The enormous size and scale of the proposed scheme is not in keeping with the surrounding conservation area or largely 2 storey houses. The largest blocks of flats (up to five storeys high) will be visible from the Downs. The council asked for a ‘landscape-led’ scheme but minor changes to the greenery in the revised plans is mere tinkering around the edges - quite literally. The four huge apartment blocks still dominate this site leaving very little green space. The density of people and apartments squeezed onto the site is way above local and national guidelines and is profit-driven rather than respecting the Conservation are and planning rules.

The close proximity of new buildings will impact on the light, privacy, noise, overshadowing and amenity of existing properties nearby. We have been working closely with the Westbury Park Community Association and they are calling the latest revisions like ‘rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic’. See a summary of their previous objection here and their full objection here.

The new apartment blocks will still overwhelm the setting of the important listed building (Grace House). The plans are entirely inappropriate for a site within the Downs Conservation Area and insensitive & out of keeping with the heritage & character of Westbury Park. Historic England have already told the council they think this high density scheme is “harmful” . See their full submission here detailing their concerns. The 20th Century Society have also strongly objected, maintaining the plan “contravenes key national policies”. Here’s their full objection. And now the council’s own conservation panel has objected strongly to the proposals saying they are “inappropriate, overbearing and unacceptable”. Read a summary of their objection here or their full report here.

Still only 65 on-site parking spaces for 116 housing units of mainly 2 bedroomed flats. These spaces are not just for the residents but all their carers, office & maintenance staff, visitors and deliveries. We predict parking and road-safety chaos. SCAN has submitted our own detailed research estimating an overspill of at least 50 cars at peak times - you can see a summary of our transport objection here. Local roads have no spare capacity and this is likely to lead to increased hazards, like blocked pavements and choked junctions - especially close to the nurseries and Westbury Park Primary School. The developers have finally accepted the Etloe Road entrance is unsafe. But they are merely shifting the problem elsewhere and are now proposing an entrance to the site and emergency access via the Glen which would have a knock-on effect on those nearby roads as well as posing a safety risk if fire engines ever had to navigate the already overcrowded roads that lead there.

Our road safety survey showed that 81% of people are already worried about the impact of dangerous parking on road safety. You can read more here.

Around 40% of trees on-site would still be felled, including beautiful, mature specimens that would take decades to replace. Trees that the council’s own arboricultural officer said had significant cultural value and should be protected. The site is home to woodpeckers, owls, bats and foxes.

Fewer replacement trees are now being planted onsite as there simply isn't room for them to grow healthily between the tall buildings.

Extra vehicles and traffic congestion will inevitably have an impact on air pollution.

Environmental campaigners, the Bristol Tree Forum, say the revised plans are in breach of multiple council policies and are concerned about the Bio Diversity Net Gain claims from the developers - and will be doing some calculations as soon as they have the figures. You can read their previous thoughts here of how they think the plans contravene Bristol City Council policies.

The amended plans offer no provision for affordable housing, even though it’s a key target for Bristol City Council/the Government… and hundreds of people mentioned their disappointment at its absence in their objections.

The developers have always argued against providing affordable housing saying it wasn't viable for their scheme. They repeatedly pushed for this luxury retirement complex to be declared as a residential care home (also known as Class C2) - a technicality under planning rules which could mean there's less obligation to provide affordable housing. After we understand, legal intervention, it is now seen as a C2 scheme. The developers have interpreted this as meaning they’re neatly absolved from having to, not only offer any affordable homes on site, but also not contribute in any way to off-site affordable housing.

At the moment there will be no replacement Special Educational Needs & Disabilities (SEND) school places on site to make up for the loss of this vital community asset. The vague offer on the table at the moment is possibly occasional and shared use of a room in what is described as an ‘Urban Village hall’.

This is not the significant SEND provision which Bristol desperately needs and is an insult to the legacy of St Christopher’s which served the city’s vulnerable children for more than 70 years. As one local councillor said recently on Twitter “There are SEND kids in Bristol desperately needing suitable provision. The St Christopher's site is a SCHOOL. Our children's needs should have priority over developers' profits.”

Families within the SEND community in BS6 and across Bristol have told us what impact the loss of St. Christopher’s will have. You can read more here. And now the council’s own education department has said a report by developers arguing they have no obligation to provide SEND replacement provision is need is full of “serious errors”. You can read our summary of their report here and the full document here.

The community has not been consulted about these latest amendments. Once again, the developers have ignored the loud and clear messages from across the community of BS6 and beyond. Hundreds of people objected from local residents to independent experts to national bodies.

The developers ‘community consultation’ process so far has been been largely discredited by national experts as being badly managed and totally inadequate - with a lack of transparency and proper recording of public sessions, to the misleading and insufficient information available at key points, to the biased questionnaires and online surveys. We fully support the Report on Community Engagement submitted by the Westbury Park Community Association (WPCA) who say some elements of the consultation were “the worst example of deliberately misleading information” they have ever seen. You can see their summary here.

It took months for the developers to finally release their financial report on the St Christopher’s scheme. SCAN believes there are ‘significant flaws’ and their calculations do not justify the excessive number of units. We’ve crunched the numbers for you and you can see a summary of our response here. You can also read their report here & see our full response here.