moment it is a quiet, relaxing and usable area for all. It is a very important wildlife corridor for everyone, not just children and needs to be maintained for that.

The type of use that the green currently has is families having picnics, spending some relaxing time lying and sitting down enjoying the quietness and greenery of the area and kiddies playing various games on the green. If the green is fenced and turned into a kickabout area the result would be that families/adults then would be unable to enjoy the use of the green because of balls. The residents surrounding the green would have problems with balls in their gardens and would be extremely noisey. There is also an extremely busy road adjoining the green, Alison Road, where there have been numerous accidents in the past, there are two cameras each side of the hill to stop racing cars, but I have watched cars travel very fast on the wrong side of the road/islands to avoid being caught by the cameras even during daylight hours. Imagine cars doing this when kiddies were playing on the green and run out of the play area without thinking!! Or a car speeding lost control and straight through the fence The litter bin near the bus stop opposite recently took a hit where a car left the road! All the parks in Brislington at the moment have very little access to roads, but in Hill Lawn the green is exposed to two roads.

A play area on Hill Lawn would encourage vulnerable young children to enter the woods unaccompanied, possibly trying to retrieve balls, at the moment most of the young children entering the woods are accompanied by their parents and having a ‘family’ outing under supervision. Living near the woods I have seen on a regular basis unaccompanied adult Males going into the woods and spending quiet a long time there, and feel that to encourage children to play near the entrance to the woods would not be a good idea.

There is an active badger sett on the edge of the green at Hill Lawn and the badgers/foxes forage for their food in this area and come into the gardens surrounding the green to find food and this access needs to be maintained. There is an abundance of birds, woodpeckers, thrush, blackbirds etc. that also forage for food on the green during the quiet periods in the daytime. All of this wildlife corridor would be affected to have a kickabout/play area instead. Bats also fly around this area and fencing would be restrictive for them. It is important that we retain natural areas to keep our wildlife.

We have a problem with rats in the gardens that come from the brook in the woods and this would become even more of a problem as they would then be more apparent on the green as more food would be dropped by kiddies and there would be even more of a rat problem. There is also the risk of disease from the rats especially as there is a brook nearby in the woods that the rats live near and to encourage children to use the brook area with rats sharing the use could be a serious problem with disease and health and safety.

If the Hill Lawn entrance to the woods was widened this would encourage scrambler/motorbikes back into the area, the police have spent the last few years confiscating motorbikes that area using the woods as a scrambling area and making it safe for people/families walking in the woods. There is a tremendous footfall in the woods, especially at weekends, and this would create another Health and Safety Issue.

There are older more established parks in the area which are all within 10 minutes walk from most areas in Brislington and this is where childrens’ play areas should be focused. I have had to personally escort Ambulance Paramedics into the wood at nightingale valley where children have been injured (broken limbs)playing and to encourage unaccompanied children into the woods to play would have dangers with regard to their health and safety especially as it took 10 minutes to reach the last child who had broken limbs.

There is an undesirable element that use the green during the evenings, and I regularly collect beer cans, and wine bottles(sometimes broken) from the grassed area of hill lawn and dispose of them.

If the green were to be used as a kickabout/play area then there are twelve very nice large trees that play an important part in the look of the green that would need to be felled – it is important that we keep this area as it is now being used as ‘a village green area to be used by all’

•

I wish to object to proposals to develop housing or industrial units on the above mentioned site. I was taken for walks here as a child over 50 years ago and have in turn walked and collected blackberries with my children ever since. The location of this space so close to the major roads is a marvel. It offers people a place to escape the stress caused by our congested roads and busy lifestyles. We need these fields for their untouched beauty and for our children and children’s children to enjoy.My school sports days were held in the quiet,peaceful park surrounded by allotments and fields of horses-a breath of the countryside for town dwellers. This is a beautiful and much appreciated space of natural beauty. Abundant with wild life, such as wild flowers and tall grasses for insect life, ancient hedgerows and trees providing homes and food for bird life and mammals.I can remember searching for plants when I was in the Brownies. This is one of the last remains of rural village life in Brislington. These fields are not only educational for all but historically important to the community of Brislington and Bristol. At a time of national concern over obesity, this development represents yet another loss of recreational amenity for local residents, ramblers, runners, cyclists, dog-walkers, children’s informal play areas etc. There are plenty of brownfields sites which could be developed and are more suitable ground as these fields are on a steep hill and there would be potential for increased flood risk to areas of School Rd and Bath Rd if they are developed.

•

I have viewed the Site Allocations and Development Management Document on the Council website; as a resident of Brislington, I have some concerns about the document. Firstly, I am concerned about the assumption that the provision of new housing will effect a 'transformation' of Brislington, as stated in Section 2.12.3. Such a narrow and reductionist conception of what is required to 'transform' an area is deeply unhelpful and simplistic. In particular, I am dismayed at the suggestions that four areas of green space are being threatened with destruction (BSA 1201, BSA 1206, BSA 1209, BSA 1212). One of the attractions of Brislington to us was the proximity of several parks, woodland and open grassy areas; I am sure we are not alone in this. Our family regularly enjoy the space of St Anne's Park, not merely the playground, as well as that around Victory Park. Moreover, Victory Park is becoming very popular with my children, partly due to the sense of tranquillity that there is around it, due largely to the rural feel it has. to develop this area would massively reduce the benefit of the park to local residents, and would further exacerbate the disconnection with the natural world that many youngsters growing up in cities and towns feel. It would be utterly counter-productive to develop these sites into housing, as incoming residents would be robbed of the chance to enjoy them. without large open spaces to explore, children - and especially teenagers - become restless and resort to mindless, and often destructive, activities. Although the benefit of such spaces may not be easily quantified economically, the aesthetic and leisure benefit - let alone the environmental benefit - is significant. I see that the site for BSA 1206 is a former allotment site. is no consideration being given to use it as allotments again? Given the message of 'eating healthily' and 'healthy lifestyle' that is so dominant in education and council policies, surely this would be a good use of this land? this would lead to greater biodiversity, and would enhance neighbourliness and community relations.

However, I approve proposals BSA 1202, 1203, 1204, 1207, 1208, 1210 and 1213, which seem to be eminently sensible regarding the current use (or not) of these sites.

Regarding proposal BSA 1205 (the Wicklea Centre site), I am unsure what the broad designation 'community hub' exactly constitutes. In my experience, purpose built 'community centres' are rarely used for the benefit of the community, but rather are built to satisfy planning officials that due respect is given to community concerns. I would like to see more specific proposals for its use before commenting further. •

I was very shocked yesterday to read in the evening post about the proposed idea that you have for Brislington Park. My first point is that I had to read it first from the paper, this concerns everyone in the local area, so why not talk to us first. My name is Nichola Thompson and I live on Newbridge Road and have had many dealings with the council and the park and I have worked very closely with John Knowlson in getting the play area set up and designing it and raising the money through Living spaces to later find out you want to move a perfectly good play area nearer the road. My other concern is the idea of building houses behind the existing houses this is a mad idea and would take away yet more GREEN SPACE which we have very little of. St Annes park is a lovely park as it is with a great community spirit and is not one that has been neglected or has anti social behaviour and does not call for any improvement to this degree. Lighting, benches and more bins is proberly its limit. One other thing on the plans inwhich I do not understand was the extension of the bowling pavilion as this I believe is a members only club how is this to help the park? I am very much interested in this and would like to be involved in this all the way. Please keep me in touch. •

I understand from communications by yourself that it is proposed to dispose of some of the open space in Newbridge Road St Annes. As i am a resident of Newbridge Road facing the proposed sell off area. I am somewhat concerned as to what the use of the land will be. On reading your document regarding the criteria of what is deemed to be reasons to sell off open spaces it mentions level of use, community view of open space, levels of anti social behaviour etc. The open space in question is used by local children who do not cause any bother what so ever, also the space is popular with dog walkers and general leisure. Your notes regarding selling off the land mention it is proposed to sell off some of the open space and the remainder to be retained as open space, however if you look at the plan it seems as though there is not much space left for open space. Anyway please could you let me have the date of the drop in session for this area as i wish to attend.

If you wish to email me regarding any of the above or any other comment's or ideas please feel free to do so. •

I am writing to express my concern. It has come to my attention that the green area on Newbridge Road in St Annes has been given planning permission to have houses built on the area. Please can you confirm that this is correct. If this is correct I am thoroughly dissappointed in this news. 1, This was not given much advertising/notification and no opportunity to oppose such a decision. 2, This land is one of the few precious green spaces left. Please can you confirm this horrific news?

I am also shocked and upset that it is being proposed that St Annes Park be reduced and built into yet more housing on more green land. I also hear that the plan is to link it with nightingale valley. This idea is at best ridiculous and at worst dangerous. How can you have a park where young kids play divided by a main, busy road? Again more land will be built on causing more access and parking problems. I understand one of the reasons for this is to try and cut down on Anti - Social behaviour. From talking to the residence and from the experience of living in the area for 30 plus years and being a regular user of the park and responsible dog walker I can say in all confidence that everyone is at a loss to understand how building more houses and reducing green park space can assist in antisocial behaviour?

I understand that there are targets to build more housing however we are building on more and more precious green space. Soon there will be no green space or parks. This will be an absolute travesty. What do the planning department plan to do when this happens? Or are they not worried? Driving around bristol I know of a dozen sites that are concrete wastegrounds that could be used. I can see many houses boarded up that could be renovated. Why are these options not exhausted before buiding on green open spaces?

Money realy does need to be invested in finding alternative solutions to building on green land and space.. Bristol has come so far in the 10 years, however it saddens me the the council can not come up with a better solution to the housing crises and doesn't look at the concrete wastegrounds and boarded/uninhabited properties.

•

I wish to raise objections and comment on site allocation reference BSA1212 Brislington.

Myself and my fiance bought a house on Woodside Road just up the hill of Newbridge road adjacent to the open space you are considering development.

We are not the type of people to object to anything really, nor have we ever commented on a planning application or site allocation before. However, on this occasion we do feel quite strongly about it.

The corner of Newbridge road provides a green and open space between the housing adjacent and the industrial area that leads to Somerfield. The trees are beautiful especially in summer when they flower, the local children use to space to walk across, play games on and sit on the evening for some peace and quiet.

As first time buyers we were attracted to this quiet, victorian style residential area because it is an up and coming area and offers attractive victorian style properties. We didn't realise how much we valued to open space leading up the hill to our road until we heard there were plans to turn it into 19 dwellings.

I don't believe this is a suitable location for 9 dwellings and I am certain a developer will turn them into cheap, modern looking flats which will ruin the appearance of the area and encourage renters who come and go all the time to park, leave bins and rubbish and attract a younger crowd of individuals that come and go through various rental agreements and offer no value to the area.

In addition the area has wildlife, an owl which we have heard calling all summer and a large population of birds including the rare woodpecker which we have seen feeding adjacent to the river behind somerfield.

It will also block the view across the busy road junction there where people cut across from the Sainsburys, the business park, st george and st annes on a daily, bust basis and there have already been accidents at the blind junction there for people turning right. Flats or housing will only increase parking demand and the amount of people there suring busy periods.

In addition to this I am also aware that there are intentions to remove the park further along the hill towards Brooklea medical centre. This will be removing two open spaces in the area for the same reason. These areas are both used by residents for walking and enjoyment.

I appreciate that the council wishes to improve the area and add additional housing, but it needs to be in the correct locations and in the right style of property. Wh ot redevelop some of the industrial edges that require improvement?

Please don't take away the open space on Newbridge road, we really value it and it will put people off buying the houses in the area. The area is already on the up, but its for buyers that want a traditional style property likes the ones offered on all the Sands roads - Sand gate, sandown,sandy park road etc not new flats just stuck on the corner of a road!

Please provide some feedback of progress on this plan for the area. •

•

As a private homeowner living directly opposite the green open space I strongly object to any development of the green

It is regularly used by everybody in the area and would be sorely missed if it were to be lost

I think it is ridicules' to propose to build on green sites when there are so many commercial and industrial sites that are empty and run down

Surly they should be redeveloped first and not the green areas of our city that help to make it the lovely place it is today •

Please please select "Option B" and DO NOT allocate for development

The number of dwellings considered for this site is far too high. The site is an important

Open Space corridor between the Bath Road (a4) and Eastwood Farm Open Space site. The corridor is already used by walkers and in particular, dog walkers. Pathways could do with improving not removing.

The allotment site has never been more popular in the 20 or more years since I first had a plot. Moving them to another site makes no sense. It takes years to develop a plot, and in fact a whole site. Moving to another site may make the Council’s figure balance but it ignores the benefits of leaving the current site as it is. The pylons and overhead wires also makes this area difficult to develop for housing. ‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it’.

On a personal note - as a visually impaired person - moving to another allotment site becomes even more difficult - both from the point of view of access and redevelopment.

There may be a possibility of some new housing but nothing like the numbers considered. I have not addressed the issues of Schooling, Road infrastructure, Medical provision but all of these become major considerations and costs rise significantly once the numbers of new dwellings grows to an unsustainable level.

As a local resident and regular user of Victory park & am very concerned about the future plans for the development of this area. Whilst it is good to have improvements to the facilities at the park it would appear that there would be a heavy price to pay as I understand new housing development is planned in the adjacent Prosser's field where the current Oakenhill cottages stand.

Victory park & surrounding land was given to the people of Brislington by Joseph & Lillian Cooke-Hurle one of Bristol's large land owners to celebrate peace after the great war in 1918 to be used for recreational purposes forever. not be be used for house building projects.

Apart from adding to the already congested roads by more traffic due to building unnecessary homes in green space land, it would spoil the look of the area & make even less green space for our community to enjoy.

I would strongly urge you to re-consider this plan as there is growing protest from local residents opposed to this plan. •

I am a local resident who uses the above park everyday. I would like firstly to add my support to some of the proposed changes although I understand there are plans to reduce the green space around the park including the loss of allotments and the field at the back bordering the industrial estate? I can not support any such proposal. The whole park area is an excellent facility and addresses so many parts of the community. To loose any is short sighted and appears to be purely based on financial concerns. I understand how dire local government finances are but surely we do not have to resort to destroying the local community to plug the gaps of overspending?

On the same but in an attempt to offer some help, I was wondering if the Council had considered approaching the Army for help with some of the redevelopment. As the park was gifted to the local parish as a memorial to the First World War it may be that the local Royal Engineers unit based in Whiteladies Road could assist with some of the planned improvements, for example moving and re-instating the current memorial and the path nearby. •

I would like to take this opportunity to express our deep thoughts as local residence for 14 years, a family with 4 growing children. I see ourselves as a typical family trying to bring our children up to appreciate their surrounding and to have a balance active good childhood. We have seen many changes in Brislington. Most imposing to our lives is the increase traffic on local roads, the Bath road etc. We ourselves live off West Town lane. During our school walk we have faced impatient car drivers racing over the Zebra crossing with us on it. The traffic lights at LIDL’s too have proven dangerous. We strongly believe our roads are struggling as it is to cope with the present traffic levels never mind the increase that this development would cause. Our neighbourhood consists of homes ,shops etc, All our green spaces are really appreciated and well used. Victory Park is a beautiful space, deeply enhanced by the rich feel of the natural fields surrounding the park. These fields show the beauty and natural richness of rural Brislington in all seasons, are a real historical part of Brislington, something we are very proud of having. We feel this gem of unspoilt land acknowledges Brislingtons past. With our beautiful St.Lukes church near one of the entrances of the park. We have a real country community feel to the whole area. We believe the fields under threat should be conserved and enjoyed for what they are, a unique beautiful space; appreciated and enjoyed by many people not forgetting all the wildlife. We as a family enjoy seeing the diversity of nature there. From the flowers to birds of prey and unspoilt views of Bristol. On talking to owners on the adjacent allotments, Slow worms have been found too. I am sure there is plenty of wildlife that would suffer by building on this land. Such a rare jewel is so important; please help us to conserve it. I personally have found this area a great stress reliever somewhere to come and enjoy the peace and beauty, a place of thoughts and prayers. It also offers my children a chance to discover and respect nature, a place to roam and talk together. Having a teenager son talking is a great achievement. My son and I often walk together in the fields; children like adults enjoy the freedom and safety of this green place. My husband has recently received your wonderful booklets Walking Bristol. As we are very keen in walking and exploring on foot our wonderful city and surroundings. We love the fact that in many of the booklets pictures,it shows that we are proud of Bristol heritage and many buildings and areas of land have been sympathetically built, in keeping with the original feel and look of the past. Your booklets celebrate some of the beautiful spaces we have as a city . Please help us to keep our remaining historical open fields of victory Park, a place we celebrate and enjoy. I could go on forever but on a last note I would imagine all these proposed homes would have a big impact on all our local amenities schools, roads doctors etc. From talking to local residents who live near to the park, the outerfields help alleviate the flooding in neighbouring streets from heavy rain pour flooding the river that runs at the bottom of the park. I end this letter by saying our community celebrates this special greenspace, this area needs protection and conserving.

•

I have looked at the proposals for development of grazing land and cultivated land between Victory Park and Broomhill. I am very concerned by the proposals for the following reasons. 1. The existing infrastructure could not cope with a housing development of the size proposed. The local schools are operating at capacity. There is only one Post Office serving an area from Knowle to Broomhill. The next nearest Post Office is in St John's Lane. The sewers are old and handling much more than they were designed for. There is often flooding in low lying areas. Building over areas which currently absorb rainfall will add to this problem. Water supply will be affected because there will be greater demand. Traffic in Broomhill,and Sandy Park, particularly access to the Bath Road, will be even worse than it is at present. 2. The unspoilt fields are an important environmental asset. Victory Park alone is not sufficient to maintain biodiversity, support bird and insect life, and provide wild fruit and flowers for local residents to gather. Children need to roam in fields as well as play in organised areas. Dogs need to run, which they cannot do in playing fields. 3. The number of estate agents boards displayed in the area does not suggest a shortage of housing, and the industrial area between Broomhill and the Bath Road is never fully used. In fact, if you really have to build more houses, I think that some of the industrial estate could be re-developed for housing, with access direct to the Bath Road instead of through Broomhill, St Anne's, and Sandy Park.

•

I have read the proposal for the Broomhill road and Nursery end open space. We are very worried and concerned that this could go ahead. We live on this estate and for years we have considered ourselves very lucky to have this open space. It was a factor in us living here. Our children have been enjoying the space for years with their friends to play and run around, ride bikes and be able to enjoy the outdoors whilst being very safe. The fact that their is no structured play equipment is a huge benefit. It means they have lots of green area to use and they are away from the road, they can cycle and play football whilst still within a few steps from their front door. The residents all look out for eachothers children to ensure they are always safe. If this proposal goes ahead we will lose an extremely valuable asset to this area. It will become a hang out for older children and teenagers, it will be a magnet for graffiti and litter, we will have to endure noise and possibly alcohol and drug taking. The children who live here and use the space now will cease to do so and this will be very sad. You will be spending a lot of money on facilities we don't want or need. Why are you even considering taking a perfect play space for children, which costs nothing, and turning it into a space for possible trouble? When victory park was refurbished it was vandalised within days. We can not use the park as it's always frequented by children to old to be there. They refuse to get off the equipment so the young ones can use it, and it is constantly littered with beer bottles and cans. This is not a safe and enjoyable place for children whilst Broomhill road green space is already a safe, clean and enjoyable area to use. This proposal will also enevitably lower our house prices and make it a less desirable area to live. Please don't go ahead with this meaningless plan.

•

I am a resident of a house overlooking Broomhill Rd Green, and am extremely unhappy to hear about your proposal to put a playground area outside of our houses.

The green has always been a pretty area where residents enjoy the view from their houses and also an important area which all of our children have enjoyed playing on for many years in a safe environment. The children have played for many years enjoying learning to ride their first bike with a parent along the pathway, a game of football, or just enjoying running or relaxing on the grass. Many of us haven’t got grass in our back gardens and the children find the green an enjoyable place to play. I work at our local school and am always being commented on by parents how lucky we are to live on such as pretty and child friendly area.

By putting a park on the green would encourage youth to 'hang around' there on any evening causing noise to residents (as happens in our other local parks), the play equipment would become graffiti and the area littered (again we have all seen evidence of this in our local parks). Also it would totally take away our privacy as residents as basically our front doors open onto the green. I don’t think many people would appreciated a park in their front garden.

I have spend time talking to the children who are residents around the green and they also do not want their green changed into a park and have requested that the council "Save their green".

•

I am writing an email in protest at the housing and development plans being put forward for Victory Park, Brislington, Bristo, BS4

My family have used Victory Park from my grandmother through to my daughter and would be such a shame if such a lovely area for children and families to play in is taken away after almost 100 years

I look forward to hearing from you

•

I am writing with regards to the planned development on Victory Park, Brislington, Bristol, BS4

This has been used by myself and family for years for recreation. I object to the planned development as this area is a well used area for children, families, local football teams and the local school (Holymead)

I look forward to aresponse

•

I currently reside at 7 Hardwick Close, Brislington, BS4 4NL and am writing to express my surprise at the plans to build up to 926 new homes on the fields surrounding Victory Park. In my opinion this would be a tragedy if grated based on the following;

Fields have existed for probably hundreds of years and offer great a great environment for local people and visitors to enjoy. It is frequented by wildlife and in a age of greed surely we have to make a stand to protect what is the heart beat of Brislington. The area is enjoyed by joggers, dog walkers and children and must be kept as this is an area that gives all Brislington residents a better quality of life.. Brislington is already a nightmare to travel around and doers not have the infrastructure to cope with say well over a 100 cars if the proposed plans proceed. What thought has been given to the extra pollution? Also, do we have capacity to absorb new people into Drs surgeries and schools which are already stretched. Lots of the units on Bonville trading estate are empty, so why can't these be considered for development? Are there empty houses within Bristol that can be allocated rather than build low cost housing?

Please can you register this e-mail as my official communication that in respect of the plans (BSA1201) we really should take the Do Nothing option. •

I wish to object to proposals to develop housing or industrial units on the above mentioned site. Below are some points I wish to make in support of my objection.

I should like to challenge the length of time the consultation hasbeen advertised, and how the residents of Bristol have been consulted. I have lived in Brislington for 20 years and have heard only the merest of mentions with regard to what now appear to be quite far-reaching plans.

Brislington is, as you are no doubt already aware, extremely well-populated, an area of very heavy through traffic, constantly excavated by roadworks for various reasons, and it is at present an extremely difficult place to live for these and other reasons. Unfortunately, in the current economic climate, it is impossible for many of its inhabitants to move away. The traffic in the past has always induced sympathetic comments from those who live elsewhere, and the latest traffic arrangements have only made things worse at certain times of the day. The existing infrastructure including schools and medical facilities do not, I believe, have the capacity to cope with the number of houses proposed. Areas around schools are already dangerous for children trying to walk to school, roads are congested with the cars of parents who have no choice but to drop their children off to school by car on their way to work, and, having worked in one of them, I can see that the schools cannot accommodate many more children. It is already difficult for many people to access proper medical care promptly, and new developments can only worsen the situation.

Victory Park is one of the last vestiges of rural village life in Brislington. These fields are, as I know others have already pointed out to you, educationally and historically important to the community of Brislington and Bristol.In an area with few safely accessible, easily supervised areas where children can spend time in an environment containing wildlife, the park is one of the most important assets of the Brislington area. My family alone has regularly used the park for play, exercise and leisure, such as football and kite-flying, and many more people have been grateful for its presence for its peace and quiet in an already extremely busy area.

Please do not make Brislington an even more difficult place in which to live and to bring up a family. Many people are angry and anxious that an already very busy area has been earmarked for developments that will be detrimental to the quality of life here, one that is already severely affected principally by heavy traffic. •

I think the Council should think very carefully before taking away our open spaces in and around Bristol. These open spaces are very important for the people who live in Bristol and also for wild life.

I regularly walk in the fields around Victory Park with my dog and have been for several years. I feel it is very important for wildlife and have seen lots of different butterflies, wild flowers and plants and birds in this area. Lots of other people use and enjoy this area too. There already seems to be more than enough housing in this area and I would not have thought the infrastructure would allow for more. When you see the amount of traffic when pupils leave school and college around Brislington, it is bad enough already. Apart from that I would not have thought the schools and colleges could cope with anymore pupils anyway. Also floods should be considered, you can see what has happened in Gloucester with over building on flood plains. 926 dwellings sounds a lot of housing and I am totally against it. Please consider peoples' views before taking these actions. Once the green space has gone, it has gone for ever and so has the wildlife that depends upon it. We need wildlife to actually live - think carefully.

•

I wish to object to proposals to develop housing or industrial units on the Victory Park area in Brislington. there are some points I wish to make to support my objection. Some children will be forced to find somewhere different to be educated and have medical treatment, because the schools already here are full up with pupils and there would not be enough staff at the surgeries even if they employed more people. This would also apply to adults and teens in trying to find a job, because there are already enough people struggling to find jobs at the moment and if they do get a job, they get little wages and find it hard to live on. Also, during the building of the houses and after the period of people moving in, There will be more traffic then there already is. All the people and machinery will block up the roads leaving long queue's for people to wait in. If I take the car to get to school quickly, it would be very slow and not easy at all, leaving me late and having to face the consequence for it. I used to attend the school Holymead Junior school, And as well as many other schools in this area, They use the open space for things like sports days and for fun days out. If the area was to be built on, there would be nowhere for them to go and the children will have to travel to an are much further away. There are hundreds of empty dwellings in Bristol and they should be developed first seeing as they are unused. As the fields are on a steep hill, there would be a potential for increased flood risk to the areas of School Rd and Bath Rd if they were developed. This is also one of the last remaining sites of rural village life in Brislington, meaning they are historically important to Brislington and Bristol and are educational too. This is a much appreciated place of beauty, And the trees and shrubbery are homes to many birds and mammals, many of my experiences there have lead to me looking at all beautiful surroundings of Bristol. Most of my times being there, I have seen many horses around the fields, the children that go there enjoy petting them and watching them run about. If this sight was to be built on the horses homes would be destroyed and they would be forced to move to another home leaving them uneasy seeing as it is a new environment. Since they spent most of there life there it would be hard to move somewhere new. The location of the place is a miracle and it is a good place to escape the stress of our congested roads and our busy lifestyles. Me myself have taken many a people up there and they all said how much they wish they had it near them, and have enjoyed playing and having lunch up there. At the countries concern of obesity at the moment, it is a good place for joggers, cyclists, dog walkers and children to play there. I have done all of these activities there and thoroughly enjoyed it. Being a parish recreation ground, It is a nice place to take a walk after mass at St Luke's.

•

I wish to object to proposals to develop housing or industrial units on the above mentioned site. I have ticked overleaf some additional points I wish to make in support of my objection.

Brislington is already a very heavily populated and congested area, more housing and development will only add to that. At the moment the A4 Bath Road through Brislington is at a standstill during most parts of the day, NO MORE TRAFFIC IS NEEDED!

The fields around Victory Park are an oasis in a very busy area; please leave them for future generations to enjoy. It’s an area of old Brislington that needs to be preserved not developed. Many people use this countryside for recreation and walking purposes, it should be left as a green space for local people. There is lots of wildlife to discover and many old trees and hedges that provide homes for birds and mammals.

Please listen to the views of local people as they know the area better that anyone else, do not take away any more green space for over development. Once it is taken it will be lost forever. We owe it to future generations to preserve these green spaces in our city.

•

I wish to object to proposals to develop housing or industrial units on the above site. I am a retired environmental scientist now engaged in voluntary work for the Hawk and Owl Trust .I have lived in Wick Road ,Brislington for 37 years and during this time have walked through these fields or birdwatched in them many times. I understand the pressures on the council to encourage additional housing development, though I cannot see the need for additional industrial units when so many lie empty around the city. One reason why Bristol is an attractive city in which to live is the number of green spaces within it and the corridors they form. The fields involved in the proposal, though not at first sight remarkable, play their part in promoting the biodiversity of the city both in their own right and by helping conduct wildlife deeper into the suburban/urban environment, linking or almost linking with Eastwood Farm,Nightingale Valley, The Beeches and Ironmould Lane. To retain only the core area of Victory Park plus a nominal "wildlife corridor" (Perhaps only really a green footpath) would ,in my opinion, inevitably reduce the biodiversity of the area and the degree of contact with nature that local residents have. For instance, I often get buzzards soaring above my garden and in a harsh winter fieldfares and redwings in it. Both these examples become less likely with the loss of these fields. Other local residents tell me that barn owls, kestrels and peregrines have been seen over the area. This year kestrels ( An "Amber listed" species that the BTO report has declined by 36% between 2008 and 2009) bred successfully at Ironmould Lane, one kilometre away from the fields. Peregrine falcons bred successfully this year one kilometre away in the Hanham Gorge ( A site that is kept "low Key" to prevent disturbance) where I helped naturalist and broadcaster Ed Drewitt ring four young. I have seen a barn owl cross the A4 at Hicks Gate in recent years so it is likely that all three of these species use the area at times. Many of the fields in question have a coarse grass sward that would be suitable habitat for short-tailed field vole, the main prey species of barn owl and kestrel. In short , the loss of these fields would inevitably reduce the biodiversity of the area and diminish the chances of some vulnerable species surviving on the urban fringe.

•

With relation to the above proposed development can you please advise as to the survey completed on the area of land that is outlined for new housing.

We ask this question as local residents have advised that there is an air raid shelter that is not completely filled directly underneath the area of land for the new development.

Can you advise by return as we feel this along with other historical information regarding St Annes Park may have a bearing on the new development.

• after reading an article in Bristol's Evening Post about a proposed sell off of st'annes park for redevelopment and another 62 public open spaces in Bristol...... please forward the other proposed 62 sites for re-development?. I live in withywood,i have already seen two small green areas very close to me sold off and are currently being built on.The frustrating thing is i couldn't do a thing about it to stop it!. What can i do to oppose our public open spaces being sold off?. We are being boxed in like sardines....we need open space and so do (more importantly) the wildlife regardless of how small an open space is.

• thanks for any info and help you can give.

•

With relation to the above proposed development can you please advise as to the survey completed on the area of land that is outlined for new housing.

We ask this question as local residents have advised that there is an air raid shelter that is not completely filled directly underneath the area of land for the new development.

Can you advise by return as we feel this along with other historical information regarding St Annes Park may have a bearing on the new development. •

I am writing to you to express my views regarding the proposal for the re-development of St Anne’s Park in Langton Road, Bristol. I believe there was a residents meeting earlier this week, however, I was not aware of any plans and only discovered this yesterday. I have also spoken to my neighbours who again were not aware of any proposed plans.

I have lived in this area for over 30 years and currently live in Savoy Road, which is just a 2 minute stroll from the park. Both my family and I feel very strongly against any re-development in this area. After viewing the proposed plans, it is clear that the funding for the “improved” park would be generated from the housing development. However, please take into consideration the knock-on-effect of yet another housing development. Apart from the fact that the proposed housing site backs onto peoples homes, you then have parking problems, extra volume of traffic, access problems etc. This housing development would take away a large part of St Anne’s Park and I cannot see how this would benefit any of the residents in St.Annes/Brislington.

I understand that you are looking to develop the other side of the Park, which is currently called Nightingale Valley. However, I cannot see how you will be able to link both of the Parks together as Newbridge Road divides both sites. This is an extremely busy road and also quite dangerous, currently there are railings enclosing Nightingale Valley, and they are frequently broken due to yet another vehicle hitting them. In my opinion it would be really dangerous to even consider linking these 2 sites.

I appreciate that the Council is trying to improve the sites, but at the expense of “another housing development in the area”. The harsh reality is that if this is approved then the housing will be erected first, no doubt this will go over budget and that the park will have a paltry budget. Recently Arnos Vale Park was re-vamped, however it would appear that the funds were limited and the facilities for the children is disappointing.

Whilst I appreciate that the Council are looking to build on existing parks, I would urge that St Anne’s park is not considered for re-development. It is a lovely park that I used as a child, I now go daily with my own young son. It is a popular park for young children and their parents and also by the local dog owners. To erect a housing development in the middle of this park would be a complete eye sore and would not be welcomed by any of the local residents.

A very unhappy tax-payer.

•

Further to my previous email there are somes additional points I would like to add. Firstly, one of the infant/junior local schools (St Annes - Langton Road) is already over-subscribed. Therefore if the housing site proposal does go ahead this will make the situation worse. There is another school (St Annes Park) which is located the other side of Nightingale Valley, however, most parents would not want their child to attend this school.

On your web site it lists anti-social behaviour as one of the reasons for linking the 2 parks. However, all the local people I have spoken to are concerned that extra housing will create anti-social behaviour. I have lived in this area for over 30 years and to my knowledge all anti-social behaviour has been created by residents of Council estates and housing association areas and have not taken place in Langton Road Park.

I appreciate that looking at a map it would indicate that BS4 has more green space area than other postcodes in Bristol. However, a great deal of this is taken up by Arnos Vale, most of which is a cemetary.

I personally would rather pay a bit extra in Council tax each year, rather than lose some of the lovely area in BS4. It feels as if any bit of space is being built on, how very sad for the next generation. •

I note with interest that you're planning to upgrade St Anne's park. A few years ago I was part of a group called The Source, Bristol Springs and Wells group. We spent a lot of time, energy and money improving the area around the historic St Anne's Well. We even commissioned two local artists who produced a beautiful carved statue depicting St Anne, plus a series of carved stepping stones. We removed the wishing well structure, built up the remaining walls, put in a metal grille and planted the area with various shrubs and herbs. There is a photographic archive of the process. The whole renovation was trashed by local "yobs", the plants were stolen on the first day and the main sculpture which really did weigh over a ton was disfigured and then knocked over.

Good luck!

•

It has been raised in discussion that the above land (BSA 1209) was granted to the council, I would like to discuss the content of this document, as I feel this may have a material impact on the proposals.

St Annes Wood has been neglected for years in spite of my constant complaints. Concerning Langton Park: Do you call dumping houses in what is already a small park an improvement. How, I ask myself or even you, did Barton Hill get all of its funding. We pay hellish council tax out of which you pay yourselves pretty well from what I hear. And then there is the 30,000,000 plot at temple meads sitting waiting for what? I'm just a cynic

I would like permission to publish one or two illustrations contained in the online document dealing with St Anne's Park (http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=34425242).

My primarly interest is the illustration dealing with the 'amphitheatre' design around St Anne's Well (page 18), but this would be complemented by the map of the site, showing the location of this proposed structure (page 17).

With your permission I would like to publish either or both or these online and or in printed media. I could take the images directly from the .pdf document online, although I would appreciate higher resolution images for print, if available.

In view of the deadline for this phase of the public consultation, I would appreciate an early response. • o the site, would like to appeal against the decisionI have livedto change in Hill the Lawn use forof 12the yearswoodland and entrance as a nearby at the resident bottom oft the road.

Here are my concerns and thoughts…

: badgers and bats can be seen on this site after dusk and there is an established badgers set very Wildlife nearby, just behind the existing fence. Removing the existing fencing (which has been replaced and is good condition incidentally) and changing the entrance layout would cause significant damage to the wildlife. There is also a brook very nearby.

: the nearby residents have been battling with anti-social behaviour Anti-social behaviour/police resources on this site in recent times. We have experienced all sorts of problems from vandalism to a garden wall, trespassing onto private property, damage to cars, street/underage drinking, noise late at night, and graffiti/vandalism to the dog waste bin and the nearby bus shelter. Some of the graffiti has been extremely offensive language. Much of this goes unreported and the residents try to keep the area tidy by picking up the litter and drink cans/bottles. In more recent times the area has become much improved and people like to walk their dogs there. Unfortunately, although a kickabout area seems a nice idea in an ideal world, in reality we residents know that it would attract the anti-social behaviour again (particularly after dark) and our quality of life would of course be affected by this.

ThereExisting are already facilities several large parks and play areas within a short walk of the site. This small area has pleasant mature trees, runs alongside 2 roads, 1 of which is very busy, and really isn’t suitable for ball games. Several nearby parks offer good spacious play facilities, safety away from busy roads and are far enough from private dwellings so as not to be a noise nuisance.

ISafety would strongly suggest that the area is not safe for play and ball games as it is very small and adjoins 2 busy roads.

ThereNoise are lots of homes very close to this site and creating a play/kickabout area would cause a noise nuisance.

TheCost proposed changes would be costly to the taxpayer and the council.

AtSuitability present , the of site the looks site attractive, and it’sis in existing keeping with use an entrance to a wildlife area and provides a small, pleasant, quiet area of green space for local people, dog walkers and visitors to enjoy. Badgers, bats and birds and frogs are often seen in the area. The existing fences are in excellent condition and the trees have just been pruned. There are many parks and play areas with equipment very nearby which are far more suitable for play so we would please ask you to keep the area as it is.

Thank you for taking our comments into consideration. •

Please find attached an image shot over 1 hour of the supposed "Low Quality" ( Council words) land in St. Anne's Park which you are proposing to sell. I set my camera up anonymously, and took a pic every ten seconds for an hour. No-one knew I was doing this, so I cannot be accused of engineering the presence of people. The 360 pics are amalgamated here. This shows you the level of use the are of park which you have designated "Low Quality". As you can see, it is heavily used. This picture has been sent to all media outlets in Bristol. We feel it shows the council have been remiss in their research and consultation processes, and how you have your 'facts' totally wrong. Residents also have definitive information from the police ( through a FOI request) that shows the total lack of ASB issues ( the other main reason cited by the council after their opaque 'consultation') in the park. The police themselves state that there are NO anti social behaviour issues in St. Anne's Park. That info has also been passed to local media.

The points raised in the above message are significant, I urge you not to ignore them.

I would appreciate your acknowledgment of the receipt of this message, thanks.

• Site Ref BSA 1209 (St Anne’s Park)

I am disappointed to hear the above site is being considered for housing, I have 2 young children who love the above site and use it on a regular basis as do many other children, walkers etc, and to say that it is not being used, is incorrect. By building this housing it will increase traffic, cause parking issues and also increase pressure on the local schools.

There are others where this housing could be built such as follows: BSA 1202, BSA 1207 & BSA 1210, as well as others which are currently unused/derelict and could do with such a development.

I look forward to your comments and please keep me updated with developments.

•

This is my 3rd email and I have also written to the Council but feel I have to write again having now had the opportunity to read the very detailed (A3 expensive full colour bound booklets) that was sent to a neighbour I am dismayed to read that you base the housing and proposed development (if you have sufficient funds) of St Annes Park on a number of points but importantly the 4 listed below;

Football Changing Rooms/ Building

This is noted in your detailed plans as being disused (Page 16 Ideas and Options Paper) – I have been informed by the Council that it was condemned some years ago but this was overruled and the local football club has a lease to play on the pitch and utilise the changing rooms. Although they are not pleasing on the eye the local football club have spent approx £2,000 of their own money to renovate the interior of the building including installing a new boiler and heating system, decoration and installing new showers and toilets. Will there be a new changing room built in the proposed plans or is this just another building that the Council have wrongly deemed as unused that will be demolished even though it has a purpose to the community and the park. Surely this must be taken into consideration in particular if your ‘research’ has the building as disused as this is clearly not the case as the football club actual ‘pay’ the council rent for it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anti Social Behaviour

Having spoken to the police and been advised in writing that there have been 3 anti social behaviour incidents in the past 4 years at St Annes Park I find it hard to comprehend how developing a row of houses to (Page 27 Ideas and Options Paper – It is proposed to dispose of a small part of St Annes Park in order to introduce more natural surveillance to the site. The aim is to use small scale development to improve perceptions of safety and curb anti-social behaviour). Can you advise what this was based on bearing in mind the level of anti social behaviour is negligible.

Existing Playground

The playground is located centrally in St Annes Park and for safety reasons this is a great idea as any children managing to slip the eye of parents can not come to much harm and not close to any main roads. The Park being relocated to the Newbridge Road/Wick Road side of the Park which drops onto a very busy road including a blind corner would not be a fantastic idea surely in terms of childrens safety? Has this been considered? Also not only the relocation is wrong but the Playground does not wholly belong to the Council as it was built with monies from local donations and a charity, legally can you destroy this playground? Surely the Council would not want to be seen to be wasting money after only 4 years since spending an additional £60,000 of taxpayers money on extending the playground and on the fencing/gates?

‘DISUSED’ Tennis Courts

Page 16 Ideas and Options Paper – Notes the Tennis Courts as ‘disused’ they are NOT disused they have been left to rot by the Council who have not maintained them – they are very much still used by local children and adults for ball games even the state that they are in does not deter them being ‘well used’ by many residents and mere improvement of them surface and fencing would enable their continued use with not much investment by the Council. Time and effort is what has been overlooked by the Council in the upkeep of this Park and its facilities.

Overall the ‘grandiose’ plans to make St Annes Park more attractive and to reinstate character are NOT required by the local residents if it comes at the cost of losing part of the park to housing, you state over and over that you cannot guarantee that all of these ‘nice’ developments following the housing may not be possible, this is in the small print and is misleading local residents.

The introduction of a ‘café’ would be ‘nice’ but how ‘nice’ would it be when it is only used for 6 months of the year, April through to September, which is when the park is most used and even then how can you guarantee it will survive in a recession and will not just become another building that you class as ‘disused’ in a few years and we are left with yet another un maintained area of the Park.

The paper lists many ‘brownfield’ sites that would be better suited and would benefit from housing and new green space/play areas – these should be considered first and foremost over ANY green space within our City. What we need is MORE green space not less. Bristol City Council promotes the protection of trees and apparently we do not have enough, yes you plan to plant some more in the park but will you have the money and when you took away some 10 trees on the far side of the park you never replanted them – why should we believe you will plant new ones now. With the proposed housing you plan to destroy some 40 year old trees and not just one or two but 12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am a member of the St Annes Residents Action Group and we plan to present a petition and supporting documents (including findings from the FOI Act) to the Council from which I hope you will respond in a fitting manner and discuss other possible locations for housing that are not green spaces. It is clear that in your Ideas and Options Paper you have listed factors that have been considered in the assessments, namely; level of use, level of anti social behaviour, accessibility, nature conservation etc. I have alone in this one email demonstrated that your research and subsequent consideration of these factors has NOT been correctly used in your argument for developing St Annes Park.

I await further information following your deliberations and hope for a favourable outcome for St Annes Park.

•

I am emailing you with reference to the threat of development to the fields at the back of Victory Park and the allotments. To even consider using this site for housing is a mistake. Given the lie of the land, this is a green space that can be seen from various positions around the area including at the top of Allison Road and Talbot Road. Looking around from these areas give you the feeling that whilst in a city, you are not far from open space and wildlife. I know for a fact that the wildlife in the fields is abundant. There are fox's, probably badgers and i have heard an owl or two in the past. The birds are numerous. The Green and Lesser spotted Woodpecker are both in residence and from time to time, there is a Buzzard and Kestrel. Small birds, the Tits and sparrows are around the hedgerows plus others. Also, this year i have noticed increased numbers of Gold Finches not only in the hedge rows but darting from wire to wire in the streets. I have no real wildlife knowledge only that i have learnt over the years but the Fauna and Flora to me is just as important as any other thing on this planet as is the green space. We need this kind of space for our Environment. Today the Environment is top of most people's agenda. Why are we trying to re-cycle and do our bit? Why are we worried about global warming? To make this green area bricks and concrete would be a travesty.

•

I am writing to express my concerns on the sale of parkland and allotments at Allison Avenue Site reference BSA1206.

This piece of parkland is regularly used by all the young children who are not old enough to go down to Nightingale valley or Victory Park on their own and are able to play in safety near their their own homes. This is also used by the elderly for exercising their dogs. I would also like to point out that there is a badger set on the banks of the valley and they use this as part of their feeding ground and also there is a colony of bats that also use this. I believe that this land should remain under its present use and that the allotment site should be returned to allotment plots or rented out again for grazing as it has been in the past as i know several people have enquired about this.

I would also like to add that when the Latimer Close Site was purposed myself and the police requested six feet fence with two foot of trellis on the top the entire length of the boundary and that no access be allowed through to Allison Avenue, this was then part of the conditions of the build. If you allow a road to be put through and leave us access to the valley that would then give them access to Allison Avenue.

There is already 119 dwellings being built in Latimer Close, taking our green and building more dwellings is one step to far. We want to keep this piece of land for community use as it has been in the past.

I will do all i can to appose this proposal.

I will look forward to your reply. •

If a group of people want to make a co-ordinated response to the Area Green Space Plan, for example, all the residents living around a particular green space what would be the best way for them to make their feedback so that it was recognised as coming from a significant group of people? Would it be sufficient to email the response with details of the numbers of people represented?

•

What publicity are Parks doing to encourage people to read the Area Green Space Plan and come to the consultations?

I am a member of the St George Neighbourhood Partnership and I have suggested that we put out posters looking something like the attached draft in each of St George’s green spaces that are mentioned in the AGSP but if you have your own plans for this then it would not be sensible for us to to duplicate your efforts.

•

I'll look forward to seeing the poster and if you send some over I can arrange to put them up at a minimum in the Dundridge Playing Field, Troopers Hill Field and St George Park noticeboards. Let me know if you are not doing the rest of the green spaces in St George and I will see what I can sort out there.

I have access to a supply of the flyers, thanks but will be in touch if we run out.

We will display our own individual green space specific posters in the actual green spaces to grab people's attention. I have checked with our Area Parks Manager, Jamie Roberts, and he is comfortable with the idea. I will also be sorting out St George specific ones similar to the one attached for display in legal places, such as friendly shops.

Subject to getting enough volunteers we would also like to do leaflet drops to houses near the green spaces. Any chance of Parks letting us come in to use their photocopier to print a black and white leaflet on coloured paper of something like the attached? and using your guillotine if you have one? •

I have found a volunteer who is happy to do leafletting for Dundridge Playing Fields. Please could 70 A4 copies, on coloured paper, preferably green, be made of the attached document?

•

> It was said at the BPF that groups could have copies of the value > assessments of 'low value' sites if they requested them. > > Could you send us say two or three as examples so that we can easier answer questions we get as to how the criteria were applied? •

We are intending to hold a Friends of Eastwood Farm committee meeting next week to discuss the AGSP ideas & options for Eastwood Farm. Is there any chance that you could either get me a copy of the AGSP for Brislington or at least some A3 prints of the Eastwood Farm pages?

I am coming to Colston 33 on Monday evening to meet Peter Watts to talk about events, so if you could get them to him he could pass them on.

The meadow outlined in turquoise, to the right of the main drive, is now probably the best 'meadow' on site. This is the one designated as a proposed picnic area in the AGSP. The small meadow outlined in orange (just above it) is also species rich. The premier meadow, near Beese's Tea Gardens, cited on the (now defunct) sign as "the best example of a wildflower meadow", could be re-instated with some serious TH type work. This is outlined in yellow, with another, as it was 'missed' by the contractor yet again this year. •

We have tried to use the online feedback questionnaire but when submitting it there was an error message - I am therefore emailing you our feedback.

All green spaces We agree with the principle of investing in Bristol’s green spaces to make them more inviting places to visit and to encourage greater use.

We are however concerned about the funding especially if this requires areas, however small, to be sold off for development and lost as open space. This is totally unacceptable as these valuable open spaces should be kept in their entireties. This may mean that alternative funding methods have to be found or improvements scaled back / time scales for delivery extended. We believe that this is a much better approach to selling off parts of these much valued local assets.

Perhaps local fundraising / sponsorship can be organised to provide funds such as sponsoring a tree / bench / cobble stone etc could be set up similar to initiatives at Clevedon Pier etc. Not only would this raise money but increase local ownership in any improvements etc.

We do however support the development of community facilities. For example café’s, sports pavilions etc that provide a meeting places / useful facilities linked to other activities in the green spaces. We would like any new structures to be built of sustainable, local materials and to be of low or zero environmental impact in terms of their ongoing use.

Finally with the spread of sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) in the South West which is resulting in the loss of a great number of trees we do not believe that any felling of healthy trees should take place in any part of the city.

St Anne’s Park

As mentioned above the proposal to sell off a slice of the park for the development of a row of housing is not acceptable as would the loss of any of the existing trees.

The proposal make no mention of the football pitch which is used by local clubs during the season, surely such activities should have been identified and their future protected.

We fully support the proposals to introduce a café and provide facilities for teenagers. As we do the proposals to better link the Park with the Wood and the bigger scheme to provide connections between all the nearby open spaces.

St Anne’s Wood

Our house is next to St Anne’s Wood and we enjoy views across the open space. These views are only partly obscured during about 5 months in the summer when the trees and bushes all have foliage.

Despite being only a mile and a half from the city centre being next to St Anne’s Wood makes it feel that we are living out in the countryside and we fully support proposals to encourage more people to experience what we are lucky enough to live next to and enjoy everyday.

We agree that making more of a feature of the historic St Anne’s Well would be a good improvement and depending on how this is dealt with could create a feature that encourages people from further a field to visit St Anne’s Wood.

We are however deeply concerned about a number of the proposals: -

1. The clearing of undergrowth and disturbance to habitats would have a detrimental affect on the huge variety of wildlife to be found in the wood including, Jays, Robins, Sparrows, various Tits, Magpies, Squirrels, Bats, Shrews and Deer. 2. We are not sure what benefit the viewing areas will bring and who would use them. Our fear is that they may become gathering points for those wishing to indulge in anti social behaviour.

3. One of the viewing areas appears to be next to our property. What will be done to ensure our privacy and security and prevent trespass. Nightingale Close is a private drive and the wall and railings between the drive and St Anne’s Wood belong to 3 houses in Nightingale Close. We would not want anything done that would increase trespass down the drive or cause interference with the wall / railings / fence.

4. Improved access may make it easier for antisocial behaviour already we have had cars and motorbikes brought into the wood and set on fire. There have also been a number of occasions when other fires have been lit in the wood which have the potential to spread and cause damage to neighbouring properties.

5. What proposals are there to improve security especially if new structures are built which could be vandalised? Currently other than the fire, vandalism is not an issue as there is very little that can be vandalised!

6. Any felling of trees / bushes could affect the stability of the bank and lead to erosion / subsidence.

7. As the Council has found it impossible to even maintain their railings around the perimeter of the wood in recent years. If improvements are made which by their very nature means that more maintenance is required how can we be sure that this will be done and Council will have the resources to do this especially if the economic environment remains tough?

Please will you include this feedback in the consultation process and keep us updated with regard to how the proposals develop.

•

SITE REFERENCE: BSA1201 SITE ADDRESS: Land at Broom Hill NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTNERSHIP AREA: NP12 BRISLINGTON

Dear Sir

I wish to object to proposals to develop housing or industrial units on the above mentioned site

There are hundreds of empty dwellings in Bristol and these should be developed first, followed by Brown Field Sites, both before green fields

The existing infrastructure such as schools, doctors does not have the capacity to cope with even half the number of houses proposed.

As the fields are on a steep hill there would be potential for increased flood risk to areas of School Rd and Bath Rd if the fields are developed. Brook in particular is at risk This is one of the last remains of rural village life in Brislington. These fields are not only educational for all but historically important to the community of Brislington and Bristol.

This is a beautiful and much appreciated space of natural beauty. Abundant with wild life, such as wild flowers and tall grasses for insect life, ancient hedgerows and trees providing homes and food for bird life and mammals.

The location of this space so close to the major roads is a marvel. It offers people a place to escape the stress caused by our congested roads and busy lifestyles. We need these fields for their untouched beauty and for our children and children’s children to enjoy.

•

Thank you for acknowledging the email that I sent to you quite some time ago. I have completed the questionnaire for St Anne's park, but couldn't see a space just for general remarks. As stated previously, although I don't live in Brislington, a few years ago i was involved in a project to renovate the historic St Anne's well. (As part of the Bristol Springs & Wells Group.) Although we did involve members of local community, they could not keep a 24/7 watch on the site and it was trashed almost immediately. You might wonder who would have nothing better to do than destroy a sacred well (?)

Unfortunately, the suggested new design looks very uninspiring, with nothing to suggest the historic value of the site or the well. But I can understand why you have decided to keep it simple!

Good luck with the project, I hope that the people of Brislington will enjoy and value the improvements this time around.

SITE REFERENCE: BSA1201 SITE ADDRESS: Land at Broom Hill NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTNERSHIP AREA: NP12 BRISLINGTON

Dear Sirs

I wish to object to proposals to develop housing or industrial units on the above mentioned site. I have ticked overleaf some additional points I wish to make in support of my objection.

1.Both my wife and I have used this area to walk our dogs over the last 10yrs. 2. My wife used these fields to walk to Brislington school in the 1960’s and they are still used by school children to get to school 3. When horses were kept where the chalet allotments are now the children of the area would feed and ride them. 4.With the loss of the some of the old Imperial sports ground to housing and the redevelopment of the Manor Farm sports ground, Brislington has already lost amenities for local people 5.Over the last 30years both Brislington and Broomhill have lost a number of playing fields such as Hungerford road,(Now Grace Park), the old Co-op fields (Regency Park Broomhill), playing fields near to Tesco’s (Homemead). Sainsbury’s was also built on the old Tramways playing fields. SITE REFERENCE: BSA1201 SITE ADDRESS: Land at Broom Hill NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTNERSHIP AREA: NP12 BRISLINGTON

Dear Sirs

I wish to object to proposals to develop housing or industrial units on the above mentioned site. I have ticked overleaf some additional points I wish to make in support of my objection.

The fields around Victory Park are an oasis in a very busy area; please leave them for future generations to enjoy. It’ s an area of old Brislington that needs to be preserved not developed. Many people use this countryside for recreation and walking purposes, it should be left as a green space for local people. There is lots of wildlife to discover and many old trees and hedges that provide homes for birds and mammals.

•

I am writing to register my objection to the proposed disposal of this green site and, in particular, the allotments on School Road.

I am the Activities Co-ordinator for a care home on Bath Road, Brislington that cares for 10 adults with learning difficulties. One of the most important and popular activities to our residents is the work they carry out on their allotment on School Road.

We feel very fortunate to have this piece of land and the residents have put in a huge amount of time and effor into making it thoroughly productive and successful. The work they do is very rewarding and it has been a valuable form of exercise too.

If they were to lose the allotment it would be particularly heart breaking as they have had to endure the Bush RAC (Fosseway Road, Hengrove) being closed down and also the down scaling of the facilities at Marksbury Road College which has meant they can no longer go there.

I feel that the disposal of this land will have a huge effect on local residents well being and any development on the land will put an intolerable strain on local resources. I fully understand that new housing must be built but surely not by filling in the green spaces, we must surely look to expand the outskirts of the city where there is space or look to develop brown field sites.

• please note that this feedback has been supplied on your online questionnaire – as the questionnaire does not appear to provide any acknowledgement I feel that it is necessary to provide this feedback by e-mail also. Please confirm the receipt and submission of this information in respect to the consultation process. Thanks ……………………you have previously provided me with a freedom of information request in relation to the consultation offered in regards to the proposals for St Annes Park.

On receipt of your FOI, I can see that, whilst some local groups have been asked opinions about the usage of the park, only on one occasion have you ever asked about the extent of the alleged ‘anti social behaviour’ – no one has ever been asked to comment to whether building houses in the park on the basis of surveillance is a balanced idea or would make park users feel safer.

Looking at your FOI response:

On 15 December 2008 at a workshop for St Annes Park you specifically ask the question “How is crime and ASB here – a problem or not” - Item 8 records that participants stated “better security wanted when the council leave the site (locking the bollard) plus antivandal seating needed” – nothing more!

Item 12 is held on the 3/3/2008 and is from a Park Managers meeting (a council meeting behind closed doors), where they state there is 41 calls of ASB for St Annes Park involving majority ‘vehicle nuisance, rowdy noisy behaviour, concern for safety (it does not say if these were police calls or where this information has come from)

Item 11 is from 3/3/2009 the police meeting states in respect of St Annes Park “still a few problems” but does not identify what these might be – clearly if there was an issue in 2008 this is not the case 9 months year later.

I have also received a freedom of information request from the police – they were unable to tell me the reasons for each police call. The information provided shows that in the past the number of calls in relation to the park was much higher, which would suggest that the park had plenty of surveillance! – since 2008 the community invested in the play area and so the park is now better used – the council also lock the bollards stopping vehicles entering the park, simple measures that I believe have help reduced incidents. Note there were only 7 incidents in 2009 and 6 in 2010 – hardly a park with a major ASB issues in need of added surveillance! The police have also stated “I can confirm however that our records show that neither location has been subject to any problems which have required intervention recently and at no point has either location required a full problem solving process to be introduced.”

Either way this does not explain the need for you to build houses. As a park user I decided to gather my own data. These were distributed to residents who live on the park, park users and parents at the local school.

You will have a copy of these surveys – these were submitted as part of the extensive information provided by Amanda King in relation to St Annes Park – but I attach them for your information

From those local residents who live on the park and have responded to the survey (29), you will see that they are in their homes for a significant part of the week. They see and hear things that are going on in the park, not all the time, but a significant amount of the time. Importantly for park users, a significant number of home owner take responsibility for taking action when issues are identified. Your options paper is inaccurate – these houses do not offer limited surveillance – they offer lots of surveillance - you have just never bothered to ask! The 105 park users responses are even clearer. The results show category that the park is well used, for all sorts of reasons – at all times of the days, alone and in groups. 89.5% park uses believe that the current houses provide adequate or lots of surveillance, 95% users believe that the other park users provide adequate or lots of surveillance and 98% think building houses is a ‘not a reasonable proposal’ – is not necessary. Again your options paper is inaccurate - this will not offer extra ‘natural surveillance’ nor will it make park users feel safer – you just have never bothered to ask!

Note on the survey results that 50% of responses think that the houses will not make the park any safer – and 48% say “less safe” – consider the impact of adding traffic!

The people of St Annes love their park and would have happily engaged positively with the council in regards to your consultation, instead we have spent resources and time showing and evidencing our disappointment in this housing proposal – you can talk to the entire community and not find a single park user who supports such action.

We want investment and not the lovely peaceful nature of the park destroyed by this silly idea. Once you have decided to drop this idea, perhaps you can then engage the community in meaningful consultation in relation to positive ideas for the parks in the area.

•

If your proposals for the opening of an access point at Talbot Road are implemented, the Area will cease to function as a Nature Reserve. From the beginning it was always intended to be a refuge and corridor for the local wildlife which was being deprived of much of its habitat by building in the area. Access by humans was always to be a secondary consideration and it was recognized that too easy access would result in disturbance of the resident wildlife. There is access for those whose interest is the wildlife, and these people take the trouble to use the present access points and do not mind making the effort. Any access from Talbot Road will result in the disturbance of wildlife by the passage of those who are not particularly interested in the wildlife, only in taking a short cut through to Callington Road or for recreation. Dog walking is pretty well restricted to the Callington Road end of the reserve because of the lack of paths. Any increase in the area of dog walking would probably clear most of the wildlife out, particularly the foxes and deer.We already get motor scooters illegally using the cycle path, I'm sure they would love to go through the reserve and it would be difficult to provide disabled access and still keep motor scooters and motor bikes out. The route would be an obvious short cut to Tesco and to Brislington school, and the result of such traffic can be seen on the cycle path which is smothered in rubbish and is a target for graffiti.There are already problems at the Callington Road end of the Reserve which have been fully chronicled by the Friends of the Reserve and these will certainly spread to the other end if access is granted. In addition access will render the whole of the top fence of the allotments site more vulnerable to thieves and vandals We already have the occasional intruder coming over from the Reserve but generally the undergrowth keeps them away. Finally the access lane at the rear of Talbot Road houses was closed at the top many years ago because of the amount of trespass and crime. If the public have direct access to the reserve from Talbot Road, the houses on the lane will become very vulnerable to intruders. I think that if this access is approved, the area will rapidly be denuded of any significant wildlife, be misused and end up as waste land. At that point the council will probably declare it suitable for building houses on! •

I wish to object to proposals to develop housing or industrial units on the above mentioned site and set out my reasons below.

The fields are an oasis, situated in the heart of Brislington and provide the people of Brislington a chance to escape their hectic lives and have a moment to “stand and stare” and to gather some strength from the unspoilt natural surroundings. They are the lungs of the immediate area and are our very own Ashton Court. The fields are also home to many wild animals and wonderful trees and hedgerows which provide a haven for an abundance of birds. There are a number of badger setts in the fields and we’ve even seen a pheasant there recently .

I have lived in Brislington for most of my life and used the fields as a route to and from (Brislington) school. I now visit the fields with my dogs early in the morning and sometimes in the afternoon or evening. It is a valuable “time out” for me and whatever the weather, I always look forward to the walks around the fields. I always see other dog walkers there and can only imagine that many people use them for the purpose throughout the course of the day, every day. This summer, we were blessed with the farmer allowing the grass to develop into a wonderful hay meadow which many people remarked upon. Given that about 90% of our hay meadows have been lost through industrialization and intensive agricultural farming practices since the 1930s, this really was a rare and spectacular sight and a wonderful nectar bed for insects, bees and butterflies.

It is not a secret that the fields act as a sponge when it has been raining and indeed there is a spring in the top field behind the houses on Allison Road, next to the junior school. There is also a stream that runs through the fields and into the brook at the bottom. If the fields are developed, it is inevitable that there will be a serious and ongoing risk of flooding. When it has rained heavily – and this is likely to become a regular occurrence if the climate change scientists are to be believed - there is always a stream of water flowing down School Road. Another stream exits from the public footbath adjacent to Chalet Gardens allotment site.

If you have ever tried to access the A4 from the Broomhill crossroads by McDonald’s at rush hour, you will know that it can take several light sequences before you are able to get onto the A4. Similarly, coming along Hick’s Gate into Bristol in the afternoon can result in long queues and a spell of 30 minutes or more from the Keynsham roundabout to get to the Broomhill junction. This is very unsatisfactory at the best of times but with over 900 extra homes on the fields, plus the 100-odd already being built on the site of the prefabs on Birchwood Road and other proposed developments in Brislington, it will be wholly unacceptable and completely unbearable. This will have a knock-on effect making the surrounding roads congested and slow-moving. There will be increased levels of frustration which would lead to an increase in “road-rage” incidents and general unpleasantness. Ironically, this would be even more reason to escape to somewhere like the fields to unwind and shake off the annoyances and frustrations of the day. Surely existing empty buildings in the area could be investigated for their suitability for housing if there really are so many people waiting for homes?

I was deeply saddened to learn that the Chalet Gardens and Park allotment sites have also been targeted in this development. I had a plot (no. 6) in the Chalet Gardens allotment site from about 2004 to 2009 until I took on another in Fishponds. It’s a wonderful place, and, like the fields, full of wildlife. We have seen many different types of birds including the usual finches and tits, sparrow-hawks, woodpeckers and at least two owls that live in the tall fir trees. We were visited by foxes, badgers, hedgehogs, field mice, slowworms, newts, frogs, squirrels and more. The Chalet Gardens allotments site was even featured in an article in Gardeners’ World magazine in about 2004/05 for its unique style. A number of the plot holders have been working them for many, many years, spending time and money on getting the soil right for growing produce. One of the plot holders I know well has Parkinson’s Disease and his allotment plot is probably the only thing that is keeping him sane and giving him a reason for getting out of bed in the morning. It would be a travesty if these and the Park allotments’ plots were taken away from the local community especially as there has been a year on year increase in applications for allotment plots.

Even if 2,000-plus people move into housing in the area, it is ludicrous to think that the existing schools and doctors’ surgeries will be able to cope with the added burden of having to find resources, time and space for the extra inhabitants.

As for the development of Victory Park: we don’t want a manicured park with a shelter which will inevitably encourage young people to congregate and drink; they use the children’s play area for this already. I often spend time on my dog walks clearing cans, glass bottles (broken and intact) and litter from the area on a Saturday and Sunday morning.

This land has been played down in the documentation, tagged as grazing land and intrinsically of low value. This land is anything but. If this development is given the go ahead, sadly it would appear that the council clearly knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. We, as a community, have absolutely nothing to gain from this development apart from increased traffic congestion, longer waiting times to see a doctor, fewer school places, a rise in the crime rate in the area, an inevitable rise in the severe flood risk, and everything to lose in the erosion of our history, heritage and priceless green space.

I urge you to rethink this development and choose option C for the sakes of the existing inhabitants of Brislington.

•

I am writing to you to express my dismay at the council's proposals for the potential building of nearly 1000 dwellings or factory units on the meadows behind Victory Park, and also in the green space adjacent to Bonville Road. These proposals are listed in section BSA1201 of the Site Allocations document for Brislington. I am also protesting at the proposal to build on the allotments adjacent to Victory Park, as until recently my partner and I had an allotment at the Chalet Gardens, so have direct experience of how wonderful these spaces are as a haven from the stresses of modern life. Bristol's and Brislington's allotments are also an invaluable chance to get closer to nature and educate ourselves in becoming more self-sufficient.

The Chalet Garden allotments are rich with bird life and it is a delight to be there at any time of the day, seeing and hearing the many different species of birds; blackbirds, blue tits, coal tits, great tits, long-tailed tits, greenfinches, gold finches, thrushes, robins, wrens, house sparrows, sparrows, dunnocks, are amongst the most readily recognised. There are also sparrow hawks, that have occasionally been glimpsed, although more often the pigeon remains are all that indicate their presence. Owls can also be heard, even during the day, roosting in some of the conifers on the site, or just adjacent, in Victory Park itself. Green and great woodpeckers have visited regularly and I saw a brood of young great woodpeckers exploring the allotments recently. Blue tits regularly raised broods of young in a nest box in a conifer on our plot when we were there.

It is devastating to think of the loss of this haven to the hard pressed bird population in Brislington, as many gardens are being turned into nature-bereft car parks, to say nothing of the mass of birds that use the fields and rich hedgerows adjoining Victory Park.

My partner and I have two dogs that we regularly take walking through Victory Park into the meadows behind. Those meadows are beautiful at all times but even more so when the clover, buttercups, knapweed, wild carrot, bird's foot trefoil are in bloom. We regularly meet other dog walkers from all around the area enjoying the freedom and fresh air of this piece of the countryside in Brislington. It reminds us of walks in the country, with all the mature hedgerows and trees. We also walk the dogs through the fields adjacent to Bonville Road as it is an inspiring green route to the Bath Road, avoiding the trading estate.

It is obvious that there are several boggy areas in the meadows and that at least two springs rise there, one flowing down towards Brislington Brook along the edge of Victory Park and the other down the public foot path alongside the Chalet Gardens (after prolonged or heavy rain). During heavy rain or downpours, the whole area is a sponge absorbing millions of litres of water that would rapidly flow down the hill onto School Road if this were built on – all the deep pasture becoming either concrete, tarmac, roof, or compacted soil with little capacity to retain water. During downpours we have seen how rapidly torrents of water flow down School Road and Allison Road towards Brislington Brook. I expect this would be greatly exacerbated by large-scale development, especially as future projections for the climate are for more frequent and heavier “rain events”. Brislington Village has severely flooded within living memory and since then many gardens have been covered in tarmac and so many parts that were once green have been built over.

Another concern that arises is the possible effect that several thousand additional cars driving in and out of Brislington at rush hour would have. The air pollution near the Bath Road is already bad and would be bound to increase as traffic ground along even more slowly, if moving at all. The alternative route along Broomhill to the junction with the A4 is already a massive tailback at rush hour and the plans for the bus route along the A4 will close Emery Road to traffic turning right, causing even more congestion along Broomhill. The past few weeks there have been road works along Broomhill, and this has led to long tailbacks at the Allison Road, School Road junction – a premonition of what would become commonplace with 1000 new houses in that area. As traffic density increased, I think that there would also be a much greater risk of accidents on the various rat runs to the A4 used by many drivers, particularly along Winchester Road, Wick Road, Trelawney Park, Hollywood Road.

Although I am impressed by many of the proposed improvements to Victory Park itself, I think that these would be massively outweighed by the loss of the much more wildlife-friendly spaces surrounding the Park. It is obvious that badgers use the meadows and may have setts in there and from there also visit the allotments and Park. Apart from Nightingale Valley itself, I cannot think of a more inspiring area for children, or adults, to visit and learn more about nature. To say that the meadows are an oasis in a concrete desert, is only a slight exaggeration. I think there is also a danger of making all the green spaces in Brislington, indeed throughout Bristol, a bit too manicured and “user friendly”, removing much of the sense of adventure and risk that young people crave and deserve.

In a time of financial stringency, I think we have to put a real value on our green spaces, not just a monetary value. We have to think long term as we are making decisions that are effectively irreversibe when we destroy pastures for roads and houses. The green spaces' true value will be realised over hundreds, even thousands, of years and will far outstrip any short term boost to the roads budget from selling our childrens' inheritance. The roads will continue to crumble while the grass will grow and trees become tall without our help. It is difficult to measure the benefits to Bristolians' health, feelings of well being, education of our green spaces but it is certainly not insignificant. I know I work better when I have places to go that are just a bit wilder than the local park. Lastly, the view from the meadows is probably amongst the best in Brislington. Dundry and surrounding hills and valleys are clearly visible. From home, it is a delight to look out of the bedroom at any time, but especially as the sun rises, and see the fields in the distance. An unbroken vista of houses...what a shame...and what a legacy to leave all of our future generations. Once gone it will never return. Instead of vibrant nature, just more concrete and tarmac. Instead of wildlife...cars. Truly something worth getting up in the morning for?

I do hope the council considers the do nothing proposal (option C) for these areas, but with improvements to Victory Park.

•

Objecting to the loss of Green Space in Brislington

1.1 After attending a Neighbourhood Partnership meeting I am writing to object to the loss of green space in Brislington. I have endeavoured to obtain information from the council on the size of spaces in the area and the size of some of the proposals which result in a change of type, e.g. informal to children’s play etc.

1.2 My first objection is that I have not received an adequate response. It is fair to say that my emails in August and September requesting the information on site sizes have not been addressed. This has been frustrating for me as I have not been able to scrutinise the Council’s proposals. In the absence of this information I have had to use an alternative GIS system to approximate the size of sites, figures effected in this way are marked with a *.

Bristol City Council Area Green Space Plan Standards

1.3 Within the Area Green Space Plan, the Council has identified three types of city wide standard for Green Space. They put them in order of importance:

Quality (graded 1 poor, 2 fair, 3 good and 4 excellent) Distance (variety of standards from 400 metres to 600 metres) Quantity (local standard of 1.8 hectare per 1000 people)

1.4 Numerical Information in the report on quantity is contained on Page 35 in Appendix 1 (Brislington East/West Area Green Space Plan). This identifies a city wide standard and a local component. To quote “The city wide standard is uses to compare Bristol with other cities and is largely fixed. However for planning and land management purposes the local component is more important because it ensures there is an adequate supply in every neighbourhood”

1. “Local component – the minimum amount of green space that any area should have”.

2. “Citywide component – the total amount of space within all the city’s large destination parks. This includes Blaise/Kingweston, Oldbury Court/Snuff Mills, The Downs, Hengrove Play Park, and the area of Ashton Court that sits within the city’s boundary. These are sites that attract citywide and regional visitors ”.

1.5 The Area Green Space Plan identifies the quantity standard as 2.78 ha per 1000 people or 27.8 sq m each. This is broken down into the city wide standard of 9.8 ha per 1000 people and the local component of 1.8 ha per 1000 people. The local component is broken down further into specific types of space, including:

Childrens Play Space - 0.03 ha per 1000 people Formal Green Space - 0.20 ha per 1000 people Informal Green Space - 0.80 ha per 1000 people Natural Green Space - 0.90 ha per 1000 people 1.6 My understanding of the local component is that the standard seeks to insure a minimum amount of each type. The idea behind defining different types is because they all serve slightly differing purposes and support different activities. On this basis I believe that an oversupply of one type can’t easily substitute for a deficiency in another, e.g. natural substituting formal or informal substituting children’s play.

1.7 Table 1 below shows the local Green Space requirement for Brislington based on the standards identified by BCC. I have used the latest 2008 mid year population estimates produced by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). I have been informed that the Council has not used the latest projections which show a slightly larger population than 2006 or 2001 and therefore a larger green space requirement for the current population.

Table 1: Brislington Local Green Space Requirement Local Standard Local Green Existing Surplus or Hectares per 1,000 Space Green deficiency? people Requirement* Space# Childrens Play 0.03 ha 0.69 ha 0.49 ha -0.2 ha Space Formal Open 0.20 ha 4.6 ha 3.33 ha -1.27 ha Space Informal Open 0.80 ha 18.4 ha 21.86 ha +3.46 ha Space Natural Open 0.90 ha 20.7 ha 73.77.ha +53.07 ha Space Total Local 1.8 ha 41.4 ha 99.46 ha +58.06 ha Component

* based on ONS 2008 mid year estimate population for Brislington East/West of 23,002 people and Local standard # Based on ONS 2008 mid year estimates and current provision (sq m per person) identified in Appendix 1.

1,8 Table 1 shows that overall, the Brislington East/West area has quite a large surplus of local green space, however the overall total masks undersupply for particular green space types, including:

Children’s Play Space Formal Green Space

1.9 This undersupply is off set by the large quantity of natural space across the area and a small surplus of informal space. The scale of Nightingale Valley, St Annes Woods, Eastwood Farm and parts of Callington and Stockwood Nature Reserves result in the overall standard for local provision being easily reached. It should be noted that all of the total columns do not add due to the fact that the local components standard in appendix 1 add up to 1.93 ha per 1000 rather than 1.8 ha per 1,000 total, an anomaly that is not explained in the consultation document.

1.10 Objection No 1: Brislington should not lose formal and informal green space simply because it meets the local standard overall. Green space types have been identified by the Council for different purposes and just because Brislington is fortunate to have a large quantity of natural space, this isn’t justification to under provide other green space types. I object to the loss of green space because Brislington does not currently meet the local standard for formal green space and children’s play space.

1.11 Objection No 2: On Page 35 the Area Green Space Plan states that “population projection figures have been used using latest information from the Office of National Statistics”. Both ONS 2008 mid year estimates and 2008 based sub-national population projections are available, but I do not believe the latest figures have been used. Older population projections will underestimate the amount of green space required to meet local standards and overestimate current provision per person. I therefore object to the loss of green space based on an out of date underestimate of population in Brislington.

1.12 Objections No 3: Brislington does not currently meet the quantity standard for formal green space. Investments are proposed, but these are at the expense of existing informal and formal spaces, including part of St Anne’s Park (0.6 ha). The loss of part of St Anne’s Park increases the Brislington formal space deficiency from -1.27 ha to -1.87 ha.

1.13 The new investment proposals within Victory Park, Broomhill Open Space and Eastwood Farm provide approximately 0.27 ha* of new formal space replacing existing informal space on a like for like basis. The overall result is still a deficiency of -1.6 ha*. Whilst the Council identifies the formal function that Arnos Vale Cemetery provides this site is not located within Brislington, even with this 1.1 ha* site included Brislington still doesn’t meet the local standard for formal green space (-0.5 ha*).

1.14 I object to the loss of part (0.6 ha) of St Annes Park for formal green space use and suggest that this should be retained to meet the local standard for Brislington.

1.15 Objection No 4: St Mary Redcliffe Cemetery should not be included within the figures for publically accessible informal space, because it is not of suitable quality and appears locked to the public. Residents do not tend to use this space. The proposal for approximately 225 apartments and live/work units at Paintworks Phase 3 are likely to generate approximately 533 new residents and therefore a green space requirement of 1.4 ha (based on the Councils Supplementary Planning Guidance No 4). St Mary Redcliffe Cemetery is approximately 0.9 ha* of informal green space and is well placed to meet some of this future need. The site should be removed from the +3.46 ha surplus, (reducing this to +2.56 ha*) until it is brought into public use in conjunction with the Paintworks development.

1.16 The proposed disposals of informal space and change of informal space into children’s play space and formal space account for a net loss of approximately -0.58 ha* of informal green space . Considering that Brislington is only +2.56 ha above the local standard, this combined with the disposal of 2 ha of informal green space would reduce Brislington to -0.2 ha compared to the standard. It is not acceptable to reduce green space down below the minimum standard without appropriate policy mechanisms in place to re-provide for losses elsewhere and therefore maintain the local standard over the plan period, The Green Space Area Plan does not provide for this reprovision.

1.17 Residents are well aware of the cumulative impact that small developments (10 dwellings and below ) have had on transport, education and other community infrastructure including green space in Brislington. Supplementary Planning Document 4 on planning obligations only seeks recreation contributions from sites over 10 dwellings. This policy position will continue to undermine the level of actual green space when compared to the local standard by facilitating additional population growth in Brislington without appropriate level of new provision or comparable financial contribution to improve existing green space. To this end I would suggest the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which came into power in April 2010 which will enable the council to secure contributions from every dwelling or a reduction of the S106 threshold and increased use of Standard heads of terms or use of unilateral undertakings for all smaller developments .

1.18 The second possible mechanism to ensure that existing green space levels are maintained is to add additional development criteria for the larger proposed site allocations (if they are considered suitable). This provision will ensure that any green space losses are re-provided, in addition to the requirements generated by the development itself. I’m confident that the Council can do this through the Site Allocations Document or specific development briefs. I believe that this is particularly applicable if current proposals for development on land adjacent to Victory Park are taken forward in the face of objection from residents, due to the scale of the proposal and majority Council land ownership.

1.19 Objection No 5: I object to the loss of Green Space due to only 70% of the sale proceeds being reinvested in Green Spaces. I am unaware of any clear justification why 100% of proceeds raised through disposal cannot be reinvested. Whilst I appreciate there are costs associated with the sale of land, re-investing only 70% appears to be a money making exercise by Bristol City Council. I also feel that money raised from the sale of spaces in Brislington should be spent in Brislington. If residents are being asked to sacrifice space they should at least see a equal improvement in the remaining spaces.

1.20 Objection No 6: I object to the loss of green space because the Council’s own population projections to 2026 identify that the levels of green space provision per person for natural, informal and formal green space will all decrease by 2026. Brislington already has insufficient formal space so there appears to be little point establishing a Local Standard if the Council is already planning for housing growth and green space disposal that will undermine this standard in the future.

o The proposing disposal of 2.6 ha of green space is not included in the future projections and will therefore compound the problem. I am concerned that future population projections identify a particularly low level of green space per resident because the Council if disposing of land in the short term and not putting in place the mechanism to ensure existing local standards are maintained.

•

Why has the Council embarked on the ridiculous Site Allocations and Space Plans which involves decimating the parks of Bristol and allowing building development on them?

I agree you may wish to develop some brown field sites but the Council should be encouraging people to use the parks rather than reducing the size of them and by allowing development of buildings on a number of the sites it does not assist the climate change.

The plans are flawed with a bias towards the development and do not allow you to record an objection to the development e.g. when referring to St Anne’s Park questionaire asks if you feel the development is important and it states “The Area Green Space Planning process has suggested that this site is no longer required as open space, and it is considered suitable for housing due to its residential context”. This park is next to houses and it allows the people that live there and in the surrounding area access to a lovely park and to the sports areas and they do not want more houses built on the site but would rather have more facilities such as a tennis court”. This is why we pay our Council tax.

Is someone simply trying to gain some status as a landscape architect or has the Council employed a consultant who is trying to justify their high fees with no knowledge or love of these historic and beautiful sites in the City? If this is the case they should be sacked and the plans abandoned.

I have lived in North Bristol for most of my life, I currently live in Henleaze, but for many years I lived in Bishopston. I think it was more than a decade ago that I contacted Rosalie and Dennis Brown as I was concerned that the playing field at Wellington Hill was being earmarked for development. I was told at the time that there were no plans to do so. But this year Bristol City Council has started a consultation about their plans for the city's green spaces and parks. Their intention is to upgrade some green spaces at the expense of others which they deem to be underused, so that they can be sold off for development.

The 'Disposal Sites' for Horfield and Lockleaze include Wellington Hill Playing Fields. This is the green area behind Horfield Rectory and Horfield Parish Church, it has looked pretty well blocked off for the last year or more as they have built a fully metalled access road across the top of it to access the building work in the former Concorde Lodge. Many people may well have thought that it was part of Horfield Common, or even that it belonged to Horfield Parish Church, but it is actually a playing field belonging to the City of Bristol (us).

According to their 'Ideas and Options Paper' this site is little used during the week other than by dog walkers. This is completely untrue. It is currently used by Scouts and Beavers on several evenings a week. It was used by the 'Welly' Playgroup and Toddler group when my children were younger and also by the Church Sunday School and the Brownie's and Guides and presumably it still is. Over the years, I have seen various football teams enjoy a game here, some fairly organised and others obviously more impromptu. I used to take my children there to run around as it is less busy than the Common and less exposed in bad weather. I walk there myself, but as I am accompanied by two small domestic animals and a few plastic bags, that doesn't count. The blackberries are very good there too.

I'm sure the site would have been used even more in the last few years but it has been blighted by the decaying and vandalised remains of Concorde Lodge, and more recently both its major access points have appeared to be blocked off by the fencing around the new build and its new road. It is a remarkably substantial road if it is just to service the building works, and I can't help but think that this to make us believe that development is a fait accompli. I can't remember when there was last a football pitch laid out.

In addition the population in Horfield has increased during the past decade or so and some green space (Golden Hill, now Tesco) has been lost. Every square metre of possible infill has been built upon. This puts more pressure on Horfield Common, surely we can't afford to lose this space.

I imagine that users of the other areas cited in this green spaces development plan are as concerned about their green space as I am about Wellington Hill Playing Fields. There are areas of the city that are genuinely brown field sites; such as the area around Stokes Croft which has been allowed to rot and decay throughout my lifetime, with no sign that it will ever be regenerated. There is no need to steal our green spaces from us. •

I wish to object to proposals to develop housing or industrial units on the above mentioned site. I have ticked overleaf some additional points I wish to make in support of my objection.

As the treasurer of the Friends of Victory Park I am opposed to the development of land surrounding the park. It is an outrageous proposal and very shortsighted. We need to preserve this valuable asset for future generations, this land is NOT low value as you suggest but a green lung of Bristol that serves the local community. I live very near the fields and enjoy walking and berry picking with my children. I urge you take note of the people of Brislington and listen to our views as well as the other areas of Bristol who wish to keep this city a green and pleasant land!

•

RESPONSE TO 2010 SITE ALLOCATIONS CONSULTATION

Introduction

Brislington has long been subject to a series of developments which have led overall to the deterioration of the environment of the area. These include seemingly unrestricted development of flats, both new and conversions, concentrated in areas of Victorian terraced streets with no off-street parking, making these roads overly congested for residents and visitors. They are also potentially dangerous to road users and pedestrians due to poor parking eg across corners, and blocked sight lines. This particularly affects the young and the elderly. It is true that more homes may be required, but these should be in keeping with the existing stock, and not damage the sustainability of current residents.

Although many of the old historic houses and estates have been lost in the last 50 - 80 years, the area around the village includes a conservation area and it is important that the links with the past heritage are not lost.

The most significant blight on Brislington is the A4 Bath Road. This poses issues of noise, pollution, and traffic congestion. While accepting that nothing can be done about the existence of such a major route, it is important to lessen its impact on both residents and travellers as much as possible. Over the years many ‘improvements’ have been undertaken, but it must be accepted that without wholesale demolition and reconstruction all long the route, the situation will remain bleak. For this reason, any development which increases traffic along this primary route should be subject to careful consideration and evaluation. Some of the sites recommended for development in this consultation document may be suitable, if it were not for the impact on traffic on the A4, and for this reason, all the sites must be examined both individually and together so that their combined influence is fully understood. Comments on individual sites are shown below.

I also feel that where possible, derelict sites or those no longer suited to purpose should be considered for development ahead of open green spaces, especially given current volumes of traffic. Open spaces, especially with trees, contribute substantially to reduction of noise and pollution, and efforts should be made to retain these as part of the health and welfare of the population.

BSA1201 - Land at Broomhill. This is a significant “green lung” within an area of high traffic density. It lies adjacent to a trading estate which no longer serves the need of the businesses located there, both in terms of access roads, facilities for loading and unloading, or parking. I consider a more comprehensive redevelopment of this area, incorporating roads which will accommodate modern transport needs, should be considered in association with the use of at least part of BSA 1201. A larger trading estate would make the remaining space unsuitable for residential development, which should be retained as an open space buffer between the estate and existing housing.

In addition, options appear to assume the closure of Sinnott House Police station . This is a much-valued facility which offers a significantly to the perception of safety in Brislington, contributing to the sustainability of the area and it should remain or be replaced elsewhere eg within a redeveloped Trading Estate.

BSA1202 - Paintworks The mixed development of housing and business use on this site is supported. The development which has already taken place in the area is an example of how life can be put back into a previously derelict site.

BSA1203 - Flowers Hill Mixed housing and business use is suitable in this location as it could link with the Hungerford area and improve opportunities to improve a ‘forgotten’ area. The site also has significant historic links eg the Civil Defence War-Room and I would hope that this could be preserved to provide potential for community use in the future. Possible site for Police Station?

BSA1204 - Tramway Retail Park Although this was once a thriving retail area, this use has proved unsustainable in recent years. The area should be considered in conjunction with adjoining sites BSA1207 & BSA1208 . The combined area would offer a significant opportunity for a more comprehensive planning view, and would be an ideal location for replacement of Hollymead school sites. The age of existing schools makes them unsuitable for purpose, and relocation to BSA 1204/1207/1208 is sufficiently close to continue to serve the existing population. The proposed Callington Rd Link cycle/footway would provide clean, safe access to the site, demonstrating Bristol’s green credentials, and the redundant school sites could be re-used for residential and/or community use.

BSA1205 - Wicklea and surrounding land Community use of this site is strongly supported. Its location adjacent to the Brooklea Health Centre offers a unique opportunity for combined development as an education, health and welfare ‘hub’ for the local population.

BSA1206 - ‘The Rock’ allotments, Allison Road This area presents access problems for development and is a valued open space for play and recreation. The current redevelopment of the Latimer Road area will significantly increase the density and type of residents (family homes as opposed to prefabs largely occupied by older people). They will increase the need for access to safe play areas which do not involve crossing busy roads. The land should therefore be retained as open space for play and for continued allotments - the two activities could be mutually supportive.

BSA1207 - 493 - 499 Bath Road This site needs to be considered in association with BSA1204 & BSA1208. Some housing, and mixed use would be appropriate, conditional on incorporation of sufficient off- road parking for the majority of residents and other users (staff, visitors etc). Parking in the Bath Road is not possible, and adjoining roads - in the main terraced residential streets - are already congested. Potentially this site could be an alternative for a police station to replace Sinnott House.

BSA1208 - Site south of Tramway Road. See above BSA1204 & BSA1207.

BSA1209 - St Anne’s Park Development of this site would achieve very little at large cost to the sustainability of the community. The need to replace old and out-of-date schools in St Annes could be met by building on part of the site while retaining and improving park use through shared occupancy. Although funding for local school replacement may be far off, any development of the park would remove the possibility permanently. BSA1210 - Totterdown (Bath Road) - former filling station The development of this site for residential purposes would replace the housing demolished many years ago. Sufficient off-road parking would need to be incorporated and relevant flood prevention work undertaken to alleviate concerns. Potentially the site could be integrated with BSA1202 (Paintworks).

BSA1211 - Birchwood Elderly People’s home Given the population breakdown, it is difficult to imagine that the Residential Futures process could conclude that elderly people’s and sheltered accommodation is no longer needed. Demographics would suggest that this need is increasing and additional provision will be required. Brislington is not well served in this respect, meaning that people no longer able to be supported in their own homes face moving out of the area and away from friends and familiar surroundings. This site must not be re-developed for any other use.

BSA1212 - Land at Newbridge Road This area provides a buffer between the houses and the industrial area. It is used by residents and workers for recreation. The topography and location suggest that development for housing would not be economic, and would increase traffic on small local roads which are already congested, especially at rush hours. The area should be retained as open space as the gain in dwellings would be outweighed by financial and environmental considerations.

BSA1213 - 801 Bath Road This land is totally unsuitable for housing due to its situation at one of the busiest road junctions in Bristol. The present access to the site is not sustainable for new development so access may have to be obtained via the rear of the site from the adjacent trading estate. The amount of traffic passing the site would require considerable screening to reduce noise and pollution, and it is difficult to see how such a development would appeal to people as a home. NB It should be noted that the existing listed cottages are well set back from the A4, and being of solid stone construction, are not so susceptible to noise inside.

•

I wanted to express my deep concern in regards to the proposals in this option paper for Brislington in respect of Newbridge Road BSA 1212.

The people of St Annes Park live in close proximity to the centre of Bristol and have very limited for informal green spaces (open space).

This green area is the gateway to St Annes and St Annes Park. As you enter Newbridge Road you gain a view over the Netham across an areas of green land filled with trees. This is one of the only open green spaces in the area. By filling this with houses or businesses, we will lose valuable trees and a sense of open area that cannot be replaced. The residents of St Annes use this space for informal play and most occasions there is a resident using this space.

There are many other sites that would be a better development proposals as stated in your options paper – regenerating brown field sites, for example:

BSA1213 – Showroom and hardstanding on the Bath Road BA1202 – Industrial areas on the River Avon BA1204 – Government Offices at Flowers Hill BSA1204 – Retail park BSA1208 – Land bounded by Bath Road BSA1210 – Vacant land on petrol station on Bath Road

All these options appear to be sensible for development. They will involve taking, in the majority brown field sites and regenerating these areas for urban use. This is in contrast to removing green space and ruining one of the only parklands in the area.

I ask that you send me an acknowledgement of my letter and further keep me informed of this development proposal.

•

I am shocked abouth the proposal to build houses on St Annes park.The park is a wonderful enviroment and it is greatly used by many.The idea of reducing the park to build more houses on it is maddness.Apart from all the impact it will make on the park it will greatly depreciate the value of the houses on Newbridge road who I made add all use the park on a daily basis.If Bristol city councillors were to build projects that would greatly reduce the value and quality of their propertys then I would have a diffrerent view.However I understand that the middle class areas are clearly exempt from such distruction as the council would fear a backlash.Please develope the downs and I would willingly give in I response to fair play.Again however it is quite literally an attack on the the average man and women.I can assure you at this moment will are organising and city councillors will be taken to task.We are organising an action committee involving all that us this park.I am quite happy with many other to put money where our mouths are clearly and strongly fixed.I served in the British army in such places like Northern Ireland,Iraq and the United Nations and by god we are ready to battle. What I ask of you is that you visit us in the park and you will see the strength of feeling is immence.Can I also add there has never been any consultancy about the building of these houses at any point and we anticipate that a very underhand approach is underway.I cant express how stongly my family and I feel about this and there is no limit within the letter of the law that wont be explored.As well as taken a leaf out of Fathers for Justice charactors who can be clearly replicated all over Bristol and indeed to exploit the underhand way it which this has taken place even at this early stage. I will finish by leaving the economic and hipocritical factors to one side.St Annes park is loved by all that use it.We consider ourselves the custodians of the park.There is very little or no anti social behaviour due to this.After reading this e-mail please speak to retired councillor Peter Begley and he will affirm this.Please also speak to Barabara Williams.But please finnally speak to the councillor for Brislington East in two weeks time who is going to have to earn his position as the elected member for this area who I gurantee you will know the strength of feeling in its full capacity.He maybe will wish he was never elected if he doesnt follow the wills of his electoret and will find himself and ex-councillor in the future irrespective of the colour of his rossette. Please take on board the feel of this letter and please please respond.